Author Archives: Alice Cogan

Presentation at Macaulay

Leave a reply

My group presented our presentation on the Highline on Sunday at 10:00 am. We were the first group to present and we explained our topic fairly well. The other presentations were diverse and covered a variety of topics such as drug and sexual education and the theme of liberty versus security. The presentation I most enjoyed was about the Upper West Side.

Our group presentation went well. We began by asking the audience member if they had been to the Highline and whether they were familiar with it. Mostly everyone had been there or knew of it. We explained some background on the Highline along with how the Highline is funded and how a BID works. We then compared the Highline to some other NYC parks and then discussed how the Highline might benefit from a BID.

The students viewing the presentation didn’t seem very enthusiastic about our topic since we talked a lot about funding, which they might have found a bit dull, and they didn’t ask many questions. The two professors in the room asked us about why the residents were opposed to a BID and how to make it appeal to them. We discussed the benefits of a BID to the area and how the Highline could hold members-only events and build a sense of community for the members and residents in the BID. We were also asked if there were any other controversies surrounding the Highline though we were unable to provide any other major debates about the Highline since there didn’t seem to be any significant ones. Overall I think we presented well but perhaps we could have made the presentation a bit livelier for those who weren’t particularly interested in the topic.

I mostly enjoyed the presentation about the Upper West Side. The group discussed the problems that some areas of the neighborhood faced and they gave specific responses of how to tackle those problems. They talked about a portion of public housing units that are secluded from the rest of the neighborhood. These areas have large open spaces but there is nothing surrounding them but the housing so few people walk through. This causes high levels of crime. Their presentation reminded me of Jane Jacobs’ theories on the safety of sidewalks. Since the area was so secluded and there were few people who needed to walk by, the area became prone to crime, as Jacobs explains. The group suggested that a road is built between the public housing, and they displayed a map showing a large amount of space that could hold a road to cut through the secluded public housing area. This would increase car and foot traffic and theoretically decrease crime. The group also mentioned how they public housing was built as a “tower in the park” and seemed most reminiscent of our classroom readings.

I enjoyed the Upper West Side presentation the most because they clearly discussed the future of NYC by identifying a problem and putting together a solution to solve the problem. Some of the other presentations merely restated some facts and didn’t put in much analysis nor offer solutions to ease the issues. Overall though, all the presentations were well done and thoroughly researched.

Municipal Art Society tour (Jane’s Walk NYC) – The Bowery

Leave a reply

I attended the Jane’s Walk NYC by the Municipal Art Society on Saturday, May 4th. The walk I went to was called “On and Off the Bowery with MAS Docents” and it took place on Bowery, between Grand Street and East Houston Street. The walk lasted about 45 minutes and the two guides didn’t take us very far but they gave a lot of history about the Bowery in lower Manhattan and the historical buildings.

One of the guides began with a history of the entire street. He mentioned how historic the Bowery is since Washington marched down the street at one point and Lincoln signed some laws on the northern part of the street. The Bowery used to be an Indian trail which the Dutch later transformed into a street. Apparently the Bowery was names as such because in Dutch the word was similar to farm and there used to be many farmlands and natural landscapes located on the Bowery. It is hard to imagine the city street as a farmland but it has changed a lot over the years. Eventually as the city grew a lot of slaughterhouses were built to supply to city with meat. A large elevated railway was eventually also built above the Bowery, probably similar to the Highline. Since there is no trace of it now, it was completely removed.

The Bowery later became run down with crime. The guide pointed out many houses still standing that served as “flop houses” where people would rent a cramped space to live in. There were a lot of bars in the area and drunks would remain in the streets. Some bars even started renting out space for a few hours for patrons to sleep. There was a presence of the mafia and gangs for some time in the neighborhood. The guide pointed out a Chinese food store which used to be a historic meeting place of the mafia.

Some of the buildings in the area were designated as historic landmarks and cannot be destroyed but many were completely renovated or demolished. After a while the neighborhood became more gentrified and prices on rent rose. The guide discussed a famous restaurant which had historical patrons but had to eventually move since the rent became too high. Finally the guide talked briefly about the New Museum. It displays art from the current decade no more than 20 years old and was built to make sure the most current art has a place to be displayed. The architecture was designed by a couple of Japanese architects who won a design competition.

