The Peopling of Corona

Both Jackie and Liz bring up important points when it comes to the authors’ perspectives on the slums of New York. Like Jackie, I agree that the author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, has a negative view of the work being done in order to prevent slums. Jacobs believes that although attempts are made to make the poor of the cities thrive again, these attempts are futile. All the money that goes into these “public works” are supposed to make the city a better place, yet it only turns the cities into areas divided by economic backgrounds. For example, “the projects” are made to make housing more accesible to lower class people, however, these areas are slum-like and scary, making it a feared place to travel to and therefore stunts the growth of these areas. Yet, at the same time, I agree with Jackie’s idea that there are also many places, like Times Square for instance, that used to be “bad neighborhoods” and have turned into more glamorized and safer areas naturally through tourism. I believe that the gentrification of areas is almost a natural occurrence that happens in many neighborhoods, and is not something that needs to be planned or worked out, like Jacobs stated.

Liz, on the other hand, brings up many interesting questions. The most thought provoking one is whether there is an underlying prejudice towards the people who live in five points. I think that there definitely is a sort of condescending attitude when people view it as the “worst neighborhood in NYC.” Who are we to judge what is good and what is bad? Can’t it be true that some of the most inspirational stories of people working together, overcoming treacherous situations, happen in cities that are “not-so-nice”? Wasn’t it Harlem (one of the most notorious neighborhoods in NYC) that went through its own renaissance, producing novel artwork and music unlike anything else created during that generation? Therefore, it is unfair to judge a city based on its economic status or on how others people view the neighborhood. Although the area might be a slum, it doesn’t mean the people in the slum are not worth while or important. People should not be looked down upon, no matter where they live.

While the readings mentioned city planning, I find the most interesting thing to be how cities evolve despite how they are planned. This has a lot to do with Liz’s question: “Is there an underlying prejudice towards the citizens of Five Points fueling their status as the worst neighborhood in NYC?” Being called a slum is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people keep insisting that a certain area is a “bad neighborhood,” then those who can afford to will stay away from it. Only those who can not afford anything else will even dare live there. However, by restricting residents to the poorer people, the area deteriorates, becoming more of a slum with each poor family that moves in.

This is especially true when immigrants move in. They come to America with no money, no connections, and no knowledge of the land. Of course they end up living where no one else wants to live. Landlords even took advantage of them, splitting apartments into small, uncomfortable rooms. Because people look down on immigrants, places like the Five Points become even less desirable. The Five Points even became known as a place of immorality and sin. It was the place where black and white people were together on the street, drinking, and prostitutes practiced openly. This drove the upper class away except of course the tours to see how the other half live.

However some neighborhoods fare better than the Five Points. Recently, Manhattan has been undergoing gentrification in many neighborhoods previously thought of as untouchable. Like Jackie mentioned, Times Square used to be known as a sketchy place, almost a Red Light district, and now we all know it as a tourist haven. The East Village used to be just for starving artists and druggies, and now its the most expensive real estate per square foot in Manhattan. Even Harlem is on its way to becoming a trendy place to live.

The problem with this gentrification though, is that the poor people who call the neighborhood home for generations can no longer afford to live there. Someone whose family has lived in an apartment for centuries will be thrown to the side to make room for more white yuppies.

So what’s better? Leaving slums the way they are or kicking people out of their homes?

I absolutely love when Jane Jacobs writes in The Death and Life of Great American Cities that “Cities are an immense laboratory of trial and error, failure and success, in city building and city design.”  In other words a city must take chances in order to thrive and bounce back from failure.   She then goes on to write that in this “laboratory,” we should learn from success and failure.  This lays out a very important factor to the growth and development of a city.  In fact, without it, a city will die.

Failure is not death, though.  Even if a city does not live up to the standards of society, many cities still have a lot going for them.  Jacobs talks about the North End in Boston quite often.  A Boston planner she knew talked about the North End as if it were a slum, but when he went on to describe it, Jacob saw no reason in such a classification.  The planner stated that the area actually has “among the lowest delinquency, disease and infant morality rates in the city,” and it has “the lowest ratio of rent to income in the city.”  This tell me that there is more to a city than we think and that we should invest more time and hope into such places as the North End.  In addition, like Liz Langer said in a previous post, every city is unique, specifically because of how its people personify it.

