By attending Community Voices #4, centered around transportation and infrastructure, I was able to see what community oriented organizations are and how they carry out their visions. This seminar began with a look at an organization that has been very successful in working on New York City’s alternative transportation system. Wiley Norvell was the presenting spokesperson for Transportation Alternatives, appropriately starting off his presentation with a description of Transportation Alternatives’ mission, which is to advocate for bicycling, walking, and public transportation as alternatives for the cars that have taken over the city. According to Wiley Norvell, at this time, 90% of New York City streets are used for cars. In a city that deserves to be explored and traversed by foot, this lack of consideration for pedestrians is unacceptable. Thus, Transportation Alternatives aims to transform the city little by little so that it’s streets are designed to a standard of a small child on a bike, as opposed to what they are currently designed around, which is cars.

One of the projects that Transportation Alternatives was involved in advocating for was the transformation of Times Square to include a pedestrian-oriented plaza centered inside the overcrowded and car-friendly tourist trap. This project included redesigning Times Square to cut down on the traffic problem and to make a more pedestrian-friendly space while cutting down on injuries in the area. This project has been very successful with a 74% approval rate and injuries have decreased by 63%. The plaza in Times Square took some getting used to aesthetically since it was a open space in the middle of an area teeming with cars, but it has proven to be a publicly accepted plan.
Currently, Transportation Alternatives is working on improving the access to alternative forms of transportation on First and Second Avenues. These two avenues are brimming with cars and buses, including the M15 which is the busiest bus route in the country. The reason for this circumstance is the inconvenient location of these two avenues with respect to the subway system. Transportation Alternatives has designed a plan which would include a separate bus lane, a physically protected bike lane, and ample street space for pedestrians.

The other speaker at this seminar was Chris Neidl from Solar One, a group which advocates for the use and expansion of solar energy. He explained how behind the United States is in terms of developing solar energy and his group’s goal to make New York a solar leader in this country. Mr. Neidl informed us that Germany is the top producer of solar energy and the programs it uses to create incentives for the use of solar. The incentive is economical and is known as REPs. Solar One is pushing for similar policies to be and incentives to be put in place in New York and eventually across the United States in order to increase our use of alternative energy sources.

This seminar was informative in its insight into the methods of community groups. It certainly became evident that it is very difficult to advocate for anything because of the need for creative solutions which appeal to as many groups of people as possible. Also, it is necessary to fight the government in order to go from vision to realization.

“Mumbai’s Shadow City,” by Mark Jacobson, tells the story of the largest slum in India, Dharavi, located in Mumbai. This slum serves as an example of urban planning in poor countries, and illustrates the problems that come along with it.

Dharavi is resident to one million people, who squeeze into an astonishingly dense area of 18,000 people per acre. It is also one of the most diverse places in India, due mostly to its history of being converted from a swamp for fishermen into a residential area. People from all around India  moved into the slum over time, making it full of regional and cultural differences. One of the biggest issues in this slum appears to be hygiene and access to resources, for many places are without plumbing and electricity. Additionally, the very low ratio of bathrooms to residents makes this slum both unhygienic and very public. Due to the lack of resources provided by the government, a “land mafia” has arisen in the slum, offering to provide the missing water and electricity to the residents who need them. This clearly illegal activity is the result of the government’s inability to provide the people with what they need; as a result, residents (both legal and illegal) are at the whims of these mafia bosses for their basic necessities.

Despite obvious density and resource problems, Dharavi has spirit and emotion, and retains a deep connection to its residents. This is due to its long history and the presence of several generations who have all grown up in the same town, many times in the same house. For example, the potters, known as the Kumbhar, have garnished respect from all of Dharavi’s residents over time, and have established themselves as a cultural phenomenon of the region. Other dwellers have given character to the slum through “recycling” efforts; i.e. melting down materials, such as plastics, found in garbage for a variety of other purposes. The region is generally well-known for its spirituality, in addition to its geography, and has come to be one of the most important areas for low-income residents in India.

Dharavi is important from an urban planning perspective because it presents a problem between the desires of the government and the will of the people. Recently, the Indian government has made plans to destroy all of the current “informal housing” in the slum and erect new high-rise apartments that would allow all residents to have 225 square feet, in addition to a private bathroom. In addition to this government housing, private companies will be allowed in to build more luxurious housing for those who can afford it. The theory behind these changes in Dharavi is that India cannot become the world economic power it is seemingly destined for if at the center of its financial capital, Mumbai, is a slum with a million residents. It is not only an eyesore, says the government, but an inhibitor to the rise of India as a superpower. Additionally, Dharavi seems like a good place for developments because of its geography – it is located in the center of Mumbai, adjacent to two rail lines, and is very clsoe to the  BKC, a “global corporate enclave.” Essentially, the government is trying to create a middle class in this currently low-class region. In the past, India has neglected to create middle-income housing, and restricted its residents to upper-class and lower-class housing. Therefore, as many of the successful residents are economically above living in a slum, middle-income housing can foster a middle class in Mumbai, where it is desperately needed.

