My thoughts on gentrification (New York, York: to buy, schools, place to live)

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by DesiArnez6

While NYCHA projects were a concentration of poverty, the slums that the projects replaced were also concentrated poverty, probably more-so as the slums from before had no trees or parks, were mostly crowded buildings.

The tennements that were replaced by the NYCHA were not on the same scale at all. Areas of the city were cleared, not just in the areas where the NYCHA built projects, bringing new people into the area and concentrating the poverty zones in high rise structures as opposed to the regular five or so stories that were the apartment buildings of the day. Where you had a few blocks of the lower rise buildings, one now finds concentrated superblocks of high rise structures that isolate people from the neighborhood and create communities unto themselves. Thus, it was not a procedure to relocate people who lived in an area into newer housing, with the same numbers, it was also a means of bringing more people into an area from an area that was cleared.

The original philosophy of the NYCHA projects was based upon Le Corbusier's model for the modern apartment building set amid parkland, but was not executed in the best manner possible. As executed, so many of the larger structures that comprise NYCHA create a scale that is not human or liveable as the structures are nearly identitical and the repetitive forms tend to dwarf the open space that surrounds them. Add to that a lack of socioeconomic diversity, and that set the stage for much of what contributed to the destruction of neighborhoods and the ensuing malaise among subsequent generations in areas where large numbers of the projects were clustered.

There was no interplay between neighbors on the street, since they were confined to brutalist brick towers where once they had the porch/stoop from which they could interact with their neighbors. Where once there were communities of lower socioeconomic status, they were communities, the same cannot be said for the projects since the scale and sheer number of tenants in the space tended to dwarf interrelation between people and their surroundings, removing the underpinnings of vibrant communities. Originally conceived to solve a problem, arguably without addressing the underlying issues contributing to it, the project as executed tended to exacerbate community division and social isolation, resulting in a loss of the fabric that once tied the areas in which huge numbers of NYCHA towers were built.

And, let's be clear about the intentions of the slum clearance initiative, it was not solely undertaken to provide new housing that was safe and affordable. The principles of it also were to free up vast tracts of land in prime areas to pave the way for decades of future development and to enhance the value of existing property in the area.

[DesiArnez6]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

The tennements that were replaced by the NYCHA were not on the same scale at all. Areas of the city were cleared, not just in the areas where the NYCHA built projects, bringing new people into the area and concentrating the poverty zones in high rise structures as opposed to the regular five or so stories that were the apartment buildings of the day. Where you had a few blocks of the lower rise buildings, one now finds concentrated superblocks of high rise structures that isolate people from the neighborhood and create communities unto themselves. Thus, it was not a procedure to relocate people who lived in an area into newer housing, with the same numbers, it was also a means of bringing more people into an area from an area that was cleared.

The original philosophy of the NYCHA projects was based upon Le Corbusier's model for the modern apartment building set amid parkland, but was not executed in the best manner possible. As executed, so many of the larger structures that comprise NYCHA create a scale that is not human or liveable as the structures are nearly identitical and the repetitive forms tend to dwarf the open space that surrounds them. Add to that a lack of socioeconomic diversity, and that set the stage for much of what contributed to the destruction of neighborhoods and the ensuing malaise among subsequent generations in areas where large numbers of the projects were clustered.

There was no interplay between neighbors on the street, since they were confined to brutalist brick towers where once they had the porch/stoop from which they could interact with their neighbors. Where once there were communities of lower socioeconomic status, they were communities, the same cannot be said for the projects since the scale and sheer number of tenants in the space tended to dwarf interrelation between people and their surroundings, removing the underpinnings of vibrant communities. Originally conceived to solve a problem, arguably without addressing the underlying issues contributing to it, the project as executed tended to exacerbate community division and social isolation, resulting in a loss of the fabric that once tied the areas in which huge numbers of NYCHA towers were built.

And, let's be clear about the intentions of the slum clearance initiative, it was not solely undertaken to provide new housing that was safe and affordable. The principles of it also were to free up vast tracts of land in prime areas to pave the way for decades of future development and to enhance the value of existing property in the area.

