The photograph above is a “Farragut inside shot ” in the early 1950s from NYCHA showing decrepit living conditions. I want you to stop for a few seconds and think about all of the news that we are bombarded with in today’s modern world. Do you agree with me that we have generally become less empathetic to the plights and hardships that so many people face in today’s urban society?

In today’s society, there are still many struggles and conflicts, and I wanted to understand the nature for such problems after learning about the history of Vinegar Hill, in Downtown Brooklyn. I tried a method to find a “key” root, a link, between urban renewal and the sociological conditions that resulted from this root. I wanted to use investigation with a unique perspective into my inquiry. I wanted to find “hard” and “concrete” evidence that would explain or even provide a correlation that would give reason for the question about whether the urban renewal projects in Downtown Brooklyn were worth the effort.

My main focus started with trying to find a local source that would provide leads to help me with my research. I began by looking at a very specific place, Hudson Avenue, that was directly involved in and affected by the urban renewal projects. I wanted to find if not evidence but simply trails or links concerning the reason(s) or decision(s) for the urban renewal projects that would provide answers to the driving forces behind the push towards this urban renewal movement.

I conducted my research and gathered artifacts and maps from the 1920s to the 1960s. focusing on Downtown Brooklyn, primarily on the Vinegar Hill area. I wanted to keep a record of my findings and provide information to others who would like to know about my topic or need some insight on urban renewal, Downtown Brooklyn, and Vinegar Hill in particular, so I started a historical record for anyone who has online access to Social Explorer, a web based cartographic/mapping platform, which can be viewed at: http://www.socialexplorer.com/27891c70b8/view.

After singling out four questions from the summaries of my previous site reports, one significant and major underlying question that intrigued me the most was: What were the driving forces behind the urban renewal project(s)? Note: This question is the only remnant from my previous site report. Since this question was not answered previously, the majority of information on this final report is aimed towards and focused on this single topic; therefore, it is concise and as precise as possible.

“Urban development” and/or “urban renewal” were greatly influenced by politicians and governmental organizations that saw this as a quality of life issue and a way towards economic prosperity not only for Downtown Brooklyn, but also for the entire New York City area. We must not disregard the power of the effects of the driving forces behind the urban development and/or renewal. These driving forces play a very significant role in molding a society, its values and culture, which would ultimately affect, negatively and/or positively, the past, the present, and the future of a community.

Mayor LaGuardia claimed to want to build new and better homes for the people (Moore, 1939); however, the people could barely afford the new, higher rent. Details in the newspaper article, “Much ado about housing” (Moore, 1939), explains the financial worries and concerns of the people who were directly affected by the urban renewal initiative. Even though the rent was supposed to be regulated to ensure affordability for the previous tenants, the “slight” increase to offset or pay off the projects’ costs did not leave enough money for other expenses.

Footnotes:
My intent for using the Social Explorer cartographic platform was to upload all of my site reports and relevant LIB 2205 course materials to create a record and description of the course and to provide information to anyone in need of or is searching for or is simply curious. Also, if someone were exploring for the same course, I wanted to be able to have a very useful starting point for him or her. I was hoping that someone would be able to continue from the place that I discontinued my research, and would be able to provide new and more unique perspectives without having to be at the same starting point of mine. This way, the work, very long hours of research and investigations, would not hinder further progress in gathering sources (particularly primary ones—the most difficult one to find) in this LIB 2205 / ARCH 2205 course.

Learning about places involves many relevant and scientific domains, including the sociological.
Keywords: Blight, Dilapidated, Lower Income, Slum, Urban Renewal, Urban Development

Annotated Bibliography
Moore, E. E. (1939, June 10). Much ado about housing. The Saturday Evening Post, pp. 25, 114-118. Mayor La Guardia claims to want to build new and better homes for the people, but they have doubts about that. They are afraid that they will be forced to worse living conditions outside of the new development. People are justly skeptical and they refer to unaffordable Governmental “low-income housing” that no family from the slums could afford. The United States Housing Authority (USHA) is an outgrowth of the Housing Division of the Public Works Administration (PWA). The aim of the PWA was towards reemployment with a byproduct of housing, and the aim of the USHA as the opposite, which are significant factors towards the housing problem with the USHA. The PWA predates the Wagner-Steagall Law and it received government subsidiaries/grants that do not support rent regulated housing developments. “For various reasons,” PWA development projects were more expensive. Although the USHA receives government subsidiary for rent affordability, more considerations with economic construction, site-planning, etc. result in higher rental housing without a means for the previous slum residents to support it through better paying jobs. Moore (1939) of the Slum Clearance Committee of the NYC Housing Authority described the poor and outdated conditions of the old, “decrepit” residences. The “drive” or “push” towards urban renewal was to replace the decrepit and squalor living conditions. I’ve learned that a focus on better paying jobs is beneficial to local residents in planning housing developments, so this should be an important consideration by developers. Only competition with commercial/private slums developments. The tax on the new property to be exempt or equal to the previous slum amount. Hence, only gains in healthy living conditions. There are higher costs to control diseases and crime when compared with other localities, and there are lower economic funds provided by slums and the other localities support the deficiencies. Replace esthetically displeasing with esthetically pleasing developments. Moore (1939) claimed that the cost to the Federal Budget wasn’t as high as it seemed, but instead an “infinitesimal fraction” payment made on behalf of health concerns for the lower-income residents. He views the rehousing of slum residents as a government responsibility. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/nycha70_name.shtml

Caccavajo, J. (1949, March 20). Downtown area ideal location for pilot redevelopment. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, pp. 1, 13, & 18. Retrieved from bklyn.newspaper.com/image/53934318
There are photographs in the article that show slum conditions. The author, Caccavajo (1949), was a city engineer and an expert on population changes and municipal problems. He explained that there were “spots within sight and sound of the most important business areas.” He tries to explain the benefits of creating a better living environment for the tenants. He talks about not side stepping the obvious issue/problem. He sates the case for total demolition rather than rebuilding due to extensive dilapidated conditions of the buildings, including the waste and rubbish pileups, unoccupied and abandoned buildings, etc. He states that the conditions have gotten worse from the time of the 1941 mayor’s survey. He saw public officials as being responsible for cleaning up the Downtown Brooklyn urban environment. He conveyed that the officials were voted into office to act on behalf of the residents, so their actions are directly related to the welfare on behalf of the residents. He states that private developers should build for more affluent residents so there would be reasonable profits for the developers. I wonder how much conscience someone has to negate the lives of people, families and children, who are less fortunate. This article directly addresses the area of Vinegar Hill and the Navy Yard, which was the focus of the course LIB 2205 / ARCH 2205.