According to an NYU Furman Center report, most of NYC’s low-income households depend on low-rent unsubsidized buildings for housing. As the availability of these buildings continues to decline due to rising rents, it is unsurprising that providing affordable housing becomes a pressing need for the New York City government (NYU Furman Center 2015). The MIH/ZQA law was Mayor Bill de Blasio’s solution to the affordable housing issue. This plan would allow developers to build larger (and therefore more profitable) buildings in newly rezoned areas, as long as affordable units are also provided in these buildings. In this way, de Blasio planned to build and preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing (Abello 2016).

Yet, in the winter of 2017, over 323,000 NYC public housing residents were left without heat and hot water because their boilers were unable to keep up with the particularly freezing season. Several efforts have been made to right this wrong, from an $82 million plan proposed by de Blasio to replace 39 boilers that provide heat to 104 New York City Housing Authority (Nycha) buildings, to the Legal Aid Society threatening legal action against the Nycha if the agency does not refund up $15 million in rent to the affected tenants (Mays 2018).

This recent crisis points out the hypocrisy of zoning-based plans for affordable housing. A common belief held by those who support these proposals is that not only would these developments and buildings provide more affordable housing, but the profits raised from those buildings would allow more funding to go to neighborhoods in need. There is this notion that this is a long-term solution that would benefit the greater public. However, it is difficult to accept this when those who most need affordable housing are not even getting working facilities. Why aren’t current and already established housing being given necessary improvements, before trying to create more housing units?

The term “affordable housing” is also somewhat misleading. Any residence is considered “affordable” when it comprises of less than 30 percent of the household monthly income. On the other hand, public housing is specifically focused on low-income households (Beaver). As Abello points out, “the most affordable level in the mayor’s plan… [are] for households earning 40 percent of NYC’s area median income (AMI), yet 40 percent of New Yorkers fall below that threshold. (Abello 2016) ” Not only are current low-income households living in public housing not getting the proper housing standard, but the same people would likely not be able to afford de Blasio’s “affordable housing” under his plan. As a result, this seems to support the belief that these developments are more for the purpose of gentrifying the neighborhoods, rather than for the altruistic goal of providing affordable housing. 

Even if an argument can be made that such zoning/building plans would benefit the city when thinking long-term and may even provide funding to public housing through its profits, it’s difficult to trust that the profits would actually be used to develop the city the way the people desire it, rather than what would be most profitable to the developers and government.

Reference: 

Abello, Oscar Pelly (2016) How East Harlem Wrote it’s Own Development Plan. https://nextcity.org/features/view/east-harlem-neighborhood-plan-upzoning-affordable-housing (last accessed 13 April 2018)

Beaver, Alex What is the Difference between Affordable Housing and Public Housing?. https://olympiamanagement.net/2017/08/difference-affordable-housing-public-housing/ (last accessed 13 April 2018)

Mays, Jeffery C. (2018) Putting a Price on Heat, Legal Aid Threatens to Sue Housing Authority. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/11/nyregion/legal-aid-heating-outages-lawsuit.html (last accessed 13 April 2018)

NYU Furman Center (2015) New York City Lost Over 330,000 Affordable Unsubsidized Rental Units Since 2002. http://furmancenter.org/news/press-release/report-new-york-city-lost-over-330000-affordable-unsubsidized-rental-units- (last accessed 13 April 2018)

The theme of the readings we’ve had seems to be alternative solutions for affordable housing, in which the community takes it upon itself to find and utilize ways in which it can address the problems the government’s affordable housing plans may be ignoring. As discussed in the first reading, Bill de Blasio publicized his plan to preserve 200,000 units and create 80,000 units of affordable housing, which sounds great however, he means to do this through incentivizing developers to build bigger buildings, in which some housing units can be permanently affordable. To do this, de Blasio had to rezone areas so that the buildings could be big enough to appeal to the developers and to fit in enough housing units (Abello 2016). Now after reading this, I realized I wasn’t too sure about what affordable housing is exactly, and so I wanted to clear up the confusion by looking it up and what I found was a very neat book which explained affordable housing through infographics. A key statement I found was, “The government says housing is “affordable” if a family spends no more than 30% of their income to live there. This threshold is called “affordable rent burden” (Woo 2009). Now the book goes on to explain that income limits are based on the MFI, Median Family Income, meaning housing units will not be offered to those who are above the area’s MFI, which makes sense. However this doesn’t help with families who are qualified to live in affordable housing but can not afford to actually live in the unit.

