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.
Parkchester, a condo complex in the Bronx where I own a small unit, is architecturally identical to Stuy Town (designed by the same architects for the same company that owned both of these large rental complexes). Both complexes were initially built in the early 1940s as affordable housing for middle class. Many of their initial residents were young families of GIs returning from the war. People who grew up in Parkhester, the Bronx between 1940 and the mid 1960s still have huge reunions every few years, to which they fly from all over the world, and have extremely fond memories of living in Parkchester. You can look up Parkchester Reunion online, they have a Facebook group as well. They moved out not due to Corbusian architecture (which they clearly still love and fondly remember), but because of dangerous people who moved into Parkchester towards 1970.
Same issue with Pomonok. The original tenants love Pomonok and have fond memories and have reunions. It was a safe, clean, beautiful place to live where people literally did not lock their doors. Now? Forget about it lol.
I have always been anti concrete for lack of a better word.
This is no different than caging wild animals in a zoo which I am also against.
With so much unoccupied land in the United States and across the Globe why
can't people enjoy the beauty and grandeur the world has to offer?
Because it is easier to contain and collect revenue from one said location
from lowly servants while the elite enjoy the freedom of miles and miles and
miles of virgin soil for nothing more than their own enjoyment.
This is for people refusing to acknowledge his influence on modern urban development.
I am not refusing to acknowledge anything, least of all his designs for Radiant City. I already acknowledged that I found the design splendid, and that I would love to live in Radiant City if it ever gets built - provided that my neighbors share the same values of law, order and consideration for the others that I have. I think it is a great design for living. The only other thing about Radiant City that I would assure is that it has an all-year swimming pool somewhere :-).
So no, I did not fail to acknowledge Le Corbusier's urbanistic ideas. What you fail to acknowledge is that (a) his ideas would have remained a science fiction if they did not have a wide appeal, if people im mid-century did not have an actual strong liking for this new architecture, and (b) Le Corbusier is not "responsible" (your word) for any urban planing in building in NYC (except for his participation in the UN Bldg design, which btw is as cleanly beautiful as his other designs that have clean geometrical lines and corners - he did also project buildings in weird shapes, which I do not like), since he did not do any work in NYC except the UN, and (c) he is in no way, no how, not directly via his own work nor indirectly via his theoretical ideas, responsible for the low quality of life or crime in the projects. Those are the issues that the projects population keeps bringing on themselves in any architectural setting in which this population is placed. I am not talking here about any specific racial population, but any population with flashy values of excess, violence, and total disregard for social contract.
What you fail to acknowledge is that Corbusian modular architecture is also the staple in a number of areas of NYC where people live tremendously well and very safely inside that architecture. You did not answer why are market renters happy to live in Stuy Town, and affluent owners happy to live in Sutton Place, which are also built using Corbusian ideas - how come those populations are not driven to crime and antisocial behavior by that type of architecture - if you claim that this architecture is the reason that drives crime and antisocial behavior. I myself grew up with exposure to that architecture, and where I used to live, that architecture was just about the only thing that fostered the sense of security and happiness. People coming into the city from dirt-poor ramshakle villages were extatically happy to move into Corbusian units - that meant they have made it: they had a place in the working structure of the big city, and they had their very own comfortable little nook in the monumental sheltering fortresses.
Same issue with Pomonok. The original tenants love Pomonok and have fond memories and have reunions. It was a safe, clean, beautiful place to live where people literally did not lock their doors. Now? Forget about it lol.
Well, it seems you understand what I am talking about. But most of Parkchester has been bought, in 1998, by a real estate company that made a huge effort in restoring the original quality of life (which deeply lapsed in the 1970s-80s-90s) in the condo complex. While it is not as idyllic as Parkchester circa 1955, it is now incomparably better than what it was circa 1985, and incomparably better than other lower-income areas in the Bronx. The main driver of a more pleasant quality of life in Parkchester over the past two decades have been immigrants from Bangladesh and Africa, who are very mentally invested in their hard work in the US (mostly in low-level occupations), in their kids' education for higher-level occupations, and in peaceful, pleasant living while pursuing these interests.
I have always been anti concrete for lack of a better word.
