Category: Weekly Responses

The main benefit of the growth of technological innovation in New York City is more employment opportunities. “New York City’s tech sector employed 117,147 people in 2014, a 71 percent increase from a decade earlier (68,571).” It is obviously important to the city’s economy, but I also think that the growth of technological innovation also adds to the city’s diversity. There are so many jobs that fall under the “tech sector.” Internet Publishing and Broadcasting, Web Search Portals industry, Electronic Shopping, Software Publishing, Computer Systems Design, and Computer Manufacturing are only some subsectors under the “tech sector.” The growth of technological innovation definitely adds to functional diversity, which we mentioned in class last week, is the idea that someone can walk into a restaurant in New York City and everyone is doing something different. The tech sector contributes to this because it is such a larger umbrella that includes so many subsectors of related but different jobs that use technology.

Another benefit of the advancement of technology in New York City is a shift in reliance from the finance sector to the technological sector. New York City still does heavily rely on the finance sector, but with the rise and development of the tech sector, I definitely foresee a shifting in reliance to the tech sector in New York City’s future. This is a benefit because the city should not be so dependent on one sector because if the sector crashes or has a recession, so will the city. We mentioned this idea in class as well when we mentioned what happened in 2008. However, technology, especially Internet based technology, has a way of keeping people connected to each other and to the world. Technology has the ability to give people voices to share their opinions and express ideas. I mentioned in my last post that being aware of issues in a society and possible solutions is an important part of being a member of a functional democracy. Well, technology enables this because it can bring attention to modern issues and people can write and publish their ideas and possible solutions online. However, I do believe that technology does come drawbacks and its potential might not the reality, or that it can be a dangerous slope with consequences.

I think disagreement on these benefits is definitely possible. One could argue that the tech sector will eventually run out of job opportunities or that the only people that can work in the tech sector are those that can afford some college education or intensive courses that prepare for specific jobs. In addition, even though Steve Blank, Maria Gotsch, and Maria Torres-Springer and I believe that the growth of technological innovation has contributed to diversity in New York City, one could argue that Silicon Valley, a relatively homogeneous hub, is a leader in technological innovation without much diversity. One could also disagree with New York City being less reliant on one sector, but is instead shifting reliance in a way that is still unhealthy to the city’s economy. What if New York City becomes just as reliant on the tech sector as it is now on the finance sector?

A negative of the growth of technological innovation is that not everyone has access to it. Only those that can afford technology are able to take advantage of it and only those that can afford proper education and intensive courses are those that can contribute to its innovation. In addition, New York City can become reliant on technology in more than one way. Mr. Tynan-Connelly said, “The city has the largest budget it ever had. But the homeless are still suffering while working-class families, including my students, struggle to find affordable housing and child care. Where are the benefits from the boom that are accruing to the whole city?” He was talking about San Francisco becoming a hub for the wealthy since only the wealthy are able to take advantage and rely on the innovation of technology. In addition, private technology companies can possibly contribute as a “pressure from above” if they gain too much power, in the sense that too many people rely on their services or products.

Craig Calderone discusses in his article the Tech boom in New York City and the many changes that have occurred to allow this tech boom to continue to grow. For example Calderone discusses how the Bloomberg administration was the one to begin the shift from a focus and dependence on only the financial sector to allow the tech industry to grow in New York City. Also Calderone discusses the change in attitude with regard to failed startups. For example he states that “Instead of ridiculing founders for their failed startup, founders were deemed ‘experienced’ and asked about when they would start their next endeavor.”. This represents exemplifies the changing attitude of new York, for example no one who launched a failed startup in New York in the financial sector would be considered experienced. Jason Bram and Adam Forman both discuss the Tech sector boom in New York and how this boom has lead to a tremendous increase in the number of tech jobs in New York City. As seen in Bram’s article, while Wall street employment fell by over 11 percent, employment in the tech sector increased by 71 percent.

As we discussed in class when a city is dependent on only one sector of the market, that city is vulnerable and while New York is becoming less and less dependent on the financial sector, the city becomes stronger and it’s economy less susceptible to collapse. How ever we cannot over look the negatives of this technological boom, as many of my class mates have written the increase in these high paying jobs leads to an influx of money in lower class neighborhood which leads to gentrification. This eventually leads to the expulsion of the original residents. Lastly Lawrence Grodeska’s article deals heavily with the positives of technology. Grodeska discusses the many positives that can be brought about with the introduction of “Civic tech” into the government. For example he states with the induction of more and more civic tech, government is more transparent and more effective in providing the services that it’s people require. Not only that but also Grodeska argues that civic tech allows the citizens to be more involved in government. He mention’s many Civc tech “tools” that are used to allow the people to become more involved in their communities. For example Neighborland a tool used to allow civic leaders to reach the residents of a community and inform them. All these tools can be used to greatly improve the way we interact with the world around us but we must also not forget that with everything come negatives. For example while technology in our lives keeps progressing at a phenomenal rate we must allow our laws and law enforcement time to adapt to the changing problems facing our society.

This week’s readings focus on the benefits of technological innovation for New York specifically. It used to be that New York’s finance sector was the one that brought in the most revenue and were responsible for the city’s economic booms. However, now it’s the tech sector that’s taking over New York’s economy. According to the article by Calderone, with the increases in technological innovation, the costs of starting a business are much lower and so more businesses are being developed with many becoming successful. New York has the benefit of having many major tech companies and offices located here such as Etsy, Buzzfeed, and Spotify to name a few. The tech sector in New York is also growing with a speed that greatly outpaces the rest of the country, growing by 57% from 2007 to 2014. With this growth came the city’s most recent economic boom and its surge towards being one of the top tech cities.

