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.
Looking at this map you can compare 1924 with 2006 and 2008.
The city lacks density in these areas today versus than. What a waste in a city that could be even more walkable and contain even more housing in a housing crisis.
As an example I will use the west half of the Bronx. An area undergoing significant rebuilding efforts. The west half of the Bronx of 1924 was similar in density to that of Washington Heights today. Much of the old housing stock has been torn down since the 1950's (Mostly 5 and 6 story tenements). Over the last 20+ years instead of building high density modern apartment buildings to replace lost tenements, investors have opted for 2 and 3 family townhouses (with driveways on top of that). However it seems at least in more recent years the construction of apartment buildings has surpassed townhouses.
What a waste of space, what was once rows of tenements in 1924 is in many cases now either vacant lots or 2 and 3 family townhomes.
All construction in Brooklyn and the Bronx with access to the subway. That means Brooklyn North and the West Bronx. Why build homes with driveways? When asthma is a serious problem already in these areas and problems such as traffic, lack of parking, vandalism and theft exist? Why build 2 and 3 family homes in such a dense city with a demand for housing?
Build modern high density apartment buildings built to sidewalk that fit the character of the neighborhood, not townhouses.
Benefits for the west Bronx and northern Brooklyn:
-More housing units. (That means more affordable housing and mixed income)
-Discourages car ownership. Encourages use of public transportation. (Less asthma/traffic)
-Encourages walkability/vibrancy. (Can help reduce crime)
-Maintains neighborhood character.
Builditdenser, in theory I would agree with you. Who in their right mind would tear down buildings and replace them with suburban style 2 family homes, in a city that is always in some sort of "housing emergency"?
However, the reality is really quite simple, and those who live in these communities know why. Firstly, much of the buildings you believe were torn down were in fact burned down. The communities were not simply changing, they were spiraling into a crime ridden hell hole, with hundreds of thousands of people fleeing. These communities were decimated by arson from mostly Landlords for insurance money. These communities quickly transformed into isolated, abandoned ghettos filled with those that were the least educated, least functional left behind by anyone that could get out.
Had the city rebuilt these areas at the time with the same level of density as before the destruction, what you would have had is a concentration of poverty and crime like no other in the country, because NOBODY but the poorest would have lived there. The lots were worthless at the time, and you could not give them away...no developer would touch them. As a result, in order to stabilize these communities, and keep the few working class residents from leaving, the city created a plan to rebuild these decimated communities with quality, owner-occupied housing, providing the very first stepping stones for the eventual comeback that we are now enjoying.
While in principle I agree that density is better, at the time, building the same or similar density of housing would have led to the creation of the highest crime, poorest, most dysfucntional community in the country. The city chose to diversify the housing stock, provide the community with ownership opportunities, and paved the way for the decreasing crime and stability that we have today. As a result of these policies, the Bronx is salvageable...had they simply rebuilt high-density and filled it with the only people that they could (the poorest/homeless/etc), the Bronx would have been a lost cause.
Builditdenser, in theory I would agree with you. Who in their right mind would tear down buildings and replace them with suburban style 2 family homes, in a city that is always in some sort of "housing emergency"?
However, the reality is really quite simple, and those who live in these communities know why. Firstly, much of the buildings you believe were torn down were in fact burned down. The communities were not simply changing, they were spiraling into a crime ridden hell hole, with hundreds of thousands of people fleeing. These communities were decimated by arson from mostly Landlords for insurance money. These communities quickly transformed into isolated, abandoned ghettos filled with those that were the least educated, least functional left behind by anyone that could get out.
Had the city rebuilt these areas at the time with the same level of density as before the destruction, what you would have had is a concentration of poverty and crime like no other in the country, because NOBODY but the poorest would have lived there. The lots were worthless at the time, and you could not give them away...no developer would touch them. As a result, in order to stabilize these communities, and keep the few working class residents from leaving, the city created a plan to rebuild these decimated communities with quality, owner-occupied housing, providing the very first stepping stones for the eventual comeback that we are now enjoying.
While in principle I agree that density is better, at the time, building the same or similar density of housing would have led to the creation of the highest crime, poorest, most dysfucntional community in the country. The city chose to diversify the housing stock, provide the community with ownership opportunities, and paved the way for the decreasing crime and stability that we have today. As a result of these policies, the Bronx is salvageable...had they simply rebuilt high-density and filled it with the only people that they could (the poorest/homeless/etc), the Bronx would have been a lost cause.
