Why Do We Have Housing Projects? (New York, Macedon: middle-class, 2013, rentals)
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.
Attached are pictures of Electchester, Pomonok and Sonia Sotomayer Houses.. Last two are public housing administered by NYCHA. All are the same color brick buildings spaced among landscaped lawns.
Any differences in living conditions are solely due to the residents. The buildings don't have an impact on what's happening.
I wonder if a poll was taken, how many NYCHA residents would actually vote to go co-op or stay as rentals.
Excellent question. Of course, a lot of people are used to shucking responsibility, and not looking at longterm benefits. Social housing can be a solution like all welfare benefits as long as there is a limit. Some people need lifetime propping up due to mental or physical disabilities, but they are small minority.
Attached are pictures of Electchester, Pomonok and Sonia Sotomayer Houses.. Last two are public housing administered by NYCHA. All are the same color brick buildings spaced among landscaped lawns.
Any differences in living conditions are solely due to the residents. The buildings don't have an impact on what's happening.
Im not sure I am getting your point between the three. Is Electchester supposed to be safer, better or cleaner because it is a Coop? Cause the Electchester by JIBS lanes in Queens looked fine, but cars were getting broken into at night, stolen and ect. The police station was down the block but that didn't really deter anything. This was in the late to mid 2000's.
As for Stuy town - they physically altered the buildings and invested a lot of money in rent stabilized apartments. They then slowly raised rents to boot people out. To me it is the exception and not the rule. Saying it is the people then qualifies, yuppies as the term back then for people moving to Stuy town are what makes it better. Conversely, low income people can't or won't make it better.
I wonder if a poll was taken, how many NYCHA residents would actually vote to go co-op or stay as rentals.
When you own the burden is yours. As a rental, the NYCHA is responsible. That being said, I am not sure many would jump to convert unless your in Manhattan and can benefit substantially from the conversion and said sale. There was an article about this way back in the Times, where they they had to rights to buy the apartment and many couldn't wait to sell and leave NYC with the profits - lower Manhattan by the Verizon building.
My friends were paying less then $500 for 2/3 bedrooms, with utilities covered. Their goal was to sublease it and profit or keep it in the family for as long as possible. NYCHA was like winning the lottery, so long as you were comfortable with the surroundings- why leave.
That's because it's a Mitchell Lama, and it doesn't exactly look like the projects. Pomonok is across the street and Electchester is noticeably nicer and leafier and cleaner.
Response: Opinion
The first time I visited these projects back in the 70's I was surprised to the
cleanliness and quietness. I was surprised to see it was predominantly white.
It has changed over the years ( not for the better ) but it is still a paradise
compared to most N.Y.C.H.A. building peppered throughout the city.
Nasty projects are much easier to apply for than nicer projects.
Just compare the waiting lists...................
Im not sure I am getting your point between the three. Is Electchester supposed to be safer, better or cleaner because it is a Coop? Cause the Electchester by JIBS lanes in Queens looked fine, but cars were getting broken into at night, stolen and ect. The police station was down the block but that didn't really deter anything. This was in the late to mid 2000's.
As for Stuy town - they physically altered the buildings and invested a lot of money in rent stabilized apartments. They then slowly raised rents to boot people out. To me it is the exception and not the rule. Saying it is the people then qualifies, yuppies as the term back then for people moving to Stuy town are what makes it better. Conversely, low income people can't or won't make it better.
Excerpt:
Saying it is the people then qualifies, yuppies as the term back then for people moving to Stuy town are what makes it better. Conversely, low income people can't or won't make it better.
Response:
One can not turn a blind eye to the facts....................one can only change the facts.
If you want changes then address the problem and work on a solution. FINI
Excellent question. Of course, a lot of people are used to shucking responsibility, and not looking at longterm benefits. Social housing can be a solution like all welfare benefits as long as there is a limit. Some people need lifetime propping up due to mental or physical disabilities, but they are small minority.
Excerpt: Some people need lifetime propping up due to mental or physical disabilities, but they are small minority.
Response: Agree in part................The problem is much much bigger than what people believe and the media portrays.
Last edited by Mr.Retired; 08-21-2020 at 05:49 AM..
Im not sure I am getting your point between the three. Is Electchester supposed to be safer, better or cleaner because it is a Coop? Cause the Electchester by JIBS lanes in Queens looked fine, but cars were getting broken into at night, stolen and ect. The police station was down the block but that didn't really deter anything. This was in the late to mid 2000's.
As for Stuy town - they physically altered the buildings and invested a lot of money in rent stabilized apartments. They then slowly raised rents to boot people out. To me it is the exception and not the rule. Saying it is the people then qualifies, yuppies as the term back then for people moving to Stuy town are what makes it better. Conversely, low income people can't or won't make it better.
Stuy Town was never a public housing. It was never subsidized by taxpayers. It was always privately owned, and the rent was wherever the private landlord (ie, the rental company that owned it) set the rent. People you call "yuppies" do not commit crime, do not use elevators as toilets, do not violate building rules, and do not vandalize the units/the buildings. If they did, they would be rapidly evicted. If low income people behaved in the same socially responsible way as "yuppies", their quality of life in the projects would be the same as the quality of life of yuppies in Stuy Town. There is nothing else to it.
Apologizes, it's been awhile so remember bits and pieces. But at some point it transitioned from rent stabilized to luxury apartments. They eventually displaced those originally there as prices increased, thereby allowing for more open market rentals.
Although I agree to some context with your arguement, I'd like to add it takes more time to transition, where are "yuppies" are a forced transition. This also white washes neighborhood's and why Cinatown, Jackson Heights and Elmhurst are so interesting - they subvert the assimilation process and communities maintain their cultural identities while transitioning.
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.
