Author Archives: David Mandil

Introduction Mega Project

Leave a reply

First off I enjoyed this reading by Altshuler I thought it was really interesting that the city could be used like a business even though I knew that most politics involve businesses. Regarding the Introduction to the book, one of the only thing I could think of when he mentioned mega projects was Hydraulic Fracturing Also known as Fracking. Furthermore, I also liked the Format used in the Introduction.

 

Hydraulic Fracking is the process by which natural gas is taken from the ground by use of a water source. In order to do this, first one must drill through the ground and using a pressurized liquid break shale and then gas is released from this pressure. This gas leads to many economic advantages, such as decreased gas prices and a boost in the general economy. However, there is a detrimental effect which is the effect it has on the water supply of the residents in the area, sometimes the chemicals leak into the water and the water can become hazardous to drink and at times even have the ability to catch fire.

 

Fracking falls into both of the topics discussed in the introduction as a reason for wanting to study public investments. Regarding the first reason that says that the project often has effects on the political development of the area and Fracking definitely has an effect in this regard. In fact many people try and get the government to end Fracking in their neighborhoods, however many times their pleas fall on deaf ears since there are many benefits to Fracking that a lot of people aren’t willing to let it go so easily. The second reason discussed was that the city gives monetary or regulatory inducements to attract investors. Well in my opinion this qualification is also met because the government is not really doing much to hinder the fracking companies, they haven’t even enacted much laws to it’s prevention when it is hurting their citizens. Therefore, since there is mainly positive reinforcement for the natural gas companies, they will take advantage of this leeway and use the land for money while hurting the citizens.

 

Lastly, I liked the format of the introduction, where I found it entertaining how he said at the end you can skip Chapters 3 and Eight and not miss much. To me it seemed like he was really confident about his writing style, where he was sure that after getting that immersed in the book the reader would choose to read them out of his own free will. Well if he kept the writing style like that where it was almost entertaining to read and he adds this kind of humor I don’t see why the reader would choose to skip out on the chapters.

 

Altshuler, in my opinion wrote one of the greatest introductions to a book that I have read because it was humorous at points and structured really well. However, throughout the introduction he says that most of the mega-projects he will discuss are railways and bridges and it makes me wonder if he’s going to discuss some negative mega-projects such as Hydrofracking. All in all I was actually really interested in the reading and might dread the book a bit further because maybe he mentions Fracking somewhere, or maybe he mentions why it doesn’t count as a mega-project.

The True Underclass

Leave a reply

In the excerpt we read by Katz he writes that the underclass transformed, in it of itself it is now coming to be defined as entrepreneurs. Katz means by this that the people who were previously seen as poor and underprivileged were now more hopeful where they are waiting for an opportunity and then be able to capitalize on it and thereby become successful. Personally, I believe that what Katz is saying holds some truth to it but, it is not completely true, furthermore putting them to this standard may have some repercussions.

During the beginning of Katz’s excerpt my first thoughts were complete disagreement. My first thought was that you have to explain what underclass means, which he does by saying it has many societal factors. But, he proceeds to give an example of a teenage girl who gets pregnant out of wedlock and then ‘mooches’ off society. That sounds a bit underclass, this is not implying that all people who take money from society are underclass, quite the opposite. The differentiation I’m trying to emphasize is that being poor doesn’t necessarily make one underclass. Rather, if one chooses to accept themselves as being poor and being less than everyone else they are underclass, not because they are any worse than anybody else, but because they don’t believe enough in themselves to succeed. And in my opinion that’s the true meaning of underclass.

Regarding what Katz said about the concept of the ‘underclass’ being considered entrepreneurs (again I hold this to mean the poor, as not all poor are underclass) this holds some truth where they just need an opportunity as he says. Take Steve Jobs, when he was founding Apple he built the first computer in his parents’s garage. In fact Steve’s parents couldn’t really afford to pay for his higher education, so he audited a lot of classes and slept on the floor in his friends’ dorm rooms. However, he soon became one of worlds greatest entrepreneurs of the 21st century. But, I guess it refers back to what Katz said, he waited for an opportunity and seized it, for him it was Apple the company he helped cofound and he did a great job at it.

