Both Bartha Lewis and Kent Barwick, in their respective pieces for City Limits, agree that New York City and the borough of Brooklyn in particular, are in dire need of affordable housing. Median incomes have fallend while rent prices have risen over the last few years as Brooklyn is experiencing a population boom. Affordable housing is at the forefront of discussion over new housing developments. However, they disagree on whether the currently proposed Atlantic Yards project effectively addresses this important need. 

Kent Barwick believes that the city’s current policies for affordable housing are not taking the right approach . Atlantic Yards was designed with the idea that developers should be incentivized with permission to build larger high-density buildings. According to Mr. Barwick, New York City should follow the example of Bostona and San Diego and institute a city-wide rule for all new developers to incorporate affordable units as part of their construction, as opposed to individually negotiating over each new project. He also suggests that the city could consider adding new streets or finding new ways to connect different parts of the city in order to create public spaces, instead of having projects like the Atlantic Yards. However, it appears as though Mr. Barwick is criticizing Atlantic Yards not because it’s bad but because it’s not good enough. Although the ideas he talks about are creative and approach the affordable housing problem on a grander scale than what is being done at Atlantic Yards, it doesn’t seem feasible to put new housing projects on hold while these bigger ideas are being developed.

Secondly, Kent Barwick states that the Atlantic Yards project was not developed with a truly democratic process. He believes that the community did not have enough input in the planning. This is quite contrary to what Bartha Lewis writes in her article where she passionately argues that the private developers of Atlantic Yards worked closely with a neighborhood organization, ACORN to come up with their final plan for how to provide affordable housing. Ms. Lewis is of the opinion that Forest City Ratner was open to suggestions and responsive to needs. To prove this, she gives examples of how Atlantic Yards will make mixed income living a reality in Brooklyn. From the two articles, Ms. Lewis certainly has the better argued position.

However, Ms. Lewis’ argument about the “real world” and pragmatism is a little hard to accept. Atlantic Yards seems to be a reasonably well thought out project, and it has the potential to ease the burden on the housing market in Brooklyn. These are good arguments for why the project should receive the support of the residents. But to argue that Atlantic Yards is a good idea because it is the best that Brooklyn can hope for and that the residents should be realistic about how much progress they can make on this issue, seems counter-intuitive to Ms. Lewis’ point. Affordable housing should be the priority in new developments not secondary to firms’ desire to make profits. Residents should  be able to ask for and get well planned projects in their communities, not be forced to accept compromises.

That being said, in my opinion, the Atlantic Yards project has many advantages. It is exactly the kind of project that is going to add fuel to the boom in Brooklyn. Additionally, the specific details mentioned by Ms. Lewis show that the affordable housing issue was a major consideration during the planning process and some good solutions have come out of the negotiations. Residents of all income ranges will be distributed throughout the buildings and there will be no indication made to show that adjoining units are differently priced. Affordably priced units will also be offered for all sizes. I’m not sure if it is indeed feasible to make income a non-issue among neighbors in an apartment complex, but this is a step in the right direction.

Gentrification is a highly controversial issue in urban planning and development. Revitalization of neighborhoods and their economies is contrasted with the uprooting of existing populations and the pricing out of small businesses to create a debate with valid arguments on both sides. Neil Smith’s “Building the Frontier Myth” makes the point that the WIld West myth has been co-opted by the media to characterize urban gentrification as the work of brave “pioneers,” so as to generate a favorable image of the practice among the public.

There is something to be said for the romanticization of Manifest Destiny in American history. Home buyers and business investors would certainly feel happier about being a part of the gentrification of a neighborhood if they could be convinced that they were following in the path of the great frontiersmen who “tamed” the West. I found the excerpt about Times Square to be very interesting.  In that case, the marketing strategy has obviously worked very well. Times Square is probably unrecognizable from what it was in the 80’s and it would be ridiculous to think that people would need any motivation to grab an opportunity to invest there.

One main concern that the author expresses is that equating gentrification to the settling of the West obliterates some fundamental differences between the two movements such as the geographical location and challenges, to name one example. He writes, “Frontier is as much a style as a place.” Urban “cowboys” buy into the myth and completely seize the opportunity to imitate the media-generated, idealized image of the Wild Wild West. Perhaps, in doing so, they show disrespect to the seriousness and magnitude of that time in history. 

Further, as society gets caught up in this exciting myth, real social issues that surround gentrification will be pushed to the side. Gentrification gives rise to a significant social conflict. When local businesses and long-time residents get priced out of their own neighborhoods, only to see the new incumbents being praised for revitalizing, even “saving” the neighborhood as it were, it is a problem. Obviously, to romanticize a policy that gives rise to such serious concerns is not appropriate.

