Author Archives: Lena Yang

Altshuler – “Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment” || Response

Leave a reply

In “Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment”, Altshuler focuses on urban politics and public policy by addressing mega-projects. But what exactly are these mega-projects? He uses this term to describe highways, airports, and rail transit systems, which were endowed by federal programs and federal funding. In Chapter Nine, Altshuler pays close attention to the developments of the twenty-first century and the future of these mega-projects.

At the very beginning of the chapter, Altshuler states how these mega-projects are becoming “increasingly marginal” (270). It seems as if everything is just too expensive to be constructed. The economic recession, decrease in tax revenue, decrease in tourism revenue and decrease in airport, highway, and airline revenues also played a role. I found it surprising that tourism revenue is used to fund sports facilities and convention centers. With the available funds the government does have, beefing up and maintaining security remains a top priority (especially after 9/11). Additional things that are hindering the growth of mega-projects are federal programs that help the poor and elderly.

One thing I found particularly interesting was the “do no harm” imperative. I understand that it is important to not negatively impact businesses or residents in an area where a mega-project will be constructed. Altshuler brings up the example of the expansion of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which will displace approximately three hundred residential apartments. It violates the “do not harm” norm. The expansion however, is seen to have more pros than cons to better serve the future.

This reminds me of Willets Point, which is home to many auto-body repair shops, scrapyards, and businesses of the same sort. Bloomberg’s Willets Point Redevelopment Project will certainly “do harm” to the workers and business owners of that area. They are forced to relocate and find new jobs. This brings a few questions to mind – to what extent does the “do no harm” imperative apply? Is it okay as long as the benefits outweigh the damages? Is it okay as long as there are government programs to assist in the relocation and training of displaced workers?

Despite the decline in mega-project growth, Altshuler concludes that he does believe the era for them is not over. It may not be like it was during the late twentieth century. There are many shortfalls, but the government is slowly but surely funding new mega-projects. I would have to agree with Altshuler. Examples today are the Barclay’s Center, the Willets Point Redevelopment Project, Hudson Yards, and Atlantic Yards.

Katz – “From Underclass to Entrepreneur” || Response

Leave a reply

In the excerpt, “From Underclass to Entrepreneur: New Technologies of Poverty Work in Urban America”, Katz talks about how the expression “underclass” evolved over time. During the late twentieth century, “underclass” was used to describe the poor, especially poor black women. The term also described the life of drugs, crime, high poverty, and urban decay. And thus, America’s inner cities were deemed as “a terrain of violence and despair”. I personally think that these characteristics actually describe just being “underclass” and not poverty. One can choose a life of drugs and crime and not necessarily be poor. One can choose to ignore education. That is what I define as “underclass”.

At the turn of the century however, these same people are seen as highly motivated and ambitious. Because of their low social status, they wanted to prove to everyone that they were not a lower class of people. Katz states that the label essentially became a metaphor of social transformation. Formerly described as “underclass”, these individuals jumped at any opportunity and became entrepreneurs. Market-based technologies certainly helped the poor obtain this newfound status.

Katz discussed exactly how market-based technologies gave the poor a boost. Four market-based strands were intertwined with poverty work, including “place-based initiatives that intended to unleash poor people as consumers by rebuilding markets in inner-cities; microfinance programs that turned poor people into entrepreneurs; asset-building strategies that helped poor people accumulate capital; and conditional cash transfers that focused on deploying monetary incentives to change behavior.” As a business major and psychology minor, I found these ideas to be very interesting. These market-based brands mixed aspects of business and psychology together to obtain a positive result.

Other points I found interesting was when Katz talked about Clinton’s presidency and Muhammad Yunus. Throughout my studies in American History before college, I have never heard of the Enterprise Zone or the Empowerment Act of 1998. Although it ultimately did not succeed, the Clinton administration did try hard to revitalize the inner-city. This act called for nine empowerment zones and ninety-five enterprise communities, both of which were allowed tax breaks and “other incentives” to help the poor. Clinton also added eligibility to social services and community-based programs. On the other hand, Yunus’ Grameen program proved successful. He was more inclined to help women because he felt that they were more likely to do good for their families compared to men. He also believed that that was the main reason for the program’s success. Although it may come off as a little unfair to men, I do agree with Yunus and his method of helping the poor.