This is no different than caging wild animals in a zoo which I am also against.
With so much unoccupied land in the United States and across the Globe why
can't people enjoy the beauty and grandeur the world has to offer?
Because it is easier to contain and collect revenue from one said location
from lowly servants while the elite enjoy the freedom of miles and miles and
miles of virgin soil for nothing more than their own enjoyment.
This is how I see it:
1. NYC has been a very dense city in the past 100 years, with a population of over 5.5 million in 1920, about 7.4 million in 1990, about 8.4 million at the peak peak a few years ago (and 8.3 million just prior to 2020, probably less now, but probably still at least 8 million). This is not a particular secret, people who live, or want to live, in NYC know that. Manhattan is a small island, and millions of people in Manhattan plus the surrounding municipalities that gravitate towards Manhattan can be accommodated only in vertical fashion, due to ultimate inflation of assets - ie, a small area of land with millions of people who all want to live there. Tall modular mass architecture of NYC is not due to any political containment of population, but is due to the need to house a very large number of people on a small land, it has been due to that since the early 20th century.
2. In this situation, new low architecture is financially impossible to build (ie, the land is too expensive to build brownstones on it any more, has been too expensive for it since the 1920s), and the remaining/ever shrinking stock of the old low architecture is now affordable only to affluent people. Yes, when something is increasingly rare, it gets increasingly expensive but that is the universal market rule, not just in NYC, not just in housing, but everywhere where people engage in any kind of trade.
3. The tall mass architecture is not necessarily inferior to old low architecure, as anyone living in an expensive 1920s-1930s residential skyscraper on Park Av between E45th and E90th St, or in residential scrapers of Sutton Place, can tell you. People who are far from being anyone's lowly servants live in this architecture because they strongly prefer this architecture.
4. "Because it is easier to contain and collect revenue from one said location from lowly servants while the elites enjoy the freedom of miles and miles of virgin soil..."?? Sorry, I can't follow the logic of that. Most of the revenue in NYC is in fact collected from "the elite", not from lowly servants.
5. Anybody in the US (not just the elite) is free to enjoy the freedom of miles and miles of virgin soil. Anyone who wants to buy a plot of virgin soil in many places in Upstate New York, and put whatever they want on it, whether a trailer or a mansion, can do so, for 8% to 40% (depending whether it is a trailer or a mansion :-) of the cost of living in a NYC Corbusian highrise.
What you fail to acknowledge is that Corbusian modular architecture is also the staple in a number of areas of NYC where people live tremendously well and very safely inside that architecture. You did not answer why are market renters happy to live in Stuy Town, and affluent owners happy to live in Sutton Place, which are also built using Corbusian ideas - how come those populations are not driven to crime and antisocial behavior by that type of architecture - if you claim that this architecture is the reason that drives crime and antisocial behavior. I myself grew up with exposure to that architecture, and where I used to live, that architecture was just about the only thing that fostered the sense of security and happiness. People coming into the city from dirt-poor ramshakle villages were extatically happy to move into Corbusian units - that meant they have made it: they had a place in the working structure of the big city, and they had their very own comfortable little nook in the monumental sheltering fortresses.
Your logic is flawed because you are citing the exception not the rule. What percentage does Stuy town and Sutton Place amount too when compared to the rest. They are unique and likely don't apply but do highlight the potential given proximity within the City. Honestly, Roosevelt Island could be on that list as well because of how it has transformed through the years, but only because of its proximity to the city.
That being said, you have to look at the opposite when identifying whether you statement is actually valid; would the same people that aspire to live or live in Stuy town or Sutton place choose to live there if everyone was great and awesome but they had to commute nearly 1 hr... or would they choose a ****tier neighborhood but closer instead in hopes it transforms? History says the latter.
I did read a book about Urban renewal, in which it highlights how there are generational gaps in regards to the desire to live in close proximity to the City. It gave a historical perspective of how every 30 yrs there is a change in how the wealthy live, and where they choose to live - with NYC as the basis.
Ie, Astor place, West Village and Upper East side in the 1700's was where the wealthy live, apart from the poor, the noise and filthy. Then there was a reclamation of the city center at some point, and this pattern continues to this day.
