Hurricane Sandy swept into our city back in 2012, which I distinctly remember mainly because it was the weekend I was supposed to take the SHSAT. My exam was postponed and I had five extra weeks to study, which turned out pretty well because I went to Brooklyn Tech. In hindsight, I was really lucky when Sandy hit and relatively unaffected: my power stayed on, our home did not flood, and schools resumed in less than a week. The worst thing I remember happening was the long line and two-hour wait to get gas. Unfortunately, the same could not be said for thousands of New York residents that felt the full detrimental impact of Hurricane Sandy. Unlucky friends shared with me their stories, the flooded classrooms and closed schools, not having power for several weeks, the basements that flooded. So many communities were wholly unprepared for the storm that surged, a common issue for our city, one surrounded by water. New York’s infrastructure is thoroughly unprepared for such disasters, and further unprepared for the inevitable rising sea levels. Our city is slowly sinking.

A 2016 Regional Plan Association report entitled Under Water, outlines the issues imbedded in our city’s infrastructure. Although more than 3,700 miles of tidal coastline in New York’s metropolitan area, very little is being done in the way of preparing the buildings and communities destined to sink. The report projects that sea levels will rise by more than a foot in the next three decades, a seemingly innocuous measure when juxtaposed with a city of skyscrapers. By 2050 just one foot of sea level rise could permanently flood 60 square miles, affecting nearly 19,000 citizens and 10,000 homes. But many communities are already suffering at the effects of these rising levels. Take Hamilton Beach, which floods regularly. Streets in the areas of Jamaica Bay, Broad Channel, and Howard Beach are more often than not overrun with saltwater. And this is just a proverbial drop in the overflowing bucket of communities affected.

The report goes on to propose possible solutions:

1. “engineering solutions” such as adding sand to beaches, building sea walls around susceptible communities, and installing water pumps that push flood water out,
2. learning to “live with the water” by elevating structures and getting used to wet ground.
3. “phase out new development” by moving away from flood-zones and into dry land.

Each on their own may not be quite feasible, but the best solution might just be a combination of the three. It is worth mentioning that all of these solutions might fix existing issues but none work to prevent future ones. It is useless to attempt to fix a persistent problem by simply adding Band-Aids to a gushing wound, the true solution lies in preventing future catastrophes.

This brings me to the Green New Deal.

Recently, the NYC Council passed a piece of legislature so ambitious it wishes to combat the thread of climate change that looms over all of our heads. The bill consists of a plethora a of parts, from reducing CO2 emissions to adopting renewable energy sources, to utilizing an entirely unfamiliar economic policy, but the bill wishes to combat an underlying issue. Imbedded at its core, the Green New deal wishes to slow down the impact of global warming which threatens us with rising sea levels, extreme weather storms and heat. It threatens our homes, our infrastructure, our daily lives and so on. And every bill has its flaws, but as council member Corey Johnson says “we do not have a lot of time—the consequences of not heeding this warning will be cataclysmic.”

Willets Point

Sunday, May 5, 2019

5:05pm – 5:30pm

Weather: Light to heavy rainfall, a little windy, high of 57, low of 50

Started on the corner of 126th Street and Willets Point Blvd, walked down 126th Street to 34th Ave, walked down 34th Ave to 127th Street, walked down 127th Street, turned onto 35th Ave, walked down 35th Ave back to 126th Street, and back to where I started on the corner of 126th Street and Willets Point Blvd.

Description of Location

The neighborhood of Willets Point is essentially one big, right triangle: The bottom side of it is 126th Street, where Citi Field is located, the side perpendicular to 126th Street is 34th Avenue, and the hypotenuse is Willets Point Boulevard. And within this large triangle are blocks and blocks of different auto repair shops.

Physically speaking, the neighborhood did not look very appealing. While there was a tree here and there and some green plants that sprouted from cracks in the road and the fences, it didn’t seem like these plants were well kept. The roads seemed to be in the midst of being repaved, as they were very bumpy and had a lot of holes in them. These holes ultimately became murky green/brown puddles, as it had been raining all day. There were also a lot of spots in the ground where the gravel and dirt were uneven and muddy. So, because of these things, I had to be careful of where I was walking, or else I would have twisted an ankle or gotten my shoes wet (even though they already were ?).

There wasn’t too much to see if I’m being honest. The area, overall, looked very neglected and deprived of life. While walking down 126th Street, all I saw was Citi Field on my left, and a lot of empty, vacant lots on my right. The only thing that I could see coming up was the first set of auto repair shops on 38th Avenue. Furthermore, the land that I saw on the way to 38th Avenue was closed off by either chain fences or big blocks that were labeled, “NYPD.” On the blocks and basically every building (aside from Citi Field) and garage doors, there was some kind of graffiti on it.

The only building type that I really saw were business types. As stated before, a majority of them were auto repair shops. There was one restaurant called, Rosmar Deli Restaurant, but it was the only restaurant that I saw, aside from McFadden’s in Citi Field. There didn’t seem to be any residential or public buildings in the area. The only residential buildings I was able to see were the ones in the next neighborhood over, which was Flushing.

In terms of sounds, I heard a lot of things: police car sirens, ambulances, airplanes flying overhead, cars beeping/moving, shuttle buses, birds chirping, and tools whirring. In terms of smells, it smelt relatively normal until I walked across 35th Avenue, where the smell of sewage really hit me. It was then that I noticed a lot of sewers and the amount of garbage that was in the area.

Description of People

During my neighborhood visit, I did not see many people. For the most part, I was literally by myself, walking through the area. Occasionally, I would see some workers from the repair shops, but in terms of tourists, there were none. From the few people I did see, they were all Hispanic or Latino middle-aged men who were working in their shops. However, I did run into one middle-aged Asian man who was smoking a cigarette outside of one of the shops.