Affordable housing units will be given to “households earning 40 percent of NYC’s area median income (AMI), yet 40 percent of New Yorkers fall below that threshold, equal to $34,500 a year” (Abello 2016). These people are the ones who need affordable housing the most, and yet unfortunately, they are the ones being left empty-handed. On a side note, I’m assuming that the author of the article meant to write “families” instead of housing because from what I gathered from the “What Is Affordable Housing?” book, AMI is determined by family income and not household income, the difference being households don’t need any familial relationship within them to be labeled as a household, whereas families need to be connected either through marriage, blood, or adoption.

DeVore, the president of the CVH, an organization which aims to advocate for the community of East Harlem said, “We can’t make the whole building 100 percent low-income, because they have to pay for maintenance and upkeep, but maybe 30 percent could be rich people and the rest on down, from people earning $50,000 down to $15,000″ (Abello 2016). This brings in the idea of a mixed-income neighborhood, which sounds good on paper, especially when you hear there is an “enhanced security, increased investment in neighborhoods, and higher expectations for management” (Vale 2015). However there have been some studies done which seem to also point out the negative consequences of mixed-income housing, with one focusing on the development of young boys in these mixed-income neighborhoods. It appears that low-income boys who lived in mixed-income communities “engaged in more antisocial behavior [and had higher rates of mental health problems] than their low-income peers who lived in concentrated poverty” (Odgers 2015). Also the problem of Very Low Income Families not being able to receive affordable housing would still harm several New Yorkers, because mixed-income housing would still be using the AMI aka MFI to designate which families can have which housing units (Vale 2015). So it seems to me that although mixed-income housing does have its benefits, there are also important drawbacks to consider.

---

Abello O P (2016) How East Harlem wrote it’s own development plan. https://nextcity.org/features/view/east-harlem-neighborhood-plan-upzoning-affordable-housing (last accessed 12 April 2018)

Odgers C (2015) Together but not equal.  http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2015/04/duke_university_poverty_study_when_rich_and_poor_live_side_by_side_poor.html (last accessed 12 April 2018)

Vale L (2015) In the US, mixed housing developments aren’t working for low-income families. https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/us-mixed-housing-developments-arent-working-low-income-families-698 (last accessed 12 April 2018)

Woo R (2009) What Is Affordable Housing? : NYC Edition. NYC: The Center for Urban Pedagogy  http://welcometocup.org/file_columns/0000/0011/cup-fullbook.pdf

 

 

It seems that neither appointed city members nor community members can solve the affordable housing crisis. This cyclical issue has been ongoing, with the methods of displacement and rezoning as its temporary fixes. But those who fall under the category of low-income residents (in NYC, it’s those earning less than $34,500 a year) are often left out of the equation (Oscar Perry Abello). They are easier to move because neither landlords nor prospect developers want them in their buildings. In Perry’s article, “How East Harlem Wrote Its Own Development Plan,” he explains the strategies community members have consistently been doing to try and solve this reoccurring issue. In one instance, they play a hypothetical game with hypothetical figures (such as mayor) and work in groups to create developments and adjustments in East Harlem that would better fix the housing issue and the community’s needs.

“Each group had to decide where to place the market-rate and affordable housing units, at a ratio of four market-rate units to every one affordable unit, up to a certain height limit. The groups discussed where to put units, and why” (Abello). While this strategy provided some clarity, there was still discourse at hand. The community members, of course, strive for housing affordability, but many are against the idea of more density.

 

Sam Davis, a UC Berkley scholar and experienced affordable housing developer, explains the real issues behind affordable housing and whether or not it can be solved. In his article, “The housing affordability crisis: Can it be solved?” he first defines what it means to be a low-income resident. “In the United States, anyone who spends more than 30 percent of their income on housing is considered “cost burdened,” and has difficulty paying for other of life’s necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and health care.” Similar to Mayor DeBlasio’s plan, most affordable housing are only targeted at those 30 to 50 percent of the median income. Thus, those who fall below it are either unrecognized, forgotten, or expected to move.

 

He explains the several options and their correlating issues when it comes to the lower income residents and community members.