Your logic is flawed because you are citing the exception not the rule. What percentage does Stuy town and Sutton Place amount too when compared to the rest. They are unique and likely don't apply but do highlight the potential given proximity within the City. Honestly, Roosevelt Island could be on that list as well because of how it has transformed through the years, but only because of its proximity to the city.
That being said, you have to look at the opposite when identifying whether you statement is actually valid; would the same people that aspire to live or live in Stuy town or Sutton place choose to live there if everyone was great and awesome but they had to commute nearly 1 hr... or would they choose a ****tier neighborhood but closer instead in hopes it transforms? History says the latter.
I did read a book about Urban renewal, in which it highlights how there are generational gaps in regards to the desire to live in close proximity to the City. It gave a historical perspective of how every 30 yrs there is a change in how the wealthy live, and where they choose to live - with NYC as the basis.
Ie, Astor place, West Village and Upper East side in the 1700's was where the wealthy live, apart from the poor, the noise and filthy. Then there was a reclamation of the city center at some point, and this pattern continues to this day.
Except for a part of Brooklyn very close to Manhattan, properties in the boroughs are and were always substantially less expensive than the exact same properties in Manhattan. Parkchester, the Bronx was much cheaper than market rental housing in Manhattan when everyone was great and awesome in Parkchester of the 1940s-60s. Obviously, people choose outer boroughs rather than Sutton Place ONLY because they cannot afford Sutton Place, but naturally prefer their neighbors to be as great and awesome as possible. So, I can't figure out what you are arguing.
I am not citing an exception to any rule. Most of the market-rate rental stock in Manhattan is in highrises, either of the original residential skyscraper era, or the progressively newer models (the facades of the old modular scrapers were done mostly in brick, less so but still a lot in concrete with less or more glass (including glass bricks which I actually like), and then the newest ones entirely in glass). What I am citing is not exception but the rule: the majority of Manhattanites live in highrises. But those who live in market-rate highrises never complain that the architecture is making them criminal or inconsiderate of their neighbors or their building rules.
The better-off people reclaim some parts of the city from poverty because the world population is growing (in the 60 years of my own life it has grown from a bit under 3 billion to a bit under 8 billion!), so the populations of the US and NYC have to grow too (with population of NYC growing actually nowhere near as much as some other places), and the space is very limited in NYC. If the local economy is healthy (which is desirable), there will be more employees in the city, and they have to live somewhere - and since the land area is very small, they will have to reclaim some poverty areas. People employed in the city are useful to other people in the city (just look at what NYC looks like when even a fraction of them leave), poverty is harmful - so why should the employed people not have priority when it comes to housing, for which they are paying with their earnings?
Except for a part of Brooklyn very close to Manhattan, properties in the boroughs are and were always substantially less expensive than the exact same properties in Manhattan. Parkchester, the Bronx was much cheaper than market rental housing in Manhattan when everyone was great and awesome in Parkchester of the 1940s-60s. Obviously, people choose outer boroughs rather than Sutton Place ONLY because they cannot afford Sutton Place, but naturally prefer their neighbors to be as great and awesome as possible. So, I can't figure out what you are arguing.
I am not citing an exception to any rule. Most of the market-rate rental stock in Manhattan is in highrises, either of the original residential skyscraper era, or the progressively newer models (the facades of the old modular scrapers were done mostly in brick, less so but still a lot in concrete with less or more glass (including glass bricks which I actually like), and then the newest ones entirely in glass). What I am citing is not exception but the rule: the majority of Manhattanites live in highrises. But those who live in market-rate highrises never complain that the architecture is making them criminal or inconsiderate of their neighbors or their building rules.
The better-off people reclaim some parts of the city from poverty because the world population is growing (in the 60 years of my own life it has grown from a bit under 3 billion to a bit under 8 billion!), so the populations of the US and NYC have to grow too (with population of NYC growing actually nowhere near as much as some other places), and the space is very limited in NYC. If the local economy is healthy (which is desirable), there will be more employees in the city, and they have to live somewhere - and since the land area is very small, they will have to reclaim some poverty areas. People employed in the city are useful to other people in the city (just look at what NYC looks like when even a fraction of them leave), poverty is harmful - so why should the employed people not have priority when it comes to housing, for which they are paying with their earnings?
