In The Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida explains that creative people choose to live in places that provide a quality of life they are looking for. This is a change from the historical idea of people choosing to live where they had the greatest chance of finding a job.

As the economy became more globalized, location became more important to individuals. People choose to live where they can have the best quality of life rather than simply where the greatest economic opportunities are. Creative people now consider things like diversity and recreational opportunities to be important factors when deciding where to live.

One thing I found interesting was that people choose to live in places that have multiple and varied job opportunities because they don’t expect to stay in the same job for too long. I would have thought that people would choose these places mainly because they increase their chances of finding work. I thought they would be focused on the first job they would take in that particular place. I was surprised that these people seemed almost as interested in subsequent jobs. According to the book, people think that “companies are disloyal and careers are increasingly horizontal.” For these reasons, they want to live in places that “offer a job market that is conductive to a horizontal career path.”

Florida’s book proves how important it is for cities to have institutions that provide the high quality of life the creative class desires. This ties into many other discussions we have had in class as well as the projects we researched. Miriam Greenberg discussed the idea that a city’s success depends on its reputation and related this idea to New York City’s fiscal crisis. This is more true now than ever as people are moving to the cities that they believe will provide the best life. The development projects around New York City that we have studied should improve the quality of life of residents. Therefore, they should make ensure that New York City continues to be desirable to the creative class.

I thought these chapters of The Rise of the Creative Class were interesting to read and complemented the other readings from the class and the topics we have discussed.

In “Opposing Atlantic Yards: Fails to Accomplish a Delicate Balance,” Kent Barwick discusses issues with megaprojects such as Atlantic Yards. Bertha Lewis explains the benefits of these projects in “Supporting Atlantic Yards: Simply Not Enough Housing in Brooklyn.” In “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” Nicole Gelinas criticizes the city’s use of eminent domain for developments.

One of Barwick’s main complaints was that the high rises of Atlantic Yards would ruin the neighborhood’s character. At first, I agreed with the idea that maybe such tall buildings should only be built in the neighborhoods where they belong. As I started thinking about it though, I started wondering if keeping such a neighborhood’s character was even feasible considering the demand for housing in New York City. The city has a large and growing population but limited land to house such a population. Lewis’ article explains that New York City has a huge need for affordable housing and compromises must be made because there is no perfect solution to the problem.

The article by Gelinas made me think about how unfairly areas were selected for eminent domain. Gelinas pointed out that almost all neighborhoods exhibit the criteria for a blighted neighborhood. When thinking about the city’s use of eminent domain as a class issue, I was surprised to realize that this process is very similar to one that occurred much earlier to wealthier residents of the city and has simply expanded. I believe the real issue is simply that New York City’s population and economy have been outgrowing the city itself. Changes must be made for the city to support its population. I believe this process began in the early 1900s when the mansions of New York City’s wealthy families on Fifth Avenue were replaced with high-rise apartment buildings. Development in New York City had expanded to its borders and, as land became scarce, it became more valuable. This, among other changes to New York’s society and culture made the idea of a family owning such a large home on such a large piece of land seem ridiculous. From there, the city continued this trend. What is occurring in Brooklyn with Atlantic Yards follows the same idea. There is not enough room in the city for housing, especially low-income housing. Therefore, the buildings with fewer floors that aren’t making the most of the land are being replaced with buildings that do.

One thing about this process that has changed is the use of eminent domain as a mechanism of acquiring the land that is to be redeveloped. While I do understand the issues that some people have with the methods the government used to make this land available to developers, I wonder how much of a difference it really makes. I would think that, as the city grows and demands more space, land values will increase and owners of properties that don’t use the land efficiently will end up paying more for taxes and possibly expenses. At this point, the residents would probably be priced out of their homes and they would be just as angry as they are about the use of eminent domain. Even if this did not happen and the residents were able to keep their keep their homes, I think there would be far more unhappy people struggling to find housing that they can afford in New York City.

I think megaprojects such as Atlantic Yards are a necessary part of New York City’s natural growth. I understand that there are going to be issues related to these developments and think as much should be done as possible to minimize issues but, in most cases, I think the good outweighs the bad.

In “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America,” Michael B. Katz describes what the “underclass” was, the approaches to helping it, and how it has evolved. The chapter made me think about the different views of the poor and the ways of responding to their needs.

Katz describes the underclass as a class of people, who are mostly young and minorities, defined by drugs, crime, teenage pregnancy, and high unemployment. It typically referred to black poor people living in inner cities. The concept related to the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor.

