Selling the City in Crisis response

Leave a reply

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.

“Making New York Smaller” Response

Leave a reply

In the article, “Making New York Smaller,” Roger Starr argues that in order for New York City to escape the financial crisis and avoid “doomsday,” the city must accept the fact that its population is shrinking and plan accordingly. He begins the article by stating that at this point “doomsday” is inevitable and that whether it comes ahead of schedule or within the next 5 or 7 years, it will indeed occur. He then goes on to explain the causes of the economic crisis, along with initiatives that he states would lighten New York City’s “fiscal burdens.” Lastly, he provides a particular solution, that although controversial, would solve the crisis and allow New York City to once again prosper economically and thrive.

One thing that I found to be extremely interesting was how he explained the sources of revenue and expenses that the city incurs. He stated that in a sense the city is comprised of 2 cities, the economic city and the Political city. The Economic City includes all of the public and private enterprises that create goods and services in New York. The Economic City is the main source of the city’s wealth. Furthermore, it produces jobs for the city’s inhabitants and spreads the city’s wealth among its constituents. However, one problem that comes along with the Economic City is that recently its exports that it ships to foreigners have lost their attraction and in order to pay for the cost of its imports, New York City must rely on its reputation and persuade investors to lend them money. He goes on to explain that by underestimating costs and overestimating revenues, the city’s constituents were forced to default on their loans, increasing the burden placed on the part of New York City, the Political City.

On the other hand, the political city provides services that people require but for which they are unable or not willing to do so. Some examples that he cites are the education system and criminal justice. This component of the city also brings in revenue through taxes and funding from the federal government,  who provides money for families with dependent children, the disabled and the poorly housed. However, the city only gets back three quarters of the money that they spend through the services that they provide. He states that one problem with the Political City is that they are unable to meet the rising costs incurred through their programs and services with the limited amount of revenue that they receive. They don’t have a sufficient amount of revenue to provide enough jobs to the population. Their lack of revenue leads to economic decline and an increasing unemployment rate in New York City as they are unable to support the cities inhabitants, forcing people to move elsewhere for jobs.

While reading this article I noticed that New York City has changed drastically from 1976, the time that this article was written, until today. Firstly, over more than 35 years the number of people in the city has risen from 8 million to almost 20 million people, 2 and a half times the amount that there were in 1976. Back then, the city was unable to accommodate and provide for 8 million people and today it is the place that 20 million people call their home. Furthermore, in the article Starr mentions that New York has not fully tapped the tourist market, due to the fact that tourists don’t feel safe and comfortable in New York. Today, New York City is visited by millions of people from all over the globe. People from all different countries wish that one day they can visit New York, stand on the red stairs in Times Square and visit the top of the Empire State Building. I was amazed to see how far the city has grown in respect to tourism in a matter of 35 years. Lastly, he mentions that New York is no longer the “classiest address for a major corporate headquarters.” However, today many of the major Fortune 500 companies have offices and headquarters in New York. New York City has become the center of business and trade and companies all over the world desire to have offices in the city, where they can be in the center of all the action.

Although, Starr’s plan of shrinking the population due to the declining number of jobs and concentrating the city’s inhabitants in certain sections seemed to be plausible at the time to avoid as he calls it “doomsday,” I wonder if he could have ever envisioned New York City as it is today. Although his plan may have allowed New York City to escape the financial crisis that it was experiencing, it would have thrown away all of its potential for growth. By knocking down stretches of empty blocks and terminating the services provided in the area, he would have destroyed any hopes of future growth and allowing New York City to become what it is today. One question I have for him is if his plan was enacted, how would it allow for the city to grow in the future and once again thrive?

Making New York Smaller-Starr

Leave a reply

Roger Starr’s “Making New York Smaller” took a new approach to the city’s economic issues. This article began off with various fiscal and monetary policies, but then took a unique spiral into this concept of planned shrinkage. While this is definitely an interesting concept, I was surprised that Starr would even think that this was possible. Everyone has their own “doomsday” planned out in their head, and despite all the past events this city has gone through “doomsday” has yet to come, and that’s why I believe Starr’s ideas are far too radical.

One theory that I found very interesting was how Starr broke down the city into different cities; a political city and an economic city. There were two different sources of revenue and expenses, with the economic city including all of the public and private enterprises that create goods and services in the New York. The economic city was the main source of the city’s wealth and it also produced jobs for the citizens. The biggest issue with the economic city is the foreign imports and exports that mess up the cycle, causing foreign investors loosing interest in investing in the city. New York City underestimated costs and overestimated revenue in regards to this and the city’s constituents were forced to default on the loans causing major upheaval in the political city.

