This weeks reading spoke a lot about the connection that ethnic groups feel towards their neighborhoods and the impact that changes to a neighborhood can have. Like Alex said, the people in Harlem and other lower income neighborhoods were experiencing different kinds of changes. For example, when Puerto Ricans started immigrating into East Harlem, the Italian population became nervous about all of the cultural and social changes that another ethnic group posed. I agree with Parveena that animosity between the Italians and The Puerto Ricans was in part due to the Americanization of the Italian population from generation to generation. The idea of the tight family bond started to crumble as children adopted more American values and left the old neighborhood behind. This opened up housing for others to occupy, in this case the Puerto Ricans. Not only was the Italian culture being threatened by the influx of a new ethnic group into the area but it was also starting to diminish from within in certain ways. This was part of the Americanization that so many ethnic groups feared. Between the Americanization and the immigration of Puerto Ricans, Italian Harlem was facing social and cultural changes.

Another change, as William said was the urban renewal situation. Low-income public housing attracted many poor minority groups which, for all intents and purposes, frightened the white majority. Crime increased in areas where public housing was in full swing, population increased (minority groups), and conditions and standards dropped (similar to tenements). Schools couldn’t handle the increase in student body sizes. And as the cycle started with public housing more and more space was needed. This often lead to the destruction of significant cultural buildings to build more public housing. And as minorities started moving into these areas altercations skyrocketed between members of different minorities and even within immigrant groups from the same country. The more change that occurred, the easier it was for people to narrow their view of anyone that wasn’t immediately like them. It’s the age old idea that people fear what they don’t understand. In this case due the excessive amount of change people were rarely looking out for more than their immediate family.

From this week’s readings along with the documentary watched last week, it became clear that race and public housing are deeply related. Public housing became a way of separating the minority groups and placing them into one compacted area. These crowded areas then became centers of high crime activity, violence, poverty and unhealthy living conditions. Instead of providing housing and better living conditions for low-income families/ minorities to live in, public housing just created “projects” and “ghettos.” Like Praveena said- The New York City Housing Authority as described in Pritchett basically forged a ghetto; and also what Alexandra said- the obsession with public housing was parallel to the obsession with race. These “projects” & “ghettos”  greatly became associated with race.

The fact that Italians and Peurto Ricans wanted to be as distinct from each other, was a very interesting point. Both groups didn’t want to be associated with one another just to prove themselves not black and not become categorized with a lower group than white. This aspect rises questions more about self-identity of the two groups, than to which group is “not black” or which group is of a low stereotype. It wasn’t just a fight about which group is better, but deeper than that, more so of which race/group does the individual himself belong to or identify himself as.

Change is inevitable. And from these readings it can be seen how true this phrase really is. Neighborhoods change and transform from one ethnic group to another, East Harlem itself being a perfect example – Italian East Harlem to Spanish Harlem. However, is this phrase also true if we talk about it in regards with the “default font?” Will the default ever change to something “minor” or has it been the default for so long that it has now become inevitable to change it?

It is always interesting to observe peoples’ reactions to changing neighborhoods, communities, etc. We usually get accustomed to a type of neighborhood, with specific people, a certain way. When changes occur, people normally dont favor this and they usually take the decision of moving out (if its that serious). I was kind of surprised when the documentary was talking about how white people were given an incentive to move out of the neighborhoods minorities were moving into. As a result the property value of the minority filled neighborhoods went down making them poverty stricken and the housing value of the white neighborhoods went up, making them the more wealthier class. I thought that this was a pretty noteworthy detail because people often assume that people themselves are incompetent to move themselves forward in life, however, these people forget to take all these structural and institutional policies that have shaped and influenced so many lives.

I definitely feel that race and public housing are interconnected. As the documentary also showed, people start to associate certain types of housing (Example: tenements) with mainly people of color. This becomes a problem because this prejudice stays with these people for many generations because the way the system is constructed, its hard for them to get out of poverty.

