Author: texassexgoddess

That the phenomenal world is a constant state of becoming is prima facie– we may reasonably assume that shopping streets will in fact change. However, once we have accepted that shopping streets WILL change, it remains to argue how they will change. In the reading, a historical narrative is built in which local shopping streets have recently restructured due to forces of globalization and gentrification. Districts which were once bastions of ethnic homogeneity have become fragmented and diverse as new, more cosmopolitan immigrants of various backgrounds take up residence wherever it is convenient for them to do so– increasing sophistication in communication and transportation technologies has allowed these prospective residents to be freer in their choice of neighborhood and workplace, and contemporary neighborhood and business demographics reflect this shift. Due to these same technological factors, people have become less reliant on their local communities, further increasing the drive to locate based on pragmatism rather than the consideration of self-same sympathies. This population reshuffling directly affects the businesses in any given neighborhood as new interests develop and capture real estate and old, obsolete business is pushed out. Additionally, as new economic and cultural classes develop and expand, notably the Hipster class, neighborhoods must change to accommodate new ways of living and levels of wealth.

Globalization and Gentrification aside, the continual rise of the digital on-demand market and superstore developments put additional pressures on local businesses, as local services become less desirable in comparison to the former, and viewed as limited in comparison with the latter. Thus, unless local businesses can be savvy enough to appeal to an ever-shifting populace and provide unique services, most will drown and sink amidst a sea of alternative, flashier options.

Based upon current trends, the immediate future of the New York shopping district will entail the dismantlement of local stores in favor of economically and politically powerful superstores, and the dissolution of local service businesses in favor of specialized luxury service businesses and on-demand digital service businesses. In an increasingly connected world, people no longer crave direct community as strongly as they once did, and many (including myself) may indeed prefer impersonal yet reliable and efficient shopping experiences over more personal, unreliable, and ambiguous transactions. It may be tempting to decry this trend as a loss of humanity, yet one must consider the increase in time and cost efficiency, quality control, and innovation as counterpoints worthy of consideration. Additionally, though nostalgia and tradition have their appeal, it is simply the case that the modern human has different and less tribal needs than his predecessors, and thus to insist upon values inconsistent with the current zeitgeist is needlessly atavistic.

It was mildly intriguing to survey the exhibit at the Historical Society, if only to remind myself of the exponential growth technology has experienced in the past few decades. Far more intriguing however was our foray to Civic Hall, where I immediately felt the energy, altruism, and innovation emanating from the people there. It was clear that this was not a drab, nihilistic office space, but a  hive of ambitious, abstract intellects,  a playground of ideas and a think-tank of real-world progressivism. It was simultaneously refreshing and inspiring to be around so many well educated, skilled, and erudite individuals. Particularly fascinating to me was the inner strength I sensed in their psychological sense of value– these were people directly motivated beyond their egos, sacrificing financial opportunism for the much more savory sensation of practicing the greater moral good. Idealists. However, unlike the little old ladies serving soup in the homeless shelter, these were visionary individuals who had concrete plans for change, and who continuously strive to be architects of human destiny. As a person easily bored by logistics of any sort, it was these radiant qualities which stood out to me amidst the technical rhetoric of their actual projects. Given the opportunity, I would love to examine their psyches: How did they come to view the world the way they do? What are their core values, and do these values have a sound logical basis? What gives them the greatest pleasure in life, and why? How do they derive metaphysical meaning from their mythically heroic activities? Why are they concerned with a human future beyond the (likely) limits of their life span? Do they not, at heart, merely seek to create a world they would want to live in, and is this not inherently selfish? Do they feel that there is a compromise between attempting to master society on the public scale and attempting to master society on the personal scale? Is a lack of one a psychological drive for the other?  etc.

In the readings on Sunset Park (specifically, “Industry City”), we are presented with the classic case of a proletariat struggling to stay afloat amidst a juggernautic wave of progressive, plutocratic development. Despite the cynical and sanctimonious protestations of some (i.e. Tarry Hum), who view new luxury residential and retail developments as a mercenary move contra the livelihood interests of the industrial working class, it is apparent from the third reading that steps are being taken by the Jamestown developers to assuage the damage dealt the local job market, namely by uplifting local residents into career-building positions within the new developments, and by offering them  education opportunities to increase their marketability, a project undertaken in collaboration with NYCCT and various non-profits. According to this source, this project has successful historical precedent in similar Navy Yard developments, and the project in itself has seen promising success thus far in both employing and informing Industry City residents.

This type of modus operandi is exactly what is needed in New York City today. It is useless and unrealistic to resist the change in markets that New York is experiencing in hopes of preserving antiquated livelihoods. Rather, it is the obligation of the agents of change to provide ways to uplift a stagnant and unprepared populace, as is the case here. If this dual system of progress and nurturing prevails in the upcoming development of Brooklyn’s neighborhoods, there will be a smooth and ethically sound transition into the new age of technology and prosperity.

