Rya Mishra, Maria Osorio, Isobela Suster, Courtney Takats, and Kyle Williams
Owen Toews
Seminar in the Future of New York City
March 29, 2015

Gentrification in Crown Heights

INTRODUCTION: ETYMOLOGIES AND ECONOMICS

Gentrification is a process of displacement in which “working class quarters” become “invaded by the middle class,” or gentry; the term was first coined by British sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964 to describe conditions in London at the time (Lees et al). Since its coinage, urban sociologists have been particularly interested in gentrification as cases of it crop up again and again.

Though it could perhaps be understood as a rather marginal process in the time of Glass, gentrification has become “the cutting edge of urban change” (Smith), the displacement of the original, inevitably lower-class occupants from the neighborhood causes much tension between the urban pioneers coming in and the native populus being forced out, without care as to where they might end up; as Engels says: “The bourgeoisie has only one method of settling the housing question…The breeding places of disease, the infamous holes and cellars in which the capitalist mode of production confines our workers night after night are not abolished; they are merely shifted elsewhere” (Smith).

Economists view gentrification as a sign of economic growth in an area (Biro), but from a socioeconomic standpoint, this displacement occurs in waves of disinvestment and reinvestment: as a neighborhood is understood by landlords and developers to be lacking, the safety and health of those living in it are put to the wayside and buildings allowed to deteriorate, eventually forcing people out; once undesirable tenants are gone reinvestment takes hold to attract tenants of a higher economic status—rents are then increased, forcing out the remainder of the original occupants and preventing their return. Data presented by tax arrears, or “nonpayment of property taxes,” is a sound indication of disinvestment in a neighborhood, becoming “an investment strategy,” providing property owners “guaranteed access to capital that would otherwise have been ‘lost’ to tax payments” (Smith). As disinvestment takes its hold, urban pioneers (in New York City, typically young artists, as presented by the cases in the Lower East Side and Williamsburg) take root in the neighborhood and “revitalize,” offering landlords and developers an indication for reinvestment. The line of gentrifications will sweep through a neighborhood, forcing people to uproot at its front like a pilot plow, and leaving an economic turn in its wake which its pioneers cannot usually afford—keeping the train moving.

GENTRIFICATION IN NEW YORK CITY: LOISAIDA TO EAST VILLAGE

Gentrification in New York City may have its roots in its exact opposite: white flight, a massive migration in the mid-twentieth century of people of white european backgrounds from the mix of races in the city to the racially homogenous suburbs, can be seen as one grand and intense period of disinvestment. Reinvestment, then, would be provided by a subsequent “back to the city” movement, after the severe levels of urban decay caused by the socioeconomic forces which white flight can be seen to have caused; the back to the city movement, or “brownstoning,” was initiated in 1968 with a pro-gentrification committee organized by Everett Ortner, and the committee’s magazine, The Brownstoner; The committee facilitated and recommended gentry who had moved from the city to come back, to reinvest, and bring forth a period of urban wealth by then forgotten (Lees). The efforts worked, with brownstones now worth well over a million dollars.

Later, in the 1970’s, Manhattan’s Lower East Side, or Loisaida, would undergo the same sort of process. Disinvestment was aided by banks redlining the district—refusing any requests for loans, which could have been used to prevent its urban decay—and the general upkeep—or lack thereof—pushed many of its inhabitants out, leaving an opening for the line of gentrification coming from the neighborhoods in proximity. With gentry, this time in the form of artists attracted to the low prices of the neighborhood and its location. These artists signalled developers to reinvest in Loisaida, pushing it away from its roots as a latino neighborhood and rechristening the area as the East Village “by real estate agents and art world gentrifiers who, anxious to distance themselves from the historical association with the poor immigrants who dominated this community at the turn of the century” (Smith); banks green-lined the neighborhood and rent prices shot up, even beyond what the artists could afford.

Though pockets of former residents remained in the neighborhood in the shape of “loosely organized antigentrification and squatters’ movements,” connected with “local housing groups,” the city’s organization itself was their enemy: by the time of the Tompkins Square protests, the city had organized police forces to abet gentrification and shrouded it in political rhetoric which ensured gentrification’s victory in the area: numerous police crackdowns, in which “The policemen were radiating hysteria” with abuses of power and concealed badge-numbers, made residents’ know where they were not wanted, as politicians decried them as “communists” and twisted the rhetoric so pushing people out of the area was seen as a samaritan act, as “It would be ‘irresponsible to allow the homeless to sleep outdoors’ in such cold weather, explained a disingenuous parks commissioner, Henry J.Stern, who did not mention that the city shelter system had beds for only a quarter of the city’s homeless people” (Smith).