1. Moving to a more affordable neighborhood. (The rise in transportation costs to either work, school, stores, or medical centers counteract one’s savings in rent)
2. Sharing a unit to split the costs. (What about single parents? Parents who are jobless? Families that need a larger space, which means higher rent?)

 

Along with these issues is the issue of actually building affordable housing. According to Davis, “The cost…is as much or more than market-rate housing.” Construction only accounts for 60 percent of total cost. It is the quality of the interior design (types of materials used) that makes the largest difference. Luxury buildings can afford higher end materials such as granite because monthly rent will account for the features. Affordable housing, however, tends to use higher quality materials on the exterior so that building maintenance can be as low as possible. Unlike luxury buildings, these rents are insufficient, therefore making affordable housing less enticing.

 

So the solution, if there is any, lies in a variety of things based on the general location and amenities that a community has to offer. “More employers need to consider either making employee housing contributions as they currently do for healthcare, or developing housing for their workforce. Health and housing are inexorably linked, and employees well-housed near work will be more productive resulting in reduced absenteeism, healthcare costs, and staff turnover.” This will increase demand and the need for more housing because more housing creation will eventually lower rent costs. (Though a little idealistic in terms of finding willing employers to do so). Davis ultimately explains that simply displacing the issue will lead to more costs in such as in: “health, environmental degradation, transportation, and homelessness.” Subsidizing housing for lower income residents seems to be the most probable solution, one that he incurs by handing out housing vouchers.

 

Above all, people need homes and sustainability without feeling as though they are pests. I think that Davis brings up a lot of important issues and behind-the-scenes knowledge where low-income resident members, government officials, and building developers can begin a plan together.

 

https://nextcity.org/features/view/east-harlem-neighborhood-plan-upzoning-affordable-housing

It’s no question that the issue of homelessness is on the rise here in New York City, as more and more people are having a difficult time finding a place to call home. Mayor de Blasio set a goal to create 80,000 new affordable housing with the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and Zoning for Quality and Affordability policies. These policies outline that city developers must include the construction of affordable housing if they want to rezone and build larger buildings. “The city only gets the affordable housing it needs if developers take the bait to build big.” (Abello 2016) However, in society, shouldn’t housing be a given? Why must affordable housing be available only if the wealthy also benefit? It seems that affordable housing is used as an excuse to put rezone. The reputation of the city has been built to be a money generator, tourist magnet, and like previously discussed in class, a “growth machine.”

Aside from the mayor’s plans, many people have made it their goal to create permanent housing and preserve their neighborhoods, an example being East Harlem. Community land trusts (CLTs) are formed to ensure that the community has a say in how its land is being used. While reading Blumgart’s article about the CLTs in Boston, I was having thoughts about if New York City could ever have CLTs too. I assumed that CLTs would have a hard time forming in New York City because Blumgart explains how acquiring land from the city can be “tricky” and what land is available in crowded New York? However, I did find out that that there are CLTs in NYC, a few being the Cooper Square CLT/MHA and Lower East Side People’s Mutual Housing Association. (NYCCLI) There was an award of $1.65 million to support the creation of CLTs, and from many of the accounts on the NYC Housing Preservation & Development website, CLTs seem to have a positive response from the communities and their representative. Lynn Lewis from the East El Barrio CLT said that CLTs are a way to create “permanent and truly affordable housing that includes extremely low income and homeless households.” (nyc.gov 2017)

Urbanist Pete Harrison describes 4 reasons as to why CLTs can be great for New York City, which are how inexpensive they are, how they prevent displacement, how community voices will be heard and how they “compliment private development.” CLTs provide a way for the people of community to become active and put their input in on how they feel their housing and land should be taken care of. I think my biggest concern though is how much time it would take. Uniform Land Use Review (ULURP) looks over how land would be used and listens to what the public has to say. But it’s such a long process. According to a chart on eastharlemplan.nyc, the ULURP process can take about 7 months. CLTs can go through issues too, as an agreement with the leaseholder can be “complex” and “lawyers initially may be reluctant to have their clients accept the agreement.” (CMHC 2018) And going back to the fact that finding land to purchase may be difficult, how much time would it take for CLTs to actually do the work that they promise?

