According to the article Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan written by Jarrett Murphy, New York City has gone through 9,400 blocks of rezoning process. Amanda Burden, who is the head of the Department of City Planning, believes that rezoning “are setting the conditions for sustainable, transit-oriented growth and are signed to accommodate a population of 9 million New Yorkers projected by 2030.” Some parts of the city were heavily occupied, for example downtown and midtown Manhattan, while other parts of city were quiet vacant, lack of livable conditions.

I do agree that there should be different policies for different neighborhood. However, as this article pointed out that sometimes these policies raised public questions. Areas that were supposed to get downzoned were instead becoming denser. As Jarrett Murphy pointed out in this article, there seem to have certain pattern in which the area that got downzoned were mostly white and wealthy neighborhood. I think that the process of zoning may not necessarily good for the neighborhood, but sometimes benefits developers.

Since 1916, there were regulations on what can be built in the city.  For example, the old “wedding cake” rule, which states that “builders had to set back the upper floors, so that building looked like cake layers stacked one atop another,” I think this is definitely a great way to construct skyscrapers because it allows more sunlight passing through the city. However as time progressed, the desire of building modern style of skyscraper may not fit into this “wedding cake” rule. It’s not surprising to me that the zoning resolution has been constantly changing.

My favorite part of this article is when Eve Baron was describing what planning is all about; he says “Planning is about more than the physical.” Neighborhoods that are livable should include schools, day care center, medical centers and other public facilities that make up basic elements of a community. The whole process of zoning started with government regulating what can and can’t be built. It was the private market that decides what gets built, but the problem is that these private real estate market only focuses on constructing apartment buildings and can’t satisfy what a neighborhood’s actual needs.

In order to build a neighborhood with all those transportation infrastructure, parks and health center, there should be a comprehensive plan. However, “New York has never taken a comprehensive approach to planning.” It seems like the whole project was only focused on real estate development without actually thinking about what really makes a good neighborhood to live in. This is why the process of rezoning in New York City usually takes a long time because there is no cohesive plan for building the city.

In the introduction of the book Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment, Altshuler gives an overview of how American government works. The unique relationship between cities and higher-level government creates a system that allows private investment opportunities. The higher-level government was encouraging local governments to find ways to develop their cities. Therefore, Local governments are constantly working hard to make themselves a more attractive candidate for become a partner with private investors.

A lot of mega-projects were taken place in part of city where occupied by poor people. Those mega-projects usually have a large influence on people as well as the whole city. However, it became harder to build a mega-project today because now there are many government programs that protect these poor. Another reason that explains why there are less mega-projects today is that many criticized that mega-projects destroyed homes of poor people.

Altshhuler mentioned three mega-projects types, which are highways, airports, and rail transit systems. These are the three major projects around the time, which cost a lot of money to build but hard to get any profits from them. I think that it is not a good idea to have public mega-project because when government needs funds for their public projects, one way of raising money is to increase the tax, but they weren’t making anything back.

One interesting point that Altshuler made in his introduction is that “political scientists concerned with urban politics have recently been preoccupied with business influence and economic development policy.” I agree with him that tax money and federal funds were definitely not enough for a city to grow, and to implement its entire project. Therefore local governments were “marketing” themselves, and try to make themselves to be more attractive to the private investor, so that private sectors will help to start projects that will benefits both the city and the private investors.

I think that when government and private investors work together, we will solve the problem with funding. Those private investors will make the funding possible; however, they may slow down the process and may reduce the government’s power in decision-making. This is what Altshuler mentioned in his book, in which our cities were highly depended on private sectors for decision-making. If the local politicians only focused on how to attract investors, not seek help from higher-level government, then I feel like our central government had lost part of its purpose.

In the reading “Building the Frontier Myth” Smith gives an overview of how certain neighborhoods had evolved from time to time. The reading talks about various example of NYC neighborhood, such as Lower East Side, SoHo, Ludlow Street and etc. This reading really surprised me. It shows me how gentrification has changed certain neighborhood physically as well as how it changed people’s attitude toward these neighborhoods.