As has been discussed in a prior reflection, there are overwhelming pros and cons of a technologically advanced future, and I maintain my techno-fatalism in lieu of an optimism or pessimism. If forced to choose however, pessimism is always a far wiser attitude, as it allows for a more prepared stance in the face of chaotic possibility. As regards the near future however, as long as well intentioned, constructive programs such as the one above continue to allow for humanistic development at a steady and nurturing pace, I anticipate a growth in happiness and prosperity among New York’s citizenry– it is only right that, in this pivotal age, we have a chance to bask in the twilight of our existence.

The satanic mill of technological progress is a concept that mystifies and intrigues me. There appears to be a deterministic, teleological signature to the historical progress of the homo sapien, and while I would not leap to mythological, Hegellian conjectures, I would confidently assert that, provided that mankind survives this next century of tampering with the fabric of reality, the human destiny is in store for wonders beyond current cognitive understanding. The literally exponential growth of technology is just now beginning to rev its engines for the first and last time, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born. Human beings, as biologically conceived, will never know “normal” life (that is, life which is attuned to natural programming) ever again.

It is not the purpose of this blurb to expound in detail about the theories, hard facts, and philosophical implications involved in this dramatic description. It is is suffice to say that a damning and mounting body of evidence is available if one wishes to research the topic, and intellectuals in the know, such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk, recognize the existential chaos that we are on the cusp of, and are taking actions to anticipate it.  Specifically, there will be a threshold– an event horizon at which, in a matter of minutes, an artificial Mind exponentially more powerful than our own will seize control, utterly and permanently, and continue to expand into the universe without end. It is quite impossible to say whether this will be a “good” or “bad” thing… this quite depends on ultimate priorities (is the human goal to create ultimate consciousness, regardless of consequence? to preserve and advance our species as we currently know it biologically? to advance consciousness and form ad infinitum, but only our own? etc.) of which, among humans, there are legion.

This all may seem terribly abstract and distant (which is the reason why many people dismiss this gargantuan issue), but the conclusion is this: Ultimately, the concern over whether technology is beneficial for humans or not is a moot point. Human nature will never allow for the halt of technological progress– to create greater life than our own is written in our programming. Due to the perceived inevitability of our transcendence and/or destruction (they are not mutually exclusive) one must recognize a Darwinian reality. Those who cannot adapt to the demands of new technology (aka, those who cannot pursue work that cannot be done by a machine) will rage and moan, but they will die out. They are no longer for this world. There is therefore a moral imperative to provide quality education and advanced skills to as many human beings as possible, so that they may join the ranks of the relevant, and maintain whatever dominance the human brain possesses in the world for as long as possible. Relegating technology to a simple matter of profit, efficiency, standard of living or convenience is simply not possible anymore. As such, it is useless and naive to attempt and hold back the flow of technology in any respect. As creatures of independent agency, we ought to still be able to choose whether or not we personally accept the technologies given us, but we cannot prevent them on a societal level, and even on a personal level we must, in any case, be able to endure the consequences of our actions.

In effect then, I would not deem myself a technological “pessimist” or “optimist”, but rather a fatalist of sorts. There is nothing to be gained by hoping for or assuming a particular outcome, we must simply evaluate where technology stands, attempt to sway it how we may, and prepare ourselves for whatever fortune lies ahead. I am an optimist in the sense that I cannot wait to see what beauty, power, and revelation technology has in store for us, but a pessimist in that I advocate supreme caution in all technological steps going forward, for we grow ever closer to dramatically twisting reality beyond any semblance of comprehension. We are Prometheus, and are quite literally playing fire. With what faculties and agency we have then, we must decide how best to serve Man. We cannot douse the inferno, but if we are strong enough, we may yet dance in the shadows of the flames.

“Set aside a certain number of days, during which you shall be content with the scantiest and cheapest fare, with course and rough dress, saying to yourself the while: ” Is this the condition that I feared?”– Seneca

I argue that there are three necessary traits that individuals must adopt if they are to be successful in attaining and maintaining affordable housing. These are: Stoic Dignity, Calculated Aggression, and Communitarian Sense, to be described below:

Stoic Dignity: Individuals caught in the throes of the Affordable Housing Crisis are often victims of antipathetic treatment by their landlords, who deliberately withhold, deny, and cease domestic services in order to drive out financially weak tenants. The tenants must not grant any leverage to such behavior. Rather than feel threatened by the degradation of their daily life, they must, in the midst of the combative process, remain resolute and unperturbed by environmental factors. Those tenants who have no qualms about suffering from the weather, power shortages, leaks, loud ambience, etc. can translate admirable stubbornness into a bedrock of action. With this “I shall not be moved” mentality, nothing short of police interference can relocate a tenant from their domicile, a measure that many more timid realtors and land lords will be unlikely to call for without a negotiation process.

Calculated Aggression: To accomplish one’s aims, one must know how to attack their adversaries where and when they’re vulnerable. Faced with eviction and unfeasible rents, a tenant community must take all necessary measures to pressure their aggressors. These can include but are not limited to:

• Protests at the offices of the aggressors.
• Letters to Congressmen addressing the issue
• Articles online addressing the issue, via online news and blog posts.
• Vandalism of antagonist property
• Appeal to Councils, City Boards, Municipal Government, and friends of the community who may have useful connections to press the issue and take action.
• Loitering, Vandalism,  and Hooliganism in one’s neighborhood to decrease neighborhood appeal.