Reflexivity: Description of Yourself

During my walk, I felt a little out of place. I felt out of place in terms of appearance, gender, race, and ethnicity.

I had just come back from presenting at Macaulay, and so I was dressed fairly nicely in a white button-up shirt, grey sweater, black skirt, black tights, and black boots. I definitely was not dressed for working in an auto repair shop, as the workers I saw were dressed in what seemed to be more comfortable clothing, like jeans, t-shirts, and hoodies.

Out of all the people I saw, there was not one female among them. I know this may sound a little bad, but I was a little anxious being in that area by myself. I wasn’t familiar with it at all and I admit that it felt a little uncomfortable and awkward walking around, observing, and taking pictures on my own.

Moreover, minus that one Asian man I saw, everyone else there was Hispanic or Latino, and so I felt a little out of place because of that.

Critical Reflections: Moving from Description to Analysis

I chose this neighborhood for my observational tour for a couple of reasons. One is because I had done research on this neighborhood for my group project. I had researched the Willets Point development plan and I was curious to see what was actually going to be developed. Another reason why I chose to observe this place is that it is not incredibly far from home, but it was far enough that I wasn’t familiar with it and it was somewhere new. I also figured that since I would be coming back from the city anyway and the 7 train doesn’t run from Mets-Willets Point and Flushing, Main Street, that I would take the time to walk around the neighborhood.

Rather than learning new things from my neighborhood visit, I feel that a lot of the things I already knew/was aware of, were reinforced. For instance, while doing research on Willets Point for my project, I learned that a part of the land that was going to be developed is called the Iron Triangle— this fact was reinforced after having walked through the triangle myself. I also learned that within this Iron Triangle, there are many auto repair shops, and boy, there were so many of them, one after the other!

However, something that I did learn while doing my observation was how really run down the area is and how unpopulated it is. Because there is a redevelopment plan for Willets Point, I assumed that the neighborhood had to have been run down and old in some way. But it wasn’t until I walked through it, that I could really see where this plan was coming from. The buildings looked kind of shabby, landscaping wasn’t well kept, the roads were uneven and in need of repaving, garbage that had to be cleaned up… I didn’t realize just how bad the area was, in terms of physical appearance. I also realized that, in comparison to how Brooklyn’s Barclays Center made its neighborhood become one of tourism and mass gatherings, Citi Field doesn’t seem to have done the same for Willets Point. While it may get very crowded when there’s a Mets game or a concert, it is only for that one period of time— it doesn’t last very long.

While I usually tend to side with the communities when it comes to megaprojects entering them, I think this proposed plan of redeveloping Willets Point may actually be a good thing. It would level off the roads, clean up the garbage, rebuild the dilapidated buildings, and overall, make it a better place to work and hopefully live. 

What sets Willets Point apart from other megaprojects like Hudson Yards, the High Line, and Barclays Center is that there is actually community involvement in the planning; Mayor de Blasio has convened a task force that is led by Queens borough president, Melinda Katz, and local City Council member, Francisco Moya, to help facilitate the necessary community input. And while currently, the auto repair shops are already facing a loss of business due to the effects of this years-long development process, I feel that maybe their businesses will be revived with the plan, so long as they don’t get pushed out.

Many cities like New York City have expanded their waterfronts for further development, but they have not taken the adequate measures to shield their new lands from flooding. After going through the readings, particularly Steinberg’s article, it is clear that the path moving forward for New York involves the usage of physical barriers of different sizes and in different places. This assumption is based on what political figures like Bloomberg and de Blasio see fit to go through with in their cost/benefit calculus. In my post, I wish to inform readers on alternative paths New York could take to get rid of any excess water on land. Sophie Knight’s article gives the different ideas that have been “floated” around to tackle this hard topic:

Chicago is expecting an increase in rainfall over the next century which would require drains to contain the increase in water. Above, notice the plant beds that were designed to absorb water. The ground has some sand in it which could help filter flooding waters and help drainage of water into the ground or into lakes. This design has been employed in Chicago and seems to work fairly well. I couldn’t find any details online on the cost and size of the Green Alley projects in Chicago, so I can’t accurately analyze whether the plant beds are worth the money. The model above was used as inspiration to make water beds that would empty into garden-like holes. A diagram of this is below:

The two drainage systems should be used as a supplement to the sewer system. Only when the sewer systems become surcharged should these green spaces have an effective impact. The waterbed idea raises the point of creating reservoirs as a means to protect against flooding. Reservoirs have the added benefit of procuring hydropower and increasing transportation (its weird but that’s what the article by Gemini Research stated.) The total investment that the United States has put into building reservoirs has given back a 350% monetary return. One problem that does come with reservoirs is the need for vast spaces to build them, which could be a problem in New York City.

 

Another proposed remedy to flooding was to elevate neighborhoods as shown below:

This type of redevelopment seems expensive and will require a change for New York City’s architectural identity. I can’t see a New York City mayor have the political savvy to pull this off. This design will make cities look like offshore drilling cities. New York would be renamed “a city of stilts.”

 

To people who wish to employ a greener remedy to flooding, Berms are a feasible solution. Berms are stretches of wetland across the shoreline which absorb flooding waters (below.)

The city of Guangzhou china has used their forest of mangroves as their own types of Berms for centuries, but the deforestation that has occurred in pursuit of development has destroyed much of the forests. If these Berms were to be built in New York City, China teaches us a valuable lesson that these wild lands must be protected through some kind of zoning, otherwise development would usurp the greenery.

