As the last requirement of our projects, my group members and I attended the Macaulay common event on May 12th between 1 and 3. At first, I really didn’t know what to expect. I wasn’t sure whether we would be presenting before a large auditorium or in front of a classroom with only a few people. Furthermore, due to the fact that unlike our classmates, most of the audience did not view our presentations throughout the entire semester, I knew that we would have to present the information with more clarity and detail. However, this task would prove to be difficult, due to the fact that we had to fit the entire presentation into 10 minutes. Overall, I believe that the event was a great way to reconnect with our peers from other schools, while sharing our knowledge, ideas and research.

One thing that I really enjoyed about the event was that I got the opportunity to communicate and reunite with my peers who attend the Macaulay program in other colleges, some of whom I haven’t seen in a long time. It was really nice to see them and to share our experiences. Furthermore, it acted as a great networking event that allowed me to meet new people who attend the Macaulay Honors Program. The new relationships that I formed with some of my contemporaries may prove to be very important as I leave college and join the business world.

I was really bothered that each presentation had a time restriction of 10 minutes. Besides for the fact that it was very difficult fitting in all of the information into 10 minutes, I felt that the audience members weren’t able to grasp our entire presentation because we had to rush through certain key parts. I found it very frustrating because after working extremely hard throughout the entire semester on our project we were cut short and couldn’t present it in full detail. Furthermore, I felt that we didn’t get the opportunity to hear the the speeches of the other presenters in their entirety, which put us at a loss. I believe that if the staff who administered the event gave the presenters a little more time, the audience would’ve been able to grasp a better understanding of the other projects.

One thing that I really enjoyed about the Macaulay event was the fact that in a matter of 2 hours you are able to learn about many topics and subjects. For example, in 2 hours I learned about the different environmental protection agencies in New York, the community of Bushwick, the issue of homelessness in New York City and many others. In a short amount of time I became knowledgeable on many issues. My favorite presentation dealt with homelessness in New York City, in particular the homelessness of dogs. I was very surprised to find out that there are millions of homeless dogs in the city, mainly because of puppy mills, which breed dogs to sell them and make a profit.

I believe that my group did an excellent job through our presentation. We were able to clearly explain our research question and provide the proper evidence to fully examine our topic. Fortunately, we were able to finish within the allotted amount of time and at the end I believe that the audience fully understood how the Atlantic Yards affected the housing market in downtown Brooklyn.

In the article, “Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan.” Jarrett Murphy discusses the recent spree of rezonings under the Bloomberg administration and the fact that New York has no “comprehensive plan” as to its future and the direction that the city is heading. According to the article, since 2002, New York City has rezoned 9,400 blocks and over 18 percent of the city. Zoning laws are crucial to the development and growth of all major areas. They regulate how the land may be used, what developers can build on the land, and dictate the specifications that must be included  when building in a certain area. According to Murphy, if the city wants to continue to thrive and focus on its future, it must develop a plan regarding the foundation for its growth.

As Murphy argues, I believe that it is extremely important to develop the areas surrounding public transportation. One key factor that attracts residents to particular neighborhoods is its access to transportation. Why would they want to settle in an area that is inaccessible. They want to know that it will be easy for them to get to and from their destinations. Therefore, the city should pursue, as the article states, “transit oriented development,” which is encouraging growth near subway stations and bus stops. However, according to the Furman Center report, 1/4 of the areas where City Planning has allowed growth are not near transit lines. Murphy argues that instead of encouraging growth in areas that can be easily accessed by public transportation, the Bloomberg administration has been focused on retaining talent by providing them with housing along the waterfront.

I found it very interesting how certain areas, such as Staten Island, are preserved, while others including Williamsburg, Greenpoint and Jamaica are targeted for increased density. The Furman Center found that areas that were preserved happened to be whiter and wealthier than areas that were upzoned. This stat really made me wonder if wealth and money control whether or not your area is rezoned to encourage investment. It seems to me that in the case of rezoning wealth plays a major factor when considering whether or not an area will be preserved or targeted for development and increased density. It really goes to show you that instead of focusing on transit oriented areas that are suitable for development the City Planning Commission looks towards low-income, minority-dominated neighborhoods.

