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.
What city doesn't have a poor area tho? Even in small towns, they have "the other side of the tracks..."
As Jane Jacobs says, its not so much the other side of the tracks, but those that are on either side of the tracks in close proximity to them. There will still be poor people, and plenty of them for that matter. Just don't round them up in these type of complexes that cast shadows on entire neighborhoods. The issue has more to do with the physical structure rather than the actual people inside of them.
As Jane Jacobs says, its not so much the other side of the tracks, but those that are on either side of the tracks in close proximity to them. There will still be poor people, and plenty of them for that matter. Just don't round them up in these type of complexes that cast shadows on entire neighborhoods. The issue has more to do with the physical structure rather than the actual people inside of them.
I really dont think the tower in the park argument is a valid one anymore....you have public housing that's low sprawl with high. Rime rates still, like down south and in LA. The Northeast and Midwest are really the only parts of the country that built public housing upwards because of high density and lack of space.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I really dont think the tower in the park argument is a valid one anymore....you have public housing that's low sprawl with high. Rime rates still, like down south and in LA. The Northeast and Midwest are really the only parts of the country that built public housing upwards because of high density and lack of space.
Low rise projects still follow a similar concept. Whether low or high, there is still that wasted green space that could be used more efficiently. Some sort of mixed use concept would be nice. The south and LA might have more to do with low/medium density overcrowding by packing too many families in a single family dwelling. I think that the old NYC tenement style buildings are better off. Just need to regulate for overcrowding. One family per household.
I'm trying to say that NYC's policy of improving housing and welfare has been working pretty well, since it seems to be based on helping it's citizens instead of fearing the "undesirables".
They can do better. Much better. Over time the undesirables should be dropping the "un" rather than passing it onto their next generation. But you conservatives rather keep it the way it is instead of make the difficult changes needed for progress. It was a failed experiment. Time to demolish and redevelop. It'll save money in the long run.
Returning to the OP - I've read both Observer articles. Is it actually the case that people of a "certain ethnic group" are filling vacancies in Councilwoman Cumbo's district that defies the probability of random selection, or is she just going on anecdotal evidence? If her complaint is spurred only by anecdotal evidence, I feel like she's simply posturing at a council meeting in the name of "transparency".
Wouldn't it be the job of her office to conduct a proper investigation in to the matter first before raising the issue at a council meeting? If not, what is her office for?
I really dont think the tower in the park argument is a valid one anymore....you have public housing that's low sprawl with high. Rime rates still, like down south and in LA. The Northeast and Midwest are really the only parts of the country that built public housing upwards because of high density and lack of space.
Actually, you can even go across the Hudson River to NJ and see low-rise housing projects. Philly has low-rise projects too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acpii
Returning to the OP - I've read both Observer articles. Is it actually the case that people of a "certain ethnic group" are filling vacancies in Councilwoman Cumbo's district that defies the probability of random selection, or is she just going on anecdotal evidence? If her complaint is spurred only by anecdotal evidence, I feel like she's simply posturing at a council meeting in the name of "transparency".
Wouldn't it be the job of her office to conduct a proper investigation in to the matter first before raising the issue at a council meeting? If not, what is her office for?
See, she's completely full of crap. First she says that segregated housing needs to be discussed, but then she's complaining when "blocs of Asians" are coming into specific developments, which would actually move towards that goal of segregation (as opposed to spreading them out evenly). It's pretty obvious that she's complaining about Asians being in the projects period.
Second of all, in the example that she gave (Fort Greene), it's right across from Chinatown (and also not too far from Sunset Park). Given a choice, do you think an Chinese family coming from Chinatown is going to choose Fort Greene, or some far-out housing project like Cypress Hills or Edenwald where it would be very difficult to get to/from a Chinese-oriented area? There's a good chance they would've preferred something within Chinatown itself, but if not, Fort Greene is the next-best thing.
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.