While these plans are seemingly wise for an area overridden by hygiene and crowding problems, many of its residents are against it for economic and emotional reasons. For example, in the article, we are introduced to Amit Singh, a resident of Rajendra Prasad Chawl. Amit is against the plans for redeveloping Dharavi, mostly because his family has benefited from its conditions – they own a 400 square foot home (larger than the home he would get under the new plans), and run a business from it that earns them over 1,000 rupees a month. The family has no desire to change their “informal housing” situation, and no economic incentive either. Others, such as Tank Ranchhod Savdas, believe that Dharavi in its current state is actually more American (and, therefore, better in the eyes of many Indians) than it would be if reconstructed. Dharavi has been extremely good to his family, allowing them to own a 3,000 square foot home and a bustling pottery business/workshop. His experience stresses that hard work and success can, in fact, lead to a better lifestyle, even in the slums of Mumbai. Other people are against the project for the simple reason that Dharavi has been their home for so long. It is filled with history and culture, and makes up a big part of who the people are. Some, like the potters, even believe that it is their land, not the government’s to do with it what it wants. Although the government of India has denied these claims to ownership, the example emphasizes the degree to which the people are connected to their home and workplace.

Other concerns about the project to rebuild Dharavi stem from negligent management of previously rebuilt parts of India. Many places that have undergone such procedures leave with nothing but dilapidated buildings, many times sans electricity and water, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people. Even if the residents move back into their homes, the government’s incompetence forces them to go back to their “land mafia” for the necessities they need, but are once again without. The planner of the current project in Dharavi, Mr. Mehta, may also be seen as incapable or naive. For example, when asked where people would park when coming to a cricket game in what will be a 120,000-person stadium, Mehta was stumped. It seems this management is the kind that dreams big, but may not have its feet on the ground concerning the realities of the space. The disconnect between the Americanized Mehta and the rest of the Dharavi community has also led to a distrust of the man. How can someone unrelated to an urban space tell its residents what is good for them? The lack of connection Mehta has with Dharavi leaves him unable to empathize with its residents, perhaps. He may never know what it feels like to lose a home that encompasses so many people and businesses, and that has been around for so many generations. It is this sticking point that makes Dharavi special, and irreplaceable in the eyes of many people.

The example of urban planning in poor countries set by Dharavi highlights what is sure to be a problem in any part of the world – the fight between the government and its vision, and the will of the people. Countries often times seek to improve certain areas without ever thinking what it might be doing to the community at large. This can be witnessed here in New York, where the debate on Harlem gentrification is a hot one. People will always feel close to their homes, and be hesitant to make such drastic changes. However, it is important to also consider the manner in which these changes are made. For a place like Dharavi, where hundreds of thousands of people will be moved into likely inefficient and incomplete homes, change can be harder. The government’s reputation is bad concerning this policy, and certainly needs reorganization. However, for areas that have proper organization, thoughtfulness, and sensitivity, change may be welcome. Of course, this is much easier when the economic benefits of such change are easy to see. Even so,  an unwilling people make urban planning a much more difficult challenge. If home is where the heart is, the battle to redevelop home may prove to be longer and tougher than once thought.

Situated in the savvy New York Times Center building was the all important “Arts Forum,”  featuring Leslie Koch, president of the Governors Island Preservation and Education Corporation, sponsored by the not-for-profit organization called Alliance for the Arts. This was a very informative presentation for the public and especially the constituents of Governors Island (such as resident artists, emerging artists, lovers of this vacation spot) because it delineated not only the progress Governors Island has seen in the last 4 years but also the master plan for the future.

The title of Ms. Koch’s presentation was “Governors Island: Creating New York City’s Newest Playground for the Arts,” unveiling the nature of activities and programs prominent on this island. From sculpture-making events to art galleries and music concerts to dance festivals, this island is a perfect venue for the arts. However, the developers of Governors Island refuse to stop there. In their master plan, they strive to include a greater variety of activities to attract New Yorkers. For example, this summer they are planning an event around unicycles and other carnival-related acts.