After talking about New York’s lack of a comprehensive plan, Murphy continues to discuss PlaNYC, and how it can not be considered as a plan. For starters, I believe that PlaNYC is a vision instead of a plan. It states certain objectives, such as a city where everyone has access to a park, however, it does not mention how it plans to accomplish that goal. And as Murphy states, “it doesn’t tell you, this area needs growth, this area doesn’t need growth.” It lists an agenda or what they hope to accomplish, but doesn’t lists the steps to guide us towards accomplishing those objectives. Although I agree that it has led to many achievements and will provide benefits to the residents of New York, it does not address some of the major issues concerning the future growth of the city and the development that will take place in order to accommodate the growing population of New York.

I believe that it is imperative that the City Planning Commission creates a “comprehensive plan” that will help satisfy the needs of the increased future population of New York. They must focus their attention on their residents instead of the visions of developers. Furthermore, they must choose neighborhoods surrounded by public transportation and that is easily accessible. They must have a clear cut plan on what must be done to accommodate for the future growth of the city and must take this plan into action in order to quickly and efficiently meet the needs of its residents.

Over the past couple of years one major issue that has been voiced regarding the Atlantic Yards project has been the law of Eminent Domain. One of the fundamental principles included in the United States Constitution, is that everyone has the right to own property, and that the government must do all that is in its power to protect this right. However, according to the law of Eminent Domain, which stems from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize private property for a “public use,” as long as they provide the owner with just compensation. Over the years, this law has been misrepresented and altered to include the fact that the government can seize land, not only for a public use, such as the construction of roads and railways, but also for a public purpose, which includes rebuilding blighted areas that have been underutilized.

Nicole Gelinas, author of the article, “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” believes that in the case of the Atlantic Yards the government is overstepping its limits. She states that government officials believe that “central planning is superior to free-market competition.” It is their opinion that “their duty to design a perfect economy trumps their constituents’ right to hold private property.” They believe that an arena and high-rise buildings are better than a low-rise neighborhood, and are therefore invoking their power of Eminent Domain to achieve their goals. However, in reality, who’s to say which alternative is better than the other. While residents may believe that a low-rise community is better than one filled with high-rise office towers, developers may take the opposite view. She believes that the first step in combating this law, is to get rid of the term “underutilization” as a justification for taking ones property. If “underutilization” remains as a criteria of Eminent Domain, it will ultimately create a policy in which all property will require commercial development.

One part of her article that I found to be extremely interesting, was when she described how West Harlem owners won their court case. In order to prove that their neighborhood does not fall under the category of “blighted” and therefore does allow the government to seize their property under the law of Eminent Domain, the owners conducted a  study to show that their neighborhood was not blighted. They understood that the government would conduct a report showing that it was blighted and therefore believed that a good way to combat the government’s case was to create their own study. Furthermore, they provided a former government study showing that their neighborhood was being revitalized. However, after discussing this case, Gelinas correctly stated that property rights should not depend on the owner’s creativity to prove, but should be a law that is followed and kept without any hesitation.

One point concerning Eminent Domain, which Gelinas failed to mention, is in regards to the definition of “just compensation.” The question that remains is who gets to determine the amount of compensation that the government must pay the owners for their property? While the owners may believe that their property is worth more due to sentimental value, the government may believe that it is worth less because sentimental value is not included in the market price. This creates a battle between the government and residents, in which they can’t decide what the market value of the property really is. Furthermore, what happens if a family cannot find a home that suits their needs with the “just compensation” that they are offered? Besides for the fact that confiscating private property is wrong, there are no clear guidelines stating the grounds on which “just compensation” is to be determined.

At the end of the article, Galinas makes a great argument, which really goes to show you the destruction that Eminent Domain can cause. She states that if you walk through Prospect Heights you can finally see the decay that the government wants you to see. Land where historic buildings once stood are now vacant lots, leaving the area “gap-toothed.” The decay, however, was not caused by the market, rather it was brought about by the developer who urged the government to invoke its powers, just so they can make a profit.