Once attention has been gained and negotiations begun, the community must, when face to face with their adversaries, be utterly relentless. Bargaining may be allowed, but only to the direct favor of the community. All arguments should proceed from reason rather than emotion, and friendliness must be extended to the adversary, to disarm them. Appeals to humanity are highly effective, but must be conducted in a deceivingly diplomatic, charismatic fashion.

All of these actions are not realistically effective unless pursued en masse. This leads to the third trait:

Communitarian Sense: To hold the greatest bargaining power, communities must be of one mind and one action.  To this end, Tenant’s Unions (like the one in Crown Heights) must be formed to ensure community participations in strikes, protests, meetings, etc. . Additionally, it would be ideal if entire housing developments made the social transition into communal living. With the obliteration of individual property, and the combined efforts of all to finance rent payment of the buildings, it would become extremely difficult for any one family or individual to get evicted, supported as they would be by the aid of the majority, and protected by that majority’s potential wrath towards the powers from above. Such a unified social unit, strengthened by bonds of duty and armed with both environmental resilience and a drive for offensive action, would be the most potent force in quelling the tide of gentrification, rezoning, and real estate that threatens quotidian and domestic life.

The “Community Board One State of District and Community Needs” is a curious document. This is partly due to its unexamined grammatical errors and questionable diction, yet mainly because it attempts an awkward form of lyric poetry and sustained metaphor regarding the 2009 tsunami, the effects of which, along with other sinister “waves” apparently continue to cripple and plague the communities of Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Indeed, this natural event seems to be the locus of the entire document, and is blamed by the author for the problems of  abandoned housing and business, community flight, and an inflated rent market. The twin villain to this marine menace is the influx of luxury development and gentry to the Williamsburg/Greenpoint area, which displaces the majority demographic of the neighborhoods, poor, working class people, to be replaced by urbane, market-price paying hipsters. This pressure “from above” to develop the area leads not only to a usurpation of territory, but a stress on municipal services, who, as the author insists, are already “overtaxed.”
To ameliorate these and many other problems, the author presents a list of demands, including an insistence that the affordable housing process in the area be restructured to better reflect the means of its constituents, as well a requirement that a reasonable proportion of new residential development include affordable housing units. By doing so, lower class flight may be forestalled in the area, and the existing community may be able to entertain a traditional sense of identity as they gradually fade into history.

I was immediately drawn to the Waterside Plaza subsidized housing project due to its asymmetrical elegance and richness of architectural character, which contrasted starkly with many of the monotone brick, plain-jane facades typical of many subsidized/public projects. It seemed at first glance to be a place that would be  almost luxurious to call one’s residence: stylish, clean,  handsome, towering, and overlooking the East River– a guaranteed glorious sunrise every day. Since its proposal in the 1960’s, the project has faced draconian headaches, only receiving permission to begin building in the early 1970’s. Once built, the project faced its share of criticism as well– many were concerned that, judging by the appeal of the structure, it would be biased toward middle-class renters. However, ameliorating efforts were made in response, to the end that Waterside Plaza is rather remarkable amongst housing projects in that it is designed to attract and sustain residents of diverse economic backgrounds, including lower, lower middle, and middle class occupants, with varying prices to match. In so doing, the Plaza serves not only the role of affordable dwelling, but the role of socio-economic regulator, discouraging the ghettoization of neighborhoods by income brackets.  It continues to thrive to this day, adored by architecture critics and the public alike, and due to its appeal as a space, hosts many public events throughout the year. Waterside Plaza, despite its past controversies, is a testament to the moral, aesthetic, and  practical potential of Affordable Housing, and hopefully will serve as partial precedent for akin future endeavors.

After reading the assigned literature, it became clear that public housing is always a good idea, it simply needs to be properly funded, organized, and maintained. Public housing seems to be the most direct balm to ameliorating the housing crisis (rising prices vs. stagnant wages) and so long as it is enacted with vision and attention, it should be a thriving enterprise, examples of which can be seen recently in East Harlem and Rockaway, and more historically in the Co-Op City project. Public housing projects under my jurisdiction would possess incredibly minimalist yet quality accommodations– quarters would be very small, yet the utilities and building materials would be of lasting design. Public squares and gardens would dot the landscape, possessing no frivolity in their aesthetic, spartan in their function and zen in their serenity. In such fashion, quality of life could be promoted while keeping costs minimal. In order to accommodate the lower class, rent controlled abodes would be a necessary installment. To allow for optimal residency, I would insist that elderly occupants of all public housing (65 +) be periodically tested to assess their work-related competency and relevance to the enrichment of the City. Those who could not pass these tests, due to senility, laziness, etc. would be forced to vacate the premises to make way for more functional residents. These elderly invalids would of course receive government sponsored accommodations outside the City, where conditions are less urgent and competitive.