In the past, New York City did not have many regulations for housing, which led to many slums filling the city. In the 1940s, Robert Moses began plans to clear most of these slums without using too much money. In order to clear out the slums, the NYCHA had started with vacant land sites. After building on these vacant land sites of their choice, they began their renovation of slums. However, these slum clearances did not seem too thought out in the initial stages.

Moses had strongly opposed vacant land projects, because his main goal was slum clearance. However, I think this was a critical step for slum clearance to occur. After the war, there was housing shortage. So, while clearing the slums, where would the tenants living there go? By beginning with vacant land projects, they are providing these tenants places to consider moving to, which would save the NYCHA some money and time. This is because while planning out slum clearance, the main problem of the program was moving the tenants of slums. By working on vacant land sites, the NYCHA would partially solve the problem of having to move tenants in slums before beginning their slum clearance. A possible step the organization could have taken was creating temporary contracts with tenants to allow them to stay in buildings from vacant land projects until the slum clearance is completed. Thus, I think it would have been better to focus or spend more time on vacant land projects before beginning slum clearance.

In the plan for slum clearance, the main focus was destruction of the slums and creation of better housing. However, when Moses and authority took action, they began pairing opposites: private housing and public housing, and low income neighborhoods and middle income neighborhoods. These pairs created a balance in the program, but I believe this balance would affect the people that build the neighborhood. It is in human nature for people to flock together with their own kind. This can be seen in low income families, in which they would form ‘ghettos’ in a neighborhood. Thus, if a low income neighborhood surrounds a middle income neighborhood, would there not be tension between the two neighborhoods? Herman Stichman mentions that these ‘ghettos’ prevent different income levels from meeting in neighborhood activities and fostering class feeling (134). Although the article does not mention an neighborhood tensions, I think the NYCHA should have considered the social aspect in slum clearance.

The success of New York housing after all the creations of new buildings appealed to many other cities. For example, St. Louis created high rise housing because Mayor Joseph Darst was impressed by New York’s skyscrapers and NYCHA’s towers (150). However, their development did not turn out the same way as New York, due to their lack of consideration of cost in the initial stages. When the city realized how costly the construction would be, there had to be major changes in the plans. Many of these changes involved making the rooms smaller and removing amenities. Along with other changes, the final creation of the public housing building was not any more different than slum housing (151). If these cities had thoroughly planned and spent more time working on these public housing, I believe they would have been successful.

The problems in past housing in any city was lack of regulation, which led to slum housing. To counter slum housing in New York, Robert Moses ‘created’ the plan of slum clearance. The main problem with the plan was moving tenants around for slum clearance to happen, which could have been partially solved with vacant land projects. Even though NYCHA began with vacant land projects, they only built a small amount of buildings for these projects before moving on to slum clearance. Regardless, there were certain aspects of slum clearance I thought would bring failure to the program, but in the end it became extremely successful.

This article points out an issue that all city planners have faced. My family comes from Bombay, and in Bombay there are literally slums with people living in shacks. The Indian government is striving to remove all the slums; however there is always that issue of what kind of housing should be built along with what to do with the millions of people that are to be displaced. Obviously there are both pro and cons to the situation, and I believe that Bloom clearly outlines them in his piece.

At first thought the idea that government will build subsidized housing sounds a great use of taxpayer money, however the notion that in order for this to happen there will be a destruction of existing homes is what makes this entire thing questionable. The most surprising for me was that how poorly built these new apartments were. For instance Robert Moses and the NYCHA both implemented homes that didn’t even have toilet seats or closet doors in their public housing projects. First off, these people were shifted out of their homes, and even if they wished to live in public housing instead, I am sure they would want to live in minimal humane conditions. If the government is to build something for its people then the living space should be accommodating. For instance in India, many of these poor people who move into government housing end up selling their place and move out to the suburbs where they can create a whole new life for themselves.

The original goal of trying to make these “slums” into an “attractive part of the city” is reasonable, however the execution of it is where something went wrong. When walking through the Bronx and the Lower East Side and looking at what we call today the “projects,” I realized that these places don’t make the city more attractive, but rather it serves as a monotonous public space. Bloom describes how the city planners of the future tried to fix this issue by changing little things such as the color of the bricks, nevertheless it clearly did not have the intended effect. Also the “decentralization” of these slums so rapidly changed the dynamic and demographics of these areas, because these places were wiped out clean. The demographics were mixed with the lower and middle class living together, causing higher crime rates and security issues.

