Category Archives: Uncategorized

Reading Response

Posted on by
Reply

Cities Under Siege was an analysis of what the author, Stephen Graham, believes to be the institutional abandonment of urban sectors in the country by the Bush administration, and how the danger and irresponsibility of this abandonment were made so evident by Hurricane Katrina. It was interesting how the article drew connections between the legislative impact of 9/11 and how this impact manifested itself in misguided funneling of funds to counter terrorist efforts. This in effect crippled the organization who would have been equipped to help New Orleans cope with Katrina. The trend of abandonment for urban areas, characterized as a war against cities, is traced back to political commitments to big money. A commitment to those not normally associated with the demographics of most major American cities, making this inherently corrupt trend a disservice to a variety of underrepresented socioeconomic groups.

Reading Response 6

Posted on by
Reply

Climate change has always been on the backburner of everyone’s mind. There are so many long-term risks that come along with the idea of climate change, but people are often blinded by the easiness of living the lives they currently live instead of making small changes that will better the environment in the long run. Since climate change doesn’t cause immediate drastic consequences, people often forget about it, or don’t really see it as a problem. Even in PlaNYC, they simply place glaring predictions of the future, with large increases in temperature, annual precipitation and sea level, but they don’t particularly put forth any solutions, at least directly. The government, specifically the Bush administration, as shown in Graham’s “Cities Under Siege: Katrina and the Politics of Metropolitan America”, has kept climate change and urban protection in the back of its mind while it preoccupied itself with post 9/11 terrorism and gathering oil supplies while casting aside important research about the effects of fossil fuels on climate change.

Yet, even though the government has not been paying much true concern to the problem of climate change, the citizens of the world have been pushing through to make a change happen, as shown in Foderaro’s “Taking a Call for Climate Change to the Streets”. It is estimated that 311,000 individuals from around the world came to New York City to walk in the Climate March. The fact that simultaneously, John Kerry had a meeting from foreign ministers of the Major Economics Forum and Todd Stevens held back-to-back meetings, gives hope that changes are going to be made to protect the world from the effects of climate change, or try to prevent further destruction.

 

Question: Will the government truly create policies to mitigate climate change when a large part of the economy is based in industries that largely contribute to this problem?

Reading Response #6

Posted on by
Reply

I was particularly interested in this weeks reading because i find this topic of climate change interesting because it is something everyone can witness. For instance, it’s hard not to notice how  the weather gets more unpredictable from year to year as the seasons change. However, the most obvious climate change that can be seen are the hurricanes that happen around the world and even hit home as most of us witnessed with hurricane sandy. Many were effected by hurricane Sandy and till this day are still attempting to rebuild and regain their homes. It was a tragic event that many were not prepared for. In that instance, I agree with the reading that there is more we can do to prepare for natural disasters. However, the majority of “Cities Under Siege” article seemed to discuss every political issue, which I didn’t find very useful. I don’t believe that Bush was responsible for the natural disasters that occurred since no one can prevent those from happening. On the other hand, this article brought to light how the government failed to realize that some had no way of escaping during hurricane Katrina. Overall, this article portrayed a negative viewpoint.

Is the government really neglecting the issue of climate change and how it relates to natural disasters?

East Harlem Proposal on Stop & Frisk

Posted on by
Reply
                 We believe that a major issue facing East Harlem is racially profiled ‘stop and frisk’. 17,000 cases of stop and frisk were reported in East Harlem’s 23rd precinct in 2011 (Mays, 2013). That is the highest number of cases in Manhattan in that year. Of those who were frisked, 61 percent were black while 36 percent were Hispanic. Many believe that racial profiling influences these cases. Many who have been frisked also complain of the humiliation and harassment they received.  One audio recording that a 15 year old took while being frisked shows evidence of officers calling him inappropriate names as well as threatening to break his arm (Ross, 2013).  He was stopped twice for walking down the street suspiciously while wearing a hoodie. Although stop and frisk can be implemented to decrease the crime rate; it should not be racially profiled, as statistics today seem to suggest. We will be looking at how ‘stop and frisk’ has impacted the East Harlem community by looking at the crime rates vs. the number of stop and frisk conducted as well as the racial profiles of those who have been stopped and frisked. In addition, we will look at the racial profile of unnecessary stop and frisk cases like the one mentioned above.
Here are the two sources:
Submitted by Julia, Fatema, Sara & Christian

East Harlem Housing meeting

Posted on by
Reply

I attended an East Harlem Community Board Meeting on Tuesday, March 3rd. The meeting was scheduled for 6pm, but was seriously delayed due to heavy snow. The meeting wasn’t actually called to order until roughly 6:45. The meeting was held at 7 East 116th street, at Bonifacio Senior Housing. This apartment complex operates with Federal housing funding, providing affordable living for low-income elderly.

The first topic of discussion was a new low-income apartment building proposition called the East 120th Street Housing Project. The proposed projectis an eleven story low-income apartment building with 179 apartments. The construction is sponsored by the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the agency responsible for carrying out de Blasio’s Five-Borough Ten-Year plan. Despite being proposed in 2013, the proposition has yet to receive the green-light for construction (due to ULURP). The meeting was concerned with the Community’s preference goals for the proposed housing project. This simply means that the future builders and overseer’s of the project stood before the community meeting to speak to concerned resident’s about the neighborhood’s concerns and goals in the construction of the new housing complex. Not surprisingly, those in attendance were heavily in favor of the new project, the main concern being that the apartments were truly affordable and that such a large housing project wouldn’t change the landscape of the neighborhood.

