Friday, September 9, 2011

There Goes the ’Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up.

The ghetto, the inner city, the 'hood — these terms have been applied as monikers for black neighborhoods and conjure up images of places that are off-limits to outsiders, places to be avoided after sundown, and paragons of pathology. Portrayed as isolated pockets of deviance and despair, these neighborhoods have captured the imagination of journalists and social scientists who have chronicled the challenges and risks of living in such neighborhoods. 
But what happens when commerce, the middle class — globalization, if you will — comes to these forlorn neighborhoods? When whites who were a rare sighting are suddenly neighbors? We are accustomed to focusing on the social pathologies, government neglect, and the causes of the inner city's inexorable decline. We thus know how people feel about the crime, the lack of opportunity, and feelings of being left behind or looked over. But we know less about how people feel when the fortunes of their neighborhoods brighten. How do people feel when gentrification comes to the 'hood?


Source: Freeman, L. (2006). There Goes the ’Hood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up . Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City

Bargaining for Brooklyn reveals one side of the social process underlying poverty, opportunity and inequality. It lets you understand how elements of social structure, which extend beyond interpersonal relationships –like families- contribute to poverty and its related social problems.
The main topic of the book is how community-based organizations (CBO) work to improve the conditions in their poor neighborhoods. Poor-quality housing may seem like a natural condition of a poor neighborhood. But neither housing nor a neighborhood becomes -or remains- poor in a vacuum.


Source:
Map by James Quinn, ISERP,
Columbia Unieversity








‘A Place to Live’ is a chapter about the evolution of the poor-quality housing in the neighborhood of Williamsburg, and about the working of the CBO ‘Los Sures’ (the Southside United Housing Development Fund Corporation).

 
Source:
brooklyn-queens-expressway/
 It all started when Robert Moses –the city’s immensely
powerful development czar- planned a massive system of highways (the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway), with Williamsburg as a key link. By 1954 Williamsburg looked like it had been partially hit by bombs. And the housing that escaped the bulldozer became even more decayed. 

Groups of new, poorer people arrived, the Hasidic Jews and the Puerto Ricans. They formed what looked like the ideal-typical immigrant community: as the immigrants grew steadily in number, they gave birth to a succession of formal organizations to provide their needs (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918).





Source: Late 1970s organizing efforts by
Southside United Housing Development
Fund Corporation (Los Sures). Photo
courtesy of Los Sures.
When President Johnson declared the ‘War on Poverty’ in 1965 and the CAP (Community Action Program) was introduced, a fundamental change happened. There was a tense competition over government resources between organizations representing the Hasidim –later formed as the UJP, United Jewish Organizations- and the Puerto Ricans –Los Sures, later representing all Latinos-.

This struggle went on when and in 1997 they were battling over zoning. The NY’s Department of City planning proposed the rezoning of an area surrounding the Williamsburg Bridge. UJO supported the proposal, Los Sures was against it. Not only was Los Sures fighting against the Hasidic –they doubled their population every ten years-, a new fighting front came from the growth machine’s return –consisting of artists, college graduates,…-.
Los Sures, as a member of the alternative rezoning coalition, lost their battle.


This story shows some important lessons about the possibilities of reconnecting poor urban neighborhoods to the broader economic and political systems of the city through the actions of community-based organizations. Because the UJO were able to shape the details of the growth machine’s operation in a way that benefited them substantially.
The book shows an interesting look on the other side of the gentrification, the fight of the current population. Marwell followed Los Sures in the critical moments in 1997, so you get a very accurate describing of their meetings and protests. It is very instructive in understanding community-based organizations.
But it shows only one side of the story, the one of the Latinos. I find it difficult to form an honest opinion when you don’t know the other sides, like the city’s side or the other community, represented by the UJO.
Source: Marwell, N.P. (2007). Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Delirious New York. A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan.


When I started my literature research about New York, my hands first went to ‘Delirious New York’ by Rem Koolhaas, a very obvious choice.
‘Obvious’ doesn’t necessarily mean bad, not at all in this matter. Reading ‘Del NY’ helps you understand the Manhattanism better, extensively described by Rem Koolhaas.
MANHATTANISM = to exist in a world totally fabricated by man, i.e. to live ‘inside’ fantasy. Its program is so ambitious that to be realized, it could never be openly stated.

Some terms permanently linked to Manhattanism are THE GRID -its indifference to topography, to what exists, it claims the superiority of mental construction over reality-, THE BLOCK –everything has to be realized within it- and THE NEEDLE & THE GLOBE –those are representing two extremes, the history of Manhattanism is a dialectic between these two forms-.

After Koolhaas explains the important terms, he proceeds with a chapter only about Coney Island. Why Coney Island? Coney Island is the most southern part of Brooklyn. But most importantly it was a practice ground for the Manhattanism. The strategies and mechanisms that later shape Manhattan are tested in the laboratory of Coney Island. 
It’s fascinating to learn how Coney Island transformed into the Coney Island we know today, because at that time there were three very different parts on one tiny island. Those three parts (the criminal area, the amusement parks and the resort part) may have coexisted but weren’t linked to each other.


Madelon Vriesendorp, Flagrant délit

Koolhaas also clarifies the emergency of the Skyscraper –the double life of Utopia-, since 1900-1910. The Skyscraper represents the fortuitous meeting of three distinct urbanistic breakthroughs that, after relatively independent lives, converge to form a single mechanism: the reproduction of the world, the annexation of the tower and the block alone, the ‘the Automonoment’.He continues with some examples of transformations of city blocks and explains the showdowns between Modern Architecture and the architecture of Manhattanism.

From what I know about Brooklyn, the term Manhattanism doesn’t fit. Simply because Brooklyn isn’t Manhattan. At the moment, I could write down many other reasons. But I’ll come back to that later on, when I have done some more research about Brooklyn itself.
Source:Koolhaas, R. (1994). Delirious New York. A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan. New York: The Monacelli Press

Brooklyn, New York City in general, has always been a big attraction for immigrants and various ethnic groups. These immigrants often inhabit a specific area for a period of time. But the inhabitants of such a neighborhood change during the years. That leads to the fact that a certain area is inhabited by very different ethnic groups during different decades.  An example: Midwood was first inhabited by the Irish until the early 20th century, followed by the Jews for about 50 years and now has a large number of Pakistani residents. (Source: Wikipedia)   

What does this change mean for the ethnic cultures? How do they experience the existing public spaces. Each distinct culture comes with its own collective habits, but what changes when the public spaces remain the same?