The tour seemed very short because we did not walk very far but it was packed with a lot of information. I never thought the Bowery was such a fascinating street and it never occurred to me that so much history took place there. The guide was very knowledgeable and would occasionally show us old pictures of what the street used to look like. I would like to learn more about how the Bowery transformed into the neighborhood it is today and how the crime was able to decrease over the years.

The tour guide showing us an old picture of the Bowery

The tour guide showing us an old picture of the Bowery

The guide said this entire building was purchased by one person-an artist who still lives there today.

The guide said this entire building was purchased by one person-an artist who still lives there today.

A historical landmark designated building

A historical landmark designated building

 

P1140382

P1140386

 

 

A historic restaurant was once located here but had to move due to rising rent prices

A historic restaurant was once located here but had to move due to rising rent prices

The New Museum

The New Museum

 

 

 

 

Atlantic Yards Response

Leave a reply

Atlantic Yards is a huge undertaking, redeveloping 22 acres in Downtown Brooklyn. Some argue that the project is a benefit to the community, providing jobs and affordable housing while others make the claim that the redevelopment will be overwhelming and take up a lot of space. I agree with Nicole Gelina’s argument, who talks about the failures of central planning and for those reasons I mainly oppose the redevelopment of Atlantic Yards.

I had not heard of this redevelopment project until reading about it recently and I was surprised to learn that it is being planned by architect Frank Gehry. Known for his beautiful and surreal buildings, Gehry already has two well known buildings in Manhattan; the luxury apartment skyscraper on 8 Spruce Street and IAC/InterActiveCorp’s headquarters on the West side. While I admire Gehry’s talent, I am opposed to the notion of central planning. Though knowing his excellent work, I am sure the Atlantic Yards redevelopment project will at least be aesthetically pleasing.

The Atlantic Yards project required taking private property away from residents in order to get land to build. The buildings and “half-million-dollar apartments” were labeled as being blighted, though “the city had already designated part of the neighborhood as “blighted” 40 years earlier, long before its resurgence” (Gelinas). Residents of the neighborhood, looking to keep their homes, have lost those lawsuits, with the court “abdicat[ing] its duty to protect property owners from the governor” (Gelinas). I greatly disagree that the government has the right to take away private property for the sake of the public for redevelopment projects. Gelinas makes a good point when she states, “Whenever government fails to confine itself to a limited role in the economy, it creates similar uncertainty.” These uncertainties often create incentives for people to take unnecessary risks, knowing the government will be providing support if something goes wrong, or create a lack of incentives to invest or upkeep infrastructure stemmed from artificial “low income” rent pricing.

While Kent Barwick also opposes the redevelopment of Atlantic Yards, I don’t quite agree with his arguments. He seems to think that the Atlantic Yards will “overwhelm the surrounding neighborhoods” and says the buildings will be large and take up a lot of space. I don’t find this a negative aspect of the project. In fact, this may be the only positive element of the Atlantic Yards. Gehry is a talented architect who probably has an interesting design for a large building. Barwick also seems to think that large buildings will turn out as “tall, deadening towers,” yet tall buildings can be built with storefronts facing the streets as well. Large buildings in Manhattan have a multitude of shops and stores on their lower levels, making the streets inviting to walk upon.

Thus the size of the buildings and height are irrelevant. If a private company was building large buildings for market-rate housing or offices, there would be no reason to complain. The residents would have the right to remain in their houses or chose to sell to the private developer, who would have the highest incentives to create an attractive and safe project to attract residents. This is not the case with this redevelopment of the Atlantic Yards. Using eminent domain or claims of blighted neighborhoods to take private land, the government is forcing this project onto the neighborhood.

Response to Katz “From Underclass to Entrepreneur”

Leave a reply

In “From Underclass to Entrepreneur,” Katz brings up the term “underclass” and goes into length defining the term and describing the connotations. It surprised me that this term was used recently in the 70s and 80s though I had never heard the term used in such a way before. What is more surprising is how much New York City has changed since then. Underclass, used to describe New York’s urban inner city areas, “conjured up a mysterious wilderness in the heart of America’s cities; a terrain of violence and despair.” The New York now, with it’s much lower crime rates, doesn’t seem to resemble the dangerous urban area filled with the “underclass” as it used to be.

