Willow, I loved reading your blog post because I find that you express your opinions concerning the actions and beliefs the elite of the city have when it comes to city planning very clearly. I also enjoyed that while reading your post I found myself going back and forth on many of the topics you discussed and debated what I thought was right.

When I read the article about the Community Parks Initiative I felt optimistic about what I had seen. These parks in need of repair were fixed, painted and looked brand new. I thought this was good because it was improving the neighborhood without truly altering the makeup of it as we have seen in many of the redevelopment projects we have discussed in class. However, in the fourth paragraph of your blog you raise a brilliant point. By simply painting over these parks and adding new slides and swings, what are city planners really doing? Are they removing the symbols of art and culture that neighborhoods cherish? You say that by painting them over we are ignoring the actual problems that these communities face. I say you hit the nail on the head. However, I couldn’t help but then think would those in the community agree with you? I was reminded of my initial thoughts when I saw the before and after pictures. I imagined that the people who frequented these parks would have been happy that it was improved. I began to then wonder how different perspectives can determine whether or not something is good, and how those opposing views may clash.

When discussing the High Line you say that the reading displays the entitlement of the elite in changing public spaces to obtain wealth. Who’s to say that city planners did not vehemently believe that by transforming the High Line they would be doing a service to the community? As we discussed in class they see it as an opportunity to bring new businesses in and jumpstarting the economy. They had an idea for what the city should have been and they believed this was the best way to achieve that. Some may say that the High Line served its purpose in helping the area while some would argue it changed for the worse. Now I happen to personally believe that the High Line is a prime example of how redevelopment seems geared towards a certain socioeconomic class of people, I agree with what you say in your blog but I couldn’t help but wonder about the differing perspectives about the future of the city. People of different backgrounds, classes, and areas will obviously have different opinions. Who’s to say which opinion is right and the best for the city?

In chapters 3 and 6 of Scott Larson’s Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind we are introduced to the plans for city redevelopment that arose during the Bloomberg administration and the many controversies and changes that occurred as a result of these proposals. We also see how rezoning was used for city planners to carry out redevelopment. While reading the two chapters I kept going back to the idea that these plans do not account for the people in these communities and what happens when you change the structure of it.

When it comes to city planning, chapter 3 of Larson’s book features the many different projects that were proposed to redevelop and reshape New York City during the Bloomberg administration. Many of the plans in my opinion were grand in scale with a huge impact on the future of the city. However, I kept wondering on whether the impact would be a beneficial one, take for example, the plans for the expansion of Columbia University in Harlem. Larson discusses how the university claimed that the many years of construction would provide twelve hundred construction jobs and that the new building would provide university positions to make Upper Manhattan a center for knowledge. According to Area Vibes’ page on the demographics of Harlem, the neighborhood has a predominantly African-American population in which 19 percent of families make between $10,000 to $25,000. With the university’s expansion I can’t help but think of the effects this has on the people living in this area. I’ll be honest, I laughed when I saw the mention of university positions that would be created because I doubt they will serve those currently in the area. If anything this expansion will lead to gentrification that areas like Harlem are increasingly facing. The New York Times points out in their article, “Then as Now- New York’s Shifting Ethnic Mosaic” that black populations are declining in traditionally black areas where whites are moving in. This influx of white populations into these neighborhoods, driven by lower rent costs and the appeal of the area due to redevelopment is forcing out lower income families. Which begs the question, what happens to them? As the effects of gentrification grow the people that generally thrive in these neighborhoods will have to leave and the ethnic landscape is changed.

