“Free market may be imperfect, but they’re far better than the alternative—the blight of arbitrary government control and the uncertainty that it creates.” Nicole Gelinas conveys this message throughout her article, Eminent Domain as Central Planning. Over the past few years, the use of eminent domain in central planning has heightened greatly, but its outcome is not necessarily as beneficial as many may assume. Gelinas brings to light the stark reality that “the [government’s] duty to design a perfect economy trumps…constituents’ right to hold private property.” What is even worse is that a perfect economy is rarely the realized result.

According to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize property if it is intended for “public use” and only if “just compensation” is given. Generally, “blighted” property is grounds for public seizure. Over the years, however, the definitions of each requirement have changed, broadened, and have become much more subjective. According to Gelinas, in the 1930s, “blighted” meant “families and children dying from rampant fires and pestilence in tuberculosis-ridden firetraps.” By 2006, this definition encompass isolated graffiti, cracked sidewalks, and underutilization of land that does not “generate the social and economic benefits the government desires.” This has allowed for many more opportunities to seize land that otherwise would have been left in private hands. More importantly, such subjective and arbitrary decisions actually violate due process, according to Gelinas—one of many reasons that eminent domain should not be too freely exercised.

Although there seems to be a trend towards increasing use of eminent domain for positive economic benefits, there are many examples that portray quite a different reality. Gelinas points to multiple government projects—the Atlantic Yards and rows of homes slated for demolition, the Spalding Building now abandoned, vacant lots where lively businesses once stood—where land is now decaying due to the governments impeding of genuine private improvement.  It is ironic that central planning is perceived to be superior to free-market competition if these are some of its results. To remedy this, Gelinas advocates the state should not interfere in people’s property.

If the government does not intervene, can any progress be made? Gelinas proposes the organic growth of communities, rather than large-scale public intervention. The government should provide public necessities such as policing, infrastructure and the like. In turn, this will allow local residents to constantly improve their communities, albeit slowly. Unfortunately, the opposite has been occurring. In Willets Point, for example, the city “is starving the private sector of public resources,” making it much easier to deem areas “blighted” and exercise eminent domain.

After many weeks of reading about public housing and government intervention in the economy, it would be wrong to say that central planning is completely bad. Gelinas’s article, however, made me realize that the broadening jurisdiction of eminent domain seems to be hurting neighborhoods more than it should be helping. Increasingly creative definitions are becoming the new central planning model, but this model may not be the best. I agree with Gelinas’s decision that clearer standards for the government’s power to seize property are necessary. The government should stick to providing communities with necessities and letting them better themselves slowly but surely.

A large portion of states have city planning regimes in place, some even requiring local laws to conform with local plans regarding land use, housing and open space. But why put such an emphasis on strategy? Simple. City planning is the crux of developing and sustaining a thriving metropolis. Having said that, I was quite alarmed when I read Jarrett Murphy’s article Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan. Why is New York City falling behind in its efforts to effectively plan the future of the metropolis we live in?

In addition to roughly 8.2 million residents, New York City is home to a rapidly growing population, rising seas, dwindling energy supplies and much more. These issues were only proliferated by the city effectively dodging the creation of a comprehensive plan back in the 20^th Century. Failing to plan accordingly in the past puts New York City in a tough position, but the failure to plan accordingly now is what will set us up for trouble ahead. NYC is in desperate need of a comprehensive plan but it does not seem to be doing anything about it.

A quasi-attempt to establish a city “plan” was made in 1916 with the passing of the first zoning resolution. It was since amended, time and time again, as 9,400 blocks were rezoned since 2002. While rezoning is a necessary task, it is not a cure-all. If implemented strategically (if dense neighborhoods are downzoned and more sparsely-populated areas were upzoned properly), it is a great starting point. However, it seems that New York City has used zoning as a crutch, neglecting other means of city planning.

It would be unfair to say that New York City has turned a blind eye to urban design all together. The truth is that numerous ideas were introduced, but each had shortcomings of their own. PlaNYC, for example, made the government a prominent player in city planning and encouraged unique thinking, but was not an actual plan that linked “noble sentiments and…zoning decisions.” As professor Vicki Been of NYU says, “…it’s been a very important contribution, but I don’t think it’s a substitute for the kind of comprehensive planning…” that New York City needs. Policies, namely environmental impact statements, require a painfully slow process. Community benefits agreements give way to conflicting interests and are not exactly legally enforceable. Unfortunately, the challenge of bridging the gap between planning communities and the legal system has been difficult to overcome.

So where does New York City stand right now? Failure to plan in the past is a sunken cost that we now have to deal with. Little is being done now because the real estate industry prefers a “freer hand,” ethnic and political diversity pose resistance, and the growth of New York City outpaces the planning process currently in place. A comprehensive plan is desperately needed, but that is much easier said than done. If the city does not effectively plan now, future difficulties will certainly not be ameliorated. As Elena Conte, organizer at the Pratt Center, said very well, “The absence of comprehensive planning will leave New York City without the foundation for sound future growth.”

