I think that public housing is quite necessary for New York City because of the alarming increase in the price of rent for apartments, versus the stagnant increase in wages. It is becoming very difficult for many families in New York to earn a living without being constantly under the pressure of their living expense, and living paycheck to paycheck. Investing in new public housing projects would aid in meeting the ever-growing demand for apartments that are affordable. I have lived in public housing all my life, and I have seen the firsthand effects of what public housing can offer to families in need of assistance. My family was quite poor when they arrived in New York, and the public housing project in Coney Island offered us a place to live while we were trying to set up our lives here. The rent was fair enough, that we were able to go to school and work, and live without being in fear of getting evicted or raising rent prices that would overwhelm us. Over time, my parents have been able to save up, and we are looking for a new place to live. For many public housing projects, this was the original plan, to help families in need and later on they would be well off and able to find new and better accommodations. I think that it would be important to emphasize this factor in any new public housing built, it being temporary. My public housing would be as family friendly as possible, and I’d incorporate bright colors and modern structures to eliminate the dreariness that surrounds the idea of public housing in general. Families would be required to have at least one family member who is working and has a stable job history. In the long run, rent control can have some very negative affects. It decreases incentives for builders to build new housing because of the restriction on profits. Apartments that are rent controlled and not increasing with market value will be neglected by owners because they are not motivated to make any improvements due to zero chance of profiting from doing so, and this will result in property value loss. These neighborhoods may end up deteriorating.

The housing project that grabbed my attention the most was the Model of the Mariners Harbor Houses at Mariners Harbor, Staten Island. This specific housing project intrigued me the most because I am from Staten Island and I did not even know that this housing project exists right where I live. Courtesy of the New York City Housing Authority, the Mariners Harbor Housing Development is the first project to be designed “under Title I guidelines” on Staten Island. Even though this development is a “walk-up” building, it is also elevator equipped which makes it ideal for elderly or handicapped renters. I was really pleased to see a housing project on Staten Island because I think the apartments might be more affordable on Staten Island since it is farther away from Manhattan than the other boroughs. However, just as a response to the exhibit, I am afraid that the idea of “affordable housing” is appealing to lower middle class/middle class renters. I went into the exhibit thinking that the these housing projects would be able to accommodate renters below middle class, especially to reduce the growing homeless problem in New York City. However, many of the developments looked expensive and modern. And ideally, I want these affordable housing projects to be in nice neighborhoods and be of nice quality, especially to prevent neighborhoods from developing into projects, or feel like projects, but the housing has to be affordable. What good is an affordable housing project if it is not meant for people who need it or who cannot afford to pay that rent. I am afraid that some of these housing projects might just be creating a wider gap between the poor and rich. By making housing more affordable to the middle class, those below middle class are still left in poorer neighborhoods and less-quality housing.

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.

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 assignment, I would absolutely build new public housing in New York City. I knew that the homeless population in New York City was increasing, but I did not know that it has more than doubled since 2000. Because of the increasing homeless population, thousands of individuals, families, and children have to live in city shelters. Unfortunately, city shelters cannot accommodate to everyone. In addition, wages have only slightly increased while rents and utilities have dramatically increased in the past two decades. This has resulted in people who can no longer afford to pay their rent. There is an obvious need for new public housing in New York City.

I really believe that city officials and political leaders should prioritize affordable housing. Mayor Bill de Blasio has made it a goal to “build or preserve the quality and affordability of their homes.” I completely agree with this idea because this assignment really brought the importance of preserving communities as well as building new public housing to attention. I think public housing should be more frequent throughout New York City and have housing that can accommodate individuals, families, and elderly. Preserving the quality of public housing, the right to settle in a home and know that it will still be your home years later, and mandated low rent control is how I want public housing to be. In preserving the quality and right to a home, I think this would create stronger communities, prevent gentrification, and preserve authenticity.

Thus far in the course, my definition of authenticity is the belief that a home, place, or community that presently exists will exist in the future. Community preservation is an imperative element to my definition of authenticity because it has to do with the “where do we live” aspect and one of the readings mentioned that when families are displaced to city shelters, it alters children’s educational paths. New York City has always been a symbol of opportunity, and so children should not grow up with disrupted educational paths or understandings of their potential because they are forced to reside in a city shelter. If public housing in New York City was more frequent and at lower, rent controlled prices, it could result in a dramatic difference in the city’s future. For example, a child who’s family is forced into a city shelter might feel educationally inhibited, that education is not important, that he or she has less opportunities or less potential than other children. If this child were to be in a quality public housing building instead, he or she might not feel the same way, continue in their education, and manage to climb up the social and economic ladders and eventually use that mobility to make a difference in the city.

I understand that public housing, especially severely rent controlled public housing, is not favored by private companies because they are not very profitable, but they would be able to affect the city’s future in positive ways, which is priceless. Creating opportunities for individuals and families to afford their rent, have a home, and a chance to find work or continue their education is what New York City should offer. An authentic New York City can offer people a safe and affordable home, and opportunities to move up the social and economic ladders, and I think public housing would move the city in this direction.