 

The final proposal that Knight gave was to use floating pods. These pods are like floating houses that could safely harbor electricity and other electrical appliances. The only drawback is that each pod costs $66,000.

 

In conclusion, the future looks bright considering the technological advancements and creativity that has gone into reducing flooding. Perhaps the ideas brought up by Knight can be used in New York’s future to withstand hurricane flooding and heavy rains.

 

References I used outside assigned readings:

https://geminiresearchnews.com/viewpoints/water-reservoirs-save-lives-create-value/

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/flooding_causes.shtml

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jul/12/urban-sprawl-how-cities-grow-change-sustainability-urban-age

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/25/what-flood-proof-city-china-dhaka-houston

Lunchtime, for me, is usually that brief reprieve from classes that I utilize to stuff my face-hole with any edible substance I can get my hands on. Being that I don’t really believe in breakfast, by noontime I’m usually in the throes of hunger pangs from hell, thus that time isn’t usually very productive for me. However, on Wednesday, April 10^th (yeah, I know, it’s been like 3 weeks, but I’m a busy dude) I made the ultimate sacrifice: I skipped lunch for class. This is unbelievably crazy. The words “lunch” and “class” are usually switched when this statement emanates from my face-hole (I like this term, and I stand by it). I took my Free-Hour break and went to the information session and panel presented by the QC Urban Studies Department in Kylie 270. I’ve been taking classes in that building for 2 years now, and it still took me 20 minutes to find the room. Once I finally found it, I settled into my wooden chair, prepared my laptop for note-taking, waved to Professor Larson, fist-bumped Aaron “Aaron #3” Morgenthal – who was seated behind me – and prepared to hear about “NYC and the Green New Deal” from a distinguished panel of well-informed speakers.

 

The Green New Deal. This term hails back to FDR’s New Deal which was his economic response to the Great Depression. This reiteration of the deal is meant to apply the same economic approach to the issue of climate change. It was proposed as a resolution in Congress. It would act as a 10 year program to completely shift gears on many economic problems the US faces today. It calls for the US to switch to 100% renewable energy, universal healthcare, elimination of pollution and greenhouse gases, and free education for all, among other things, It overall has many socialist and progressive goals for the US. It was proposed as a 14 page resolution in the Senate, drawn up and championed by NY Representative Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey. It has led to a very contentious debate in the US concerning how best to react to climate change.

 

The first to speak on this was Costa Costantinides, a NYC council member and the Chair of the Environmental Protection Committee, among others. He was the classic politician: well-dressed, with an American flag on his lapel, charismatic and well-spoken. With a wide smile, he began by talking about how he was a QC graduate, immediately winning over much of the room. He then made the following points. He first stated that “Climate change is the fight of our generation.” He then quoted President Obama as having said that, “We are the first generation to feel the effects of climate change, and the last to be able to do anything about it.” He then moved into the specifics of his role in preventing climate change, discussing legislation he worked on to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050 and discussing how 100,000 of his indigent constituents were made into refugees due to Hurricane Sandy and climate change. Then, he plugged a new bill of his that aims to force 50,000 of the largest buildings in NYC to reduce emissions, as they are responsible for 30% of total emissions. Lastly, he discussed his work shutting down power plants by replacing them with solar panels and wind turbines and financing climate change victims. He closed with this: “Change needs to start in the cities and move outwards.” I thought he was well-spoken, and was pointing out many relevant issues of today. I would’ve liked for him to detail more about how his buildings bill was going to work, and what the repercussions of it would’ve been. Also, in classic politician style, he barely talked about the Green New Deal, which was technically the focus of the talk, and instead talked a lot about his own work. While I can definitely see that he is very qualified to talk about his own projects, I would’ve preferred more of a focus on the topic at hand.

 

Next to speak was the person who was used the most to advertise the event: Professor Andres Bernal, a PhD student, adjunct faculty member at QC, and an advisor to Rep. Occasio-Cortez’s campaign. He seemed young, relatable, and very with-it. As he began, I looked him up on Rate My Professor (what is up with Chegg lately, taking over everything). 4.2, not bad, not bad at all. I did find the following very bad review, which I thought was hilarious:

 

“He never responds to emails because he is too busy getting his Doctorate and consulting with his Congresswoman. Never prepared for class and is always preoccupied during class…Avoid.”

 

I know this is irrelevant, but I thought it was funny that she clearly came up in his classes.

 

Either way, he discussed how he met Occasio-Cortez at a youth leadership conference in 2010, and how they shared many ideals of how it is very important in the US for you to take ownership of your own future. Now, as a congresswoman, she is trying to apply this to the US’s ways of dealing with climate change. He described their reaction to winning the campaign as, “Holy crap. Now what?” Her team now saw this elevated platform as an opportunity to use the issue of climate change as a lens to show the American people all of the issues with their society in today’s day and age. The system that allowed for climate change to occur is the same system that causes inequality and racism, so to fight it one must take a holistic approach. He asserted that the Green New Deal isn’t a bill, but a resolution. It functions to bring in organizations to work with the government to allow for us to save the environment and help those adversely affected by it. Then, he addressed what many see as the ultimate question on the Green New Deal; How will this massive undertaking be paid for? He responded that the current economic model in the US is really bad and has caused all of our problems. He said that as a country we can spend however much money we want so long as we avoid inflation, and the way to avoid inflation is to utilize all resources.