Finally, one has to be careful by putting the poor/underclass in a way where one is claiming they are Entrepreneurs. The reason for this is that on the one hand you set them up for failure, but on the other hand you are setting them up for greatness. By placing them in this light one of two situations may occur, either the people will use this as a motivation and will accept there’s more to them than meets the eye. Or they might think the bar is set too high and since they will never make it they might as well not try. I guess this refers back to my definition of the underclass, where here there is a clear distinction. Those who will use it to fuel their drive are simply poor, while those who will just give up because of it, those are the true people who are underclass.

Finally, after an analysis of how Katz introduces the topic of underclass meaning entrepreneurs I have to disagree. I think that the poor has the potential to become entrepreneurs (as does everyone else) but, the true underclass are those who don’t choose to act on this.

Frontier Myth

Leave a reply

At first glance when I saw this weeks readings had to do with gentrification I thought they would be a bit more serious to an extent. However, Gentrification is barely mentioned, in fact in the beginning I don’t even believe they mentioned gentrification at all. But, they did describe it with the story presented. So honestly, as I was reading the chapter I was trying to figure out what each ‘random’ thing the author mentioned had to do with gentrification.

 

The first thing mentioned in the chapter is this concept of “Urban Pioneering” and this in fact was probably the only thing which right away struck me off as Gentrification. The story provided is about a couple which dared to move farther than the community they grew up in, which for them was Houston Street. They hoped that in doing so they’ll become a part of the ‘new neighborhood’ which everyone will want to be a part of and the example they gave was the village. She even compares moving to live a few blocks down to crossing over the Rocky mountains, granted it’s just an exaggeration here. But, to an extent this kind of makes them look arrogant. Take for example the actual pioneers who crossed the Rockies they weren’t the first to do so, after all there were native Americans around, but they like to believe they did because they thought they were superior. I’m not saying that this is what the couple is saying but, one could choose to interpret it that way. Furthermore, there is a similarity where the Native Americans were eventually removed from the land and with gentrification, eventually the ‘white man’ takes over the land.

 

Next he goes on to mention different types of themes that are developing in certain stores in Manhattan such as Tex-Mex themes as well as Native American themed places. I feel as though he was presenting gentrification in a new light with these examples. I feel that by describing how many different types of themes there are and how they are consistently adapting to the interest of the ‘white man’. To an extent I feel like Smith’s talking about the trend of fashion to consistently shift from fashionable to unfashionable. The analogy I feel Smith is making here is that the different themes are neighborhoods and it is referring to how people keep jumping neighborhoods to one in which they like more and this leads to Gentrification.

 

A third thing he mentioned which really got me confused as to his stance on gentrification is the story about ralph lauren and the talking about civil class nearing the end of the chapter. When it comes to Ralph Lauren, he says that Ralph Lauren was able to define what the average safari woman should look like even though he has never been to africa once. Therefore, I believe he is saying that a lot of human perspective is subjective and that many people are willing to agree with Ralph Lauren and say that in fact that is what a safari woman would look like when in actuality they might all be wrong. Similarly, he is saying that regarding what is considered the theory about combining civil class. This theory says that if people of good class join a neighborhood that has uncivil class qualities the good class should ‘teach’ the uncivil class and thereby make the neighborhood better as a whole. He disagrees with this theory which says gentrification can be beneficial by saying that the uncivil class is subject therefore the premise is flawed. Furthermore, it is implied in his writings that he doesn’t appreciate this theory because when he introduces it he kind of adds in parenthesis “without a murmur of dissent” which I read as a sarcastic way of saying that there should be more arguments against it.

 

When it comes down to it, I’m not really sure where Smith stands on gentrification, other than he didn’t like the theory of balancing the classes. He pretty much just closes with saying that gentrification is a word which holds a lot of value and that it can’t be easily described in one or two sentences.

Braconi to modern days

Leave a reply

I enjoyed reading what Braconi had to say about new york’s housing policy as well as other things mentioned relating to that topic. But, there was one thing I wanted to focus more on and these are the three reasons he gives as to why there is a high amount of housing disinvestment in New York. The reasons he provides are that the city owned a lot of the housing, the improvements the city places on it’s housing developing projects and the city’s system of rent regulation. In general, I was wondering if those reasons have an effect on the current housing situation in New York or if they no longer apply.

