Tag Archives: housing

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.

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.

Subsidy and the Suburban Dream- Response

Leave a reply

In the reading, the Greenbelt Program was mentioned. In my opinion, the plan already seemed improbable because Tugwell said the community would have “decent housing” yet the land he would purchase to develop the community would be cheap. He also seems to disregard the people who are in the lower class (and some in the lower range of the middle class). Where does he expect them to live then–if he demolishes the cities to build parks? Furthermore, communities that Tugwell wants reminds me of those societies that you see on TV shows/movies such as “The Stepford Wives.” These “ideal” societies just do not work.

Furthermore, a general concept from the reading that I extracted was how the government plays a roll in aiding housing construction. They help with loans and mortgages, give building construction standards, etc. However, some people such as Senator Calder do not think the government should be involved with housing (specifically the construction and acquisition). I do think that the government should not be too involved, but if it sees that its people are in need of aid for shelter, it does have the duty to help its people. Although there was the HOLC and FHA, I still see housing as a problem. Perhaps it is the fact that I live in New York City, which is known for its high standard of living. We do have a lot of housing options, I think, but the prices are just too high.

An interesting quote by FHA is that “if a neighborhood is to retain stability, it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occupied by the same social and racial classes.” I agree with the fact that social classes in a neighborhood should be the same. It is just the fact that rich people only stay with people that are alike them, which is connected to the racial class. But I see this less so, because in a city that is said to be very diverse, there are different nationalities all living in one area. In my neighborhood in Queens, my neighbors are Chinese, Islamic, Jewish, Italian, German, Ecuadorian, and so on. However, our social standings are in the range of middle class. Therefore, racial class similarities in a neighborhood are not entirely true, but social class similarities are more so.

Continuing on, the FHA was said to not be created to help cities, however by reviving home buildings and supporting home ownership and trying to reduce poverty, FHA is helping to shape cities. The program is trying to make cities a better place that is not full of projects and crime. It is making cities a place that is desirable to live in. If the city becomes a stable place where people own houses, then it is like a chain, which attracts more people to own and have houses in the area as well. Although this is a beneficial part of the program, the reading is correct in saying that the downside of FHA is that it increases segregation among income and racial groups (though again, I do not think the racial part has much separation–but there are exceptions like East New York, Flushing, etc.).

Finally, I disagree with the statement at the end of the reading that said areas with heterogeneous population is terrible and risky because it will lead to “decline of both the human race and property values.” I think of New York City, and I see the opposite. Maybe it is because they are thinking about suburbs. However, New York as a whole seems to disprove it (especially the borough of Queens in my opinion). I believe the mentality of people, the way they were raised, and how they were educated affects how they see race. New York City does not show the decline of human race, but the expansion and growth and acceptance of differences among people. Also, the value of the land here is quite high. I wonder what makes NYC so special and prosperous and different than other cities.