It was interesting to read about Brace’s 1854 report about how “the growing density of America’s cities had eroded the character of their inhabitants.” Unlike Jane Jacobs’ ideas of how a bustling city would be a safer one, Brace argued that the density and over crowding was “corrupting” others around those areas. Housing reformers from the 1900s had similar reactions to slums, labeling them as “viruses infecting the moral and physical health of the city districts that surrounded them.” Poorer districts were considered to be an infection of the city and were avoided in order to prevent contamination.

From such an attitude towards the slums grew the distinction between the “deserving and undeserving poor.” Those whose misfortunes came about accidentally, such as in the case of a widowed women, were labeled the deserving poor. Unskilled, minority, or unwilling to work men, especially alcoholics, were considered undeserving and “sentiment … did not shift in [their] favor.” Thus campaigns were run to deplete such people from relief programs.

Michael Porter brought up several very interesting points regarding these inner-city neighborhoods. He spoke about the potential of these areas to “create wealth.” I agree with his point that policies should get out of the “trap of redistributing wealth,” which doesn’t create any real value, and instead work with an economic model to develop profitable businesses that would benefit the people and the communities. Porter claimed such areas had four concrete competitive advantages such as a “strategic location” in the middle of the city, high “local market demand” in an unsaturated market, “potential for integration,” and vast “human resources” of people who are eager to work. The policies of the government and other sectors mainly needed to provide a “hospitable environment” to allow for such businesses to grow. Porter was successful with some of his theories after developing the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City and opened up thousands of jobs in small businesses for people in inner-city areas.

A more recent program to help out such neighborhoods included Bloomberg’s Opportunity NYC. Not particularly effective, the program was said to award the “undeserving poor” by providing incentives for “parents who had not been sending their children to school regularly.” I don’t think any similar programs can be effective since there may always be a population to take advantage and be incentivized to do less in order to receive benefits. Something that encourages people to invest in themselves and the surrounding community may be more effective but the question remains of how to implement such a program without too much policy involvement.

Response to “Government Can’t Help? Tell That to the South Bronx”

Leave a reply

Michael Powell’s article in the New York Times discusses the rebirth of the South Bronx and he attributes its restoration to the government. He seems to make the point that the restoration is incredibly successful and an outstanding indication of the success of the government dictating housing projects, yet I find his statements too subjective.

I found it interesting that Powell would tour the South Bronx in the 70s with his friends for fun. Powell’s description of the old South Bronx and the stories I have heard paint it as a dangerous area, yet Powell says “We could not have been safer; [the drug dealers] assumed we were white boys in search of a fix” (Powell). It seems that the area would be dangerous regardless and it is surprising that Powell considered himself to be safe. Were there not robberies or other crimes happening there as well which could have affected them?

I was also not aware that the South Bronx has greatly improved in crime and I recall hearing news of shootings in the South Bronx. According to New York City’s Police Department, there have only been 12 murders and 1,621 total crimes (including murder, rape, burglary, assault, etc.) committed in the calendar year 2012 in one of the precincts in the South Bronx, precinct 40.* In comparison, there were 72 murders and 7,232 crimes reported in 1990. This is only based upon one of the police precincts in the South Bronx. While crime rate seems to have gone down significantly in the past several years, crime is still an issue there.

Powell claims that the improvement of the South Bronx is due to the efforts of Mayor Koch and Mayor Bloomberg, who “poured more than $8 billion into building and preserved 165,000 apartments” (Powell). The low and moderate income housing in the South Bronx definitely fared a lot better than housing failures such as Pruitt-Igoe but this may be due to a multitude of factors, such as how the housing was constructed. Private developers built much of the housing with government subsidies and “dozens of savvy nonprofit groups” (Powell). Since developers were given incentives to build, perhaps it was enough to sustain the bellow market rent that tenants would provide to the building owners.

I think it would be interesting to see how well the area develops in the future, given some time. Since the housing is subsidized and rent is below market value, there aren’t any incentives for building owners to keep the apartments in repair and up to date. Perhaps given time the housing will deteriorate. Also it may be that a mix of middle and low income housing provides adequate revenues and the neighborhood might eventually change to attract more people, increasing rent prices. I just don’t find Powell’s main message that one public housing and neighborhood restoration process that was relatively successful is a concrete indication that the government is an efficient system to provide housing.

