Author: Logan Frazier

The best singular approach to keeping small businesses alive is giving them power in the lease negotiation process. It deals directly with the problem of increasing rents as opposed to the other two options mentioned in the article.

The first proposed solution, giving businesses a property tax credit, would not have as big an effect as other solutions because not all tenants pay a large cut of the tax. While this would certainly not be harmful in any way and would indeed allow owners to keep the rent reasonable, this does not prevent owners from increasing rent prices. The second approach, special zoning laws, would also be incredibly helpful but still does not directly address the problem of current renters being driven out. Zoning laws could prevent chain stores and other bigger retailers from attracting customers away from their businesses which would be helpful, but still the rent would probably increase due to other factors such as gentrification.

Ideally, the best way of tackling the problem of disappearing mom-and-pop shops is a combination approach with a heavy focus on media outreach. Small businesses need to make a name for themselves through word of mouth from generation to generation and the media. Their goal should be to market themselves to the current shopper without giving up their identity. Places such as Junior’s have become incredibly famous both within and outside of NYC, partially due to their media presence. Yelp reviews, Times articles, websites and any sort of online attention will help to draw a younger crowd. Most people I know look at Yelp before picking a place to eat. A business that has no online presence in this age is most likely doomed to fail.

My current place of employment, Ample Hills Creamery has recently been named as having the “Best Ice Cream in America” by Food Network. They now have six locations across Brooklyn and Manhattan and one opening up in Disney World. I have watched their business grow during my time working there and I have to contribute a huge portion of their success to their media presence. They have had extensive news coverage, been featured on Oprah, Good Morning America, and the list goes on and on. They update their Instagram and Facebook daily and work incredibly hard to collaborate with successful bakeries. In my opinion (keep this on the DL) Ample Hills’ ice cream is not that good. It’s really sweet, packed with other sweet things, and leaves you feeling like you need a nap. However, the owners hired some very bright, technologically savvy people and are now sitting pretty.

I know that small businesses owners generally do not have the time, money, and/or skill to invest in creating an online presence. However, if every small business were to hire a moderately priced web designer and ask their friends and family to rate them on Yelp, that might really make a difference.

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. How did you get started in this business?
2. How do you feel about gentrification? How does it affect you?
3. Where do you see yourself in the next year? Ten years? Do you plan on passing this business to your children?

Change in general is an inevitable process. Everything and everyone is constantly evolving and adapting to external and internal pressures, which sometimes creates a positive outcome and other times not so much. In the case of local shopping streets, change cannot be stopped. Technology is constantly evolving and continuously becoming a more central part of our lives. As we learned a couple of weeks ago in our trip to Civic Hall, services are being created that simply did not exist before. Along with high tech products comes a change in aesthetic. As described in Global Cities, Local Streets, “cheap” stores that once were popular on Orchard Street were replaced with “vintage” shops with exposed brick walls. Rents are increasing due to a variety of factors, leading to the closing of many immigrant shops.

Technology has caused a shift in the appearance and operation of physical stores. Many companies are labeling themselves as “tech companies” instead of traditionally labeling themselves after what they actually produce, such as pizza. However, technology (the internet) has created an entirely online shopping street where products are often offered for cheaper. This obviously does not bode well for store keepers as they are competing with global companies that have more resources. The only real ways a business can compete with such an entity is to offer a completely unique product, experience or environment or enter the online realm as well. Yelp as well as Twitter and Instagram can be vital for a business. These platforms can be used to gain a following and hopefully make the store more hip and trendy, creating more revenue.

Retail chains are another huge factor in the decrease of “mom-and-pop” shops. Due to changes in zoning laws and the allowance of government Kmart and Target have infiltrated the city. I usually avoid these chains like the plague but I have to own up to occasionally buying a pint of “Ben and Jerry’s” at Target when it is five dollars. The price is too good to pass up, but everytime I make this choice instead of going to a local ice cream shop I support a corporation with a vast amount of resources and connections and the ability to drive local businesses out of the neighborhood.

Overall, the future is not looking very bright. Some hope lies in the willingness of shoppers and storeowners to work with each other. This can be difficult as many people, especially immigrants, are distrustful of the government (rightly so) and sometimes each other. Perhaps if the BID (business improvement district) focused more on the preservation of local landmark businesses instead of trying to transform a neighborhood into the next Orchard Street, the “authenticity” of NYC would not disappear so quickly.

The “Silicon City” exhibition and Civic Hall are definitely connected. I learned quite a bit from both about technology’s role in our lives. “Silicon City” showed the evolution of technology and made me really notice how my MacBook Air is almost an entirely different machine than the first computer. The only real similarity is they can both solve math problems. The video games also stood out to me. “Tennis for Two” is simplistic; the only components being a dial to control the movement of a green ball over the line representing the net. The difference between “Tennis for Two”, which came out in 1958 and “Space Invaders” which was released in 1978 is astounding. Not only do the pixels form distinct aliens but the game has components such as levels and extra lives. In the course of twenty years, even technology which is not really needed progressed quickly.