Real estate people were using the phrase “The Taming of the Wild Wild West” to describe their project of building new condominium two blocks west of Times Square. They declared, “West 42nd Street has been tamed, domesticated and polished into the most exciting freshest, most energetic new neighborhood in all of New York.” Times Square has gone through many large transformations. From a neighborhood where people didn’t even want to go at night, to today the most glamorous area of the city. It caused the nearby property value to increase, and eventually there weren’t a lot of people who can afford to live there.

Another interesting part of the reading is about the gentrification process took place in SoHo. I had been to SoHo couple times, but I didn’t really like it. It has so many fashion boutiques and art galleries. It was interesting to know that SoHo has gone through gentrification, yet some of the surrounding neighborhoods still seem to be not affected by this process. I know Chinatown is near SoHo area, however, I am not sure if gentrification of SoHo has significant impacts in certain area of Chinatown’s property value or other nearby neighborhoods. Compare to many years ago, when SoHo first got famous, it might have increased the nearby property value.

This reading also talks about frontier, which is constantly changing. “The new urban frontier motif encodes not only the physical transformation of the built environment.“ Smith says that the changing of frontier does not occur only through the physical transformation. At the same time, through the process of gentrification, people’s attitude toward certain neighborhood also changes. Eventually people started to accept them, and want to live in the area where they didn’t wanted to live before.

Gentrification has happened in many part of New York City neighborhoods. As Smith mentioned in his chapter, areas include Lower East Side, Ludlow Street, SoHo, and etc. Gentrification was mostly a result of upper class or middle class buying a lower class area of the city, and renovates them to completely change their property value. Because of change in the property value these lower class people couldn’t afford to live there anymore; usually they were forced to move out. I think somehow, gentrification is good to certain neighborhoods because it may promote diversity. And gentrification also resulted in change of attitude toward certain neighborhoods of the city, which I think is a good thing for the city as a whole.

Today, some people lost confidence about American government because recently our country seemed to be having some problems with economics as well as warfare. We still haven’t completely recovered from economic recession; at the same time we are still having wars with Middle East country. People kind of lost their faith on government. The New York Times article “Government Can’t Help? Tell that to the South Bronx” really surprised me.

The article talks about how government helped to rebuild some parts of the city, such as South Bronx. Personally, I have never been to South Bronx, but it is surprising to know the changes that South Bronx has gone through. According to the article, places that were full of burnt-out buildings now had completely transformed into clean streets with new buildings. It is pleasant to see that our government didn’t forget about these undeveloped parts of the city.

When we are talking about the glamorous parts of New York City, most of us referred to central part of Manhattan. Yet, there were many other places seemed liked to be forgotten by the city. There were parts of area where people lived in bad conditions, for example the holes in Willet’s Point. By comparing areas like Willet’s Point with Downtown Manhattan, one can easily see the differences. It is difficult to find any similarities between these two places.

My favorite line from this article is by a 53-year-old woman, named Celida Pinet. She said, “The era of government may be in danger. But it saved the South Bronx.” I think that we shouldn’t gave up on our government, because during era of crisis, we have no choice but to trust them, and work with them. The government can’t help everyone at the same time, but they are making effort in constantly improving our life.

After reading this article, I find it to be very hopeful that our city will keep improving. Our government not only cares about the developments within those popular sites, but also unpopular areas with mainly residents. Our research projects are also about government projects. And I am very excited to see these projects to be built.

This reading really surprised me; I didn’t know that after world’s fair New York’s economic crisis was that serious. Many leading businesses were moving out of the city, and the creation of highways facilitates the outward moving trend. At the beginning, everything just seems to be completely helpless. The high interest rate and the bad city reputation all drove people away from New York City.

In 1963, when the city bond’s rate was downgraded to the “high risk”, which means that the city had to paid a huge interest rate for borrowing money to maintain itself. In order for the city to operate, it must borrow more and more moneys; therefore, New York City “was falling ever deeper into debit.” The two main reasons for the low rank of city’s bond was that there were huge amount of bonds needed to be sold, and the city’s reputation as a business center was falling apart.

