Tag Archives: Class #10

“Designs for a New Metropolis” Response

Leave a reply

At the very beginning of the chapter, a complaint is expressed about the tower in the park public housing that exists in New York City and most other cities in America. I personally don’t mind that urban residential buildings are not aesthetically pleasing. That isn’t the point of them. Nobody comes to the city to look at the housing. The people who live here don’t even look at the housing. It’s all about the commercial areas and the tourist sites. In a suburban setting, the appearance of housing developments is more important because there isn’t much else to look at. In the city, people go home to sleep and that’s it. More attractive buildings wouldn’t bring more people here or change anyone’s opinion of the city because it’s not what they’re here to see in the first place. These buildings serve their purpose of providing plentiful and affordable housing, and that’s all that matters.

In addition, Bloom points out that these high rises provide anonymity. This is something that I view positively. Cities don’t have the atmosphere that requires everyone to know each other. People often come to New York City to fall into the crowd and not be watched constantly anyway. I think it’s nice to be able to go home and have privacy. There’s no pressure to see other people or interact with anyone. After a long day, you can just make the trek home and enjoy the rest of your night.

Later on in the reading, Bloom says that Moses’s developments “paired middle-income projects with public housing in many low-income neighborhoods” (133). This is considered to be good planning, but I don’t really see why. I could foresee a lot of social stigma against middle-income people living in low-income neighborhoods. Why would they want to live there? Why would people of either income level feel comfortable in such close proximity of the other? Across New York City, most of the population believes that certain income levels pertain to certain neighborhoods (which may or may not be true), and I don’t think those boundaries are going to break anytime soon. In general, it seems that people like to be around others who are within the same income level. If this actually became a concrete initiative—to mix socioeconomic classes—I’m not sure if it would work too well.

An issue with public housing that Bloom mentions is that it displaced a lot of stores. This made me wonder if New York City could change its general layout. Currently, each neighborhood is practically self-sufficient because it has housing and stores to service residents. What if there were sections of the city reserved for housing and other sections reserved for stores? That would destroy the concept of small communities, but I’m curious to know if it would work. It might make the city less urban, since it basically imitates the model of a small town where everyone lives in certain areas and there’s a centralized space for businesses, but the city is so big that I think it could work out just fine. We would never reach the point where everyone knows each other, so it would probably feel just like it does now.

Nonetheless, there isn’t exactly anything wrong with what we have now. The NYCHA has done a fantastic job with clearing slums and creating better housing across the city. There might have been unfortunate consequences here and there, but that always happens to some extent. Compared to other cities, as Bloom says, New Yorkers are much better off when it comes to their housing. There’s probably room for improvement, but there isn’t anything necessarily wrong with what currently exists. However, there’s still a negative connotation when it comes to the projects. Under ideal circumstances, that would no longer be in effect. This is what we need to combat now. We’ve learned how to successfully create housing, so we can now focus on eradicating the bad perceptions that people have of it.

Class 9 – “Tower of Dreams” Response

Leave a reply

Many have debated the origins and significance of housing—both public and private—in New York City. In general, housing is essential to daily life. Public housing has also become more prevalent in the city over the past few decades. Thus, it is more important to figure out what works and what does not, rather than debate the theory. Michael Kimmelman touched upon this issue in his article Towers of Dreams: One Ended in Nightmare by comparing two very similar housing projects and pointing out why one failed while the other succeeded.

Our past few classes have heavily centered around housing: Federal housing policies and the New Deal, a Museum exhibit about modern housing in New York City, Robert Moses and urban renewal. We have learned of public housing’s origins, its trials and tribulations, as well as the significance it plays today. After establishing this foundation of knowledge, I enjoyed reading Kimmelman’s article because provided an example of ‘good’ housing versus ‘bad’ housing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Penn_South_from_ESB.jpg

Penn South Housing Cooperative

Kimmelman’s 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.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2441/5816024404_e78c69171e_o.jpg

Pruitt-Igoe Complex

A major contrast to this, however, is the continued success of Penn South. Tax relief and stable income from maintenance payments and retail units provide money for improvements. Communal spaces, green areas, elevators and openness create a sense of community and “hominess.” This, I think, is the most important factor driving Penn South’s success: Tenants who feel safe in and connected to their place of living are more likely to take better care of it.

When reading the personal quotes Kimmelman placed in his article, 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. But since architecture itself was not at fault, what can we do in the future to prevent another Pruitt-Igoe? Perhaps it would be wise to reassess the purpose these housing units serve. Is it more beneficial to incorporate both low-income and market-rate units, should they be geared towards senior citizens as many NORCs suggest, or is there a better function these buildings can serve? There is no doubt that housing needs—especially in New York City—are shifting. We now have to learn how to best move forward when addressing these needs.

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.