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.
NYC and London are rivals for the world's financial center.
Moses also removed poor people from Manhattan and put them in housing projects in Coney Island and the Rockaways. This was gentrification. He used the city government to do this. Bloomberg used the private sector to also remove poor people from Manhattan.
Moses and Bloomberg did not act in isolation. During the Moses era the US was moving away from trains and decided that highways would be the main ways to move goods and people. There was national disinvestment in rail. Suburbs around the nation grew. It was national policy. Johnson's war on poverty paid for the housing projects and the government then spent a lot of money on the national interstate network.
In the Bloomberg era companies got use tax credits for investing in busted up inner city areas. The federal government was at least partially financing transit expansion(particularly rail). US Presidents since Clinton have encouraged urbanization and kept welfare much lower than it was under Johnson.
So the differences between Moses and Bloomberg were mostly due to national properties of what the federal government was willing to finance. Both men did what they could to the urban core of Manhattan of poor people.
Robert Moses did not move poor people from Manahttan, or anywhere else, he only improved their conditions. Prior to NYCHA, plenty of poor folks remained in improvished housing developments and tenements which had poor air quality, no sun light, no heat, or running water, poor ventilation and etc. However Moses did do a good job of segregated poor from wealthy. An example of this is pushing the direction of 125 street north instead of going directly west, doing this prevents poor blacks from interacting with wealthier whites of the Upper West Side. Also some overpass bridges were laid to low to allow buses from going under it, mainly buses were used by blacks. Even though the projects are a step up from turn of the 20th century tenements, poverty and crime still remained the hallmark for these dwellings that exist historic problematic generational neighborhoods of Lower East Side, South Bronx, Harlem and Eastern Brooklyn.
NYCHA has been around prior to Johnsons war on poverty. Some housing projects were built during Roosevelt's New Deal during the interwar period, and other grant aid projects from the Feds prior to the Great Society Movement. Some housing projects have plaques that say the were built in 1962, or 1959, these buildings were not built when Johnson was President. Also note Robert Moses had plenty of jobs, and he was never mayor governor, senator, president . He was very influential in both state and federal politics for his ideas. Robert Moses only collected a salary from his state operated authorities that he controlled with an iron fist.
Besides being Jewish. Bloomberg and Robert Moses were very different people in very different times of NYC. But I have to admit Robert Moses legacy will still have a deeper impact on NYC vs Bloomberg NYC. If you see a housing project that is a remenant of Robert Moses. If you ride the Tri-Boro Bridge, Verezzano Bridge, Throgs, White Stone, Cross Bay Bridge, Henry Hudson bridge, Battery Tunnel, Queens Midtown Tunnel. Or if your going to the airport on those highways or planning oin going upstate through the Bronx? These engineering marvels were built by Robert Moses. What did Bloomberg build for NYC? Also other previous mayors prior to Bloomberg received tax credits, abetments and subsidies to build.
You should really check out the Power Broker book. It is a good read for anyone who wants to understand NYC and Robert Moses.
Exactly. Mostly Manhattan below 96th Street and parts of Queens and Brooklyn right across the river are being gentrified. Upper Manhattan is not being gentrified on nearly the same scale. There are a lot of housing projects, ghetto people, and immigrants in Upper Manhattan. It's true the white population has grown considerably, but many of these are students, recent graduates, artists, gays, etc. It's going to take long time before Harlem can fully gentrify and even more so the South Bronx.
There are a lot of housing projects in the Lower East Side and in West Brooklyn near Dumbo and in Fort Greene, along with the infamous Queensbridge projects in LIC, yet gentrification did not stop, but encircled the housing projects. Even Williamsburg and Dumbo have a nearby hood just a few feet away. You have condos right next to housing projects. Gentrification only picked up in NYC due to the 2008 economic downturn which moved at light-speed. During the 1960s in the East Village, you had artists, gay men and women who moved to the area. Even Williamsburg is not fully gentrified yet. Call me and let me know when the style of Williamsburg matches or equals the style of Washington Square Park.
Robert Moses did not move poor people from Manahttan, or anywhere else, he only improved their conditions. Prior to NYCHA, plenty of poor folks remained in improvished housing developments and tenements which had poor air quality, no sun light, no heat, or running water, poor ventilation and etc. However Moses did do a good job of segregated poor from wealthy. An example of this is pushing the direction of 125 street north instead of going directly west, doing this prevents poor blacks from interacting with wealthier whites of the Upper West Side. Also some overpass bridges were laid to low to allow buses from going under it, mainly buses were used by blacks. Even though the projects are a step up from turn of the 20th century tenements, poverty and crime still remained the hallmark for these dwellings that exist historic problematic generational neighborhoods of Lower East Side, South Bronx, Harlem and Eastern Brooklyn.
NYCHA has been around prior to Johnsons war on poverty. Some housing projects were built during Roosevelt's New Deal during the interwar period, and other grant aid projects from the Feds prior to the Great Society Movement. Some housing projects have plaques that say the were built in 1962, or 1959, these buildings were not built when Johnson was President. Also note Robert Moses had plenty of jobs, and he was never mayor governor, senator, president . He was very influential in both state and federal politics for his ideas. Robert Moses only collected a salary from his state operated authorities that he controlled with an iron fist.