Overall, I found this reading to be very informative and insightful. As a New Yorker exposed to a variety of entrepreneurial ideas, I certainly do see a great deal of talent and motivation coming from individuals who are less wealthy. But how exactly is the government dealing with poverty today? I do believe that our government is doing an adequate job (considering the economic circumstances) assisting the poor today. There are many social services including food stamps, Medicare, Social Security, etc. With that said, there is always room for more improvement.

Neil Smith – “Building the Frontier Myth” || Response

Leave a reply

In “Building the Frontier Myth”, Neil Smith talks about how neighborhoods evolve over time through the process of gentrification. There was a point in time when people were scared to go past 90th Street. There was a point in time when people were afraid to be in certain neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side. Gentrification not only reflects how certain neighborhoods evolve, but also how people are changing their attitudes towards these neighborhoods.

Now, the Lower East Side is perceived as a hip neighborhood encompassing a variety of bars, restaurants and small boutiques. Neighborhoods such as the Lower East Side are becoming more ‘alive’, and have become popular destinations to live and to hang out with friends. But, low-income residents are forced to leave their homes due to increasing costs. The same thing is happening with Williamsburg, and we find gentrification responsible. It “infects working-class communities, displaces poor households, and converts whole neighborhoods into bourgeois enclaves (116).

This leads to something I find very interesting. Smith compares gentrification and the urban frontier to colonization. Just like the way Europeans colonized different ‘subpar’ parts of the world and took over, gentrification is doing the same. Residents of gentrified neighborhoods are pushed out as newcomers take over. As Smith puts it, these newcomers are usually people of higher income, looking to recolonize these neighborhoods “from the neighborhood out” (116). He also states that it was the civil taking over the uncivil, which I find are not exactly the best words to label people.

One point I also found extremely surprising was about the gentrification of SoHo during the late 1960s and 1970s. I have been to SoHo many times as a shopping and eating destination. I never thought that this region of New York City had undergone gentrification. With so many “upmarket boutiques dispensing fashionable frontier kitsch” concentrated in SoHo, it is quite hard to think so. This makes me wonder about the current neighborhoods experiencing gentrification. Given a few more years, it is not difficult to imagine the Lower East Side or Williamsburg becoming densely visited and populated just like SoHo today.

Since I do believe that certain neighborhoods can reach their maximum potential just as SoHo does, I do support gentrification. It may impact original residents since they can no longer afford to live in these areas, but it is for the better of these neighborhoods. It is for the better of the future of these neighborhoods. And as a New Yorker, I greatly anticipate the further development of currently gentrified areas such as the Lower East Side, Williamsburg, and East Harlem.

Braconi || Response

Leave a reply

Before reading Frank P. Braconi’s excerpt, “In Re In Rem: Innovation and Expediency in New York’s Housing Policy”, I have never heard of in rem. Even as a New Yorker, it was certainly an unfamiliar term to me. It derives from Latin, meaning “against the thing”. But used in the context of housing today, the term refers to the range of rules, regulations, and programs governing foreclosed homes. Nonetheless, the program was initially developed to fix New York’s increasing during the late 1960-70s housing abandonment. A variety of strategies were implemented to counter the problem.

What exactly caused this wave of ditching New York? According to Braconi, the city was simply too expensive to live in. Two-thirds of the housing stock was rental housing, which made the city sensitive and vulnerable to “profit and loss calculations, as absentee investors are more likely to be aware of, and act upon, bookkeeping judgments than are owner-occupants” (95). Other factors include the city’s large public housing projects and rent regulations. Large-scale projects threatened the private rental stock and rent regulations undercut the availability of funds for operational costs.