When the Atlantic Yards project was first announced, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the issue. On one hand, many believed that the development would lead to gentrification and the alteration of the neighborhood as a whole. They believed that new housing, as well as the Barclays Center, would lead to increased rents, the arrival of national tenants and the driving out of low and moderate income residents. However, there were also many who saw the Atlantic Yards mega-project as an opportunity to revive the area and neighborhood. It would provide more housing around the area and allow for the resurgence or rejuvenation of Downtown Brooklyn. It would also increase traffic to the area, and in turn allow local businesses to thrive and prosper. Although I believe that the development of Atlantic Yards would be great for the area, it must be implemented correctly, so that it doesn’t take away from the “character” of the neighborhood.

In the article, “Opposing Atlantic Yards: Fails to Accomplish a Delicate Balance,” Kent Barwick provides reasons for why he is against the Atlantic Yards development. The first issue that he states is that the city is offering incentives for developers to build affordable housing, stating that if they do they can build taller buildings. Although they are providing more affordable housing, they are increasing the density of the neighborhood as well, thereby “sacrificing neighborhood character.” Another problem with the project is that due to the fact that it is developer driven instead of city driven, they are proposing to take away many public places or streets. Instead, he argues that they should not only keep existing streets but add new ones as well, in order to improve the circulation around the area and provide for the free flow of traffic in the neighborhood.

When I first read Barwick’s article I was extremely surprised by his perspective on the Atlantic Yards project. When I first looked at it, I thought that by providing affordable housing for low and moderate income families, the area can avoid the issue of gentrification. However, Barwick saw it a different way. He believed that by providing affordable housing the developer receives incentives to build taller buildings and more units that are on the free market. This would then increase the density of the area and the proportion of the units that are free market, thereby altering the identity or makeup of the neighborhood. Another point that I found to be interesting was when he stated that in order for this project to become successful, the city and state must be able to “demonstrate they can listen to New Yorkers, and establish opportunities for them to shape the major projects that will affect their lives.” After all, this project is directly interfering with their lives and in order to make it work you must have the support of the people who actually live in and take part in the neighborhood. Without the backing of the community members, there is absolutely no way that this project can become a success.

To demonstrate the other side of the argument we read the article, “Supporting Atlantic Yards: Simply Not Enough Housing in Brooklyn,” by the executive director of NY ACORN, Bertha Lewis. She argues that over the next 25 years New York City’s population is expected to rise 16 percent and that there is simply not enough housing to accommodate for the needs of this increasing population. Besides for increasing the housing stock, the apartments must be affordable for low to moderate income families as well as senior citizens. As a result, they have made an agreement with Forest City Ratner, to allow 50 percent of their 4,500 rental units to provide for affordable housing for low to middle income families. Furthermore, these units will be scattered throughout their many buildings and within the free market units to allow for a diverse neighborhood.

Although I believe that the Atlantic Yards development project would provide for a resurgence of the area, there are certain steps that must be followed in order to ensure that it doesn’t take away from the neighborhood’s identity. Firstly, a proportion of the housing must be set aside for low to moderate income families, providing for affordable housing. By doing so, it will allow the development to continue the “character” or demographics of the area. It also must provide for proper public spaces, as was one of Barwick’s suggestions. I believe that with the proper supervision and community participation the Atlantic Yards project can prove to be a success.

In the article, “Building the Frontier Myth,” author Neil Smith discusses the concept of gentrification and how certain neighborhoods have developed over time. He describes how certain areas have evolved from run down and low income neighborhoods, occupied by working-class residents to affluent communities, dominated by high end fashion boutiques and upper-class citizens. Throughout the article, Smith compares the gentrification of New York City to the “Frontier Myth” or “Taming the Wild West” in order to represent the attitudes of the residents of New York City, as well as the “pioneers” who claim to have been the first settlers who started the transformation of these neighborhoods.