I am arguing, that with all else removed - take Sutton Place and Stuy town and move it to a remote area, does it still thrive and will it be as glorious as you claim it to be? Everything says otherwise, it will just be a regular community that may or may not be abandoned at sometime. You are apply your own self and making it as the rule that the poor welcome the architecture and what it provides when they is not true. There are social, market and environmental factors that make Sutton Place and Stuy town desirable.
Your arguments about reclamation of the city center due to population growth actually supports this, it is not the buildings but the area and proximity to work that drives housing. More importantly, scarcity on housing close to where jobs are located make them viable and exclusive, pushing out the have nots. So they are in fact separate and an exception, not the rule.
Put in a different way, do those living in Stuy town or Sutton place actually move there for the architecture or the lifestyle that it provides. It could be both but more then likely it is due to proximity, hence the rent is more expensive than the outer boroughs - again something you actually argued for.
Secondly, the historical perspective argues against what you have cited. Population growth is not the driver of reclaiming the City center. It is actually a trend that occurs through generations gaps, as the wealthy decide where they want to live, consequently; everything else follows unless there is an intervening factors such as Gov't. Feel free to look up how electricity changed City living and what transpired when the technology of electrify and lights became more prominent. Give you a hint, the wealthy had the means and took back the city center and drove out the poor.
The Devil's Bargain is a book that touches on this topic, is not directly related but applies.
I am arguing, that with all else removed - take Sutton Place and Stuy town and move it to a remote area, does it still thrive and will it be as glorious as you claim it to be? Everything says otherwise, it will just be a regular community that may or may not be abandoned at sometime. You are apply your own self and making it as the rule that the poor welcome the architecture and what it provides when they is not true. There are social, market and environmental factors that make Sutton Place and Stuy town desirable.
Your arguments about reclamation of the city center due to population growth actually supports this, it is not the buildings but the area and proximity to work that drives housing. More importantly, scarcity on housing close to where jobs are located make them viable and exclusive, pushing out the have nots. So they are in fact separate and an exception, not the rule.
Put in a different way, do those living in Stuy town or Sutton place actually move there for the architecture or the lifestyle that it provides. It could be both but more then likely it is due to proximity, hence the rent is more expensive than the outer boroughs - again something you actually argued for.
Secondly, the historical perspective argues against what you have cited. Population growth is not the driver of reclaiming the City center. It is actually a trend that occurs through generations gaps, as the wealthy decide where they want to live, consequently; everything else follows unless there is an intervening factors such as Gov't. Feel free to look up how electricity changed City living and what transpired when the technology of electrify and lights became more prominent. Give you a hint, the wealthy had the means and took back the city center and drove out the poor.
The Devil's Bargain is a book that touches on this topic, is not directly related but applies.
I'm sorry, I simply don't understand what you are trying to say. I haven't cited anything. Yes, identical architecture is cheaper and less desirable in the boroughs than in Manhattan - of course the location matters greatly when determining the value of a property, everyone knows that, and I never argued the opposite of that.
But take Stuy Town and compare it to public housing projects off of Avenue D in Alphabet City. They are the same architecture, and located right next to each other - so, the same architecture, pretty much the same location. Yet, market rate tenants in Stuy Town have good quality of life and no crime --- while welfare-subsidized tenants right next door constantly complain about quality of life and constantly commit crimes. That is the only point I was making: QOL problems of the welfare population are created by that population itself (ie, not by the architecture of the projects, because market-rate neighbors live perfectly normally and without any QOL problems in the same architecture, in the same city locations). And when market-rate tenants move into a previously poor/criminal area, crime problems tend to go away, although the architecture and location are exactly the same. So, it can't be that the architecture (or location) itself causes antisocial behavior, that the welfare population is criminal because they are "herded" into highrise towers. When market-rate tenants are "herded" into the same highrise towers, they are perfectly happy there, and not criminal.
Last edited by elnrgby; 08-29-2020 at 11:11 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.