Nonetheless, one thing I found particularly startling were the statistics provided in the reading. Braconi first states that operating costs increased exponentially during the 1970-80s. “Heating oil prices increased 430 percent and overall operating costs of apartment buildings in New York City rose by 131 percent, whereas the cumulative permitted rent increase for rent controlled apartments was 106% and for rent stabilized apartments 81 percent” (96). There were also data tables – one of which depicted great differences between in rem housing maintenance deficiencies and all rental housing maintenance deficiencies.

Today, New York City is still considered to be one of the most expensive places to live. But instead of facing housing abandonment problems, we are struggling to find more housing (particularly affordable housing). I think that another factor that played a role in the housing abandonment of the 1960-70s was the level of desirability of living in New York. Modern day improvements and advancements in the quality of life has increased the desirability of being here. So despite the high prices, people still choose to come or stay in New York.

Overall, I found the reading very informative and fascinating. Braconi provided great insight into New York City’s housing past, particularly the in rem program. And since I have never heard the term before this reading, I consider myself to be a ‘moderately informed member of the general public’ now (93). In addition, it was interesting to see how housing abandonment was such a big problem, whereas now, we face the exact opposite.

Starr – “Making New York Smaller” || Response

Leave a reply

What exactly is planned shrinkage? In Roger Starr’s article, “Making New York Smaller”, planned shrinkage is defined as an inevitable method to cope with declining tax revenues. City services such as street repairs and patrols, garbage removal, public transportation, healthcare, and education would be withheld from diminishing neighborhoods. This of course, makes planned shrinkage a controversial public policy. “Much of the expressed hostility was based on a genuine fear that somehow the poor would be victimized by this policy” (Starr 1). Starr however, counters that “the poor, who need the greatest service from the city government, would be worst hurt by a failure of the city to use its resources economically” (1).

Starr makes his argument by using a lot of sides. He talks about the struggle of New York City as an Economic City and as a Political City. The Economic City encompasses the public and private sectors that create goods and services, whereas the latter provides “services that people want or require (education, criminal justice). This relates to the struggle between boosting the economy by creating new businesses and what the people want.

Towards the end of the article, Starr mentions the ominous example of offshore drilling. This brings the current issue of the Marcellus Shale to mind. Corporations want to drill in Upstate New York. It would bring jobs to the area and create a boost in the economy. However, residents of that region oppose the idea believing that it will destroy their quality of life. That is why this issue is still being debated.

One thing I found particularly interesting was the fact that New York City “grew to its maximum population of 8 million only because it was a very important manufacturing center” (3). I was a little shocked to read that – knowing the city today, it is hard to think of it that way. Today, it resembles nothing like a manufacturing center. Then, I read the next paragraph, which talks about how people typically think of New York as. I completely agree that it is full of “office towers or emporiums of service like hotels and restaurants or magnificent department stores” today (3).

Another interesting thing Starr talked about was how vital consistent density is to building or block survival. For example, one full building is better off than two or more buildings that are not occupied to an efficient level. I also strongly agree with this idea. Inefficiently used buildings are unable to collect the full rent required to maintain and upkeep the building. This leads to the abandonment of these properties. Hence, one fully utilized building will survive.

Nonetheless, I found this New York Times article extremely enjoyable to read. As I was reading, a lot of it made me think about New York City today.

Pruitt-Igoe Myth Film || Response

Leave a reply

This documentary film depicted how the American city has changed during the twentieth-century. There were slums across many cities in the nation. In St. Louis, Chicago, deteriorating buildings and living conditions prompted redevelopment to prevent the loss of property value. The population was also climbing. This eventually led to the clearing of slums which were supplanted by high-rise and high-density public housing. These homes became known as the Pruitt-Igoe homes. However, Pruitt-Igoe ultimately changed into a breeding ground for violence and crime. It is referred to as the largest public housing failure in United States history.