It was interesting to note that the audience of this event was an adult population in their late 20’s to their early 50’s who were either artists, education leaders, or ardent fans of this beautiful island. Following Ms. Koch’s presentation was a reception where I had the great opportunity to meet and chat with these creative constituents of Governors Island. A theater artist by occupation and a lovely person by nature, Mary Tiery has been involved with Governors Island since its early beginnings. She is one of the many talented residents who puts up theater plays for visitors of Governors Island and is in the process of securing her place again to present her play called, “Women at War.” Another lady I met was Jane Rubinsky, a writer and editor who worked for Julliard Performing Arts School for 15 years. Coincidently, her father was in the Coast Guard and so lived on Governors Island. She is now currently putting together a proposal for a newsletter for the New York Harbor School that is being shifted from Brooklyn to Governors Island. She is intrigued by the school’s focus both because of her dad’s nautical path, her own love of the water, and  her longtime involvement in education.

I am really glad I had the chance to attend this wonderful event because not only did I get to know what is potentially in store for the future of Governors Island but also got to meet amiable artists who are creative and friendly. I am really looking forward to visiting this island this summer since it’s really a diamond in a mine that the city of New York is finally polishing.

Dharavi is one of many slums in India and around the world. It is characterized by noise, crowds, poor infrastructure, lack of modern plumbing, and pollution. One of many, Dharavi has been chosen as a focus because it is in the geographic center of Mumbai, a rising financial center in India that one day hopes to rival the US and Chinese economies. If Mumbai hopes to achieve this, then it must eliminate its slums. The slums house a large number of the poor, which when compared to the few wealthy residents who live in certain luxurious neighborhoods, emphasizes the lack of the middle class in Mumbai. A robust middle class is necessary to fill the workforce of any financial powerhouse city. This lack of middle class is reminiscent to the situation in the South Bronx, where poor residents have no power to represent themselves and thus are forced to accept their living conditions. However, New York City is already a financial center, and there is no political urgency to redevelop the South Bronx.

Mark Jacobson, author of “Mumbai’s Shadow City” deems the redevelopment of Dharavi from slum to modernized city important because it will be an example for other slums’ redevelopments. Any issues that impede progress for redevelopment will usually be present in other slums. Furthermore, any remaining problems after development has occurred will most likely be present in the transformation of other slums worldwide.

It is not the most heavily populated slum, for certain Mexican and Pakistani inner cities rival Dharavi in size. According to Jacobson, Dharavi is the spiritual and psychological center of Mumbai, although he does not provide evidence to confirm his claim. However, planners have targeted Dharavi because of the existence of two railway lines that would facilitate the commutes of future working and business classes. Additionally, the Banda-Kurla Complex , a group of offices for globally-known companies, already exists in Dharavi. Their presence rationalizes converting Dharavi into a financial hub. Finally, throngs of poor people are not supposed to be found in the centers of cities.  Although, Jacobson did mention the exception of inner cities such as Harlem. The existing transportation and financial Complex give Dharavi an advantage because it is less work for planners to consider—provided that the resulting inner city can be easily built around this existing infrastructure.

One thing that Dharavi is unique for is all the diverse industries that are present: tannery, textile, and pottery. The issue of accommodating certain industries after redevelopment seems troublesome. The potters, known as Kumbhars, are opposed to upgrading the slum to a city. They believe the land belongs to them. However, the repeal of the Vacant Land Tenancy Act in 1974 has taken away the Kumbhars’ right to live on the land. Yet, their industry is slowing down as younger generations are becoming merchant seamen and computer specialists. Additionally, their pottery kilns are producing black smoke that is affecting nearby Sion Hospital. Pulmonary patients are adversely affected by the factories’ noxious fumes. In this case, it seems that preference to stay on location would be given to a public health center rather than industry, unless plans are made to relocate the hospital. This predicament illustrates another planning dilemna: when two facilites are conflicting with each other and cannot both stay, which one must move? The diminishing power of the pottery industry is certainly not a selling, persuasive point for the potters.

However, Kumbhars believe they are safe from the reaches of redevelopment. After the Kumbhars had a meeting with Mukesh Mehta, architect and city planner, each party left with a different impression. The Kumbhars did not seem devoted to cooperation because when asked if they would participate in a census, a beginning step to redevelopement, a representative responded “We’ll think about it.” However, Mehta was feeling upbeat after the encounter, confiding in Jacobson that the Kumbhars seemed willing to fill out the census. This lack of mutual understanding between residents and planners is another important factor in the redevelopment of slums.