The political city is responsible in providing necessary services to the citizens such as the education and judicial system. Revenue in this sector comes from taxes and funding from the federal government to directly provide for families with dependent children, the disabled and the homeless. The issue is that the political city is unable to provide services that people require because of their failure to meet their rising costs of their programs and services due to the limited amount of revenue they receive.  Their lack of revenue with the economic decline leading to increasing unemployment leaves New Yorkers to leave the city so that they can move elsewhere for jobs.

One important thing to note is that Starr wrote this piece in 1976, and the so-called “doomsday” he was predicating never occurred. In the past 35 years the city’s population has gone up from 8 million to 20 million. Another thing is that in the 1976, prior to the Times Square Redevelopment Project, the tourism sector was barely tapped. In those days New York City was a dark and foreign place to visit, but now it is the tourism capital of America. People from all over the world come here to visit the Empire State Building, the red stairs at Times Square. Another thing Starr mentions that is no longer true is that New York is not the “classiest address for a major corporate headquarters,” considering the multitude of companies here.

Looking back at Starr’s plan of shrinking is obviously ridiculous to the New Yorker today. Today we face a similar economic recession, and if someone like Starr were to bring up his plan of urban shrinkage I am positive he would face the same amount if not more resistance now than he did in his time. I feel as if New York Cities has gone through many potential “doomsday,” but this city has always further developed and grown, and that is why Starr’s concept of pulling away from the city is not the right course of action. I am sure he would have never guessed how much the city has improved and grown since 1976, and perhaps even he would have changed his mind for the right course of action. I think it would be interesting to look at what other radical plans are out there right now, which don’t help us plan for the future.

 

“Making New York Smaller” – Response

Leave a reply

Roger Starr’s article about New York City’s financial crisis in the 70’s was fascinating because of the unusual idea the author posits as a solution to the situation.Mr. Starr suggests that allowing the city to shrink in size would provide economic relief. This is a curious because, it is usually accepted that a shrinking population equals a weaker economy due to smaller labor force, less tax revenue etc. The author here believes that New York City’s budget deficit would be insurmountable because the city simply could not spend any less if it had to continue to support the existing population. The solution to this, according to Mr. Starr, is to tailor policy towards creating a city that has fewer people dependent on its resources.

Naturally, this unconventional, and therefore controversial, idea seems to have had strong opposition. One criticism that is addressed by the author in the article is the argument that the poor would be the worst affected if shrinkage were allowed to happen to a city. Mr. Starr responds by saying that the poor would in fact benefit from the city’s increased ability to use its resources to serve a smaller population. I found this contention to be debatable because of what we learned from the Pruitt-Igoe documentary. There, St. Louis’ decreasing population directly contributed to its terrible downfall.

Residents that are economically better off will naturally be the ones with more options open to them. If a city in fiscal crisis were to admit that it was incapable of handling the situation unless the city housed fewer people, then it will be the more economically advantaged residents who will choose to leave, simply because they can afford that choice. If any city experiencing such an exodus does not take actions to reverse or at least stop that flow, then it seems logical that it will meet a fate similar to that of St. Louis.

However, Mr. Starr’s theory does not limit itself to saying that the population of New York City should be allowed to shrink. Instead, the author actually suggests making New York City physically smaller. I was thoroughly surprised by this. It is almost an universal trend that cities expand outwards. For someone to suggest that urban planners should think about encouraging people to limit the city’s borders and concentrate towards the center seems totally surprising. Mr. Starr writes, “It is better to have one building full than two half-full,” explaining his logic for why New York City should literally make itself smaller. However, I think that the only way this idea would make logical sense is if we implicitly made the assumption that it was time for New York City to step down from its position as a leading urban center.

In fact, Roger Starr admits as much in the last few lines of his article. He seems to have arrived at the conclusion that New York City’s financial woes had reached such a level as to cause the city to grow beyond its prime. He believes that the best solution is to give up on the great city and just accept that this city is just not the place of dreams it was made out to be. In hindsight, that conclusion seems to be one that was reached hastily. As we can see, it has been several decade since those dark times, and New York City appears only to have grown in reputation as a thriving urban place of economic opportunity and success

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.

“Selling the City in Crisis” – Miriam Greenberg

Leave a reply

Before reading Miriam Greenberg’s, “Selling the City in Crisis,” I never acknowledged the impact reputational capital had on a City’s economy. From this chapter, Greenberg portrays the importance of public perception in shaping a city’s fiscal condition. With this in mind, civic organizations become a necessity in order to fight bad publicity and its related prospect of economic stagnation.