 

This solution to the money problem at hand did not seem very tenable to me. A center-right organization, the American Action Forum, estimated the total cost of the Green New Deal as between 51 and 93 trillion dollars over 10 years, as was reported by Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion). Backers of the plan say that climate change could end up being greatly expensive as well, but nowhere to the scale that this plan is. Now, it is certainly possible that bias inflated these numbers, as Sen. Markey claims, but even if they are inflated, there is no question this huge overhaul of American policy will be incredibly expensive. To simply say that we can just change the fundamental economy of the US within the next few years is nothing short of astounding. It’s just impossible. The entire country cannot change so fundamentally in so short a time. It would take a miracle. But, who knows? As a Jew, I can’t really, in good faith, deny someone a miracle. But, there needs to be more to the plan then just, “Oh yeah, let’s just change EVERYTHING, no biggie.” There need to be real, concrete steps to deal with the huge issues that arise from rewriting the economic framework of the world’s most powerful country.

 

Next to have the floor was climate change and social justice activist, Leslie Kagan,, who serves as the Chair of the Climate Coalition. She was very engaging and clearly a skilled speaker. She made a bunch of very important points. She began by stating that climate change is a global crisis, not a local phenomenon but a day to day, in-your-face problem on a global scale. She further pointed out that solving it is so, so hard that it makes many want to ignore it or give up. Real change, Leslie asserted, happens from the bottom up; all people must mobilize. She applauded NY people really helping to put concrete policy in place, and she was confident and hopeful that city/state legislation becomes law. But, she was careful to warn that our work doesn’t end with a few laws on the books. Then, she addressed the payment question. She pointed out that this question is never asked when a war needs paying for, which garnered an ovation from the room. While this was an interesting point, I’m not entirely sure the two are comparable; war is usually a life-or-death necessity (while it can be argued that climate change is as well, it is certainly a much slower process), and many times wartime will actually spur the economy, like how WW2 ended the Great Depression. And, besides for that, once again this isn’t a concrete way to pay for the resolution. Nonetheless, it was a rather sharp point.

 

Last to speak was Annel Hernandez, a Climate and Renewable Energy Coalition member, who previously did research on climate change in cities. She has been a lifetime New Yorker, and she affirmed that all of her work is based on dealing with the real-life and everyday issues that New Yorkers face due to climate change. She pointed out that just reacting to climate changes’ symptoms instead of finding real ways to fix the heart of the issue was a big mistake being made in the US today. I totally agree, and thought this was a very nice point. She discussed how the fossil fuel industry has many failures and causes many problems in society. She feared that many of the injustices of that industry may carry over into the necessary new industries of renewable resources and she cautioned taking great care when designing that industry. She was very happy about Occasio-Cortez’s win, but she firmly stated that grassroots movements are going to solve the problems in the US far more effectively than federal solutions. While I agree that grassroots movements are certainly important, it is also important to realize the great power and influence that the US federal government wields. If turned to aid in the climate change crisis, this power could be of great use.

 

What followed was a Q and A session. If I go through that, this paper will be longer than Donald Trump’s rap sheet. Suffice it to say, our panel was asked about communities of color and Sandy relief,  negative emission technology, and public opinion on the environment. They answered. Usually well. Oh, don’t look at me like that. This is already 3 pages on Microsoft Word with no line spaces. I’m losing my mind here. Let me skimp on something.

 

As a sort-of critique, I would like to point out that I was disappointed to find that all the members of the panel were almost wholly in agreement with one another. Aside from some very nuanced points, like what part of government/the nation the best political change would come from, all the panelists were singing the same tune. I understand that this was an informational event and that it perfectly functioned for what it was meant to do. However, I think that real dialogue about an issue can only happen if all sides of it are explored with an open mind. Dissenting opinions force pure and honest conversation; they make sure to take everyone to task for the weaknesses in their arguments. For everyone in a panel to agree makes the whole event a bit one-dimensional. This isn’t to say I didn’t enjoy the event; on the contrary, it was very informative and interesting. I agreed with much of what was said. I learned a lot. But, a debate style would’ve allowed for more of an exploration of the topic.

 

Okay, here’s the breakdown. Climate change is a really big issue. Anyone who denies this is ignoring a lot of science. Ignoring science is not usually smart. The fact is, our actions do impact the earth in many significant ways, and we need to ensure that future generations have a clean and healthy place to live. I am 100% for doing all we can to halt climate change.

 

Should you disagree with that last paragraph, or should you be down for a laugh, you’re going to really enjoy this video.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

 

Now, when it comes to the Green New Deal, I am a little hesitant. I am looking for a way to act for the environment that is effective, but also pragmatic and achievable. I went to this session seeking to be convinced that the Green New Deal was this. To be honest, I’m still uncertain. The New Green Deal has some very positive and helpful goals. I just don’t quite see it as feasible. One of the biggest hurdles for this is the fact that the parts of it that help the environment are buried inside of a very progressive agenda. It will be very hard to sell that to the American people at large, especially the Republican part of the government. According to that Bloomberg article, most of the expenses for the Green New Deal aren’t even for the environmental aspect of it; rather, they are for the economic, socialist agenda. To quote the article:

 

“That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all.”

 

I would prefer it if these were separate; if the issue of climate change could be addressed independent of the politics; preventing climate change should be something everyone is on board with, regardless of political affiliation. It shocks me that it has become so politicized. This isn’t to say that I disagree with the other parts of the Green New Deal; I just think they should be addressed separately. It is far more likely for the Green part of the deal to get through the government than the rest of it. If it were more focused and more economically sound, I’d be more sold. Honestly, I need to see a concrete, step-by-step analysis of how we can work to prevent climate change, that has been planned by economists, scientists, sociologists, and politicians working together to create the best possible system. A system which an happen in our society.

 

There is a lot about the Green New Deal that I respect. It works towards some very laudable goals. But, the key is finding real, solid stepping stones. I’m uncertain that this resolution has those. But, the talks were very true; climate change is happening. It is getting worse, and it can only be stopped through our actions. It is going to take some drastic action. Maybe the Green New Deal is just what we need.