There is a great debate going on about whether technological innovation’s benefits outweigh the costs and exactly how beneficial it could be.

I think that technology can be very beneficial. such as with CivicTech, technology “used for public good and betters the lives of the many, not just the few,” as well as “an interoperable, extensible platform for government upon which anyone can build services that increase transparency, efficiency and participation,” (Grodeska). It aims to better communities and improve the public good. This is when technology can be extremely beneficial.
However, there are also the downsides to technological innovation. While those who are in the tech sector are enjoying the benefits that come with it, those who do not make their living from there are the ones burdened with the negative costs. According to Streitfeld, overcrowded cities come with higher demands for living space and therefore higher rent fees as well as congestion in the streets and subways. Groups are being evicted in favor of start-ups. While the wealthy get wealthier in the tech sector, everyone else is struggling to afford the rising costs of living in the city.

After reading all of the articles, I’m not sure if I’m a techno-pessimist or a techno-optimist anymore. I think that, although technological innovation comes with a ton of benefits to many people and communities, we also have to look at the costs of the innovation and whether the benefits outweigh the costs for the nation as a whole and not just a small group.

The point of the finance industry is to facilitate the consistent flow of money. While it is an important industry, if the city overly relies on finance, then its economy would be heavily dependent on the world economy, which is volatile. We have seen the consequences of the city’s economy being influenced by that of rest of the world with the Great Recession. By growing the city’s tech sector, we can reduce New York City’s dependence on the world economy. The tech sector also has more employment opportunities. Aside from work in established firms, people in the tech sector can work freelance, full-time or part-time. The Center for an Urban Future reports that the amount of part-time freelance jobs increased by 51%. The fast-changing nature of the industry also allows for the flow of new ideas. Innovators can create startups to realize these ideas and New York City is one of the world’s biggest hubs of innovation. In 2015, NYC-based tech startups had around $6.66 billion in venture capital.

On the other hand, many see the sector’s penchant for automation as a threat to city employment. Most of the working population is not educated in the skills needed to survive in the tech industry. As a result, a sudden shift to tech could leave millions unemployed. However, if that happens, it will not last forever. Computer Science is quickly becoming one of the most sought after majors in the United States. The sector is still fairly young, leaving a great opportunity for growth. Also, the rise of coding bootcamps and online coding academies are replacing the roles that colleges held for educating aspiring computer programmers and engineers. These new schools are not like the standard Computer Science education offered in college in that students do not have to take abstract courses on the idea of programming or developing skills to prepare for programming. Instead, these schools focus only on making people into programmers by teaching only courses in learning programming languages and immediately exposing students to the advanced techniques that may take years for students in college to access. One bootcamp called the Dev Bootcamp proclaims that they can take a person new to computers and turn him/her into a full-fledged programmer in only 19 weeks. People who may not have had a proper college education or even a high school education can become programmers under these programs. The cost is a bit prohibitive with tuition averaging around $10,000, but the potential return is high with the currently high demand for labor. Not to mention, there is talk of adding programming to our core K-12 curriculum. In an industry known for its fairly young labor force, core programming curriculum can mean that post-secondary education may not even be necessary for future generations. Over time, the wider labor force should be able to shift smoothly towards tech.

Civic tech is another potential benefit of technological innovation. In the past, the government was largely inaccessible to the average citizen. It was once hard for people to commit to causes and organize with other like-minded people due to a lack of communication. However, the rise of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter coupled with civic technologies such as Neighborland, people are now able to organize faster than ever. All protests that occur in the city are organized online. Like-minded people can congregate on a single website. Even then, it’s still difficult for citizens to participate in elections because people either have other obligations or no reliable form of transport. This showed recently in the Massachusetts Democratic primaries where voters in several precincts reported that they were blocked from the voting lines due to a rallies held nearby. Never mind the fact that these rallies may have been examples of blatant voter fraud, the fact that things as simple as rallies can stop people from voting shows the inefficiency in the current voting system which requires people to be physically present at certain places in order to vote. Another form of civic technology which allows people to submit votes electronically can simplify the voting process and increase participation.

There is a concern that rise of social media and civic tech could mean that while there is more participation, those who do participate are less informed due to the rather low attention-span of the internet and the ability for misinformation to proliferate. However, with the speed at which people are able to access information via the internet, it’s difficult for people to completely uninformed. As quickly as one article can spread in support of one side, another article in opposition can spread just as quickly. Inevitably, those who do take the time to find out the truth will be the ones who do participate the most.

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

In “The New Geography of Jobs”, Enrico Moretti seems to attribute the ability of a city’s economy to the state of the rest of the city. He observes that those with more knowledge tend to live and work in more knowledge-based communities, and this clustering makes a city’s innovative economy more successful. This success makes more highly-skilled laborers come to the city, and it drives out unskilled-laborers. This creates quite a gap between the economic levels of cities, and Moretti points out further that this gap makes all other economic equalities stand out as a result. Moretti also observes that cities that have a growing number of innovative jobs were brought up by the multiplying factor, under which a few of these more-skilled and more creative jobs were taken, leading to an increase in the amount of jobs in that city as well as an increase in the total economy of that city in terms of salaries and wages earned. I agree with the notion that when one area fosters, another area suffers as a result, and the economic tides are constantly moving and changing.I think that i would be a techno-optimist if i was working for an are with a good economy, whereas id be a pessimist if I weren’t.