This was actually the second time I watched it – the first time was in art class last semester. Yet, I still enjoyed it as much as I did initially. It was mainly because of the reminiscent interviewees who talked about their genuinely happy experiences at Pruitt-Igoe. Their emotions gave the documentary an exciting and colorful aspect. In the beginning of the film, several interviewees smiled as they talked about how Pruitt-Igoe changed their life for the better. Their homes were spacious, beautiful, and sanitary compared to the slums they came from. Christmas was a wonderful time for residents to get together and celebrate. Hence, towards the end of the film, an interviewee cried as she insisted for people not to see Pruitt-Igoe for just the bad. It provided one of the happiest times of her life.

Among the bad that had changed Pruitt-Igoe were the increases in crime and violence. The public housing project actually became a breeding ground for bad behavior soon after it was opened. Elevators started to smell like urine, were not lit, and eventually did not work. Garbage was not properly thrown out. In a way, Pruitt-Igoe started to resemble the slums again. I believe that the two major forces that contributed to the decline of Pruitt-Igoe was the adult to children ratio and the lack of government funding for maintenance.

There were a lot more children compared to adults at Pruitt-Igoe. Because of that, there is less supervision. Without adult figures around, children do whatever they want. Bad ideas from one child to another spread quickly and that was a major contribution to the fall of Pruitt-Igoe. The lack of security also enforced bad behavior. Since there was no security officers patrolling any of the buildings, ill-behaving individuals felt comfortable committing crimes and violence. Thus, it was a great mistake for the city of St. Louis to not provide the necessary funding for security measures such as officiers and cameras.

It was certainly very sad to see the buildings being demolished over and over again in the documentary. One main reason is because I strongly believe that if the city carried out their vision of providing safe and successful public housing at Pruitt-Igoe, it would still stand today. They constructed extremely dense public housing, so security and maintenance was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the residents. It would not have turned into a breeding ground for all the bad that defined Pruitt-Igoe. Instead, it would have been home to many happy and grateful residents – just like the interviewees whom loved Pruitt-Igoe. So, two questions I would like to ask would be: Why didn’t the government carry out what they envisioned public housing to be in St. Louis after spending so much money to built Pruitt-Igoe? Looking back, is there regret that the city didn’t provide funding for safety and maintenance measures?

Bloom – “Designs for a New Metropolis” || Response

Leave a reply

In “Designs for a New Metropolis”, Bloom emphasized that slum clearance was a top priority. The goal was to clear the slums out and replace them with high-density public housing buildings. This seemed like a pretty good idea that would benefit many people who needed subsidized housing. Costs of these projects however, not only included the monetary amount, it also came at the expense of owners of “nice brownstones” (132). Regardless of whether or not these homes were recently renovated, everything in the slums had to be cleared out. I disagree with this decision that the New York City Housing Authority made. If these quality brownstones were kept, they would add an aesthetic appeal to the neighborhoods.

The structure of these public housing units were not pleasing to the eyes. In fact, they all looked the same from neighborhood to neighborhood – bland and basic tower blocks that did not stand out. Buildings were usually several stories high with standard windows and fire escapes. There were no balconies. Nonetheless, I approve of what this decision the NYCHA made. These public houses proved to be just enough and acceptable. They were not appealing, but they were better than the living conditions of slums. They also proved to be efficient because there were many units within each project. The NYCHA also kept up with maintenance and security, which played a big role in the success of New York City’s public housing.

Another decision I applaud the NYCHA for is the mixing of middle income people with low income people. This prevented “low-income ghettos” and fostered class feeling (134). These public housing units prove that neighborhoods can be diverse and provide dwellings for people of different backgrounds and income levels. The decision shows that not only a specific group of people are targeted. The NYCHA just wants to provide affordable housing for New Yorkers as a whole.

