Whether or not rezoning is a bad thing, the answer is not a simply yes or no. Whenever you are presented with some piece of information, you always need to be critical and consider whether the information you are receiving is valid or not. There are always two sides to a story and it is very important to be aware of both arguments. When it comes to rezoning and redevelopment, especially in regards to Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs, and Mike Bloomberg, you will have people on both ends, those who enthusiastically support it and those who strongly oppose it.
From the surface, redevelopment projects that Mayor Bloomberg’s administration proposed and completed seem legitimate and revolutionary, as seen in 2003 The New York Times article, “City is Backing Makeover for Decaying Brooklyn Waterfront” by Diane Cardwell who describes the Greenpoint/ Williamsburg waterfront project as “ambitious” and providing an “extreme transformation.” She focuses on the positive aspects of the project; the various promises made and benefits claimed by the Bloomberg administration ranging from more affordable housing and an increased number of jobs to a large park area. She gives the general impression that this Greenpoint/ Williamsburg project is a good thing happening to the neighborhood. But good for whom?
Cardwell only focuses on the positives, completely disregarding the potential negatives. Tom Angotti, in his Gotham Gazette article, “Zoning Instead of Planning in Williamsburg and Greenpoint,” points out all the detrimental effects that this project will have on the neighborhood in the future. Writing in 2005, Angotti is clearly able to see behind Bloomberg’s façade, and give his audience a realistic view of the effects that the real people in the neighborhood will be faced with. Explaining how the jobs produced from this project are short-term and how the number of affordable housing created “depends entirely on whether or not developers will take advantage of the zoning incentives to build,” Angotti makes people realize that this will have devastating effects on the people who currently live in the neighborhood. Real estate values will skyrocket, pushing local residents out while drawing in a group of wealthy people who are ready to transform the neighborhood to what they want it to be. But are there no benefits at all? Do the negatives truly outweigh the positives to the point where the whole project is regarded as a catastrophe?
More than not we are faced with these one-sided evaluations of policies, projects, events, etc. Rarely, do we see an acknowledgement of both sides of the story. In this situation, it is important to understand both the positives and negatives of redevelopment projects like the Greenpoint/ Williamsburg waterfront in order to critically analyze whether projects like this should be implemented in the future.
Having first-hand experience with gentrification, as I have lived in Greenpoint my whole life, I have witnessed the gradual changes that have been occurring for the past couple of years, as well as heard stories from my parents who have lived here for roughly 30 years. The neighborhood has changed drastically, in some ways for the better, and in some ways for the worse. If you ask me if rezoning and gentrification are good things I will most likely say “depends”. It has driven out many family members, friends, and acquaintances who shared common interests and a common culture with my family. It has increased our rent dramatically. It has attracted a crowd of elite who further bring in new businesses that drive out local, community restaurants, shops, and stores. However, if you ask my parents if they prefer Greenpoint the way it is now or the way it used to be, they will hands down prefer the current way of life. Many parts of the neighborhood were extremely dangerous, making the neighborhood less appealing. The community is safer now, with better schools and more activities for kids. Even as an adult, the new park provides a nice view where diverse crowds of people, young and old, gather to relax or play.
Personally, I have mixed views of the impact the redevelopment plan has had on my neighborhood. But I believe it is simply ignorant to praise or criticize something without full knowledge of all the facts. And these two articles, from two completely different sources, being two years apart, show the drastic differing views that people have, and both of them are equally important to analyze. Nothing in life is black and white, everything is just a different shade of grey. To be able to truly understand a controversial topic, the most crucial thing to do is listen to and understand both sides because they are equally essential.
Hi Izabela,
I agree with you that rezoning or redevelopment brings both negative and positive impacts to a neighborhood and its residents. Sometimes, however, the services and opportunities that redeveloping programs claimed to bring do not always benefit the local people. The Columbia University Expansion discussed in chapter 3 of “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind,” titled The Bloomberg Practice, presents how West Harlem was affected by the expansion plan. The university claimed that the expansion will bring services to the local community. “And as we build our Manhattanville campus, we are also expanding and enhancing many programs and services and as we build” (Columbia University, n.d.). According to Columbia University, the expansion project was supposed to bring more job opportunities to the community. Besides the construction job, however, most jobs “are not going to be available until the expansion project is done, and it is supposed to take up to 20 years” (Velázquez, 2009). By the time when the construction is completed, the old residents might already move out of West Harlem due to the high cost of living. In addition, it seems like residents did benefit from the expansion when the Columbia’s Teachers College provides educational services to local students. “It won the university’s commitment to spend $150 million over twelve years on the establishment of a community-based K-8” (Larson, 2013). In fact, the service is limited to residents because only those meet the requirement are eligible to apply. Overall, it appears to be that expansion of Columbia University has more negative than positive impacts on Manhattanville. At the end, although Columbia University has good intention in giving back to West Harlem, it also causes gentrification in the region. Therefore, I think we should look at both services that rezoning brings to the community and its potential effects on the residents and the future development of the neighborhood.
Work Cited:
Columbia University. Community Benefits http://manhattanville.columbia.edu/community/benefits-and-amenities (last accessed 2 April, 2017)
Larson, S. (2013). The Bloomberg Practice. “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. (pp 42). Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Velázquez, S.M. (2009). Columbia University gentrifying Harlem: Who is the neighborhood improving for? https://scholarship.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/bitstream/handle/10066/3601/2009VelazquezS(Abridged).pdf?sequence=6 (last accessed 2 April, 2017)
Hey, Wow all the posts are very informative for the people who visit this site. Good work! We also have a Blog.Please feel free to visit our site. Thank you for sharing.
PHP Development in Indore
Keep Posting:)