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.

I would say that most people in NYC have become more and more dependent on Technology. For example New Yorkers depend on Technology for transportation, paying their bills and even finding a place to eat. I would say even I am extremely dependent on technology for schoolwork and even my day-to-day life. For example since I commute from Staten Island with my phone I can find out exactly when the bus is coming, about what time ill get to school and I can even read my textbook all on my phone. Also these technological breakthroughs that make our lives easier, also make new innovations and breakthroughs easier. For example with the technological breakthrough of the computer many modern day scientists can now run calculations in seconds when previously it would take weeks. However with the introduction and dependence on technology come a lot of problems that were never there before. For example with the automation of factories, factory workers are in short demand. However you could see a large increase in the demand for software engineers and computer experts. This presents more problems. Firstly the demand for these positions may not create nearly as many jobs as there were factory jobs, which leads to a lot of unemployment. Secondly to fill these positions you need highly trained people most likely college graduates. While this creates jobs for college graduates it displaces and unemployed those without the means for this kind of education and training. While there is no doubt in my mind that New York will become more and more technologically dependent some day in the future we might be the ones with the outdated skills and so we must make sure that we balance our technological development as a city as to not displace those who have not adapted to the technological breakthroughs.

This week’s readings focused primarily on the innovative sector of global economy and how cities are able to develop and flourish. Firstly, the definition of a city had to be given and Glaeser put it simply as an absence of physical space between people and companies. This definition was important in learning how a city develops and succeeds because all the human talent that is concentrated in one area and their ideas (or what is called “human capital”) is what leads to innovation and productivity.
Cities used to thrive on harbors and importing/exporting physical goods, but they have now shifted to relying on the innovative sector which provides ideas, innovation, ingenuity, knowledge to “create things the world has never seen before.” According to Moretti, this leads to the multiplier effect, increasing employment and salaries for those who provide local services to the innovative worker. Therefore, for a city to develop economically, it must attract innovative companies that will provide jobs for the less skilled workers by consuming more local services than other workers and creating a need for more local jobs.

Since innovative workers are attracted to other innovative workers, the economy of the location changes and develops but it also increases the divide between cities and communities because talent lays with the talented and the “talentless” are drawn together, separate from the talented. Another point that also exacerbates “The Great Divergence” is that one worker with a college degree gets less salary than another worker with the same degree in a bigger, more productive city, simply due to geographic location.

Although right now this increase in demand for innovative workers seems like it is greatly improving the global economy and especially the economies in large cities, I believe there is the possibility of “creative destruction” where these innovative jobs and new technological advancements will actually destroy jobs. Cities can become more mechanized and dependent on technology. Already technology has taken the jobs of many, producing what a human would in a fraction of the time and fraction of the cost.
Moretti believes that this is unlikely since the innovation sector of the economy is always increasing and looking for new talent. Perhaps this is so but I don’t think there is enough innovators to keep supplying jobs for the less-innovative, the labor workers. And even if the numbers of innovative workers keep increasing, the technological advancements they come up with will also keep increasing until the need for physical laborers will be almost non-existent with machinery taking over the jobs of human workers.
Technological advancements can be amazingly helpful to the world and the economy as we’ve seen with the creation of planes for trading and global communication technology as well as medical advancements that save millions, maybe billions of lives every year, its rapid growth may take a toll on the jobs of the less innovative.

From discovering fire to creating the first computer, throughout most of history, humans have always sought ways to make life easier from themselves. Humans’ ingenuity has led to a society where people have access to a steady supply of food and water, where people can travel halfway around the world in less than a day, and where people can know about anything that’s happening in another part of the world at any time. We often take innovations like these for granted in how difficult they were to achieve them and how many sacrifices were made as a result. Despite the drastic changes that occur in society due to innovation, time and time again, whenever innovation occurred, new jobs arose. That could very well change in the future where innovation in the form of robots can completely replace people in jobs.

I have always wondered what the logical conclusion for humanity would be if robots actually took all of our jobs. Would we be a society of beggars because we have no jobs or would we be in a perfect paradise where our only jobs are to “enlighten” ourselves? I suspect that the answer is neither one of those two options. Or perhaps the replacement of people by robots in jobs only result in the creation of newer, much different jobs. I believe that this is the most probable scenario. As incredible as modern computers and robots are, they will always have one great limitation: the lack of a human brain. Computers and robots have are capable of amazing things: they can execute billions of calculations in a matter of seconds, they can drive cars given the right conditions, and studies have shown that they are capable of learning new information so long as there’s code in place to parse this information. However, computers are governed by hard-coded logic. No matter how many layers of complexity you fill a computer with, they will always be driven by simple logic, which ultimately stifles the computer’s ability to innovative. The human brain, on the other hand, is innovative. It can think outside the box and at times make seemingly illogical decisions that may end up working out in the end. That is something that robots can never achieve. The new innovative economy will most likely be a symbiotic relationship between robots and people where robots will do most of the heavy labor, and people will maintain and improve the robots.

