MultipliCity - Pratt GCPE by Nitisha Raje

MultipliCity MultipliCity MultipliCity MultipliCity MultipliCity MultipliCity MultipliCity

Shifting Perspectives

2017

Table of Contents Interview with Incoming Chair: Eve Baron Placemaking Studio: Fort Greene Ryan Cagle

Thesis Excerpt: Making Space for Democracy in Singapore

Nur Atiqua Asri

Edge Conditions: Pratt in Tokyo Jim Shelton

Thesis Excerpt: Philly Free Streets Daniel Paschall

Student Internship: Gehl Institute Amira Badran

Delta Cities Coastal Resilience Studio: Redhook

Jamie Stein

Thesis Excerpt: Community Emergency Toolkit Laura Landau

Student Internship: Terrapin Bright Green Lilli Fisher

Professor Piece: Sustainable Arts Indicators Framework Jonathan Martin

4 6

Community Planning Fellowship: West Crown Heights Inna Branzburg

American Planning Association Conference: Tuscon

Emily Ahn Levy, Greyson Clark,

Michelle Gluck, and Daniel Paschall

Fundamentals Studio: Jackson Heights

Thesis Excerpt: Overcrowding of Chinese Immigrants

Sheena Kang

Reanna Tong

Professor Interview: David Kallick

Nitisha Raje

Fundamentals Studio: East Harlem

Historic Preservation Studio: East Harlem

Interview with Outgoing Chair John Shapiro

Post-Election Response

Chloe Bean

Abigail Ellman

David Burney

Letter from the Editors

hile in Tuscon, AZ for the National American Planning Association (APA) Conference last spring, a GCPE student was on a hunt for the perfect saguaro cactus. He had a good idea of what perfection looked like for a saguaro, but he wasn’t seeing it anywhere in the field. He stopped at the next cactus he saw. In the “American Planning Association: Tuscon” (page 40), he writes, “As soon as I did this, I found beauty right in front of me. The saguaro was marked in distinct and unique ways. It was rich with history and stories. Once I stopped appraising each cactus from my own perspective and normative values of perfection, I met the cactus where it was and learned from it.” The anecdote offers a far-reaching metaphor. Communities around the world and even within New York City are characterized by a wide range of values and priorities, filled with myriad stories and visions, and faced with different issues that cannot be addressed by normative visions. One of our greatest challenges as experts of the built environment is to see a community’s assets and needs through the eyes of those who belong to the community, particularly when that perspective is radically unfamiliar. The GCPE students who attended the APA conference in 2016 accompanied the event with a course on Culture, Planning, and Social Justice, and they returned full of thoughts and questions about how we as placemakers, planners, preservationists, and environmental systems managers can serve

John Bezemes Urban Placemaking and Management

Maggie Clark

City and Regional Planning

communities to which we don’t necessarily belong. The challenge to shift perspectives influences much of the work coming out of the GCPE. This issue of MultipliCity showcases the work of students and professors from January to December 2016, work that employs many different lenses. Some articles look at public space through the experience of residents in Singapore; in Tokyo and Kyoto; in Philadelphia; and in Fort Greene Park, Pratt’s own backyard. Others explore environmental resilience from communities’ points of view. The effect of New York City’s housing crisis on immigrant communities is highlighted. Two studios took a deep dive into the neighborhood of East Harlem, where they endeavored to understand and address residents’ concerns about their changing neighborhood in both the near and not-so-near future. In early November, the results of the 2016 presidential election provided a sharp reminder of the importance of the GCPE’s community-based approach. The current era of national rhetoric and policy poses a threat to our principles of inclusiveness and sustainability, and specific groups are disproportionately affected. By recognizing the diverse stories and expertise of these communities, we aim to build a more equitable system in which everyone has a seat at the table. Members of the GCPE community continue to shift perspectives as they explore - and work for - the balance between culture, planning, and social justice.

Nitisha Raje

City and Regional Planning

Devshri Shah

Urban Placemaking and Management

GCPE Administration Eve Baron

Regina Cahill

Incoming Chair, Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment

Chair, Construction & Facilities Management

John Shapiro

Nadya Nenadich

Outgoing Chair, Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment

Coordinator, Historic Preservation

Jaime Stein

Adia Ware

Coordinator, Sustainable Environmental Systems

David Burney Coordinator, Programs for Sustainable Planning and Development

Assistant to the Chair, Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment

Welcoming New GCPE Chair

MultipliCity

2017

Eve Baron

Eve has been part of the Pratt community for many years, and in September 2016 she returned as the new Chair of the Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment (GCPE). After a month in her new role, Eve sat down for a conversation about her past experience and her goals for the department.

ve Baron began her planning career as a practitioner working for the Brooklyn Borough President’s office on land use and Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). While assisting with Greenpoint and Williamsburg’s 197a plan, she met GCPE professor and community development trailblazer Ron Schiffman, and this first encounter with Pratt’s characteristic communityoriented approach to planning had an impact. Eve later met Eva Hanhardt, another GCPE professor with extensive experience in city and environmental planning, while working for Community Board 1 in Brooklyn. Eva was the Director of Planning at the Municipal Art Society (MAS) at the time, and she invited Eve to apply to the organization. The transition was good timing for Eve, who was feeling constrained by the politics of the Borough President’s Office and

wanted to take on a role through which she could provide advocacy or technical assistance. While at the MAS, Eve was invited to teach Introduction to Planning to first year architecture students. As it turned out, she really enjoyed it. Eve started teaching more, then transitioned to the Pratt Center for Community Development. While there, she foreshadowed her current role by helping John Shapiro, Pratt’s Chair at the time, with curriculum, faculty, and other administrative tasks.

Eve’s main goal as Chair is to make the GCPE the best it can be at what it already does. She believes that Pratt’s City and Regional Planning (CRP) program is the best in the city and that more people should be aware of the unique value that the program’s faculty and graduates provide. The department’s other programs (Sustainable Environmental Systems, Historic Preservation, and Urban Placemaking and Management) should be equally prominent, as their cutting edge subject matter is increasingly indispensible to a healthy urban environment. The new Chair feels strongly about a student-driven approach to education. Students should have a role in governance and decision-making because, among other reasons, the student perspective is the most effective way to identify gaps in the curriculum. The planning world has many great experts who are wellversed in the canonical ideas of planning, but they need students to constantly challenge accepted truths. The field’s dynamic tension is dependent on students. Eve is sure that she will teach again. She is a pragmatist, and she wants to teach what needs to be taught. Since becoming Chair, Eve has already created a practicum on displacement research and wants to introduce classes on race and redevelopment. She is focused on continuing to build the department’s teaching excellence and providing more teaching resources for practitioners.

Having worked at the Pratt Center for Community Development, the new Chair knows firsthand that the Center’s partnership is part of what sets the GCPE apart. She wants to focus on further building that relationship and leveraging the Pratt Center as a valuable technical assistance resource for students. There is already some cross-pollination between the two organizations, as some of the department’s professors are also Pratt Center professionals, but the GCPE community can expect more opportunities for cross-pollination in the future. Eve particularly wants to encourage research collaborations between GCPE students and Pratt Center researchers. The potential for increased collaboration with Pratt Institute’s School of Architecture is also on the horizon, especially on the faculty level. One idea calls for a new library in Higgins Hall accessible both to students of architecture and to students of GCPE. The mutual reflective space could inspire more sharing and interaction between students of the built environment.

MultipliCity 2017

Her next step was the Murphy Institute in the City University of New York (CUNY). Eve helped build CUNY’s Urban and Community Studies program, making sure to bring in some Pratt alumni in order to infuse a strong community-based perspective. By the time the opportunity arose to return to Pratt, Eve felt she was leaving behind a strong foundation in CUNY’s program. She was interested in the direction the GCPE was taking, and she was glad to work alongside Ron and Eva, who had been her mentors.

Eve seeks to fill another curriculum gap by offering more courses, and potentially a dedicated program, in real estate. New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development needs graduates who understand the complexity of affordable housing finance, and real estate knowledge is generally required for effective commercial revitalization strategies. The program would focus on the particularities of real estate as they pertain to displacement.

The Chair seeks to build on the department’s international opportunities. The department is fortunate in that Pratt Institute is supportive of international endeavors, and many of the GCPE faculty have excellent connections abroad. We have so much to learn globally that is applicable locally, particularly through the comparison of international perspectives. Eve brings extensive practical experience in advocacy and technical assistance along with a proven track record of administrative capacity, and her goals for the department demonstrate a commitment to helping students access critical tools and opportunities. The GCPE community is glad to have her back.

Placemaking Studio

Fort Greene Park, Brooklyn Ryan Cagle

MultipliCity

2017

s a recent recipient of a $5 million Parks Without Borders grant, the NYC Parks Department and the Fort Greene Park Conservancy asked Pratt Urban Placemaking and Management students participating in a GCPE studio to develop vibrant and appropriate placemaking proposals. The studio aimed to improve accessibility and circulation around the park through traffic analysis, activity mapping, and user surveys, with special attention paid to possible connections to the Avenue NYC grant-winning Myrtle Avenue Revitalization Project. Fort Greene Park shares a long and meaningful history with the neighborhood. During the Revolutionary War, the high ground that is now Fort Greene Park served as the location of a strategic fort. This fort was rebuilt during the War of 1812, but by the 1840s, the land was vacant. Then-editor of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle Walt Whitman wrote several columns advocating that the land be turned into Brooklyn’s first park, and legislation to do so passed in 1847. Twenty years later, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux redesigned the park to include a new crypt and memorial for the Prison Ship Martyrs, U.S. Revolutionary War soldiers who perished on British prison ships during the Battle of Long Island. In 1905, the monument stairs were redesigned and its iconic doric column was installed. Throughout the following decades, several other additions were made to the park and the northwest entrance plaza, including the addition of a basketball court, retaining wall, and new playground.

Today, Fort Greene Park is parallelogram-shaped 30.2 acre (12.2 ha) park located in the heart of Fort Greene -a neighborhood situated between Downtown Brooklyn and Clinton Hill. The park’s central feature is the Prison Ship Martyr’s Monument, located approximately 50

feet above street level, at the top of a natural hill. The monument terrace is approached by a 100-foot-wide granite staircase that surrounds a historic crypt housing remains from some of the 11,500 American prisoners who lost their lives aboard British prison ships during the Revolutionary War. The monument itself is a 149 feet doric column with a decorative lantern at the peak. Additional park facilities include two playgrounds, six tennis courts, one basketball court, a visitor’s center, and over 160 benches. The site is adjacent to a public housing complex, the Brooklyn Hospital Medical Centre, Brooklyn Technical High School, and rows of historic brownstone housing. After studying the context and existing conditions of the park and surrounding area, students launched a series of data collecting initiatives that included activity mapping, behavioral observation, pedestrian traffic analysis, and intercept surveys. Data was gathered during a period of four weeks from late summer to mid-autumn. This time frame revealed some limitations in observed park activities, such as a lack of barbecuing and other summer events.

Analysis of the surrounding developments focused on the neighborhoods of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill, bounded by Fulton Avenue to the west, Bedford Avenue to the east, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway to the North, and Atlantic Avenue to the south. Aside from members of Pratt’s studio class, volunteers from the Fort Greene Park Conservancy were also enlisted for on-site data collection. Behavioral mapping data was divided into five key park areas: •

• • • •

Area 1 (northwest corner) consists of one playground, the fitness station and basketball court, the designated barbecue area, the circle garden, and the heavily-used diagonal path. Area 2 (northeast corner) includes the plaza entrance, surrounding sloping lawns and the Myrtle Avenue sidewalks. Area 3 consists of the monument stairs and plaza, as well as the lawn behind it. Area 4 (southwest corner) connects DeKalb to St. Edwards and the Brooklyn Hospital Center. Area 5, the busiest area, consists of the “dust bowl,” the other playground and the tennis courts.

Photo: Outdoor exercise in Fort Green Park by Carlos Rodriguez Estevez

An analysis of the nine user entrances of Fort Greene Park revealed how the edges and its surroundings affect the activity distribution and function of the park. As the primary entrances from the Clinton Hill and Fort Greene neighborhoods, the entrances at the corner of DeKalb and Washington and Willoughby midblock are the most used entrances of the park. The diagonal path entrance at Myrtle and N. Portland is also frequently used by commuters using the subway at DeKalb Ave and Fulton.