The line of gentrification, originating in Greenwich village in the 1950’s, moving into SoHo by the late 1970’s, then into Chinatown and then East Village, was a historical force which may well be seen as parallel to the situation in Crown Heights, the line currently sweeping over the area having origins in Cobble Hill and Williamsburg, aided by the L train.

INTO CROWN HEIGHTS

Acting as a parallel to the gentrification of the lower east side, along the L-line in Brooklyn there has been continuing gentrification. Developers began buying up land in all parts of brooklyn and when they were through with neighborhoods like Bushwick, Bedford Stuyvesant, and Park Slope, there was a natural pull to come to Crown Heights (Gregor). Crown heights basically consisted of abandoned warehouses, beaten up warehouses, and old mechanic shops. The main goal of developers was to create apartment buildings, such as the Hello Living apartment complexes at 834 Sterling Place. These apartments (depending on the size and the real estate company that owns them) could go from $2,000 all the way up to around $4,000 per month (Gregor). though this may be profitable to developers and building owners, lower income families and individuals are having a really tough time adjusting to any type of rent increase and thus, owners are trying to push these people out. Sandoval, an immigrant living in Crown Heights, is fighting to stay in his apartment because his landlord will not accept the fact that his apartment is rent-stabilized (which protects him from being evicted) (Gopal).

As a mirror to the problems inherent in the 1970’s gentrification, there are governmental issues impeding the fight against higher prices. For instance, there was a distinct reluctance in Crown Heights of the community board in the community meetings we attended to implement policies keeping the residents safe from high rent. Stresses have been high in the neighborhood because of this, often manifesting through racial tension, as evidenced by the decrease in 11% of the black population from 2000-2010. Whether the gentrification can be halted or alleviated remains to be seen, but it appears there are going to continue to be issues in the neighborhood until something happens.

Another factor leading to gentrification of Crown Heights is the dramatic rise of apartment and home prices from a few years back. Houses that were once worth nothing, have been renovated and remade and are now solds for over a million dollars each. This is truly apparent in many buyers, who could not afford a fancy home in Park Slope or Forte Greene. As Julian Katz stated in an interview, “We loved Fort Greene but we could only afford a modest apartment there. We could get a whole house in Crown Heights” (Gopal). Since Crown Heights is new to the gentrification chapter, it is slightly cheaper than other high class neighborhoods. With this new class of people moving in, the older residents are being forced out, along with their well established businesses. Many nail salons, West Indian bakeries, 99 cents stores have signs informing people that they are “Moving to Flatbush” (Gregor). The benefits of this gentrification are apparent to one Crown Heights resident, Ms. Jacobs. She notices that crime rates have dropped tremendously, and thats due to the increased presence of police. She loves this statistic so she can raise her family in a safer neighborhood, but the environment and atmosphere is completely different from when she was a child. Ms. Jacobs states that “But all my friends are gone. Everybody that I grew up with that lived in the neighborhood, the folks that I’ve known for years, are gone” (Gregor). Another woman who was asked to describe how her neighborhood has changed said its “like a little Manhattan over here” (Ewing and Rotondaro). Franklin Avenue is actually defined as the most gentrified, because it has been described as a shopping street, lined with pizzerias, bakeries, small boutiques, versus, when back in the 2000s, the avenue only had dollar stores, braiding salons, bodegas, and a few small restaurants as its primary shops (Ewing and Rotondaro).

While there’s a common consensus that gentrification has begun to affect Crown Heights, residents have addressed it to varying degrees of frankness. At a community meeting, one woman said in a private interview with us: “With gentrification, the neighborhood changed for the better. I’ve been here for four years; I was told by my neighbors that ten years ago two women would not have been able to own a bar and restaurant together,” as she does. When pressed for how this tied in with gentrification of the area, the woman said: “Just three years ago there was a murder; I was told it was drug-related. But there’s more police presence as the neighborhood improves: the sad fact is that with gentrification, services improve. There are the drawbacks: people get pushed out and can’t afford it—the apartments in prospect heights are overpriced. But there are trade-offs with everything—that’s the reality. A good customer of mine is rallying against the high rises being proposed.” Unfortunately, this conversation highlights the major drawback of gentrification: the economic strain and displacement of previous residents.