CLTs do sound like a good step forward in incorporating the community’s voices in developing a plan on using land. From the thoughts that many CLT representatives have shared, it can provide a way for permanent housing. CLTs provide a better way in creating affordable housing than just allowing wealthy developers do their work. CLTs allow for affordable housing to be an actual goal of the city, rather than just an excuse for developers to expand their buildings.

Abello O. 2016 “How East Harlem Wrote Its Own Development Plan.”  Next City.  https://nextcity.org/features/view/east-harlem-neighborhood-plan-upzoning-affordable-housing

Blumgart J.  2015 “Affordable Housing’s Forever Solution.”  Next City.  https://nextcity.org/features/view/affordable-housings-forever-solution

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 2018. “Community Land Trusts.” https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/afhoce/afhostcast/afhoid/fite/colatr/colatr_002.cfm

http://www.eastharlemplan.nyc/

Harrison P. 2017 “4 Reasons to be Excited for Community Land Trusts in NYC.” Medium. https://medium.com/@petehomeBody/4-reasons-to-be-excited-for-community-land-trusts-in-nyc-69bb7b2d45e0

NYC Community Land Initiative. “Frequently Asked Questions.” https://nyccli.org/resources/clts-and-mhas-frequently-asked-questions/

NYC Housing Preservation & Development. 2017. “Enterprise Awards New York City $1.65 Million to Support the Formation and Expansion of Community Land Trusts.” http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/about/press-releases/2017/07/07-19b-17.page

 

 

Although Mayor Bill de Blasio had good intentions when he decided to build and protect 200,000 units of affordable housing in East Harlem he disregarded one important factor during his planning process: the residents’ voices.  After reading both “How East Harlem Wrote Its Own Development Plan,” by Oscar Perry Abello, and “Affordable Housing’s Forever Solution,” by Jake Blumgart, I developed an understanding on two vastly different approaches to affordable, or low-income, housing.  Community land trusts are built through outside entities, often nonprofit organizations, that buy land and remove it from the market to be sold at a flat rate.  Through this method, the needs of the residents get met, and often times community members even have direct say, making up large members of the land trust board.  Moreover, housing is not always the main concern with land trusts, and often they are used to help build mixed spaces and to form a community.  Section 8 housing and low-income housing credits do not have the same affordability options, and clearly nor do zoning laws (Blumgart, 2015).  In New York City, the Universal Land Use Review Process (ULURP) requires an extensive seven- month process to review all of the zoning changes throughout the city.  Although there is an extensive board that oversees these changes, the citizens themselves often have little to no say as to what buildings will be developed in their neighborhood.  Thus, when Mayor de Blasio imposed his new policies for mandatory inclusionary housing and for zoning for quality and affordability, the gap between the government and its people was too great for him to see that he was actually stripping East Harlem of 282 units of affordable housing each year for 15 years, and that his plan would be neglecting the most vulnerable New Yorkers earning wages under 40% of the median (Abello, 2016).

After reading both articles, I came up with a plan of my own.  If the district instead decided to look for land community funding options then the residents would have more of their voices heard opposed to having the government speak for them, and they could have a say as to where each structure was put, as well.  The government instead of acting as a dictator, would play the role of a supporting actor.  Although committees like the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan could sway the decision of the district, they should have the first say and not the last.  Not to mention, Abello’s article focused on a community that was particularly exceptional.  Many neighborhoods that abide by zoning laws are unfortunately at the complete whim of the city.  Furthermore, after drafting a plan, the residents of East Harlem still must wait for the city to go through the process and to potentially approve or disapprove their proposition.  Essentially, what I believe would be the most effective strategy for the neighborhood of East Harlem, and perhaps for other gentrifying areas of New York City, would be for the government to provide subsidies for organizations like Community Voices Heard and for funders like those part of the East Harlem Neighborhood plan to buy plots of land to allocate for housing and other necessary amenities for the community.  The rest of the land could go to developers so that the city, too, could make money and still build up the area without the fear of pushing out long-term residents due to rising real estate prices.