One thing that I found to be very interesting was the way the author described the transformation of the Lower East Side. During that time period, there were many people who were afraid of neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. To them, it was an undiscovered territory marked by danger and the unknown. For example, in the article he provides a statement from a couple who moved to the Lower East Side, who compare themselves to “pioneers crossing the Rockies.” They believed that they were embarking on a journey, attempting to discover unchartered territories. They viewed themselves as visionaries or “urban pioneers. However, through gentrification, the Lower East Side has been transformed into a chic neighborhood, characterized by bars, restaurants and fashion boutiques. Rents are at their all time high and artists or small retailers are being replaced by high-end national tenants. Due to its increasing traffic and popularity it has replaced low income residents, with wealthy families.

Throughout the article, Smith compares many New York City neighborhoods, in particular Soho and the Lower East Side, to the Western frontier and the jungles of Africa. He explains that this transformation has occurred both in ideology and in the style of the fashion boutiques. In terms of ideology, he mentions that the gentrification of these neighborhoods can be compared to the discovery of the Wild West. He explains that he city is “oozing with optimism.” Areas that were viewed as run-down and low-income were being reinvigorated and replaced with up-beat middle-class neighborhoods. The working-class residents were kicked out or forced to move due to rising real estate prices, thereby transforming the neighborhood into one that was gentrified.

Furthermore, the frontier ideology also transformed the fashion and style of many of the high-end boutiques. Many stores in Soho were selling items such as Navajo rugs or terra-cotta pottery, things that characterized the Western frontier. One store even sold a bleached buffalo skull for $500. The city was taking on a new, rugged identity and it was exemplified throughout. New York City was also adopting an African jungle theme, to the point where many stores were organized to look like jungles. Ralph Lauren created a collection depicting the “Safari woman.” One point that Smith mentioned that I found extremely interesting was the fact that during that time, most New Yorkers couldn’t even fathom what was going on in Africa. It was an area that was underdeveloped, lacked capital and full of famine and war. However, people saw it as a remarkable, exotic fantasy and as an escape from the “gentrified city.”

At the end of the article Smith points a major fault of this frontier philosophy. In the myth the poor are seen as “uncivil” or savages. They are pictured as a group of people who don’t understand social norms and must be tamed and controlled by the civil, affluent and proper upper class. Although I believe that in some cases gentrification may prove to be great, by redeveloping and advancing certain areas, in some cases its consequences may outweigh its benefits. The number of people it displaces may outweigh the amount of good it produces. Therefore, I believe that we must look at each situation and neighborhood in its entirety in order to consider the possible effects that gentrification may have.

In the New York Times’ article, “Government Can’t Help? Tell That to the South Bronx,” author Michael Powell argues that the government is in fact capable of assisting the economy and taking care of its middle to low income families. Throughout the article he compares past experiences with the South Bronx, which used to be a destroyed, “burnt-out” area, to its present conditions. As a teenager, he believed that the South Bronx was a forgotten and disregarded neighborhood, with no chance of returning to glory or even moderate conditions. However, after touring the area 30 years later, he acknowledged that due to government efforts, it “stands as arguably the greatest public rebuilding achievement since World War II.”

After reading the article, I was very surprised from the fact that he refers to the South Bronx as an area of resurrection. To be honest, coming from Brooklyn, I always looked at the Bronx as a neighborhood filled with crime, violence and ghettos. I never imagined it as a safe area filled with decent apartment complexes and nice schools. According to Celida Pinet, a resident of the South Bronx, it sounds as if it is now a wonderful place to live and raise a family. Based on the success of the area, I’m surprised I haven’t heard about its resurgence until today.

I was also fascinated by the government’s success through these public housing initiatives. In his article, Powell mentions that by the end of the project, the Bloomberg administration will put about $8 billion into the construction of public housing complexes, building almost 165,000 apartments. It really comes to show you that the government has the power and the abilities to make a change in the lives of its citizens. Over the past couple of years, especially through our recent financial crisis, many Americans have lost faith and belief in the government. Hopefully, the South Bronx housing developments can help restore America’s trust in its government.

While reading the article, there was one point that Powell mentioned that really stuck out to me.He states that if you “walk the working-class neighborhoods of Memphis, Newark, Atlanta and even Chicago you still find acres of hopelessness.” This statement immediately reminded me of the public housing development of Pruitt Igoe in St. Louis. Both were in terrible condition, however, in the end, the South Bronx would experience redevelopment and resurgence, while Pruitt Igoe would be knocked down. This made me consider what separates public housing developments from one another? Why are some projects successful and thriving, while others are full of violence and in utter destruction?

