Presentations at the Macaulay Honors center was quite an adventure. It is always exhilaration (or slightly nerve racking) to orally present a topic to a live audience, but it is especially exciting to present to colleagues and peers. I think that fact that we presented to others in the Macaulay Honors College upped the anty in further. This experience allows you to see what other Macaulay classes are really like, and how have other been taking advantage of their seminars.

I felt like overall our group presented well. We were the last group to present, so it goes without saying that they saved the best for last. I felt that our group had a firm grasp on the subject matter that we were presenting, and delivered our points in a clean, concise manner. We all spoke fairly well, and used a sufficient amount of body and hand gestures to animate the presentation, and accentuate specific points. Another testament to our preparedness and thoroughness, was the fact that we were constantly asked to speed up the presentation as our time limit was growing nearer. In the end, we went well over our allotted time.

I also felt that the whole experience was run rather nicely. The professor in charge was extremely nice and insightfully. While after each presentation during the question answer session students generally answered a good some good questions, the professor was always there to ask really inquisitive and engaging questions. In addition, all the other groups were very respectful and a proper decorum was met while group’s presented.

One of the major things I noticed between our group’s presentation and the others was the contrast in the direction of the presentation. While our group presented a thesis and an issue to be analyzed with a certain urban development (the Hudson Yards) it seemed like the other groups just summarized what was happening to their respective projects. While they were all very thorough and well done, it does not seem like most of the groups had any specific thesis in mind. In fact, most of the presentations were reminiscent of our earlier assignment.

One groups which I was actually impressed with was a group which who presented on Willets Point. This group, unlike most others, had a specific goal in mind. They wanted assay the public opinion for or against the newly announced Willets Point project. They analysis what led to specific public perceptions about the project, and why certain social groups either had a favorable or negative view on the development. The group really a had a strong centralized thesis which they developed well very. This I believed greatly strengthened their presentation overall.

I found Florida’s work on creativity, the digital revolution, and the importance of location to be all interesting reads. When one thinks of the innovations and technological advances, many driven in the computer sciences, the notion of a smaller world comes to mind. In many ways the world is shrinking (figuratively of course). Advances in communication, specifically the cell phone, internet, and fiber-optics, have made communicating with one another exponentially simpler.  Messages can be sent throughout the world and received in seconds. Hence, one would assume that being in a specific location nowadays would seem irrelevant. Florida argues otherwise.

Florida initially recants a story about a somewhat alternative, counter-culture graduating student who accepts a position in a internet start-up in Austin. The student explains his reasoning due to the many facets of Austin which cater to a young, creative individual like himself. I found the piece about Austin to be especially resonant as I have a particular fascination. Austin embodies a culturally unique, progressive and accepting atmosphere that young people crave. Even its no official slogan “keep Austin weird” gives off this same feeling. Austin is the poster child for how a small city keep foster a unique feel which attracts creative and innovative people.

In the reading, Florida develops a thesis to account for the increasing trend of urbanization, and moreover the reason cities give rise to the most innovation. In terms of factors of production, cities come at a severe disadvantage. Land, labor, and capitol all come at a steeper price in cities. So why do companies continuously choose to set up shop in major cities. Florida explains that is it the effect that results when people are clustered with other people. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts he contests. When people, especially innovators  are surrounding by like-minded individuals the circulation of ideas produces an environment which is conducive to innovation.

I found it quite interesting this notion that geography still remains important. We are constantly taught that globalization and technological advances have made the world increasingly smaller and have nullified the importance of place. Yet, computers screens and voice pads can never truly replace living, breathing people. The clustering of innovative people have produced some of the greatest technological accomplishments in the past few decades. Consider Silicon Valley for one. This localizing trend has made place in some ways more important that ever.

When you consider the positive effect that people have on other people no place comes to mind more than New York City. I can think of no city whose inhabitant come from such a wide-ranging diverse backgrounds. It is also hard to imagine a city whose denizens are so completely on top of each other, whose lives are so inter-connected.  The cumulative effect has continuously allowed New York to constantly reinvent itself, providing the world with innovation one after another. Yet, New York may be best described as a composite of many smaller cities. The combination between interconnectivity and localization may explain how New York maintains so many different identities, yet so many uniting forces.

The use of eminent domain as a government tool has a controversial history, and often evokes strong feeling those who its effected. In the City of New York, a place of used to change and large government development projects its makes a great deal that its densely populated populace would at one point collide with the use of eminent domain. Nicole Gelinas cites one example of the use of eminent domain in her article “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” specifically targeting the abuses undergone in the development of the Atlantic Yards project.

