In Kevin Loughran’s Parks for Profit, an interesting argument is made as to why the High Line is more catered towards the privileged rather than being an open space fit for everyone. Aspects of the High Line, ranging from the food vendors to the recycling collection, play an influential role in the type of people that would be interested in coming to visit the park. Loughran suggests that by the Friends of the High Line having strict rules on garbage/recycling collection, they could be trying to prevent bottle collectors. These bottle collectors, who are usually associated with people of a lower income status, are seen as “quality of life violations” that would potentially degrade the High Line’s appeal (Loughran 2014). The Friends of the High Line also control the type of food that would be sold there, preferring more artisanal and fancier food options, by making the application process difficult. In the report, a food vendor by the name of Ricky describes the process by saying, “It took about two months. [The Friends of the High Line] wanted to meet all our employees and taste all our food. It cost a thousand bucks to apply, too – non-refundable” (Loughran 2014). Restrictions such as this would make it hard for poorer food vendors that sell cheaper foods, like hot dogs, to work on the High Line. This, in return, also influences the type of visitors that would be attracted to the High Line.

While reading the report, I couldn’t help but to compare my observations and experiences at the High Line to that of Loughran’s. I too noticed the expensive food options and the majority tourist population. I remember thinking how expensive the tacos being sold there were when considering how small they were in size. I can see why aspects like this would make people feel out of place and create an unwelcoming vibe for those that are not super wealthy. It makes sense then for those that are hungry and not willing to pay for the high priced tacos to leave and look for more affordable food options. I also found it interesting how Loughran described the spatial practices of the High Line. He states, “The High Line’s narrow, linear space – coupled with relatively few places to play, sit, or linger … structures the most typical movement within the park: a bucolic walk from one end to the other” (Loughran 2014). I would have to agree with this interpretation. From my own personal experience at the High Line, I found it hard to do anything but walk. If I wanted to stop to look at something, there would be a crowd of people behind me yelling at me to stop blocking the way and move along. Besides sitting down at the various designated spots, walking across the High Line seems like one of the only activities available. The High Line feels more like walking through a museum than walking through a park. The regulations and associated limitations make the High Line feel less free, unlike the atmosphere of most other parks and public spaces.

Reading the NYC Parks article entitled “Community Parks Initiative Targeted Improvements” helped to show how different types of parks were designed to serve different populations of New York City residents. For example, the parks and playgrounds that were remodeled in underserved neighborhoods under the Community Parks Initiative placed more of a focus on the youth of those neighborhoods. By improving playgrounds and basketball fields this will attract more youth to come out and benefit from those facilities. The High Line, in contrast, doesn’t allow for many activities such as throwing objects, skateboarding, bicycling, and walking dogs (Friends of the High Line 2017). This may prevent youth from such neighborhoods, along with other individuals, from coming to the High Line because it doesn’t offer any of the activities they may be interested in. The High Line, with all its subtle restrictions, prefers richer visitors who don’t mind the overpriced food and the lack of possible activities. Parks that want to make a profit will want to attract individuals that could do that for them.

Works Cited:

Longhran K (2014) Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces

 NYC Parks (2017) Community Parts Initiative Targeted Improvements: NYC Parks Completes Improvements in 60 Parks and Playgrounds in Underserved Neighborhoods 

https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative/caring (last accessed 15 April 2017)

The Friends of the High Line (2017) Park Access & Info http://www.thehighline.org/visit/#/access (last accessed 15 April 2017)