* http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs040pct.pdf

Pruitt-Igoe Film Response

Leave a reply

The film about the Pruitt-Igoe disaster relays the story of another public housing failure. Looking back, it is easy to see what made the public housing complex fail: the movement of people to the suburbs, the lack of repair work, or the reluctance of police to intervene. At the time the housing was built, it seemed to be a great improvement to the previous dilapidated housing, but no foresight was put into place and the Pruitt-Igoe housing deteriorated as well.

The large Pruitt-Igoe buildings were put into place to act as an improvement. The slums, with unsanitary and cramped housing, were being demolished and instead several tall and identical buildings were put in place. Perhaps the slums should have been cleared, but these large buildings would eventually be almost vacant. The public housing authority in charge made a huge error in judgment, assuming that the city would grow and there would be a demand for more housing. Unfortunately this was not the case, as people who could afford to move moved out to the suburbs, leaving the rest to stay in the public housing in the city. This caused a major problem, since only the poorer families stayed in the Pruitt-Igoe buildings and they did not contribute enough rent to cover the cost of repairs. The utilities in the buildings quickly deteriorated and vandalism was rampant. Another effect of the exodus to the suburbs was the influx of drug users into the unoccupied buildings. One of women who was interviewed in the film mentioned seeing the lights on at night in a building that was supposed to be empty. She knew that inside were drug users or sellers and that added to her fear and lack of safety.

One of Jacobs’ points about the safety of streets definitely was apparent in the Pruitt-Igoe situation. The buildings had park areas that were placed between the buildings and were not accessible to the public. Nor did the public housing attract any street traffic from nearby residents. Because of the relative isolation and few people, the areas became extremely dangerous. At first cops arrived to Pruitt-Igoe, yet after several incidents of attacks on the police, they stopped answering calls to come into the area. This allowed crime to increase even further since criminals knew it was unlikely they would be hindered.

I was very surprised by one of the women in the film who said she loved Pruitt-Igoe, mainly because of her first memories there and the contrast of the new housing to her previous dilapidated home. She speaks of being excited to come live there and how her family finally had their own beds to sleep in, unlike their previous home where her mother had to sleep on the floor in the kitchen. While at first the Pruitt-Igoe homes may have been an improvement, the condition they became outweighs the positives. Had a different housing structure been built, it could have perhaps lasted longer and provided housing for the long term.

Overall, I believe the housing failed because it was constructed with no forethought and no one was given any incentive to keep the building in repair. Similar to the failure of the Chicago Housing Authority with their high youth to adult ratios, the placement and maintenance of the buildings invited crime and there were not enough people to police the area themselves. The rent was low yet the repair work costs were higher. It seems that often the public sector is unequipped to handle large-scale public housing.

Response to Planning a Social Disaster

Leave a reply

The Chicago Housing Authority, or CHA did a very poor job in planning the high-rise projects that they build and many, including Hunt, consider the projects to be a “social disaster.” While several factors could contribute to the failure of the housing projects, Hunt makes a good case about how the youth to adult ratio and the tallness of the buildings to be the main causes of the crime and vandalism of these buildings.

Hunt mentioned some of Jane Jacobs’ ideas such as how residents in communities can band together to keep a watch on the neighborhood. The will band together and use “collective efficacy” to police themselves, maintaining social order and minimizing crime (146). While in many neighborhoods this is the case, this did not occur in the CHA’s housing projects. I found Hunt’s discussion of the youth to adult ratios to be very interesting and an important factor in social order and the ability for a neighborhood to actually function as a community to police itself.

The CHA’s housing projects with family public housing had some of the highest youth to adult ratios. It was interesting that this occurred not because of organic reasons, such as parents just wanting to have many children, but because the CHA built housing specifically to accommodate families with many children. I was surprised by the lack of foresight governing the CHA. The CHA did not look at the consequences of housing such large amounts of children in one housing area. The CHA built “Children’s Cities,” excluding childless families and serving families with substantial amounts of children (149). The CHA did not rely on forethought and was trying to match the growing demand for large apartments. As demand continued to increase, the CHA built even more housing for larger families while “no analyses … wrestled with the ramifications of this choice” (151). I found it surprising that no research was done either to look at similar housing projects that have failed such as the one in St. Louis. St. Louis had to demolish its housing project after building housing for large families and having high youth to adult ratios that caused social disorder.