In chapter 6, Larson discusses city planners’ attempts to address the issue of affordable housing for low-income residents. He points out that in 2002 Mayor Bloomberg outlined the New Housing Marketplace Plan in which 92,000 units would be created and 73,000 units preserved for low to middle income families. Reading this made me optimistic, had city planners finally taken into account the needs of the people on the lower end of the financial spectrum? Surely this would help those displaced by redevelopment projects. Sadly though Larson went on to discuss that this plan fell through due to the effects of the Great Recession. He goes on to discuss that many people felt that affordable housing was a growing concern in the city and that one of the things to address this inclusionary zoning. This refers to the idea that municipal planning requires a share of new construction to be low-income affordable housing units. However, the ratio for this is 80 percent market rate housing to 20 percent affordable rate housing. I was shocked to see this ratio because 20 percent in my opinion is nowhere near enough. Why can’t it be higher? This is the big question that comes to mind when reading about all these plans for redevelopment. I feel that they will end up changing the landscape of the area and make it harder for lower-income residents to remain in the area. In the Wall Street Journal article, “Activists Criticize Rezoning Plan for East New York”, Mara Gay discusses that people in the area will not be able to afford the apartments that will be built there within the next two years.Once again I’m forced to wonder whether redevelopment will really help the city and how it will change it in the future. Who will be able to afford to live here? As pointed out in the NY Times article, African-Americans are being pushed out of the city to suburban areas because they simply cannot afford to live in the new housing units. In my last blog post I raised questions as to the changing nature of Times Square and how it will impact what NYC is in the future. I’m brought back to this question in terms of the people that live here. NYC is known for its diversity, what happens when that diversity is affected by redevelopment that intends to better the city? I’m reminded of all our discussions about Robert Moses and the ‘greater good’. I feel  we have reached that similar situation again and we need to be very careful about the choices we make concerning this city .

Sources:

“Harlem, New York, NY Demographics.” Area Vibes. Web.

Fessenden, Ford, and Sam Roberts. “Then as Now — New York’s Shifting Ethnic Mosaic.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2011. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.

Gay, Mara. “Activists Criticize Rezoning Plan for East New York.” WSJ. 20 Sept. 2015. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.

Larson, Scott. Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. Print.

Rebirth: the action of reappearing or starting to flourish or increase after a decline.

Revanchism: when policy is designed to recover lost territory or status.

Which one of these do I believe applies to the change that occurred in the late 1900s in the area known as Times Square? When I first approached the question at first I thought rebirth. In my mind Times Square was an area that over a century has gone through so many rebirths before becoming the huge attraction it is today. When it was known as Long Acre Square it featured predominantly horses and carriages. In 1904 when the New York Times set up their headquarters there the area was renamed for it. With the introduction of the sex industry and its later dissolution in the late 1900s to the Disneyfication of the city I truly believed that Times Square had a history that told of its rebirth, from a small time trading area to one that dominates New York City today. However, after reading Reconstructing Times Square I started to feel a bit differently about it, especially after reading about the events that took place to bring Disney to NYC. I realized that though much of the change that people were calling for was based on the social issues that plagued the area, the methods with which the government took to solve these problems, were completely economical.

In 1993 when Disney expressed interest in opening a location in NYC and reached out to the 42 Street Development Project, they jumped on the offer and did whatever they could to get Disney. They were so desperate that they offered to pay the $250,000 necessary to buy the land for the site. As it says in the reading, other companies were offered but none of them had the symbolic might of Disney. I totally agree with this. Disney is a multi-million dollar corporation synonymous with happiness. People wanted a return to the Old Times Square and this was the best option at bringing that nostalgia to life. As soon as the deal was made public the business poured in from all sources, restaurants, bars, and cafes. Times Square was going to become a nice place for people again. The old status of what it was was being reclaimed little by little.

What I realized after all this was that people hated Times Square because it wasn’t safe, it was full of prostitution, and was home to people that were considered vagrants and criminals. Instead of looking for reasons as to why these people were in the situations they were in and solving that, they resorted to getting rid of the businesses and shops that facilitated these individuals. They used money and made deals to bring in nicer businesses so they could attract wholesome people and families instead.

Back to the original question, Times Square: Rebirth or Revanchism? I can honestly say that I do not have the same positive view as I did about the history of Times Square. I feel that the area has gone through more of a revanchism because many of the things in the area have to do with choices tied to economics. For example, in the New York Times article, Several Days After Christmas, Toys ‘R’ Us Closes in Times Square, Elizabeth Harris discusses how the megastore is closing because of the high rent costs. It turned out that this was the same reason the Disney store that changed Times Square in the late 90s closed up shop. It’s interesting that the two stores that without a doubt helped create the image of Times Square as this wholesome tourist attraction are now being closed because the rent is too high and staying in these areas would not prove profitable. The article says that a Gap Inc. will be opening stores there to which one woman replied, “Oh wonderful… we really need another one of those.” Seeing that these stores have closed because they simply cannot be open anymore makes me wonder how the landscape of Times Square will change within the next few years. How will people see it then? Are things about to change again?

NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/nyregion/04square.html?_r=0