The Atlantic Yard Project consists of a series of development currently around being constructed in the Prospect Heights area of Brooklyn. The project includes a number of high-rise apartment complexes, and even some unit earmarked for “affordable housing.” At the center of the project as many well know is the new Brooklyn Nets stadium. Ms. Gelinas documents the origins of the project in here article. The project was spearheaded by real estate developer Bruce Ratner who through a number of not quite ethical political maneuverings secured the Atlantic Yards project with the power of eminent domain. Subsequently, private property owners could be forced off their land in order to make way for the development.

I found it very interesting how Ms. Gelinas outlined the evolution of eminent domain, and what situations constituted a a legal of it. The constitution defines the valid use of eminent domain as long as the said property is for public use. Yet over time, this definition morphed into the much more ambiguous “public purpose.” The definition for eminent domain became even more fluid when the supreme court decided it could be used in situations for economic development. The increasingly dexterity of the use of eminent domain eventually led the way for projects such as the Atlantic Yards to come about.

In New York, the defining element for eminent domain became whether the said property was considered “blighted.” Yet this definition was also open to interpretation. Instead of the traditional definition which generally invokes images of clearly unsanitary dilapidated parcels of property, the city imagined other uses of the word. In their eyes, property which was not being utilized towards its potential could fall under this category. Simply exhibiting some wear and tear such as cracked sidewalks, graffiti, ect. could be grounds for eminent domain.

As a child I remember my father explaining to me the idea of eminent domain.I thought it crazy how the government could simply tell you to leave your home on a whim. While the act of eminent domain is more complicated than that, I still have deep reservations about the concept. While it may be generally on the side of progress, Ms. Gelinas’s article points to the many way in which it can be abused, and the catastrophic damage it may cause.

Reading Altshuler’s introduction to his piece to the running theme of mega projects, it is interesting to note there perspective in which he examines the rise of large scale public work’s in America cities. In doing so, he also denotes the difference between American cities and international ones. Moreover, he touches on ground which explains the nature of purely American attitude towards the role of government and the private sector.

America has for some time been titularly the poster boy for capitalistic laizze faire economies. Our Capitalist culture is inherent in not just our economic system, but has manifested itself in socio-cultural theaters as well. Thus the issues of financing public works, and developing expanding cities has very much fit well within this context. Altshula chronicles the history of public financing taking particular notice in the change of attitudes and forms of financing cities undertook. He notes how cities  traditionally utilized private for-profit funds to serve their needs. But, he also contrasts this with the rise of mega projects and the way in which they transformed government spending. Mega projects are inherently more difficult to provide financing. Being the large undertakings in which they are, businesses generally shy away from them. WIth the emergence of projects of such a scale in the later twentieth century, government would have to expand its role in financing and taking responsibility for these public works.

Altshuler pinpoints the 1960s and 1970s as a time where government stepped up its public works project and began to undertake the self described “mega projects.” Yet, after the failure and disappointment of many, he also notes the backlash which these mega projects engendered. In addition, he recalls the great harm and catastrophic effects many of these projects had. One of of the projects he must undoubtedly been have been indirectly referring may be the cross-Bronx expressway. The cross-Bronx as many may know, was constructed through several neighborhoods in the south Bronx. Many of these neighborhoods were devastated both cultural and economically due to the large highway’s unattractive presence in the already economically depressed area.

In response to the number of highly disruptive mega projects such as the cross-Bronx expressway,  Altshuler notes the backlash these works received. In the 1960s and 1970s large grass roots civil movements began to oppose the monolithic projects. Resistance began to serious hamper several mega projects, and resulted in a shift in tactics by public officials. More attention was paid to limit the resistance that these projects would generate within the public populace. Of course this does not necessarily mean producing projects with  a less damaging footprint but rather win the political support and and attempt to lessen their overall visibility with the general public.

As cities grow and prosper, it is almost a certainly they will require some sort of mega project described by Altshuler. Many of these projects afford multitudes of people services, otherwise not available to them. Altshuler takes a specific look of the financing of these projects and the ways in which they come about. In addition, he seems to take a particular notice at the political forces which are at play during the development of these so called mega projects.

Freeman analysis of the gentrification of New York is a rather non-conventional outlook of an often demonized topic. Freeman also used an interest technique to develop and contexualize his ideas. Freeman treats gentrification as a metaphor for america’s once great frontier. Just as America’s frontier was once conquered by intrepid pioneers so too were the once desolate urban neighborhoods now undergoing gentrification. While I believe the metaphor served its purpose in describing gentrification and paralleling it with the history of American expansion, I am still at odds with Freeman’s assertion that features of gentrified neighborhoods actually encompassed elements of the old west.