The article about the plans for East Harlem was written in the summer of 2016.  After further research, I realized that my proposed plan for East Harlem was actually more probable than hypothetical.  A year after the East Harlem article was written, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development released a newsletter about the formation and expansion of a community land trust in New York City.  In fact, $1.65 million were granted to go towards the Community Land Trusts (CLT) in New York City, to regions like East Harlem.  Furthermore, interestingly enough former Council Speaker and political advocate for the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan, Melissa Mark-Viverito, spoke about an East Harlem/El Barrio community land trust as being a priority for the residents in East Harlem.  The is going specifically towards purchasing and fixing up low-income rental housing, which, as stated above was a problem with Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan (Rohlfing, 2017).  Hopefully, with the help from the grants for the community land trusts in East Harlem, the residents will be able to build a community that they can call home without the fear of housing insecurity and without the direct intrusion from the New York City government.

 

Work Cited:

Abello O. 2016, “How East Harlem Wrote Its Own Development Plan.”  Next City.  https://nextcity.org/features/view/east-harlem-neighborhood-plan-upzoning-affordable-housing

Blumgart J.  2015, “Affordable Housing’s Forever Solution.”  Next City.  https://nextcity.org/features/view/affordable-housings-forever-solution

Rohlfing L.  2017, “Enterprise Awards New York City $1.65 Million to Support the Formation and Expansion of Community Land Trusts.”  NYC Housing Preservation & Development.  http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/about/press-releases/2017/07/07-19b-17.page

(I’m responding to Emilee’s post because the comment box does not appear in her blog post)

Emilee argues in her post that parks, both in the present and in the past, represent a sense of division between the classes that is further exacerbated.  I agree with this statement, as it is apparent that parks favor the upper class and tourists, while hostile architecture prevents the homeless from residing in these parks as well.

As mentioned in the blog post, Central Park used to intentionally exclude certain class members by being so far away from the city’s minority groups.  In the present sense, Central Park has become a staple in a tourist’s guide, making it more accessible, yet also less.  The Central Park Zoo, the skating rink, and various other activities make Central Park a location of expense instead of a place that anyone can simply relax at.

Emilee also mentions the High Line, a walkway that is famous for its modern construction and scenic views.  However, it has become designed simply for the upper middle class, maintained by a nonprofit organization called Friends of the High Line.  Surveillance of the park makes this location a somewhat undesirable place to minorities and those of the lower class.  The High Line has made for a massive exclusion of the lower class, raising property value in the area and making it too exclusive for the common individual to enjoy.  With the area being the last area of affordable housing, the Meatpacking District has become all but affordable.

In these parks comes the bigger issue of hostile architecture.  Park benches with spikes, lack of benches in general, and various other designs make the lower class feel consequence of hostile architecture, social divisions, therefore, become salient with regards to public infrastructure, making the commute harder for working parents.  As hostile architecture becomes more prominent in New York City, it conversely creates public spaces alienating to the city’s disabled, homeless, working-class and elderly populations.

 

References

Roy Rosenzweig. “Introduction”, The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. Cornell University Press. 1998. 63.

Kevin Loughran. Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces. Northwestern University. 2014. 50.

fordhamobserver.com/hostile-architecture-in-new-york-city/

*I am responding to Emillee Carratala’s blog post in this format because the reply box does not appear in her post*

Emillee argues that parks, both past and contemporary, became “symbols of social elitism,” due to the use of rules and measures that seem to target and hinder the lower socioeconomic classes (Carratala 2018). I agree that the development of modern parks, especially those located in profitable commercial areas, very often favor the elite social class over minorities and members of lower socioeconomic classes. However, I believe a stronger distinction should be made between the reasons for discrimination in the early twentieth century compared to the current time.

While it is true that NYC parks have a history of class and racial discrimination, I don’t believe this is the main focus Loughran’s argument. Instead, his argument is that the neoliberal nature of today’s society drives the motivation of using public spaces for profit. As a result, the priority given to making a profit means that the desires of poorer citizens of NYC are neglected. It’s not that private interest groups are purposefully alienating the lower classes, it’s that catering to the poor is not profitable. Therefore, the design and management of these “elite parks” reflect that.

This is why I believe the regulations against the working class that used to be in place in Central Park differ from the security and surveillance measures in the High Line. As Emilee states, the discriminatory rules of early Central Park were specifically designed to discourage the working class from using Central Park due to the elitist belief that the park was a retreat for New York socialites to escape to from the dirty, urban life (Carratala, 2018). On the other hand, the High Line is designed to attract upper-middle-class people who can afford the goods and services provided there and raise revenue that would fund the city. The difference is a matter of active discrimination and class privilege that leads to discrimination.

