Category Archives: Uncategorized

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.

Museum of the City of New York

Leave a reply

I was pleasantly surprised by the tour we received of the museum. I thought the exhibit would be a storyline of history, but I’m really glad that I got to learn about the housing situations around the city. I also thought that our tour guide was great. Especially when we were looking at the miniature replicas of various buildings, she did much more than just spit out facts she’d memorized about each one. It was rather engaging and made me more curious about architecture and urban planning. It definitely made me think of my own home and imagine all the possible layouts that could be implemented in the space. It had never crossed my mind that you could design your home an infinite number of ways to make the most of it.

I’d already known that the greatest portion of the city’s population consists of people living alone, and the statistic offered by the museum’s collected data is 33%. As much as this reflects the nature of New York City, where people come by themselves from all around the world to chase their dreams, I think it might be a waste of space. The 400 square feet that are mandated by housing regulations can easily hold more than one person, but it appears that many of them contain only one occupant. As the city’s population continues to grow, more housing must be created. Perhaps regulations will soon have to be amended in order to accommodate this inevitable change; units may have to be smaller or more than three unrelated people may have to be allowed to live together.

Along with an increase in the number of residents comes the issue of parking. We discussed briefly that it’s not that important because many people who live in the city don’t own cars, but I feel that the matter requires some more attention. My family owns more than one car, and parking is an absolute nightmare. It might not be that serious now, but who’s to say that city dwellers may not one day choose driving over public transportation? What will we do then? We can’t just build more and more housing without even considering parking options. At the very least, each housing complex should have some sort of parking garage (underground or elsewhere) for its tenants. There isn’t much that can be done about parking in commercial areas, but this must be addressed in residential places.

The new micro-unit that is to be tested is, in my opinion, a fantastic idea. As I said before, a single person does not need 400 square feet to live comfortably. The model apartment was amazing to see. Every method of adding storage or making things compact was so clever and creative. It was fascinating to see what people come up with and how much more efficiently we could all be using our space. Nonetheless, I don’t think I could live in one of those apartments. It looks really cool that everything can be tucked away somewhere, but in all honesty I’d probably be too lazy to put my table and bed away every time I finish using them. The price might also be an issue as well. The cost of living continues to rise in New York City, and I don’t foresee any cuts on the price due to the smaller space. As modern and chic as the micro-units are, I would feel like I’m not getting my money’s worth.

Something that piqued my interest, despite the fact that I’ve seen it with my own eyes, is the difference between housing across the boroughs. For example, everything in Manhattan is so cramped, yet there are spacious lots all over Queens. I’d like to learn why this is so. When was it decided that these certain types of living arrangements would be built in their respective boroughs? I understand that there are probably socioeconomic factors that play into this difference, but that wouldn’t be the case if it weren’t set up that way. That’s also a lot of space that could be used much more efficiently. I don’t exactly know whether or not we need it at this moment, but I can almost guarantee that we’ll eventually need it sometime in the future.

Museum of City of New York

Leave a reply

At the visit to the museum, I found the statistics that we went through very interesting, yet some of them not too shocking. First, it came to me no surprise about the distribution of types of living groups in specific locations of the city. The nuclear families, which consisted of 18% of the population, mostly stayed in parts of Queens and Brooklyn. This is not surprising because that is the location of suburbs. It is usually stated that families live in suburbs because there are more houses there, which gives more living room for growing families, especially for kids. Another non-shocker is that singles consist of 33% of the population, and most of them stay in Manhattan. Since families make up suburbs, singles make up the city. Also, they have more money to spend on themselves (rather than on a family), so they can afford to live in the city. Furthermore, being in the Manhattan makes commuting to work easier. In addition, the living space in the city is smaller, which fits single people better. And finally, the night life that the city offers attracts many young single people to want to live here.

What was interesting was how in 1800, the population in New York City was 60,515 people and in 2011, the population was 8,244,900. The curve that was displayed was exponentially growing, with it leveling at the top. I think the reason there was rapid growth could be sanitary/health improvements, immigration, and the baby boom generation. I wonder if there are other factors involved to explain the rapid growth.

One of the interesting and surprising facts I learned today was that the government regulated that no more than three unrelated adults are allowed to live together. I want to know when and why was this regulation implemented, and how come the maximum number is three rather than four. What if the living space is big enough for four people? Relating to that, it was shocking to me when the curator said rent postings on Craigslist are sometimes illegal because they do not follow housing regulations. If this is the case, then are housing authorities doing anything to stop it?

The last shocking information that I discovered today was New York only came in number 17 as the top single-person household city in America. Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, and Boston are large cities, but they are not larger than New York. That is why I am shocked New York ranked that low. When I think of singles, I think New York is a great place because of the vast amount of opportunities here. However, there is the counterargument that New York has one of the highest standard of living, so it may be expensive for many people.

