Bloomberg’s administration began rezoning the entire city, upzoning certain areas and downzoning others.  The plan for upzoning was to increase density and development through building more affordable housing units, while downzoning would restrict density and development by reducing the number of housing units available for use.  The government’s plan for the greater good of New York City ultimately caters to the wealthy, as rezoning depends heavily on the private sector.

Sarah Laskow’s, “The quiet, massive rezoning of New York” discusses an argument for upzoning: developing denser neighborhoods would use less land (building upward) and the real estate market could supply more affordable housing units for people with lower incomes, which in theory would be a success.  However, it is not in the real estate market’s best interest to provide affordable housing.  As the number of housing units go up, prices – profits for the private real estate sector – would go down.  As a result, residential capacity increased only 1.7 percent in upzoned lots, the statistic determined in a report by the Furman Center, discussed in Kareem Fahim’s article, “Despite Much Rezoning, Scant Change in Residential Capacity.”  Furthermore, the newer housing units are not strictly set aside for people with lower incomes – there is no guarantee that these units will benefit people of a lower socioeconomic class.  If people with lower incomes can afford to live in these units, so can people with higher incomes, which could lead to the gentrification of the area and possible future downzoning as the neighborhood’s resident income grows.

Downzoning, on the other hand, limits competition for private developers (Laskow 2014), and typically occurs in white neighborhoods with higher incomes, leaving minorities with lower incomes few housing options (Fahim 2010).  Downzoning keeps wealthier areas wealthy, and these neighborhoods have more power to push for downzoning in the first place.  The real estate market in the neighborhood stays up as a result of downzoning, and lower income minorities would look elsewhere for more affordable housing.

While the initial idea may have been well-intended, the effects of the rezoning put into place haven’t changed much in regards to affordable housing or progression of gentrification.  In the end, the rezoning government policies have lead to the benefit of the wealthier white population and private sector, leaving lower-income minorities displaced.

 

Additional Sources:

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2014/02/the-quiet-massive-rezoning-of-new-york-078398

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/nyregion/22zoning.html

Although Robert Moses was known by many for his racist views and his disregard for the poor, he has drastically changed New York City.  Recognized for his urban renewal programs and slum clearance, he completed many public works projects, including highways, public parks, and outdoor swimming pools.  Arguments can be made for the debate of whether Moses’ visions to renew the city made him a “master builder” or if his failure to meet the needs of all the people leaves him as more of an “evil genius.”  On one hand, could Moses be called an evil genius if he was the one who began the public works program, successfully completing many projects that still stand today?  Yet, can he be considered a master builder if he doesn’t take into account the lives of all the people living in the city?

Michael Powell’s “A Tale of Two Cities” discusses the two different views that people hold concerning Moses and his work.  Revisionists view Moses as “a visionary who gazed upon the city and region from the perspective of an eagle,” who could see exactly how to link the city together through structures built from wasteland.  There are also those who agree with Robert Caro’s work, “The Power Broker,” in which Caro states that Moses, corrupted by power, “threw out of their homes 250,000 persons” while building his projects, thereby tearing out “the hearts of a score of neighborhoods.”

Supporters of Moses’ endeavors acknowledge that Moses was racist; however, they make the claim that it may have been “a product of his time” – more widespread acceptance and tolerance of different cultures and ethnicities hadn’t existed in the past.  Even so, while his “most elegant playgrounds” were initially built for “the white and comfortable,” today, they have become “working-class havens.”  Supporters could also argue that Moses completely changed New York City from a city of unemployment to opportunity, following the opening of thousands of jobs for the construction workers, architects, and engineers (Gutman) who were all needed to make his visions possible.  Ballon and Jackson’s “Introduction” tracks the progress that Moses made, from finding the federal aid to start his public works program, to organizing the city for postwar building efforts, to creating highways and parks for the public.

However, looking past artistic designs and stylish brochures, one could see segregation and racism that shadowed the outdoor pools and public housing.  Ballon and Jackson’s “Introduction” states that Moses disregarded the damage that his projects left behind on the people and the neighborhoods they lived in, deciding that it was a cost necessary for progressing the city.  There was also much opposition shown toward his projects, including his final Westway superhighway proposal that would have cost $1.7 billion.  The project was shut down and money instead was used to fund public transportation and as a result, “saved the subways” (Powell).

These two contrasting views will most likely continue to surround Moses and his work; however, today it would be better to look ahead and use ideas that have succeeded in the past in combination with creating ideas that will correct mistakes that have been made and prevent them from occurring in the future.

 

Additional Work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/nyregion/thecity/06hist.html