 

Who knows.

 

All I know is one thing:

 

How could they forget to buy kosher pizza at this event???

 

Like, really?

 

My sad, empty face-hole.

 

 

Works Cited

Natter, Ari. “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion, Group Says.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 9 Feb. 2019,       www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/group-sees-ocasio-cortez-s-green-new-deal-costing-93-trillion.

Long Island City, NY.

April 27^th, 2019.

Saturday.

3:30 p.m.

Partly sunny, partly cloudy.  A little windy. About 56 °F.

Area walked: Up and down Vernon Blvd. between 46^th ave. and 49^th ave., then down 48^th ave. to Gantry Plaza State Park and up and down Center Blvd between 49^th ave and 46^th ave.

Description of Location

• Alot of plants in front of every store/business (to me, areas seem more desirable when there is nature around)

• Most businesses were privately owned or family restaurants: no chains (i.e., I didn’t see a McDonald’s or a Starbucks where I walked)

• A lot of food trucks by the water (again, privately owned businesses)
• Extremely diverse by culture (I saw an Indian restaurant, Mexican restaurant, Cuban restaurant and All-American sandwich shop all on the same block)
• A lot of family friendly areas – aside from restaurants, there were a lot of playgrounds for children, parks, basketball courts, and even a dog run!

It seems they are trying to get the youth involved in building up the area:

• The closer you get to the water, the more gentrified the area seems to be: when I started my walk, I saw a lot of small businesses located in smaller, older buildings; the closer I got to the water, the fancier, newer, taller and more modern-looking the buildings were (whether those be apartment buildings or offices)

It’s hard to believe that the buildings in these photos are right across the street from the buildings in the photos included above! They look like they belong in two completely different towns.

• Accessibility: CitiBikes available every few blocks, 7 Train, MTA buses, metered parking available for cars

• Area seems to be going from a previously industrial area to a new attraction to young residents and businesses alike
• And you can’t forget the beautiful view of the city skyline by the water!

Description of People

• Diversity by age as well as culture (diversity of culture is intrinsically connected to the description of the place as well as the description of the people*): I saw a lot of a lot of young kids in the public parks with their parents, older kids playing basketball and soccer, a lot of older people eating lunch at the restaurants on Vernon Blvd., and people picnicking on the lawn of Gantry State Plaza.
• Diversity by social class: a lot of people dressed for business in suits going to and from work, a lot of people dressed casually, etc.

Description of Yourself:

I definitely fit in.  There were too many types of people here to not fit in.   As I looked around, I saw so many different people, and I thought, Wow, I could be any one of those people.  I could’ve been sitting down for brunch with the set of grandparents at the Italian restaurant; I could’ve been part of the group of people taking pictures near the water.  The kids playing basketball at the park could have been me ten years ago; The mom watching her daughter on the slide can be me in ten years.  There were so many different types of people, from so many different places and of so many different socioeconomic backgrounds that ANYONE could have fit in.  I remember visiting that same area when I was in middle school; it certainly was not like it is now.  Back then, it was way more industrial.  Even though it was only about 7 or 8 years ago (as opposed to two decades ago), I can definitely see change in the area. And it’s really positive change.

 

Critical Reflections

Before, the streets weren’t as pleasant to walk down, and the area was filled with factories.  It wasn’t family friendly.  In fact, I don’t think it was much of anything-friendly.  There were small businesses here and there, but not as many as there are now.

Although Gantry State Park has existed since 1998, it wasn’t expanded until 2009 and I truly believe that until recent years, it wasn’t as nice as it is now.

One article describes it perfectly:

“once home to artist communities and a graveyard of abandoned factories, now has its own skyline that’s dotted by high-rise apartments and commercial developments” 

(https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/20/18093040/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-queens-resident-reactions-neighborhood-impact)

 

I chose this area because of the whole ordeal with Amazon, first announcing that it was relocating one of its headquarters to LIC, then pulling out of the deal.  Surely, it caused a stir.

The city was divided, with some people for it and some people against it.  What would really have happened if Amazon closed the deal?

Even though it’s allegedly not happening anymore, I chose to explore the topic anyway.

 

“Jobs, jobs, jobs”: The author of the following article talks to small business owners in the very area that I walked, and it turns out that a lot of them are disappointed that Amazon pulled out of the deal.  For small business owners, especially mom-and-pop shops, Amazon coming to the area was going to keep their businesses growing: the deal “would have undeniably brought tens of thousands of new jobs to the area and been a boon to local bars and cafés.”  Having that many more people working there meant having more people eating lunch in the area. The author quotes a restaurant owner on that one:

“Conservatively,” he figures, “I’d say we’ve lost $2 million in revenue per location.”

http://www.grubstreet.com/2019/02/lic-restaurant-owners-amazon-hq2-departure.html

 

 

But it’s not – and shouldn’t always be- about making money.  Sometimes, you need to worry about the people, too.

There are plenty things about Amazon coming to LIC that would have made the area less desirable.

First off, most of the jobs offered by Amazon in the area require college degrees.  That means that they’re not open to everyone.  That also means that most people in the area don’t have college degrees, so it’s likely that people would’ve been moving in from other places, raising property values (which can be a good thing, until the people who already live there can’t afford it anymore and are forced to move out).

That also means that if people aren’t moving there, they’re commuting.  That means the area is going to become more congested (and that includes trains, cars and buses; even walking and biking can become a hassle).