It is more likely that the influx of robots would cause a temporary fall in demand for low-skill labor. However, I am confident in society’s ability to shift to a tech-oriented economy. If not that, the service sector will most likely remain dominated by humans. The US had begun long ago shifting towards a tech/service-oriented economy. “Over the past half-century, the USA has shifted from an economy centered on producing physical goods to one centered on innovation and knowledge.” This is due to outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries. As a result, the shift to a tech-oriented economy should not be too drastic for the US. Though we should include programming as part of our core curriculum if we are to make steps to include the working classes and people outside the tech-centric cities. For the issue of tech being dominated by a few big cities, I feel that the issue is mostly a consequence of culture. The US, especially in the cities, is changing and the other cities will eventually catch up. There are also places in the web where programmers all around the world can work together and not have to be located in the special “tech cities.” While the venture capital and tech as an industry is centralized in the big cities, tech as a culture is widespread and is growing every single day. In the end, I am very tech-optimistic. I am also skeptical as to how much the shift to tech would really harm our economy.

However, the real question facing humanity is how do we help other countries acclimate themselves to changing economy? Ultimately, the tech boom will reach developing countries. It’s already reaching China—the world’s number one manufacturer and exporter. For years they’ve thrived on their ability to attract foreign investment due to their massive yet cheap labor force. However, the influences of rising wages and a higher expectancy of standard of living in that country has been causing a slow, but steady outflow of manufacturing jobs to Southeast Asia and India. In response, there are reports that in late 2015, China was already making moves in building large robot-oriented factories, places that used to be dominated by cheap labor. While these moves were probably necessary, they could very well lead to the predicament facing the US today.

There was one day when I was using the bathroom in Boylan and when I went to wash my hands, I put my hands under the faucet expecting the water to come out of the spigot. I stared blankly in the mirror waiting for the water to come out, but it did not. I thought the sink was broken or not working for some reason. When I looked down, I realized I was supposed to turn on the water manually. I laughed at myself and then sadly realized how dependent I was on technology, to the point where I expected to wash my hands without actually even turning on the water. The readings for this week helped me think of this problem on a larger scale. What if all of New York City is so dependent on technology and technology advancing in the future?

I think in terms of New York City’s future, I see a continuing advancement and dependence on technology. With the over-crowding problem, New Yorkers expect transportation to become more efficient, faster, and able to carry more people at a time. New Yorkers probably also expect better land usage and innovation in architecture, whether that be in terms of aesthetics or functionality. I also think that art in technology will increase and maybe add to this ‘hipster’ vibe in New York City, as it did in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Advancing technology is a wonderful and beautiful thing because it gives populations more control over their environments and it can prolong life expectancies as well as even save lives. Technology allows us to stay connected and share ideas. However, I have some regards.

One of the readings talked about, “Recognizing that innovation can also result in the destruction of innovation jobs themselves [logically, how can it not].” There is so much uncertainty when it comes to knowing what direction technology will take in New York City, or anywhere for that matter, and how it will affect the city’s economy. Another reading said that, “the winners today can be losers tomorrow.” There is no way of telling how, when, at what rate, in what competitive force, etc. technology will come out in. But most importantly, I understand the pattern that the author describes. When an innovator moves into a community and creates or advances technology in a way, it acts as a beacon for other innovators to come into the same community and do the same thing. However, innovators can be considered entrepreneurs, and when they come into a community, attract others like themselves to come to the same community, and change the face of the community, it sounds comparable to gentrification. This pattern is analogous to rich people coming into an area and gentrifying it. Other reasons why I am a semi-techno-pessimist is because in order for everyone to participate and appreciate the advance in technology, people require higher levels of education and the means to pay for the advanced technology. The author does not give a solution to the fact that not everyone can participate because not everyone can afford the higher levels of education needed to become a “brain hub” or even afford to buy the new iPhone. There needs to more equity and equal opportunity for the technological revolution. There is also no mentioned place for the average folk/average family, or newly arrived immigrants.

So regarding the city’s future, I definitely see and understand the need for technology to continue to advance and make our lives easier, healthier, and better. However, the side effects of the technological revolution make technology a luxury. People need proper schooling to become innovators, and people need the means to pay for new technology. In addition, technology can replace and even discontinue many jobs, which will not be beneficial to the economy or New York City residents. It could build a wider gap between the rich and the poor. So I see myself trying to be a realist in expecting New York City to continue to become a stage of new technologies, but I am a techno-pessimist when I think about the consequences of the growth of technology.

The current crisis in New York pertaining to affordable housing is an unfortunate one in that the people, who cannot afford it, are facing higher and higher rents every year. The system has failed to benefit people on the lower end of the economy, much like it usually does. The question then becomes, how do we mold the system to fit all the needs that are present in our society, rich and poor. The articles that we read this week discuss the actions of local governments and groups, as well as Mayor Bill De Blasio, in attempting to attend to problems with current affordable housing and dealing with the creation of more housing that is affordable. One of the articles, by Ethan Corey, discusses the tactics that the Crown Heights Tenant Union has used to make an impact on the system. One of the methods that they are using is to negotiate directly with landlords and make contract agreements in order to regulate rent increases in the future, protect tenants from being evicted prematurely, and to try to ensure that landlords will take care of their units in terms of maintenance and repair. I think that this is a step in the right direction, facing the landlord’s head on with negotiations, because I think that going directly to government officials is hopeless. I think it’s hopeless to do so because government officials try to make everyone happy in a system that is unable to do so because of the very nature of capitalism. I think that direct negotiations are more likely to persuade individual landlords in neighborhoods to satiate the needs of their tenants. Also, the collectiveness of programs like these, give the people more hope in their cause.
Building more affordable housing in a city with a limited amount of open space can lead to problems. The dense population creates overcrowding of public facilities, schools and transportation. The mayors plan to build more affordable housing simply beckons the question, where? Where do we put buildings that can support the large portion of the population that needs a place to live that is affordable? New York has increased in population and is becoming one of the most overcrowded cities, with apartment buildings being stuffed with tenants, and more people looking to move in. In this sense, I think that density bonuses are a plus because it will take a certain amount of space and utilize it to a large capacity by making taller buildings. On the other hand, building these very tall developments will offset the balance in certain neighborhoods that have mostly low-rise structures.
We, as a class, can create a website that outlines the projected outcome of some of the neighborhoods that are developing more affordable housing, creating projecting pricing guides. We can also come up with ways to target certain neighborhoods with over-bearing landlords, and develop grounds on which the people in this neighborhood could potentially negotiate with these landlords.