One of the interesting things that I learned from this reading is that although all of other business units weren’t doing well, the media and news industry tended to grow in a large percentage. I can understand that New York City as one of the biggest broadcast city, media industry will definitely play an important role in the successes of other business. I think that during the economic crisis, not only people depended on the news and the media to get the information they need, many business and even the government units would use media to advertise and try to catch people’s attentions.

One of the bad things that media brought to people was that as the media continuously to report bad things about the city, people would lose faith about the city. With all those crimes and businesses going bankrupt reported in the media, people lose their confidences; and probably that’s why everything seems to be helpless. Potential investors would not put any money into the market, because they might think that the financial market in New York City was dangerous especially when all those leading firms were continuously moving out.

Eventually, groups like the Association for a Better New York helped to create a better image of New York City. Although, many criticized the group as operating for their own profit, I think that they still deserve the credit for what they did for the city. The biggest take away from this reading was that the city’s reputation could really affect its financial successes.

The Pruitt-Igoe Myth documented the failure of historic slum clearance project. Although I already read the New York Times article about this incident, the movie gives me a more visual and impressive view about how these all happened. The movie demonstrates a more serious situations than from what I imagined based on the article. I was shocked by the interviews of various Pruitt-Igoe residents.

At the beginning of the movie, it describes how poor were treated as the enemies of the society. People usually think that the society was dragged down by all those poor people. As what we learned from our previous readings, African Americans fled from South to North to escape racial discrimination in South, however they faced a lot of discrimination in North as well. According to the film, the interview of Caucasian people who lived in St.Louis reflects how their reaction toward the black communities. Most of Caucasians didn’t want to have black family moving into their neighborhood, because not only it would lower the property value, also bring a lot of problems to the neighborhood such as crimes, and environmental dirtiness. The black minority were treated as most problematic group and with the lowest social rank.

The government’s slum clearance project was meant to provide these poor with a better living environment; however, it was also government’s way of segregating blacks from whites. The government build an approximately 60 acres of public housing in St. Louis, which became a neighborhood that was completely occupied by black communities. One thing that I remembered from the movie was when one of the resident was talking about how there were usually a lot of people went into their apartment asking where was his dad, and he had to lie that he never saw his dad. Personally, I felt that it was kind of unfair and cruel to them that their family members had to live separately; because the public housing rules didn’t allow any able man to live there. I can’t completely agree with the housing authority’s rules. I can understand that the purpose of prohibiting abled man living there was to encourage them to go out and look for jobs. Since there were still a lot of man hiding in these public housing units, the housing authority just have no control over that, so I don’t think that having these regulations were necessary.

When Pruitt-Igoe first opened in 1954, it was a new hope for these poor. One of the woman from the film kept saying that she still remembered first Christmas in Pruitt-Igoe, where there was a big Christmas tree, and kids were enjoying their gifts. Everything sounded so wonderful based on her description. However, things started move in a wrong direction. I think the biggest problem with the collapse of Pruitt-Igoe project was that there weren’t enough funding for the maintenance and the supervision of the buildings. There were garbage everywhere, peoples’ living conditions became far below the standards. With all these problems, people started moving out of the Pruitt-Igoe. Then all those illegal drug trades and killings became uncontrollable in Pruitt-Igoe. And eventually the government had to demolished these buildings.

I was surprised by the film that residents of Pruitt-Igoe had completely different view about Pruitt-Igoe. According to the woman, she still think Pruitt-Igoe as her home, it was the first place that gave her a sense of warmth and joys; she believed that although all those bad things happened, she would never forget about the happiness that Pruitt-Igoe gave her. However, there was a man who had completely different view about Pruitt-Igoe. He was saying there were people who didn’t want others to found out that they were from Pruitt-Igoe, it was a shame to live in Pruitt-Igoe. After watching this movie I have mixed feeling about these government projects, probably these were just unavoidable problems. The government shouldn’t be blamed for the failure of these projects; I think that the society also should be taking the responsibilities.

The reading by Bloom gives me a different perspective about Robert Moses. In Robert Caro’s the Power Broker, Moses was portrayed as a more negative person. However, Chapter 7 Designs for a New Metropolis actually surprises me by giving me a different view about Robert Moses and his slum clearance project.