Maybe its a matter of personal preference then. I personally would prefer the social isolation of a modern apartment among parkland, then the 1940's 5 story crowded darkly lit alleys and street crowded together where the post depression gangsters with their suits and hats and clubs waited on the street corners. At least at NYCHA, I do not have to socially mix with poverty if I don't want to, and I find it much safer that way. Because of the lighting and open space, I feel much safer in Housing than most sidestreets in my neighborhood with Section 8 tenements.

[DAS]

bmwguydc and DesiArnez6 you are both bringing up good and valid perspectives. To a lot of people the brand new clean projects, with the green grassy areas protected by security guards that didn't allow anyone to walk on the grassy areas. Also with carpeted elevators with the wood paneling, and guarenteed heat and hot water the new projects were a dream come true, for those that lived in over crowded, dirty tenements, without heat and hot water most of the time. Especially when you had to walk up. The projects had day care and health stations as well.

Also your family was investigated and was not allowed to move in if anyone had a criminal record or juvenile records in the family. This is what the projects were like in the 1950's and early 60's. I have a relative that is a senior citizen now and this is how her project was when she moved in, in 1962 as a newlywed, with a dream of saving to buy a home for their family. They were able to achieve this dream in a few years. This is what DesiArnez6 is referring to I think.

I think that no one would have ever thought at that time that the projects would become what bmwguydc is referring to, and what we know now. I don't think that anyone could have known what the social ramifications would have been for residents of the projects back then.

However knowing what we know now, hopefully things can be adjusted based on what we know does not work. Also knowing that NYC is unique in that home ownership rates are low. Most people stay in the socio-economic class they are born into or they only rise a little above it. Most people can at least achieve or maintain working/middle class status. Then we have to be realistic about how much this amount really is, and out of this amount what can someone really pay and still enjoy some of the comforts of life.

This has to be accomplished otherwise more people are forced out of neighborhoods and into other areas where they are probably better off financially than people in those other areas. For example if you are forced out of Morningside Heights and you find something cheaper in the eastern section of Washington Heights, and another family is forced out of the apt you move to, and they then move to the southwest Bronx and they force another family into the southeast Bronx, where does that family that was forced out of the southeast Bronx go? There is nothing cheaper than that, maybe there are areas that have the same pricing in some of the other boros, but nothing cheaper. I know the answer, they go to the shelter, then into a project, if they can get placement, more and more shelters are going up in the southeast Bronx, and the cycle continues.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by DAS

bmwguydc and DesiArnez6 you are both bringing up good and valid perspectives. To a lot of people the brand new clean projects, with the green grassy areas protected by security guards that didn't allow anyone to walk on the grassy areas. Also with carpeted elevators with the wood paneling, and guarenteed heat and hot water the new projects were a dream come true, for those that lived in over crowded, dirty tenements, without heat and hot water most of the time. Especially when you had to walk up. The projects had day care and health stations as well.

Also your family was investigated and was not allowed to move in if anyone had a criminal record or juvenile records in the family. This is what the projects were like in the 1950's and early 60's. I have a relative that is a senior citizen now and this is how her project was when she moved in, in 1962 as a newlywed, with a dream of saving to buy a home for their family. They were able to achieve this dream in a few years. This is what DesiArnez6 is referring to I think.

I think that no one would have ever thought at that time that the projects would become what bmwguydc is referring to, and what we know now. I don't think that anyone could have known what the social ramifications would have been for residents of the projects back then.

However knowing what we know now, hopefully things can be adjusted based on what we know does not work. Also knowing that NYC is unique in that home ownership rates are low. Most people stay in the socio-economic class they are born into or they only rise a little above it. Most people can at least achieve or maintain working/middle class status. Then we have to be realistic about how much this amount really is, and out of this amount what can someone really pay and still enjoy some of the comforts of life.