I find that the development of luxury high-rise housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 6 is reflective of this desire for profit. Recently, the Brooklyn Heights Association (BHA) had dropped their lawsuit against the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation (BBPC) and their plans to build these apartment buildings in what was originally designated for green spaces (Rosenburg 2018). I’d like to focus on several quotes made by supporters of the BBPC, listed below:

“It is time to act…the need to fund the park and bring affordable housing to this neighborhood is urgent.” -Austin Finan (Barbanel 2016)

“We need to ensure the park is fully funded—that’s the reason we’re doing this development in the first place.” -David Lowin (Rosenburg 2017)

“We are pleased…move ahead with this essential project, which will provide critical long-term funding for Brooklyn Bridge Park.” -Eric Landau (Rosenburg 2018)

“We are pleased with the Judge’s decision, which ensures that a public investment enjoyed by millions and envied in cities across the globe will thrive long into the future.” -Eric Landau (Rizzi 2018)

While the main takeaway from these quotes is that the BBPC believe the new housing is necessary for funding the Brooklyn Bridge Park and overall benefit for the city, it also ties into the belief that it is better to use public spaces to raise revenue for the city rather than creating recreational spaces for residents. The shift in motivation from creating an “ideal park space” to best utilizing public spaces for profit means that the shift in nuances of discrimination in parks should also be recognized.

 

Reference:

Barbanel, Josh (2016) Vote Is Set on Apartment Towers Inside Brooklyn Bridge Park. https://www.wsj.com/articles/vote-is-set-on-apartment-towers-inside-brooklyn-bridge-park-1464802442?ns=prod/accounts-wsj (last accessed 9 April 2018)

Carratala, Emilee (2018) Public Spaces as Status Symbols. https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/larson18/2018/04/06/public-spaces-as-status-symbols/

Rizzi, Nicholas (2018) Plan For High Rises In Brooklyn Bridge Park Gets Go-Ahead. https://patch.com/new-york/heights-dumbo/controversial-pier-6-development-can-move-forward-judge-rules (last accessed 9 April 2018)

Rosenburg, Zoe. (2017) Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation fires back against Pier 6 funding allegations. https://ny.curbed.com/2017/3/9/14847582/brooklyn-bridge-park-pier-6-housing-lawsuit (last accessed 9 April 2018)

Rosenburg, Zoe. (2018) Civic Group abandons fight against Brooklyn Bridge Park’s Pier 6 Housing. https://ny.curbed.com/2018/3/28/17171892/brooklyn-bridge-park-pier-6-housing-lawsuit (last accessed 9 April 2018)

 

Parks and playgrounds, the inner-city kids Disneyland and Splish Splash. For those who did not have the luxury of having a backyard, playgrounds where the epicenter of fun on hot summer days. According to the New York City Parks Department, “New York City has more than 1700 parks playgrounds and recreation facilities across the five boroughs” New York City is unique in the way it is spatially structured. Many of the parks that are in the neighborhood are typically within walking distance. However, one of the biggest concerns in parks in low-income neighborhoods is safety. A study released on by the National Institute of Health showed that a way to combat “safety threats” is to focus on community engagement.

Another important issue with these parks is how they are maintained. Mayor Bill De Blasio began the Community Parks Initiative in 2014 and since then has repaired over 110 of them. This initiative serves underrepresented communities and is a great start in an effort to tackle this park problem, but is it enough? In my district, there is a participatory budget where members of the community can vote where almost one million dollars of our district budget can be directed towards. Some options include new technology in school or installing adult fitness centers in three parks around the district. However, it is up to the community to decide. (if you live in district 19, make sure to vote between April 9^th – 13th, website below)*.

Community engagement isn’t the only way to tackle this problem.  Many leaders in the past (looking at you Bloomberg) have sought out the privatization of park space to ease up on the responsibilities of the city. The most famous example being The High Line. Despite the fact that the city owns the space, the maintenance of the park is overseen by a non-profit called Friends of the High Line. In my neighborhood, there is a park at a local school P.S. 184 that is full of people of all ages every hot summer day. One of the most popular attractions is the regulation sized handball courts. Although this space has been neglected by the city, it is common knowledge that the people who use the park have doubled as the maintained crew. On their own accord, the former handball players repainted the entire handball court several times. Now the handball godfathers of the park have since retired and the paint is now slowly chipping away. I think the best aspect of this park is the sense of community that surrounds it. Now can these practices of privatization or communal upkeep be our saving grace? Or is it just another prime example of governmental incompetence?

