Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Smack yourself in the face. Most of the country, people have trees planted near their homes and yes, they may block views from the windows. So what?
And if someone sees someone getting mugged outside, I seriously doubt they are going to leave their apartment to outside to rescue someone, so this is not even a concern.
Nobody in suburbia tries to blames trees for crime, do they?
Trees and grass are the nicest thing about the projects, which should be demolished as the housing projects were in most other cities.
That poster might be referring to the FACT that the campus organization of many complexes means - people commit crimes and disappear in it all. This was a major reason that the people in the St. Nicholas complained about the demolition of some of "their" spaces for the school, and many of them openly admitted this once the officials had left.
I think it is disingenuous to bring up other American cities that have demolished some of their housing projects as proof that it can be done in NYC as well for many reasons.
For one, the cities were much smaller than New York, and the number of residents displaced was also much smaller because there were very few projects compared to NYC, and not all of them were demolished. The one big city (Chicago) with lots of projects that did demolish them on a large scale has had all kinds of problems with crime and homelessness as a result, regardless of what some posters here are trying to argue. But Chicago's projects were awful war zones with terrible living conditions. I've been in housing projects in NYC in lower Manhattan (Alphabet City) and Queens (Queensbridge), and they were clean, had working elevators, and no overt criminality that I could see going on. I visited both projects at night. I was invited there by people I had met during my time in the city, and had a good chance to see the projects from the inside, and ask my hosts about life there. I know that there is criminal activity in New York's projects, but they have nothing approaching the scope of problems facing the projects in Chicago like Cabrini Green, and the miles-long strip of projects that once existed on the South Side.
The conditions of the buildings in New York, though variable, are quite good, and even if they are breeding grounds for crime and generational poverty (though i doubt any worse than market rate tenements in low-income neighbourhoods) they do not compare to places like Cabrini Green or Pruitt-Igoe, and other projects that were torn down after being practically destroyed by the residents, partially abandoned, and converted into virtual fiefs controlled by gangs and groups of thugs that made life there extremely hazardous for every resident. Even the worst of New York's projects have not reached this point, and never will. They may have their problems, but I have a sneaking suspicion that those who want them gone are generally individuals of a certain political persuasion that looks down on poor people in general, and social welfare programs specifically - especially such obvious ones as giant, brown high rises filled with welfare moms and delinquent kids "leaching off the system, and making life miserable for everyone in the area."
In those cases where housing projects were demolished in various cities across the US, it was almost always because conditions there had deteriorated beyond the point where any form of renovation/rehabilitation was possible. This is certainly not the case in NYC, where the projects are generally in pretty good shape. If the problem is criminality, then strategies must be developed to address this specific problem. The idea of demolishing the projects in NYC because of the social ills that exist there is obviously a case of wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water. Furthermore, those social ills exist well beyond the projects themselves, and will continue to exist long after the projects are gone. A great example of this is Newark, where a large-scale demolition of housing projects occurred in the 80's and early 90's. Is Newark any better for it? Actually, just like Chicago, the rate of violent crime rose significantly for years after the demolition of the projects. Now, even though violent crime is down in Newark, I wouldn't say that it's a metropolitan utopia because the projects were razed. The reason is because the social ills that existed in those projects existed all over Newark, and razing them didn't improve the lives of their former residents, but instead dispersed them all across the region, bringing with them the problems that had plagued these people all along.
Breaking down the arguments:
- what worked in other cities will not necessarily work in New York. And that is assuming that razing projects ever "worked," unless you define the term very narrowly. Chicago and Newark are perfect examples. Those people questioning the situation in Chicago are being belligerent by denying the plainly obvious correlation between project demolition and the ongoing increase in violent crime there over the last 10 years. In a previous post in this thread I took a moment to explain just a few examples of how the demolition of the projects have caused increased crime all over Chicago. Other posters, including one from Chicago, gave other examples that have been discounted by disbelievers who see no direct correlation. What, pray tell, would be a direct correlation? What evidence would be sufficient? Because a massive spike in violent crime that just happens to occur during the same time that Chicago's biggest and most notorious housing projects are being razed is pretty suggestive. If this forum weren't filled with primarily middle-class and upper class members, I would suggest a trip over to the Chicago forum and a thread asking Chicagoans for their opinions on the matter. But this is probably pointless, because it is doubtful we will hear anything from the people who live in the affected neighbourhoods. However, for what it's worth, I mentioned in a previous post that I had seen a documentary some months ago where a former resident from Cabrini Green was talking about this very subject, and explaining how murders were a constant occurrence in her new neighbourhood as youth from various projects fought with already established gangs (as well as each other) for drug territory.
- Most cities that demolished housing projects were much smaller than New York, and did not have nearly as many residents occupying public housing. Therefore, the effects of relocation were minimized. Also, most cities did not demolish all their projects - only the ones that were beyond salvation.
- The housing projects in New York cannot be compared to those in Chicago and many other cities that demolished their projects. These projects were demolished, in most cases, because they had deteriorated so badly that they could not be rehabbed, and criminal gangs had taken over, making the life perilous for residents and even the police, many of whom were killed just for setting foot there. While some projects in NYC have their problems, none of them are comparable to projects like Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor, Pruitt Igoe, and others. They may be ugly, but they are in relatively good shape, have been upgraded multiple times, and in my experience are relatively clean, and from a purely aesthetic point of view, quite liveable. And in reference to the overall quality of life in the projects, I would be curious to see crime rates in the projects compared to those in the surrounding neighbourhood.