From my personal experience with reading about gentrification, I don’t believe that the Wild West jargon is as prevalently used anymore. But  gentrification is still accorded a degree of superiority i.e., gentrification is seen as something that “improves” a neighborhood. That may be true from a certain perspective but I am not convinced that gentrification “improves” a neighborhood so much as it “replaces” it with a middle-class ideal.

Frank Braconi’s account of New York City’s public housing policy provides an excellent illustration of the challenges of governing a city as sprawling and diverse as this one. Mr. Braconi makes it a point to note that even though the concept of In Rem housing is not unique to New York City, it is certainly a more complex and significant process here than anywhere else. Despite the problems mentioned in the piece about the management of In Rem housing taken over by the city, I think that this story is an example of how city governments can be successful in the face of overwhelming odds.

I was really impressed by all the inter-agency cooperation that went into tackling various problems that arose in the public housing system. It was also very interesting to see the instances of conflict. For example, how the welfare policy actually worked counter-intuitively to the goals of the housing department. I agreed with the city’s proposal to try and implement a policy to have the welfare checks cashed upon signature from both tenant and rent collector. As exemplified by the Pruitt-Igoe debacle in St. Louis, lack of revenue from rents can be devastating to buildings. Thus, it was a good decision on the part of the city to make rent collection an absolute priority. 

Another interesting connection that can be made here is that the extensive abandonment of certain neighborhoods that Mr. Braconi talks about would be exactly the kind of situation that would call for measures suggested by Roger Starr in his article, “Making New York Smaller.” When middle class families rushed to leave inner city neighborhoods for the suburbs, it would have expanded the city’s borders while simultaneously making it harder to carry out administrative functions by making more neighborhoods in special need of  support from the government. Loss of revenue combined with the rise in areas to be taken particular care of, I think, made this a draconian task for New York City’s government. In this case, it is clear why Roger Starr would see the expansion of cities to be wasteful and impractical.

It’s incredible how the New York City government responded to the abandonment crisis but, at the same time, I think that these events signal a larger problem. Mr. Braconi mentions early on in his writing that New York is peculiar in the fact that unlike other major cities, the ratio of residents who are tenants in their homes to those who own their homes is quite high. I don’t believe that this has changed even to this date. Most New York City residents are tenants and thus the threat of such a period of abandonment happening continues to exist.

This is why, contrary to what Mr. Braconi seems to be suggesting, I am fully in support of the aggressive measures taken by the city to shrink its In Rem portfolio during the Giuliani administration. Perhaps the timing of these efforts wasn’t entirely convenient, but I believe it is the correct policy to adopt. It was the city’s responsibility to take care of these abandoned buildings to ensure that the infrastructure of inner city neighborhoods didn’t fall into total disrepair. But, once a neighborhood is stabilized, private investment should be encouraged, even aggressively sought after.

SInce watching the documentary about Pruitt-Igoe, a single disturbing detail has been embedded in my mind staunchly. I have not been able to reconcile the idea of the supposed well-intentioned public housing project with the fact that families had to agree to have the main breadwinner leave the household in order to secure a living space in this public project. Essentially, it seems to me that the authorities were breaking these families apart and increasing their need for public assistance before agreeing to provide that assistance.

This would be an unimaginable thing to ask of middle class families. This particular request was not about avoiding any distant relatives and hangers-on from leeching off of the assistance being provided to one family. These families, these children had to agree to live without their father and these wives had to agree to live without their husbands in order to continue receiving the support that they so badly needed. When one of the former residents who’d been just a boy during his time at Pruitt-Igoe spoke of having to lie to the white officials and say that he had never seen his father, I was deeply moved and outraged. I cannot imagine the psychological trauma that a young boy would have to go through in order to lie to about seeing his own father. I also could not help but wonder how much this contributed to the somewhat popular notion that in poor families, males usually abandon their own kids.

Many of the former residents spoke of how their fathers would sneak in during the night to see their families. That kind of behavior is not indicative of an irresponsible parent. One former resident spoke about how her mother even painted one of the walls inside her home with black paint in order to homeschool her children. These stories speak of parents that cared about their children and seem to have been fighting an uphill battle to keep them safe and provide them with a better future. If on the other hand, these men were asked to leave because their presence would have made the families slightly better off and therefore not in need of public assistance, the absurdity of that argument speaks for itself. It cannot have been the objective of public housing that the resident families had to remain at the poverty-line level.