The CHA went on building housing for large families without considering the consequences, perhaps because during the time there was a “limited understanding of how adults informally police social space” (151). Adults would often police the neighborhoods themselves in communities and parents informed neighboring parents of their child’s wrongdoings. This dynamic could no longer occur as the youth-adult ratio grew. Neighbors could no longer keep track of all the children in a neighborhood and there was no sense of community developed in a tall building (153). Thus the result was “social disorder on a staggering scale” (155). I was very surprised by the extreme damage enacted by children in the housing that Hunt detailed, such as how the laundry machines were broken and residents had to wash clothing in their apartments, wooden doors had to be replaced with steel, and the stairwells were even used for toilet purposes (156).

The large amount of children and the smaller amount of adults to control them contributed to many of the examples of crime, vandalism, and social disaster in the CHA housing, but there were also several other contributing factors. The project housing areas were hated by the tenants and often the people living there were “embittered,” lashing out “in response to their victimization” (158). There are many complex reasons for the social disaster but I agree with Hunt that the vandalism is a “crime of opportunity” which occurred more often because of the high youth-adult ratios and the lack of adult supervision. I wonder why the CHA proceeded with so little thought as to the future of the housing and why they did not for see such a disaster?

Response to Jackson’s “Power Broker in Perspective”

Leave a reply

Robert Moses was extremely influential in shaping New York City and has largely contributed to its success today. Jackson brings up many interesting points arguing against Caro’s novel, The Power Broker, by explaining the positive impact Moses implanted on New York City. I mainly agree with Jackson about Moses’ positive influence on New York but I believe in some instances Moses may have tried to go too far with his power and ideas for rebuilding New York.

Jackson begins by discussing the decline of cities after World War II. Many major cities were affected by the decline in factories and manufacturing. Cities whose sole economic growth comes from industry clearly suffered but I was surprised that New York City also deteriorated. Jackson mentions the many other sources of revenue that impact New York’s economy, such as the finance or fashion industry, so it was surprising that the city’s population decreased so rapidly after the decline of the industry-fueled jobs. Even New York’s major seaport could not keep the city alive in that time period from 1950 to 1975 as people moved out and crime increased. New York’s population declined by almost one million people, a number I find shockingly large (68).

There may have been a multitude of factors that contribute to New York City’s rise from its deplorable state in 1975, but I agree with Jackson that Robert Moses was definitely a fore bringer of a positive time for New York. Moses built several great highways and bridges to connect the boroughs and cultural hubs such as Lincoln Center. His projects were completed efficiently, such as the Whitestone Bridge: built early and under budget, with “effective and talented teams of engineers and workers” (69).

While it is true that New York “never became as hospitable to the motorcar as other American cities” such as Los Angeles, where it is near impossible to get around town without a car, Jackson argues that Moses was building roadways because it was what the public actually wanted at the time (68). In other cities, Jackson states that the voters chose to have roads built rather than public transportation. Moses may have built several very useful highways, but he wanted to go even further and build another expressway running through Manhattan and cutting through Washington Square Park. Anthony Flint’s book “Wrestling with Moses” describes how Moses attempted to build a raised expressway running over Fifth Avenue. This may have been beneficial to traffic reduction, but I disagree with the proposed construction. Dividing such a historical park would have drastically altered the neighborhood and taken away the interesting culture that presides in the area.

One part that I was wondering about was Jackson’s use of “Gotham” when talking about New York. He never indicated why he referred to New York as such and it was slightly confusing to see it throughout the reading interchangeable with New York. After looking it up, I found that Gotham is an old nickname for New York City. Also I found that Jackson didn’t address Moses’ integrity very well, merely stating that it is “difficult to prove a negative” though I agree on the point that Moses mainly sought “power, influence, and importance,” something that he was able to achieve (70).