According to another article,

“…[There is fear that the city has chosen to] to invest in something that will instead further price out local residents. “Along the 7 line, it’s already so intensely crowded. The sheer number of people in Queens is [unprecedented], and the infrastructure that is there hasn’t been kept up”…At a press conference addressing Amazon HQ2 last week, Mayor de Blasio says he’s still committed to affordable housing for low-income New Yorkers. But instead of fixing the Queensbridge Houses, which reported a heating outage the day after the Amazon announcement, de Blasio this week announced plans to renovate 62,000 apartments throughout the Bronx and Brooklyn. To anti-Amazon protesters like Afridi, this is just the first step to displacing local families in need.”

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/20/18093040/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-queens-resident-reactions-neighborhood-impact

 

Instead of fixing the problems that already exist, it seems like bringing Amazon HQ would have potentially created more problems.

And finally, my favorite quote from the article:

“People from Queens and people from New York in general should not have to trade in their jobs and homes for basic infrastructure like good transit and good schools,” she says.

(https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/20/18093040/amazon-hq2-long-island-city-queens-resident-reactions-neighborhood-impact)

 

In conclusion, the area is beautiful and definitely on the rise.  I can see myself living there in the future (if it’s even affordable by then). Everything has it’s pros and cons, but I personally think that bringing Amazon HQ to LIC might ruin it; not only would adding more “factories” ruin the aesthetic that is becoming of it, but it would make it undesirable to live in due to all the congestion – it would almost be like another Manhattan.

How can I relate this to something I learned in class?

Well, I guess moving Amazon HQ to LIC would be the “Robert Moses” way of doing it – ignoring the needs of the people already living there in order to build and reap economic benefit…Keeping it out of Queens would be a Jacobsian way of caring about “the greater good” of the community.

“NYC is Dead?” offered a host of speakers on the current political, social, and overall livable state of New York City. The keynote speaker was Kevin Baker, a journalist and novelist, who refused to answer the question in a typical binary fashion. He painted a picture of what New York was in the past versus where it stands today. He listed all the things he hated about the old NYC of the seventies: crime, dirt, garbage left on the street for days, cockroaches, the Bronx burning, homelessness, discarded hypodermic needles on his building stoop in morning, deindustrialization, the shabbiness of Times Square, subway cars covered in graffiti ventilated by a single fan that just swirled around the gross hot air during the summer, and whose doors wouldn’t always open when the cars arrived at the stations. Many of these issues have been dealt with dramatically. New York today is, in the aggregate, healthier, wealthier, cleaner, safer, less corrupt, more tolerant, and better run than it’s ever been. However, he pointed out so poignantly, we do not live in the aggregate. New York is still riddled with problems. Homelessness is at extremely high levels. 40% of the South Bronx is living below the poverty line. One in five people in the city is living in poverty, and almost half live below the near-poverty rate of $47,634 a year for a family of four. New York’s rent levels are “too damn high,” with 30% of households paying 50% of their monthly income or more on rent, and the issue is only getting worse as rent prices seem to be rising faster than wage increases. (It’s even sadder when you consider that from 5^th to Park, almost one-third of the apartments sit empty for 10 months a year.) The result is high levels of homelessness, which is apparent on the city streets. Furthermore, he argued, while the city should be working to solve that issue, they instead undertake projects like spurring the development of Hudson Yards, subsidizing some of the richest corporations in the world to come and bring work with them there. What does that say about the city’s goals? As time goes on, he fears, more and more people will likely be kicked out of their neighborhoods and replaced by millionaires, who will occupy the apartments above empty storefronts, the skeletons of stores that were forced to vacate because they could no longer afford rent. We face becoming a city of transients, one of pop-up stores, Airbnb’s, and tourists. An “empty city”.

 

After he spoke, students from a class at Columbia University proposed several plans to help save the city in various ways. One proposal looked to bridge racial barriers by building playgrounds for children on the borders between white and black neighborhoods. Another sought to inject diversity into segregated neighborhoods through development and inclusionary zoning. We’ve spoken in our class about the possible futility of inclusionary zoning, as demonstrated by Bloomberg and currently being expanded upon by de Blasio but with questionable methods (why set aside only x% of units for affordable housing?) and ultimate ends (does it work?). These concerns were not mentioned at the panel.

 

I spoke to Mr. Baker to make sure I understood his points after the panel and later realized I had the following question. If NYC seems to be declining in the ways he mentioned, why do people want to live here? Another speaker mentioned how the city is expecting its population to grow by another million people over the next decade. Why do they want to come?

 

The panel closed with a video that had no narration. It was just two minutes long, and it showed a huge crowd of several hundred people, of all skin colors and ethnicities, dancing and singing in unison to a pop song being played on a subway platform. I got goosebumps while watching it. With all the negative talks surrounding the state of the city, that video reminded me of the vibrancy that still exists here. And it answered my question for me. Despite its myriad problems, NYC is still teeming with life and opportunities. It remains perhaps the most cosmopolitan city in the world. It seems to me that the findings of the panel were that the city is certainly still very alive. However, the greatest aspects of New York City – its ethnic and social diversity, its democratic spirit – are at risk, and if the city doesn’t stop and take a look at what’s happening to its residents who are being forced out of the city due to the housing crisis, we risk losing the city’s soul.

