When I was doing some of the readings something that stood out to me was the way Robert D. Yaro and Tony Hiss presented the RPA (1). In this article, it is mentioned couple of times how the goal of the three E’s is to improve the quality of life in New York City. However, all of these sounds very good to be true. Maybe the plan is to improve the economy, equity, and environment of the Tristate Area but there is a big problem that can’t be avoid, the huge income gap in New York City. This huge gap is going to end up leaving all minorities at risk.
In Larson’s book on chapter 9, it is discussed how Amanda Burden, the administration’s director of the city planning thinks that the best way to improve the quality of the city is by enhancing real state values and encouraging new developments. According to Burden New York City is a transformative city. The streets and avenues need to be enhanced to attract private investment that would change the neighborhoods in the city (2) However,with every project some people are going to lose but others are going to win and this is just the way it will always be…… but is this really the only way to do it?…
Is this really what we want for our future. Who are we really trying to attract?. I do agree that with every project there might be people who are going to lose and people who are going to win. But this becomes a problem when we have the same people losing and losing over and over again. Why is it that people need to sell their business and get kick out of their own houses just because the city decides to “enhance” their neighborhood and create “affordable housing”. Is this really affordable to them? is this really benefiting the neighborhoods and the people who are already living there?. or are we just thinking about the people who can actually afford those houses and would bring more money to city? because that’s what it looks like to me. We can’t all win, but it’s not fear that we are always making the same people win and leaving the same people behind.
Work Cited
1) Yaro, Robert D. A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area: Summary. Washington, D.C.: Island, 1996. Print.
2) Larson, Scott. “Chapter 9.” “Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. N. pag. Print.
i was born in Colombia in 1995 and I came to this country in 2010 when i was 15. it was really difficult for me because i have to leave everything and all the people i love but it was also an awesome experience because I learn new things and most important a new language
Dani,
I loved this line: “I do agree that with every project there might be people who are going to lose and people who are going to win. But this becomes a problem when we have the same people losing and losing over and over again.” I think you’re correct in acknowledging that all projects have their ups and downs, but that we’re constantly seeing people being pushed out of New York slowly by rising living costs.
Though, there’s an interesting dilemma: with improvement projects like Burden’s, the areas are being beautified and the current people living there are being priced out – so would the answer be to not improve these areas? As counterproductive as that sounds, is it perhaps better that these redevelopment officials keep their noses out of areas if they’re only going to screw the residents over in the end?
Or perhaps it’s the size of these projects that is truly important. Do we really need to completely redevelop housing in one area or could we build up/add more? Is it necessary to tear down an old public park for a new one instead of working on the old one? Burden’s idea of a makeover seems to be a facelift and botox, instead of lipstick and a new hairdo. Maybe there’s a middle ground where smaller improvements can be made, so that the poorer aren’t paying much more to live there and the city still looks prettier? At the very least, less people would be priced out and, thus, more of them would be able to enjoy these amenities.