 

After further research it would seem that the first reason provided by Braconi may or may not still apply. The reason for this is because since Braconi presented this work homeownership has gone up and in fact reached it’s highest amount in history. Braconi published this book in 1999, according to the New York Times (and the us census) in the year 2000 the percentage of people who owned their own homes was 30% (years before that it was 28%) and 5 years later in 2005 the percentage of homeowners went up to 33.2%. Therefore, one can see a trend in rising homeownership by the person as opposed to the state. Furthermore, regarding the time period he’s writing about, the percentage of owners was about 19% if not less. Therefore, one can see how there is a significant change in the percentage of people who owned homes and this reason wouldn’t have the same effect as it once did.

 

The second reason Braconi mentions is the idea that the City constantly has improvements on it’s housing projects. This idea in my opinion still applies to today. For example, take the exhibit in the Museum of the History of New York, the exhibit shows a new type of one person apartment. Maybe the tour guide at the museum should go into real estate because she was really selling the house showing how even though it’s small there is a lot of room and also adding that they plan on adding a type of community within the building where there will be a lobby/plaza as well as other places for the residents to mingle. This is a more current example of how the city is providing exceptional housing projects. It would not surprise me at all if when these buildings are released to the public that a lot of people would flock to these buildings.

 

The third reason provided is the city’s rent regulations and according to recent trends in rent, in Brooklyn rent is increasing over the past 13 months regarding both one bedroom apartments and two bedroom apartments. Regarding the rest of New York City the average rate of rent can range between 1000 and 5000, keep in mind this is just the average and prices could in fact be higher. Furthermore, the more you want out of the apartment/housing, the more you should be expecting to pay more. For example, if you want to add a doorman, you should be expecting to pay an extra 12% minimum and that’s just in Manhattan in Queens it can go up to 43% extra. So, it is clear that these prices might deter people from buying and just as Braconi mentioned, it can drive these people to public housing.

 

After doing some basic research about the three reasons provided by Braconi regarding modern times it is clear that there is kind of a timeless truth to what he’s saying. The same reasons which he published in this book in 1999 still apply nowadays. However, one must not forget there may be other reasons not mentioned here for why someone would want to use public housing, but one shouldn’t overlook the truth in the words of Braconi.

Roger Starr

Leave a reply

When I was reading Starr’s NY Times article, “Making New York Smaller” I couldn’t help but think that this guy writes like a politician. After a quick google of his name I discovered that he was in fact New York’s housing administrator before he began writing for the times and in fact my hypothesis was correct. The way I happened upon this conclusion is the manner in which he discussed the solution to New York City’s financial crisis and it is quite noticeable how he puts a political motive in his writing.

The first thing Starr says about New York is that it can be divided into two different types of cities, a political city and an economic city, this is the first thing he said which led me to my hypothesis. By saying that New York is two different types of cities that coexist in order to form one type of city in itself sounds very much like a bureaucracy. In other words, he says that there’s an Economic city is the city which produces and sells all the goods, while there is the political city whose job is to provide the city with social services such as a fire department and public education. Furthermore, if one were to look at what each of these cities represent they would see how he truly shows his political nature. The political city is clearly a representation of the NYC government while the economic city is more of a representation of the people of the city who make the money and pay taxes. Well, this is a very political point of view and in fact an un-American point of view as one of the main principles of the American government is that it is a government of the people for the people, not a city which stands on its own.

The second thing which led me to my assumption of Starr having a political motive in all this is the way he leads up to his introduction of the shrinking city solution. Starr first brings up ways in which New York City could try and get out of the financial crisis firstly by way of increasing taxes and secondly by way of appealing to Washington and Albany for more money. Then he introduces a third method, his method. However, if one notices the wording, when he was introducing the first two methods of trying to get the city out of the financial crisis, he says it in a manner of exclusion where the government should make tax programs or appeal to Albany, in a way he makes it seem far away. But, when he introduces his idea or the third method he does so by using the word ‘we’, he says, “We could simply accept the fact that the city’s population is going to shrink, and we could cut back on city services accordingly.” By using the word ‘we’ he’s trying to include the reader and make it feel like they are a part of it so that they’ll be more likely to agree with him and follow his ideas and this in a way seemed like a move that a politician would use.