In a more blunt conversation with two men on their stoop, one of the men commented on the futility of trying to fight the rising prices of property in Crown Heights. When asked to elaborate, he went on to describe how his cousin had been pushed out of his own neighborhood of Park Slope not too many years ago. On the subject of community meetings and getting his voice out into the neighborhood, this gentleman was less than enthusiastic. “It doesn’t matter what we say,” He said, “You need money to have power and power to have a voice and I don’t have the money and I don’t have the power and I don’t have the voice.” There’s so much at stake with gentrification that for those whom it affects, there seem to be no positive aspects. The displacement is more of an issue than the increased safety is a benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

While the situation in Crown Heights is presenting itself as rapid and somewhat dire, it’s important to keep in mind that its situation as a place undergoing gentrification is not isolated: it is the product of historical socioeconomic forces and must be seen as such to be understood. It is undergoing dis- and reinvestment, politics and police are involved, the community is fighting against it—Crown Heights is not a special case, it’s just a current one. Like one resident interviewed at a community meeting said: “There are a lot of people interested in investing in this community and the people who’ve been here don’t want to get shafted”—in effect, the very same situation presented along every line of gentrification.

WORKS CITED

• Biro, Jessica. “Gentrification: Deliberate Displacement or Natural Social Movement?” The Park Place Economist 15.1 (2007): 42-46. Web. <http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=parkplace>.
• Ewing, Maura, and Vinnie Rotondaro. “The Ins and The Outs.” The Ins and The Outs. Marquee, 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 30 Mar. 2015.
• Gopal, Prashant. “Brooklyn Boom Squeezes Buyers Pushing Into Crown Heights.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
• Gregor, Alison. “Crown Heights, Brooklyn, Gets Its Turn.” n.d.: n. pag. The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 July 2014. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.
• Lees, Lorretta, Tom Slater, and Elvin Wyly. 2008. Gentrification. Chapter 1, “The Birth of Gentrification”. p.3-36
• Smith, Neil. 1996. “Mapping the Gentrification Frontier”, “Class Struggle on Avenue B: The Lower East Side as Wild Wild West.”  The New Urban Frontier.

K McCallum, Alec Mateo, Nicholas Maddalena, Susan Gerlovina, Nicole Turturro

So Why Study Overcrowding in Housing and Education?

It’s no secret that NYC has a ridiculous number of people. Subways are tight; housing is hard to find; and schools are packed. Housing and education are linked: much research has been put into studying the correlation between unstable home environments and performance in schools. When we attended the Sunset Park Community Board meeting, the Committees on Housing and Education shared the same message: Sunset Park is too crowded. As an extreme example, Sunset Park illustrates the issue of too many people in a small space evident throughout NYC.

Continue reading →

Michelle Cherian, Katherine Chiu, Allegra DePasquale, Heba Fakir

Group: Red Hook

Proposal for NYC

According to the statistics collection site Living Lots New York City one hundred seventy-one public sites totalling one hundred forty-eight acres of land in the city of New York are vacant. If we expand the data samples to include private land opportunities and non-public areas that are also underutilized, an added one hundred ninety-five sites totalling an extra one hundred fifty-nine acres of land are underused. This brings us to a grand total of three hundred forty-three underutilized acres of land. According to the presentation given by planning fellow John Douglass (from Hunter College of the City University of New York) at the February 2015 Community Board Six meeting, seventy-seven percent of the land in the Brooklyn Community Board Six zone is underutilized. This phenomenon was also observed by the members of the Red Hook team on our trips to Red Hook. The problem of under used land is one that is evidenced not only in specific towns like Red Hook, but also throughout the city, as evidenced by these statistics. The problem with having these empty lots is that they can contribute to ecological problems, social problems and political strife.

The lots take up space, but are not used to any significant public gain, and so they put to waste a lot of potential good. Instead of being used for public functions like affordable housing, public parks, business improvement districts, or other neighborhood improvements, these lots stay empty only to gather dust and litter.