Another interesting point that Bloom points out is that perhaps Robert Moses’ racism was the cause of such mundane and to a point cruel housing system. The NYCHA was also to blame for this, but going along with the past reading, part of the reason could be his disdain for the lower class. If that were to stand true, then in my eyes that is a corrupt government system. It’s also important to note that the NYCHA sponsored the building of homes that served a lower density of people, but were of higher quality. To put lower class people to a disadvantage when they’re already struggling is unethical on Robert Moses part.

Last but not least, I want to explore the question of what to do in the future. Like I noted before, although there may be a diminishing population of slums in America, this issue is still of high relevance to the rest of the world. What are the most efficient methods to please both the city planners as well as those residing in the “slums”? Is there a cost efficient method to this issue? Overall, this piece written by Bloom brought light to issues that I never even knew existed in our public housing system. The mistakes that were made in the past have unfortunately carried forward and have created displeasing public areas.

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.

In the article, “Tower of Dreams: One Ended in Nightmare,” Michael Kimmelmen attempts two compare and contrast 2 different public housing projects. The first is Penn South, a high rise housing cooperative development built in the Chelsea area of New York City in 1962. It was built to house the low to moderate-income workers who lived in the area. The second was Pruitt-Igoe, the St. Louis public housing project, which was destroyed in 1972. In the article, Kimmelman attempts to compare the 2 projects and demonstrate why although similar, one was highly successful while the other was a great failure.

The first thing that came as a surprise to me was the fact that two, almost identical projects, or as Kimmelman describes them, “Aesthetic cousins,” could have such opposite fates. Penn South would go on to be a successful and thriving housing complex with a sense of community between its residents, while Pruitt-Igoe became a “breeding grounds” for violence and vandalism. Although it may have started off as a thriving community and “paradise”, as is evident in the testimony of Valerie Sills, it eventually turned into an area filled with crime and poverty. It really goes to show you that every project has its risks and that no matter how much research you put into a project or how hard you plan, there is no absolute guarantee of success.

Throughout his article, Kimmelman provides the testimonies of former residents of the Pruitt-Igoe complex, and one which truly stood out to me belonged to Ruby Russell, an early resident of the housing project. She stated that when she first moved into the complex, it was a beautiful place and even went so far as to compare it to a “big hotel resort.” She moved to the complex from the slums and never believed that she would live in such an area. However, as she mentions, the beauty disappeared in a flash and as she stated, “one day we woke up and it was all gone.” It went from being a dream come true to an abandoned, distressed area, filled with drug dealers, murderers, crime and violence.

As I continued reading, I noticed that Kimmelman points out a few suggestions as to why the Pruitt-Igoe complex failed, while Penn South became highly successful. The first that caught my attention was the location of the complexes, and in real estate location is everything. While Penn South was located in an affluent part of New York City, filled with shops and a diverse and chic mix of people, Pruitt-Igoe was located in an “isolated and impoverished” area in St. Louis. Another reason why Pruitt-Igoe went on to become a failure was the fact that it was poorly maintained and handled. Opponents of public housing blocked federal money that would have been set aside to improve its conditions and an inadequate amount of money was set aside to take care of the grounds. This would eventually lead to the crime and poverty that would arise in the area surrounding the complex.

Public Housing is very important, especially in dense cities such as New York, to ensure that all residents have a place that they can call “home.” However, one of the most important factors that contributes to the success of a housing project is perceived safety and I believe that this is the main reason why Pruitt-Igoe collapsed and deteriorated. Due to poor maintenance, violence and crime arose in the area and the safety conditions were inadequate. When people buy homes the first question that they ask is “how is the neighborhood?” because safety is a very important factor when choosing an area to live in, and that was Pruitt-Igoe’s main fault and the reason as to why it failed miserably. On the other hand, due to the fact that Penn South was located in a dense and safe neighborhood, people weren’t afraid to live there and the quality of life was much greater. After reading this article, I would like to look at other housing complexes to see whether or not they share the characteristics inherent in these complexes.