After reading Powell’s article, I realized that many of my thoughts pertaining to the government and the South Bronx had been misconceptions. It has altered my view regarding the government’s capabilities, by showing that it has done an excellent job in rebuilding and resurrecting an area that had previously been a ghetto filled with despair and crime. It really goes to show you that the government has the abilities to accomplish great things and hopefully it’ll help reestablish the faith of the American people in its government.

In the article, “Making New York Smaller,” Roger Starr argues that in order for New York City to escape the financial crisis and avoid “doomsday,” the city must accept the fact that its population is shrinking and plan accordingly. He begins the article by stating that at this point “doomsday” is inevitable and that whether it comes ahead of schedule or within the next 5 or 7 years, it will indeed occur. He then goes on to explain the causes of the economic crisis, along with initiatives that he states would lighten New York City’s “fiscal burdens.” Lastly, he provides a particular solution, that although controversial, would solve the crisis and allow New York City to once again prosper economically and thrive.

One thing that I found to be extremely interesting was how he explained the sources of revenue and expenses that the city incurs. He stated that in a sense the city is comprised of 2 cities, the economic city and the Political city. The Economic City includes all of the public and private enterprises that create goods and services in New York. The Economic City is the main source of the city’s wealth. Furthermore, it produces jobs for the city’s inhabitants and spreads the city’s wealth among its constituents. However, one problem that comes along with the Economic City is that recently its exports that it ships to foreigners have lost their attraction and in order to pay for the cost of its imports, New York City must rely on its reputation and persuade investors to lend them money. He goes on to explain that by underestimating costs and overestimating revenues, the city’s constituents were forced to default on their loans, increasing the burden placed on the part of New York City, the Political City.

On the other hand, the political city provides services that people require but for which they are unable or not willing to do so. Some examples that he cites are the education system and criminal justice. This component of the city also brings in revenue through taxes and funding from the federal government,  who provides money for families with dependent children, the disabled and the poorly housed. However, the city only gets back three quarters of the money that they spend through the services that they provide. He states that one problem with the Political City is that they are unable to meet the rising costs incurred through their programs and services with the limited amount of revenue that they receive. They don’t have a sufficient amount of revenue to provide enough jobs to the population. Their lack of revenue leads to economic decline and an increasing unemployment rate in New York City as they are unable to support the cities inhabitants, forcing people to move elsewhere for jobs.

While reading this article I noticed that New York City has changed drastically from 1976, the time that this article was written, until today. Firstly, over more than 35 years the number of people in the city has risen from 8 million to almost 20 million people, 2 and a half times the amount that there were in 1976. Back then, the city was unable to accommodate and provide for 8 million people and today it is the place that 20 million people call their home. Furthermore, in the article Starr mentions that New York has not fully tapped the tourist market, due to the fact that tourists don’t feel safe and comfortable in New York. Today, New York City is visited by millions of people from all over the globe. People from all different countries wish that one day they can visit New York, stand on the red stairs in Times Square and visit the top of the Empire State Building. I was amazed to see how far the city has grown in respect to tourism in a matter of 35 years. Lastly, he mentions that New York is no longer the “classiest address for a major corporate headquarters.” However, today many of the major Fortune 500 companies have offices and headquarters in New York. New York City has become the center of business and trade and companies all over the world desire to have offices in the city, where they can be in the center of all the action.

Although, Starr’s plan of shrinking the population due to the declining number of jobs and concentrating the city’s inhabitants in certain sections seemed to be plausible at the time to avoid as he calls it “doomsday,” I wonder if he could have ever envisioned New York City as it is today. Although his plan may have allowed New York City to escape the financial crisis that it was experiencing, it would have thrown away all of its potential for growth. By knocking down stretches of empty blocks and terminating the services provided in the area, he would have destroyed any hopes of future growth and allowing New York City to become what it is today. One question I have for him is if his plan was enacted, how would it allow for the city to grow in the future and once again thrive?

