Monica Roman
Professor Hum
The Peopling of New York-­‐HNRS 126W May 8th, 2013

Remaking Queens: Mega-­‐Development and Sports Stadiums

But city officials forgot about the city’s origins. “Origins” refers not to which group settled in a neighborhood earliest; that would be difficult if not ridiculous to prove, since every city is built up of layers of historical migrations. “Origins” suggests instead a moral right to the city that enables people to put down roots. This is a right to inhabit a space, not just to consume it as an experience.

-­‐Sharon Zukin

Northern Queens has had a rich history in terms of developmental progress in the 20th century. As far back as 1939, Queens has drawn attention from major capitalist investors as a use of space. Originally, the Flushing Meadows-­‐Corona Park was renovated as the location of the World’s Fair of 1939. The same area is drawing contemporary attention in serving as a major center of attraction, housing the largest mall in the city alongside three major sports arenas. Though the same area is being contested, there are significantly different implications in the modern proposal concerning the immigrant populations in the surrounding areas. The mid-­‐20th century saw an influx of Asian and Hispanic immigration, significant numbers of which settled in the county of Queens. However, these groups have been marginalized in the discussion of these proposed projects and their best interests have not been taken into account.

In order to truly put this into its historical context, one must closely examine the initial effects of industrialization on the area in question. Robert Moses’ “From Dump to Glory,” a 1938 Saturday Evening Post article, explains how northern Queens become a literal dumping group in the years immediately following New York’s industrialization period. Referring to the “field of ashes” in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s iconic American novel, The Great Gatsby, Moses explains the destitute condition of “Long Island’s Ugly Duckling.” Initially, “the colonial village of Flushing…had some of the finest residences, trees and gardens on Long Island.” (Moses, 2) However, “so-­‐called development” subdivided the land into plots to be used as a dumping ground for the ashes and refuse of Brooklyn. In a span of merely 26 years, 50,000,000 cubic yards of refuse materials were piled onto what became aptly named the Corona Dump. Furthermore, just beyond Flushing Bay was Riker’s Island, which served a similar purpose. As Moses articulates, “Riker’s Island was truly a cloud of smoke by day and a pillar of fire at night…this usually drifted over Flushing Meadow, mingled with the smoke and smell of Corona Dump and the miasmic odors which at low tide arose from Flushing Bay.” (2)

However, Robert Moses was a force to be reckoned with in the early-­‐to-­‐mid 20th century. As the shaper of modern New York City, his proposal to hold the World’s Fair of 1939 in Queens was a serious consideration of city officials. Having noticed the obvious disrepair of the area, Moses thought, “the fair was the obvious bait for the reclamation of the meadow.” (3) Although there was some opposition, the city agreed to the matter relatively quickly and the Flushing Meadows area underwent major developmental changes. The state agreed to build permanent roads and bridges into the park and its adjacent areas, under and overpasses were constructed as thoroughfares for the Fair’s pedestrian traffic, the city’s sewer plans for the area were sped up, and most importantly, practically all dumping was stopped (Moses, 4). The park’s renovations and its subsequent success in hosting the World Fair were both positive and lasting legacies of Moses.

As well articulated in the Pratt Center report, “though the three projects are being proposed separately, their sites are contiguous, and they would collectively transform the under-­‐maintained but heavily-­‐used northern half of Queens flagship park into a car-­‐ dependent and largely commercialized ‘destination’ serving a citywide audience.” (2) Effects would include the creation of 13,000 parking spaces, the displacement of over 60 local companies and business and hundreds of workers, increases in traffic and congestion, severe overcrowding on the #7 line, and most of all, the loss of a well-­‐used public space.

Bearing in mind these proposed changes, one must also examine the ongoing ones to evaluate and predict the outcomes of these future projects. Construction has begun on Flushing Commons, which transforms a five-­‐acre municipal parking lot into “235,00 square feet of small-­‐scale retail, 185,000 square feet of office space, about 600 condos, a 62,000-­‐ square-­‐foot YMCA, a one-­‐and-­‐a-­‐half-­‐acre park, and, to make up for the lost parking lot, 1,600 underground parking spaces.” (Vatner, 1) Furthermore, the Sky View Center, an 800,000-­‐square-­‐foot mall is located on the Flushing waterfront, already serves as home to several big-­‐box stores and Sky View Parc, the attached luxury condo towers, is severely under populated (Vatner, 3). With this much commercialization and development in Flushing, the question is raised of why further development is needed in the adjacent Willets Point area, and who these developing areas will serve, as “the local economy is Flushing is very strong.”

Furthermore, Flushing Meadows-­‐Corona Park is already serving the variety of immigrant groups that consider Queens home. As Sarah Goodyear reports, “Flushing Meadows may not be the most beautiful park in New York—it is mostly flat and featureless, surrounded by highways and short of amenities—but it is one of the best used.” (1) It is home to the Queens Museum of Art, the New York Hall of Science, the Billie Jean National Tennis Center, all of which are affordable destinations for local residents. But at its core, Flushing Meadows is “a true people’s park.” (Goodyear, 1) In serving Flushing’s increasingly diverse immigrant population, the park is home to cricket matches, soccer rivalries, volleyball games, and barbecues. Although being comprised of 1255 acres of land, only 347 acres are open to the public today (Pratt Center, 2). Despite this shortcoming, parks like these are a major component of the immigrant enclave. As Arturo Sanchez says, “Dense immigrant networks are an important reservoir of for accessing scarce economic, psychic, and informal resources that support migrant civic engagement.” (1) Essentially, what he his saying is that something like a Mexican immigrant soccer club can “promote interpersonal contact, mutual assistance, and lubricate migrant civic incorporation.” (1) Park space can act as a social center and information source, and therefore engage residents in community building.