According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, gentrify means renovate and improve (esp. a house or district) so that it conforms to middle-class taste; make (someone or their way of life) more refined or dignified. In the chapter “Neighborhood Effects in a Changing ‘Hood,” Lance Freeman presents various vantage points regarding the effects of gentrification. Freeman’s ultimate claim, however, is that no blanket statement can be applied to a gentrifying neighborhood. Such a process is neither entirely good nor entirely bad; there are many variables that need to be considered.

The perceived goals of gentrification have long been positive. Freeman cites early literature that supports the claim that improved housing stock, an increased tax base, new jobs, greater commercial activity and improved quality of services may all result from the neighborhood effects thesis. The contrasting belief that low-income households may have also been losers in gentrification, victims of displacement, is not as widely supported. But which view holds true?

Through previous literature, Freeman provides readers with several important factors that may result from gentrification: peer effects, collective efficacy, social ties and institutional resources. If implemented correctly, Freeman posits that the aforementioned factors can help, rather than hinder, gentrifying neighborhoods. These cases are not always perfectly implemented, however. During my previous IDC 3001H course, I had to analyze the effects of gentrification on Spanish Harlem. After speaking to several community members and an elected official, the shifting demographics of the neighborhood were forcing local business to close and people to move out. When this becomes the result, gentrification no longer provides a beneficial means of change for community members.

Freeman’s writing, coupled with my past experience in Spanish Harlem, made me realize that the best-case scenario is striking a happy balance between poverty deconcentration and the welcoming of “gentry.” Freeman describes very well how the personal interactions between gentry and older residents affect communities and people in complex ways. If the adverse effects of gentrification such as skyrocketing real estate prices (which often leads to the displacement of older residents) can be limited, then its true benefits can be realized.

Much of our class has focused on the shaping of New York City through housing. With a growing (and changing) population, it remains an important part of urban growth. However, government intervention in the housing sector has long received very mixed results. From being labeled socialist to being frowned upon, there has been no shortage of criticism. With instances such as the one Michael Powell writes about in his article Government Can’t Help? Tell That to the South Bronx, on the other hand, we see that there is hope in positively shaping the lives of many through governmental assistance.

The South Bronx has long been known for its rocky past. Associated with words such as “apocalypse,” “corpse,” “macabre” and “resurrection” throughout Powell’s article, it is clear that the South Bronx was severely hurting in the 1970s. Burnt-out buildings lined streets and “smack dealers” were commonplace. However, much of the comeback the South Bronx has made in recent years, according to Powell, can be attributed to governmental rebuilding initiatives.

The article alludes that it was government involvement that revived the once dismal South Bronx. More than $8 million towards 165,000 apartments and four new schools to educate nearly 2,000 children changed the lives of many in the area. As Powell states, “the Bronx stands as arguably the greatest public rebuilding achievement since World War II.” That is no small feat!

Although I was not witness to the changing atmosphere in the South Bronx, hearing stories such as Celida Pinet’s or Ayala’s and Jesus Rivera’s allow me to better envision the stark contrast of the pre-1970’s South Bronx and the neighborhood today. It is sad to think that there are areas in Memphis, Newark, Atlanta and even Chicago that remain hopeless, despite the potential each area may hold.

Unfortunately, the degrees of success of government plans runs the gamut, ranging from failures such as Pruitt-Igoe to successes such as the South Bronx. This uncertainty leads to questions regarding the true necessity of government involvement. Is it a hit or miss situation? The truth is, housing will always be a necessity, especially in dense areas with growing populations. If the past could be used as a guide, planned urban development could possibly be perfected. With proper planning and long-term goals in mind, the government can truly accomplish a lot — perhaps even lessen the stigma surrounding planned development today.

As a student in New York, the sense of overpopulation is idiosyncratic to the city I so love. There seems to be a never-ending flow of people, noises, cars and Starbucks coffee shops. Quite honestly, I could not imagine New York City any other way. When reading Roger Starr’s “Making New York Smaller,” I was surprised by his planned shrinkage ideas to combat New York City’s impending “doomsday.”

Starr describes New York as having been divided into two cities: an Economic City and a Political City. It is important to note that this 1976 article was written during a time in which New York City was in economic limbo. At least 3.5 million new jobs were needed to help offset the growing 10% unemployment rate, but fewer than 3 million were actually provided. Loans made by foreign entities were defaulting and mortgages foreclosed. Significant numbers of people had moved from the city to the suburbs and the Federal Government was providing much help. This all led to a vicious cycle and many feared for the future of New York. But why was this all happening and what could be done?

Starr states that while the Political City was the cause of such turmoil, difficulties were shouldered by the Economic City, home to the businesses, workers, and residents of New York. Starr refers to “…gross underestimates of future New York costs and over estimates of future revenues…” as one of the key issues behind the crisis. This, coupled with the fundamental fact that the economy was rapidly shifting away from manufacturing, signified that times were changing but New York City could not seem to keep up. In turn, the crisis had caused people to step back and analyze the well being of New York—a city whose future once seemed so bright. The traditional remedy for such a situation was for the Political City to increase taxes, formulate a new economic development program and send appeals to Albany and Washington seeking aid. Less representation in Albany, coupled with a fundamental issue many people not taken into consideration meant that these old ways were useless.