MultipliCity

2017

Intercept surveys on-site and online were conducted to better understand the uses and functionality of Fort Greene Park. A total of 120 surveys were gathered, with critical feedback received on general aspects of the park, user activities and demographics, and perceived needs in terms of improvement of park assets and programming. Among the users surveyed, 70-80 percent said they live near and walk to the park, the majority citing their zip code as that of Fort Greene/Clinton Hill (11205). 40-50 percent said they had lived in the area for less than 5 years, followed by 10- to 20-year residents, 6to 10-year residents, and residents living in the area for more than 20 years. As seen in census data and through declared income of survey respondents, the neighborhood may be considered generally affluent. 31 percent of respondents reported an income between $50,000 and $100,000, while 24 percent declared $100,000 or more, 16 percent said between $25,000 and $50,000, 15 percent between $10,000 and $25,000, and 13 percent below $10,000. Through qualitative observation and quantitative analysis, the group found that Fort Greene Park is most notably a well-liked neighborhood park, visited almost daily by many users who live within walking

distance. The park’s natural beauty and landscaping are its most beloved features, and passive uses are popular among local patrons. Within its 30.2 acres of green space, visitors also engage in a variety of active uses, including barbecuing, farmers’ market shopping, and daily fitness activities. There was also an observed and expressed need for better maintenance and infrastructure throughout the park, including improved amenities -- such as restrooms, lighting, water fountains, seating, and signage. Steep topography and an imbalance in programmed areas were found to impede the circulation of users within the park. Additionally, alterations to the northwest entrance, specifically, have created a lack of cohesion between this area and the rest of the park. Of the many activities observed in the park 32 of the most common were categorized into five major use types: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Active Social Play Passive Eating

Area 5 appeared the most “social,” also having the most use in “play” and “passive” categories throughout the week. “Active” users were observed in relative balance throughout the five study areas. “Eating” activities were the least common, presumably due to a lack of concessions within the park. Placemaking recommendations that considered infrastructure, design, and programming were then developed, keeping these main categories of users and use types in mind.

Photo: BBQ & leisure in Fort Green Park by Carlos Rodriguez Estevez

Thesis Excerpt

Making Space for Democracy Nur Atiqa Asri

MultipliCity 2017

Photo: Dunlop Street

n 2013, Singapore witnessed a calamitous night of riots in the public spaces of Little India, a pedestrianized alley close to downtown. The usual order and safety of the public realm of this ethnic enclave was shaken terribly as hundreds of male South Asian migrant workers took to the streets drunk and violent. The mob reaction to a fatal bus accident involving a Tamil worker resulted in the destruction and chaos of streets, sidewalks, bus stops, and five footways. Furthermore, the incident has since resulted in a rising anti-foreigner sentiment amongst local residents; this has become most pronounced in public spaces in the city. Low-skilled migrant workers entering on work permits can now easily be identified with certain public spaces around Singapore as they

become largely isolated to certain parts of the city on their rest day. As a result, the issue of inequity, particularly for migrants, in Singapore’s public spaces has come to light, begging the question: ‘Are public spaces in Singapore really democratic?’ This in-depth observational study and analysis of the use of public spaces by migrant workers under Singapore’s unique autocratic governance structure brings an entirely new perspective to the area of study. It hopes to better inform future planning and design processes of public spaces in Singapore, creating a more democratic public realm for the ever-growing population of migrants in the city.

MultipliCity

2017

Singapore is a sovereign city-state measuring about 277.6 square miles, roughly the size of New York City. Located in Southeast Asia, at the end of the Malayan Peninsula between Malaysia and Indonesia, the island was once a colony of the British Empire. In 1965, when it gained its independence, the city inherited the British model of parliamentary government. City planning has therefore been a generally top-down function of the Ministry of National Development. Today, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and Housing Development Board, statutory boards of the Ministry, oversee most of the planning of the city.

Singapore is very well known for its transformation from a third world country to first in less than fifty years and for having some of the highest rates of globalization in the world. Even back under British rule, it was widely acknowledged as a key trading port that attracted scores of immigrants from around the region, including Chinese, Indian, and Malay traders. Unsurprisingly, the three ethnic groups went on to make up the nation’s population, thereby making Singapore a famously multicultural nation. For the most part, the different racial groups in Singapore learned to live harmoniously with one another except in 1969 when a riot broke out between the Malays and the Chinese, and then finally again 44 years later in 2013. The 2013 riots were a wake up call for all Singaporeans because it brought to the light the poor quality of life that many work permit holders, or migrants, were facing in both their private and public spaces. As with many countries facing high rates of in-migration, Singapore offers various tiers of work passes and permits for foreign workers. The requirements of each tier necessitate the types of industries and levels of income of a worker. While there are plenty rich expatriates in Singapore working in the Finance, Investment, and Real Estate (FIRE) industries and biomedical sciences, the lower skilled working in construction, manufacturing, and domestic duties enter Singapore on what is known as a ‘Work Permit’. Work permit holders have lower incomes and face strict off day requirements – one rest day without pay for every 7-day period. The men working in construction and manufacturing commonly live in dormitories notoriously known for overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, while the women performing domestic duties are required to reside in their employers’ homes under watchful eyes. The private living spaces of these migrant workers, when evaluated against international human rights standards, are bleak. On average, 12 men are housed in dormitory rooms measuring no

more than 25 square meters, below the internationallyrecognized 20< square meters floor area per person minimum standards for developed countries, as determined by the UN Population Division. It is therefore ever more important that public spaces in Singapore are democratic and offer these migrant workers a place to express themselves freely in unmediated interaction. To create and plan for such spaces, however, would first require evaluating existing public spaces, and planners, sociologists, and ethnographers have always turned to William Holly Whyte’s social observation matrix and methodology to do so. The existing methods unfortunately fail to relate directly to characteristics and attributes of democracy. In order to marry the existing method to the key issue at hand, a ‘democratic public space checklist’ indicated by social observations was crafted.

The Checklist

hile political philosophers place emphasis on the democracy of public spheres that is abstract with no spatial dimensions, geographers and urbanists are increasingly offering a conception of democratic public space that is more greatly rooted in place and culture. In such cases, democratic public spaces have been described as places that cultivate tolerance, that encourage convergence, and furthermore allow critical debate and increase mutual acceptance.

Inspired by Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, the checklist is also categorized by various tiers of democracy. Each tier progressively advances to higher orders of democratic pursuit, beginning with simple and rational criteria that encourage convergence of individuals to criteria that can increase an individual’s disposition towards others.

MultipliCity 2017

The ‘democratic public space checklist’ was hence based upon concepts uncovered in a literature review on theories of democracy and although not all of the criteria in the checklist were developed for physical realms, they can easily be adapted to the tangible public spaces that many of us are familiar with. Regardless, the selection of criteria should collectively shape democracy in any public space.

Each criterion is checked against one or more points of social observation, intercept survey finding, or statute. For example, if the studied public space were to meet CRITERION A, “Allows for unmediated interaction”, then social observation and intercept survey findings would have to point to large user group sizes, a mix of activities occurring, and a high level of perceived comfort and safety in the space – all characteristics that indicate the space allows for unmediated interaction. Based on social observations of two public spaces in Singapore, Dunlop Street (by the site of the 2013 riots in Little India) and Tanjong Katong Complex (in the neighborhood of Geylang), an evaluation of the level of democracy of public spaces in Singapore was then conducted. The observations and in-depth studies of both public spaces, predominantly used by migrants from India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Bengal, showed that they fell short of meeting the checklist requirements, and if they are any indication of other public spaces in Singapore, then there is still much that needs to be done in achieving democracy in public spaces of Singapore.

Both sites showed a good mix of activities being engaged in by big groups of users, and high levels of safety and comfort amongst users, indicating that a level of unmediated interaction (Criterion A) and absence of coercion (Criterion B) has been reached in both Dunlop Street and Tanjong Katong Complex. However, the ability to engage in a discourse to check powers within the public spaces is still very difficult to achieve given the placement of prominent surveillance cameras by the police. This, combined with strict regulations under a Public Order Act that regulates “any procession or demonstration that supports or opposes views or actions of any person, group of persons or government”, necessarily exclude any activity that checks power from occurring in the spaces. It also necessarily excludes public spaces in Singapore from ever meeting Criteria C and H - “Allows for discourse to check power” and “Allows for critical debate to seek consensus and mutual enjoyment”. Unfortunately, given the isolation of nationalities within each public space, there is also an evident lack of diversity in users that prevents any engagement of a wide variety of cultural practices (Criterion D). The clustering of migrants from similar home countries

resembles the ethnic succession theory by Michael J. White, which claims that ethnic and racial groups entering a new country or city ten to live together. Instead, in Singapore, migrants congregate in public spaces together given that their housing arrangements are restricted by work permit conditions. The scarcity of local Singaporeans using either Dunlop Street or Tanjong Katong Complex in fact highlights a key issue facing the state of democracy in public spaces – segregation. Although the issue of segregation has increasingly become prominent in research around the housing of migrant workers in Singapore, no one has yet raised the issue in the context of public spaces. These findings therefore call for policies and plans that can reduce segregation of migrant workers in the public realm in order to be able to cultivate forbearance (Criterion F), create opportunities for critical debate (Criterion H) amongst a wide variety of community members – both local and foreign (Criterion D) – and that will check powers of the state and its authorities (Criterion C). In order to do this, Jeffrey Hou, Professor and Chair of Landscape Architecture at University of Washington, suggests democratizing the planning process completely.

Photo: Surveillance camera at Dunlop Street

Photo: Installation design by Ms Marthalia Budiman a participant in URA My Ideas for Public Spaces Forgotten Spaces competition held in 2015 at Hindoo Road

Post-Thesis Developments

n July 2016, the Urban Redevelopment Authority implemented an installation on a vacant piece of land close to Dunlop Street in Little India. A winning entry from a public space design competition inspired by trees in the precinct was then implemented on Hindoo Road to provide shade and create a comfortable public space for those working, visiting, and living in the area. While the public planning process and the added attention being paid to the site of the 2013 riots by authorities was admirable, the actual execution was worrying. The ‘public space’, beautifully designed to combine historical and cultural aspects of the area, was unfortunately enclosed by 2-meter high metal fencing that resulted in a sort of image of animals in a cage or enclosure for those walking past and

looking in. Furthermore, signs reminding users of the space of restrictions given by the Public Order Act and Liquor Control Bill were plastered along the fencing preventing social communion and insurgent activities from occurring altogether. All in all, the ‘public space’ was a physical manifestation of coercion. While there is some advancement being made in democratizing the planning process to create democratic public spaces in Singapore, it is clear that migrant workers are still not quite a loud enough or strong enough influence. There is plenty more that needs to be done in order to ensure that this group, no matter how transient, is able to influence and affect the planning of a city that they continue to occupy.

Edge Conditions

Pratt in Tokyo

MultipliCity

2017

Jim Shelton

Photo: Kamogawa Delta Park

ver the course of two weeks in June and July 2016, nine GCPE students, along with Professor Jonathan Martin, participated in a research trip to Japan with the goal of observing and documenting the elements that define Japanese urban public spaces. Prior to the trip, the Pratt students collectively developed a research theme investigating the physical and social manifestations of edge conditions within and around Japanese public spaces. The students then traveled to Tokyo, Kyoto, Yokohama, and Sendai, observing the wide spectrum of public space design and use in a variety of urban

neighborhoods, as well as at historic and culturally significant sites. A defining feature of the trip was the spirit of openness, warmth, and academic exchange that characterized collaborative research, workshops, and charrettes with Japanese urban planning graduate students, as well as lectures and tours given by professors of urban planning from the Tokyo Institute of Technology, the Kyoto Institute of Technology, Waseda University, and Tohoku University. Exploring the edge conditions of public space in Japanese cities proved to be a framework from

which a broad array of topics could be analyzed and discussed. This research includes a survey of the physical design of Japanese streetscapes and streetlevel public activity, reflections on the cultural and symbolic meaning embedded in Japanese public space design, and analysis of the interrelationships between public space design and social behavior. A common thread that emerged within this research was the significant role of the private sector in the design and management of public spaces and the associated tensions between definitions of public and private in Japanese urban design. The contested edge between public and private in Japanese public spaces proved to be an opportunity for comparative reflection on how public space is organized and designed in a Western context and to whom its potential uses are catered.