It was also interesting to read the relationship between the Italians and Puerto Ricans. The once hated Italians were now “hating” on another group. The incoming Puerto Ricans overshadowed Italians in some aspects and the Italians did not want to have to do with anything related to the Puerto Ricans. There was this fear of being called “black” even among the Italians. Like Alex mentioned, southern Italians were discriminated against by the northern Italians. Their skin color signaled them to be associated with the Greeks which was offensive to them. This is a pretty interesting thing to note because no one wanted to be associated with the lower social class; dark skinned blacks, hispanics, etc because they are put on such a low level in our society. It all comes down to which group has more political power and how our society is structured to better support on group over the other.

It’s upsetting to see how much focus is placed on minority and majority, on color, race and power.  Places are labeled “the slums” and “the Projects” because they are left for the lower class to occupy.  As each wave of immigration passed conditions didn’t seem to improve as much as one would hope.  They say time heals all things, and that things get better with age, think along the lines of how a fine wine ages. Well that’s obviously not what happened here.  As Alexandra quoted from several passages, retrogression was clearly visible in New York.  As the population of immigrants and minorities grew a new “solution”(more like the big bad wolf in sheep’s clothing) appeared: public housing.  Public housing was just another way to lump together minorities in one place justifiably by using low costs as a motivator.

Nothing gets done about it because minorities are the “undesirables,” and people (the middle and upper class whites) would rather flee to suburbs and let neighborhoods fall into decline than do anything to better the lives of those who need it.  So public housing just made the obvious more obvious, being white meant being superior.   But now things are changing (slowly), minorities aren’t stuck in the projects, they aren’t stopped by laws and loopholes made to prevent them from entering white neighborhoods the way the GI bill did.

I agree with Alex in that there is definitely a link between public housing and race, which was pretty obvious in this week’s readings. Pritchett discussed how the public housing projects became increasingly identified with minorities, and he called this process “self-reinforcing” (116). Although many Whites in the beginning lived in projects, many were already leaving because of increase in income or they did not feel safe anymore and instead moved either to the suburbs and in neighborhoods close by. Towards the end of the 1960s, the majority of the residents in Brownsville were Blacks and Latinos. The community wanted public housing built for middle-class residents for diversity in the neighborhood and to bring the Whites back, but the plan was not successful in the end.

Issues with schools was also an issue Pritchett brought up.The schools in Brownsville were falling apart and many classrooms could not support the large amount of children in the neighborhood. When the community wanted to build new schools, especially a middle school on the borders of the neighborhood to combine with other ones, such as Canarsie, to integrate the children, the idea was not accepted by the other areas. I think that Praveena’s idea of fear also plays a role in this reading. The  fear of the “other” may have made the notion of integration more undesirable.

For immigrants in Five Points, there were some attempts to improve the conditions of the tenements that they lived in. For example, Anbinder writes that the city established building codes that required windows and ventilation in each room to improve the living condition of the immigrants. However, many things did not change in the buildings, such as Bottle Alley which Jacob Riis talked about.

Gentrification, which Sharman mentioned in his chapter, really brings together how it affects the neighborhood as a whole. He mentioned how it is used to describe urban renewal and the change it brought to a neighborhood. While Brownsville seemed to embrace this idea, Sharman said that East Harlem seemed to not feel the same way about it. There are complicated relationships between people because of race, and this affects housing as a whole.

I think Liz may be on to something when she said that it is more an issue of “majority vs. minority” than anything else.  But along with this, whites have always felt as though they are the superior race.  This has been the common belief and practice for centuries, and to change the minds of everyone, everywhere, so quickly would be impossible.  So therefore I think that the whites may remain the “majority” for a while longer simply because they have held the power for so long.  Whether this is right or not, it still seems to be the reality.

What I found particularly interesting was when one of the readings talked about a sort of “forced integration” in public housing.  Since whites were moving out as the number of blacks and Puerto Ricans increased, organizations wished to try and “even out the numbers”, so to speak.  To do this, one group tried offering homes to whites in mainly colored-inhabited areas, and offering homes to minorities in mainly white-inhabited areas.  This did not work as well as planned.  Integration cannot really be a forced entity, it just has to happen on its own.  Eventually, people became comfortable and accepting enough so that there was no longer so much segregation.  But to try and plan a 50/50 ratio of whites to blacks or other ethnic groups is just not the solution.