It seems as though New York’s reputation in the 1960s was a self-fulfilling prophecy because we entered into a cycle where bad publicity led to disinterest and deterrence. For instance, the media consistently portrayed New York as a graffiti tagged and crime infested area. This reputation discouraged both prospective investors seeking to start a business and residents who already lived there. In addition, publicizing and overemphasizing crime made it difficult for existing companies to attract talented employees. As a result, the city experienced a “Corporate Exodus,” where businesses with headquarters in the City found it more appealing to situate elsewhere. Furthermore, because of the corporate flight, the City lost revenue from business travelers, reducing hotel occupancy and tourism in general. The spiral continued downward as middle class residents moved out of the City and relocated in the suburbs where safety and sanitation were of less concern. Hence, it is easy for a City lambasted by negative media to enter into a cycle where negative attitudes become actualize.

Since Greenberg makes it clear that perception has the power to start an economic downturn, it becomes a necessity to keep the City’s image in check. Civic organizations such as ABNY (Association for a Better New York) need to exist regardless of their overall measurable benefit. ABNY was formed with the goal of promoting NYC as business friendly and lobbying for better regulations. Although its economic impact was wiped out by the fiscal crisis of 1975-1976, it still made strides in promoting a healthier image of the City. Strategies such as the Big Apple campaign, operation clean sweep, and operation interlock have survived for decades and restructured the way people perceive New York City. Though there is much to be debated about their involvement in housing and development, ABNY managed to bring news media, and even comedy hosts, to understand the importance of portraying a positive New York City.

Altogether, Greenberg makes the general point that public perception can dictate the economic conditions of a city. New York’s unsavory image during the 1960s turned away residents, tourists, and potential businesses. However, the formation of ABNY to promote economic health through perception and legislation made way for a future of attraction. Hence, it is necessary for civic groups to protect the perception of a City if we hope to escape the cycle that follows bad publicity.

Making New York smaler and selling the City

Leave a reply

This week, “Selling the City in Crisis” by Miriam Greenberg and Roger Starr’s “Making New York Smaller” were informative yet depressing. Theyr lays out many problems that New York City faced back in the 60s.

In contrast to New York City today, where excessive richness and congested traffic spread throughout the streets, New York City in the 60s was one of the worst places to live in. The crime rate was nearly 95% for more than a decade with reports of murders, mugging, and drugs were disseminated regularly on television. Vivid portrayal within the article were nauseating and thrilling. Even worse, Eisenhower’s highway projects facilitated outward immigration trend, making it easier for concerned parties to leave the city in the dust with all its notorious reputation.

Moreover, the city was in an economic crisis. Businesses declined proportionally to the rise of crime and interest rate. In 1963, bond’s rating was downgraded to “high risk,” forcing city officials to expensively borrow money to maintain the city. The combined effect pushed the city deeper into excessive borrowing and high level of debt, thus sinking the bond’s rating even lower. Neither the business nor the bonds of the city could be sold; New York City was losing a battle against the recession.

Since a city’s image strongly impacts its attractiveness to and the morale of the people, above-listed problems aggravated existing problems and caused new problems by further depressing New Yorkers who had already been stressed enough. The negative public image, in turn, pushed away both potential investments into and people away from the city. The United States Government was so repulsed by the city, seemingly regarding as a diseased spot that need to be left untouched, continuously declined funding and resources to resuscitate the City. Nowadays, one can see that the government has had a “fonder” view about New York City, continuously bailout banks and corporations of which headquarters are in New York all the while regarding it as the place where greed was born and presently resides.

Having mentally experienced what New York has been through through the pages, it is still hard for me to believe how bad the situation was back then. Upon realizing that, I have a better outlook on its current situation. The present does not seem so bad comparing to the past. I am now more grateful of the luck that we are currently enjoying. It’s not that bad after all.

Braconi’s “In Re In Rem”- Response

Leave a reply

Braconi mentions how housing was affected when Caucasians moved out and left the inner cities filled with minorities such as African Americans and Latinos. He states how these minorities usually had lower income and were jobless many of the times, thus rents were difficult to collect. The lack of rent money obtained would then lead to poor building maintenance and operations. This reminded me of the Pruitt-Igoe documentary. With a lack of sufficient funding, there comes the poor quality of life.

What baffles me still is that all these articles we read, there are many observations made with race, income, and living/housing style. What there is a lack of is why these minorities have a difficult time finding jobs and receiving a better income. There is always a concept that education brings people out of poverty. But I do believe there was public education back then. So, how come many minorities are still stuck in the “slums and ghettos?”