The particularities of Japanese public spaces, both in their historical emergence and in their current function, differ dramatically from those in many Western cities. Thus, the attempt to observe and analyze these spaces is inevitably imposed upon by archetypal values and assumptions of Western planning and design theory. With this caveat in mind, the Japan Studio research group found that the blurred distinction between the role of the public and private sectors in Japanese public spaces can be a very informative case study for American cities, particularly as the privatization of public spaces and the proliferation of POPS as bonus zoning incentives increases. The following brief case studies from the Summer 2016 GCPE Japan Studio offer some limited insight into this phenomenon.

he Tokyo Midtown complex, located in the Akasaka district of Tokyo, is one of the most distinct examples of a dramatic blurring of the edge between public and private. It is particularly significant as an indicator of a new and widespread development paradigm for Tokyo. The overall complex is a large, multi-building, mixed-use development completed in 2007 and includes office, hotel, and residential space as well as outdoor park space, a new art museum, and a Galleria mall with many commercial tenants. While many of these spaces function in practice as public gathering spaces, they are privately owned and managed by the Mitsui Fudosan Company in conjunction with the Tokyo Midtown Management Company. The large outdoor green spaces, as well as the interior and exterior plazas in the development, are prime examples of POPS created to gain bonus development rights for the main Midtown Tower building. The indoor Galleria is representative of a lively yet wholly commodified and commercially driven private space that functions as a de-facto gathering place for residents and workers in the area. The approach to the Galleria mall includes a number of meandering walking paths through the fairly active, municipally owned and managed Hinokicho Park. Immediately preceding the entrance to the Galleria, there is a large open green space that is partially fenced off from the public; this is the Tokyo Midtown outdoor POPS. This series of lawns is incredibly manicured, and its primary use appears to be as a sculpture garden. During our visit, the garden space prominently featured a large sculpture, but was mostly absent of people. Crossing the street from the mostly inaccessible green space with very little public activity, one enters the doors of the Galleria and is greeted by large masses of crowds gathering in a vast food court to shop, eat, and socialize. In this area, the internal and commercially-oriented space of the Galleria becomes a premier, publicly accessible gathering space for the public of Tokyo. At the Tokyo Midtown Galleria, the private sector fulfills a social function that is often managed by the public sector in many Western urban contexts and is often seen as essential to the constitution of a healthy public sphere and civil society.

MultipliCity 2017

Japan is one of the world’s most urbanized societies, with 93 percent of the total population (roughly 118.5 million people) residing in cities. As such, the spatial design of Japanese cities is integrally linked to the function and wellbeing of the nation. Despite the massive concentration of citizens in urban areas throughout Japan, public spaces in Japanese cities, particularly public parks and open green spaces, are surprisingly limited. The stark distinction between what has historically been defined as public space (parks, beaches, plazas, squares) and private space (homes, offices, commercial spaces) in Western cities is not as clearly demarcated in the Japanese urban context, particularly in regard to the commercial presence in public spaces. In Japanese cities, popular gathering places are commonly owned and managed, either in part or in full, by private entities. The predominance of privately owned public spaces (POPS) is a widely observed, distinct characteristic of Japanese urban space.

TOKYO – “Tokyo Midtown”

These types of mega-developments, exemplified by Tokyo Midtown, Ark Hills, Roppongi Hills, and the redevelopment of the area around Shibuya Station, see a large variety of uses being designated in a very

dense area. These developments feature seemingly public spaces, yet all are managed by private entities, exemplifying the blurred edge between public and private in Japanese urban design and planning theory. During a meeting with Mori Building Company representatives inside the Mori Building, the centerpiece of the Roppongi Hills development complex, we were told that the maintenance of these types of public spaces is often funded by the commercial tenants and advertising revenue, in a model similar to a BID in New York. The Mori representative suggested that the integration of uses and a collaboration between the public and private sectors can serve to “foster vibrancy.” While this was not apparent in the outdoor green spaces adjacent to the Tokyo Midtown Galleria, there does appear to be a sense that some interior, privately managed, and commercially-oriented public gathering spaces do serve a similar social function in Japan to traditional public spaces such as plazas and parks in the Western context.

KYOTO – “Kamogawa Delta Park”

he urban design of Kyoto differs dramatically from that of Tokyo in its widespread preservation of sacred and historic buildings and, in many areas, the ancient city street grid itself remains. Unlike Tokyo, Kyoto has largely been spared from

natural disasters and the bombing campaigns of World War II that leveled much of Japan’s ancient architecture. As a result, the city has a unique relationship toward public space and architectural design, and we observed several notable cases where a genuine sense of the civic value of public gathering spaces appeared to be a guiding principle in urban design and urban planning decisions. The Kamogawa Delta Park in north central Kyoto, for example, is a public park space that seemed to most resemble the type of urban park more commonly experienced in Western cities. Located at the confluence of the Kamo River and Takano River directly across from Demachiyanagi Station, the Kamogawa Delta Park is a triangular grassy plot with several tiered hills leading down to the waterfront. On both sides of the river there are long and fairly unkempt natural walking and cycling paths. To aid access down to the waterfront from the elevated banks of the river, there are several sets of concrete staircases as well as long ramps for cycling and wheelchair access. A notable feature of the space is a set of large stone platforms that serve as a walking bridge from one bank of the shallow river to the other. During our visit, we observed an incredible level of activity and high volume of users at this riverfront park. Many families with young children were wading in the shallow water, while elderly couples relaxed and

Photo: Tokyo Midtown

shared food on the riverbanks. Cyclists were taking advantage of the paths on both sides of the river, and several groups of men could be observed fishing toward the northern end of the park area. Groups of teenagers were socializing around park benches, while elderly men and women used the elevated position of the park’s bluff to feed birds and watch hawks hunting.

MultipliCity 2017

The Kamogawa Delta Park represents a lively and actively used public space that is seemingly not reliant on the private sector or the presence of commercial activity as a key feature of its design and function. In this sense, the edge between public and private is firmly defined, and the park functions in much the same way as a typical urban park in New York City. Questions remain regarding the maintenance and operations of the park—it is unknown whether it is managed by the municipal government of Kyoto, or if the maintenance is contracted out to a private firm. An interesting observation here, however, was that a small group of citizens could be seen picking up some scattered trash on one of the nearby islands in the middle of the Kamo River. This activity suggests that there may be an organized group of residents that cares for the public space, which again emphasizes that the Kamogawa Delta Park is representative of a model of public space that serves a public good and is generative of civic society. It is designed to strengthen the public sphere rather than the serving a primarily private, commercial function.

emerges that appears to bolster civil society. Further comprehensive and comparative research on the role of the private sector in the creation of public space, and on the subsequent impact on expression and social interaction in the public sphere, could help inform design and planning practice moving forward.

The dichotomy between the observations in Tokyo and Kyoto is significant when considering the tensions between active participation in the public sphere and private property rights at play in Japanese public spaces. In Tokyo, that edge appears to be blurred and at times non-existent. The private sector has a very active role in the creation and maintenance of public spaces, and more often than not, commercial activity is the driving force behind any type of social use of space. The “public” gathering spaces that were primarily organized as spaces of commerce certainly had a social function for their users, but they ultimately lacked the strong civic function that many parks and public gathering spaces seem to serve in the typical Western urban paradigm. While genuinely lively social interaction does appear in these spaces, it is less clear if they facilitate free expression and meaningful participation in the public sphere. In Kyoto, on the other hand, the organic and spontaneous social use of public space, free of private management and a commercial function, appeared to be something of which many residents took advantage. This use suggests that when the edge separating public space from the commercialized, private sector was more rigidly maintained, an active public sphere

Thesis Excerpt

Philly Free Streets

MultipliCity

2017

Daniel Paschall

Photo: South Street during Philly Free Streets. Source: Daniel Paschall

he Fall 2015 semester marked the founding semester Philly Free Streets highlights streets as their main attraction. This is a perfect opportunity then for communities to highlight the streets that have long been in need of improving to the city. By holding an event that requires city intervention and safety precautions, Philly Free Streets can spur at first temporary and then long-term solutions to fix the gaps in pedestrian, cycling, and transit networks as identified in the Pedestrian and Bike Plan. During the event pop-up, demonstrations could show off the potential of protected bike lanes, protected intersections, plazas, and other temporary infrastructure. After the event, these could turn into pilot projects at little cost to the city but with the big payoff of

engaged citizens now motivated by the experience of having tried a piece of infrastructure that was beginning to be normalized into the everyday experience by way of piloting. It is very important to record and measure feedback of the positive and negative reactions of these solutions, because as the Gehl Studio’s Action-Oriented Planning Methodology recognizes, “measuring impacts is one way to stay true to the strategic vision and to engage many perspectives by telling stories through objective measures” (Gehl Studio San Francisco 2016). Then, by engaging both citizens and officials, including planners, politicians, and engineers, Philly Free Streets can encourage real time discussion and testing in the

street among a diverse group of stakeholders. This should spill over into future working groups both inside and outdoors back on the street to refine and test again the design intervention.

Embrace Intersectionality of Racial and Environmental Justice with Active Transportation

ctive transportation modes can take on varying connotations depending on their context. In wealthier areas, biking and walking are seen as great forms of recreation or even to make one’s daily routine healthier by commuting every day with these modes. Getting more people out of cars by walking and biking is touted as a great way to spur business and activate corridors to feel more welcoming, especially when complemented by other placemaking efforts, like adding street furniture, greenery, and visually and physically permeable store frontage. However, in lower income areas, biking and walking might be the only means of travel, because car ownership is extremely expensive for a large proportion of the population.

Complete Streets and Vision Zero set out to make streets safer for all users, but they rarely are implemented in cities with provisions for all of the physical threats people face on the streets, namely racial profiling by police, sexual harassment, and criminal violence. A leading example of this kind of intentionality was shown recently by the implementation of Vision Zero in Portland, Oregon, which calls for reaffirming a commitment against racial profiling, addressing the disproportionate number of fatalities on lower-income communities, and prioritizing action in infrastructuredeficient areas as guiding principles of their Vision Zero Action Plan.

MultipliCity 2017

Locating the Philly Free Streets route in communities with health disparities and then highlighting the fun and community at the heart of the event that echo the likes of block parties and play streets, can increase the impact of the event on improving public health beyond strategies that might just bring out selfselecting participants who already exercise regularly. If the underlying goal is programming that engages the culture and identity of the neighborhood, then the event will spur participation and then by default, healthy activities from as light as walking to as cardioheavy as jumping rump. The core message though, from organizers to volunteers to participants, has to be to be that public space is valued such that it is held up as a cultural asset, or as per Bogotá’s Mayor, Enrique Peñalosa: “If all citizens are equal, then the public good should prevail over private interest” (2016).

residents rather than a set of best practices in urban design. Seattle’s racial equity initiative ensures that the government looks inward at its own departments and assesses equity across the entire government. Their bikeshare, Pronto, has to be equitable in its implementation. Naomi Doerner noted that in order for organizations to get past just mentioning equity without a real or specific definition, they have to be intentional about defining what aspects of equity are actually codified into the group’s hiring, planning, and community engagement process, trainings are provided on racial equity, and real paths are actually provided to positions of leadership for people of color rather than just inclusion. Additionally, this intentionality cannot simply be used as a one-time initiative but an ongoing and dedicated commitment to engaging with neighborhoods to ensure their voices are heard and given leadership.

Photo: Minneapolis Bike Coalition

Additionally, lower income areas are less likely to have the infrastructure needed to support biking and walking, with missing sidewalks and heavy traffic pouring in from the suburbs along highways and arterial roads, coupled with the trucks and larger vehicles serving industrial areas that typically lie adjacent to poorer areas. Planners and advocates must be intentional about seeing these streets through the eyes of the

Demonstrate People-Prioritized Streets through Tactical Urbanism Projects

MultipliCity

2017

hilly Free Streets should take advantage of its most powerful asset, the ability to engage participants through tactile experiences, by building out real physical incarnations of a street that best serves all users, including amenities like protected bike lanes, plazas, parklets, expanded sidewalks, street trees, planters, rain gardens, public art, and street furniture. When rendered in a Powerpoint presentation at a community meeting, these elements might fall flat with their audience who might not be able to easily see or hear the presentation, let alone care about what these interventions might do to improve safety, access, and enjoyment of the public realm. However, when these designs come to life on the street, everyone can not only see them but experience them in real time.

Even better, traffic engineers and public officials can witness the response and take in feedback about what might not work about each intervention, and how they can be improved. An open streets event is an ideal platform for such a trial run, because there is a plethora of users to try out the design, the space is already controlled so that there is not a threat of traffic, and government departments and officials are likely to be in attendance already. Plus, planners can bring ideas detailed in comprehensive plans, such as Philadelphia 2035 and the accompanying Pedestrian and Bike Plan, out into the flesh, informing and exciting the public of what is to come and giving citizens a chance to offer critiques on the location and type of design. And if residents are called upon to help construct these temporary interventions, then they will take on this project as their own and be more inclined to care about its success and effectiveness. Macon, GA, demonstrated one of the most ambitious examples of using tactical urbanism to immerse the public into a world with robust bike infrastructure with a pop-up protected bike lane network that a group of eighty volunteers built in five days as a pilot project. Philadelphia could try a portion or all of a pop-up protected bike lane network along or adjacent to the Philly Free Streets route. In Minneapolis, Open Streets MPLS has seized the opportunity of their event to connect cyclists to popup interventions such as protected intersections and protected bike lanes along the route and collected feedback from participants afterwards.