The third thing he mentions which helped me develop my hypothesis was his mention about how two communities picketed to not let him speak at the Regional Plan Association meetings at the New York Hilton. Now no average news reporter is going to be invited to speak at something that sounds so important and if they are no one is really going to care. But, Starr had not one, but two communities (the African-American community as well as the Puerto Rican community) unhappy with him. This led me to believe that the guy writing this article is not your average journalist and must have some type of background.

All in all, I found Starr to be sport a political motive in his writing. I do not necessarily know if he wrote this before or after he became New Yorks Housing Administrator, and in fact if this proves anything, it’s that he knows quite a bit about how the New York City Government works and about its politics. But, just because someone knows about politics, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they should write in a political manner.

Pruitt-Igoe Documentary

Leave a reply

When we were watching the documentary of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project one of the things we saw was the destruction of the building. At first I was wondering what am I watching because I just couldn’t imagine something like that happening in New York City. In fact, the only time I feel I’ve seen buildings falling to the ground was on 9/11, but that was an act of terrorism. However, in this case it was done by choice, it just goes to show how much of a failure the project really was and I think the documentary did a good job of personalizing as well as analyzing this fact.

The documentary does a great job of ‘putting a face to a name’. In other words by watching the documentary you would understand the topic better if instead you just chose to read about it. The reason the documentary does a good job of that is because for one thing it has visual cues (such as the imploding of the building), which can go a long way. But, more importantly the documentary has the one-on-one interviews with people who experienced this time period in St. Louis’s history first hand. By bringing in the people it sort of adds an empathic aspect where others are more inclined to listen to what the people are saying because to a certain extent it appeals to the emotional side of the audience so the audience would like to understand it better. This can be seen where one of the people in the documentary talks about how she felt like they were being penalized for being poor, a lot of people will be able to relate to this and will be able to better understand the topic being discussed for that reason. In this regard the Documentary proves more efficient than if someone was just reading about the topic because it gave you a face to see and shows you that someone is actually being impacted by this as opposed to if you were reading this you’d just see a paper in front of you,

The documentary also attacks the audience in a more analytical sense as well. For example, the video talks about acts of legislation, such as the Housing Act of 1949 (which was actually one of the causes for the building of Pruitt-Igoe). The documentary then goes on to explain how this ties into Urban Renewal which will lead to a lot of people moving out of the city and into the suburbs. Since so many people were now moving into suburbs the cities were emptying which had a negative impact on the city and more specifically the residents of Pruitt-Igoe as a whole, where the citizens now had to adapt to a harsher society where violence was growing prevalent. From this aspect the documentary is trying to engage its audience in a more analytical standpoint and build credibility.

The underlying message that the documentary was trying to give off was that although public housing is a good idea, Pruitt-Igoe is a demonstration of how it will fail. In the case of Pruitt-Igoe the residents were given a nice place to live where at first everything was good. However, the government stopped caring and the workers stopped caring and because of this everything got out of hand; Pruitt-Igoe became the very thing that the government was trying to get rid of (slums). Now, Pruitt-Igoe is deemed one of the biggest failures in public housing and when public housing is even mentioned Pruitt-Igoe is brought as a defense against it. It’s a shame that the workers and government stopped giving care to Pruitt-Igoe because had they actually put in some effort into the project we might be having a different discussion about this housing project and instead of watching a documentary about how it failed we’d be watching one about the effects of its success.

In conclusion, the documentary “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” attempts to draw in its audience from all angles. It uses the emotional aspect by way of stories and visual cues, as well as through a logical standpoint by bringing in facts and analyses. In my personal opinion the documentary succeeds in these regards and does a great job both in captivating the audience as well as portraying their opinion about the failure of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project.

New Metropolis

Leave a reply

Bloom spoke about Robert Moses and the housing project of New York in Chapter seven. However, within the context of what he was writing certain things must be highlighted which can show his true value. These things include his credibility and the positive and negative consequence the importance of his name means and how altogether this leads to an ‘inflated’ Robert Moses.