Despite containing some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the U.S like Manhattan’s Upper East Side, New York City is facing a housing shortage, specifically an affordable housing shortage. More and more people of low-income status are being pushed into homelessness due to unreasonably high costs of living. In fact, 45% of the working class in New York pay more than one third of their income in rents. Yet, there are many apartment complexes, and even whole buildings, that are abandoned or awaiting repairs. The issue is that many of these affordable housing units can only be afforded by the wealthy. Often times, landlords who do offer their tenants low rents are encouraged by private corporations, interested in renovating the often dilapidated housing complexes, to increase rents driving out the current low-income occupants and selling those complexes to private corporations. Private corporations can then renovate those complexes and rent them out to higher income residents, thereby profiting while the low-income tenants are left to relocate. This often results in the gentrification of an area, as more buildings are purchased and renovated, the cost of living in the area also increases as a result of the influx of higher income families. Not only does a shortage in affordable housing begin, but gentrification also helps to drive out the low-income residents of the neighborhood. There are many bright sides to gentrification like lower crime rates and better housing, but this comes at a cost that is often too much for the poor. As the neighborhood improves, wealthier people move into the area, often driving out low-income residents. With the unequal global distribution of income, gentrification adds to the disparity in the income gap. In the United States, economic rewards are far more lopsided than in European countries. This inequality drives American poverty rates. At the same time, some low-income residents are able to remain due to rent control. The income gap is also widened due to mixed-income housing. Mixed-income housing developers often set aside about 80% of the apartments as market-rate and the other 20% for low & middle-income residents who pay below-market rates. Developers provide these affordable housing complexes for incentives like property tax reduction. Mayor Bill de Blasio intends on constructing and/or preserving 200,000 affordable housing complexes within the next 10 years through mandatory rather than voluntary inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning involves developers creating a certain number (usually 20%) of affordable housing units for low-income residents and the rest are offered at market-rate prices in return developers are allowed to build bigger. There are many critics of inclusionary zoning. Many argue that “inclusionary zoning, a celebrated policy solution that requires developers to set aside units for working and low-income families, has created a measly 2,800 affordable apartments in New York since 2005.[1]” Supporters of inclusionary zoning, on the other hand, argue that this is because inclusionary zoning at the time of Mayor Bloomberg was voluntary and many developers chose not to participate. Only time can tell if mandatory inclusionary zoning will come into effect and if it will have the effect that Mayor Bill de Blasio hopes for.

There are major groups that are focused on keeping the majority of these lots and buildings vacant, including landlords and the corporations that own these buildings.  This is all just a game of profit.  In the documentary, Uneven Growth NYC, Rachel Laforest, a social activist and executive director of Right to the City Alliance, states, “I live in the belly of the beast, New York City, where people are throwaways, but buildings and architecture and profits are prized possessions [2]”.  This is essentially the problem with landlords that creates empty lots in the first place.

How do landlords rake up the biggest profit in this way?  Well, when individuals aren’t living in a building, there is no need to upkeep the property and the money that landlords would use for that is kept in their pockets.  When living spaces in a building aren’t being used, it is a high possibility that these spaces are being used as warehousing for the landlords speculative funds, which they have invested in purchasing the building.  Then they will just sit on these spaces until the market price goes up and sell them for a profit [2].  Essentially, instead of using housing for its intended use value, it is just used as a commodity [3].

Landowners instead of trying to fill all the rooms in their building will also try to pack as many individuals into a single room as they can in order to increase their profit.  So instead of spreading individuals out in say a twelve apartment complex, they will stuff four to eight men inside one room and make a larger profit than if they were only renting out to a single family.

In fact, sometimes after landlords buy out apartment buildings, they try to force the tenants that are lower than market value rent in order to try and replace them with tenants that can pay higher than market value rent.  They will keep these rooms vacant until they can find the person or the time that they can make the largest profit.   Landlords do this by trying to buy tenants out or harassing them into leaving by performing construction on the building, bringing up fraudulent or eviction cases and hoping that eventually these tenants will just give up and leave.

Essentially, landlords and real estate speculators use any method possible to empty out their land while gathering the most profit.  And since the real estate industry is the largest single donor to election campaigns, they have a lot of say about who sits in office and makes policies surrounding this issue [2].

As landlords, real estate speculators and corporations rake in their profits, there are individuals who are constantly suffering from this system, specifically the homeless and lower income individuals. When assessing twenty of the fifty-nine community boards, 6040 vacant buildings and lots were counted.  This has the estimated potential to house 199, 981 people.  Frank Morales, an Episcopal priest and a housing activist, claims that there is three times more vacant space in New York City than there are homeless people in the city.  Then why is it that individuals in real estate claim that there isn’t enough supply for the demand?   It is because the people in control of buildings and policies surrounding the housing crisis are looking for the biggest profit available.Rob Robinson, a housing activist and a member of Take Back the Land National Movement, states that along society has to change their views about the homeless in order to take action against the main cause of homelessness in New York City: not mental illness, not alcoholism, not chemical addiction, not a lack of education, but a lack of affordable housing available [2].