Gentrification is still an ever-present phenomena and is still hotly debated today. The idea is relatively simply. The process occurs when individuals of means move into low-income neighborhoods. While generally the neighborhood sees many material improvements, often as a result these neighborhoods experience a rise rents or home values, which push less fortunate individuals out. The end result is a more prosperous neighborhood, yet with a very new and different culture and demographic.

In many ways neighborhoods that became gentrified were quite similar to the wild west or new frontier. These areas were relatively underdeveloped nor well understood. In addition, they share many of the same elements of danger such as high crime. Even less access to basic health resources pervade both areas. “The taming of the wild west” is a commonly used refrain by Freeman, which works well with how gentrified neighborhoods take on more docile persona. Just as the old west was once dominated by bandits and criminal though slowly materialized into orderly cities and communities, so to a gentrified neighborhood usually rids itself of its criminalized past.

I was in way kind of baffled by Freeman’s assertion that gentrified neighborhoods literally internalized elements of the old west. Freeman repeatedly points to locations, business establishments, and public places in gentrified neighborhoods which bare names which reference the old west. Additionally, he uses a source which identifies new residences of gentrified neighborhoods as “urban cowboys.” While this may make for an interesting point, I can see no scientific reason for these references, other than the fact that residences enjoy their appearances as pioneers. The argument seems to me rather a coincidence than an reliable fact concerning gentrified neighborhoods.

Overall, I enjoyed Freeman exploration of gentrified neighborhoods as a metaphor for the new frontier and the parallels it shares with the old west. Freeman made several intriguing points, and rather cleverly paints the metaphor well. Yet, I am still rather skeptical regarding the internal perception of gentrified neighborhoods as pioneers. In fact, I feel the label is rather disrespectful to the original residences of these areas.

It is often said that the only thing that devastates cities more than physical destruction is a poor housing policy. The term is often applied to those coming from underprivileged backgrounds, and the urban decay often wrought in low income areas. As has been a common theme in the readings in our class, Frank Braconi explores the failures and successes of New York’s public housing departments in combating urban abandonment and housing degradation.

Beginning largely in the 1960s and intensifying in the 1970s, a rather despairing trend began in New York. More and more people (mostly from low income areas), began abandoning their homes. The pattern was most observed in New York’s public housing units. As tenants began to vacate, landlords started neglecting their properties. Standard maintenance and upkeep went unheeded. Slowly but surely through back taxes and overdue fines, these delinquent properties began filtering into the possession of New York City. These In Rem housing stock quickly became a thorn in the side of New York. With tenant vacancy low,  the housing was costing more for the city to keep than  than the revenue rent was generating.

A number of initiatives were taken to manage the In Rem real estate from of party other than the city. One such as ideas implemented was the cooperative or co-op. In a co-op there are no said owners or landlords of an apartment building. Every tenant is a co-owner and services such as maintenance and heating are organize by the tenants. This idea is especially popular because it both eliminates the capitalistic for-profit component., while placing the responsibility for the well-being of the housing with the actual people who use it. I am in fact very intrigued by this concept of housing. Generally people are enticed by incentives. If your going to do something, your going to want to get some benefit from it. Co-ops capture that idea, and empower people to define their own destinies and living standards which I think is a marvelous idea.

Another propositions implemented by the New York housing authority handed over In Rem housing to non-profit organizations. The idea seems simple enough. Ideological groups such as non-profits who are not out to make a quick buck are best suited to run housing for the underprivileged. Yet as Mr. Braconi elaborated in his piece, there are still difficulties with this model. Generally, non-profits are hesitant to raise rents. With rising operating costs and skyrocketing utilizes in the 1970s and 80s, expenses began to outpace revenues. Thus non-profits who were unequipped psychological to raise rents were caught desperately off guard. This inability to make difficult decisions would constantly undermine the not-for-profit model.

Lastly, the housing authority began turning over their housing stock to for-profit businesses. This model happens to be the most controversial. Critics argue that for-profit organizations should be the last parties involved in housing for the poor and underprivileged. Yet, people respond to incentives. In many way for-profit enterprises are the only ones who actually have the incentive to keep and maintain delinquent housing. Personally, I believe a combination between for-profit housing and government subsidies could make for an effective match. In truth, this model proved to be one of the most successful employed by  the new york housing authorities.

Hunt’s analysis on the reasons of urban crime and social upheaval provide a tight, scientifically backed reasoning towards one of societies greatest challenges. Hunt examines the public housing developments spearheaded in Chicago beginning in the 1950s, specifically youth-adult ratios found in high rise buildings. Hunt specifies what it requires to have a safe, thriving community, and asserts why exactly high rises coupled with large amounts of youths undermines this fragile social balance.