In “Parks for Profit,” Loughran depicts how public spaces can be viewed in terms of privilege: in this neoliberal era, wealthier neighborhoods get more developed and maintained parks in an attempt to draw in tourists and wealthy consumers, while parks in poorer areas are underfunded and neglected unless they can serve “growth” schemes. One thing Loughran writes is how the High Line is narrow and linear, and has few places to sit, play, or linger. Additionally, I skimmed through a High Line documentary, and it revealed – no doubt unintentionally – that the park’s purpose is just to look pretty and bring in money (Great Museums 2014). For instance, it says how the High Line is a theater and the plants are performing on stage. Also, it revealed that the sun lawn is closed 2 days a week to “regenerate” because so many people use it, and actually most of the greenery is roped off. Additionally, the documentary claimed that the kids love playing and walking along the tracks, but the first of the many rules for the High Line is the prohibition against walking along the tracks, gravel, and plants (Norman n.d). The purpose of the park isn’t for kids to play, but to just be aesthetically pleasing. Also, Amanda Burden is filmed saying how the northern end of the High Line comes around the Hudson Yards and claims that we’ll see the expansion of a whole new neighborhood. As we read in previous readings, the Bloomberg administration was itching to get their hands on Hudson Yards, and the High Line was a pet project of Burden who claimed the High Line not only turned into an iconic public space but also boosted development in the area. In fact, Burden calls the area “Architect’s Row” because of all the starchitecture nearby (McGeehan 2011). The High Line’s purpose, then, wasn’t to be a place to play, but rather to bring in tourists and upwardly-mobile residents in an attempt to revitalize the area; it’s a place to walk through and consume and spend money.

Not only is the architecture of the High Line meant to deter certain actions, but, as I mentioned before, there are rules for what is and isn’t allowed in the park. Things like picking flowers, walking on plants, bicycling and skateboarding, commercial activity or performances except by permit, and even a classic park activity like feeding birds are all prohibited on the High Line (Norman n.d.) Also, employees constantly collect bottles to prevent lower-income people from bottle-collecting. Moreover, in their overzealousness to have what they consider the “best,” Friends of the High Line promulgated so many rules for sellers which make it difficult to function. To get the opportunity to even sell in the park, food vendors have to go through a 2-month selection process that includes shelling out a non-refundable smacking $1,000; then, if they get the chance to sell, food vendors aren’t allowed to have trash bags or even give people napkins, and have to empty their hidden trash boxes far from the park after their shifts. And only artisanal, hand-crafted foods are selected, vendors who sell more common street food – and who tend to be immigrants instead of middle-class college graduates – are demarcated to the streets under the High Line. Additionally, only 5 artists are allowed on the High Line each day, which actually hurts artists. And in order to make sure their rules are followed, Friends of the High Line have security cameras and private security patrolling the grounds (Wilson 2011). All these actions are conscious efforts to make the High Line comfortable for a certain group of people while simultaneously making it uncomfortable for another.

Furthermore, the High Line narrative completely ignores the fact that the original residents who lived there before the park were largely displaced. Moss writes that the area used to house working-class residents and light-industrial business, but between 2003-2011, property values increased by 103%, redeveloping the entire neighborhood for a new elite group of residents (2012).  In light of this, the Community Parks Initiative makes me skeptical. First, the website touts how the government improves parks in underserved neighborhoods while completely ignoring how the government is the reason why the neighborhoods became so underserved to begin with and why the parks were neglected at all. Additionally, looking at the before and after pictures, they really just slapped some paint on the playgrounds (and, in some cases, planted a couple bushes) and called it a day. Also, obviously the “after” pictures look better because the “before” ones were taken on foggy days with low lighting and a lot of the photos are on skewed angles, whereas the “after” ones were taken on sunny days, with greater lighting and contrast, are straighter photos, and some even have people playing in them. It seems to me that the government is like ‘oh look how good we are/we’re totally helping the poor/look how nice we made this bad area your park is prettier now so you can forget all about the years of institutionalized racism you faced at our hands.’ I don’t really think the kids that live there really care if the paint glistens in the sun or not. Growing up, there was a park by my house that had flaking green paint and I loved it. I mean, give kids an open lot and and a stick and let their imagination do the rest and they’ll be happy. Which is why I don’t think these improvements were done for the good of the people living there. This is politics, and in politics there’s always an angle. But whether this is just a ploy to show that Mayor de Blasio is helping the less fortunate and garner support for a reelection, or if it’s, as Loughran believes, part of the more sinister undercurrent of those in power putting funding into a park in order to revitalize the neighborhood, I don’t know. All I do know is that, using the High Line as an example, history shows that this has happened before, and unless we’re careful it can happen again and again until low-income people are completely pushed out of the city.