Formalize a Framework for Iterative, Community-Led, Pilot-to-Permanent Projects

Photo: Los Angeles Department of Transportation

ust as goals of long-term planning should be brought into educational and demonstrations of Philly Free Streets, the city should build Philly Free Streets into updates of Philadelphia 2035. In this way they can establish a framework that leverages Philly Free Streets to accomplish many of the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals around transportation, not to mention public health and economic development. Applying this strategy to a long-term scale, the content and projects highlighted by open streets events can tie into a comprehensive plan. This is starting to be the case in cities like Los Angeles, where its CicLAvia links up with its Mobility Plan 2035, passed early in 2016. Routes for the CicLAvia are designed with their routes placed along streets that are targeted for improving biking and walking infrastructure,

ultimately reinforcing a larger network for active transport. By connecting the ephemeral yet mentally impactful open streets events with less press-worthy but more substantial short-to-long-term citywide efforts, cities can be more intentional about transforming their streets by strategies far greater than the sum of their parts when coordinated together. Another example comes from the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), which used the following rubric to show what initiatives addressed various goals, with their open streets event Streets Alive among them: “Walk Bike Thrive.”

Another major benefit of combining community efforts with government resources is that there is a great potential for decreasing costs of both Philly Free Streets and infrastructure improvements. As seen in cities abroad like Bogotá and in the U.S. with Portland, Oregon, assembling large numbers of volunteers decreases the need and cost of paying for a large police presence. Maintaining a large volunteer base takes resources in its own right but will likely still be cheaper than paying for police overtime. Perhaps more importantly a large volunteer base means a greater amount of buy-in from the public, especially if those volunteers are from the neighborhood where the Philly Free Streets is held. Ultimately, permanent infrastructure that can be deployed on a temporary basis will help reduce the number of people, police or volunteer, needed to ensure vehicle access is blocked. In Long Beach, California, the city has even installed deployable metal bollards in the street for its open streets events so that the city can easily switch street access from vehicular to people powered. All of these efforts will help reduce costs of the event and in turn allow for increased frequency of Philly Free Streets in more neighborhoods around the city, maximizing the impact and driving a wider cultural shift in how best to use streets.

MultipliCity 2017

All of this will build momentum through tactical urbanism projects, but in order to ensure its long-term effectiveness, the process should be codified into a streamlined planning process to go from demo-topilot-to- permanent, much like Philadelphia’s Parklet Program. However, for this to encompass a wider variety of interventions, the Streets Department should work with OTIS and local stakeholders to create a framework that provides a more comprehensive arsenal of materials and guidelines to support an ongoing process that combines bottom-up with top-down. One example of this was recently implemented in Burlington, Vermont, with the help of Street Plans Collaborative in their Community-Led Demonstration Project Policy and Guide, which uses short-term projects led by community groups to affect long-term change. The Gehl Institute has developed a rubric to guide project work through an iterative, responsive, and flexible process in its “Action-Oriented Planning Process” as shown in the diagram below. Transport advocates and community-based organizations can engage residents

around demonstration projects, while city officials ensure that the projects are targeting goals of the longterm planning visions, such as the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and the broader Philadelphia2035.

Diagram by the Gehl Institute

Student Internship

Gehl Institute

MultipliCity

2017

Amira Badran

Rendering: Play Everywhere Challenge

n August 2015, I joined the Urban Placemaking graduate program at Pratt Institute. Flashback to two and a half years ago, I had just finished my undergraduate degree in Architecture from the American University in Cairo, Egypt and was set to find my passion and ideally pursue it. When I was first introduced to Jan Gehl’s writings during my undergraduate years, I was particularly fascinated of the notion of observing, understanding and designing the space between buildings or what Gehl calls, ‘the study of public life’. Urban Placemaking as I know it is studying the public space/public life, spaces between buildings but the point here is to look at it from a human’s perspective not a bird’s eye or an aerial. This approach of reading and designing spaces of transit, recreation and activity to respond to the first subject, that being the community, the context, culture and environment is a very sensitive and delicate process and I must say, comes along with numerous challenges and obstacles in our fast-growing globalized world today. Fast forward to November 2016, I’m writing this from Gehl Office in New York City, a team I had long dreamed to be a part of and having experienced an everyday Gehl philosophy in the past year has been rewarding in so many ways. When I first came to NYC to pursue my masters at Pratt I had intended to work in the field alongside to

acquire some real-life experience. Since Jan Gehl has always been the figure I look up to in making cities for people, it felt only natural to reach out to Matthew Lister, director of the Gehl NY office, to express my strong interest in Gehl’s work worldwide and how I would love the opportunity to join the team. I was thrilled to get his reply a few weeks later for an interview and since then started to go to the studio on a weekly basis. Later, this developed into a full-time job during this summer then part-time when the academic year started. Talking about studying public life is one thing but going through the process is a completely different experience. We always talk about how theory and practice sometimes get so distant that we tend to lose focus on what matters. Applying theory in the design world, let alone public space and at a wide scale of a city is a challenging yet fascinating experience to take part in. I’ve learned at Gehl what it means to study public life; what urban planners, designers and placemakers should do to achieve maximum integrity in highlighting the cities’ needs and wants; the cultures, the context and most importantly its people. The surveying methodology and goals tend to highlight that along with the post-surveying brainstorming and analysis. The partners and clients also play a crucial role in guiding what the practice could offer, either the full potential or never-ending debates that only hurdle the process.

Between Gehl’s offices in Copenhagen, New York and San Francisco, there are numerous projects around North and South Americas. I was lucky enough to help with a few on-going projects in the US and Canada, including Toronto, Akron, Tallahassee, but I’ve been working more continuously on two of Gehl’s projects;

The Play Everywhere Challenge- Client: KaBOOM.

NYC Plaza Study- Client: Gehl Institute

his study is a continuation of the NYC Plaza study conducted in 2014 to understand how the plaza program is performing around the city of NY in terms of inviting people, increasing social mixing and other qualities of successful public spaces. Gehl Studio is now finalizing a report for Gehl Institute about

Getting involved in public space practices and studying them to understand and help improve those spaces is such a logical process that could seem so complicated at times yet in reality is very natural and certainly does make a lot of sense! What makes it even more worthwhile is working with a wonderful team that is fully aware of not only the value of ‘making cities for people’ but also each and everyone’s personal development and what they can add to the institution of studying public life. I’m so grateful for getting this opportunity and very excited to see what the Gehl team (Copenhagen, San Francisco and New York offices) will be doing to make more ‘cities for people’ not only in the US but all around the world!

MultipliCity 2017

he competition is a nation-wide challenge to solicit ideas and bring play into everyday spaces within cities and suburbs around the U.S. 1,000 play proposals were submitted from every region, 200 finalists were chosen and 50 Winners were then selected. Gehl has been responsible for providing technical assistance for the winners at the early stages of collecting data and evaluating the site’s characteristics, allocating budget and leading a participatory approach. At the stage of phase 1, there are ten play projects currently being implemented where Gehl is providing technical assistance to the selected winners as they’re constructing their play proposals, we will then measure impact of the PLAY interventions post their construction. The ten projects are implemented in different regions including, New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Lexington, Houston, Charlotte, Nashville and Jackson. Preliminary questions that we’re asking to measure impact include: What impact have the Play Everywhere Projects has on specific places and communities? What impact has the PEC has on shifting cultures and paradigms about where and how play can happen? What best practices emerge that improve access to play for kids in low income communities? Gehl is looking forward to start visiting the sites in the month of January 2017 to begin the more thorough assessment of the PEC impacts.

the question of the role of children in increasing social mixing in public space. Gehl Institute has already been working on developing a Public Life Diversity toolkit which this experiment’s findings could help expand and improve, the experiment is taking place in Putnam Plaza, Brooklyn. We’ve been conducting the Gehl methodology in studying, observing and understanding how the Putnam Plaza works but more importantly also considering the context in which the plaza is situated with all the changes that’s been happening in the area leading to displacement and gentrification. The challenge here is to understand and portray how the public space is truly a reflection of the neighborhood within and how it is crucial to understand how diversity and social mixing are tightly linked to the community efforts taking place. In the experiment, we’re focusing more specifically on children and the invitations in public space, by studying the plaza with kids’ events taking place and on normal non-events days we can get an idea of how the plaza’s invitation to kids affects social mixing and diversity of the user groups. If you’re interested in knowing more, the report should be published soon by Gehl Institute, so keep an eye!

I personally look at my experience at Gehl along with joining Pratt’s Urban Placemaking program as major milestones, shifting from Architecture to studying and working in the field of Urban Planning and public space design & management has been one of the most exciting endeavors I’ve undertaken, academically and professionally. The critical thinking and discussions in the studios and with my colleagues, the variety of contexts I’ve been thoroughly studying during my time at Pratt including NYC, Cuba and Egypt (my hometown) has been so eye-opening and full of invaluable knowledge. I’m very lucky to have taken part in both of those rigorous trainings in the vast field of Planning and I’m excited to see what’s coming next!

Delta Cities

Coastal Resilience Studio

MultipliCity

2017

Jamie Stein

Rendering of raised bikeway and storm surge barrier by: Elard Timana/Azeem Khan

eginning in the Summer of 2013, the GCPE initiated a suite of studios/urban labs, workshops and conferences called Recovery, Adaptation, Mitigation and Planning (RAMP). Almost 4 years post Superstorm Sandy, in the Spring semester of 2015, the Graduate Center for Planning & the Environment (GCPE) continued its climate change adaptation work with the first annual Delta Cities Coastal Resilience Studio. The Client was the [Red Hook Rising] reconstruction planning committee and the project was an Integrated Flood Protection System (IFPS) for Red Hook. RAMP was predicated on the imperative that community residents must be the foundation of any resiliency strategy. In the aftermath of disaster, natural

and otherwise, community leaders are part of the team of â&#x20AC;&#x153;first respondersâ&#x20AC;?, experts in their communities, and the ones for whom achieving resilience is most directly relevant. As such, they are central to the development of any plan related to their communities to mitigate and recover from future disasters. This is particularly important in low- and moderate-income areas and in communities of color where issues of race and economic status have too often led to exclusion and isolation in planning and decision-making. This exclusion of community leadership inherently puts many of our resiliency initiatives on foundations of social and economic injustice. By including all communities and their leadership, we not only improve the innovation and quality of resiliency planning citywide, we create more social capital (a critical element to resiliency)

while ensuring rooted and on-going buy-in/stewardship and a greater possibility of government and private sector accountability in the processes of adaptation, mitigation and resiliency.

Exploring the complexity of an urban IFPS allowed students the space to distill and understand the methodologies and implementation challenges of comprehensive coastal protection. Students endeavored to turn regulatory and budgetary limitations into beneficial design parameters as well as to manifest

The studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final deliverables included recommendations to actualize elements of an IFPS which phased in over 50 years. Proposed strategies included empowerment and cultivation of community leadership, a relocation and repositioning of residents in the most low lying areas, community preparedness through community building activities, placemaking and architectural interventions which deliver social and physical resilience 365 days a year as well as financial tools including a play on the Business Improvement District, the Resilience Improvement District, to ensure funding for true coastal protection rather than non-integrated flood risk reduction. These proposals and associated data were utilized by the Red Hook Rising community reconstruction planning committee to further their vision and dialogue within the IFPS feasibility study currently moving ahead through the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Economic Development Corporation. The Spring 2015 semester and future Delta Cities Studios aim to build upon the success of RAMP and develop community capacity while also developing the professionals and aspiring professionals in: architecture, urban planning, environmental policy and design, sustainability, placemaking, and preservation to utilize strategies and skills which support community-scale, innovative climate resilience.

MultipliCity 2017

The primary goal of the Spring 2015 Delta Cities Coastal Resilience studio, with itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s integrated approach, was to produce multi-disciplinary design proposals that create effective and innovative flood protection measures, while simultaneously being sensitive to community and context. Students from Architecture, Planning, Placemaking and Environmental Systems were challenged to create triple bottom line recommendations which meet the environmental demands of coastal protection while providing enhanced social and economic opportunities in Red Hook. Conceptualizing an IFPS involves a panoply of issue areas; maritime industry, waterfront development, employment and economic development opportunities, alternative energy production, ecological restoration, agency regulations, transportation, FEMA and National flood insurance protection requirements, tourism, social cohesion, and emergency preparedness to name a few.

qualitative community goals into the existing and future built environment.

Illustration of Red Hook in 2100 by: John Bezemes

Thesis Excerpt

Place-based Approaches to Community Resilience, Recovery & Emergency Preparedness

MultipliCity

2017

Laura Lindau

s the impacts of climate change continue to manifest throughout the world with greater frequency, the question of how to best prepare for and recover from natural disaster is more crucial than ever. Evidence shows that beyond ripping through physical infrastructure and claiming lives, natural disasters damage social networks and community bonds, making the impacts perceptible long after houses are rebuilt. The importance of social infrastructure in disaster planning is becoming more widely researched and considered, and it is proven that communities with strong social ties are better prepared for the inevitable effects of climate change. Recognizing this, New York City Emergency Management is working to put together a Community Emergency Toolkit in order to support the creation of preparedness plans at a community level. Public space is a crucial tool in determining how to build more socially resilient communities. There has been significant research proving that connection to place and neighborhood contributes to increased civic participation, better social bonds and higher Gross Domestic Product. Researchers and government officials are already exploring the ways that public space can be used to build social capital before disaster strikes, by connecting communities and improving neighborhood ties. Additionally, public space has long been used as an organizing tool in wake of disaster. This study aims to better understand the importance and the uses of public spaces in all stages of disaster: response, recovery, and preparedness.