Additionally, some of these children had to also witness their siblings and friends being snatched away by the criminal elements that seem to have taken advantage of these ill-protected people. Whether some of the youth participated in the criminal activity under lack of adult supervision or were simply the victims of violence that arises in such situations, the conditions for children here were definitely not ideal.

I came to the conclusion that these families, at risk to begin with, were placed under enormous stress from the specific circumstances at Pruitt-Igoe. This was not a community where families could live in neighborly harmony and help one another grow. It was certainly not a place that could give the younger generation dreams of a brighter future, something that is essential for the growth of every society. The demands placed upon them by poverty, combined with the feeling that they were all alone and unprotected by the law had to have forced the residents to lose hope. The story of Pruitt-Igoe is unquestionably a tragedy but the real revelation here is that perhaps this tragedy wasn’t as inevitable as some groups seem to have suggested.

I really enjoyed the Making Room exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York. I think that the new plan for innovative housing construction in New York City shows great potential. It is an exciting new idea to design single occupant houses in the city. As a college student, I am familiar with the stressful process of finding affordable living spaces, particularly the need to look for roommates in order to cut costs.

However, even though the main attraction of these apartments was advertised as the fact that they were designed for single occupants, I was particularly impressed by how so many of the designs allowed for communal spaces. I actively support the idea that single people should have spaces where they can afford to live independently. Having such apartment complexes that allow for this function while also providing for social interaction and community building would really make urban living attractive.

I would like to know more about how eco-friendly these houses are. I recently studied abroad in Florence, Italy during the winter intersession and was deeply struck by how environmentally conscious Europeans seem to be. If these modern apartments are to symbolize the future of New York City, then they should definitely take into account the latest eco-friendly practices in design and building. I hope that these new construction ideas will maximize the potential for eco-friendly living.

However, I would say that this mission is already halfway accomplished by the effective utilization of space in these designs. As our tour guide mentioned, “land is actually shrinking” in this age of over population and climate change.  It is essential to find creative ways to utilize available space for maximum utility and these ideas seem to be doing that very well. Thus, I think that this is a commendable direction for the city to focus its planning efforts toward.

I hope that the space conserving and economical apartments grow to be a trend in urban building in the near future. As a member of the target clientele for these designs, I would definitely love to rent or invest in one of these apartments!

I found this week’s readings to be quite enlightening. Every urban studies and sociology course I have had so far had taken care to mention Robert Moses, his works and most importantly, the popular notion of his authoritarian style of city planning. Every story has two sides and Ballon and Jackson persuasively argue for the other side of the Robert Moses legend. He may have been the power broker but he was also a great agent of progress. The evidence for this, as argued by both Ballon and Jackson, can be found in the fact that New York City remains one of the few cities to have come out of the post-industrial era as a still thriving metropolis. This was a refreshing point of view from which to understand this chapter of New York history.

However, I liked that Ballon, while making the case for Robert Moses’ actions to be seen in context, also acknowledged that there was some merit to the criticism that is usually leveled at him. Personally, while I am impressed by Mr. Moses’ vision and achievements, I also feel that such an approach is counter-intuitive for any city that seeks to retain or attract new residents. City planning needs to be a democratic process. There is no use in having a city that attains visionary heights if that vision is not shared by all those who live in and contribute to the city.

Hilary Ballon writes Moses did indeed avoid democratic planning meetings in favor of swiftly moving projects along. Her key argument here is that given the context of Robert Moses’ time as the leader of city planning in New York, his approach was perhaps the one that was necessary. Since most of this work was carried out with federal funding, it was necessary to reconcile federal approval requirements with concerns of the private builders who were to be attracted to the city. Ballon argues that far from beng the “commanding general,” Moses was merely a middle man who did what was needed to save the city in tense circumstances.

I think this brings up an important question regarding large scale projects such as the rehabilitation of slum areas that was carried out in Moses’ time. Any such project will have to reconcile the needs of varied groups. To say that federal funding always comes with strings for state governments is understandable. However, this cannot be the reason to somehow expedite city projects without the ‘pesky’ democratic meetings and debates that need to take place before decisions are made.

Overall, I agree with the authors about Robert Moses’ extraordinary and vital contributions to making New York City into the flourishing city that it is today. While we can all be glad that New York itself made it through as a better place, it is also important to note that widespread dissatisfaction and resentment can arise from planning for the future of the city without consulting everyone who will be affected by it, namely the general public. This is especially illustrated by Robert Moses’ work; both authors successfully show that he accomplished extraordinary things, yet we cannot help but note that the popular attitude towards Mr. Moses is not one of gratitude.