Are these parks being fixed up in order to transform the area like the High Line did and eventually displace the current residents? I sincerely hope not.

Readings:

NYC Parks. (n.d.). Community Parks Initiative targeted improvements. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative/caring

Loughran, K. (2014). Parks for profit: The High Line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces. City & Community, 13(1), 49-68.

Additional Works Used:

Great Museums (2014). Great museums: elevated thinking: The High Line in New York City. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CgTlg_L_Sw

Mcgeehan, P. (2011). The High Line isn’t just a sight to see; it’s also an economic dynamo. The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/nyregion/with-next-phase-ready-area-around-high-line-is-flourishing.html?referer&_r=1

Moss, J. (2012). Disney World on the Hudson. The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/opinion/in-the-shadows-of-the-high-line.html?_r=0

Norman, N. (n.d.). Defensive architecture. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.dismalgarden.com/archives/item/defensive_architecture/2911

Wilson, M. (2011). The park is elevated. Its crime rate is anything but. The New York Times. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/nyregion/the-high-line-park-is-elevated-its-crime-rate-is-not.html

The Highline is a prominent example of how ever changing New York City is. This old run down rail line was transformed into a beautiful tourist attraction, which still sparks much debate to this day. When the High Line was being made there was an uproar about what to do with it. Many different groups were interested in taking over the old rail line, but others wanted to destroy it for new construction to be made, and some wanted to renovate it. Josh David and Robert Hammond initially got involved when both went to a community board meeting and discussed renovating the High Line into something for society. Today, there is discourse about parks like the High Line being used to excuse the gentrification of other areas. Some people have claimed that the High Line is a good example of neoliberalism but that is not true; David and Hammond made the High Line to show the true art of New York architecture and create a monument for people to praise for generations.

Before the High Line became what it is today, the area was surrounded by sex, drugs, and gays. It was a safe haven for gays because it was a cheap area, and no one really paid attention to what was over there, which David noted when he first moved into the area. David became interested in the area after doing some research around the High Line and realizing that the area was 22 blocks of untouched above ground rail lines. Hammond became interested in the High Line after reading about it in a piece from The New York Times, and was flabbergasted that “this industrial relic had lasted so long and was about to be torn down” (David 2011). They were both interested in getting people up on the High Line and give them a new view of New York City.

Now the question is, were David and Hammond neoliberal urbanists that did not care about those that might be hurt by the renovation of the High Line, or were they unaware of the possibility of gentrifying the neighborhood and just wanted to make something beautiful?

I believe that David and Hammond did not want to gentrify the area and push out those who were already in the neighborhood, but rather wanted to share the new world that the High Line offered. “It was shock to see how beautiful it was….seeing [The High Line] for the first time made us realize how important it was to show it to other people” (David 2011). They genuinely seemed as if they just wanted to make use of this area for anyone in the city, without thinking about the repercussions. Both of these gay men most likely did not mean to take away this area for young gays to hang out, and instead intended for it to be a new place for them to hang out, not recognizing that young gays use safe havens away from other people so that they may come into their person quietly and in their own time.

Nowadays, the area is still a primarily gay area, with many bars and residents located there, but the young gays who used this area as a refuge are no longer located here. According to Erik Piepenburg, the area was heavily gay back then and is still to this day, but fails to acknowledge that the area is for wealthier, older LGBTQ members now, while it used to be an area for those who were still coming into their skin. The area “gentrified” in the way that the rich pushed out the financially unstable younger generation that made use of the area. But I do not believe that David and Hammond intended to destroy what had originally grown there, but rather did not think about it thoroughly and instead got much too invested in what they were doing. While this is not an excuse and younger gays have moved to new, cheaper area’s, and the area along the High Line remains a heavily gay area, I do not believe that David and Hammond were neoliberal urbanists because they originally intended for the area to stay a place for everyone. The area may have undergone neoliberal urbanism, with it’s pricey “exotic” elite food stands and security guards, but when reading how David and Hammond recounted the development of The High Line, it seemed to me that this is not exactly what they had envisioned when they thought of The High Line.