Besides being Jewish. Bloomberg and Robert Moses were very different people in very different times of NYC. But I have to admit Robert Moses legacy will still have a deeper impact on NYC vs Bloomberg NYC. If you see a housing project that is a remenant of Robert Moses. If you ride the Tri-Boro Bridge, Verezzano Bridge, Throgs, White Stone, Cross Bay Bridge, Henry Hudson bridge, Battery Tunnel, Queens Midtown Tunnel. Or if your going to the airport on those highways or planning oin going upstate through the Bronx? These engineering marvels were built by Robert Moses. What did Bloomberg build for NYC? Also other previous mayors prior to Bloomberg received tax credits, abetments and subsidies to build.
You should really check out the Power Broker book. It is a good read for anyone who wants to understand NYC and Robert Moses.
According to the people cited in this article, Moses removed poor people from Manhattan and dumped them on coastal areas where he build the projects.
Since Moses I would say Bloomberg is the NYC official with the greatest public impact on NYC.
What did Bloomberg build for NYC?
Go to any NYC neighborhood that said huge new office buildings or luxury housing pop up under him. Bloomberg was the one who rezoned these neighborhoods for corporate and residential neighborhood. It was Bloomberg who removed all trace of industrial Williamsburg and LIC and turned them into what they are now. It was Bloomberg who redeveloped the far West of Manhattan. Bloomberg's rezoning redeveloped Downtown Brooklyn. The tax credits and abatements went much further under him than any other mayor. Bloomberg's tax credits grew the city's tech, film,and tv sectors, and diversified the city away from Wall Street as a tax revenue source. Bloomberg's redevelopment allowed more hotels and expanded TOURISM as a source of income.
Bloomberg was a CEO and privately wealthy guy and Moses was just a civil servant. So clearly the men had their huge differences.
But my point is both men had major impacts on the development and redevelopment of NYC and Bloomberg is the biggest person since Moses to have this level of impact. Giuliani had no major developments under him, ditto Dinkins and Koch.
do you want to live around people who blast music at 2 am while you have work the next morning and you can't sleep? what does that have to do with gentrification. how about these people become civilized? i am talking about the residents of ghettos. in a civil society, there are some basic rules. one of them is respect for each other and that begins with the basic understanding that people work when the sun rises and kids go to school. a black guy drinking a 40 or a white guy shooting up heroin on the sidewalk isn't a part of civilized society. i will say this much. to be fair and not speaking as an elitist (what does that mean anyway? elitist?), i was 100% a "ghetto" minded guy in my teens: throw trash anywhere, spit when or where i like, just do stupid things that should not be part of a 1st world society. why? i grew up around that, that's why. today i vomit when i even think of such behavior.
no, every area must not be gentrified but like some guy said before me, it increases diversity which really is a good thing for a multicultural nation like america. it promotes better understanding between races and cultures while also encouraging more business. what needs to *really* be done is these people who come from 3rd world cesspools of filth (example: dominicans in spanish harlem blasting that bachata music at 2 am on a worknight) need to understand they live in america and move away from such repulsive behaviors. hopefully, when the whites (asians and blacks never gentrify of course because they always move into an already-white or white-gentrified neighborhood) move in, maybe these hoodrats will become embarassed to act in such a way or realize that their neighborhood is changing and they need to adapt. that is why and how gentrification is a good thing overall.
Ive been reading the threads on and off in this forum as well as the DC one......it seems a common theme on these threads is "oh, this neighborhood is ripe to be gentrified!" "perfect new area for the urban pioneer!!!" and stuff like that....and it seems that there are ppl taht are hell bent in seeing the bronx get swept into the gentrification wave..........
I have my own personal feelings on gentrification but im going to try and put them aside and be objective when i ask.........
Whats the frantic rush in converting a good portion of NYC into yuppie and hipster colonies? Whats the obsession into turning major retail strips into meccas of overpriced (yes it is overpriced) organic and vegan food markets, yoga studios and other staples of ....
This is happening all over the country, land with well established utilities has a lot of value, the boomer automobile gas wasting generation is slowly but surely dying out, people want to be healthier, WOMEN have money now and most things and places are designed for their consumption. Look around you. You just have to figure out a way to go with the wave or sink in the ocean of change.
The people who root for gentrification tend to be the people who benefit from it (or hope to). They take it for granted that the world should cater to them--i.e. to their needs, desires, interests, tastes, etc. When neighborhoods evolve to better compliment their lifestyles, they are "improving." When neighborhoods are more oriented to the needs and budgets of lower-income groups, they are "in decline."
best post I have seen on CD in a while. These folks do think they are superior to others and use this system to push people out.
The Hasids have Lee Ave and parts of South Williamsburg on lock. They not going anywhere and they are well established already. But in general yes, NYC will continue to see a 'poor' flight out of NYC and mostly consisting of those who are black and brown.
The Hasids have Lee Ave and parts of South Williamsburg on lock. They not going anywhere and they are well established already. But in general yes, NYC will continue to see a 'poor' flight out of NYC and mostly consisting of those who are black and brown.
That's only if "black and brown" decide to sell, which a large number of them have been doing, whether in Bed Stuy (still, most brownstones, homes, etc., are owned by blacks in Bed Stuy, and many of them are putting their foot down and not leaving), Crown Heights, etc.
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.