Civic Hall should have its own display in the exhibit. Civic Hall uses current technologies to create new technologies to solve problems and improve the quality of life overall. From what I learned from the presentation and reading the website, Benefit Kitchen seems to be an excellent app. Not only will this improve quality of life for people who should be receiving federal aid but it helps us move towards government transparency. Continuing in this same trend, 18F works with government agencies to create cheaper and better tools and services. Their ‘open sourcing’ means the code is available for everyone to replicate and create their own version specific to their needs.

I like the idea of CivicTech as I stated in my previous posts. However, I think people’s motives are not always so pure. The speakers, minus the woman who created Benefit Kitchen, work for Microsoft. No matter how much freedom you are given, if you work for a paying corporation you have to deliver a product that they will like. This product may not be the most beneficial to our society. The technologies themselves may be beneficial to people but the result of an increased focus on the innovation industry has been disastrous. Many people can no longer afford to live in Silicon Valley due to the incredibly high rent prices caused by the many people wanting to get involved in the industry. This same problem is now occurring in New York with a similar effect.

I wonder if as more apps like Benefit Kitchen are created, more people will answer “yes” when the website asks if you are homeless.

After reading these articles I am less of a techno-pessimist than I was after reading last week’s. However, I still believe that there are many drawbacks to the advancement of technology. The workforce is changing. In Sunset Park the manufacturing district is disappearing and being replaced by stores and apartment buildings. There is a lot of concern about where these unskilled workers will find jobs in this new environment. Some people believe that they have found the solution to this problem through training. CUNY’s College of Technology is teaching computer and entrepreneur classes for prospective employees. According to Murtha’s article, Industry City already employs “some 4,000 low- and middle-skilled workers—about half of them from the surrounding neighborhoods of Sunset Park, Bay Ridge and Red Hook”. Businesses are supposedly making a conscious effort to hire people living in the area, although there is no real enforcement of this.

Job training and educational advancement sound excellent but people are still being displaced from their homes at an alarming rate. As new technology-related business settle in Sunset Park, prices will inevitably rise, people will be out of work, and the neighborhood will change. New residents are attracted to the business prospects, high rises and in this case, a hotel. Strangely enough, people are also attracted to the authentic vibe of the neighborhood that existed before their arrival. People want gritty, but not too gritty; “refined gritty” as Schrager says.

Well firstly, I think that the world will continue to become more and more technologically advanced and there’s little we can do about it. This is definitely a good thing in some ways. Technology has given us artificial limbs, the internet, and my Kitchenaid mixer which has changed my life forever.

That being said, I think I tend to lead more towards the “techno-pessimist” side. People are starting to rely less and less on other people and more and more on machines. Next time you ride the train look up; I guarantee at least 90% [this is my own unsupported guess] of the riders are using their phones (listening to music counts). I know that I am starting to sound like someone’s grandmother during the classic “kids these days” speech but it’s true. There already have been abundant problems concerning hacked personal information, bombs that could turn every living thing into dust, and the ever present threat of robots taking over (this one I don’t actually believe is a real concern).

In relation to the articles that I have lead for this week I still believe that technology and building bigger will not be a cure all. While the first article was particularly dense for someone with an economics background consisting of a single intro class in high school, what I did manage to glean from it was that cities are more sucessful when their population consists of educated people. However, this is not a deciding factor because a college degree may have more weight in one city than another due to the arbitrary presence of certain companies. This is incredibly disheartening because the means to a successful metropolis is a paradox. Moretti says that having a platform innovative company locate in a certain area is what creates a brain hub. But for an area to become a brain hub there must be a successful innovative company to attract other companies. Although venture capital cities have helped not only the intellects but also the poor living in the area, they are partially responsible for the decline of other cities such as Detroit. There is no real formula for attracting innovators.

Technology obviously plays a big role in the development of cities. Figuring out where all of the new residents will (can afford to) live is a huge issue, especially in New York. Glaeser’s book (or the sections I’ve read) discusses this problem. To be completely honest, I think that he is wrong. For one, building hundreds of new skyscrapers in the city will create an influx of wealthy people. Perhaps rent in the less popular neighborhoods will decrease a small amount, but I doubt significantly. Secondly, there is not a lot of land left to build on. The land that is potentially available consists of green spaces and the more residential areas in the outer boroughs, Brooklyn included. We just had an extensive conversation about gentrification last class so I hate to beat a dead horse, but skyscrapers equal a new type of neighborhood which leads to an increase in rent prices and displacement. I do not think that it is possible (in New York) to build more skyscrapers and suddenly have a moderately priced apartment for everyone. There is a constant influx of people into successful cities which means we would constantly have to build new places to keep prices down.

So in conclusion,

Gif courtesy of Kevin Rawdon’s Facebook

To be completely honest I am still a bit torn about the housing crisis and I would need to do years of research in order to actually formulate a solid proposal. There are so many competing points of view and so many paradoxes that it’s very difficult to say that one idea is completely right or wrong. So, based on my limited knowledge of the topic through the assigned articles and my short experience with renting in New York, this is what I have come up with.