One of Roger Starr’s most controversial suggestions was to welcome a shrinking population. Conversely, New York’s future prosperity was always pictured with a growing population. Many opposed the idea that a New York with 5 million people (as opposed to 8 million at the time) would still be a world city. Starr, however, seemed to stress quality over quantity. He also alluded to the need to attract semi-skilled workers as opposed to the unskilled laborers of the past. There was untapped potential in the tourist business, as well. But according to Starr, New York could not move forward if it did not accept the fact that the population was shrinking and that that could quite possibly be a good thing.

As I read, I realized two things: 1) if I were a New Yorker reading this article in 1976, I would have thought that New York would never find its way out of the slumps and 2) many parallels can be seen in today’s economic environment. Luckily, New York did, in fact, bounce back but we are again going through a very similar situation. Since 2008, unemployment rates have gone up, inflation has been on the rise, the overall quality of life is changing. Over the course of almost five years, the traditional methods of the government do not seem to be working. Although I am not sure how likely a drastic population decrease in New York City will be, I do know that something new and unconventional needs to be done in order to better accommodate our ever-changing society.

A few classes ago, I read an article written by Michael Kimmelman titled “Towers of Dreams: One Ended in Nightmare.” The article compares two “aesthetic cousins,” Pruitt-Igoe (built in 1954) of St. Louis, Missouri and the Penn South (built in 1962) development in New York City’s Chelsea neighborhood. It was surprising to read that while both projects were almost identical, the Pruitt-Igoe development had seemingly gone so wrong. It became infamous for poverty, crime and segregation due to inadequate funds, deteriorating conditions and the 1949 Housing act, respectively. Tenants slowly abandoned the complex and it continued to deteriorate, falling prey to drug dealers and murderers until its demolition in the 1970s.

When reading through the article, I tried to picture the Pruitt-Igoe complex as best as I could. I searched online for some pictures of it and read a few additional excerpts. However, none of this compared to watching the film of the Pruitt-Igoe Myth in class last week. The stark and candid portrayal of the Pruitt-Igoe complex was shocking. It was somewhat disheartening to see something that was once so new and beautiful fall prey to such despair.

In both Kimmelman’s article and the film watched in class, I noticed a sense of attachment. Although Pruitt-Igoe so quickly and drastically deteriorated, original residents such as Sylvester Brown, Jacquelyn Williams, and Valerie Sills all had fond memories of their home. When referring to the living conditions at Pruitt-Igoe, one of the interviewees on screen even said that the bad did not outweigh the good. What I saw in the documentary, however, made such a statement hard to believe.

I could have never imagined the change that occurred between the 1950s and the 1970s; Pruitt-Igoe has quite literally decayed within that time. Broken windows, garbage galore, faulty elevators, dark hallways. All of this seemed commonplace at Pruitt-Igoe during its latter years. I was shocked to hear that the St. Louis police eventually neglected showing up when called upon. They were not welcome (as the “fire bombs” thrown from windows indicated) nor did they want to be present in such an environment. Unfortunately, I was unable to watch the ending of the documentary but this picture below speaks volumes about the way in which Pruitt-Igoe’s story concluded. After being so badly neglected, Pruitt-Igoe was demolished. I would love to see what has since taken its place.

http://rustwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cohn01.jpg

Making Room: New Models for Housing New Yorkers. This exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York is rightfully titled, as it addresses the issues New York is having when it comes to housing. The exhibit did a wonderful job demonstrating the changing demographics of New Yorkers and showcasing the possible solutions to address this evolving population.

As family dynamics are changing, apartments and homes no longer need to cater towards “nuclear” families. The traditional married couple with two children and a pet once dominated the housing market but singles are now rapidly becoming important players. In order to accommodate such a change, New York has had to create innovative design solutions.

The fully furnished micro-studio apartment was, perhaps, my favorite part of our museum visit. I was pleasantly surprised to see how economical the studio was, utilizing every inch of the 325-square-foot layout as efficiently as possible. From the foldout bed, to the ottoman that transformed into four decently sized tables, the show room truly served as a good example of where the future of NYC apartments is headed. Personally, I would not mind living in a studio like that.

I also greatly enjoyed seeing what other countries are doing/have done in an attempt to remedy their growing populations. Japan, for example, has established living spaces that share common backyards or play areas. Other countries such as Montreal have also successfully begun to reshape their building strategies so as to adapt to a rising single-population. New York, too, has taken a new approach and has started using modular building techniques.

Lastly, I was very happy to see that the city is promoting creative thinking by sponsoring competitions such as Bloomberg’s design contest. The only way our city will be able to adapt to changing times is by encouraging people to be experiment and test tradition.