Geo-Spatial Analysis

urricane Sandy was a major turning point for the way New York City viewed its emergency preparedness. The damage from the storm was devastating. One of the ways that New York City saw social networks combat the impact of the storm was through Occupy Sandy, a grassroots disaster relief network that was started by Occupy Wall Street organizers. Since the storm, neighborhoods in New York, particularly those hit hardest by Sandy, have united around a common goal of strengthening their networks around climate change mitigation, and have built coalitions, partnerships, and entire organizations to support stronger communities that are prepared for the next major storm. In order to look for possible patterns in the locations used as Occupy Sandy hubs and sites, a series of maps were created by the author. The maps serve

Figure 1: Occupy Sandy Sites by Type (created by the author).

to help clarify the kinds of spaces used by Occupy Sandy volunteers, and to graphically display the proximity of sites to certain assets (public space) and vulnerabilities (flooding). The first map (figure 1) used data from Occupy Sandy Google spreadsheets and divided sites into 12 categories. Each type is colorcoded, and not unexpectedly, Houses of Worship and Community Organizations dominate. These sites were easily accessible for Occupy Sandy because of their connections to social networks. The presence of both houses of worship and community centers can be seen as indicators of social capital. One Occupy Sandy volunteer, Tim Garvey, expressed surprise at how effective churches were in this effort. They played a specific role because they knew their neighbors and already operated in line with the community’s needs and mission. As such, they had existing buy-in from members, and Occupiers working with these churches

did not have to start at zero by building rapport with the community. “In an ideal world,” Tim said, “people would know their neighbors and there wouldn’t be a trust barrier.” The second map (figure 2) shows that 119 of the sites were located within 500 feet of a public park. Most of the spaces used were indoors, but the proximity to parks presents a possibly underused resource for growth. Sites that were overcrowded may have considered expanding into public parks in order to make themselves both more visible and more accessible. In the case of extreme weather, mobile trailers and temporary shelters could help make outdoor space more functional. Finally, figure 3 shows that 106 sites were located in the Sandy storm area, and many more were located

within New York State’s designated storm surge zones. There does not seem to be a consistent pattern associated with site location in relation to flood zones. This is likely due to the fact that sites existed both in the areas with the worst flooding and the highest need, and in the areas that were relatively well protected from flooding and could offer undamaged spaces for collection and storage of donations.

Recommendations for Incorporating Public and Shared Space into the NYCEM Community Emergency Toolkit

MultipliCity

2017

Figure 2: Occupy Sandy sites and NYC Parks (created by the author).

he NYCEM Community Emergency Toolkit is an attempt to encourage communities to put together preparedness plans and coordinate with the city’s existing plans and resources. The goal of the toolkit is to build community self-sufficiency and reduce the duplication of efforts that the city has seen in the past in order to create more informed and resilient communities. The toolkit is comprehensive and contains a plethora of information and resources, but it lacks clarity. In the introduction, the toolkit outlines two objectives: to form a lead team and to develop a plan that uses the considerations, success stories, and resources throughout the toolkit. The following recommendations aim to connect the content of the toolkit to the objectives outlined. Recommendations include suggested revisions of the toolkit itself, as well as on the further incorporation of public and community space into the program.

Incorporate the NYCEM “Share Your Space” survey into the toolkit

he NYCEM Share Your Space Survey asks communities to identify spaces that could become potential sites for the city’s emergency operations or community outreach. By filling in an online survey with an address, contact information, and building details (including capacity, ADA accessibility, and resources such as Internet access, kitchens, and power generators), community members can offer their space up for consideration for use in a number of

emergency related events. The information is stored in a database of community spaces, which NYCEM can then reference and consider in their preparedness planning. This is a positive step in beginning to incorporate physical space into preparedness planning, but it could be further strengthened by connecting the survey to the Toolkit and pushing users to identify their own community hubs. Currently, the survey is mentioned in section two of the toolkit among other additional resources. Instead, NYCEM could place the actual survey in the workbook and accept submissions along with the community plan. This would push community members to consider a central meeting place in the event of an emergency.

ne of the most essential outcomes of the Seattle Hub program is the Community Hub Locations Map. Two versions of this map exist: the Seattle OEM map, which exists as a PDF and is updated annually, and the Interactive Seattle Emergency NeighborLink Map, jointly created with Seattle OEM and maintained by hub captains and volunteers. The NeighborLink Map shows more than just community hubs. It features SNAP groups, Block Watch groups, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), and community members with Disaster Skills Training. Each group type has its own symbol on the map, and clicking on any plotted point will provide users with contact information and a group description. This tool is valuable to hub leaders and volunteers who want to know what groups near them are possible collaborators, and to Seattle residents who have never participated in preparedness planning and want to know where to go in the event of an emergency. The maps also help the city to identify â&#x20AC;&#x153;hub deserts,â&#x20AC;? areas where hubs have not formed, in order to figure out potential barriers to the program in specific neighborhoods and provide extra support to those communities. NYCEM should look to this model as motivation to compile any place-based information they get from Toolkit participants into a master map that can be available on their website and distributed along with future renditions of the Toolkit.

Figure 3: Occupy Sandy sites and storm surge (created by the author).

MultipliCity 2017

Create a City-Wide Preparedness Map

Incorporate Community Gardens

MultipliCity

2017

hrough their GreenThumb program, New York City Parks helps support more than 600 community gardens across the five boroughs. GreenThumb already has a map of these gardens to help people identify their closest community garden. Community gardens should be targets for the NYCEM Toolkit pilot, especially because community gardens are often located in low-income neighborhoods that may not have the financial resources that are found in communities with wealthier populations. By engaging community gardens from the beginning, NYCEM can ensure that at-risk neighborhoods are able use their existing resources to become better prepared, more resilient communities. Further, ongoing programming in community gardens can build social cohesion through practicing environmental stewardship. One way of making community gardens more resilient to environmental disaster is to create small modular sheds, or casitas, to serve as multipurpose spaces to be utilized in the event of an emergency and in the dayto-day. New York Restoration Project, in partnership with Urban Air, Ten Arquitectos, and Buro Happold, developed a kit of scalable parts in order to build a casita in each of their community gardens. The casitas can serve as a meeting spot, storage space, shaded area, food prep station, and even as a performance stage. They can also be outfitted with solar paneling, phone charging stations, and free wifi. These amenities are especially important in times of need, and can foster efficient communication and planning post-disaster.

Conclusion

trengthening resilience in communities happens at multiple levels. Readiness, response, and recovery are all important phases to focus on, and each provides unique opportunities to build capacity. By bridging each of these phases with a thread of environmental stewardship, communities can continuously connect to the urban landscape and to one another, bolstering their ability to mitigate the impact of emergency and disaster. Examples of disaster response can be seen at a variety of levels, from community-based organizations to online volunteer networks. In order to best fuse these efforts,

some cities are creating plans that outline the specific roles of government and constituents. The NYCEM Community Emergency Toolkit is a prime example of a plan that encourages communities to work alongside the city, offering resources and suggestions on how to best approach a preparedness plan. By analyzing various response, recovery, and preparedness efforts, NYCEM can draw from best practices in order to create the strongest toolkit possible. Throughout this research, a few general themes have emerged. First, communities are strongest when they have high levels of social capital and cohesion, allowing community members to look out for one another and work collaboratively in the case of an emergency. Second, place-based approaches to response can help ensure that in the event of a disaster, people will be able to come together and assess their needs and resources in real-time. Third, plans that provide a structure of connectivity, space, and communication strengthen the spontaneous efforts that are bound to emerge after an emergency. Finally, environmental stewardship can be used as a tool at every stage of the resilience cycle to extend the recovery timeline and make resilience an ongoing process. Using these principles and the recommendations above, the NYCEM toolkit has the potential to become a prototype for collaborative disaster response and resilience.

Student Internship

Terrapin Bright Green

Photo: Paley Park Source: Lilli Fisher

Lilli Fisher

MultipliCity 2017

uring the second semester of my first year as a graduate student in the Sustainable Environment Systems program, I had a guest speaker in one of my classes that really caught my attention. When, later that semester, I was given the assignment to interview someone practicing in my field of interest, I knew immediately who I wanted to speak to. The company was Terrapin Bright Green, a sustainability consulting and strategic planning firm. I reached out to them via email and had a successful interview over the phone. When I saw they had an opening for a summer internship I applied. I would not have made this connection, or perhaps even known about this company, were it not for the wonderful guest speakers that Pratt professors bring in. Terrapin Bright Green works with clients to improve the environmental and financial performance of their projects. There work is pragmatic in its approach but visionary in its reach. Four verticals guide business development at Terrapin: Sustainability and Net Zero Energy, Bioinspired Innovation, Phoebe, and Biophilic Design. If you’re reading this publication I’m sure you know what sustainability and net-zero energy are, but what about the others?

Bioinspired Innovation, akin to biomimicry, is essentially emulating patterns and processes found in nature to create innovative design solutions. This strategy can be applied to product design, architecture, urban planning, policy and more. Phoebe is a conceptual framework created at Terrapin, which looks at projects as an ecosystem and considers both upstream and downstream impacts during design. It’s three goals are to connect people to natural systems, to align local and regional ecosystems and to integrate ecosystem impacts into planning and decision making. Why is it called Phoebe? It’s named after a group of North American songbirds who have adapted to nest in human structures and whose range has expanded with the expansion of cities and towns. Just as this bird has adapted to the human environment we must adapt the built environment to nature. The vertical that my internship focused on was Biophilic design. So, what is Biophilia? Biophilia is human kind’s innate emotional affiliation with all living things. Edward O. Wilson popularized this term with his seminal 1984 work Biophilia, a collection of nine beautifully written essays that intertwine Wilson’s own experiences in nature as a field biologist with history, Photo: One Hotel, Central Park Source: Lilli Fisher

philosophy and the theory of evolutionary biology. The Biophilia Hypothesis posits that humans have a biological need for contact with nature and that this need is based on the fact that humans evolved in natural, not artificial or constructed environments. Biophilic Design is, essentially, Biophilia translated into the built environment. It was first described in Stephen R. Kellert, Judith Heerwagen, and Martin Mador’s book Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. While this may seem like a pretty straightforward concept, its application is much more complex. There is no definitively right or wrong way to apply Biophilia to the built environment.

During my three-month internship with Terrapin Bright Green last summer I worked on three case studies, Greenacre Park in Midtown Manhattan, WOHA’s Parkroyal on Pickering, a hotel in Singapore, and Glumac’s Living Building Challenge Certified office in Shanghai. I also wrote a longer report on biophilic design in the hospitality industry and a short blog entitled Prison, Nature and Social Structure, in which I looked at biophilic design in a Norwegian Prison, and biophilic rehabilitation programs in the US. Research for the two international case studies involved studying materials provided by the architects and the owners, and, for Glumac, an interview with Glumac’s sustainability

My report on biophilic design in the hospitality industry examines how biophilic design contributes to user behaviors in hotel lobbies. For this report, I examined three biophilic hotel lobbies and three comparable conventional hotel lobbies in Midtown Manhattan. I ended up spending a lot of time traveling around Midtown as I visited each hotel multiple times, at different times of the day and different days of the week in order to gain an accurate picture of user trends. Overall, a higher percentage of the people in the lobbies of the biophilic hotels were observed using the space (reading a book, talking with friends, etc.) than people in the conventional hotels, who were more often observed passing through. A number of other factors, such as the availability of seating options and amenities may have contributed to results, however, biophilic design did appear to play a significant role in the increase of utilization rates and dwell time. This internship gave me a lot of autonomy. I had the freedom to experiment and an incentive to learn quickly. I was able to work on all aspects of the report, case studies and blog; from development and research to writing and design. I was also able to gain an understanding of the day-to-day experience of working in this field through my interactions with other employees. Weekly meetings were held at Terrapin in which all staff members would provide a quick run-down of what they were working on. In addition, I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time focusing on my individual interest areas and this helped me to develop my capstone research question. At the end of the internship Terrapin Bright Green agreed to be the client for my capstone, and in this way, I was able to continue to learn from the talented people who work there. This internship was an enriching experience and has already led to new opportunities. I encourage other students in the GCPE program to reach out to connections in the Pratt network. You may be surprised by the results.