Loughran K (2014) Parks for profit: The High Line, growth machines, and uneven development of urban public spaces. City & Community (pp 49-64). Northwestern Univeristy

David J and Hammond R (2011) High Line: The Inside Story of New York City’s Park in the Sky. New York: FSG Originals

Piepenburg E (2012) The New York Times Under the High Line, a gay past. 13 April

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

With the Bloomberg administration came the reintroduction of Robert Moses-styled building and its societal consequences. Though recognized for being infused with Jane Jacob’s ideals, Jacobs herself criticized city planning under Bloomberg’s reign. (Larson) Privatized planning of public land with public funds became the new trend. And as we saw with the construction of Central Park – which set the tone for “public (re)development” in New York City– to the revitalization of Time’s Square, in order to accomplish what private investors deem to be advantageous to the city, the needs and benefits that it offers must be sacrificed by a select group of residents.

In the proposal for the completion of the Hudson Yards, Barclay’s center and Columbia University extension- to name a few, there was an evident conflict between private owner’s redevelopment ideas and that of the local community residents. How is it that the Harlem neighborhood’s (to be directly affected by the expansion) 16-year plan for development was denied, but Columbia was accepted? Money. In all these rezoning cases we see that large businesses/corporations with tons of money have the resources necessary to essentially bid over the ownership and control rights of private and public land that has large public interest.

Rezoning however, should be used to match the changing needs in districts, rather than to be constantly manipulated for political and economic gains. Don’t get me wrong, the city should be interested in making profits through tax revenues- but shouldn’t overestimate the profits of overzealous projects to justify the means of completing them. Bill Keller, the VP of Finance, attributed NYC’s fiscal crisis during the 1970s partly to “optimistic forecasts of tax revenues” that ultimately left the city responsible for its debt. Supporters of large-scaled building resulting from rezoning also cited the creation of jobs as a positive consequence. (Larson) In reality however, jobs in construction are only viable until the end of the building project and office positions would only cater to those with the required job skills- which includes non-city residents.

When rezoning, the consequences on residents needs to be one of the primary focusses. Ultimately zoning is a factor in determining the life chances of city residents. A person’s life chances as their opportunity to education, home ownership, and employment. (Dyer) In restricting who gets to live where, through downzoning particularly, there has been increased inequality through racial segregation and class disparities. (Dougherty) As previously mentioned, upscaling projects in low-income neighborhoods with the combination of redevelopment schemes has often-times cost the government more money than it made. However, Dougherty shines light on lost economic output seen in lack of development in downzoned neighborhoods. It’s interesting to see how much negative feedback development in downzoned areas receive despite its positive economic projections. Even more interesting is how in these neighborhoods comprised of mainly single family, detached homes have their wished respected- while in low-income neighborhoods with apartment filled streets, resident’s are forced to their stifle their concerns for the “city’s benefit.”

Sources

 Larson S. (2013) “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Keller B (2017) “The NYC Fiscal Crisis:  The Cost of Good Intensions.”

Presented at Queens College URBST 101 Lecture, Queens, USA, March

Dyer G (2017) “The New Urban Segregation.”

Presented at Queens College URBST 101 Lecture, Queens, USA, March

Additional Works:

Dougherty C (2016) How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality. The New York Times. 6 May

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/nyregion/city-is-backing-makeover-for-decaying-brooklyn-waterfront.html

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/development/2767-zoning-instead-of-planning-in-williamsburg-and-greenpoint

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.

www.wnyc.org/story/300641-how-new-york-vertical-city-kept-rising-during-bloomberg/

It is clear from the readings that Mayor Bloomberg had an immense impact on the growth and “rebirth” of New York City post-9/11. According to Larson, from the start, Bloomberg and his administration planned to “reshape” the environment of New York City on a Robert Moses type scale. Their strategy for rebuilding the city came from synthesizing the views of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs on urban planning. The Bloomberg administration’s agenda to rebuild New York City, maintained the actual ideas of Jane Jacobs that “won over” New York City (mainly the importance of diversity) by using the aggressive tactics of planning and building that Robert Moses has used (Larson 2013).