With the statistics of types of people living in New York, it shows that more single people are here rather than nuclear families. It does make sense that the new buildings that are built in the city are in the idea of non-nuclear families. I see so many apartments in not only the city, but also in places like Long Island City, Roosevelt Island, etc. But the problem is still the cost. I am constantly trying to find apartments to rent in the city, but the prices is always the obstacle for me. When I drive on the Queensboro Bridge, I always see apartment complexes but many of the rooms are empty. This shows that places to live are available, but I think the costs is what prevents people from living there.

The most eventful part of the museum visit for me was Bloomberg’s adAPT NYC to build micro-units. I found the model apartment quite fascinating, and it really makes me want to live there. It really does conserve space because everything seems to be foldable/convertible. Compared to my dorm room, this micro unit is larger, and it would be great that I would not have to share the bathroom, kitchen, and living space with someone else. I am excited for when this project is complete, but again, I think the price of it will be the issue at hand. But, there do seem to be some downsides for this micro-unit. First, it looks like people will be living in really close-knit within the building, based on what the video displayed. It is great there they are planning to build a rock-climbing area, a pool on the roof, etc. However, it just looks really cramped and crowded. Second, the fact that many things have to be folded/pulled/pushed out can be daunting. Also, the portable chair and dinner table looks small, low, and uncomfortable. But overall, if the price is not too expensive, I would rather live here than in a dormitory.

Crabgrass Frontier

Leave a reply

This excerpt from Crabgrass Frontier discusses the government’s influence in dictating the housing Market. Kenneth T. Jackson explains how such influence has been a disadvantage to both ethnic groups and urban environments in the past. However, the major qualm should be directed at the adoption of discriminatory attitudes by the federal government, rather than the influential powers of the agency.

In the 20th century, there was a general trend of moving to the suburbs that was evident with and without legislative incentive. Before 1933, purchasing a place to live was an individual choice not limited by many regulations. Nonetheless, as roads emerged, automobiles became popular, and gas remained relatively cheap, people were drawn to the suburbs. The suburbs seemed to represent American ideals of progress and privacy. However, after the Great Depression, government intervention resulted in policies created by the HOLC (Home Owners Loan Corporation) and the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) that bolstered the move into suburbia. When it became easier for families to buy a house in the suburbs than rent one in the city, most families seemed to fulfill their own private dream by choosing to own property. As a result, it can be said that the implementation of government policy only assisted people in following a trend that was already on their minds.

This being said, the argument against Washington should not be for deconcentrating the inner city or robbing it of the middle class, but rather, the manner in which they executed such change. As Jackson points out on page 217, “the lasting damage done by the national government was that it put its seal of approval on ethnic and racial discrimination.” In other words, it is outrageous that public policy adopted by HOLC was able to legitimately consider neighborhoods as “undesirable” or “declining” based on the presence of black families. Furthermore, the FHA adopted these systemized appraisal methods and rating systems, making it difficult for heterogeneous populations (such as cities) to look desirable in terms of projected property value. Hence, it became clear that certain people groups, namely blacks, would always be restricted to neighborhoods of lower value. This, in essence, is publicly enforced racism. If the influx of black families resulted in the devaluation of property, then there would be no circumstance in which blacks could socially progress. As a result, the criticism of Washington over controlling the housing market should be centered on the adoption of discriminatory legislation.

Altogether, Kenneth T. Jackson clearly portrays the monumental influence that government can have in dictating the housing market. However, this influence becomes unjust if it is dictated by policies that hold a negative attitude towards particular ethnic groups. Hence, the concern is not about the power of government to influence housing, but more about the manner by which they carry out such influence.

Great Migration

Leave a reply

As a student from the north, often the struggle of the African American southerners migrating is left out in our history lessons. However upon reading Isabel Wilkerson’s introduction of The Warmth of Other Suns, I get a clearer picture of what the transition was like for them. Wilkerson paints a clear description of how foreign the North was for the African Americans, as well as the difficulties they faced with the Jim Crowe Laws in effect.

The most meaningful line that Isabel Wilkerson says about the Great Migration is “they did what human beings looking for freedom, throughout history, have often done; they left.”  The concept that over six million African Americans left the South to come to the North is fascinating considering they are moving within the same country. For me the idea that coming to the North offered them a better lifestyle, shows that the Civil War had not really ended, but rather its after effects were still in place. The “unmet promises of the Civil War” pushed so many African Americans North, that they actually changed the dynamic of the countries cities and suburbs. In our previous reading, Katz also touches on this point, stating that the Great Migration transformed the definition of the modern day city.

