A home is one of the most important necessities in life. However, not everyone has a shelter where they can live due to affordability. Housing is not simply a local issue; it is an issue in many different cities. It is impossible for this problem to be resolved completely as many factors in society play a role, but we can strive for better and more housing opportunities for those in need.

The effort in striving for housing equality involves more than real estate agents, property owners, and tenants. As depicted in the “Affordable Housing’s Forever Solution” article from Next City, community land trust is a favorable method for revitalizing neighborhoods and increasing affordable housing or renting units. To my surprise, most community land trusts are not like companies or organizations that do things for some selfish benefits in return. They truthfully want to save neighborhoods by ensuring homes to families at a price below market value, especially in areas where gentrification is occurring. Community land trusts require money, resources, and people in order to succeed and properly function. In addition, they also need to purchase land at low-costs in order to rebuild it based on the needs of the neighborhood residents. I agree that neighborhoods should not simply have residential areas and housing. In fact, a successful community has a mixture of commercial and open space as well. Having access to basic amenities and beautiful green space is part of a healthy life.

A similar method that involves the power of neighborhood residents to change and help decide on plans to meet the communities’ needs is discussed in the article “How East Harlem Wrote Its Own Development Plan” from Next City. Just like how the issue of housing can not be settled completely, there is not one successful plan that settles the housing issue. In New York City, ULURP is a process where applications that affect land use are publicly reviewed by the Department of City Planning, City Planning Commission, borough president, and City Council. The process involves the input and planning decisions from the community. Through the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan, I realized that the best way for strive for a more equitability in housing, even if it meant only increasing affordable housing by a small amount, is to meet halfway with those who constantly want to gentrify neighborhoods. As a result, there is a need to upzone, or make buildings taller, in order for there to be more low-income housing units.

Matthew Gordon Lasner makes an interesting claim in “Affordable Housing in New York City: Then and Now.” He believes that by incorporating four main strategies into a city, the housing problem can be solved. These four aspects are regulating housing conditions, enforcing rent laws, eliminating profit ownership, and having government subsidies. I am not sure what exactly can decrease the percentage of income people spend on housing or provide everyone with a home, but I believe that the housing issue can not be solved by any one of the aspects presented in any of the articles on its own. By working together, maybe one day everyone will have a place they can call “home.”

Additional Sources:

Lasner M (2015) Affordable Housing in New York City: Then and Now. Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College.

The hourglass-shaped area that did not follow the city’s grid structure, more popularly known as Times Square today, has been considered the center of New York City since the early 20^th century. It was originally named Longacre Square after Long Acre in London for its similar structure and purpose. However, it was renamed in 1904 to Times Square after the newspaper company The New York Times saw potential in this landmark as a location for its headquarters. The gradual development of this space over time has shaped its wide range of appeal to different diversities as well as its great influence on the city. In fact, Times Square has been a reflection of the urban life of our country’s cities through the progression of our commerce, culture, and other aspects of life. The controversy lies upon whether the changes were beneficial or harmful to the city.

The Great White Way was a term used to refer to Times Square in the 1920s—describing the massive amount of white electric bulbs that lit up the theater and entertainment district. During this time, there were many subway lines, elevated train lines, surface lines, bus routes, as well as ferries that had stops or terminals near, if not, at Times Square. With the progression of transportation systems and other technologies, the economy was advancing, companies wanted to establish their business there and land value increased. However, as property owners and other people disliked and prohibited the nightlife culture, the decrease of theater led to an increase in movies and burlesque in the late 1920s. The Great Depression of the 1930s further led to the emergence of other forms of profit like dime museums, adult bookstores, and arcades. In the 1940s, the zoning amendments passed to get rid of outdoor public nuisances like arcades, galleries, and souvenir shops encouraged people to turn to other forms of interests such as sex and drugs. Alexander J. Reichl states in Reconstructing Times Square that the transition led to “the worst block in town” with an increase in illegal activities and undesirables. Loiters and hustlers were disruptive on the streets along with crime and violence. The WPA Guide to New York City stated that Times Square became “a district of glorified dancing girls and millionaire playboys”. Samuel R. Delany believed otherwise in Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. The area reflected a mix of different socioeconomic classes and the variety of street contact felt “nostalgic.” He mentioned Jane Jacobs’s idea of how human traffic and contact promoted through street-level business and diversity decreases crime and violence.

The change from the 1980s to the late 1990s resulted from campaigns hoping to clear up the “slum-like atmosphere”. There was a shift from undesirable activities to more family-related entertainment. Reichl discusses the joining of large entertainment companies like Walt Disney, American Multi-Cinemas, and Madame Tussaud’s of London to Times Square. Many believed Disney symbolized the “conquest of Forty-second street by the forces of good over evil.” As urban entertainment, public relations, and tourism expanded, hotels and other structures were built. Many saw the transition of the “Dangerous Deuce” to a “Disney Deuceland” as beneficial to Times Square, the city, and other cities. Delany argued that the purpose of the “New Times Square” was for land values than moral value. For instance, it did not seek gender equality, racial diversity, support for the arts, or reducing sex and drug activity. He introduced the topic of developers earning profit from demolishing and renovating old buildings. Construction of infrastructures was promoted even if they may be of no use. The New Times Square offers less economic diversity in terms of the variety of businesses. Another perspective from Eric Goldwyn in his article “How ‘People-Centered’ Design Made Times Square the Place to be on New Years Eve” is that Times Square was a highly-dense place, but the space was used efficiently to include all its visitors. The area has been “a site of constant invention and reinvention.” With every new issue that arose, Times Square was remade and adapted to another place most ideal to everyone. Goldwyn stressed the importance of the activity taken place at public spaces, concluding that “the street is the river of life for the city.” People come to places like Times Square to be part of it, not to escape it.

The Times Square Alliance was founded in 1992 as the Times Square Business Improvement District to improve Times Square not simply by increasing public safety and sanitation services, but by promoting entertainment, culture, and urban life. This voluntary board helped shape Times Square to fit the needs of the locals and to encourage economic development. When it comes to creating change, the alliance came up with twenty principles. These guidelines were created from learning from the changes of Times Square over time. The area as well as the city continues to change as we all have an impact on it and vice versa. From the Reichl and Delany’s opposing views on the transformation of Times Square over the century, we can argue both ways—good and bad. The past is all part of the history of the new Times Square. Neither ‘rebirth’ or ‘revanchism’ are fitting terms for the changes. Times Square was not necessarily revived from a period of decline to a time it began to flourish nor was it completely progressing in a complete opposite direction. As Delany stated, “cities function the way they do”; whatever happens, happens.

 

Works Cited

 

Delany S (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York University Press

Goldwyn, E (2014) How “People-Centered” Design Made Times Square the Place to be on New Years Eve. Next City: Inspiring Better Cities

Reichl A (1999) Reconstructing Times Square: Politics and Culture in Urban Development. University Press of Kansas

(2014) Twenty Principles for Creating Change. Times Square NYC