“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.

After reading these articles, I probably don’t have even a fraction of understanding of the struggles that renters face but I think I got the gist of it and it’s clear to me that changes must be made in policies for affordable housing and these are just a few of the proposed policies that I think should be enacted.

48-Hour Response Time For Necessary Repairs.
I agree with one article writer’s depiction of most landlords, that they “operate on a continuum between greed and laziness,” which prevents them from up-keeping the apartments they rent out, sometimes even forcing tenants to pay for these improvements themselves. I don’t, however, believe that the landlords are purposely trying to push tenants out; after all, that’s where their income comes from. I just think that most times they are too lazy or cheap to take responsibility for the repairs. However, tenants are suffering from this laziness. Therefore, I would propose that landlords have a 48 hour response time to make necessary repairs before a tenant can take legal action.

Rent Freeze
A five-year rent freeze sounds a bit too much for landlords to compromise on. I’d go with three or four-year rent freeze instead. Even after that amount of time is up, there should be a limit on how much of an increase in rent a landlord can ask for. And if this rent freeze is not agreed upon, I support Steven Flax’s proposal for a 1 percent increase for one-year leases and 2.75 percent increase for two-year leases. With Williams Willard’s proposal that rents be increased 3.6 percent to 5.5 percent for one-year leases and 4.3 to 9.5 percent for two, while it may look like small increases to landlords and might not even bring them much profit, it’s a huge burden on some renters who can barely even keep up with their current rents. A small increase in their rent can mean a few less meals for them or cutting out other necessities just to make ends meet.

Rezoning
Moreover, I would propose to enact the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program where 25% of units must be made affordable to families with an averaged income of about $46,600 for a family of three. Now many people criticize this program and state that this plan is still not enough for lower-income residents but I think that this plan is a great compromise between the interests of landlords and tenants because, as I wrote before, landlords need to make a living too and reserving 1/4 of their building space to lower-income families is a sacrifice for them. When you compare this 25% to Bloomberg administration’s 2005 rezoning of Williamsburg where only 11% of units must be made affordable to low-income families, this proposed plan is a tremendous step up.

As a class advocating for more affordable housing, we could make an interactive website that would inform people of the struggles that renters have to face every day along with proposals of solutions to these problems and perhaps we could set up polls with different questions and allow visitors to our website to vote on certain important matters and voice their opinions so we can see where people stand on these matters and be able to see their sides of the story. I don’t believe that we can ever make every single person happy with the decisions that the government makes but I do, however, believe in compromise and I would hope that the website would allow both tenants and landlords to make proposals and, hopefully, compromises.

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.

The lifeblood of any great city is the people living in it. So New York as a great city must look out for all the people living in this great city. When the government of the people looks out for people and protects the people’s interest that is when government is at its best. One of the biggest problems facing the people of New York is the lack of affordable housing and the massive increase in rent prices in New York. Even when developers build “affordable” housing the market value of these apartments is so high that even at below market prices people still can’t afford them. However if they can afford them you will usually have a ridiculous number of applicants all applying for the same apartment. So what I think needs to be done is for local governments to allow transparency when dealing with developers which will allow the people living and applying for these apartments to make sure the developers are keeping their promises. For example if a developer agrees that they will list 30% of their apartments at below market value but then they don’t provide the same amenities that the other apartments offer the residents will be able to be informed about their problem. Also I believe city government should use its strongest tool to help the people not the developers and force them to develop affordable housing. Of course we need to balance the peoples need for affordable housing with the developers need for profit or else developers won’t want to build in New York. Another useful tool mentioned earlier by Crystal is the use of rent stabilization and rent freeze zones that will allow people to live in an apartment without worrying that the cost of living there won’t change over night to some ridiculous cost. One class project we could do as a class is to form a website with the common problems that tenants in New York face and try to inform the public as to how these problems originate and what are something that other people have done to find solutions to these problems. Also we could have a forum section where people can post about the problems they are facing as tenants of NYC and what they are doing about it.

If I am going to set up an affordable housing, there are several things I will do. First, I have to plan how many units in the housing can I build and what kind of units will I build. I will take into consideration of the applicants who are interested in applying for affordable housing and see the percentage of those interested in 1 bedroom or 2 bedrooms, or more. I will sort out the units based on this distribution so the housing can accommodate the needs of the applicants as much as possible. For example, if there are large portions of people who want 2 bedrooms units, I will build more 2 bedrooms units in the housing.