To my surprise, public housing in the United States has largely been failure. In many cities such as St. Louis, Chicago, and Newark, large-scale public housing projects were demolished. An infamous one was Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis. At first, its high-density housing seemed to work. Residents were happy to live in spacious and clean homes. But due to budget cuts, the lack of funding led to poor maintenance. Eventually, Pruitt-Igoe had become an unpleasant place to live with crime rates rising. I believe that if public housing projects in other cities such as St. Louis had kept up with maintenance and security costs, they would not have failed. I also believe that a mixed-income public housing plays a major role in success.

Overall, I am pleased at the NYCHA and what it has accomplished. Based on my personal observations around New York City, I see that public housing works. When I was performing door-to-door canvassing for a local politician (Assemblywoman Grace Meng) back in high school, I had to enter some of these public houses. I recall that the Bland Houses and Latimer Gardens in Flushing were well maintained. There was security. I also observed that residents were of different backgrounds and income levels. Hence, if other cities were to imitate New York City’s successful public housing, they should incorporate these aspects.

Caro – Power Broker || Response

Leave a reply

Considering how much Robert Moses did for New York, I have personally never heard of his name until last summer. During that time, many of my friends went to Robert Moses State Park, which is a very clean beach (compared to Jones Beach or Long Beach). I thought Robert Moses was probably another politician who did something remarkable for the city. Little did I know, he physically shaped New York in a way no one thought was possible during his time. In fact, he shaped the nation with the highway system and recreational parks. I was shocked at the amount of projects he was able to accomplish and put under his belt.

When I read about all the highways, parkways, bridges, and parks Robert Moses built, my jaw literally dropped. As a native New Yorker, I have been on most of them – the Long Island Expressway, the Van Wyck Expressway, the Clearview Expressway, the Throgs Neck Expressway, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, the West-Side Highway, the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge, and so many more. I never knew that he was the brainchild of all of this. I cannot imagine how New York would survive or function without any of these projects. Without a doubt, society would be very different. Robert Moses certainly looked way beyond the future during his time.

Not only did these projects incur a high monetary cost, they also affected a great number of people. Where Robert Moses wanted to construct a park or highway, residents of that area would become displaced. This certainly brought about disputes as to whether or not he was doing the right thing. Nonetheless, I agree with what he did. By displacing these people, he made it possible for these major works to become reality. He did it for the better of society. Displaced residents would be able to have a better quality of life with the availability of these efficient projects.

This reading also reflected a lot about Robert Moses’s personality. He is a go-getter and very ambitious. Going for whatever he wants, he makes sure that nothing gets in his way. An example would be when the newly elected Mayor did not give Moses his position. Moses threatened to resign, which was a method he used in many instances during his life. He certainly came off as an adamant and persistent person in my opinion, certainly in a good way.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this reading because it informed me a great deal about Robert Moses and what he accomplished. Today, we take for granted all these highways and bridges to get from Point A to Point B. This reading certainly made me realize how different life would be if we lacked these things. If I could ask him a few questions, I would ask, “What inspired you to do so much for society and look way into the future?” and “Did your personality bring about a lot of enemies?”.

Museum of the City of New York || Response

Leave a reply

The relatively short walk from the 103rd Street subway station was a bit frightening for me, but I thoroughly enjoyed our trip to the Museum of the City of New York. Our tour guide was welcoming and very informative. I learned a lot from the Making Room exhibit, especially from the statistics. The numbers were surprising – more than a third of New York City’s population consists of single households. I am sure the number would be greater because many people don’t report to the Census Bureau. Statistics on the population growth was particularly shocking for me. The Bloomberg administration predicted that the population of our city would reach nine million by 2030! I cannot imagine how New York city would be like with that amount of people. There will definitely be many, many dense housing complexes. “Making room” would be vital.

An interesting part of the exhibit was the comparison of housing across our five boroughs. As I expected, all the boroughs, with the exception of Manhattan, would have more plots of land and houses. There are more nuclear families in these boroughs. Manhattan on the other hand, has a lot of single households and there are many apartments. It is cramped and densely populated. However, I have personally observed that Queens (particularly Long Island City and Flushing) transforming to that as well. There are a lot more high-rise apartment buildings built to accomodate the increasing population. The costs of living in these areas are also becoming increasingly more expensive.