One topic that Katz explains in the reading is the division of poor people into categories. Katz explains that this has historically been these types of distinctions have been made to determine how to distribute scarce resources to those in need. However, the categorization of poor people has also been used for moral judgment. These categories are used to determine who deserves aid and who does not. I believe that it is necessary to categorize the poor in order to provide aid that will be most beneficial. For example, the distinction between people who cannot work because they are disabled and people who can work but are unable to find a job at the moment is very important for determining how to help these people. People in both categories should be treated as equally deserving of help but the distinction makes it clear that, in the long term, those in the second category will need jobs. This means that there should be policies and aid geared toward making sure there are jobs available. Without understanding the different categories of the poor, it isn’t possible to understand how to help them. In my example, without the distinction between the two categories resources and policies might have focused on providing the poor with aid that satisfies their needs at the moment, which wouldn’t help the second category in the long term. Even worse, resources and policies might have focused on bringing more jobs to the area, which would be of little help to the first category, who couldn’t work anyway. I believe the approaches to categorization of the poor are often flawed but the concept can be positive.

The main topic of Katz’s chapter is how the idea of the underclass has, over time, been replaced with the idea of the poor as a source of “entrepreneurial energy and talent.” I think this can be both a positive and a negative. This view of the poor encourages investment in poor people who have the ideas and talent that can improve their lives. On the other hand, this view of the poor does little to encourage aid for people who are unable to help themselves with investment.

I thought the reading was insightful. Katz gave good descriptions and examples of attitudes towards the poor and methods of helping them. It made me think about the different ways of helping people in need and how these methods and attitudes can be improved.

“In Re In Rem: Innovation and Expediency in New York’s Housing Policy” by Frank P. Braconi explains the situation of New York City owning and managing tax foreclosed housing. This was referred to as in rem. This was an idea that I was unfamiliar with but I thought the plans made sense considering the circumstances.

I had never heard of this concept of New York City using properties that have been foreclosed on for tax delinquency. This is probably because, I imagine, this idea is far less practical today than it was during the time Braconi writes about. Property in New York City is extremely desirable today so if a property owner were facing the financial difficulties that would lead to tax foreclosure, it would be easy to find a buyer for the property. This was not the case in the 1970s. New York City faced a crisis as people moved out of the city, the economy declined, and crime rose. As we discussed in previous readings, this was due to a combination of a suburbanization and a decline in certain industries, such as manufacturing. This left New York City with a great number of properties that people either couldn’t afford or didn’t want. Many buildings were abandoned as a result of this.

At a time when New York City was facing so many problems, drastic action needed to be taken by the government. Looking back, it made sense for the government to take on the responsibility of owning and managing the foreclosed properties. Doing so improved the city because they were able to put the buildings to use when no one else was willing to do so. At the same time, they were able to help the people of the city by providing housing to those who otherwise couldn’t afford it. The decision for the city government to own and manage these tax foreclosed properties helped to solve two major problems New York City was facing at the time.

Of course, this was not a simple and perfect solution to New York City’s problems. Managing low-income housing comes with its own problems. The city had trouble paying for the maintenance of the buildings it managed. Braconi explains that in rem housing typically had far more maintenance deficiencies than other rental housing. He states that, at one point, the property management operations cost $294 million annually while rent collections were only $85 million. Braconi also mentions a case in which the family of a child who suffered from lead poisoning while living in an in rem apartment was awarded $10 million. This example describes the difficulties of managing housing. It is important to keep up with maintenance otherwise there could be horrible and costly results. In low-income housing, this is particularly challenging because the rent collections often don’t provide enough money to pay for maintenance. I believe this is the largest issue for all low-income housing and I’m not sure that a good solution exists. The best solution I see when it comes to low-income housing is to spend public money to keep it maintained. Otherwise it could end up being a bigger waste of money and detrimental to the community, as we saw in the film about Pruitt-Igoe. Fortunately, New York City did what it could to maintain the in rem housing.

Eventually, New York City improved and once again became a desirable city. As this occurred, the city government began to reduce its in rem inventory. Although it wasn’t a perfect scenario, I believe New York City’s actions regarding in rem housing made the most of the bad situation and were beneficial to the city overall.

While reading “Selling the City in Crisis” by Miriam Greenberg, I was surprised to learn about how important New York City’s public image was in the in the 1970s. I had heard about some of the problems the city faced at this time but it hadn’t occurred to me how much these problems were increased by the impact they had on people’s perception of the city. The negative perception of the city increased the existing problems, caused new problems, and made it harder to solve all of the problems.