The second matter of discussion was the rehabilitation of East Harlem low income housing properties: Milbank-Frawley and 120th Street. These two properties have fallen into states of disrepair. To address this issue, the New York City Housing Authority, or NYCHA, sold many of their projects to private developers in exchange for a great deal of money that would allow them to repair damaged properties. A representative for NYCHA at the meeting addressed this issue bluntly, admitting that privatization is not an ideal solution, but the money was necessary to make living conditions in the properties bearable, a cited $113 million to be exact.

A representative of the private developer was there as well, and together with NYCHA presented the plan to renovate derelict properties. Primarily, apartment lobbies would be renovated, and all apartments in several buildings will each receive new kitchens and bathrooms. Roofs will also be repaired, as many residents have experienced leakage and flooding. These solutions seemed relatively harmless, and while I’m not entirely convinced privatization will be beneficial long-term, it is undeniable that the complexes needed immediate repairs, and therefore, immediate money.

The last topic was about illegal hotels. Illegal hotels are when an apartment landlord rents apartments as hotel rooms. Apparently, the Manhattan Borough Board wants to pass a resolution that will ban illegal hotels and wants to raise awareness across communities prior to the vote. Illegal Hotels take valuable and potentially affordable living space away from those in need of apartments- and the problem is bigger than many people realize.

“They are not housing cattle, they are housing people” Rdng. response 4

Posted on by
Reply

I think the tile of this post encompasses the idea of gentrification accurately as well as people’s sentiments about it.

It’s awesome to see that so many organizations have come together for different purposes but all with the same goal—fight gentrification and the unfair displacement of numerous families that have been living in these areas for up to 36 years, as expressed by one of the interviewed tenants. When I say that many organizations have been formed for different purposes I mean, for instance, the Bushwick Housing Independent Project, mainly “aids tenants in their legal battles in housing court”, whereas the Crown Heights Tenant Union focuses mainly on the power of the masses and gathers people to have a “louder voice” when it comes to bringing to light “landlord harassment of tenants” and attempting to make a change!

Question: when some tenants of Bushwick and Crown Heights say that “they are beautifying the neighborhoods” and that they also want to be able to enjoy that (since they’ve been living there when it was dangerous to walk down the street), who is they? & What do they mean by that exactly? Couldn’t this be linked to gentrification to an extent?

Disinvestment and Profit

Posted on by
Reply

Why bother with upkeep on a building you know will be a money sink, when other ventures are more profitable? It may not be morally just, but it makes sense. And because rent is so expensive in NYC, it’s the disinvestment that’s keeping the prices down. But as the New Urban Frontier reading mentioned, disinvestment is a reversible phenomenon that may not necessarily correlate to gentrification. This also makes sense. Just as one stops upkeep, one can restart it. The problem here is pricing. Landlords need to make money, just as everyone else needs to make money in their occupation. It might seem harsh, but it’s business. If a landlord decides to invest in a previously disinvested building, he’s going to have to do it at a loss or he’s going to have to get the money from somewhere else. Two immediate options come to mind, each in their own way unappealing: raise the rent, or subsidise the building. The issue is immediately apparent in the former; in the latter, we don’t have money to do such a thing, and the cycle continues (raise taxation, or draw funding from other ventures). It’s a messy business, and there’s no immediate solution.

Question: How would you propose to reverse disinvestment without incurring gentrification?

Thinking about research topics…

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some themes and ideas – some of which we have covered in class, some of which we will cover in class – to get you thinking about the challenge, problem, or crisis your group will decide to study (remember, your research topic proposal is due next class, 3/10). You are NOT limited to this list, it’s only meant to get you thinking.

Housing
Unaffordable housing (“shelter poverty”)
Homelessness
Vacant land and buildings (“warehousing”/speculation)
Public housing (NYCHA)
Subsidized housing (“inclusionary zoning”)
Displacement and gentrification
NYC’s shelter infrastructure

Climate Crisis
Hurricane Sandy
Rising sea levels
Disaster preparedness
Environmental racism

Income inequality
wage stagnation
precarious labor
privatization of public space

Policing
Police brutality/impunity
Mass incarceration
Stop and frisk
“Quality of life policing”

Reading Response 4

Posted on by
Reply

Mapping the gentrification frontier was exceptionally eye-opening. When discussing gentrification, I had always assumed that wealthier buyers simply moved into a lower-rent area, thereby attracting more of their demographic and the services that often cater to their income bracket. I feel stupid now for not having thought that gentrification was an intentional and long-term process initiated by developers and landlords. The multi-step process of disinvestment and reinvestment based on carefully researched demographic statistics is certainly no accident or luck-of-the-draw situation. It is a natural side effect of a capitalist economy that profitable investors will leave before income dips, and seek to find a new area with a large payoff.

These stages of gentrification are seen throughout New York City, in every borough. We focus on areas such as Park Slope as prime examples, but the fact is that gentrification is a cycle- real estate values appreciate and depreciate, the hip areas constantly shift. Of course gentrification has horrible consequences, but the cycle of appreciation and depreciation keeps the city in a balance. It’s also a much ignored fact that gentrification yields positive effects as well. How could we reap the benefits of gentrification without displacing residents?