 

*Also if you live within in the 5 boroughs, check out this website to see whats on your district’s budget and where to vote!

https://council.nyc.gov/paul-vallone/pb/7 – District 19’s budget vote

Works Cited

https://www.nrpa.org/contentassets/f768428a39aa4035ae55b2aaff372617/urban-parks.pdf

https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/faq

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821183/

https://www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative/caring

 

New York’s public spaces- especially green spaces, such as parks- have been used since their inception as markers of the social and economic elite. From the creation of Central Park to the construction of the High Line, New York City parks have stood as socioeconomic markers, and have been designed to cater to specific subsets of society. The parallels in purpose and function between Central Park, built in 1857, and the High Line, opened in 2009, are striking and undeniable.

 

Central Park, though widely considered a public park, was really a retreat for New York socialites from the dirty, diseased downtown area where working and lower class citizens lived and worked. “Uptown landowners saw the park as both way of screening out new poor residents and their associated trades… and as a means of removing the existing poor population” (Rosenzweig, 63). Central Park intentionally excluded minorities and people of lower classes not just by displacing existing populations and preventing new populations from moving into the area, but also through location and regulation. Being built so far uptown at that time meant that people in the lower classes did not have access to the park, as it was too far away from working class neighborhoods for families to walk there, and taking other forms of transportation up to the park was often too expensive. Many activities that the lower classes would use the park for were either prohibited or strictly regulated, so even if lower class people managed to get there, they would not find much to do. Dances, picnics, and sports game were all either prohibited or strictly regulated. These regulations simultaneously ensured the continued serenity of the park for the rich people taking bucolic walks and quiet boat rides through it and prevented families with children from entering- as children tend to be noisy and like to play- as well as working class groups hoping to wind down with various recreational activities. Both the location and the regulations surrounding the park made it difficult for the poor to participate in its culture.

 

The High Line, similarly, has become a symbol of social elitism barred to minorities and lower classes in New York City today. Built on an old railway that is now a modern walkway park, the High Line “represents an archetypal urban park in the neoliberal era, where the rising inequality of economic and cultural resources produces a spectrum of unevenly developed public parks, ranging from elite, privatized spaces in wealthy districts to neglected parks in poor neighborhoods” (Loughran, 50). Indeed, the High Line caters to a mainly young, white, well-to-do audience, and is maintained by the Friends of the High Line, the non-profit organization that established the park’s current regulations. In order to keep the park elite, vendors must be able to pay a fee to sell there, for example. Since many small-time vendors may not be able to pay the fee, expensive and gourmet vendors get to stay and profit from park-goers. Additionally, security and surveillance measures, such as stationing private security guards throughout, make the park feel unsafe to minorities- as they are “far more likely… to be the victims of use of force by the police” (NYT, 2016)- while ensuring the comfort of the rich white people that normally populate the park. Lastly, the poor are also discouraged from using the High Line, as many are still not able to travel there and cannot afford to consume the goods sold there, nor collect bottles or other materials from the trash, since High Lines employees are made to discard trash regularly, and off the park’s premises.

 

How public are public spaces? Based on what has happened in both Central Park and the High Line, it seems if one is socially privileged, belonging to the elite classes, then public spaces are as safe and accessible as they possibly can be. However, if one belongs to a disadvantaged group, supposedly public places can become hostile in a multitude of ways. Suddenly, these spaces become blocked for certain groups, whether through the banning of recreational activities enjoyed widely among peers of their same socioeconomic class, the imposition of uncomfortable security and surveillance measures, the displacement of communities in order to build the parks, or any number of other means. Public parks have in many cases become symbols of status rather than places anyone can go to enjoy time outdoors.

 

References:

 

Roy Rosenzweig. “Introduction”, The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. Cornell University Press. 1998. 63.

 

Kevin Loughran. Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces. Northwestern University. 2014. 50.

 

Timothy Williams. “Study Supports Suspicion that Police are More Likely to Use Force on Blacks”. New York Times. 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/us/study-supports-suspicion-that-police-use-of-force-is-more-likely-for-blacks.html