I really enjoyed the Sharman reading again this week, as it told a descriptive and personal story of one man and his experience.  He was not even born in New York, yet experienced it in a very unique way.  I liked the way in which Russell referenced others we had previously read about, putting the New York he now lived in into context.  It was crazy to think that the luxurious apartment Russell stood in was once Lucille’s neighborhood. While it is important to move along as history progresses, I also think it is important to keep a part of that history with you.  The past holds treasures that should never be forgotten.

To jump around again, I would just like to point out my confusion when reading the Pritchett chapters.  There was so much controversy over the issues of public housing and racial changes, yet nothing really influential was done.  Many of the groups advocating for blacks were made up mostly of whites!  It is no wonder that no solid, lasting change was made!  Sometimes things like these make

As Sharman wrote, “The people transform the streets and the streets transform the people.”  Communities are never static, although residents certainly wish they would be.  What awed me about this week’s readings was a sense of cyclic history.  What Five Points was in the late 19th century, became what Brownsville was in the the mid 20th century.

In Pritchett especially, one can really see how a neighborhood can shift.  As Pritchett described, in a matter of years, the local demographic had made a complete 180… the Jewish and White population had completely been replaced with Puerto Rican and Black population.  The number of Whites and Jews who actually decided to stay in Brownsville, faced violence and discrimination themselves, pressuring them to leave- It goes to show you  that nobody wants to be a minority. Can that perfect 50/50 demographic ever be reached? It seems that whenever the scale is tipped, one side gets the short end of the stick so to speak.

Like Maryam mentioned, the hospitals and the good schools have a tendency to follow the whites…(aka the money) once they leave.  In America where economic status and race are intertwined so closely, racism is so easy to “justify”.  The fact that housing is off-limits to those who reach a certain income…as Pritchett wrote, keeps away  those people who are the chief candidates to advocate for change.  The people who wouldn’t be worrying about their next meal would consequently start worrying about the big picture.

Sharman described the next phase in the cycle- gentrification.  Housing then becomes only available to those with high incomes.   This can cause a degradation of a culture, and an essential “re-location” of a slum.  Sharman, however, has some hope for the future in East Harlem, believing that there could very well be an influx of social advocates and Puerto Ricans whose families had once lived in East Harlem.

In Five Points, Anbinder writes that even after new plans were made for housing, the conditions of the residents of Five Points did not improve that much.  I remember reading that the stairs were one of the more treacherous parts of the tenements, mainly because they were so dark.  But now, after reading that they did not have banisters, it makes me see how dangerous the stairs really were.  I would feel so nervous if I had to walk up stairs everyday without something to hold on to just to get to my apartment.  And the creation of the window shafts doesn’t seem like it would help much.  It really is sad when there aren’t many improvements even after so much time.

I agree with Alex that housing does parallel race.  But as we learned in the video we watched last week, race is a social construction, housing really parallels with perceived race.  In Five Points, Italians lived in decrepit housing after the Irish, and back then, they weren’t perceived as white.  Just like the Irish and the Jewish, the Italians turned “white” overtime, and people nowadays wouldn’t associate Italians with bad housing.  In Brownsville, the creation of public housing soon became associated with minorities.  This led to the problem of integration and class diversity, and controversy regarding the creation of middle-class public housing.  In Brownsville, there was a quote where it said that people were naturally segregated in terms of upward mobility.

I think the idea with that quote was that as those minorities achieved more financial success, they would also move out of the neighborhood.  But as we have been learning, there are differences between what has happened with the migration in the 1800s and the more recent migration.  The more recent immigrants come from more countries than the earlier immigrants, and in terms of skin color, there are just as much variations.  Thus, it might not be as easy for recent immigrants to become “white”. Upward mobility is harder to achieve for those who aren’t perceived as “white”, so many minorities might not be able to move out of the neighborhood even if they wanted to.  There are other limiting factors such as real estate values and such.  In answer to Alex’s question, I think that “white” might still be the default race now, but I think it is in the process of changing, but perhaps only in New York.  I think in many neighborhoods in the rest of America, whites are still the majority.