Mehta’s plan to redevelop Dharavi has also been presented to the proper authorities and pre-approved. His plan consists of relocating 57,0000 families into high rises that have indoor plumbing and elevators. The private firm that will construct this building for free will then have permission to build high market value property on remaining land, which will yield a healthy profit. Approval of such plans would normally require 60 % of the residents’ votes. However, the government is in charge of this plan, and as such deems that the only way progress will be halted is if there are sufficient resident complaints during a 30-day complaint period. However, the number of complaints necessary was not specified. Bypassing typical protocol in order to develop, and therefore overlooking resident input to a certain degree, does not constitute a healthy development process. This holds true especially when there is resident opposition.

Residents of Dharavi are against opposition. They point to earlier attempts of redevelopment that have failed. For instance, one attempt left the willing residents in half-finished houses without a steady supply of water or electricity. Besides, they currently guage their present housing as superior to the proposed housing. One resident, Meera Singh, relates that she receives 2,100 rupees monthly from rent. If she moved to the high rises, she would be losing money on a monthly basis, to pay for elevator and other fees. Moreover, she would have more square footage in her current slum residence than the new apartment high rise. The promise of indoor plumbing is not too appealing. It seems like a waste to use so much water for one person, according to Dharavi residents. Also, the quality of these proposed high rises comes to the forefront. Will they be similar to the apartment building pointed out by the Kumbhars, which was presentable at first but became dilapidated after lack of maintenance? Reluctance to pay money from their own pockets, when they currently do not have to, and awareness of a decreased living space in the high rises, inhibits residents from accepting the plan. There is suspicion considering that “everyone in Dharavi had their own opinion about how and why the plan was concocted to hurt them in particular.”

Perhaps this suspicion is not irrational. After all, politicians have been known to displace constituents after representing them for years. One such political decision resulted in 300,000 residents being displaced after their slum was demolished. However, politicians are typically against slum renovation. They want to keep slums intact, so their voters are kept intact. Otherwise, some voters will relocate if slums are redeveloped, decreasing the politicians’ power. This highlights another impediment to progress: political opposition.

Slum redevelopment seems ideal but it runs into various roadblocks: resident and political opposition, lack of understanding between planners and residents, and needing to relocate or accommodate existing industries in the new city. The cities that are chosen for this complex process are pinpointed for a reason. Considering Dharavi, it could be because of existing train lines, existing financial complexes, government willingness to bend the rules to implement redevelopment, and prime location. Hopefully, it will prove easier to take advantage of these existing benefits and build a modern inner city, rather than rebuilding a slum that does not have any useful initial factors to accommodate.

By Patricia Paredes

The first common event for CHC 250 comprised of two speakers, Jamie Stein from Sustainable South Bronx and Adam Friedman from the Pratt Center, both of whom spoke of methods to increase environmentally green living in NYC. Environmentally conscious living can be accomplished in various ways, specifically by creating equal share of the burden of city living (waste, pollution, to name a few factors) and by increasing the number of jobs in green manufacturing so as to provide a financial incentive for lower class residents to start adopting environmentally responsible practices as well.

Jamie Stein spoke at length about the South Bronx, an area of NYC subject to industry practices that are deleterious to human health. This portion of the Bronx specifically fell victim to industry because it is comprised of a population that has limited political power and representation: low-income minorities. Sewage plants and highways are the main pollutants in the area. The main thoroughfare that has contributed heavily to pollution is the Cross Bronx Expressway, which was not constructed in a practical area. Connecting to Seminar 3’s classroom discussions, Robert Moses chose the ultimate, current route, even though in certain segments, a more more convenient pathway one block south could have been built with more ease. It is increasingly baffling as to why the South Bronx was subject to this overwhelming infrastructure project considering it ultimately proved expensive with just one mile of asphalt totaling $40,000,000. Of course, high costs are most likely linked to construction workers having to building around the Grand Concourse (an existing major highway), a subway line, and an above ground train line. The highway prompted all but the poorest residents to relocate elsewhere. Currently, the South Bronx is plagued by childhood rates of asthma higher than in other NYC areas, decreased property values, and heavy traffic. With regards to the issue of heavy traffic plaguing the South Bronx, Jamie Stein unveiled the city’s approval to transport waste in barges instead of trucks. Considering that 145,000 vehicles traverse the Cross Bronx Expressway daily, this is only a start to decreasing heavy traffic flow.

With the broken windows theory in mind, other polluting industries settled into the South Bronx. The New York Organic Fertilizer Company (NYOFC) moved in and added injurious byproducts, from the city sludge to fertilizer process, to the surrounding air. Of course, Stein’s main point of environmental injustice hit home when she related that 100% of the Bronx’s garbage is destined for the South Bronx, in addition to 40% of the city’s trash. Stein proposes that to mitigate the injustice, new landfill sites be erected in in affluent neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side.

