I found this article to be factual. I have always notice whenever i travel on the train that type of people which comes off the train in certain areas and the type of people that travel to the final stops. In most cases that i am familiar with it is usually the minorities (Blacks and Latinos ). I have done architectural research on the Coney Island and also the Rockaways and notice that the areas where crime is prevalent are the areas where we have these high rise poor settlements. Interestingly the article shows us how the poor has been dislocated to these far, flood prone areas, away from the vision of the city Robert Moses envisioned. Ironically gentrification continues as poor people are now being moved once again, as many middle to upper class families are moving to the coastline.

My question is, if we are so aware of Gentrification, why do we continue to make it happen today?

The film, “My Brooklyn” has left a quite interesting impression for me. Coming from a different country, and while I do also grew up in the streets of New York, Brooklyn is a place that I learned from my parents to avoid. Their reason is mainly like the same as many Chinese traditional family, that black people stands for trouble, crime, and dishonest. Of course, that is not the case at all, where my best friend, also a black person, Keegan Kipplings, grew up in Brooklyn and we are still the best of friends today.

That aside, the film has portrayed that NYC government has tried to segregate the rich and the poor through urban planning, and we see that the old Brooklyn is the result of it. Throughout the film, the community has tried to fight against the redevelopment and ultimately fail, and the main reason is perhaps the lack of transparency that rezoning is going on. The way I see is, however, that historically, redevelopment cooperation has always targeted small business owners, but not the local land owners. Like the author in the film said herself, she actually made money from the apartment she sold, but she is forced to moved to else where due to the high rent.

The fact that rezoning an area causes the local land value to sky rocket, is beneficial to landowners and redevelopment, where both sides gain profit, so it is not a negative sounding proposal by nature. However, the film then shows us the unfortunate side effects of these redevelopment, the lost of a local community, a local street where the people can interact, and small business owners driven out, with almost no help for relocation.

I’ve seen these things happen in my country as well, but the government is willing to lend a helping hand to the locals; a certain number of stores are preserved, and local small businesses are given options to where to relocation, with sufficient funds. The way that NYC treats these people are almost savage; while I do agree that money is important for a business, losing a small part of the money to make sure everyone wins in this business proposal is also important, and the way I see it, the large cooperation refuses to even pay that small amount in NYC.

The documentary film under the name “My Brooklyn” by Kelly Anderson helped me to learn the history of Brooklyn and how it was developed through centuries. It was very interesting and sad to find out that Brooklyn was zoned into categories: A – excellent, B – very good, C – caution, D – declining areas. During the Great Depression White people simply moved out from declining areas to suburbs, when areas of safe categories were populated already. Whereas, Black and Hispanic people had no choice but move to these declining areas. Surprisingly, they cleaned up the areas, created communities and opened small businesses. Later on, White people realized that, in fact, these areas are good for investments and started to build high-rise buildings with luxury and expensive condos in order to attract families with high-income. Unfortunately, the city government didn’t take into consideration that these low-income families spend most of their lives in Brooklyn and have become attached to that area. Therefore, economic development corporation started increasing lease significantly and small business had no choice but to relocate or close down. As for residents, they had to move out of their apartments or even worse they were evicted. That’s how gentrification process started. I believe that compromise could have been found of how to rebuild Brooklyn and fair living circumstances could have been provided for the people that used to live in Brooklyn during hard times for the city in the 1930s and gradually maintained and developed it. For instance, better jobs and opportunities to improve and expand their businesses could have been arranged for these low-income families, so they could transform into middle-class families and Brooklyn would thrive.

The documentary “My Brooklyn” was a very interesting documentary about the transformation of Downtown Brooklyn. I feel angry that the government have such power over these decisions and are unfair to the original residents of Downtown Brooklyn. The people living in Downtown Brooklyn which were originally Blacks and Hispanics endured and maintained the neighborhood through times of hardship therefore is only fair that they should remain living there when the neighborhood is thriving. But instead they are being evicted with little notice for the purpose of building high rise condos for the upper middle class and rich.