MultipliCity 2017

In addition to consulting on projects, Terrapin also produces white pages which are available to the public on their website. In the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design: Improving Health & Wellbeing in the Built Environment Terrapin breaks down biophilic design into 14 distinct patterns to help designers apply the concepts of Biophilia to their work. The patterns are categorized as either Nature in the Space, Nature Analogues, or Nature of the space. Nature in the Space refers to the direct presence of physical or ephemeral nature in the built environment. This includes views of natural landscapes or gardens through the window, indoor plant life, and water features, as well as breezes, sounds, scents and other natural phenomena. Natural Analogues refers to indirect or metaphorical representations of nature and includes the use of organic or unfinished materials and natural colors as well as shapes, sequences and patterns found in nature represented in artwork, ornamentation, furniture, décor, textiles and architectural forms. Nature of the Space refers to spatial arrangements that trigger evolved preferences such as the innate desire to see for long distances, especially while being protected from behind and overhead, and our fascination with obscured views and the opportunity for discovery.

managers in Los Angeles and Shanghai. Research for the case study of Greenacre Park included studying existing materials as well as site visits and direct observation.

Professor Work

MultipliCity

2017

Sustainable Arts Indicator Framework

Jonathan Martin, Ph.D., with Naomi Seixas, Daniel Arnow, and Risa Shoup

n 2015, Professor Jonathan Martin worked with Naomi Seixas (CRP ’13), Daniel Arnow (CRP ’15) and Risa Shoup (CRP ‘17) to develop a set of metrics (indicators) related to social and economic impacts to support of Lower Manhattan Cultural Council’s (LMCC) Sustainable Arts Planning Initiative. The report, Sustainable Arts Indicators Framework: LMMC’s Impact on New York City Artists and Lower Manhattan—An Assessment Model built on previous work conduct by LMCC’s in 2012, when it set out to define “sustainability” for itself, its services and mission, and to also understand what opportunities it presents for LMCC and the artists and audiences it serves. In 2012, these efforts produced LMCC’s Sustainability Framework, a project with ARUP Engineering that focused primarily on measuring CO2 impacts to achieve greater operational sustainability with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. This was just a start. Over the following years and through the course

of the Pratt Institute project, LMCC reviewed existing research and knowledge within the organization and its partners, and from other organizations, and adopted a stronger, more nuanced definition of sustainability built around the idea of a triple-bottom-line. This effort directed LMCC to adopt a more inclusive definition of sustainability balancing environmental, social and economic impacts (see Figure 1). LMCC’s broadened thinking in this regard created a foundation to guide LMCC’s internal decision-making about everything from energy use to HR policies to programmatic goals, and led to the impetus to work with Professor Martin’s team to create social and economic indicator as part of LMCC’s Sustainable Arts Planning Initiative. Professor Martin’s research produced the LMCC Sustainable Arts Indicator Framework (SAIF) comprised of 29 key performance indicators (KPI) that are aligned with the mission and values-driven impacts LMCC hopes

Figure 1: LMCC’s 2012 Sustainability Framework provided the foundation for developing the 29 sustainability indicators.

important social and economic variables. Thus, the SAIF reflects LMCC’s broader concept of sustainability that developed through the process of working with Pratt. In creating the Sustainable Arts Indicator Framework, the Pratt Institute research team drew from a broad body of resources, including multiple academic sources and professional reports by arts-related institutions, to survey work to date on the use of indicators in the arts and culture fields. The social and economic KPI were developed through careful reading of LMCC’s positioning language and mission statement, as well as through a substantial process of consultation with LMCC staff and outreach to stakeholder representatives from LMCC’s three identified communities of interest, including partners, artists and members of the public.

MultipliCity 2017

to achieve in the communities it serves (see Figure 2). The SAIF tracks LMCC’s impacts and progress along three lines of sustainability (environmental, social and economic) for three key constituency/stakeholder groups: (1) LMCC as an organization including its partners, (2) the artists served by LMCC’s programs, and (3) the larger public served by LMCC, including people who live, work, learn, and play in Lower Manhattan. The SAIF can be seen as a “model” for understanding and assessing the impacts of LMCC work and the artists and audiences it serves. The KPI presented in the indicator framework support, enrich and build upon ideas previously presented in LMCC’s Sustainability Framework. While the Framework identified KPI to measure and track CO2 impacts, the SAIF broadens the scope of analysis to include

Figure 2: The Sustainable Arts Indicators Framework (SAIF) includes the 29 key performance indicators (KPI) across three constituency groups (LMCC organization and partners, artists and the public).

Figure 3: An example of a social key performance indicator (KPI) measuring diversity among LMCC volunteers.

2017

•

Capture LMCC’s values as expressed in its positioning language and mission statement;

MultipliCity

Key findings from the outreach and research process and a review of relevant literature suggested that the indicators should:

•

Consider LMCC’s available capacity to collect, manage and tabulate necessary internal data;

•

Consider the availability (and capacity) to access and tabulate external baseline data; and

•

Adopt appropriate scales (geography and populations) so as to allow consistent and meaningful comparative analysis.

•

Finally, development of the KPI was informed through a comprehensive inventory and analysis of LMCC’s existing data and data collection practices. This made it possible to utilize data LMCC already collects wherever practicable. This inventory identified over 620 data points from approximately 20 unique forms and sources relating to intake, application and evaluation of LMCC’s various arts programs. Initially, this process identified more than 100 potential (or “candidate”) KPI. In addition to using data that LMCC already collects, explicit attention was given towards indicators that could be effectively referenced to a baseline population and/or geography. Further consideration was given to selecting appropriate scales of analysis and baselines derived from stable (and readily available) data

sources, including US Census Bureau data, Cultural Data Project and others. Of the 29 KPI finally selected for the indicator framework, 20 (or 70 percent) are referenced to external baseline trends derived from relevant demographic and/or geographic contexts. Of the 29 KPI presented in the SAIF, six measure environmental factors, seven measure economic factors, and 16 measure social factors related to LMCC’s programs and operations. The six environmental indicators track the CO2 emissions generated by LMCC’s staff, artists’ and audience’s travel to LMCC sponsored events, and the CO2 savings or impact generated from waste disposal and recycling. The seven economic indicators track worker salary, total spending on artists, in-kind and artist workspace contributions, artists’ economic empowerment and financial resiliency, and audience spending in Lower Manhattan before, during and after LMCC sponsored events. More than half of the 29 KPI measure social impacts, covering topics such as diversity amongst LMCC full-time staff, interns, artists and volunteers along four criteria: (1) race/ethnicity, (2) gender, (3) age and (4) disability (see Figure 2). For example, Indicator 18 measures and tracks LMCC volunteer diversity according to three criteria (race/ethnicity, gender and age) and can be referenced (“baselined”) to the larger artist communities in Lower Manhattan or NYC at large. The chosen metrics for this indicator measure how LMCC’s volunteer staff compares to these larger contexts in terms of (a) Percent of nonmajority population, (b) Balance of female, trans/ gender non-conforming, and male volunteers, and (c) Age distribution of volunteers (see Figure 3).

The project report also provides a landscape overview that presented a nuanced understanding of the economic and demographic contexts in which LMCC operates. This overview analyzes existing and emerging conditions for Lower Manhattan, including the demographics of artists living and working in the wider five-boroughs of New York City (see Figures 4 and 5). It also identifies key issues affecting Lower Manhattan and the city’s changing workforce composition, shifting population composition and increasing diversity, climate change, historic preservation, and other urban planning-related issues. The report also provides four case studies on LMCC’s existing art programs to illustrate the roles artists can play in advancing sustainable community development practices, whether the community is anchored by a shared attachment to a particular neighborhood or by a common career path and particular kinds of resource needs.

leadership as an arts organization in Lower Manhattan and New York City. The metrics are a core part of establishing credibility, elevating understanding for the role LMCC plays within its community, and tracking the Council’s tangible progress and impact. As such, the LMCC Sustainable Arts Indicators Framework represents a potential model other arts organizations might find instructive. The framework provides LMCC with a methodology and format for sharing findings with resource partners, local policy makers, urban developers, and arts and design sector peers. These efforts, and, indeed the framework itself, are designed to measure and communicate the environmental, social and economic value that artists and arts organizations offer to the local communities where they work.

Figure 4 source: US Dept. of Commerce: Zip Code Business Patterns (NAICS 711510)

MultipliCity 2017

By measuring and assessing aspects of its own efficacy, LMCC’s Sustainable Arts Indicators Framework takes an action-oriented approach to better understanding the artists and audiences it serves. This ambitious project represents LMCC’s ongoing commitment to

Figure 5 source: 2013 American Community Survey (IPUMS)

Community Planning Fellowship

West Crown Heights

MultipliCity

2017

Inna Branzburg

Photo: Storefront in West Crown Heights

ast year I got an exciting opportunity to participate in the Community Planning Fellowship program, through which I learned more about community planning issues and the workings of community boards. As part of this program, I worked at Brooklyn Community Board 8 (CB8) on the “M-CROWN” project, where I had the chance to practice community-based planning while engaging with issues of zoning, land uses, economic development, and affordable housing.

The “Manufacturing Commercial Residential Opportunity for a Working Neighborhood” project is a rezoning proposal developed by the Community Board to help stimulate development in the manufacturing zone of West Crown Heights area in order to provide well-paying jobs and affordable housing for the community. Their proposal includes an increase of the allowable density to allow industrial and residential development, a requirement to allocate a minimum portion of each building’s floor area to commercial and

manufacturing uses, and a requirement that at least 20 percent of residential floor area be set aside for affordable units.

The second part was to find ways to promote the development of both affordable residential and industrial uses and also incentivize developers to preserve existing industrial and commercial businesses and jobs. This part was most challenging and definitely enhanced my problem-solving skills. In order to encourage preservation of these jobs, my recommendation was to find property owners with existing manufacturing uses that could be displaced and offer them an opportunity to waive the requirement of 20 percent of residential development as affordable housing in exchange for retaining a minimum portion of the floor area (FAR) for the existing use. The recommendations also suggest allowing a transfer of development rights and obligations between owners in the district and creating a fund for low-interest loans to businesses in the zone

The studies conducted by Pratt Center on regulatory tools and new approaches for protection of manufacturing uses along with housing development were very helpful in outlining the recommendations. I was also fortunate to get insight on the complexities of this issue from John Shapiro, which helped in tailoring the recommendations to meet the goals of the Community Board. Moreover, the skills I learned at Pratt helped me tremendously during my fellowship, especially research methods and statistics, community engagement methods, GIS mapping, and graphics skills. Working on a ‘real’ community-planning project was an exciting and challenging experience that gave me an opportunity to expand my knowledge and enhance my skills. We can learn much more through practical experience, and many things we learn in class provide us with tools to apply to practical experience as we become professional planners.

MultipliCity 2017

My job was divided into two main parts: to study the feasibility of the proposal and to identify strategies to attract light manufacturing and commercial businesses and encourage the development of affordable housing. I began surveying the businesses and land uses of the six-block M1-1-zoned area, gathering data on available properties for sale and lease, the types of businesses that operate in the area, and the number of jobs these businesses provide. I also interviewed several stakeholders and talked with business owners, landlords, and residents about their needs and interests for the development of the area. I think these interviews were the most significant part of the project. The findings provided a detailed picture of the study area and helped me evaluate the potential development of properties, as well as the possible displacement of businesses and jobs following the adoption of CB8’s proposed new zoning.

financed through a tax on existing businesses. The fund could also be used to pay for the supervision of property owners’ compliance with the provisions of the M-CROWN zoning, and it could be used to promote coexistence among the residential and industrial users to minimize potential conflict. Eventually, my study led the Community Board to make a few amendments in the “M-CROWN” proposal as they continue to work with the Department of City Planning towards the rezoning of this area.

Photo: Industrial streetscape in West Crown Heights

American Planning Association Conference

Tuscon, Arizona

MultipliCity

2017

Emily Ahn Levy Greyson Clark Michelle Gluck Daniel Paschall

Photo: Mural in Tuscon, AZ

In April of 2016, an intimate group of seven GCPE students traveled to Arizona to attend the annual APA Conference and participate in a 1-credit course titled “Culture, Planning, and Social Justice,” led by Caron Atlas and Karen Mack. The course was only four days long, but it opened our eyes and minds through a critical experiential exploration of intersections between arts and culture, participatory planning, and social justice. Students were encouraged to test the boundaries and comforts of our “learning edges” and develop inquiry questions out of our values, which we were to present up front as we entered new spaces. Our journey began

in Phoenix, from which we traveled to the city of Tucson, to the Tohono O’odham Nation, to the town of Ajo, and back to Phoenix. Along the way, countless artists and practitioners selflessly shared their stories, art, life challenges, missions, and dreams with us. At the end of the course, we were asked to write a reflection paper of our experiences. The following excerpts are borrowed from some of the class participant reflection papers. We share these excerpts in hopes of strengthening an understanding of placemaking and placekeeping, as learned on this trip, and the power and importance of collective community action through arts.