De Blasio called his housing program “The most ambitious affordable housing program ever” and that “it would change the face of the city forever.” The primary idea behind his “revolutionary” housing program is something called inclusionary zoning. Basically, it requires or incentivizes (generally, its mandatory) private developers to designate a certain amount of their units in a project as Below Market Rate, for people who make less than the areas median income. These units are then raffled off in lotteries to people whose income is under a certain threshold or meets certain other requirements. Those who are pro this type of development state how it takes little to no public subsidies, and it also forces the wealthy to live with lower income individuals, giving these individuals the opportunity for “upwards mobility.” However, there are many issues with this type of housing program. One, It doesn’t seem to have the ability to really penetrate the massive housing problem that exists. For example, a CityLab report (https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/citylab-university-inclusionary-zoning/565181/) brings the example of one building in San Francisco where 6,580 households applied for 95 affordable units. Its nice for the 95 lucky households that won the lottery, but how about the other 6,485 households. Where are they going to live? They have to go through the arduous application process again and literally hope to win the lottery. More the sixty thousand people in New York, including 22,000 children, are homeless, and we need a more scaleable solution. Another issue is these projects still gentrify neighborhoods. Yes, a few lower income residents still get to live in these neighborhoods, but these massive projects attract the wealthy and increase the prices in the surrounding areas. Also, the “affordable” housing isn’t really affordable for most New Yorkers. Inclusionary rents are based on Area Median Income, which often can be higher than the average familys income. For example, in 2013, AMI for the average household in the New York Metro area was $77,310; in the city, the average family made $50,711. Basically, the primary critique is “there are too few apartments at too high rents.” This is very difficult to overcome, and it may be optimal to look at a different solution/plan to fix the affordable housing crisis. It seems to me inclusionary zoning is a politically flawed program that aims to fix the affordable housing program, but its primary agenda is to try to appease capitalists. We need to focus on a plan that will accomplish goals that politicians set forth for the affordable housing crisis, yet never seem to come to fruition.

 

Sources

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/10/de-blasios-doomed-housing-plan/

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/9/26/17901946/nyc-housing-affordability-decline-report-scott-stringer

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/07/citylab-university-inclusionary-zoning/565181/

In David Madden and Peter Marcuse’s article, “The Permanent Crisis of Housing,” they explain that there is no US state where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford to rent or even own a one-room bedroom apartment. They explain how that nationwide, nearly half of all renting households spend a large amount of their income on rent; this doesn’t exclude New York City. In fact, affordable housing is a rising problem and Bill de Blasio seeks to change that as part of his progressivism plan.

Bill de Blasio provided a “Housing New York: A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan”. Within this, he states how critical it is to provide financial stability for working families as well as helping them get ahead a build a better life; this, however, is impossible without affordable housing. Through this plan, it states his goals and guiding principles he will follow, his key policies and programs, how his plan will be implemented, how it will be funded, etc. When reading different parts of the plan, it really seems that this plan would actually benefit low-income families, but does this actually benefit them?

According to Daily News, City Council has also supported de Blasio’s affordable housing plan, but under their new deal, they added a new option that required developers to set aside 20% of the apartments they build for people making $31,000 for a family of three in addition to requiring  30% of apartments for families making an average of $89,000 to $93,000 and within that, 5% will go to families making $54,600 and another 5% at $70,200. However, is this affordable at all? Housing is only affordable if they don’t spend more than 30% of their income to live there. You can look at this pdf of  “What is Affordable Housing?” and through this, you can see that for a family of four, the Median Family Income in New Yorck City is $61,600 and in the New York Metro area, is $76,800! But, the average family in the city made $50,711 (Jacobin), which means this plan isn’t affordable at all!!! We also have to keep in mind that along with rezoning, gentrification will likely follow along, meaning that even if they are living in an “affordable house” their neighborhood will probably not be affordable for them and will likely cause displacement for the ones who currently live there.

Also according to Jacobin, developers know that inclusionary zoning will bring them greater profits as well as allowing the real estate industry gets to keep building thus, they make more money. In addition, the city would have a greater influx of upper-income taxpayers and nonprofit developers obtain new contracts for housing construction and management, so in the end, the question is: “who is affordable housing for?” and “who does it benefit more — the tenants or the developers?” 

In the New York Times article, “Is a Rail Yard in Queens the Site of New York’s Next Mega-Development?” author, Helene Stapinski, discusses the proposal of Sunnyside Yard, “a 180-acre potential development site in western Queens…”

Does this sound familiar to anyone? If it does, you are not alone. This project is essentially just a copy of the newly opened Hudson Yards development in Manhattan, but Mayor de Blasio is proposing it as a way of creating more affordable housing for the residents of Queens.

According to a study done by the city’s Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), which is a follow up to Mayor de Blasio’s proposal of developing the rail yard, “about 80-85 percent of this 180-acre site is buildable with the use of decking.” The study also considers three potential proposals as to how the land would be used, which is shown in the image below.

The first scenario would be mostly residential with up to 24,000 residential units. However, only 30% of those apartments would be affordable. The second scenario would be a mix of residential, working, and retail space, but again, only 30% of the residential units would be affordable. Finally, the last scenario would have no working space, which means more units would go for residential and retail purposes… BUT only 30% of the apartments are affordable.

While Mayor de Blasio is continuously pushing for affordable housing in the city, I don’t quite understand why only 30% of the residential units of each proposed plan are going towards affordable housing. If he is so passionate about fixing the housing crisis, why can’t a larger percentage be given to affordable units?

In Hudson Yards, only about 400 affordable apartments out of the approximately 4,000 total apartments, were set aside for affordable housing, according to Curbed NY. However, it is also worthy to note what “affordable” actually means here. According to Curbed NY, the apartments set aside as affordable in Hudson Yards are “for those making 50 to 60 percent of the area median income (AMI).” And according to Jacobin, the AMI for an average household in the New York metro area was $77,310 in 2013. But in the city alone, the average family barely made $50,000. So in simple terms, the “affordable housing” that our leaders are promising, is not actually affordable at all.

So while the proposed Sunnyside Yard’s affordable housing rate of 30% is significantly higher than Hudson Yards’ 10%, we still need to be mindful of the fact that the average NYC resident still may not be able to afford living there, and that with any new project or development that is proposed, will also come the effects of gentrification, as well.