The main tool that the Bloomberg administration used to bring their plans into action was rezoning. They used rezoning as a tool to “build up” the city in height and density, promote a healthier economy, and get more “use” out of land that was initially set aside for industrial uses. In this way, during Bloomberg’s time as mayor, the number of housing units in the city increased by 5.3% and approximately 310,000 more people were able to live in the city from the areas that were rezoned between 2002 and 2009 (Schuerman 2013).

Rezoning in New York City brought about a change that was vital to the recuperation of the city after the 9/11 attack. However, it only brought about hope to certain groups of people. According to Schuerman, “Real estate developers say the biggest reason they built bigger and taller was because Mayor Bloomberg projected the sense that the city had a future, and that the future looked bright (at least to them and the people able to afford the 360-degree views from atop their towers)”(Schuerman 2013). This is a good point that was also implied in the assigned readings. While Bloomberg’s Plan was intended for the “well-being” of NYC residents, it was really only taking into account of certain classes of NYC residents. Because of rezoning, the cost of living in the city increased and people had to pay 6% more of their income to rent their homes than before the Bloomberg Plan (Schuerman 2013).

Intentionally or not, the Bloomberg Plan has caused tens of thousands of middle-class New Yorkers to leave the city because of the high cost of living that has come from rezoning (Schuerman 2013). We can see from this how one plan can have such different outcomes for different people. For the wealthy the Bloomberg Plan was the most efficient and “successful” plan to rebuild their city. And unfortunately, for the middle-class residents, this plan took their city away from them.
References

Larson S. (2013) “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Schuerman M (2013) New York, the Vertical City, Kept Rising Under Bloomberg. http://www.wnyc.org/story/300641-how-new-york-vertical-city-kept-rising-during-bloomberg/ (last accessed 31 March 2017)

Under the Bloomberg administration, almost 40% of the city was rezoned.  Opportunities for high density growth were created nearby subway stations, while low-density neighborhoods were largely preserved.

Bloomberg’s administration and his use of zoning as a tool is reminiscent of Robert Moses and his city planning style in that they were both a bit authoritarian.  Bloomberg’s rezonings were all about transforming the city into high-end commercial and residential districts.

College educated and whites moved into neighborhoods like Harlem, which had only been occupied by minorities and lower-income peoples before.  Though rezoning encouraged the addition of affordable units, the poor were pushed out as housing prices only rose.  Developments in the Melrose neighborhood of the Bronx drew in enough residents that the net effect was a 20% drop in poverty rates.  At the same time, however, poverty rates skyrocketed in nearby areas.  Hunters Point in Long Island City was also rezoned to now include a high-rise skyline with luxury medium-rise buildings surrounding it.  Though the population there has increased by 2000, 600 poor people have had to leave.

During the time of the recession from 2007 to 2011, the country’s median renter income fell by 6.8%, yet NYC’s median increased by 8.5%.  The city was quite literally split into two, with the haves driving the have-nots out of the very homes and neighborhoods that they had been living in for years.  Neighborhoods like Greenpoint and Williamsburg have been turned into havens for retail malls and condos, all the while displacing many of its working residents.

Moreover, the number of manufacturing jobs have been halved between 2001 and 2011.  A a 2005 study found that though the rezoning policies were successful in assimilating industrial ghost towns, this redevelopment of these manufacturing areas was putting at risk the loss of “viable industrial employers.”  These jobs aren’t necessarily replaceable with those in other industries, either.  Manufacturing jobs provide opportunities to learn the skills one needs for advancement than many of the other entry-level jobs; this is especially true for those who don’t have a college degree or speak English.  They were the ones that paid better, too: the average annual salary for a worker in manufacturing in NYC is around $52,000 as opposed to $36,000 for retail and $25,000 for food service (Rosenberg 2014).

Also, the city keeps having fiscal crises because it is so reliant on the financial industry, which is a pretty unstable industry.  Instead of diversifying the city’s economy enough to protect it, Bloomberg has made it worse.  He built a place where only companies that are very profitable—namely finance—can buy into the city.