I love how instead of just generally speaking about the General Migration and using facts and data, Wilkerson uses real examples of people who went through this. Her story leaves the effect of being both more personal and effective in understanding the transition of the Great Migration. For instance the story of Ida Mae was so detailed, from her emotions about spending time with her father to being left out at school; her story was relatable and as a reader made me more interested in her writing Wilkerson’s approach to make this personal was a smart choice, because she twists this historic topic into a riveting story that keeps you engaged. I really like her writing style, because these stories are something that I know I will not forget, in comparison to a heavy statistical oriented piece.

This piece also focuses on immigration which is something that is close to almost all Americans, because most of us have families that have migrated from different parts of the world. There was a “window out of the asylum” for many people, and a lot of that meant dealing with the same issues that Ida Mae and her family dealt with.

Last but not least, for further discussion in class I would like to talk about why this topic is given so much less importance than it deserves in our public schools? Why was there so much distortion of the African Americans from the south with their poverty and education level? Were there any other underlying factors that caused them to move besides the points that Wilkerson touched on?

Critique of Michael Katz’s “What is an American City?”

Leave a reply

Personally, I did not like the writing of Katz regarding “What is an American City?” for at least three reasons. These reasons are his credibility, his style of writing and the topic of which he was discussing. The last reason might seem a little unfair but that’s the honest truth.

 

The first problem I had with this reading by Katz is his credibility as a writer. Now I do not doubt his credentials or anything like that, truthfully I don’t care if he has a PhD or something like that because you don’t need a degree to be intelligent. However, I doubt whether or not I can believe what he’s writing as a valid opinion. The reason for this is because in the very first paragraph he straight out praises Jane Jacobs to know end. He goes out on a limb to say she deserves to be “patron saint of Urban Studies”. This to me implies that he thinks way too much of her work to in my opinion to present us with a fair explanation of what an American city is.

 

The second big problem I had with this reading is his writing style. After he claimed that Jacobs deserves to be crowned patron saint of urban studies he goes on to talk about how much she appreciates Jacobs’s work. However, I feel it would’ve been more effective to write away talk about Jacobs’s work instead of your own personal opinions. In other words I feel that as Katz was writing this he was doing it in a way, which included himself far too much. I feel like his writing would’ve been better had he not brought himself into the discussion too much and it would’ve been better if he distanced himself a bit.

 

Lastly, is the topic for which he was discussing. This is an unfair thing to say because in a way it’s kind of hypocritical to be calling him out on being biased in his writing when I’m being biased by saying I didn’t like his work when in fact it was just the topic that I didn’t like. The topic of urbanism per se, or defining a city is rather boring to me and I feel like as I was reading it I just kind of trudged through it barely able to absorb most of it. So, I feel that although it might be a bit bias I didn’t like the reading just because the topic seemed rather boring to me to an extent.

 

Finally, although it might be a little hypocritical on my part for being biased I have to say that I just didn’t like the reading too much. Mainly I didn’t like the reading because I wasn’t sure if he was so believable because of his interest in Jacobs and because of his writing style where he included himself too much in the writing. So, that being said if it was another topic I might’ve been able to get passed my initial problems with the reading, I feel the only reason I was such a critic is because I didn’t like the topic he was writing about.

What is an American city?

Leave a reply

Katz’s article of “What is an American city?” only explains what has been defined as the American city and different interpretations. I do not think it is hard to notice the disparity between those who are rich and those are poor in the city. Every time I go on the 6 train station, there is always at least one homeless person sleeping on the ground. While a city can mean different things, the definition that stuck out the most to me was global center.

In New York City, many people all of the world come here. From Asia to South America, people come here as tourists or to perform business transactions or make a living. In our day and age, more and more businesses are going global instead of sticking to their national or regional economy only. Technology has given has that ability. It wasn’t emphasized in the article as much as I thought it would be but I believe cities are the ones that are experiencing the most technological growth. With a city like NYC, which is an area of many businesses, businesses must keep up with clients from all over the world and as a result must keep up with technological developments whether it is a computer to help do quantum modeling or a laser printer to print documents.

A part of the article I was astonished to hear about were the percentages of families living in the suburbs decreased over the years and that the number of single young people living there started to go up. I always thought the suburbs were a place for families to raise their children. I never thought that any single people live in the suburbs. I am very surprised by these statistics.

When I imagine a single person or two people living together, I never imagine them wanting to go to the suburbs. The suburbs are quiet, and far away from the city. I imagine young people would want to live in the city or the boroughs. The reason is because they have easy access to the subway to go to the city for nightlife activities. If these statistics are true, then what I consider to be the suburb really does change.

Instead of a research paper, I thought the author might give us his opinion of the American city. However he mostly gathers other people’s opinions for the article and compares and contrasts them. My question would be what does he think is a American city? If the answer is it depends how we look at a city (ex. Political perspective or economic perspective) what does he think are the right characteristics of a city? If he cannot answer that, among the definitions given, what does he identify as the best definition from the article?