Second, I will set up a website with the rent prices so there will be transparency. I will also set up a rent control which will also be stated in the website so that interested tenants won’t be worried if the rent will increase. I will also set up a contract on the website with all the rules that are expected of the landlord/organization of the affordable housing. The obligations will consist of the landlord/organization reaching back to the tenants within 24-48 hours if the tenants have any issues with their units. The landlord/organization will also be responsible for getting whatever is needed to be fixed fixed by contacting a mechanics or an expert within 24-48 hours after reaching back to the tenant with the problem. I will also put up the numbers for these professionals onto the website just so if the tenants want to contact them themselves directly. But the landlord/organization should still be involved in the process and check up every so often until the issue is resolved.

In Tom Angotti’s “From Dislocation to Resistance: The Roots of Community Planning”, it is stated that displacement is a major issue in housing especially for Black Americans. It is mentioned that public housing in the name of urban renewal ended up displacing a lot of people living in the neighborhood. This leads to my third point. If I am building an affordable housing in a neighborhood, I want to build it on an empty space that no one was occupying. I don’t want to take away a living space of some people to build a new living space for other people. I want to make sure I am not taking away something from a neighborhood but instead add something beneficial to the neighborhood.

I will also have to take into consideration of zoning and planning. Zoning is restricting the number and types of buildings and their uses usually done by the government. Planning is the control of urban development by the government and a license has to be obtained to build a new property or change an existing one. The difference between zoning and planning is that zoning is restriction while planning is expansion. Both will be important if I am trying to build an affordable housing. I have to get permission from the government to build the housing (planning) and depending on the zoning rules, I have to take into consideration of what buildings I can actually build. Of course, I will also have to take in the consideration of the neighborhood in which I am trying to build the affordable housing. I want the affordable housing to be part of the neighborhood and future tenants living in that area to feel that they do fit in.

I found these readings a great follow-up to the documentary we saw about Community Board 1. For some reason, I kept thinking about Community Board 1 when reading about rezoning and I was drawing some parallels to the Crown Heights Tenant Union. I was thinking about the voice that these groups create for themselves and ho they should be heard more often. I also felt the frustration that comes when city officials choose not to listen. CHTU was another democratic group that is making a voice for themselves and doing so for their rights. I think affordable housing should be a right, as well as proper heat, hot water, solid ceilings, etc. It is absurd for renters to pay their tenants for caved ceilings, no heat, or no hot water. “It is not the renter’s responsibility to fix the boiler.” CHTU, and groups like it, would be a huge part of my affordable housing proposal. I definitely believe that there needs to be a democratic structure to regulate future rent increase and build communication between renters and tenants. I also think that state or city officials should work with a union like this to monitor their rights, aid in setting rent-stabilization laws, and monitor that no such laws are broken, as well as induce rent-freezes. I know that it is an extremely difficult thing to put in action, especially because of tenants, but rent-freezes seem like a much-needed tool to help the rent crisis/burden. In one of the articles, the writer wrote about a pattern in which people come in to rent, after some time, the rent goes up, the people move out, new people move in and the cycle continues. The writer mentioned staying in Crown Heights but noticing that she had new neighbors every so often. Rent freeze seems like a more secure way for renters to have the same apartments for a long period of time and continue to afford rent. In a proposal, I would push political officials to make a certain percentage of apartments, condos, studios, etc. not just rent-stabilized, but rent-frozen for a certain amount of time. As we mentioned in class, renters seem to be caught between the scissors, or jaws of the rent crisis/burden. Rent has continued to increase while wages have remained the same. My affordable housing proposal is collective action. I do not see the rent crisis/burden as an issue that can be resolved by one group of people or one tool. More groups like Community Boards, Tenant Unions, and understanding political officials need to participate to help fix the affordable housing crisis. I am also a fan of the idea of creating a public nonprofit organization in which those who can afford to, donate money to pay for the renovation of the New York City Housing Authority public housing projects. I really like this idea and because it is a way of enhancing the neighborhood’s livability without rezoning.

I am not a fan of rezoning. Rezoning was described as a “recipe for gentrification” in one of the readings. “Rezoning displaces the very people it is supposed to help.” I do not see how rezoning could ever be a solution to the affordable housing crisis. I feel that rezoning might actually perpetuate the affordable housing crisis because it displaces a huge number of people as well as drive up the rent in the surrounding area. Perhaps political officials see rezoning as a temporary fix because it can make “affordable housing,” create new jobs, new resources, and streetscape to enhance the neighborhood’s livability; however, all theses things are probably devised for the middle class, or upper middle class and not the working class and below. I see rezoning as an excuse for the political officials to put more power in the hands of the real estate market, or just the market in general, which is already an existing “pressure from above.” Housing is where people live, where they make life, where they find jobs, and create families. Political officials can not and should not ask people to relocate for rezoning purposes and promise that it is best for the development of the city, or that it is meant to create more affordable housing and then result in more overcrowding and displace entire communities. I don’t understand how Mayor de Blasio can promise rent freeze and then propose a rezoning project. It seems counter-intuitive to me.

“The median household income in the neighborhood is about $33,000, but in order to afford current asking rents in East New York, one would need to earn at least $44,000 for a one-bedroom or $56,000 for a two-bedroom apartment. Indeed, over two-thirds of East New York households are already spending more than what the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines as “affordable.”” I am entirely convinced that rezoning really is just a recipe for gentrification, which makes me grateful for the long process that it takes for a plan to get approved.