All in all, Bloomberg’s rezoning of NYC sets it up for gentrification to take place.  Though he tried to introduce voluntary inclusionary zoning, it was ineffective for the most part, resulting in only a few units of affordable housing.  Ultimately, manufacturing and affordable housing were pushed out in favor of high-end residential and commercial space.

References:

Brash, J (2008) The Bloomberg way. http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com/2008/10/bloomberg-way.html (last accessed 31 March 2017)

Fessenden, F (n.d.) The Bloomberg years: reshaping New York. http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/08/18/reshaping-new-york/ (last accessed 31 March 2017)

Rosenberg, E (2014) How NYC’s decade of rezoning changed the city of industry. http://ny.curbed.com/2014/1/16/10154488/how-nycs-decade-of-rezoning-changed-the-city-of-industry (last accessed 31 March 2017)

The recession of 1989-1992 caused planners to redefine what makes a good plan for the future of the city. In A Region at Risk, Yaro says that “narrowly focused, one-issue-at-a-time strategic planning” was very common at the time but that practice was dangerous and would lead to the government disregarding the needs of the poor and elderly. The drafters of the Third Regional Plan suggest an alternative approach, one that Yaro called the “three E’s”–economy, equity, and environment–as a way to act in the interests of what they consider an “undefinable ‘public interest’” (Yaro and Hiss, 1996). I, however, would like to question the true consequences of such an ideology, namely, gentrification.

The three E’s essentially stand as the basic foundations of what Yaro considers the “components of our quality of life.” In order to have a high quality of life, we must remember three things: the economies of our cities and suburbs are interconnected and if one fails, the other will fail with it; we do not live on this earth alone so our lives are inarguably connected with those of our family, neighbors, and peers; we all live in the same area and breathe the same air. As a result, it is important for us to understand why the three E’s must be equally considered and strengthened.

In theory, it all seems great and well-intended to not focus solely on money or power (although those are important in terms of the growth of a city). However, this idea of our “quality of life” that Yaro and the RPA mention is what causes me to question the validity of this approach in growth while maintaining equality among residents. In many instances in Chapter 5 of Larson’s Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind, he reiterates what makes a certain region’s quality of life appealing to “highly skilled workers,” “high-value industries,” and “white-collar potential workforces.” The RPA was intentionally trying to appeal to a certain crowd in order to make the city globally competitive (Larson 2013). As a result, with the RPA’s attempts to improve the quality of life and thus, with its attempts to attract more highly skilled white-collar workers, the proposed plan to implement the three E’s inadvertently contributed to the gentrification of the city. As more of these highly skilled workers came to these now “aesthetic” neighborhoods, the property value increased and the lower income, less skilled previous residents were displaced elsewhere.

An example of this concept can be seen in a review of a case study done in Chicago and Seattle for the gentrifying effects of a “green economy.” In “A tale of two cities: Equity, environment, and economic growth in urban areas,” Wu states that “while lower-income residents are appreciative of the green services, they are increasingly worried about the gentrifying effects of green growth that has occurred throughout the rest of the city.” Although planners claim that the efforts to improve the quality of life is inclusive for everyone, it is clear that the consequences of the green economy will disproportionately benefit one group over another. While assuring the people that environmentally friendly jobs will be created, in this case study it was shown that the city government approved plans for a cement plant and the expansion of an oil refinery, both of which would require skilled workers as well as not help the environment (Wu 2016).

While I understand the intentions of the RPA in its plans of reconnecting the three E’s in order to create what it considers a globally competitive region, I think it is important for us to consider the effects of such plans. If the goal is the achieve global competitiveness but the means involve displacing the people who make up the diversity that propels the success of the region, is it worth it?

Larson S. (2013) Planning and the Narrative of Threat. Larson S. “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City (pp 61-76). Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Wu A. (2016) a tale of two cities: equity, environment, and economic growth in urban areas. http://environment.yale.edu/yer/article/a-tale-of-two-cities-equity-environment-and-economic-growth-in-urban-areas#gsc.tab=0 (last accessed 24 March 2017)

Yaro R. D. and Hiss T. (1996) A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for The New York- New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. Washington D.C.: Island Press