There is a major issue in the real estate market of the entirety of New York City. No one would disagree with this point, however, reaching an agreeable solution is not so simple. The creation of housing projects only enhanced the ghettoization of certain areas, leaving large numbers of poor people in areas with minimal resources. In the nextcity.org article what is proposed in the way of new affordable housing, is the reservation of certain units in new buildings to have affordable rents. This solution would avoid the issues of the isolated housing project, yet it introduces other issues. Primarily, it would tend to be unpopular with the individuals renting in the same building at full price. The economic boundaries of neighborhoods are often those with the most strength. More so than racial boundaries, economic boundaries animate the borders of almost any two neighborhoods where rich meets the poor. Walking into the Upper East Side from East Harlem feels like entering a new country when one simply crossed a street. Although this proposed solution seems to be the most practical at the moment, it is not without flaws. It is far better than previous attempts at affordable housing that resulted in the effective creation of the most dangerous, crime ridden ghettos in the city.

One way this new issue could be maneuvered is by looking at the people applying for affordable housing. It is no longer exclusively the poor that need affordable housing to survive. The rents and real estate prices all across the city have skyrocketed to the extent that many who may be considered to be comfortably middle class have great trouble paying the rent. The economic diversity of those applying for affordable housing has increased since the prices have skyrocketed overall. Thus, the economic boundaries within a building may not be as stark between those paying full rent and those living in designated affordable units.

Clearly action must be taken as soon as possible. Entire neighborhoods are changing so rapidly that not only can the original residents not find an affordable alternative, but they also don’t have much time to search. With entire neighborhoods of people being economically uprooted, measures need to be taken to secure the safety of these people. The poor will not disappear regardless of the desires of the wealthy.

After reading the assigned readings, I am all for building public housing. Having affordable housing is crucial to the economy of an area. As Bloom explained, “For a global city to remain competitive… it requires, at least, the housing stock and well-connected transit systems to support a diverse labor force,” otherwise, people are going to look elsewhere for work (Owens). For this reason, I also support rent controlled portions of building complexes.It allows individuals and families of certain incomes to be able to live in a space that would allow them to improve the qualities of their lives and work while being less burdened with rent prices. I know rent controls are disliked by building owners but I believe that they will be beneficial to the economy in the long-run.

Many would argue that the government does not have enough funds or space to build new public housing buildings. This may be true and for that reasonI would propose another idea. A lot of money goes into building new living spaces but I don’t think enough goes into maintaining existing apartments. “…Untended disrepairs in older complexes mount, leading 10,000 lost units each year” (Owens). By putting money into maintaining the older complexes, there can be more apartments available to people and families and this can financially better for the government. Instead of spending tons of money on building new complexes from scratch, the government should focus some of their attention on fixing what they already have.

The first article of the reading assignment had a rosy depiction of public housing in its “golden age” from the 1950s into the 1960s. Richard Price, the author of the article, suggests that decline of public housing began when the “Originals” who had earned enough money to move out, had finally moved on from public housing, most of whom were white. This triggered a shift in racial balance, causing an increase in social tension and segregation. This coupled with the economic slowdown beginning in the 1970s brought about the weaknesses of public housing. The New York City Housing Authority, which had always been able to deliver services despite always being stuffed with pointless bureaucracy, was left seemingly helpless during the 1970s and especially during the 1980s. This was perhaps due to a shift in the political climate, or perhaps due to mismanagement and corruption.

However, I believe the real reason why public housing rose and fell spectacularly was because the idea of public housing in the past was that it was to be a temporary “springboard” for people who would eventually increase their income and move out to increase their living standards. While this did happen initially, such a systems relies on the continuous and monumental economic growth of the United States that started after World War II. With the rise of European and Asian economies that could finally challenge the US’s imminent dominance over the global market, US’s amazing economic growth slowed down. This meant that there would be less opportunities for those in projects and thus more people stuck in the projects. The springboard now became a prison. Nonetheless, after reading the assignment, I believe that it would be best for New York City that we build more public housing, but end rent controls.

The reason that we should end rent controls is that rent controls, more often than not, decrease the housing supply, making it even harder for those in need of affordable housing to attain it since private developers usually cannot afford or are unwilling to do business under market rates. Of course, the government can cover the difference between market rates and rent for private developers as described in fourth article. Such practices incentivize private companies to take better care of their affordable housing units. However, such practices may also result in an inefficiency where companies are able to add menial and useless renovations to an apartment and be rewarded for them. Ultimately, these companies are seeking profits so when the government covers for them, more is spent than actually necessary to maintain these housing units.

On the other hand, when true public housing is done right it has shown to be an excellent driver of economic activity. Despite earlier iterations being reliant on strong economic growth, with strong government oversight and community support, public housing can overcome this obstacle.

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.