In the article, “Tower of Dreams: One Ended in Nightmare,” Michael Kimmelmen attempts two compare and contrast 2 different public housing projects. The first is Penn South, a high rise housing cooperative development built in the Chelsea area of New York City in 1962. It was built to house the low to moderate-income workers who lived in the area. The second was Pruitt-Igoe, the St. Louis public housing project, which was destroyed in 1972. In the article, Kimmelman attempts to compare the 2 projects and demonstrate why although similar, one was highly successful while the other was a great failure.

The first thing that came as a surprise to me was the fact that two, almost identical projects, or as Kimmelman describes them, “Aesthetic cousins,” could have such opposite fates. Penn South would go on to be a successful and thriving housing complex with a sense of community between its residents, while Pruitt-Igoe became a “breeding grounds” for violence and vandalism. Although it may have started off as a thriving community and “paradise”, as is evident in the testimony of Valerie Sills, it eventually turned into an area filled with crime and poverty. It really goes to show you that every project has its risks and that no matter how much research you put into a project or how hard you plan, there is no absolute guarantee of success.

Throughout his article, Kimmelman provides the testimonies of former residents of the Pruitt-Igoe complex, and one which truly stood out to me belonged to Ruby Russell, an early resident of the housing project. She stated that when she first moved into the complex, it was a beautiful place and even went so far as to compare it to a “big hotel resort.” She moved to the complex from the slums and never believed that she would live in such an area. However, as she mentions, the beauty disappeared in a flash and as she stated, “one day we woke up and it was all gone.” It went from being a dream come true to an abandoned, distressed area, filled with drug dealers, murderers, crime and violence.

As I continued reading, I noticed that Kimmelman points out a few suggestions as to why the Pruitt-Igoe complex failed, while Penn South became highly successful. The first that caught my attention was the location of the complexes, and in real estate location is everything. While Penn South was located in an affluent part of New York City, filled with shops and a diverse and chic mix of people, Pruitt-Igoe was located in an “isolated and impoverished” area in St. Louis. Another reason why Pruitt-Igoe went on to become a failure was the fact that it was poorly maintained and handled. Opponents of public housing blocked federal money that would have been set aside to improve its conditions and an inadequate amount of money was set aside to take care of the grounds. This would eventually lead to the crime and poverty that would arise in the area surrounding the complex.

Public Housing is very important, especially in dense cities such as New York, to ensure that all residents have a place that they can call “home.” However, one of the most important factors that contributes to the success of a housing project is perceived safety and I believe that this is the main reason why Pruitt-Igoe collapsed and deteriorated. Due to poor maintenance, violence and crime arose in the area and the safety conditions were inadequate. When people buy homes the first question that they ask is “how is the neighborhood?” because safety is a very important factor when choosing an area to live in, and that was Pruitt-Igoe’s main fault and the reason as to why it failed miserably. On the other hand, due to the fact that Penn South was located in a dense and safe neighborhood, people weren’t afraid to live there and the quality of life was much greater. After reading this article, I would like to look at other housing complexes to see whether or not they share the characteristics inherent in these complexes.

Our visit to the Museum of the City of New York was both a very exciting and educational experience. The Making Room exhibit demonstrated the housing situation in New York City and conveyed how housing could be made cheaper and more easily accessible for New Yorkers. It showed us how one can maximize each square foot of his apartment to change a tiny apartment into a beautiful home with a den area, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. It demonstrated how New York City can look to the future by focusing on the increasing population of people looking for cheap one-bedroom apartments.

As I entered the exhibit, the first thing that surprised me was the fact that 33% of all New York City residents live alone. I believe that the museum did an excellent job in portraying how large of a percentage 33% really is by displaying it in block formation as compared to the other types of housing situations. I was surprised to find that living alone was the primary choice of housing due to 2 things. Firstly, as Alice mentioned, growing up in Brooklyn, outside of Manhattan, I never really encountered anyone who lived alone. I believe that like myself everyone lived with either a roommate or with siblings. I believed that the percentage of people living with family or with a roommate would be much greater. Secondly, due to the fact that only 1.5% of apartments are one-bedroom apartments I found it hard to believe that 33% of New Yorkers lived alone.

