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.
As one other poster mentioned, what you've pretty much described is section 8.
I for one would be against it myself. These "forced" mixed-income areas never really work. With the exception of the very high in-demand areas where people are willing to tolerate more, you would just synthasize another "white flight" or in this case "middle class flight" of some sort and then you would be back to where you started with a majority low income neighborhood.
The major problem with this is that although the lower income have something to gain by this, the issue is that the middle and higher income earners have nothing to really gain by it. The exchange theory, cost benefit analysis doesn't really seem to work here. While the poor/project population may see their quality of life rise, those in the upper and middle classes see their quality of life fall and therefore move or bail out of this altogether to seek refuge elsewhere. Another problem is that these mixed income areas, those who are middle and upper class tend to pay market rate, whereas the poorer populations tend to have subsidized living. Subsidized populations, tend to attract subsidized services which essentially becomes a quality of life issue. Yuppies aren't exactly thrilled with the idea of low quality grocery stores and bodegas on every corner matched with a dollar store on every block. Not to mention that they do not want to send their kids to underperforming schools, nor do they want to hang out in areas with the possibility that crime will spike.
The major problem with this is that although the lower income have something to gain by this, the issue is that the middle and higher income earners have nothing to really gain by it. The exchange theory, cost benefit analysis doesn't really seem to work here. While the poor/project population may see their quality of life rise, those in the upper and middle classes see their quality of life fall and therefore move or bail out of this altogether to seek refuge elsewhere.
Tearing down the projects would cause white flight?
That's some curious reasoning you're using there, itsim.
What's there now? High crime, exclusive concentrations of poor people living in ugly, monotonous buildings with no stores nearby.
That already lowers the home values of the neighborhood. Breaking up these fortresses of poverty and mixing them up economically can only improve things for the middle class/working classes living nearby.
Though I do agree that there is a higher percentage of crime and undesirable incidents associated with project living, but it sounds to me like Humboldt would like to see an ethnic cleasing of sorts. Poor people have a right to be able to stay in their homes without fear of being relocated by "big brother" with questionable intentions. SMH.
On the contrary. What I would like to see is a larger population of poor who are learning to be self-reliant, rather than depending on government housing for generations.
The mixed income buildings would be built along restored city streets with storefronts at each building (these streets were demolished in the 50s to create meandering paths between towers, surrounded by pointless lawns that usually no one can even use). Project dwellers today have to walk long distances to get to the old streets where they can access stores they need.
Poor people have a right to help with housing when they hit hard times. Do they have a right to permanent housing at tax payer expense? I guess this depends on a lot of factors.
Do they even want to live in the projects, if given a choice? I strongly doubt it.
Tearing down the projects would cause white flight?
That's some curious reasoning you're using there, itsim.
What's there now? High crime, exclusive concentrations of poor people living in ugly, monotonous buildings with no stores nearby.
That already lowers the home values of the neighborhood. Breaking up these fortresses of poverty and mixing them up economically can only improve things for the middle class/working classes living nearby.
If you tear down the projects, the people must relocate elsewhere right? Either they'll move out of the city and seek cheaper accomodations or they will be homeless and/or in the PATH system where they'll be relocated with a section 8 voucher.
I understand what you're saying, but you have to look at the picture in its entirity...
My point is essentially is that forced mixed income areas only benefit one party. Sure, mixing the poorer populations with middle and upperclass is obviously better for those of lower income status. But how is that better for the middle and upperclass families? What are they gaining? The higher income folks will have to benefit in someway to attract them and keep them around, and right now I honestly can't think of a reason as to why this arrangement would.
I've had similar discussions with co-workers at my job about this before because a mixed income neighborhood was built from the ground up not too long ago in our area. And I can tell you that even the most liberal of them were not interested in living there. Why? Because to them, the lower income populations simply brought more problems. They aren't interested in having higher crime rates, they aren't interested in lower quality stores and they aren't interested in having their children raised in underperforming schools and borderline problematic neighborhoods.
From my experience with these discussions, when people suggest what you are suggesting, they become surprisingly class conscious and upwardly mobile in their actions and language, myself included.
Many cities are tearing down the projects....like Newark , Jersey City , Hoboken , Baltimore , Boston , New Haven , Philly , Camden , DC , Etc...the results have been lower crime. The Newer units are only 2 stories tall in most cases and more open , with with a garage in some cities or a front yard. Sadly NYC does not have the room for this ,so your stuck with the projects while other cities are demolishing them.
Putting all the class issues aside, as someone mentioned, there would be a problem with finding space.
Those towers are so tall, think about the sheer number of units you'd have to devlop to place all of those families.
I would like to see an end to projects, no one should live in those livestock cages, however, generational poverty is an issue we as a nation has not looked at seriously. And until we can address that, people will need subsidized living and projects will continue to overflow to meet the need.
Putting all the class issues aside, as someone mentioned, there would be a problem with finding space.
Those towers are so tall, think about the sheer number of units you'd have to devlop to place all of those families.
I would like to see an end to projects, no one should live in those livestock cages, however, generational pverty I something we as a nation has not looked at seriously. And until we can fix that, people will need subsidized living and projects will continue to overflow to meet the need.
First off I'd point out that there's a lot of space between the project towers, generally useless lawn, or parking lots. These areas would get filled in with actual living space.
I would suggest that we cannot fix generational poverty while at the same time subsidizing it. That said, some people clearly need help, thus the vouchers.
Many cities are tearing down the projects....like Newark , Jersey City , Hoboken , Baltimore , Boston , New Haven , Philly , Camden , DC , Etc...the results have been lower crime. The Newer units are only 2 stories tall in most cases and more open , with with a garage in some cities or a front yard. Sadly NYC does not have the room for this ,so your stuck with the projects while other cities are demolishing them.
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.
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.
If you tear down the projects, the people must relocate elsewhere right? Either they'll move out of the city and seek cheaper accomodations or they will be homeless and/or in the PATH system where they'll be relocated with a section 8 voucher.
I understand what you're saying, but you have to look at the picture in its entirity...
My point is essentially is that forced mixed income areas only benefit one party. Sure, mixing the poorer populations with middle and upperclass is obviously better for those of lower income status. But how is that better for the middle and upperclass families? What are they gaining?
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.
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.