A lot of this vacant space could be used to build up affordable housing or assisted living, instead of creating policies that establish affordable housing that will end in a number of years.  These vacant spaces could be developed into permanent affordable housing that would allow the homeless in New York City. Frank Morales brings up the solution of taking the money spent on shelters and move it into funds for renovating these vacant spaces on behalf of the homeless [2].  The report, “Banking on Vacancy: Homelessness and Real Estate Speculation” states, “Picture the homeless members decry the amount of money spent on shelter, especially as compared to the absence of money spent on housing development or rental assistance for the very poor [3]”.  The report goes on further to say that in 2010, the city’s budget for Housing Preservation and Development, about $489 million, was only 63% of what they city spent on providing shelters to homeless individuals, $773 million.  Yet the only true way to abolish homelessness, is to provide individuals who are homeless with the proper housing, which the vacant spaces so easily provide if renovated.  These vacant lots could also be used to create manufacturing businesses which creates availability in the job market which will also help the homeless and lower income populations.

Essentially, society needs to hang up its enormous capitalist mentality that allows landowners and real estate speculators to develop huge profits by letting vacant spaces remain vacant and renovate these spaces to allow for individuals who are homeless or living doubled or tripled up in single apartment buildings, to live comfortably.

This issue affects Red Hook directly, because, as seen in the town, there were many unused lots. At the CB6 meeting, a BID and IBZ were proposed to solve this issue; however, there is the problem of deciding whether the lots would be better used as manufacturing plants, or housing complexes. Furthermore, the community is concerned about the coexistence of industrial and residential space. In 1996, Red Hook and Community Board 6 adopted a 197a plan, which is basically a plan for community-based growth and regeneration. The goal of this plan, among other things, was to create opportunities for improved housing, to avoid conflict between the industrial and the residential, and to expand the residential sector [5]. This plan has been slowly but surely implemented. As an example of a success due to this plan, the Sullivan Street Hotel was converted to public housing and reopened in 2000. Though, much more needs to be done housing-wise. Most of Red Hook’s population is poorly oriented socio-economically, so affordable housing is a must.The current largest affordable housing complex in New York, the Red Hook Houses, is not enough to sustain all of those that need it.  Given this fact, why is land so underutilized in Red Hook, especially when the Community Board would like to expand the residential and when so many people need affordable housing? The original 197a plan, which to reiterate, is the basis for current neighborhood regeneration efforts, asserts that it stems from historical factors, such as the “actual and perceived isolation of Red Hook, the decline of the maritime industry, and the general lack of  economic opportunities and services for low income residents [5]” Though this report was written almost 20 years ago, much remains the same in Red Hook; this is obvious from our neighborhood observations. Clearly, much must be done in terms of public policy in order to continue the pursuit of affordable housing and the efficient usage of land.  However, it is not only in terms of housing that vacant land is a problem in Red Hook. Vacant lots in Red Hook are magnets for unsanitary garbage dumping, which not only detracts from the neighborhood aesthetic, but also negatively impacts the environment. Most of the garbage is not biodegradable, and thus the litter is dangerous for wildlife, plantlife, and the overall ecology of the neighborhood. Though dumping is illegal, enforcement of these environmental regulations is inadequate [5]. Something must be done with the vacant lots; having them sit there as virtual garbage dumps does nothing to promote economic and social growth in the neighborhood, which it desperately needs. Local government must continue the implementation of the 197a plan, which has had some success in attracting investment to Red Hook and combatting the perception of its isolation [6]. This is evident by the recent growth of small businesses in the area. This must continue, with the commercial, industrial, and residential working in harmony to encourage Red Hook’s growth. Through the channel of public policy this is certainly obtainable, as the neighborhood progresses and improves since the original 197a plan was passed in 1996.

Sources

[1] http://marketurbanism.com/2014/05/29/how-affordable-housing-policies-backfire/

[2]  Uneven Growth NYC. Cohabitation Strategies, 2014. Online.

[3]   Picture the Homeless. 2012. Banking on Vacancy: Homelessness and Real Estate Speculation.

[4] http://livinglotsnyc.org/#11/40.7300/-73.9900

[5] http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/community_planning/bk6_red_hook_197a.pdf

[6] http://www.brooklyncb6.org/