This has to be accomplished otherwise more people are forced out of neighborhoods and into other areas where they are probably better off financially than people in those other areas. For example if you are forced out of Morningside Heights and you find something cheaper in the eastern section of Washington Heights, and another family is forced out of the apt you move to, and they then move to the southwest Bronx and they force another family into the southeast Bronx, where does that family that was forced out of the southeast Bronx go? There is nothing cheaper than that, maybe there are areas that have the same pricing in some of the other boros, but nothing cheaper. I know the answer, they go to the shelter, then into a project, if they can get placement, more and more shelters are going up in the southeast Bronx, and the cycle continues.

That's why we cannot have unbridled redevelopment and gentrification which does not take account of all the players. We cannot forget the forest for the trees. Too much is at stake - the lives of those on the lowest rung are just as important as those on the highest level.

It would be a doomsday scenario for people to be born into a lower economic status and to be forever doomed to that. That is contrary to the letter and spirit of all that is America. Now, we aren't advocating reward for no work or handouts to able bodied for nothing in exchange. We can however ensure that as we push the frontiers of development we do not push people who once inhabited swaths of territory to points of no return.

The history of Native Americans is proof of the catastrophe that can occur if we follow a path of land grabbing, rezoning, industrialization, redevelopment, gentrification without regard to original inhabitants.

[bmwguydc]

I have no doubt that the projects were very nice when first built, but that as DAS pointed out is when they adhered to the rules and regulations for them. Although they have not aged well, unfortunately, I do believe that they can be fixed. The optimism that existed with the new spaces, a dawning of a new era, has turned into the system that we now have, which is imperfect.

While I can understand the rationale about open space not being for use from a maintenance perspective, I think it would go a long way to revisit the use of open space, with some quiet garden areas, but revamp the land use so as to allow for kids to have ball fields and just space to run around with friends and family as opposed to a pristine lawn. This would enable a fostering of community and would seek to unseat the pervasive gang problem that exists as children would not feel pressure to belong to something, which in turn could help the fractured society that exists within parts of the city.

And, I agree with you Miles, New York does not need its own modern day trail of tears with regard to displacement and movement as an integrated approach can seek to solve many of the ills now faced.

[nygeek]

New poster here and I just had to reply to this thread.

I've lived in Brooklyn my whole life and have been a renter because I just can't afford anything. In my area, lots of condos have been built over the years, most were sold before they were built by people looking to flip them for double the price.

I think anyone that uses housing to make a killing is slime. I liken doing that to a bunch of people getting together, buying up all the milk in the city and then reselling it back to the people at 4x the cost. Housing is a necessity just like milk is.

I live in the neighborhood that I grew up in and while I harbor a lot of anger that I'll never be able to buy here, I don't begrudge people who are not from the area moving in. If they have the money to buy, then more power to them. By them being able to pay that much keeps me priced out and I don't like that but I'm resigned to it by now.

There are a lot of senior citizens in this area that bought their homes 30-40 years ago for $50k or less and have long paid them off. These people sit on their porches and ramble on about how much the neighborhood has changed, how they used to know the names of all their neighbors and now it's just so sad that cops, firemen, teachers, etc., can't afford to live here. Then they list their house for sale for $700k. They can do that if they want but don't see (or care) that this is what's driving the working people away from the neighborhoods.

It's all about money. No one cares about anyone anymore. Just last night there was an hourlong "special" on NBC about "The Economy in Crisis" and took questions and whatnot from viewers. There's a whole slew of people out here (myself and spouse included) who have degrees and jobs in education or for the city or state that on two incomes don't make enough to save. Rents (even stabilized ones) are rising twice as much as our salaries. So are the rest of our bills. Why isn't anyone interested in that?

[gentlearts]

Originally Posted by iztel

Apparently we're all supposed to just sit back while we're all priced out of our own city and do it with a smile and welcome all the out of staters in. I have a professional job, 2 college degrees and I STILL can't afford most decent areas of even Queens and Brooklyn forget Manhattan. How the hell is a working class family with kids supposed to survive when rents even in the ghetto are even 1200+? Oh it doesn't matter because there are 100 Notre Dame grads with trust funds and connections who are willing to pay double that.