Since we’re talking about fonts, I just want to say that while Times New Roman is a nice font, it’s rather drab.  There are many other fonts out there, some just as nice or even nicer.  Another thing to consider is that Times New Roman is no longer the only default font.  Teachers nowadays will also accept assignments submitted in Arial, Cambria body, and Calibri.  But the thing about default fonts is, is that they are all very regular.  Conformity is hideous, claustrophobic and unnatural.

The conditions of one’s house was, and is, directly related to one’s race.  White people live in the best homes/neighborhoods, and as one’s color gets darker, the housing gets progressively worse.  Let’s talk a little bit about these colors, and in the process talk a little bit about ourselves.  Puerto Ricans and dark Italians didn’t hate the stereotypes that made them inferior–they were to  busy hating themselves.  Instead of embracing the color of their skin, they chose to be ashamed of it.  Italians argued that the Italian language was very different from Spanish, that they had nothing to do with Puerto Ricans.  Puerto Ricans insisted that they were not African American.  But no one ever stopped to disagree, to fight the way things were.

There is no such thing as passive resistance.  Boycotts, protests, sit-ins may be peaceful but they are not passive.  For a darker skin person to buy a house in an exclusively White neighborhood is not passive–it’s active resistance.  It’s a battle.  For a White neighbor to refuse to move away is not passive–it’s an intentional strike against an unjust system.  Jacob Riis’s taking pictures of tenement conditions was more than taking a photograph, it’s a wake-up call for the City.

Like Praveena, I agree that it would be faulty to be angry with the way things have been.  Both Pritchett and Sharman seem to be describing the natural order of things.  This is how neighborhoods have been built, how communities transition.  That doesn’t mean we have to like it, though.

Alexa mentioned, and Pritchett talked about, how crime seemed to follow Blacks and Browns into neighborhoods.  This makes it easy to see how stereotypes form.  However, one should also see how facilities such as decent churches, hospitals and schools also tend to follow Whites out of neighborhoods.  I’m not implying anything.  I’m just sayin’.

Race may be a myth from a biological standpoint, but it’s an idea that has had a very real impact on the growth and change of New York neighborhoods. In fact, this week’s readings are practically bursting with examples of this influence, case in point being the odyssey of public housing in both Brownsville and East Harlem.

Undoubtedly, the birth of public housing was awash with good intentions: originally intended to encourage diversity and racial integration, the projects quickly became veritable theaters of ethnic tension. By dangling the carrot of affordable living, public housing complexes easily attracted large numbers of relatively poor minorities,and had similarly little trouble attracting the crime that would inevitably follow this increasing density of poverty. This so-called “neighborhood decline” was often attributed to racial (and not economic) demographics, contributing to the sort of “white flight” we’ve encountered in relation to suburbs like Levittown. This, in turn, opened up more space in the projects for poor minorities seeking inexpensive housing, the influx of whom led to the demolition of community buildings and institutions to make way for even more public housing, further fueling the appearance of decline…such was the vicious cycle of neighborhood decay caused by public housing and it’s ever-growing concentration of the poor.

Another important process of neighborhood transformation covered in this week’s readings is “urban renewal,” or “gentrification.” It is in many ways the fraternal twin of public housing, occurring when property in such declining neighborhoods becomes cheap enough to be bought for upmarket commercial development. This has the unfortunate effect of pricing out longtime residents who can no longer afford to live in their own neighborhoods. In short, gentrification spells radical change for neighborhoods like Harlem and Brownsville, often much to the distress of those, like Sharman’s Lucille, who have grown to love their flawed communities precisely as they are.

By chance, I happened to have misread the epigraphic Sharman quote at the top of Praveena’s spark so that “the live of our neighbors” became “the lives of our neighborhoods,” and in retrospect that seems strangely fitting; neighborhoods change all the time (from Italian Harlem to Spanish Harlem, from project to upscale hotel), and, in a way, are indeed undeniably alive.