500 NAMM 8:30-11:45am

Activities:

Viewing+ Discuss: My Brooklyn  (Prof. Phillip)

Research Seminar: Government Documents and Research (Prof. Almeida)

Chapter 6 is describing how Jane Jacobs saw neighborhoods in NYC. What stood out to me the most about this chapter is how Jane Jacobs made the connection between long blocks and isolated neighborhoods. It made me realize that this is true. I have seen it before but never thought about it. I feel that long blocks and housing projects are alike because they both isolate people in different ways. Jane Jacobs believes that long blocks are monotonous and for neighborhoods to work they should be diversified. Unfortunately many neighborhoods in NY are becoming monotonous and the neighborhoods that are diversified are slowly dissapearing.

I found this documentary very informative and learned many new things about the city i lived in. The story is concentrated around two main characters, Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses who fought on opposite sides of the fence to create what each saw was the perfect community. Moses idea of developing a city based on the influx of the motor vehicles, concentrated mainly on Le Corbusier’s concept of providing multi level apartments, while destroying communities in the process of building these towers and highways. Jacob on the other hand realized the ramifications of Moses’s vision and fought to stop the mass gentrification which would destroy the essence of communities. I feel both were visionaries, Moses had some great ideas and may have made NYC what it is today however i also feel that Jacob’s intervention happened at the right time because it started a revolution of people fighting for their communities.

“How the Coastline Became a Place to Put the Poor” by Jonathan Mahler composed an enlightening article depicting the pattern of buildings substantial scale extending by the shorelines of Long Island, Red Hook, and Coney Island. Urban designers trusted that building venture structures by the shoreline was more practical, however soon discovered that it brought on more damage than great. The Coney Island, Long Island, and the Rockaways are cases in which Robert Mosses vision of New York to be the city without bounds. The venture structures turned into a safe house for wrongdoing, poverty, and obliteration. Robert Moses, an acclaimed urban engineer in mid-twenties century, viewed it would be more effective for the city to move destitute individuals to these “projects”, which is the reason he was clearing ghettos and building ventures in the city, manufacturing these skyscraper extends as an approach to migrate the “ghettos”. Sadly, his vision of building the city was not as effective as he thought. We see the negative outcomes today. Areas by the shoreline had a lot of terrains, having much open and potential condo and summer resorts opened doors for white collar class New Yorkers. Ignoring how the other half lived. This was his method for attempting to dispose of road neighborhoods and take into account white collar class natives with cash. By pushing destitute families to an inaccessible range that can be unsafe and hazardous didn’t make a difference to him. Giving the individuals who required additional help, a rooftop over their heads was basically like the fleece they put over individuals’ eyes from seeing what they were truly trying to attempting and succeeding which was to dispose of the ghettos of New York. Moses saw the Rockaways as both an image of the past and a legitimization for his own forceful way to deal with urban recharging, to building what he imagined as the city without bounds.

Reaction to the article “How the Coastline Became a Place to Put the Poor”

New York Times article under the name “How the Coastline Became a Place to Put the Poor” by Jonathan Mahler demonstrates that when New York was building poor people usually lived on the waterfront because the land in that area was cheap and available. Examples of the areas for low class people would be Red Hook, Coney Island, and Alphabet City. However, from Robert Moses, a famous urban planner in mid twenties century, point of view it would be more efficient for the city to move poor people to the center that’s why he was clearing slums and building projects in the city. Unfortunately, his vision of building the city was not successful as we see the negative consequences few years later after projects had been built. Moreover, Robert Moses faced a lot of significant protests throughout his career from New York residents and eventually he failed big time.

• Jonathan Mahler  wrote a eye opening article describing the the trend of building large scale projects by the shorelines of the Rockaways, Long Island, and Coney Island. In the 50’s, urban developers believed that building project buildings by the shoreline was more cost effective, but soon found out that it caused more harm than good. The project buildings became a haven for crime, proverty, and destruction. Urban developers such as Robert Moses only built these high rise projects as a way to relocate the “slums”-as he likes to call them. I believe this was his way of trying to get rid of street neighborhoods and cater to middle class citizens with money. By pushing needy families to a distant area that can be harmful and dagerous didn’t matter to him as long as they were able to fix up the city to cater to those with money.  Hurricane Sandy is an example of how not much thought was put into the placement of these high rise projects. Giving those who needed public assistance a roof over their heads was the wool they put over people’s eyes from seeing what they really were trying to do and that was to get rid of the ghettos of New York.