This idea is carried throughout Tyler Anbinder’s Five Points.  The area is misunderstood.  And although Lewis Mumford, in The City in History, might disagree, as Liz also pointed out, money is not what is going to help it be understood.  After reading only the prologue of Five Points it is clear that the area had become a mix of cultures, some of which came together and others that clashed, as well as evolving ideas and movements that define it.  This particular degree of prejudice should be removed before we undermine a city.

If these readings show anything,  it’s the natural progression of cities. As Jacky said, New York City looked nothing like it did 50 years ago, let alone 150! Five points was really eye opening for me because I always saw New York as the diverse and open-minded place that it is today. I also knew that New York was one of the first states to abolish slavery. It was surprising to read about anti-abolition riots in New York, and the terrible discrimination that African Americans faced in New York back then. The Irish, who compose a huge chunk of our firefighters and policemen today, were once seen as completely undesirable and unwanted. New York would be a very different place if those rioters had their way. This progression of the city of New York was surprising, but seemingly natural. New York was also a major slum- not the shiny metropolis that we have today. I think that many cities have the same or similar histories. I don’t think that the evolution of cities can be bypassed; as we read in The Death and Life of  Great American Cities, much of the planning that city planners do is in vain. They never account for the needs of people and the models of cities that exist today, and become hung up on theory over practicality. I don’t think these cities have to be planned, to be honest. I think natural progressions will take place as peoples’ attitudes, needs, and a horde of other factors change. As the text by Mumford shows, even a seemingly minor change, using Jacky’s example of the public transportation system, radically affects the way the city functions and operates. With so many factors contributing to the structure and operation of a mega-city such as New York, how can any sort of building plans attempt to replicate (or accurately modify) the results?

In response to Liz’s #3 question, I definitely believe there is prejudice in calling Five Points the “worst neighborhood.” Five Towns is described as a dirty slum that is the shame of America containing the lowest of all human beings. I remember reading in one paragraph that three fights broke out within only a matter of 15 minutes. However, even in the book itself it says that a lot of the talk about Five Towns illustrated the “ghetto” to be far worse than what it was. Of course there were horrible living conditions, fighting, alcohol and many other actions and aspects that are commonly associated with slums, however there were also some revolutionary things occurring in this town that seemed atrocious to the onlookers, but nowadays seems right: the intermixing of blacks and whites on the streets. It is written and illustrated through one picture that the people who went “slumming” were disgusted at how blacks and whites were so openly intertwined in the streets with one another. Now I am not saying Five Towns was a desirable place to live, however I do think that people who only look at the surface of things and are quick to judge, tend to over exaggerate circumstances. The very fact that the wealthy people took “tours” around this poor neighborhood as if they were viewing a circus, already signifies that they believe themselves to be better than these “low-lives.” Calling the unfortunate people in this town a disgrace to all things human is extremely harsh on my opinion: they are people, no matter what circumstances they are in. I also found it interesting when Jane Jacobs mentioned that city planners do not plan a city according to how it will function, but rather on how it looks to the eye. I found it incredibly intriguing when she mentioned that the residents of an apartment building were complaining about a lawn/plot near their building. “It doesn’t serve a purpose.” This was the mindset of most of the residents and I thought it was interesting because one would think that the addition of a fairly decent sized lot in the projects might be utilized for children’s sports like baseball or tag or catch. However these residents felt the lot was useless and were angry about its presence. They mentioned that they would much rather have a place to buy coffee or other daily items. My question is even though they don’t have a Starbucks or 7/11, why don’t they make the most of that lot? I don’t understand why there is anger toward a lot that could be potentially used for a garden or a play area? I understand and fully agree with the fact that there should be built other, more useful stores and shops as opposed to an empty lot with no purpose, but why the anger? Is it because that lot is a constant reminder of what they don’t have? that the only thing they do have is an empty, purposeless lot? Maybe, but I’m not quite sure.