Firstly, an informational website containing renting and sale prices is obviously a good idea. People have a right to know if they are overpaying for their apartments and they should be aware of the price increases in their own communities and others. Although I just read several articles about community activism, there is still a vast number of renters who are not involved or informed. The only real way to (maybe) make progress in this issue is through political action (i.e. voting, petitions, community boards, protesting, asking questions ect.).

If I were to draft an actual policy proposal I would first do extensive research about the community or communities involved. This research would involve interviews with renters and landlords in the community as well as sit ins at community board meetings. Interviews are required because not everyone is represented at board meetings as Ben and I mentioned last class; at the Bensonhurst board meeting there was a single Chinese member in a vastly Chinese community. The community board members often draft their own proposals and I would use these as a springboard, of course taking budgeting and landlord statements into consideration as well.

With the East New York plan in mind I would attempt to create something that caters more towards the actual population of the community instead of the potential gentrifiers which I believe this plan does. The “affordable” units would be designated based on the median income of the community and the percentages that fall into each range. (Say 40% of people make below $30,000. A corresponding number of units would be designated for those people.) Additionally I would direct more funds into monitoring of the current landlords so that they do not take advantage of their tenants and make sure that they are taking care of their buildings properly. Lastly I would carefully consider the current uses of buildings up for rezoning. If an area that is used for manufacturing is rezoned so that skyscrapers can be built, residential buildings will appear along with ground floor shops. These shops most likely would pay less than the current industry and would leave many people out of work. Additionally the skyscrapers would be a beacon for the wealthier who move into the community, displacing members.

Of course I miss a lot of important issues but these are the few that stood out to me.

As of 2010, 60.8% of the Community Board 1 area is made up of white non hispanics, 27.2% are hispanic, and 5.2% are black/African American non hispanic (New York City Community Districts, 1990 to 2010). The main issues faced by the people who live in this area were caused by the 2009 tsunami. These include construction and safety issues, transportation and environmental concerns. There is also a surprisingly large section about the difficulties in obtaining liquor licenses for businesses and also a section on the lack of affordable housing. These issues are obviously diverse and conflict may arise. The generally white “bohemian” population has different interests than the lower income working class residents (Naked City). This is reflected in the extensive section on liquor licenses for businesses contrasting with the sections about affordable housing. Business may argue that their concerns are important because they have a right to make a living while lower income residents may not be concerned with the development of chic bars and instead would like funds to be channeled into the building and repairing of housing projects.

I believe that this is the pressure “from above” is businesses owners arguing for their right to make a living. These owners are not particularly concerned with the gentrification that follows when new nightclubs and cafés are formed. This will help their businesses. However, the interests “from below”, namely the working class community, are very concerned with gentrification as they are being pushed out of their community by a new, wealthier population. For this reason they place more weight on housing and their right to remain in their community. This also ties into the conflict between apartment owners and renters. Owners are raising their monthly costs as they see that the new population that will pay these exorbitant prices. Old renters can no longer afford to live in their homes and are being driven out of the community.

My favorite housing project that I saw was Hunter’s Point South. This instantly caught my eye as it was one of the large photos on the wall before you entered the room and I remembered that I had actually seen it in person recently. I remember looking at the building and thinking how modern it looked; the little red rectangles at the bottom of the windows was something that I have never seen before. The view is also spectacular. The building is located right on the waterfront overlooking Manhattan. Hunter’s Point South is my favorite for aesthetic reasons as it was one of the cleanest and most modern looking of the projects on display, especially when compared to the rundown projects of the 1970s. However, Hunter’s Point South only provides affordable rent-stabilized apartments to a mix of low and moderate incomes. From what I could find the lowest income eligible was $23,623 for a studio. There is also the possibility that I am interpreting this incorrectly and they allow vouchers but I couldn’t find any mention of this information.

Until I read this assignment I was not aware of the severity of the NYC housing crisis. The fact that 55% of all rental households in 2012 were rent burdened, (spending more than 30% of their household income on rent), and the number of homeless people has more than doubled since 2000 is disturbing (Housing New York). While this problem is obvious, the solution is much more complicated. America’s capitalist economy pushes people, (apartment owners), to raise prices when demand increases. Many renters do not make enough money to afford these buildings. The number of renters who cannot afford the ridiculously high prices has steadily increased calling for a demand in more affordable housing, whether it be housing projects, rent controlled apartments, and/or vouchers.

I do not hate housing projects as I feel some people do. I know that they provide homes for many people who would either be living in worse apartments or on the street. I am aware of the serious issues that many projects face. Due to mismanagement, lack of funding, etc. they are often rundown and dangerous. Housing projects are not a solution to the bigger problem of income inequality and the widening gap between the rich and the poor. I do not believe that the answer lies in building more projects for the reasons stated above, but mostly because New York lacks the money and space to do so.

I do like the idea of rent control. Not only is it a way for lower income families to live in safer neighborhoods, but also it keeps gentrification at bay. If the residents of a neighborhood have rent controlled apartments, and wealthier people move to the neighborhood, it is less likely that the previous residents will be driven out entirely. The idea that all new buildings should be required to have a certain number of their apartments rent controlled is a good one. If there was some way to require already established buildings to do the same there would instantly be more affordable apartments.