Continuing on, Braconi also states how two-thirds of New York’s housing stock is for rental and not for owner-occupied housing. Apparently this is the reverse case for most large cities. If so, I want to know why this is the case. And if this is a factor contributed to New York’s housing disinvestment, why does New York continue to follow with this idea? It does not seem to be too beneficial in the housing market and negatively affects people. Also, rentals are less likely to have long-term investments, so maintaining the building is not the rental owner’s priority. This has negative affects on the building as well. Overall, these adverse traits of rental housing should mean the city should move away from them, but it is not doing so.

Another issue I am curious about is where do all the people who are displaced move to? More than 60% of the buildings were said to be vacant–then where do the people live? This definitely does not show that there is a housing problem in terms of places to live. Instead, it shows the housing problem in terms of affordable housing. Later when Braconi mentions the relocation of people, it still does not say exactly where, which is what I want to know.

Moving forward in the reading, I though Braconi’s statement of how the Koch administration was under no obligation to deal with the housing abandonment situation and the fact that this choice further caused financial problems for the city’s budget disagreeable. The city may not be legally obligated to make this decision, but the role of the government is to govern/manage its people. By dealing with housing, it is in fact helping its people. In addition, although it was a burden on the city’s budget in the short run, I believe it actually helped the city in the long run. Abandoned housing lowers the living standards of an area, therefore by trying to prevent this event from happening too much, the government is trying to preserve the neighborhood. But just like Braconi says at the end, the government did fail in reducing tax for low-income housing. This would have helped the people more, but then, you still see a similar problem even today. Things have not really changed.

 

Pruitt-Igoe Documentary

Leave a reply

When we were watching the documentary of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project one of the things we saw was the destruction of the building. At first I was wondering what am I watching because I just couldn’t imagine something like that happening in New York City. In fact, the only time I feel I’ve seen buildings falling to the ground was on 9/11, but that was an act of terrorism. However, in this case it was done by choice, it just goes to show how much of a failure the project really was and I think the documentary did a good job of personalizing as well as analyzing this fact.

The documentary does a great job of ‘putting a face to a name’. In other words by watching the documentary you would understand the topic better if instead you just chose to read about it. The reason the documentary does a good job of that is because for one thing it has visual cues (such as the imploding of the building), which can go a long way. But, more importantly the documentary has the one-on-one interviews with people who experienced this time period in St. Louis’s history first hand. By bringing in the people it sort of adds an empathic aspect where others are more inclined to listen to what the people are saying because to a certain extent it appeals to the emotional side of the audience so the audience would like to understand it better. This can be seen where one of the people in the documentary talks about how she felt like they were being penalized for being poor, a lot of people will be able to relate to this and will be able to better understand the topic being discussed for that reason. In this regard the Documentary proves more efficient than if someone was just reading about the topic because it gave you a face to see and shows you that someone is actually being impacted by this as opposed to if you were reading this you’d just see a paper in front of you,

The documentary also attacks the audience in a more analytical sense as well. For example, the video talks about acts of legislation, such as the Housing Act of 1949 (which was actually one of the causes for the building of Pruitt-Igoe). The documentary then goes on to explain how this ties into Urban Renewal which will lead to a lot of people moving out of the city and into the suburbs. Since so many people were now moving into suburbs the cities were emptying which had a negative impact on the city and more specifically the residents of Pruitt-Igoe as a whole, where the citizens now had to adapt to a harsher society where violence was growing prevalent. From this aspect the documentary is trying to engage its audience in a more analytical standpoint and build credibility.

The underlying message that the documentary was trying to give off was that although public housing is a good idea, Pruitt-Igoe is a demonstration of how it will fail. In the case of Pruitt-Igoe the residents were given a nice place to live where at first everything was good. However, the government stopped caring and the workers stopped caring and because of this everything got out of hand; Pruitt-Igoe became the very thing that the government was trying to get rid of (slums). Now, Pruitt-Igoe is deemed one of the biggest failures in public housing and when public housing is even mentioned Pruitt-Igoe is brought as a defense against it. It’s a shame that the workers and government stopped giving care to Pruitt-Igoe because had they actually put in some effort into the project we might be having a different discussion about this housing project and instead of watching a documentary about how it failed we’d be watching one about the effects of its success.

In conclusion, the documentary “The Pruitt-Igoe Myth” attempts to draw in its audience from all angles. It uses the emotional aspect by way of stories and visual cues, as well as through a logical standpoint by bringing in facts and analyses. In my personal opinion the documentary succeeds in these regards and does a great job both in captivating the audience as well as portraying their opinion about the failure of the Pruitt-Igoe housing project.

Pruitt-Igoe Myth response

Leave a reply

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.