Daniel Paschall

Greyson Clark

rts and culture provide a way to introduce topics that otherwise would remain unspoken. They can bring ideas to the attention of groups who would otherwise not be exposed to them. I think this is due in large part to the way in which cultural production can subvert traditional communication methods and, in doing so, can also avoid traditional barriers to communication. In terms of community development, art and culture may be seen as a form of bridging capital in that it connects disparate groups together around a particular topic.

Arts and culture also have a distinct power in activating emotions that are otherwise difficult to tap into. In terms of community development, the ability to create and explore emotions can help to bring people closer together and develop a certain intangible sense of understanding and community. Again, many organizations that we met were utilizing this type of artistic power. Sale’s project helped to restore (in the eyes of viewers) the dignity, humanness, and identities of prisoners, a group frequently forgotten and objectified by those unacquainted with the criminal justice system. Few images could activate a sense of loving and empathy for incarcerated women more than seeing those women dancing with their daughters via video chat. Trans Queer Pueblo also used the arts to activate emotions. While Sale’s work sought to stir the emotions of the viewer, Trans Queer Pueblo’s “Drag for a Dream” events are deeply important for the participants. One of the speakers from the organization discussed the importance of these events in helping the participants explore their identities within a space that is neither hyper commercialized nor hyper sexualized. Critically, this method of self-discovery not only helped the individual self-learn, but it also helped to develop a community amongst all of the participants. This community, strengthened and supported by the arts (“Drag for a Dream” is also a fundraising tool), can rally together, advocate for their rights, and support one another through difficult times. The arts and cultural expression helped individuals explore complex feelings while also developing a community.

MultipliCity 2017

n traveling to Phoenix, Tucson, South Tucson, the Tohono O’odham Nation, and Ajo, I discovered how alive the desert is, with all the complexities and struggles that come with that life. Through our brief but intense stops in each of these places we observed the identity crisis of Phoenix’s landscape as it attempted to densify its empty urban lots with rich, communal art but also with generic, cookie-cutter development, all while not slowing down the sprawl along its fringes. Activists fought for expression, validation, citizenship, and rights on shoestring budgets, their solidarity sparking a new sense of momentum and change. In Tucson we discovered a social movement further along in its development, fueled by highly collaborative and energetic advocacy to redefine their environment through art, stories, and action. And in the Tohono O’odham Nation and Ajo alike, we found communities rising from the ashes of intense political and industrial excavations of their populations, articulated through preservation, education, partnerships, reinvention, and the storytelling of cultural memories. My preconceptions have been upended and molded; Arizona is a naturally gorgeous state with a diverse set of communities of incredible cultural depth that draw strength out of their creativity, expression, and an intense desire to do better for their own and future generations to come.

White,” underscores this point. His reclamation of elite museum space for public discussion of the criminal justice system physically created a space where conversations could happen that were unlikely to occur anywhere else. For example, Sheriff Arpaio participated on a panel discussion and the lives and voices of incarcerated men and women were introduced into sharp focus for museum-goers who may never have had serious thoughts about the criminal justice system in the United States.

Many organizations on our trip made a case for artistic and cultural production as a non-standard form of communication. By my estimation, Gregory Sale was the most direct in identifying that “Art can help us have conversations about what we otherwise might not talk about.” Sale’s project, “It’s Not Just Black and

2017 MultipliCity

Photo: Pratt students and faculty who attended the APA conference in Tuscon, AZ

Critique on Role of Planners and Placemakers Emily Ahn Levy

s I’ve seen it commonly presented, Placemaking impacts the built environment and economic development through the use of creative programming. On the organization Project for Public Spaces’ website, Placemaking is defined: “As both an overarching idea and a hands-on approach for improving a neighborhood, city, or region, [Placemaking] inspires people to collectively re-imagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community. Strengthening the connection between people and the places they share, Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.” So, who are “we”? And who’s idea for neighborhood improvement is given preference?

During the American Planning Association, I attended a conference panel entitled: “Tactical Urbanism: Temporary projects, permanent outcomes.” The panel discussed current “lighter, quicker, cheaper” Placemaking initiatives across the nation, including University City District in Philadelphia and Roosevelt Row in Phoenix. As each of the four panelists presented their work, there was a disregard for historical context and existing community voices of the neighborhoods they were working in. Their “parachuting-in” and success-oriented approach was highly problematic to me, specifically because most of the neighborhoods they were working in are communities of color whose voices did not seem to be integrated into the projects. There was one instance where current demographics of University City, Philadelphia, primarily AfricanAmerican and Black, were quickly shown and discussed, though limited only by gender and age. The insensitive language used by the panelists consisted of phrases like “nothing exists” here, “nobody lives” here. I was infuriated by their ignorant disregard, and also I felt sad

that these people were given the power in changing these neighborhoods. I stood up to ask a question to the panelists, though the Q&A portion ended before I reached the microphone. I was going to ask, “Can the panelists speak more on how they ensured the voices and users of the adjacent neighborhood residents and business owners are engaged in their projects? And how do you determine your metrics of ‘success’? Were there any limitations or conflicts that you are willing to share?” The optics were alarming as well, as all the panelists were young white planners. This fact contributes to the discussion on race and unbalanced power and privilege.

MultipliCity 2017

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. How can we (placemakers, planners, artists, culture makers) “make” place for others and neighborhoods to which we don’t necessarily belong, where we are not insiders. Is this possible? I’d argue that it is not possible, rather it is irresponsible, to do so without insider civic control. We can design spaces, as architects or urban designers, but we can not force or create belonging. I feel that my role as a Placemaker is to provide technical assistance for the insiders of a community to create their Place. And part of my technical assistance is assisting in community building and organizing and in strategizing funding and management. I also find purpose in facilitating education and training where community members learn technical skills and are empowered to be the experts and design, program, and make their own Places. So will planners and placemakers become obsolete as professionals? Perhaps that is so. Why do those who have the resources to afford a degree get the privilege to make the sole decisions on our environments? Let’s create a K-12 to profession pipeline of planners and placemakers!

participation and support from Ajo residents, including one of the leaders of the Ajo Memory Project. This leader, whom we met, was of Mexican American descent and grew up in Tortilla Flats. I must say, though, that there is a difference between participation as part of a larger entity and empowerment through one’s own action, expression, and voice as a leader. I wonder how many residents of Ajo, many of whom have lived there their whole lives, are of Mexican American or Native American descent, and fit the criteria of the “impoverished” community that the ISDA grant has an objective of supporting, have had thoughts and dreams about using and improving that space? Why are they not presented with the opportunity to be the managers of that facility? Even hosts Emily and Stuart Siegel stated that they had trouble understanding how to support locals. How could they encourage residents to use the commercial kitchen that the ISDA grant had funded? The kitchen sat empty until Emily befriended a local chef who earned an income cooking and catering out of her home. Emily said she was lucky to establish a collaboration with this chef, who knew what to do with the space and how to present it to residents through facilitation and empowerment. Is it possible that Emily and Stuart did not have the capacity, sensitivity, insight, or trust to successfully facilitate the community empowerment and social equity portion of this project?

Michelle Gluck

e mainly learned about the transformation of an old school to a conference center in Ajo by white residents who were East Coast “transplants” to the area brought to Ajo by AmeriCorps and a desire for “new experiences.” This desire isn’t necessarily a bad quality, but it speaks to the importance of the responsibility of a “placemaker” or leader in this sort of project to ensure that residents’ voices, desires, and needs are being supported, expressed, and elevated through the project process and end product. I know that the project proposal and funding allocation had

Rasquachification: the Ants Devour the Elephant Daniel Paschall

MultipliCity

2017

lthough it was right smack in the middle of our jam-packed week of running to meetings with incredible artists, activists, planners, residents, cyclists, chefs, environmentalists, placemakers, teachers, memory bearers, and other leaders of so many kinds, it was this eye of a hummingbird here at this South Tucson house where everything suddenly hit me. As Pratt planning students we learn the narratives that tie together a long and troubled history of the struggles faced by the marginalized and those who marginalize them. We study the patterns, the strategies, and the resulting new folds in a cyclical story. But here, in South Tucson, Luis Perales so deftly spun every narrative of struggle on its head with his story of the ants devouring the elephant, framing the trip in a new wild clarity. This house, its yard, and the surrounding alleyway and neighbors had all been elevated by the work of Luis and his group, Tierra Y Libertad. Luis Perales is a community activist, but he is not the community activist currently living in the house at the center of this revolution. That activist is a young man whose family bought the house from Luis after Luis mentored the young man in painting murals, planting native plants, and teaching him the importance of investing in the community where he lived. It is this sort of detail that was central to Luis’s philosophy that so forcefully struck me with epiphany. Every piece of the property and its surroundings was nuanced with multiple meanings and hidden powers, somehow made stronger by their understated and underestimated nature. The paintings on the tiles of the fence in the front yard were done by a mixture of neighborhood artists and children, ensuring that the images would be true to life in South Tucson but also punctuated by a deliberate non-professionalism, which favored authenticity over pretense. The colorful images told the story of revolution by depicting animals, cultural icons, and community advocates. Meanwhile, Luis said, they also diverted the eye, meaning that anyone looking for signs of missing permits or outside intervention would move right along, allowing Tierra Y Libertad to carry on improving the neighborhood from within without being held down by the prejudices from above. Luis advocated for infusing a tired structure with new blood as he dodged the pitfalls of bureaucracy and

private interests by looking at issues from every angle. As a PhD student, he could run in channels connected to organizations with the capacity to take on the bureaucratic paperwork of financial sponsorship and posturing, while he made use of crowdfunding to provide an entry point for those of the community looking to contribute. His tactics favored resourcefulness not just as a way to get by but as a way to triumph over polished and structured strategies, because it stayed true to assets of the surrounding community. This approach echoes the words of Roberto Bedoya’s “rasquache” approach that makes use of everything around to more effectively increase community empowerment by “making something out of the disregarded.”

Michelle Gluck

his critical inquiry relates to quotes from both Bernardo’s essay on “place and belonging” and from a presentation I attended at the APA Conference by Lourdes Hernandes-Cordero, a founder and representative from “Hike the Heights” and a public health expert, who spoke about her experiences with community engagement. Roberto states in his essay, “Before you have places of belonging, you must feel you belong. Before there is the vibrant street one needs an understanding of the social dynamics on that street — the politics of belonging and dis-belonging at work in placemaking in civil society.” Roberto also stated, “A troubling tenor of Creative Placemaking discourse is the avoidance of addressing social and racial injustices at work in society and how they intersect with Creative Placemaking projects.” One must recognize their capacity to “place make”, and not overstep boundaries or knowledge capacity of a place. Respect the knowledge of residents who truly “know” the place. There is value in “place-makers”, grantors, and facilitators. However, social equity can only be achieved through effective arts and creative placemaking initiatives if the ideas, voices, and knowledge of residents and those who “belong” to that place are expressed and uplifted by those individuals on their own accord. They must have opportunity to BE the leaders, beyond being participants. Lourdes stated in her presentation, “How do you ‘apply’ to be a member of a neighborhood? You don’t. By going out into public space, you begin your membership and gain social networks, earning access to assets and quality of life.”

It is tough terrain to navigate. What I am realizing is that projects and initiatives rooted in positive intentions may end up having negative results if not navigated respectfully and sensitively, and through a lens of true social equity.

Emily Ahn Levy

I have felt that the field of Placemaking needs to dig deeper into the human and memory perspective. In fact, that perspective is what needs to be put forth at the beginning of a Placemaking project: there should

Bedoya writes: “Policy and imagination condition each other, and a dialectical relationship between the two is necessary to preserve the vibrancy of our cities. Currently, urban policymaking is determined by the drive to accumulate as much capital as possible, and the effect is to destabilize our cities through the displacement of individuals, families and entire communities. But the people who shape communities from the ground up—the urban residents who practice the art of poiesis, or making in the sense of transforming the world—should have the real agency. Acts of imagination ultimately shape the public sphere, where we make meaning together, in shared space.”

MultipliCity 2017

oberto Bedoya writes: “Rasquachification is also what the community activist Jenny Lee calls placekeeping—not just preserving the facade of the building but also keeping the cultural memories associated with a locale alive, keeping the tree once planted in the memory of a loved one lost in a war and keeping the tenants who have raised their family in an apartment. It is a call to hold on to the stories told on the streets by the locals, and to keep the sounds ringing out in a neighborhood populated by musicians who perform at the corner bar or social hall.”

be a discussion and ample research of the legacy of a place created by personal narratives and policies. An analysis and understanding of the networks of residents and businesses and of the commercial and public spaces, but also of the histories that shape what we can perceive today. It is also critical to look sustainably to the future and ask questions to prevent unintended consequences. A genuine participatory process, or rather civic control, is necessary. We as placemakers, do not parachute in, we do not dictate what goes where or what happens here; we listen. Placemakers can be listeners and facilitators who provide technical assistance when we are asked.