Hunt criticizes the public housing authority’s policy of gearing the projects towards children and families. Many of housing units features multi-family setups such a 3, 4, and even 5 bedroom units. Unmarried singles were deterred from accessing the public housing projects facilities. As a result, statistically housing projects displayed a larger percent of youth to adults, relative to any of other parts of Chicago. While 27% was the general norm for individuals under the age of 19 in most of the city, projects averaged an astounding 61% in 1945. The projects touted  as “children cities” became a mess.

High rise structures compiled the many preexisting problems with the underlining structures found in public housing projects to create a socially disparate environments. One particular example which I found compelling was the problem with elevators. Elevators in public housing projects were often prone to break downs due to various reasons such as pure neglect and vandalism. With elevators not working, tenants often found themselves either stranded in their apartments or having to walk up multiple flights of stairs. This situation proved in many respects to make housing projects unlivable. It weakened the moral of tenants, and increased the misery and sense of unruliness that already pervaded the projects. The high rise would would soon be seen to have many more functional issues.

I found Hunt’s piece to be both informative and refreshing. Urban decay and the overall failures of the public housing project system is always an interesting topic, and I particularly found how such subtle issues brought down an entire way of life for many people. It is quite fascinating how simply the ratio of children relative to adults could destroy a multimillion government project, developed by some of the greatest urban planners of the time. Hunt’s interesting perspective on child-adult ratios and high rise structures, provides another interesting lens to examine the downfall of public housing in the 50s, 60s, and 70s

I also thought that Hunt’s theories related to children explains the failures of the projects. I kind of saw the situation as a form of “Lord of the Flies” syndrome. When children are in an environment with many other children and little adult supervision, they tend to get out of hand and misbehave in ways often not exhibited in children. This added factor I believe  is essential to Hunt’s thesis. Another potent factor was introduction of hard drugs to the projects such as pcp, heroin, and most famously crack and cocaine. Teenagers and young adults often became heavy users of these deteriorating drugs. I’m quite sure that poor adult supervision and guidance exacerbated the use of drugs in the projects

To date, I cannot personally name another individual who has had a more profound, controversial, significant, and possibly destructive influence on modern New York City than Robert Moses. The Power Broker, one of the most explosive exposes into Moses’s dealings with the city of New York. The book was the first of many to tarnish the generally celebrated reputation of Robert Mose as a city planner and orchestrator of some of the greatest architectural and engineering developments in New York City. It examined the often corrosive tactics Moses used to achieve his aims, and both the positive and negative effects which came as a result.

Robert Moses’s achievements cannot be understated. Much of the infrastructure and mass transport networks that currently occupy New York CIty we owe to Moses. Triborough Bridge, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, numerous public housing projects, and somewhat more controversially; the cross bronx expressway. The way in which many New Yorkers get from one place to another, and in a larger sense the way they structure their lives are largely impacted by Moses’s creations. New York City would be a much different place without him.

Before I discuss some of Mr. Moses more controversial projects I would like to harp back on the cross bronx expressway which I mentioned before. I often take the cross bronx expressway as it is convenient route from my home on Long Island and my apartment in the Washington Heights. For anyone who hasn’t taken the Cross Bronx, it is a rather narrow (thus explaining the heavy traffic often found on it) passage through a relatively densely populated area of the bronx. The causeway also contains one of the most sad sights that can be found in new york.

As one drives along the cross bronx expressway, it is hard to not notice the decrepit apartment tenements which line the sides. This is characteristic of a public work created by Robert Moses. What became the battle cry for critics of Moses’s methods, and much discussed in The Power Broker, is Moses’ ambivalence towards preexistencing neighborhoods and the profound effects his projects would have on them. Moses tended to ignore the human element in what makes a city a community, and a neighborhood a home. It was this insensitivity which led to the ruin of many a neighborhood such as those bisected by the cross bronx. By creating a massive highway right in between places such as East Tremont and Morrisantia, Moses in effect ruptured the sensitive social fabric which brought places like those together

In review, Moses is still credited as one of the most influential and decisive public officials in New York City. It is very hard to understate his many achievements, but it is even harder to avoid the many criticisms hurled at him. His prominence directly led to the rise of social thinkers critical of his movements towards urban renewal such as Jane Jacobs. As we discussed before, Ms. Jacobs had very differing views on what was best for a city to thrive. Moses will remain both a celebrated and derided figure in New York CIty history.