- Even if these perfectly fine structures were to be razed to the ground, and the people relocated, the evidence suggests that the problems of the projects would simply be moved to other neighbourhoods. And instead of the problems being concentrated in self-contained neighbourhoods where they can easily be targeted by social services of various kinds, if the residents were dispersed, they would be blown to the four winds, concentrating in already poor neighbourhoods which need nothing less than an influx of more desperately poor people. In this way, it seems to me that the proponents of demolishing the projects simply don't want to look at them any more. They think of everything in terms of money, and see an enormous opportunity to replace these resource and money-sucking dens of poor and lazy good-for-nothings with market-rate condos and apartments. Of course, they never think about what will happen to the residents if they suddenly lose their homes because they don't really care. In their minds, these people didn't deserve "free" housing in the first place, never mind in some of the city's most desirable neighbourhoods.
- Finally, razing the projects will do nothing to address the problem of poverty, broken homes, delinquency, race relations, education, crime, prison, drugs, and so many other issues that perpetuate the ghetto lifestyle. Of course, it seems to me that those advocates of demolition couldn't give a sh1t about these issues anyways, as long as the PJ's are gone, and the people who lived in them are gone too.
- Just thought I would add that a large % of NYCHA buildings aren't even the typical brown high rises, but regular apartment buildings that blend into the cityscape, and the average passerby would never know that they were, in fact, projects. What are you going to do about these?
I'm sorry for the length of this post, and the fact that I had to rush through it - there are probably mistakes of various kinds so please don't nit pick. I obviously have a lot to say about this issue, and I want to present my ideas so that people will actually read them. I hope I have been successful.
What we're gonna do is level the land and put it for sale.
The richest 1% will buy it and you will still not be able to afford a decent place to rent. Getting rid of the housing for the lowest income people will not necessarily make NYC more affordable for the rest of us.
None of these fantasy scenarios (demolition, etc.) will take place.
What is happening: Increasingly, working people are favored. The loopholes (or whatever they were) for the generational welfare types, and/or anti-socials, are closing. They are being phased out - to what location, I have no idea.
Eventually, the projects will be populated by working- and lower-middle class families.
None of these fantasy scenarios (demolition, etc.) will take place.
What is happening: Increasingly, working people are favored. The loopholes (or whatever they were) for the generational welfare types, and/or anti-socials, are closing. They are being phased out - to what location, I have no idea.
Eventually, the projects will be populated by working- and lower-middle class families.
According to the second article I posted, is that the first project building was demolished in NYCHA's 75 year history in Brownsville. It was a part of Prospect Plaza. The rest of the complex is supposedly coming down as well.
So yes, this fantasy scenario has happened at least once in NYC. NYC has many more projects, so we'll see.
I don't think that many working class families want to live in NYCHA's projects though, they kind of have a pretty bad reputation. So they will continue to get the generational welfare types.
I don't think that many working class families want to live in NYCHA's projects though, they kind of have a pretty bad reputation. So they will continue to get the generational welfare types.
Not true. There is now a mandate regarding the ratio of welfare to working families. There has been for some time. Look on the thread about NYCHA. They are asking why the storm victims are receiving preferential treatment.
My point - there is currently an active an attempt to change the balance.
NYCHA helps the market, not hinders it. It's the onerous rent stabilization and control laws that have strangled rentals at the mid-tier, such that nothing without governmental assistance, tax incentives or inexpensive land, gets built. Luxury housing and affordable housing are what gets built, but increasingly, the NYCHA is being refocused on working people, as mentioned upthread. That was always the purpose, to provide for non-slum housing for low-income workers, many of whom are subject to the same criminal classes on a daily basis, stealing their quality of life and enjoyment in favor of affordable rent. It's very easy for those of us who do not live in NYCHA housing to cast aspersions, but there are many good hardworking people who just don't make huge salaries that live in the projects and perform jobs that are vital, just not highly compensated.
If the NYCHA were demolished, and people with housing vouchers were put into the open market, the supply of affordable rentals would become even tighter. A voucher, like a NYC version of Section 8, would make the tenants more attractive to those renting in the affordable housing sector because risk is reduced by the government. That could easily displace marginally qualified tenants, tightening supply of market rate affordable rentals, with the net effect to drive prices higher. NYCHA pulls a pool of people out of the affordable rental market, with the net effect of increasing availability in that sector to those not qualified for subsidized housing.
The buildings were solidly built, and if the backlog in restorative actions and repairs is cleared by NYCHA, the structures and living environments could improve. The buildings are not architectural statements, but are functional. When they were built, streamlined architecture was the norm, and the NYCHA buildings were built in replicated plans to a price/standard, so concepts of ornamentation and integration into surrounding communities were downplayed with the superblock of buildings in a park standard.
__________________
All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.
~William Shakespeare (As You Like It Act II, Scene VII)
Public housing is a failure in all us cities. NYCHA may be better than others, but still a mess. No city can copy the public housing success of Singapore or Hong Kong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