The problem was and still is ownership not density.
I also know many if not most buildings were burned out, but most were torn down I saw it myself growing up. It takes a hell of a long time for a building to be reduced to a pile of rubble even during a serious fire. The city knocked down the shells over the years.
What they should have done was slowly construct/renovate apartment buildings by the El's and spread outward. Rent to own programs would have been great for the community. Would have transformed ghettos into ethnic enclaves, maintaining the dense characteristics that made those particular neighborhoods so great. Apartment buildings did go up during the 1980's, only they advertised as rentals. They should have been sold to the occupants.
Terrible urban planning which is all too common in these communities. So much wasted land. If these programs were put into place I guarantee revival would have been accelerated because the communities would be much more desirable than they are today. I see now draw to these areas in their current state despite their "Affordability" by NYC standards.
Regarding your first sentence: I have to disagree with you..the problem NEVER was ownership, although it was part of the solution. These communities did not essentially fail because they were mostly rentals...they had always been rentals since inception and it was never a problem.
Regarding your second sentence: The city did knock down the buildings, but it was because they were abandoned, burnt-down shells. What else would they have done besides knock them down? They were useless and became havens for drug addicts, prostitution, and crime overall.
Regarding your third sentence: Well they did slowly reconstruct these communities, however there are 2 problems with your assertions: The problem with rent-to-own programs is that you could barely get 20 people to buy, how would you get 100+ in 1 building? Secondly, living in apt style buildings/tenements was no longer appealing, which is a main reason people abandoned the cities..they wanted single family homes..hence the subrurbs were born. The city tried to meet both demands: home-ownership opportunities, and a suburban-style lifestyle to compete with the attraction of suburbs to keep people from leaving and stabilize the communities. And if you note, the apt buildings that did go up in the 80s were filled with whom? More of the poor, the only people that were moving to the Bronx...the only option was to diversify the income structure and housing stock.
Regarding your fourth sentence: At the time, there was no other solution, so in retrospect it may seem like terrible urban planning, but the relaity is it was the only solution to salvage these communities. If you built lots of rental apt buildings, it would have been completely filled with even more poor/homeless and the Bronx would have sunk for good...if you built a flood of apt buildings with rent-to-own, who would buy them? NOBODY was buying anything back then and the lots were worthless...they would have been simply converted back to rentals. The few suburban-style homes had huge appeal and were limited enough to sell.
There is no way that if they built what you say at that time that the revival would have accelerated. The revival would have never happened in fact..there was no money to build the kind of density that you suggest, a prolonged time-frame to build this density was totally unacceptable (how long should these areas remain undeveloped/abandoned), there was no demand for such rent-to-own housing in these communites (or any interest in housing purchases at all, remember, these area were totally abandoned and nobody wanted to live there), and those buildings would have simply been converted to rentals with an influx of the destitute/poor.
I agree with your theory, the reality is wrong however. I understand that you see no draw to these areas in their current state, but there are plenty of people who do. I see no draw to living in a 5,000 sf McMansion in Exurb, NJ, but plenty of people do.
May I ask where you are from and where you were raised? Based on your argument, you seem to be someone who knows and understands the theory and benefits of high density communities with efficient public transport, however you do not seem to be able to seperate the theory and the ramifications of such high density housing at that time. Someone who lived in the community, and was involved with the crafting of the housing plan to salvage the community understands why repeating the high-density building was not the solution AT THE TIME. However, now that these communities have been stabilized and are somewhat "normalized", the text-book higher-density urban planning applies....which is what is occuring now.....it did not apply before.
Can't seem to connect to the chart referenced because it is not linked but I do know that population density is a result of many factors ,not just housing or building density.All of NYC and most US cities were far more densely populated in the 1920's because people were far poorer and packed themselves into smaller spaces.It was not uncommon to have a family of 5 living in a 2 br( or even a 1 br) apartment.Now,not only are families much smaller but people (even poor people today) seem to want more space.Nobody today would put up with some of the living conditions prevalent in the 1920's.
the zoning of the land may have changed since the 1920s, meaning that there is a strong possibility that developers may not be able to build as much units as they once were. believe me, the developers tries to get the most they can out of the land, but if zoning does not permit then to build over a certain height or square footage, then they must comply.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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.