I think your post is a good example of why what I think of as gentrification is good. I'm not that familiar with NYC, but it is when folks in your circumstances are forced to go into formerly undesireable areas which are affordable, and rehab the dumps that causes a city to be revitalized.
Hasn't this happened in many formerly seedy areas of NY? In a way it is a service to a city, since old dumpy areas are turned around and become desireable. Then when those areas get too expensive, the young upwardly mobile people who have the means will move on to do the same thing elsewhere.

[DAS]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

I think your post is a good example of why what I think of as gentrification is good. I'm not that familiar with NYC, but it is when folks in your circumstances are forced to go into formerly undesireable areas which are affordable, and rehab the dumps that causes a city to be revitalized.
Hasn't this happened in many formerly seedy areas of NY? In a way it is a service to a city, since old dumpy areas are turned around and become desireable. Then when those areas get too expensive, the young upwardly mobile people who have the means will move on to do the same thing elsewhere.

I am glad that you posted this. I think this is how some people from the midwest and other areas of the country that have relocated to NYC see it. You are all welcome here, and you bring new and fresh ideas. However some things are different here, and exist here that doesn't exist anywhere else in the country. I'll give you two primary things that exist here that for the most part does not apply anywhere else. One is that it is not cheaper to buy an apt or house in NYC, than it is to rent, like other places. Two it is not cheaper to live in the suburbs, it is more expensive and the commute is much more costly, you do not need a car in NYC.

I think that you are incorrect in your assessment when it comes to NYC. There is not much land space in NYC. The dumpy areas have been gentrified already for the most part. Also when we say gentrified sometimes this doesn't include rehabilitation and renovation of buildings or additional businesses. It just means that someone that can afford to buy the house, or pay the rent can move in. Keep in mind that the average salary is 46K in NYC. You cannot rent a studio apt for less than $1000 anywhere in this city without subsidized rent. I know some will post that there is one somewhere out there, but it will be very few.

The other areas are working/middle class that we are referring to and these people are being priced out as well. A lot of these people are civil servants and other long term workers that still have another 10-30 years to work and are unable to leave the city. These are the people that make the city run. Most of these people are native NYer's or immigrants that are now citizens and come from places where it was very difficult to survive. Other outsiders would not come here and take these jobs for the most part because they do not pay enough to allow you to live well in the city. When I say city I am referring to all 5 boros.

There is little land space to expand in NYC, there is no where to go. A lot of the poor areas have subsidized housing that the working/middle class does not qualify to live in. This housing is already in good shape, there may be other factors going on that make the areas undiserable.

Also some people come here just to live here for a while. They have graduated from some of the top schools in the country and they make enough to live well in the city. They can pay the new rents in the gentrifying areas. These people are not working in the jobs that make the city run.

[Moth]

Interesting thread.

I was in the used book store the other day and happened upon an old paperback titled, "Thrilling Cities" by Ian Fleming. Yes, the Ian Fleming, father creator of the eternal James Bond, 007, License to Kill and Imperial Seducer of Countless Babes.

Anyway, it is a travelog he wrote for the Sunday Times in London. He begins the New York City chapter by stating (I am paraphrasing from memory) that: "New York has lost its charm. Too much of the old brownstone architecture has been razed to make way for copper and steel buildings."

And that was 1959.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by Moth

Interesting thread.

I was in the used book store the other day and happened upon an old paperback titled, "Thrilling Cities" by Ian Fleming. Yes, the Ian Fleming, father creator of the eternal James Bond, 007, License to Kill and Imperial Seducer of Countless Babes.

Anyway, it is a travelog he wrote for the Sunday Times in London. He begins the New York City chapter by stating (I am paraphrasing from memory) that: "New York has lost its charm. Too much of the old brownstone architecture has been razed to make way for copper and steel buildings."

And that was 1959.

I guess that some charm has to be scarificed owing to expediency and the need for housing. The city fathers and others in the community try to strike a balance via landmarking - but that generally helps buildings not entire swaths of neighborhoods.