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.