So my proposal for a class project is collective action. The best way I can think of doing this is creating some sort of social media platform and somehow combining all the ideas and possible solutions we think of together as a class, and sharing them with other people or groups who can have an influence on the affordable housing crisis. I know that many Community Boards have Facebook pages. My hope with a social media platform is that it can potentially generate enough attention so much that other Community Boards, Unions, existing non-profit groups, (maybe a stretch, but perhaps even) political officials, get in contact with us and there is an exchange of ideas. And even if the said social media platform does not get the attention I hope it would, it would be a way of bringing attention to a matter than members of a properly functioning democracy (as Mohammed said in class) should know about.

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.

The Community Board 1 area comprising the neighborhoods of Williamsburg and Greenpoint are home to a very diverse population. The majority of the population is non-Hispanic White, but a significant minority population resides there as well. Recently, the area has been undergoing gentrification. The neighborhoods’ reputation as a rough and crime-laden area has been usurped by the hip and modern look cultivated by the many artists that reside there. As a result, there has been a “flood” of new rich inhabitants willing to pay top dollar for an apartment in the area as well as increasing tourism. Many consider this reverse in outlook a revival of the once-deteriorating neighborhoods. Others, mostly long-time inhabitants, consider this a tragedy. Old residents, many of which have been living in the area for several generations, are being priced out. The very artists who helped “revive” the neighborhoods are also moving out since ironically the very reason they lived there was for the area’s low rents. There has always been racial and social tension in the area, the original source being crime. Now the source of tension is gentrification. Not every Community Board 1 resident is against gentrification. Many residents see the old industrial complexes of old Williamsburg and Greenpoint as outdated and in dire need of an update; they see the residents who oppose the recent changes as zealots who oppose improvement. They enjoy the support of the city government who see the neighborhoods as a great place to attract more wealth. The new, wealthy residents and the government are the pressure from above. The old, lower-income residents are the pressure from below. Whether or not these two groups can compromise relies mostly on the trust both groups place on the government and the government’s ability to meet the needs of both groups. The views of each side are not completely irreconcilable, there is room for compromise. The government is capable of modernizing and maintaining the neighborhoods while providing adequate affordable housing. Unfortunately, broken promises have destroyed the trust that residents had for the governments. The government’s complete disregard for the Community Board 1’s views in regards to rezoning have certainly reinforced the distrust of government. Certainly, the community boards in their current states have little influence over the future of their communities.

The changes in Williamsburg and Brooklyn over the last 10-20 years have completely changed the needs of many communities. The Williamsburg and Greenpoint neighborhoods have been especially effected by these changes. The demands that the community board has laid forth are mostly reasonable and consist of things that i’m sure they have been listing for at least the last five years. Affordable housing, proper maintenance of public space, low zoning laws and accessible transportation are all things that assume most New York neighborhoods would like more of. The gentrification in Community Board 1 is what separates the content of their statement from that of other community boards. The area is transitioning from the gentrification of young people and artists in search of the holy grail of authenticity to a “super gentrification” that will be followed by the rise of condos and luxury oriented businesses.  They won’t have to worry about the bars and the public safety after the areas gets inhabited by the super rich. Once the city recognises that the area is full of important citizens transportation will improve. If it doesn’t the influence of those people and their money will change things pretty rapidly. Families will exist there but not the same kind that are there now. Families like those who live on the Upper East Side and compete to send their kids to private school will live there now. The Polish, Italian and Puerto Rican past of the area will slowly fade into history and be replaced by a new narrative until a fresh cycle of crash and flight changes the area completely. The poorer people who live their now should know that they are not safe from an increase in their cost of living. Even if rents are stabilized or more affordable housing built, the area is trending in one direction and will continue going that way until the market is externally influenced. Prices for good and services are just as effective a tool at driving people out as real estate values are.

The kind of affordable housing that has been built in East New York is the kind that New York will have to build to keep some part of the middle class. As long as the economic trends in New York continue and the housing market sustains itself, (the quest for authenticity pushing the pioneers who are followed by those who search for luxury) there will be continued gentrification of any NYC areas within reach. Making middle class enclaves or areas where the poor can try to sustain themselves is important in the coming years. We should not give in to the European way of public housing which involves pushing all undesirables to large housing complexes outsides city limits to continue to attract tourists. New York is a brand but it is also a city full of people who need to survive and have a right to live in nice areas that are not constantly being threatened by the ravenous real estate market.

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.

The majority of people living in Greenpoint and Williamsburg are non-hispanic whites who make up about 61% of the population while the rest of the population living there is comprised of different ethnicities. From an economic view, the people living there range from living below the poverty line to the working middle class. I think the main issue they face while living there is affordable housing. As demand for living spaces increased, so did the prices, thereby decreasing affordability for many people. People are being forced to move either to smaller and poorer quality living areas or even forced to move out of the Community Board 1 area completely because they could not afford the rent. Since, around 86% of people living there are renters, this is a major issue for the community living there.

As for your question about whether I would anticipate conflict between the different groups living there, I would say that I do. With the yearly incomes of residents ranging from living below the poverty line to middle class, there are differences in the needs of the residents. The poorer population support lowering prices of rent and would support rent controls while the landowners would fight against this because this would decrease their income from renting out their land. It’s issues like these that the Community Board 1 has to decide on and compromise on.