Leslie Koch on Governor’s Island

Leave a reply

I found Koch’s talk about Governor’s Island very interesting. As she mentioned, the island is situated in close proximity to Manhattan and Brooklyn yet it is often overlooked and was “literally not on the map” in 2000. Koch’s ideas for the future of Governor’s Island seem a creative use of the space and will allow more ideas and programs to take place.

I first heard of Governor’s island through Macaulay’s orientation which took place there. Soon afterwards my parents ‘discovered’ the island on a map of New York’s biking trails. We biked to the ferry and took it to the island, where we discovered a “car free bike oasis,” as Koch calls it. Indeed, Koch presented several statistics about the number of people who come to visit the island which show that the majority bike there. I think it was a clever idea to bring bikers onto Governor’s Island since a large space for biking without cars is something that New York is missing. The access to bike rentals and convenient ferries to carry bikes really encourage people to come to the island for biking, as it influenced my parents and me.

Bringing biking to the island was a start to making it a popular destination, but there was still the question of what to do with the large amount of free space. After visiting the island a few times, it seems an ideal place for a college university since there are many empty historic buildings and lots of open grassy space while still being in New York City. As Koch mentioned, there is currently a high school and arts program that both take place on the island, but it seems that the area would be ideal for a university.

Instead Governor’s Island is composed of “flexible free space for programming.” I think this is also an ingenious idea for the use of the island, since such an area is another element that Manhattan is lacking. An eclectic mix of events and recreation programs come to Governor’s Island and bring in large amounts of visitors.

When the Parks Department of New York City took over Governor’s Island, Koch mentioned that they were not allowed to use the space for private ventures such as casinos or land developers but had to make an educational use for the island. I agree with the bike and programming space that were implemented on the island, but I wonder why such a stipulation was made. Infrastructure on the island such as hotels or casinos would draw even more visitors and huge amounts of revenue. A casino on Governor’s Island would draw people away from Atlantic City and could have a very positive effect on New York’s economy.

Given the task of making Governor’s Island a popular destination, Leslie Koch did a great job in choosing things for the island that could not be found in the city. The free space for biking without cars draws many visitors and the creative space brings people with unique ideas to the island and allows visitors to experience new things. The future of the island looks great as well. Koch spoke about plans to add a hammock groove and build a large park area for even more recreation space.

What is an American City?

Leave a reply

Michael Katz’s “What is an American City?” comes to a disappointing conclusion because it provides an ambiguous answer to its own question.  However, Katz’s correctly states that there is no clear standard upon which we can characterize a city as American because cities, in general, are constantly in flux. Yet, within each city there persists a pattern of inequality that might hold true if examined further.

Although Katz examines both the transformations of cities and the metaphors used to characterize them, he finds no solid ground upon which to base an American City. Instead, he suffices to say that the definition of a city is “a continual process of assessing and reconciling multiple metaphors and exploring their implications” (Katz, 25). Granted, it may be true that there is not much consistency as to what may characterize an American city, but the very nature of a city is to reflect the needs of its people. Hence, regardless of difference in structure, composition, or location, each city can find common ground in its fundamental purpose: to serve the people. As a result, it was disappointing that Katz never came to any such conclusion after analyzing data from a plethora of historical scholars and modern theorists.

The idea that there is no clear defining factor about American Cities is plausible because cities have never been stagnant or unchanging. As Katz points out, there are continuous economic, demographic, and spatial transformations that occur within a city in response to public policy and the overarching needs of the people. Perhaps the characteristic of an American City is that it continuously changes, progressing both in function and scope. Still, there is nothing strictly “American” about this concept if left alone. However, if the nature of America’s people (their interests, pursuits, and values) is reflected in the functions of the city, then the characterization would start to make sense. Even though Katz outlines no clear criteria or characterization for an American City, I believe we can find commonalities by coupling both the transient nature of cities with the people’s expression of American interest and ideals through their city. This combination of both culture and progression can give us a basis for defining an American City.

One of the most interesting ideas Katz raises is that cities, though constantly changing, still retain a pattern of inequality. Socially, many cities are divided into a “dual city,” where class polarization is substantial enough give the appearance of two separate worlds between upper and lower class. Although this is primarily viewed as negative occurrence, I believe it is a legitimate criteria for any functioning city. It is difficult to envision how a city might come together without creating a stark contrast between demographics, income, and/or housing. Hence, the pattern of inequalities that occur within cities seem to be a natural byproduct of their existence.

Altogether, even though Michael Katz never came to a strong conclusion in his piece “What is an American City?,” I believe there are general conclusions that can be made from the evidence collected. For instance, an American city can most likely be characterized by examining its people’s needs, its progressive nature, and its patterns of inequality. As a result, while I appreciate Katz’s accumulation of evidence and historical accounts, I am disappointed in his reluctance to render his own ideas and come to a decisive conclusion.

Michael B. Katz, “What is an American City?” Dissent, Summer 2009, 19-26.