During the postwar years, cities were mainly focused on slum clearance project, I can certain understand that. Those people lived in poverty were clustered in the certain areas of the cities; and the society often view these areas as destructive and dangerous. There was segregation among different economic classes, where poor people usually live in a neighborhood with same social economic classes. I agree with Bloom that “central decay destroys the vital parts, and …nothing is more destructive than decentralization.” The idea of Decentralization was that many people were moving out of cities and to live in suburbs. The decline of city population would definitely impact city’s development. In order to create a successful city I think that some of the slum clearance projects were necessary.

However, there are a lot of criticisms regarding slum clearance project. Robert Moses was greatly criticized for not making efforts to relocate those poor people properly. The project destroyed many families’ home, and these families ended up moving to another slum area. Robert Moses was blamed for not taking care of these poor, and forcing them to move into another slum areas. “There is a natural desire to link all that is distasteful from the postwar period to Robert Moses.” I think that it was unfair for Robert Moses that despite all his efforts of trying to create a better city, people still perceive him as a more negative person.

Bloom gives an example of certain housings had lack of toilet bowl covers and closet doors. What even surprised me was that people blamed Robert Moses for that. As Bloom explains, the lack of closet door was Alfred Rheinstein’s innovation; Moses shouldn’t be the one to blamed. Also Bloom believes that “Moses should only be blamed for extending NYCHA’s influence over more territory.” NYCHA started these ideas, and Moses adopted the growing preferences for slum clearance project. After Moses became powerful, he then started implementing these ideas to his urban renewal projects.

The arguments in Bloom’s reading make me rethinking about our previous reading regarding Robert Moses. In the end of introduction of the Power Broker, Robert Caro said “Moses himself, who feels his works will make him immortal, believes he will be justified by history”. It makes me wonder that if people today started to appreciate his works more, and maybe he will be justified by history.

Suburbanization movement was one of the greatest movements that change the housing market of the United States. As more and more families move outside of the city, downtown concentration started to decline and the city was left with old and run down buildings. Although the movement of suburbanization was not completely caused by government actions, many government actions did facilitates the movement of decentralization.

At the beginning, U.S government didn’t want to interfere with the housing market, as the depression worsen, and with the huge foreclosure rate; U.S. government started several housing project that try to influence housing market. Two unsuccessful actions taken by government were Public Law 304 and the Greenbelt Town Program. Public Law 304 failed to provide loans to homeowners, and it made the housing condition even worse.  While the Greenbelt Town Program also failed because of the huge construction cost. Two of the most influential innovations were the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration.

The Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) encouraged people to buy houses instead of renting or improving their current house. However it also indirectly causes the movement of the suburbanization. The HOLC successfully provided long-term mortgage to a lot of homeowners. The HOLC developed its own system of evaluating neighborhoods. “Socioeconomic characteristics of a neighborhood determined the value of housing to a much greater extent than did structural characteristics,” this concept is related to our last reading about the Great Migration. A neighborhood that’s occupied by colored people would decrease its housing value. Also when an African American family moved into a white neighborhood, this neighborhood would soon be completely occupied by African Americans. Most of the African Americans rented an apartment in the city, and I believe that part of the reason White people tend to move outward was that they wanted to be separate from those black people. The HOLC also tend to discriminate against those African American neighborhoods. They rated those neighborhoods as the “D” regions, which were viewed as hazardous and least desirable neighborhoods.

The Federal Housing Administration also shared the similar practices that discriminated against minority. “If a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes”. Because of their effort trying to keep segregation between black and white populations, the FHA declined any loan request for neighborhoods with mixed ethnicity. It actually became harder for people to buy houses in the cities because more and more blacks were living in the cities.

It became much more easier for people to move outward. Cheap fuels, mass production of automobiles, and advanced interstate highway allowed people to escape their urban life and enjoy their own space in suburban area. People who lived in city for a long time tend to look for a life in the suburban because city had little room for development; it was crowded by all different kind of people. Therefore, rich families would want to move out of the city and enjoy their own land. I think that suburbanization still happens today but for many different reasons? Such as air population in the city, and desire of being with nature?