I think the pressure “from above” is the pressure coming from the the minority, the landowners and people with more money who may have more power over the decisions made in the community while the pressure “from below” is the renters and the people of lower income who are pushing for their needs and interests to be met. It is the job of the Community Board 1 to reconcile between the two pressures in order to make the community they live in the best that it could be and try to compromise between the interests of the two groups.

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.

According to the website for Community Board 1 (Brooklyn), Community Board 1 represents Williamsburg to Greenpoint. I think that Williamsburg is home to some upper-class people. Williamsburg has condos, chains stores, and many tourist sites. However, there is also a more bohemian, indie, and working class demographic to Williamsburg. As mentioned in “How Brooklyn Became Cool,” from Naked City, Williamsburg had a “gritty” style and substance starting in the 1990s. As for Greenpoint, I think that there is a large Polish background and a large middle class demographic that live there. The main issue for the people that currently live there might be gentrification because with a growing white population, gentrification can also expand and develop. Although there might be an ethnic blending in neighborhoods, gentrification means a loss of authenticity and maybe the movement of certain ethnic groups or the original group not being able to afford their living anymore.

I would definitely anticipate conflicts between the interests and demands of different groups that live in the Community Board 1 area. This area is composed of many different demographics of people ethnically and economically, which will definitely make it difficult to appeal to everyone’s demands. The only way I can think of to reconcile the interests of different groups is compromise or willing to appeal to the majority with respect to the minority. With the up-scaling of Williamsburg, loft-condos and townhouses become more prominent which appeals to an upper-middle class population, but there needs to be a preservation of old communities and respect to those who were originally settled in Williamsburg before its new wave of authenticity. In Greenpoint, the median income for a household in the neighborhood was $33,578 compared to the Williamsburg median household income of $23,567. About 17.7% of the population lies below the poverty line compared to Williamsburg’s 41.4%. These statistics make it hard to satisfy the interests of both groups. More dramatic measures need to be taken in Williamsburg to alleviate the poverty issue and there might be a more demanding issue that needs attention in Greenpoint, even though this issue also needs light.

I think that the “pressure from above” might be those with more power or money, such as city government and private businesses. The “pressure from below” could be the people who are unhappy or dissatisfied with conditions and policies. Perhaps the “pressure from below” makes up the majority of a population. However, just because community boards only have an advisory voice on planning and zoning issues, this does not limit their potential to shape their community and influence the “pressure from above.” Community boards are the voices for people in the neighborhoods and can address problems by different groups of people that maybe city officials would otherwise not know about. They play an important role in voicing opinions and possible solutions to issues in their board area because city officials should be interested in what the people living in a certain area view as problems and how they would go about possible solutions. Community boards have so much potential to change and shape a community if their concerns and advice is heard properly. How can a city official who does not live in a certain area know the areas problems as well as community board members?

I think that Williamsburg and Greenpoint, although very close to each other and similar in some ways, are also very different. Their populations are composed of different groups of people and political officials might just group them together and not understand that each area has different concerns, groups of people, and possible solutions.

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.

Charlotte Gardens, South Bronx caught my attention because it differs from the stereotypical look of affordable housing. While most affordable housing attempts to house as many people for as little cost as possible, the focus of Charlotte Gardens seems to be to provide an aesthetically-pleasing, spacious neighborhood that provides a healthy environment for those with lower-income. This look completely differs from what South Bronx was back in the 1970s when it was literally burning. South Bronx used to be the typical affordable housing neighborhood: large buildings with a large amount of residents. It was once dominated by Italian, Irish, and Jewish immigrants who mostly worked in factories. However, the combination of economic decline, the outflow of newly-middle class residents, the inflow of impoverished residents, and systemic neglect by landlords caused the neighborhood to decay. In the Washington Monthly article “Guess Who Saved the South Bronx?”, Robert Worth points to the government as one of the biggest catalysts for the decay of the South Bronx with its policy of rent control which made running apartment complexes in the area unprofitable for private landlords, meaning they also did not have the funds to maintain basic services and the quality of their buildings. The final nail in the coffin was what caused the South Bronx to literally start burning to the ground. As housing prices in the area fell and the maintenance of housing in the area remained unprofitable, landlords began burning down their own buildings in an attempt to salvage whatever money they could get from insurance payouts. Also, the government offered tenants grants if they were burned out of their homes. As a result, residents themselves began burning the buildings down. Many other events would plague the neighborhood, but the end result was the complete destruction of what once was a thriving community.

The current South Bronx seems to be the exact opposite of what South Bronx was, even before it began falling apart. What were once large high-density apartment complexes are now single-family ranch-style houses. What were once manufacturing plants are now stores. The goal of these changes are to encourage residents to care of their own neighborhood as the higher quality of the units and the more opportunities means each resident has a bigger stake in the community. These changes suggest that we need to employ new techniques to revive the broken down neighborhoods of New York City as what once worked in the past may not work in the future. Unfortunately, Charlotte Gardens does little to address the rapidly growing demand for cheaper housing, which is what the ordinary model of affordable housing aims to accomplish. If this strategy is replicated for other neighborhoods, it seems that in the future most of the people that need affordable housing the most will be forced out. Also, current issues like high inequality and the fall of both economic opportunities and real wages still impacts the neighborhood as half of the residents are still low-income. As such, it seems that the real permanent solution to the housing crisis could only be an economic one.

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.