Tag Archives: Bloom

Design for a New Metropolis- Response

Leave a reply

In this reading I was shocked to find that Moses was not as large as an influence on the slum clearings and low standard of living in certain poor areas of New York City. The chapter mentions how NYCHA was the backbone and Moses just extended/implemented the ideas. I knew these low-cost housing were crowded and cramped. However, it was unknown to me that these housings lacked toilet bowl covers and closet doors. Is it really that much cheaper to not have those parts in the house?

This reading also mentions slum clearances versus vacant land projects. The clearance policy seems to be attacked. I do agree that it demolished many buildings that were still in good condition, and that some of those buildings are aesthetically better than the new ones that were built. However, thinking about it on the financial and economic side, it might be easier to rebuild rather than “renovate.” But indeed, I do believe the slum clearance in general was terrible because many people lost their homes and were forced to find elsewhere to live, or to be cramped up in different neighborhoods.

In the section by the critics, I strongly agree with Lewis Mumford that the housing seemed to be built for one class of people. In other words, the way the city seems to be laid out is to benefit one class of people more than others. In New York City, I see that the outer edges and parts of way Upper Manhattan are full of housing that are for people on the lower side of the social class. And in the center of the city, where it is the most dense, the buildings are for people on the higher side of the social class. Yes the city does offer a lot of housing, but again, as I mentioned in previous blog posts, majority of the housing are not affordable. They are all new and fancy and pleasant, but the cost is not cheap at all. Overall, I believe that the city was planned for high middle class to upper class people, and everyone else was just shoved to the sides.

Another problem stated was about the design of housing (specifically public housing). Moses has criticized that the buildings were all the same and monotonous. His response was that it although cost was a concern, there must be other ways to make the buildings a bit more pleasant. I did notice that all the projects look the same: brown, small windows, small grass area blocked by low black gates/fences, etc. It does look mundane, and to New Yorkers, seeing a building like that, we all automatically think “project.” This takes away from the aesthetics of the city structure. Architecture is really important. It is the foundation and the roots of the city. I agree with Moses that there must be ways to make these buildings better, without adding too much expenses on it.

Furthermore, the problem with projects is that there is a lack of stores near the housing. Bloom says that this takes away the “liveliness and social cohesiveness” of the area. I concur with Bloom’s statement because my dorm used to be near Baruch Houses and my current dorm is right near the projects as well, and both do not have stores nearby. This also relates to how in the beginning of the semester, we read an article about how stores bring safety to the neighborhood. In addition, this reminds me of the Barclay’s Center how Atlantic Avenue is full of stores and lights, and is really safe, while Flatbush Avenue lacks stores and is dark, and appears to be dangerous. I do understand that stores do not really want to be in the area, and that their business might not be as successful there rather than elsewhere. And that the stores that were built just seemed to not do so well that many were demolished. I wonder why that is the case, and if there is any way to improve the situation, and make the stores function better/well.

Bloom – “Designs for a New Metropolis” || Response

Leave a reply

In “Designs for a New Metropolis”, Bloom emphasized that slum clearance was a top priority. The goal was to clear the slums out and replace them with high-density public housing buildings. This seemed like a pretty good idea that would benefit many people who needed subsidized housing. Costs of these projects however, not only included the monetary amount, it also came at the expense of owners of “nice brownstones” (132). Regardless of whether or not these homes were recently renovated, everything in the slums had to be cleared out. I disagree with this decision that the New York City Housing Authority made. If these quality brownstones were kept, they would add an aesthetic appeal to the neighborhoods.

The structure of these public housing units were not pleasing to the eyes. In fact, they all looked the same from neighborhood to neighborhood – bland and basic tower blocks that did not stand out. Buildings were usually several stories high with standard windows and fire escapes. There were no balconies. Nonetheless, I approve of what this decision the NYCHA made. These public houses proved to be just enough and acceptable. They were not appealing, but they were better than the living conditions of slums. They also proved to be efficient because there were many units within each project. The NYCHA also kept up with maintenance and security, which played a big role in the success of New York City’s public housing.

Another decision I applaud the NYCHA for is the mixing of middle income people with low income people. This prevented “low-income ghettos” and fostered class feeling (134). These public housing units prove that neighborhoods can be diverse and provide dwellings for people of different backgrounds and income levels. The decision shows that not only a specific group of people are targeted. The NYCHA just wants to provide affordable housing for New Yorkers as a whole.

To my surprise, public housing in the United States has largely been failure. In many cities such as St. Louis, Chicago, and Newark, large-scale public housing projects were demolished. An infamous one was Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis. At first, its high-density housing seemed to work. Residents were happy to live in spacious and clean homes. But due to budget cuts, the lack of funding led to poor maintenance. Eventually, Pruitt-Igoe had become an unpleasant place to live with crime rates rising. I believe that if public housing projects in other cities such as St. Louis had kept up with maintenance and security costs, they would not have failed. I also believe that a mixed-income public housing plays a major role in success.

Overall, I am pleased at the NYCHA and what it has accomplished. Based on my personal observations around New York City, I see that public housing works. When I was performing door-to-door canvassing for a local politician (Assemblywoman Grace Meng) back in high school, I had to enter some of these public houses. I recall that the Bland Houses and Latimer Gardens in Flushing were well maintained. There was security. I also observed that residents were of different backgrounds and income levels. Hence, if other cities were to imitate New York City’s successful public housing, they should incorporate these aspects.