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.
humboldt--what do you think of the redevelopement of the Cabrini Green projects in Chicago? These were high rise projects that were torn down and redeveloped along the lines you're describing.
Thanks, r small. This idea is relatively new; I've heard of what you mention but don't know much about it. I will check it out.
We certainly wouldn't have to go that small, nor provide lawns and garages. The aim is to recreate a city, not the suburban vision of the project builders.
But imagine streets like Rivington in the LES continuing to the East River, packed with buildings of all sizes, stores, etc.
Its not suburban , 2 stories is a brownstone height....these dense blocks with a small yard. Outside of NYC this is what most cities look like...either a small yard in the front or concrete....but theres a buffer between the sidewalk and apartment.
OK, let's start with that. This would be an experiment that would have to begin small, so imagine we choose a swathe of buildings between Ave C and the FDR Drive, maybe around 7th Street. We relocate those tenants in the buildings slated for demolition over a several year period. Some move away, some get slotted for spaces in the new buildings with vouchers.
I'm not sure that rich people who could afford to live anywhere would go for this, but they wouldn't have to. We have a huge and growing population of young people in NYC who would love to live in the EV.
If developers can get parcels to build on, with different buildings targeted to different populations I think this could work. Not in East New York right now, but certainly in places where middle class people really want to live.
But the long-term idea is that replacing projects with these kinds of traditional streetscapes will actually change peoples' habits and restore self-respect and a work ethic to many of the long-term poor.
And get rid of the social/architectural blight of the projects, thus improving the prospects of the neighborhoods immediately adjoining them.
Well, if you can build on desirbale parcels of land and attract upper/middle income populations to live there, then you have met some degree of satisfaction of the cost-benefit relationship between the two parties.
personally though. I don't think the projects were ever really the problem. It's the type of people that live in some of these areas. The problems there hinge moreso on personal responsibility (or lack there of) than it does on the actual achitecture of the neighborhood or building itself. I'll get a little preachy here and say that if people planned ahead and had children that they could afford them; made education, saving and investing leading prioties; and committed themselves to following the strictest standards of the law--things would change overnight and the generational poverty would not be nearly as prevelent. I think subsidizing life's choices with money only goes but so far.
This idea has already been tried in numerous cities with disastrous results. Basically what happened was that demolishing the projects led to the spread of violent crime to formerly peaceful areas.
Dislocated gangs wound up in new neighborhoods but didn't stop participating in criminal activity. They just wound up butting heads with already established local gangs and increasing the crime rate.
Also, yes:the idea does have some suspect ethnic undertones.
No idea what "suspect ethnic undertones" might be, but in any case.
I can comment on what's happening in Harlem, with the Grant, Manhattanville, and St. Nicholas Houses. The same strategies that improved things in Chelsea around the projects are being followed. Or quite similar, anyway.
First, the projects are increasingly under surveillance. I believe it is the Grant Houses that were identified as vastly in need of security cameras - lots of them - and they are getting these. It will help remove anti-socials (see below comments on eviction). Having experience with all the complexes in Central Harlem and Manhattanville, I would argue that all need them ASAP and equally, but for whatever reason, Grant was identified as the worst.
At the same time, better tenants will be chosen given that the area has been targeted for development and gentrification. This is already underway. "Better" here means working class or above. Troublemakers will be evicted, and this process is already underway as well. The cases are being settled swiftly, especially for the generational poverty folks, who did not fare well when the Advantage program and others were curtailed. Believe it or not, it is more difficult to evict people in Holdover proceedings, for drugs or whatever anti-social behavior. That's another topic. It does not help that the tenants know how to "work" the system. No doubt, some people who deserve a chance will be evicted and this is unfortunate. They will blame everyone EXCEPT the actual perpetrators, their fellow tenants who abuse the system.