After Stein concluded, Adam Friedman approached the same issue of creating a more sustainable New York City. He approached this on a variety of scales: community-wide, individual, residential, and commercial. He suggested that communities can take a larger role in adopting environmentally friendly practices by converting certain institutions such as churches into more energy efficient buildings/organizations. Since certain institutions have more personal meaning, perhaps this would inspire residents to maintain these beneficial changes longer, and incorporate green living tips in their own homes. On an individual level, Friedman showed how impactful we can be. He specifically gave the staggering statistic of four million plastic cups being used by airlines every day in the US–one speculates how easily this could be mitigated if passengers could bring their own containers or simply refused a drink.

In terms of commercial reform, Friedman suggested that by creating green manufacturing–factories that create products from recycled waste, there would be two advantages: the creation of jobs for low-income residents and decreasing waste. Of course, this method also would hopefully elevate these factory workers to middle class, and this would be provide financial incentive for the workers’ and their families to join the green movement. This ties in to Stein’s topic of environmental injustice which addressed poor neighborhoods as a factor. With the creation of a middle class, hopefully this would result in a more educated, empowered community that could represent its issues to their respective politicians. Then, a solution is more feasible if there is communication between the community and local authorities.

In terms of residential fixes, Friedman advocates retrofitting buildings. This is preferable as opposed to virtually reconstructing a house. Retrofitting refers to increasing energy efficiency of buildings by adding insulation to keep heating costs down, adding ventilation to decrease an A/C bill, and other cost- and energy-saving changes. This also ties in with Seminar 3, specifically the final project my group presented, which was about retrofitting the Macaulay Building. We suggested that solar panels be installed on the roof, as well as the above mentioned suggestions. When tackling practicality, we pointed to government subsidies that reduced or eliminated the cost of installing solar panels. If we could just start following Stein’s and Friedman’s suggestions, then environmentally sustainable New York City buildings and neighborhoods are certainly viable. Of course, the backing of residents and any other important individuals or groups needs to be ascertained, which will hopefully occur as more speakers like Stein and Friedman educate communities.

By Patricia Paredes

Patricia Paredes (in the Southern hemisphere)

Hi, my name is Patricia Paredes and I am an English LLC major. I am mulling over several different career options such as advertising and editing but I definitely look forward to internships before deciding anything definitive. I love to travel! I just recently came back from Ecuador (but not the Galapagos like Shanna and Noa), actually somewhere in the Sierra (which is the mountainous region). However, I did travel to the Oriente (jungle region) and Costa (shoreline). Now, I just need to travel to the last region, which judging from Shanna’s posts, was amazing. I enjoy reading, and am developing my interests on the side–ie I was watching the Superbowl commercials and pinpointing some advertising strategies that they used. Sometimes, when I have free time, I like to create normal and bizarre commercials and short stories. Plus, I am soon going to buy an Instant Immersion in French software to prepare for my study abroad in France (hope I get in, first!). I’m hoping to incorporate foreign languages into the career I end up choosing-perhaps international advertising. We’ll see.

Hi! I’m Noa Krawczyk, I am a biology major and a history minor. My parents are Argentinean but I spent most of my life moving between Israel and New York. I study a lot but I mostly enjoy dancing and spending time with my friends. Though I love biology and would like to pursue a career in it, I am also very interested in anthropology, history, and other social sciences. I really love traveling and would like to visit as many places as I can. I especially love cities, and am a BIG fan of New York City which is why I really love Hunter College. Having gone through high school in a very small suburb, I truly believe that cities are the greatest places to see modernization, social action, diversity, and tolerance between people, and am definitely looking forward to exploring this class about the nature and structure of NYC!

Hi, my name is Richard Lee and I’m a music major on the pre-med track.  Right now, I’m trying to set my mind on a second major, probably a science.

This past winter I had the opportunity to two Spanish courses abroad in Argentina.  This picture of me was taken at the port in Mar del Plata (Sea of Silver), a city 6 hours away form Buenos Aires.

This is my third time posting a brief biography about myself for CHC. And so, I have decided that this time I won’t mention my academic status since we all are sophomores anyway nor disclose my major – not until the end anyway, just for fun!

For starters, my name is Kanushree Jain and my hometown is Flushing, Queens since I was 2 years old. Right from elementary, I detested art projects and enjoyed playing with numbers. Thus, I thought I was more on the mathematical side than the creative side. However, I soon discovered my passion for the performing arts, specifically dancing. In fact, last summer I had the privilege to intern at Elisa Monte Dance Company and received free dance classes at Alvin Ailey. Next summer, I plan to intern at the Irish Arts Center as a management/accounting intern, which will combine my passion and my major, Accounting!