The most interesting of the three readings was definitely the Five Points. However, this is only because it is narrated as if telling a story; information is revealed using real documented conversations and interactions. I found the other two readings to be informative and interesting as well–though to a lesser to degree, as tends to be the case with straight non-fiction.
The Five Points reading displayed a different type of lifestyle and environment than I have lived in, seeing as I am not from a city. Besides this, it also tells the story of how a city grows and evolves, where the main character of the book is a society and culture of people, rather than one person. I found this to be interesting, especially when it is clearly depicts how one person (or one small group of people) can tremendously influence an entire city.
The Death and Life of Great American Cities is pessimistic–as pointed out by Jackie. Unlike her, though, I appreciated the pessimism. We understand how cities are supposed to work and function and how we fix them, however, we very rarely understand why they don’t work. “Taxes or too high, too few jobs, social security, welfare” and such one word answers are spouted out as explanations, but do not really suffice as an answer. As Jacobs articulates, cities often don’t function as expected. This, in itself, is not a problem. In every field of study, nothing occurs in the real world exactly as it does in the laboratory. Shooting a gun in a gallery and in a battle are extremely different; performing a piece of music by yourself in your room and playing on a stage for hundreds of people are not equal experiences; Regents physics (where everything is assumed to be on a two dimensional plane) and real world physics differ greatly. So why is it that modern day scientists who enter the field of city planning utilize data that is clearly not applicable to the real world? Jacobs explanation is both plausible, intriguing, and concerning. How can we change this? How long will it take? Is it even a realistic expectation to think that this will change?

I too found the readings on Five Points to be extremely interesting, especially since as a commuting high school student, I would constantly pass by the famous graffiti-covered Five Points building on the 7 train. I agree with Liz’s observations of Jane Jacobs’ opinions that described “slums” still have the ability to thrive. In every city, even a “slum”, there is some sort of charm that makes some of its inhabitants enjoy and love the city at least a little bit. There are reasons people call these “crummy” cities home, and the same has to apply to Five Points. Liz’s point about Five Points’ problem lying within the lack of understanding of city planners was very interesting and connects to my thoughts on the famous Fice Points Building. Currently, there is a plan to cut down this amazing piece of building-turned-artwork, and replace it with some condo, office building, or what have you. The mere existence of this plan is a perfect example of how and why city planners may not understand what makes a city thrive. Tearing down buildings that are very culturally and artistically significant to a city’s inhabitants is what may be making the “problems” in these problem-cities.
I wasn’t as surprised as Jackie was about the importance of transportation (mass and otherwise) to urban layouts. I agree that transportation is one of the most important aspects of urban development. Not only does it enrich the flow of commerce throughout cities (New York especially, with its many ports, bridges, tunnels, highway systems, roads, etc.), but it also simply helps remove the elements that have given areas such as 42nd Street and Needle Park (the Upper West Side) problems in be past. When we take into the account the examples Jackie gives us of cities that have changed for the better, I think in the lomg run it is worth it to wait for these cities to improve on their own terms, rather than try to force change unnaturally, that way there is no danger of a relapse of problems thse cities may have previously had.

I agree with the previous posts in that Jane Jacobs seems to be overly pessimistic, and that she didn’t always fully explain her statements and accusations. Still, she brings up some good points. As Zachy mentioned, a city is a very complex structure, and city planning can be incredibly complicated. Things that work for one city may fail miserably in another. There is also the danger of over-planning, which, though it strives to make the city as efficient and business/tourism-friendly as possible, often results in artificiality and the failure of cities to perform basic functions. A good example of this would be Brasilia, Brazil’s capital. This city had everything planned out before it was built, leading to a lot of controversy and debate about modern urban planning.

Unlike some of my peers, I agree with Jane Jacob’s cynical view on the efforts that have been made to rid the city of its slums. While I realize that the gentrification of the previously mentioned Needle Park (Upper West Side) and Times Square has a myriad of positive consequences, I also find myself asking what happens to the residents of those neighborhoods once they get pushed out of their homes.

Take for example the neighborhood of NorthEnd mentioned in Jacob’s text. The first reference to this city depicts it as deplorable and destined for ruin and chaos. However, years later, the neighborhood was able to recover, not on the government’s terms (nor with its assistance), but by its own means. While the standards still mark this area as a slum in need of improvement, its citizens have implemented their own improvements to their neighborhood. Had the government stepped in and taken control of the area, the city planning strategies it would apply would ultimately force the property values and rents to increase. The text states that those living in the area are paying less than what is standard, and we can only assume that that is all they would be able to afford. If the property values suddenly increase, those dwelling in North End would be forced to relocate.