After viewing the percentages of housing situations we moved on to the restrictions that are placed upon residential developers, particularly related to the size of apartments and the amount of space that the building could take up on the lot. For instance, one restriction provided that each apartment must be at least 400 square feet and another stated that you could only cover a certain percentage of the lot. In my opinion, these restrictions were wasteful and inefficient. Especially in a location with as many people as New York, I believed that we should make efforts to maximize the amount of building area instead of minimizing it. We should try to build as many units as we can to account for the growing population. I also found it unfair that people would have to pay for 400 square feet, when in reality they would only need 300 square feet..

The portion of the exhibit which i enjoyed the most was the model apartment. It truly demonstrated the meaning of maximizing the potential of space. They fit everything needed in an entire house in an area of 325 square feet. Wherever, you looked there for places that could provide for extra storage. For instance, there were many shelves around the apartment and the television can be pushed aside for extra shelving. The kitchen was the greatest part of all, because it had all of the appliances of a regular kitchen, except in half the space. When I walked out of that apartment I honestly said to myself that I would want to live there.

The exhibit clearly demonstrated the housing trends of New York city and what must be done in order to accommodate the growing population of New York City. Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to create many affordable units sounds like a very viable plan and in my opinion can be extremely successful. I was able to learn many things about the past and future of New York city through this exhibit and it changed my view concerning New York City housing.

Throughout the history of the United States, a long time dream and ambition of the American people has been to own a home. Immigrants from around the world have traveled to the United States with the hopes that they too would attain this dream and that they would one day own a home as well. In his book, “Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States,” Kenneth Jackson discusses the progression of government interference in respect to the housing of the people of the United States. He also talks about how the housing policies of the government affect the the locations that certain groups of people choose to live.

In the article, Jackson mentions that before 1933 the government did not regard the housing and shelter of the American people to be one of its responsibilities. Although they had certain restrictions on how an individual may construct his home and the materials that he may use in doing so, they believed that the “selection, construction, and purchase of a place to live was everywhere regarded as an essentially individual problem.” They believed that it was not their place to get involved and that it was up to the individual to decide where or how he/she chooses to live. When it came to shelter, each person had to fend for himself.

I believed that housing programs were always focused with the intentions of assisting the poor and I was extremely astonished to learn that the first effort to provide housing for individuals came not as a result of poverty but in reaction to World War I. In June 1918, Congress appropriated $110 million to start two separate programs aimed at providing housing for war workers, one of which was the United States Housing Corporation. These programs were focused on providing homes for people who had to move to industrial areas in order to produce weapons for war. The fact that these programs began shortly after the beginning of the war made me realize a very important observation that shapes the behavior of many people. It is human nature to react only once a crisis comes about. Intervention in Housing policy was considered to be an “individual problem” until World War I came about and before this the government was not focused on providing houses to Americans. In fact, even these programs were hampered by opposition who called them socialistic and an “insidious concerted effort to socialize this government.”

This notion that intervention and reaction is mostly brought about due to crisis is further exemplified by the advent of the Great Depression. The book mentions that during the 1920’s the federal government once again adopted a” hands-off policy” when it came to housing the American people. The federal government was looked at as a body or organization whose primary task was to govern, while the task of building houses should be left in the hands of the contractors and builders. However, as the Great Depression began the housing market began to collapse and the American people looked towards the government for assistance. During the time of the Great Depression residential construction fell by 95 percent and in 1932 there were 250,000 foreclosures on homes, compared to a typical year of 68,000. President Hoover understood that he had to do something about this and proposed a federal housing policy aimed at providing housing assistance to the poor.

Another point that Jackson mentions that came as a surprise to me was when he mentions that certain residential areas were discriminated against. For instance cities were given lower ratings than suburban areas and were declared to be ineligible for loan guarantees. This further segregated certain areas as middle and high class residents secured loans and moved to suburban areas, while lower-class residents were forced to remain in the cities. One question I had was how could the government allow that to happen for so long and continue as segregation in the United States strengthened and played a larger role?