This sense of community is what ironically entails it as the ideal location for these proposed developments: “You aren’t going to get tourists and their dollars to show up at a pick up volleyball game played by Ecuadoran immigrants. So the city is looking to sell something else: the acreage where the people of New York have come together and asserted their right to ‘inhabit a space.’” (Goodyear, 2) There is this “upstairs/downstairs” class divide proposed by Michael Powell, distinguishing the parks of the rich from the parks of the poor: “[W]ould the mayor, whose mansion is steps from Central Park, conceive of asking the worthies on the Central Park Conservancy to underwrite its operations by placing a professional soccer stadium in Sheep Meadow?” (Powell, quoted by Goodyear, 2)

Sanchez also makes this point in “Flushing Meadow Corona Park: Immigrant Civic Engagement or Marginalization?” He argues that the top-­‐down approach of these mega-­‐ builders “excluded immigrants and local residents from having a substantive voice in planning for the park’s future and the surrounding neighborhoods.” (2) He then goes on to say that such a tactic “restricts genuine community participation in the governance of city parks and neighborhoods. This exclusionary approach reinforces the civic and economic disparities between the so-­‐called one percent of New Yorkers, and what the poet Walt Whitman referred to as the ‘multitudes.’” (3) This complete disregard for the immigrant inhabitants of the neighborhood is extremely disconcerting, especially since they are the ones most directly influenced.

Sanchez elaborates on this in his article entitled “MLS Soccer Stadium and Community Economic Development?” This “clustered development” arguably creates a trickle-­‐down economic effect, marketed as a win-­‐win where jobs and created and the local economy will thrive. However, Sanchez asks the pressing questions: “Is this the case? Will the corporate-­‐driven restructuring of northwestern Queens usher in a period of sustainable economic growth and generate the kind jobs that will provide workers with a livable wage? Or will this mega complex displaces immigrant businesses and low-­‐ and middle-­‐income residents?” (1) He makes the case that no, this will not garner positive effects for the surrounding neighborhoods, referencing Andrew Zimbalist, who concludes “that stadium projects have failed in the long-­‐term to increase per-­‐capita income or generate a significant number of well paying jobs.” (2) Again, this is an alarming conclusion because who is acting in the interests of the people? Who is serving as their voice? As Sanchez says, “Folks should have a say, in a democratic society, with how their lives and immediate surroundings will be affected by large-­‐scale construction projects.”

Community-­‐university partnerships have begun to offer immigrants this voice. In Spring 2011, Queens College Urban Studies students teamed up with the Min Kwon Center for Community Action to compose a community survey study entitled “Planning the Future of the Downtown Flushing Waterfront.” In doing so, a primary goal was gauging immigrant interests in order to better position grassroots organizations, such as the Min Kwon Center, in advocating on behalf of the community. Surveys issued to the participants “asked questions related to neighborhood conditions and changes, pressing needs and concerns as a business owner or resident, survey respondents’ views on what should be included in the Flushing waterfront redevelopment.” (Queens College Urban Studies, 4) Residents of Flushing have relocated to the area because of family connections, immigrant networks, affordability, and proximity to the #7 line (33). However, in recent years, residents have noticed “three important changes—the increasing presence of luxury condominium buildings, the decline in affordable rental housing, and the price of everyday goods have risen.” (34) In regards to the waterfront development, the overwhelming majority of community stakeholders were unaware of the proposed projects, and those who were aware were disillusioned into thinking that green space and affordably housing would be major components of the complex. As the study concludes, “we found that the need for public access to a park or open space as well as the provision of affordable housing, jobs, and community services are central components of the community’s vision for are developed waterfront.” (44) This is a stark contrast from the commercialized sports complex and luxury condominiums that are underway.

There is some action being taken on behalf of community stakeholders though. In 2012, the New York State Attorney General found the New York City Economic Development Corporation guilty of violating the Not-­‐For-­‐Profit Corporations Law by “ghost-­‐writing op-­‐eds, lobbying City Council members, preparing testimony and organizing transportation to public hearings in order to ‘foster the appearance of independent ‘grassroots’ support for the Projects in the local community.’” (Hum, 5) Furthermore, in light of recent natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy, Flushing could be considered a potential environmental justice site due to all the “community’s exposure to multiple environmental risks including brownfields, Flushing River pollution, heavy vehicular and truck traffic, and the neighborhood’s location under a flight path to LaGuardia Airport.” (Hum, 6)

Sharon Zukin articulated this notion of a “moral right” to a city, the right to put down roots, the right to become a part of the city, not just a fleeting passerby. Robert Moses’ revamping of Flushing Meadows-­‐Corona Park in the late 1930s offered Queens residents the chance to do just that. However, the mega-­‐developments being proposed today for the park, Willets Point, and the Flushing waterfront are arguably direct violations of this right. Composed of areas predominantly inhabited by recent immigrants, northern Queens has become a place for people from all over the world to lay down roots. This process has been partially facilitated by the community building that comes out of public parks such as Flushing Meadows. Therefore, one questions the real value of the proposed malls, luxury housing, and sports arenas. These will hinder the local economy, displace current tenants, increase traffic and pollution, and to add insult to injury, most residents cannot afford to partake in these activities. Furthermore, there is serious lacking in the engagement of residents and the propagation of information concerning these proposals. The challenges Queens immigrant residents are facing today against capital greed are ironically too similar to the oppression many of them faced in their home countries; hopefully, with more community-­‐university partnerships and increased community engagement and outreach, this can be combatted and residents can retain their right to inhabit a space.