With the need to build more efficient residences to accomodate a greater amount of people, the demand for engineers and interior designers is high. They will build the future of New York City. When I saw the models in the exhibit, I was amazed at all the structures, both inside and out. Unconventional curving architecture not allowed gave an aesthetic appeal, it also made space more efficient in apartments. High ceilings can be taken advantage of. I find that these models are so futuristic because they depart completely from what we are used to.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the exhibit was the micro apartment. I actually saw Mayor Bloomberg reveal the concept on the news a couple of days ago. But seeing it in person, I was completely blown out of my mind knowing how a small space can become so efficient. At the same time, it was so aesthetically pleasing. I thought it was better than how IKEA can make a small space efficient. It was better than any picture in the IKEA catalogue! I thought it was amazing how the chair can be transformed into a ladder, how the couch can become a queen-sized bed in an instant, and how a wall cabinet can become a work station. Going through this micro apartment made me think about how I can make my own room just as amazing.

I am certainly looking forward to the future of housing, especially with these micro apartments. When the experiment in Kips Bay is completed next year, I will definitely look into it and consider renting. I find that is much better than a dormitory… and it is super close to Baruch. I also hope that concept will become accepted by the public, especially for singles. With the predicted population of nine million by 2030, these new housing structures will definitely play an important part in the future of New York City.

The Warmth of Other Suns – Wilkerson || Response

Leave a reply

Isabel Wilkerson establishes a very powerful introduction to her book. In the The Warmth of Other Suns, Wilkerson provides an informative overview on what her book would be about. It encompasses the struggles of twentieth-century African Americans in the South, their movement to the North, and how society has changed because of their journey. Most people today take many things for granted. But through Wilkerson’s tone, it is easily seen that she does not take what her mother did for granted. In fact, she questions how life would be or if she would even exist had it not been for her mother’s courage. She asks, “Would I (and millions of people born in the North and West) have even existed?” (Wilkerson 12). In her point of view, leaving the South was the strongest and bravest thing anyone could have done.

To cover what she wanted for her book, Wilkerson interviewed “more than twelve hundred people” who “gave hundreds of hours of their days to share with me what was perhaps the singular turning point in their lives” (13). This certainly makes her book comprehensive, but I was surprised by that amount of people. Of these people, one was Ida Mae Brandon Gladney whom she made a main character. When I studied U.S. History and the plantations in the South, I failed to realize that blacks did not see any of the technological advancements made. Thus, I was shocked that Ida never saw bridges or even simple street lamps. She was completely out of place.

One point I found interesting was when Wilkerson stated that there were more African Americans living in Chicago than in Mississippi at the turn of the twenty-first century. It is surprising that the population can skyrocket that much and that quick as a result of the Great Migration. This just shows the immense impact the movement had on society – major cities such as Chicago had changed. The South radically changed as well.

Another thing I found particularly interesting was how certain misrepresentations caused the non-blacks to think negatively of the whole black population. People of the North thought that these migrants from the South were dysfunctional, promiscuous, unemployed, etc. They basically had bad reputations and negative images. Research by scholars however, show that these migrants were more apt than Northern blacks. In fact, these newcomers had higher rates of marriage, higher income, higher labor force participation rates (14). In “Transplanted in Alien Soil”, an employer during the First World War said that they were more loyal, quicker, and happier than other laborers (244). This reminds me of immigrants who came to America and had jobs. They shared similar work attitudes and worked earnestly.

Overall, I found Wilkerson to be very interesting and very informative. Although I thought I knew a lot about the South, I learned a lot from these excerpts – the struggles and hardships of blacks through Wilkerson’s collective and comprehensive work based on individual accounts. It is certainly hard for me to imagine New York City if blacks did not leave the South and create the Great Migration movement. Nonetheless, I am glad to live in the equal society we have today. One question I would like to ask Wilkerson would be: If the Great Migration had not occurred, what do you think would have happened to society?