Museum of the City of New York Response

Leave a reply

The trip to the Museum of the City of New York was very interesting and allowed me to see many elements of the future of New York that I had not considered, notably the evolution of housing. The museum tour brought up many statistics and details about the city that were surprising yet intuitive and displayed some great models showing modern housing units. The museum mainly addressed the need for housing to correspond to the types of people using the housing. In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, a lot of the houses are very similar and are usually 3 floors with a family on each floor, and not flexible to other occupants. Because of the large amount of people living alone, new housing needs to reflect these living trends.

I was most surprised to find that the percentage of two unrelated adults living together, or roommates, in New York City was only 6%. I expected this number to be a lot higher since many people I know live with roommates but as the tour guide suggested, this number only takes into account the reported instances. There may be a larger percentage of people who do live together as roommates but do not report this. I was also unaware of the large number of people living alone; about 33%. It makes sense that almost a third of New York lives alone but growing up in Brooklyn, I mainly encountered people living with families in houses or apartments. I always thought most people lived by themselves in Manhattan, which is often the case, yet it was surprising that single households make up such a large proportion of the population when there are so many larger homes in Staten Island and Brooklyn.

The housing laws seem to be taken flippantly by many. Even the guide mentioned that she had lived in a place that didn’t meet housing law standards of space. The small living units being built currently that are displayed in the museum don’t even correspond to housing regulations about size but the guide said that occupants only have to sign a waiver to live in them. Even though it was very small, the living unit was rather amazing. Everything in the room was very functional and most items served a double purpose, such as a chair folding out to a ladder and a bed coming out of the wall.

The small models of various housing designs were also very interesting. I enjoyed how each architect used space in a very unique way. Many of the apartments in the buildings took up one floor and were the same size yet each floor was designed differently with a smart use of the limited space. The models depicted elevated half-floors, for example, with elevated parts of the floor holding the bedroom and using the space underneath for another room. They seemed efficient as well as comfortable and modern. The designs including a shared living space were also interesting because it allowed people to have their own rooms and bathrooms yet share areas for social activities.

As some people have already brought up, even with ideal housing units that optimize space, there is still the issue of parking and where to place cars. With housing that can hold many people, there also needs to be a garage area, perhaps underground to hold the many cars that people drive. I believe the tour guide mentioned at one point that people in Manhattan do not drive cars, but that is not always the case. There is always a proportion of the population who drives and they need convenient places to park.

“Warmth of Other Suns” Response

Leave a reply

The impact of the Great Migration had an enormous effect on urban life. Of course, a movement of six million people is bound to have a dramatic effect, but I was unaware or had not considered the direct imprint on the “configuration of the cities as we know them [and] social geography” (Wilkerson 10). Perhaps this is because history books do not cover the Great Migration in its entirety, and as Wilkerson states, “a comprehensive treatment of the century-long story of black migration does not exist” (13).

I like how Wilkerson addresses the universality of the issue in her introduction. She mentions many groups of people who had to migrate and leave the areas where they have lived for years in order to “search for something better” (15). Many people I know have families who immigrated to America for various reasons and similarly my parents came to America from the Soviet Union for freedom and something better. I enjoyed Wilkerson’s choice of syntax, using the short phrase at the end of the chapter, “They left,” to emphasize the prevailing subject throughout the book and to answer the unifying question of what “human beings … have often done” when looking for freedom (15).

Ida Mae’s description of her neighborhood is surprising. The street seems dangerous with “urban drug dealers,” “hustlers and pushers,” yet even though “they may have just shot a rival or just got out on parole” they take the time to look out for Ida and tell her to take care (20). The juxtaposition of the seemingly dangerous street and the kindness shown is very interesting and surprising.

Wilkerson brings up a good point when she points out how “the thick walls of the caste system kept everyone in prison” (33). Certain expectations were given to each group of people, causing most to always attempt to stay “within the narrow confines of acceptability” (33). Even the white woman, Miss McClenna, who took Ida to deliver eggs and was upset by the name Ida was called, did not attempt to stand up for Ida and no longer took Ida with her. Perhaps as with the example of the woman with the Catholic statue, she could not “afford even the appearance of having stepped outside the bounds of her caste” (34).

As sociologists often explain, people tend to act in accordance to ‘social norms.’ However unfair, the norms of that time period placed people into social castes based on race. After witnessing and hearing about several racist events, Ida left in “search for something better,” as so many others did as well.