There is a common misconception about rural, suburban and urban patterns of settlement. Too often, we believe them to be separate concentric zones; the urban is the center, with the suburban “ring” surrounding it, followed by the rural. Yet, as my second year of residence in Queens ends, I have begun thinking more critically about what really separates the urban and suburban. Is such a heavy-handed delineation between the two still accurate in today’s New York? Sprawl, which refers to the suburban overconsumption of resources and space, is now forcing the ever expanding urban into the suburban (Yaro and Hiss 7). To show exactly what I mean by this, I observed the neighborhood of Murray Hill in Queens.

Methods:

I went to the area on Friday, March 29^th from 9:45-11:00 AM, and again on Saturday, March 30^th from 10:00 AM- 12:00 PM. It’s just on the edge of Flushing, and many addresses are Flushing (city, not neighborhood) addresses. On Friday, I took the Q17 from the intersection of the Horace Harding Expressway and Utopia Parkway to the bus stop between Cherry and Beech Avenues. I walked up and down Kissena Boulevard for three blocks, in between Cherry Avenue and Franklin Avenue. I walked down Beech Avenue for about two blocks, and then turned back. On Saturday, I took the Q64 from the intersection of Booth Memorial Boulevard and Fresh Meadows Lane to 46^th Avenue and 149^th Street, and then walked up 149^th street until I hit Sanford Avenue. Then, I turned left onto Sanford Avenue and continued to Parsons Boulevard. From there I went down Franklin Avenue and stopped at Kissena Boulevard. If you look at the second map, I have traced the route I described and placed blue location markers at the bus stops and a green marker where the apartment is located. I went back at 10:30 AM on Saturday, April 13^th to take pictures, and walked up 45^th Avenue until the intersection of 45^th Avenue and Sanford Avenue.

(Maps made in Social Explorer)

Observation:

On Friday, my first impression of the area was odorous- it smelled like wet garbage mixed with ‘ode to rotten food’ all along Kissena Boulevard. As I went along Beech Avenue, however, the smell dissipated. Kissena Blvd seemed to be the commercial zone for the area; there were laundromats, chain stores, a grocery store, restaurants, 99 cent stores, a public parking garage, and so on. Many of the store fronts had older awnings that were quite dirty, but a few of the newer restaurants had chic, modern facades. The traffic was insufferable. I didn’t see a single open parking space on Kissena (although that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, though I doubt it). People were out and about running errands and shopping; it seemed to me that the commerce going on was more for utility than leisure, which makes sense given the time of day. As I walked down Beech Avenue, the majority of people I observed, such as a man sporting a North Face vest, jeans, and Nikes carrying his dry cleaning, seemed like typical, middle-class consumers. Yet, many of the buildings and stores had a run-down feeling; the amount of litter and filth gives the area a feeling of desperation. It’s a middle-class neighborhood, but judging from the rent values, barely so (studio apartments start at around 1,400-1,700 dollars a month, as I know from my own apartment search- pictures of the apartment my roommate and I applied for are below). I would have defined this area as decidedly urban and lower middle class. The buses, roads, and apartment buildings were dirty and full, probably because they’re being used beyond capacity. I understood this three-block area to be a typical New York-immigrant community, probably Asian judging from the characters on the bottom of the church billboard I observed (picture below).

On Saturday, only a few blocks away on 45^th Avenue, the story was different. There were suburban single or double family homes, lawns, and driveways (sometimes with more than one car). The houses were close together on short blocks, but there were houses, as opposed to housing complexes. Teenagers were out walking together. Mothers were out with their children, and people were walking their dogs. The weather was beautiful, and there was an air of leisure. I could no longer say for certain that this neighborhood was exactly urban. The population density did not change, the commercial areas were still overused, the public transportation was the same, and the community was still comprised mostly of what appeared to be Asian immigrants. However, a day later and two blocks away, I felt like I was in the suburbs. Below I have a picture of a two-family house with a large koi pond- yes a koi pond!– in its front yard, only two blocks from an apartment complex. (The person who owns that building is definitely upper middle class, as I can only imagine the property value is not cheap.)

Analysis:

This brought into question my previous notion of what a suburb is and how they function. Queens is a borough of New York City, which makes Murray Hill by definition (and partly observation) an urban area. And yet, do urban areas typically contain blocks of homes with front yards, and even backyards? How can we defend labeling Murray Hill as distinctly urban or suburban when it is both? As Yaro and Hiss describe on page 7 of “The Third Regional Plan…” New York is going to have to come to terms with its battle between the suburban and the urban, as most of its land resources are terribly underutilized. For example, the reason my roommate and I are trying to move into that area is because it is becoming urban– we don’t have a car, but live in a more suburban area of Fresh Meadows. This makes it very difficult to do even the most basic things, such as grocery shopping. Murray Hill and the surrounding parts of Flushing is one of the few places in Queens with nice, somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) affordable studio apartments.

The juxtaposition of the urban onto the suburban is a symptom of squandered real estate resources caused by sprawl; my hypothesis is that the urban has been forced to spill into the suburban as the population increases and rents and real estate values in more typical urban areas also increase. I also predict that Queens will continue to become enveloped by skyscrapers and apartment complexes. Whether or not this will hurt the community I cannot say; it may provide more affordable housing and increase access to public transportation, but it might also decrease the value of the single and double family homes, hurting property owners. What is clear is that New York needs to address its housing crisis, and it seems to be building not simply upward but outward to do so.

 

Work Cited

 

Yaro, Robert and Tony Hiss. “The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey- Connecticut Metropolitan Area.” Regional Plan Association, 1996. Island Press, Washington D.C.