And where will they relocate? Other low income, “slum” areas around the city. This city is stuck in a vicious cycle. Although we may improve one area, we are only sweeping the issue to another area, and if we’re lucky, to an area that we don’t need to associate with on a regular basis. As Jacobs states, we always claim that we can improve the problem if we had X amount of dollars. But where has our money gotten us, if anywhere?

“But look what we have built with the first several billions: Low-income projects that become worse centers of delinquency, vandalism and general social hopelessness than the slums they were supposed to replace” (Jacobs).

And where are these low-income projects? On the outskirts of the city (much like Five Points), where the fortunate do not have to worry about it. In fact, only when Five Points became a problem for businesses which feared it kept patrons from traveling North, was much of an effort put toward improving the area.

I must conclude with a statement Jacobs makes on page 8 of her piece that states that city planners focus more on what ought to work in a city than what actually does. These planners “shrug reality aside” in hopes of finding a quick way to make things work. But they’re wrong. The people living in areas like North End, which were able to improve their situation are the ones that know it’s more than figuring out what ought to work. It’s figuring out how to make it work.

I like the way that Jane Jacobs views a city as an evolving organism rather than a puzzle with one shape. As I was reading The Death and Life of Great American Cities, it almost sounded like the planning of a city is a hit or miss with no known outcome. It reminded me a little bit of trends that catch on. One day an object can be the “must-have” and the next it is in the pile of trash with Beanie Babies and Cabbage Patch Kids. This might be able to answer Jackie’s question as sometimes the evolution of an organism takes more than a generation to fully evolve. Yes, at first Times Square would be unrecognizable to what it was today, but it had to start from somewhere. At some point, one change led to the next, which summed up to the tourist wormhole that we all love and hate. Sometimes what may seem to be the right medicine for a dying city might just be the poison. When Jacobs wrote about “sacking of the city”, she is referring to the repairs that were supposed to revive the city, not necessarily the rejection of the city itself. Though Jacobs does have a pessimistic view (and biased opinion) of what a city should and feel like, it all depends on who is evaluating the city. A person like Jacobs seems to want a city more directed for families and the social life of people, rather than just a function for business. Jacobs says she likes dense cities, and she seems to repeat her affinity for parks and their benefits for a city.  What one person may consider an amoral sex-filled wasteland, another person may call home.

I found it very interesting that when Jacobs spoke about Morningside Heights’s supposed downturn revitalization, she makes it sound so instantaneous. She doesn’t describe the process of the downward destructive path but rather she just says that it failed. This goes along with what I said earlier, that planning of a city seems to be a hit or miss; it’s a game of Russian roulette, you end up successful, or dead. Though I have to disagree with Jackie, because just as she said cities can change, so why is it possible that Morningside Heights cant be like what Jacobs explained, didn’t New York’s Times Square change for the better over time?

Lewis Mumford’s, The City In History, connects some of the ideas expressed in The Death and Life of Great American Cities and The Five Points. When Mumford talks about the effects capitalism/mercantilism (more primarily, money), he is hitting on the crux of what society is sadly based on. If there were no benefit for someone to create a bussing company, or build a new apartment building, then how would our cities be built? Though it is the corruption of the people that could help the most that hurts the people the worst. The slums that Jacobs and Anbinder speaks of have a common source of overpopulation and neglect for the tenements the people live in. It’s because the landlords can fill the building for a greater tax return and a higher rent charge, which allows landlords to neglect the tenants and their needs. This neglect turns the cities with great potential into slums that the nation is ashamed of. It’s because some people can make a quick buck on the expense of tens or hundreds of people that leads to the self-destruction of many promising cities.

After reading all these readings it should be clear to everyone that a city is a very complex system. Sometimes it works and at some points It doesn’t. What may seem ideal could very well be just another flop. Although a person may think that a city should have a utopian structure and that each city if made with the same blue prints should be successful, it is the individual that the city must complement. Jacobs was right when she disagreed with the old thinkers of the standard city makers. I would not expect to put some arty “hipster” person in the middle of down town Wall Street. The city is a very volatile creature that must be handled with care in order to take in all the needs of the inhabitants; even then, success is impossible to predict.