The St. Nicholas Houses campus will change significantly in the near future, and I believe this will become a kind of model for other places. Indeed, there is a very, very different model under development for the management such populations, until the populations improve and can manage themselves, and it is appearing at St. Nicholas first. The complex will be broken up, and this will happen in spite of the lawsuits brought to stop it. 128th Street (I think ? or is that 129th, or perhaps both) will be re-opened, integrating at least a part of the project complex back into the city grid; in essence, initiating a process that will gain impetus. Harlem Children's Zone is opening a school there. The residents fought this tooth-and-nail, claiming that the open space was legally "theirs," that it was needed for "barbecues and weddings and important gatherings." Having lived in the area for some time, I can tell you that the open spaces were used for all sorts of crap and baloney and as a common site of anti-social and destructive behavior. Mayhem. Was there positive activity ? No doubt, but not enough.
IIRC, Jane Jacobs in "Death and Life of American Cities" proposed "salvaging" the projects by putting streets and sidewalks through the superblocks, connected with the surrounding city streets, and bringing in street-level retail. She wrote this in the 60s. I wonder why it's never been tried.
IIRC, Jane Jacobs in "Death and Life of American Cities" proposed "salvaging" the projects by putting streets and sidewalks through the superblocks, connected with the surrounding city streets, and bringing in street-level retail. She wrote this in the 60s. I wonder why it's never been tried.
It absolutely IS being implemented - not just tried.
Here's an idea I've been batting around in my head: Would it be feasible to demolish the project buildings of NYC and replace them with regular streets and mix-zoned buildings?
If you pull up the old maps, you'll find that is what used to be there before the projects existed. If NYC doesn't want to repeat what Robert Moses did in the past, then they will have to deal the viability of converting water ways to land inorder to build upon as done in Dubai. NYC may have to eradicate parks and rezone them for housing.
As to why numerous projects out in the boros was open land around is because of what you can't see. The foundations for the buildings cover more square footage than the actual building itself because of the type of ground that is underneath it. This fact came to light numerous years ago with Starett City, due to improper foundation size the buildings sank into the ground. It wasn't enough to close them down, but it was sort of funny putting a ball down on the floor in one of the apartments and watching it roll away.
This idea has already been tried in numerous cities with disastrous results. Basically what happened was that demolishing the projects led to the spread of violent crime to formerly peaceful areas.
Dislocated gangs wound up in new neighborhoods but didn't stop participating in criminal activity. They just wound up butting heads with already established local gangs and increasing the crime rate.
Also, yes:the idea does have some suspect ethnic undertones.
Perfect example is what occurred after Katrina in NO. When poor people were forecably relocated, many of which ended up in Houston, the gangs simply relocated and set up shop. Crime went up, education went down...and there goes the neighborhood.
Here's an idea I've been batting around in my head: Would it be feasible to demolish the project buildings of NYC and replace them with regular streets and mix-zoned buildings?
Many cities have tried/are trying exactly that. Then they build LOW rise housing for 25%of the population and hope that the other 75% move to the next town. It's called "begggar-your-neighbor."
It works, to a slight degree, with small burbs but would not work with the hundreds of thousands it would render homeless in NYC.
Besides, nobody will build as substantially as these project were built. Thin walled-junk and tiny apartments is what passes for "luxury" construction today.
So demolishing them would be INCREDIBLY stupid...they are THERE and the money to build them has already been spent.
Society has not the money or the will to build even a BRIDGE or TUNNEL if one collapses. Looking to replace a major section of the housing stock in the largest city is beyond the pale. Gosh, we might even have to end a war or six, GOD FORBID.
How about demolishing the housing along Fifth Avenue and replacing it with public housing? Is that idea any LESS foolish? Tear down all the RELATED towers and put in 2 family homes?
Why pick on the POOR, isn't being poor painful enough...do they have to be poor AND homeless.
Remember, if all the poor were exterminated in gas chambers, the Middle Class would have to clean the bathrooms and wet nurse the children of the rich...and clean their pools and mow their lawns.
Remember too, that these projects were built in order to give a modicum of menial existance to the desperate so as to prevent their burning the homes and slitting the thoats of the plutocrats in control. There was no milk of human kindness involved.
So, let's leave the projects alone...they will probably stand longer than Trump Tower.
Last edited by Kefir King; 07-22-2012 at 11:15 AM..
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.