I think New York City’s greatest strength is its diversity. By this, I don’t just mean the diversity of its population. I also mean New York City’s diverse economy, cultural experiences, and communities. New York offers something for just about anyone. The different communities in each neighborhood are unique, giving residents options for how they want to live. The city also has endless entertainment and cultural options so New Yorkers and visitors have plenty of things to do. Lastly, New York City’s economy is made up of a variety of industries. This diversity helps New York City to stay relevant as times change. For example, when one industry declines, the economy shouldn’t decline too much because there are plenty of other industries to support the city.

Unfortunately, in the 1970s, although only certain aspects of the city declined, the resulting decline in public image caused the rest of the city to decline as well. The negative public image of New York City prevented people and companies from investing in the city and caused those that were already in the city to relocate. These magnified the original problems the city was facing at the time. Even the city’s credit rating was influenced by public image, making it harder and more expensive for the city to gain the money it needed to solve the original problems.

I was surprised by how many people and companies were willing to give up on New York City. Even the federal government was unwilling to give the city the help it needed. It surprised me that only those who were completely invested in New York City already seemed willing to work to save it. According to the chapter, even those who were invested in New York City but also had interests outside of the city gave up on it, moving on to those other investments. I would have expected much more interest in improving the city than there was.

I thought Greenberg’s chapter was interesting and informative. It was fortunate that the city bounced back after the problems it faced. I hadn’t realized how much of a challenge it was before this reading.

I found the Making Room exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York to be very interesting. I think micro-apartments such as the ones the exhibit showed off can be a great option for people who want to live alone in an affordable apartment without sacrificing quality. Since there are so many single adults living in New York City, I think building apartments like these are a great way for New York City to evolve to accommodate for its population.

One thing I believe that New York City excels at is offering a variety of options to support its diverse population with different desires and values. The people of New York City have plenty of options when it comes to what to eat, what to do, and where to live. The building ideas shown in the exhibit have smaller spaces that use space creatively to provide the best possible experiences for their residents. These will help to give New Yorkers even more options for where to live. Considering such a large portion of New York City’s population is made up of adults living alone, this new option will likely be a welcome addition.

I enjoyed the way in which the exhibit showed the problems and solutions related to housing individuals living alone. The way the statistics about New York City’s population and the laws that fail to accommodate for them were presented was interesting and easy to understand. The video further explained the situation and how it could be resolved.

I thought the best part of the exhibit was the section with the models presenting how various ideas for managing space could be used in buildings. The actual model of a micro-apartment was my favorite because it really portrayed what the experience of living in that type of space would be like. I did also enjoy the other models that give an idea of how a building could be built to accommodate for these apartments and make better use of its space.

I enjoyed visiting the museum and I think living in an apartment like the ones depicted in the exhibit would be a great, affordable way to have the amenities I would want and need at the expense of extra space that is unnecessary for a person living alone.

The chapter “Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: How Washington Changed the American Housing Market” from Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States by Kenneth T. Jackson contained some very interesting and important points. It described the role the government has played in the housing market, particularly related to suburbanization. I thought it was surprising how much the government influenced the trend of people buying their own homes in the suburbs. I was also surprised by how much of a role racism played in the appraisal of homes by the Home Owners Loan Corporation.

Prior to reading Jackson’s chapter, I hadn’t realized how much mortgages and the concept of home owning were impacted by the Home Owners Loan Corporation. It set an example for long-term loans that make owning a home a reasonable option for many people. Earlier in American history, it was typical for people who owned homes to have bought them outright. Although mortgages became more popular in the 1920s, these mortgages typically had lengths of five to ten years. I had never known this history of mortgages and never realized that the HOLC was the organization that originally provided mortgages similar to those that many people have today.

By making the option of owning homes in the suburbs possible for people, the HOLC greatly contributed to the development of suburbs. I found it interesting how much the government contributed to making this kind of trend in real estate development possible. Many people were critical of the idea of government getting involved in housing. However, when the Great Depression made things worse for people, a significant number of them changed their minds. This type of conflict over whether or not the government should get involved in things is very common and it seems typical that most people favor this involvement only after the issues have gotten worse.

One part of the reading that really made me think was the racism of the HOLC. Jackson describes how areas with African American populations tended to automatically be considered in one of the lowest categories. Reading about this made me wonder whether the appraisers were contributing to the racist attitudes of the time or simply being realistic and responding to those racist attitudes. Since there was definite racism throughout the country at this time and this racism was prevalent in the real estate market, it may have been unrealistic for the HOLC not to take this factor into account when determining the quality of an area for the purpose of real estate values. I do not believe that the intentions of the appraisers were necessarily bad when it came to this topic, however I do think that they did contribute to the racist attitudes of the time.

I found the reading to be thought provoking and relatable to many issues regarding the influence of government. I thought it was unfortunate that the government led the way in housing trends by enabling people to move to suburbs but it simply followed the racial segregation that existed in the housing market.