The first thing which is importnat to note in Bloom’s writing is how important Robert Moses actually is and how this played a motif throughout the chapter. One of the thing that Bloom mentions is how important Robert Moses was to the city of New York, which is obvious considering that he is the cause for New york being the way it is. But, what I found really cool is that he overemphasized it by citing an example where Mayor LaGuardia credited Robert Moses over the housing authority regarding the 1942 housing project. The fact that Bloom speaks about him so highly forces us to picture him as the poster boy for the New York housing authority which comes with both good and negative aspects.

Regarding the negative aspect, well that comes with anytime someone is the poster boy of any organization. If something goes wrong within the organization the poster boy has the potential to be blamed for it because they ‘represent the organization’ and they then have to defend the organization. For example when Robert Moses had to defend the claim that his housing projects were deemed racist because it was “bowing to racial prejudices” and Moses had to defend the project. Take another example, if one soldier of the US accidentally killed an innocent person for no reason, Obama might make a statement apologizing on behalf of the military. In this analogy Obama (Robert Moses) is trying to defend the honor of the US military (housing project).

On the other hand the positive that thing that happens with being the poster boy as can be seen with the chapter is how when the ‘organization’ does something right you are looked upon with more respect, or just better overall. For example, the chapter mentioned how Robert Moses and the authority of housing started grouping together lower class housing along with the middle class housing and the chapter says this is good planning. As can be indicated fromt he article though is that  it says Robert Moses and the authority which again shows him as the poster boy. Furthermore,, since he is the poster boy and in this case something good is being done by the housing authority Robert Moses gets some credit.

The chapter was written in my opinion as an ode to Robert Moses and the New ork housing authority. But, I feel it is important to note how throughout the chapter Moses was continuously highlighted in a way that made him look and sound more important. Again in no way am I implying he isn’t great, rather I just feel that because the chapter mentioned him too much they overused Moses and his ideologies and he’s kind of inflated, but just because he’s overrated that doesn’t mean he’s not great.

Museum of the City of New York

Leave a reply

The museum had a lot to offer regarding historical data. First off the museum was intriguing to me in that it wasn’t like the more typical museums where there are a lot of rules and you can’t touch anything. To an extent touching was encouraged (except for the architectural models), people were sitting on the couches in the ‘apartment’ and Nicholas even got to play around with the chair and make it a ladder. Although the museum gave off a very homey environment and in my opinion fostered a certain amount of learning to an extent, I don’t feel the ideas it was presenting were very practical.

Regarding the small room for one person/community living, personally I thought it was a good idea and wouldn’t mind at all living in a room like that. But, one must take into account the cost of the apartment. Someone who’s in college isn’t going to have enough money to shell out for an apartment. Especially because the real estate agents are going to try and sell off a community aspect to it so they can try and get more money out of the student. With that regard the student might just rather pay for a dorm because he’ll still get that community aspect but he won’t have to pay as much.

As for the elderly, the tour guide mentioned that this type of house can be used for the elderly who’ve lost a spouse and live alone. That sounds like a horrible idea because although there are elderly with apartments to themselves, all that extra room kind of acts like an invite to their grandchildren and family to come visit them. If you take that away and leave them in a small enclosed room some family members might not go visit then because there is simply no place to stay in the room.

Finally, and this relates to the paragraph before regarding the elderly there is no place for visitors. Granted there will probably be a lobby as mentioned in the tour, or a place for the tenant to chill in a community type atmosphere, if one of his friends wants to crash by his house for the night it becomes a hassle to do so. Also, the tour guide mentioned that certain commodities will come with the house such as indoor sports as well as outdoor sports to an extent how much extra will this cost. Even ignoring the money for a moment how will this be organized will the facilities get in the way of everyone’s everyday schedule and how much ‘sport time’ are you allowed to have.

Personally, I would not mind to live in such an atmosphere it looked like a fun place to live from my perspective. However, in order for me to be completely sold on the apartment I’m going to have to learn a lot more about how the house/facilities function and how much the rent will cost for such a place. So, in theory it sounds like a good idea in theory but there still remain a few questions about the apartment that need to be answered.

Jackson

Leave a reply

While reading Jackson’s Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream There were three main things that he mentioned that really stuck out to me. The first thing was the concept on whether housing was a problem of the individual or the government. The second thing he mentions which stuck out to me was the mentality of civilians regarding government interaction. Finally the third thing which stuck with me was how socialism and racism still managed to stick their heads into all this.

