Although many of the features of the exhibit intrigued me, I was drawn to one feature in particular; “El Barrio’s Artspace at PS109”. The building pictured had once been a public school built in 1898 but in 1995 was boarded up and abandoned. The abandoned building was then renovated and used as subsidized housing for artists and their families. I was captivated by this building because I love the idea of using already exhausting space for a new, more beneficial purpose, and, like I said in my previous post, maintaining and fixing existing space before building new structures. It maximizes space and stretches the budget for government funding for affordable housing. The government had repurposed this abandoned, boarded up building to help struggling artists and their families. Moreover, I really like how the exterior of the building remained remotely the same, still giving the look of a school building, maintaining its charm and history, while being used as lofts for families in need.

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.

Public housing when maintained properly can be extremely useful to residents who need a place where they can “breath” so to speak. A place that can provide them with the security and affordability they need to get back on their feet or try and move up in the world. It is a place where people who want to improve their own live and/or the lives of their families can go to try and provide a safe area for their families to grow up and make enough money to move up someday. What they have become with the beginning of the 1970’s is not what they were designed for they need to be a place where the youth is nurtured not corrupted and where families grow together not fall apart. That is why i would expand affordable housing and build them in such away where not only the government would maintain but also the residents could contribute. For example the housing projects i would construct would contain public gardens where residents could grow their own fresh grown vegetables. They would also contain a youth center where parents can leave their children and feel secure while also making sure their children are safe. The buildings i would construct would also be close to public transportation so that it is accessible to residents without a car. The buildings i would construct would be rent controlled because people usually living in public housing cant afford the regular price of rent in the city. However this idea of affordable housing would probably be extremely expensive and not very profitable for those who build it that is why i would have the government build it. Also i would not force my residents to furnish the houses.

Just about everyone knows that there is a affordability crisis in New York. The blighted 70’s and 80’s were fixed first by the iron fist of Giuliani and then by the money bags of Bloomberg. Now Bill De Blasio desperately tries to implement his progressive agenda without much help from the Feds or the State. He has always been ambitious and a lot of his plans he has been able to get through with a lot of bargaining with the State legislature.

I don’t necessarily think building new public housing is bad idea but I do think there are much better ideas out there. De Blasio knows he can’t get the funding he really needs from his pals in Albany so he should try to be as realistic as he can. Having private developers investing in the building of new housing where certain apartments have to be affordable or are rent-controlled is a very smart strategy. Building new sprawling HUD complex’s is risky and usually ends up getting bogged down and given a band reputation before doors even open. The larger problem here is income inequality and the wrong being image projected of what a successful New York means. Wall Street and the tech industry are great but they don’t help keep New York an affordable city. The poor people and the minorities get pushed to the outskirts of town to keep up the image of a perfect safe New York that has been built up since the late 90’s. I hope that De Blasio’s intentions here are really to rebuild New York as a place for the middle class. Right now the city (especially Manhattan) is essentially a playground for the super rich and the expense is forcing young creative people out and bringing boring yuppies in (even the “creative people” are pretty talentless). Affordable housing in the form of rent-control or in the form of law making is the only solution to stop the tide of green that has changed the character of the city for the worse.

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.

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

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

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

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.