Now regarding the first point about whether housing is the problem of the government or it’s people, I feel like in order to fully understand this one should turn to the foundation of our government, which is the Declaration of Independence . The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson who was influenced greatly by the writings of John Locke and the Declaration discusses all the natural born rights of all human beings and how it is the government’s duty to protect these rights. The rights written in the Declaration include the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The last right is the right I would like to focus on, when John Locke wrote this instead of pursuit of happiness he wrote the right to property. Now the fact that Jefferson changed the word property might give some insight as to whether or not it is the right of the government to give the citizens land. Since according to the declaration these unalienable rights must be protected by the government and since property isn’t there I feel this kind of takes the government out of the equation and therefore forces this onto the people and makes it their responsibility. But, this is up for discussion since the more popular reason for the removal of property is because some people might say this gives people the right to own slaves.

Regarding the second point about the mentality of the civilians it didn’t surprise me that up until The Great Depression there was this lack of desire for the government to help with housing. The reason for this is because until things get out of hand or into a really bad situation people don’t wake up and realize that something’s wrong. Take Swine Flu for example, there is a flu season every year and every year people get the flu but that one year where a few extra people died the world bugged out. There was a demand for the vaccine. But, the next year when flu season came about not that many people went for the flu shot. For this reason during the Great Depression when not many people had houses there was a demand for the government to help with houses because when people are in a bad situation, that’s when they wake up. Otherwise they don’t usually care as much.

Finally, Jackson’s talk about Socialism and Racism also stuck out a lot to me while reading this chapter. When a housing project was being start up it was started up in the way of a military initiative the reason for this is because subsidizing houses was seen as a sort of socialistic. Senator Albert Fall of New Mexico viewed this as an attempt “to socialize this Government of ours, to overturn the entire Government of the United States. I just found it a little ironic that this dogma of Socialism wormed it’s way into all parts of the US government, it might be a bit naive but I didn’t feel that socialism became such a big deal until later on in the 1900’s. On the other hand the concept of racism didn’t surprise me at all because the Civil rights movement didn’t happen until about 1955. So, when the chapter said that in Detroit in 1941 when someone built a wall in the middle of a neighborhood to separate the whites from the blacks just so that the whites would be able to get mortgage approved by the FHA, although it seemed stupid because society isn’t like this anymore i was able to understand the time-period the article was referencing.

These three points were the points that stuck out to me the most from this chapter by Jackson. I guess the main reason these stuck out to me is because they seemed the most interesting regarding how society interacted with the government and vice versa. It was impressive in my eyes  how strong this connection between the two are.

The Great Migration

Leave a reply

The first thing I noticed when reading Isabel Wilkerson’s is that I liked the writing style. I don’t usually enjoy reading writings in an interview method because it reminds me of anthropology class and it bores me in general. But, I feel in this case I feel that I enjoyed reading it because I found it relatable.

Now to be more specific I don’t find it relatable because my family was involved in The Great Migration. In fact the reason I find it so relatable is because my family was not near this country my family was doing its own migration. I come from all sides of the world and my family constantly moved from country to country and I pretty much have a heritage from every continent and relatives alive in every continent.

However, I can’t compare the experience of my family to the experience of the families in The Great Migration. I mean some of my ancestors moved around because of persecution but regardless of this fact no persecution is ever the same. I mean some of the persecution they were experiencing such as Jim Crowe laws were out of this world, in fact it seems so out of this world as if it’s not possible.

Furthermore in the very beginning the quote by ‘The colored Woman in Alabama’ she says that even in the church or at home, no matter where they are they are discussing whether or not to escape. They are even discussing how to escape; should they go all at once or one at a time. In all honesty it sounds like a weird discussion to be having in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I just feel like nowadays these types of discussions don’t happen in the US.

In my opinion, the reason books like these are so successful is because of a sort of masochist aspect that people have. I’m not saying people are crazy and like to see others suffer, but there is a certain reason books like these are so successful. I mean look at Eli Wiesel he wrote books about  the holocaust and became an incredible writer. On the other hand it might just be that people can’t believe such horrors occured and they read it as a form of sick novel or they might read it as an impartial way to view history and how society has improved. Personally, I prefer that it’s the last reason and that people just want to see how we improved on ourselves and to never revert to a society where discrimination and hate is allowed.