Photo: Mural in Tuscon, AZ

Collective Memory and Identity Greyson Clark

MultipliCity

2017

ne memory from this trip, participation in I Stand with Saguaros, has come to embody the knowledge I gained and the experiences I had. The experience is important to me for two key lessons. These lessons are deeply connected to my inquiry question and my understanding of the relationship between arts and culture and community development. The first lesson is the saguaro cactus as an expert at investing itself wherever it finds itself. For as long as 300 years, the saguaro spreads and deepens its roots and finds satisfaction. After decades, the cactus stands regal and proud, each a unique product of its own circumstances. The way that the saguaro lives encapsulates the placekeeping approach and the concept of real, long-term community development.

The second lesson is more personal. As I walked out to stand with the saguaros, I found myself judging every cactus and looking for the perfect one to stand with. I realized I was thinking this way, suspended those thoughts, and stood with the next saguaro I came across. As soon as I did this, I found beauty right in front of me. The saguaro was textured and marked in distinct and unique ways. It was rich with history and with stories. Once I stopped appraising each cactus from my own judgmental perspective and normative values of beauty and perfection, I met the cactus where it was and learned from it, a powerful reminder of my own limitations. I hope to always remember this lesson and to put it into practice as consistently as possible. The saguaro reminded me of this, but so too did the values of the arts organizations we met, each of which celebrated existing assets and sought to enrich and empower them. To me, this is the only way to truly develop a community, by nurturing what is already there. Arts and cultural production have the ability to unlock entirely different dimensions of community discourse and development, and for that and many other reasons, they are invaluable.

Photo: Saguaro Cactus

Fundamentals Studio

Jackson Heights

estled just underneath LaGuardia Airport and Flushing Bay in northern Queens, the beautiful and vibrant neighborhood of Jackson Heights is immediately welcoming. Our Fundamentals studio class was instantly taken with the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grand, garden-style architecture, and bustling corridors filled with storefronts, street vendors, and overwhelmingly friendly people. Jackson Heights is home to one of New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most ethnically diverse populations, a large historic district, and abundant natural beauty. However, as we discovered throughout our five-month studio, Jackson Heights also faces major issues, including living conditions

MultipliCity 2017

Photo: View from elevated subway station, Jackson Heights

Sheena Kang

that threaten the resident population and a growing shortage of safe and affordable housing. Our studio sought solutions to alleviate these problems and to benefit the Jackson Heights community. Our team was tasked to support Chhaya, a Jackson Heightsbased community development corporation, and their Basement Apartments Safe for Everyone (BASE) campaign. Founded in 2000, Chhaya advocates for the rights of New Yorkers of South Asian origin, especially in the fields of housing and economic development. The BASE campaign aims to increase affordable housing stock in New York by helping to convert basements into legal dwelling units. These conversions could alleviate

critical affordable housing shortages all over the city, including the one now facing Jackson Heights. We analyzed the neighborhood’s existing conditions, and then provided Chhaya with planning and programmatic recommendations to advance the BASE campaign and to benefit Jackson Heights overall. Jackson Heights has a complex historic fabric and a rich cultural heritage. The area was built in the 1920’s as one of New York City’s first garden-style neighborhoods. Post-World War II development shifted away from garden apartment buildings, and added smaller, private homes to the area that catered to returning servicemen and their families. Although a public housing plan was developed for Jackson Heights in 1947, it was squashed by intense resident protests, leaving the neighborhood as one of few in New York City without any NYCHA housing developments. In the late 1960’s, as suburbanization drove “white flight” from the city, Jackson Heights became a major hub for immigration, especially for South American and Asian newcomers. This trend continued for several decades, resulting in the area’s diverse, multicultural community today. As the neighborhood’s population has grown and diversified, its social, commercial, and physical infrastructure have also changed. In 2014, 62 percent of Jackson Heights residents were born in a foreign country, 90 percent of whom immigrated before

1990. The area’s Asian and Hispanic populations are proportionally much larger than those citywide. The local Asian community is exceptionally diverse, including residents of Asian Indian, Chinese, Bangladeshi, Korean, Pakistani and Filipino descent, among others. Several community-based organizations (including Chhaya) have formed in response to these groups’ needs, offering among others translation, legal, and job training services. The neighborhood’s economy is currently small-businesses based, and expanding. Most of Jackson Heights’ existing enterprises are small and, like local organizations, cater to the needs of its diverse community. This shows in the area’s urban fabric, as many businesses are built into mixed-use and commercial corridors on and near Roosevelt Avenue, a major neighborhood thoroughfare that runs underneath the elevated 7 subway line. Jackson Heights is an attractive place to live for many, and that desirability has put increasing strain on the neighborhood. Jackson Heights suffers from an affordable housing shortage that is particularly extreme, even in the context of a tight housing market citywide. The neighborhood lacks the necessary affordable housing options to help its situation. As previously mentioned, there are no public housing developments in Jackson Heights. At the time of this study, there were also no plans for inclusionary housing developments in the area. Exacerbating the lack of existing affordable housing, options for new development are slim, as both vacant land and unbuilt FAR are scarce. Photo: Street scene in Jackson Heights

MultipliCity 2017

Map: Rent Burden in Jackson Heights

All this puts considerable strain on the ability of Jackson Heights residents to secure and maintain comfortable and affordable places to live. In 2014, six in ten residents suffered from rent burden (paid more than 30 percent of their income to rent). Rents and rates of rent burden have climbed quickly in recent years. Many Jackson Heights residents also live in overcrowded conditions, Asian residents particularly so. In 2015, the Furman Center named Jackson Heights the most overcrowded neighborhood in the city. These issues stress the quality of life sacrifices local people must make to have adequate housing. Residents are not alone in struggling with these conditions; commercial tenants are also under pressure as rents rise and floor space becomes more valuable. While the local economy is growing, this growth also threatens the ability of existing small businesses to maintain their locations. At the time of this study, the Business Improvement District (BID) that operates

along Roosevelt Avenue, the 82nd Street Partnership, had proposed a significant expansion. While the plan has since been abandoned, this was the result of three years of political contention and local worry about the potential to cause commercial displacement. In addition to the vulnerabilities imposed by a tight real estate market, Jackson Heights faces significant environmental threats. Neighborhood infrastructure is in many ways inadequate, as many residents lack close access to public transit and public open spaces. Meanwhile, nearby Flushing Bay poses the threat of flooding in homes; a significant chunk of the neighborhood lies within a storm surge zone. Flooding could also over-stress the already strained local Combined Sewer System, potentially causing sewage overflow and water contamination. Given the dearth of permeable area in Jackson Heights, and increasing frequency of climate-related inclement weather events, this issue poses serious consequences for residents.

MultipliCity

2017

by New York City immigrants in securing affordable places to live, and how many have resorted to living in basements illegally. While estimates on the number of occupied illegally basements vary, Chhaya and Pratt Center put the figure at 114,000. Jackson Heights is one of New York City’s most affected neighborhoods, perhaps due to its large immigrant community and the systemic obstacles that force many immigrants into this situation. Since basement dwellers would not be counted in the census, this could explain the disparity between our existing conditions findings and the census population data.

Photo: Advertisement for realtor in Jackson Heights

Crowded living conditions and rising rates of rent burden, concern over commercial displacement, and overly strained physical infrastructure all tell the story of a rapidly growing community. Furthermore, student overcrowding has been cited recently as a major concern in local public schools, giving further indication that more people are living in Jackson Heights than what the neighborhood can currently sustain. Yet U.S. census data indicates that the Jackson Heights population is in slight decline. This data directly contradicts the affordability issues present for both residents and small businesses. An inventory of previous research on basement conversions in New York City revealed a little more about this strange disparity. Reports by the Pratt Center for Community Development, the Citizens Housing and Planning Council, Chhaya CDC, and former Pratt student Ryan Chavez document the issues faced

Unfortunately, many of the basement units in Jackson Heights are below-grade cellars (more than 50% percent of the unit’s height is below street level), giving cause for serious concern. Cellars are not legally fit for habitation, and would have to undergo major physical upgrades (such as excavation to meet grade requirements and retrofitting larger windows for light and ventilation) to become safe places to live. Illegal basement residents in Jackson Heights could be living in unhealthy, and potentially dangerous, conditions. Since many basement dwellers are also immigrants that face issues like limited access to resources and language barriers, they are even more vulnerable in this context. These issues are the foundation for Chhaya’s BASE campaign, and were the target of some of our foremost recommendations. Our studio team hoped to support the BASE campaign by exploring solutions to the affordable housing shortage, as well as to find ways to benefit the community overall. We developed recommendations to address the following three objectives: create and reinforce new and existing options for affordable housing; strengthen socioeconomic resiliency through supporting local small businesses; increase environmental and social resiliency through improving the open space system, and increasing access and connectivity. To alleviate the affordable housing shortage and to support current illegal basement dwellers, we recommended promoting “as-of-right” development. This includes the creation of a new dwelling in any oneor two- family home located within zoning that would allow an additional unit. For example, a one-family home with a basement located in a district zoned for two- or multi-family housing could convert its basement into a legal dwelling unit without major physical upgrades, a zoning variance, or a special permit. We identified the locations of such homes (excluding any within the storm surge zone), and found a large concentration of them in the southwestern corner of Jackson Heights,

between Northern Boulevard and 34th Avenue. This area could serve as a promising starting point if the client were to conduct a basement conversion pilot project, especially given its proximity to public transit, Chhayaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s offices, and the highest concentration of Asian residents in Jackson Heights.

Basement conversions are not the only options for asof-right development. While they would require both

We also explored long-term options for affordable housing that move beyond as-of-right development, including creation of a community land trust and nonprofit housing development. A community land trust is a tool that separates the value of land from the housing that sits upon it, preventing the threat of developer speculation and ensuring consistent affordability. This could be especially beneficial in Jackson Heights for homeowners whose homes are ineligible for basement conversions, due to physical impediments, zoning code, or storm surge. We also suggested Chhaya consider directly creating new affordable housing,

MultipliCity 2017

Another proactive step is to create a conversions toolkit for landlords. The Housing Preservation Department maintains strict requirements on lawfully renting a basement apartment, pertaining to ceiling height, windows, waterproofing of walls, light, and ventilation. Landlords looking to convert their basements must be familiar with these requirements and with building code, conversion costs (which can range from $54,000 to $140,000), secure safe project financing, and navigate complex permitting. A toolkit could provide homeowners with information on this complicated process, streamlining their work for efficiency and success.

physical upgrades and unbuilt floor area to become habitable, cellars also hold the potential for conversions. As with basements, we located cellar units in Jackson Heights in districts zoned to allow an additional unit. A third option for as-of-right development, inspired by a 2011 presentation by architect Deborah Gans, we explored the option of adding above-ground units to existing homes (what Gans calls the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Local Additionâ&#x20AC;?) as an affordable way of creating housing without substantial streetscape alteration.

Map: Family Housing with Basements Potentially Eligible for Legalization

either by bringing expertise into their own organization, or by partnering with an existing not-for-profit (NFP) developer. Solutions to affordable housing will not resolve all the issues that Jackson Heights, and particularly its most vulnerable communities, face. We developed additional recommendations to strengthen the neighborhood’s economic, social and environmental resiliency. To support Jackson Heights’ vibrant commercial landscape, we explored the creation of a small merchant’s association, advocacy for policies on commercial tenant protection, and support for street vendors. To mitigate against natural threats and increase neighborhood connectivity, we developed the “Flushing Greenway” plan. This model creates safe, multi-modal transportation options for residents, increases public access to and use of the Flushing Bay waterfront, and implements climate change mitigation strategies such as bioswales, water retention zones, and pervious infrastructure. Jackson Heights is a truly special place grappling with a complex set of issues. Chhaya’s work and the Fundamentals studio build on the amazing previous work done on basement conversions as affordable housing solutions in New York City. In Jackson Heights,

Map: Existing and proposed green infrastructure

this research is crucial for the protection of its diverse community and neighborhood character. As the neighborhood’s warm, welcoming atmosphere draws more and more people to live there, it will become increasingly important to protect the community that calls Jackson Heights home, and to ensure they have the housing, economic opportunity, and social and environmental infrastructure necessary to keep making this beautiful place what it is today.

Thesis Excerpt

Overcrowding of Chinese Immigrants Reanna Tong

MultipliCity 2017

Photo: Rooftops in Chinatown, NYC

MultipliCity

2017

he purpose of this study was to explore whether the micro-apartment housing typology is an appropriate and feasible housing option for the low-income Chinese immigrant population of Sunset Park and Chinatown. As I conducted interviews and questionnaires, the thesis took a slightly different direction toward identifying the general needs of the Chinese immigrant population, especially around housing. The recommendations considered what modifications can be made to housing typologies to cater to the needs of this population, and how New York City and community organizations can move forward in helping this population address their housing and other community issues. Since finishing the thesis, multiple sources have released relevant publications and videos. To better understand the issues many Asian immigrants face: •

Read “SubUrbanisms: Casino Urbanization, Chinatowns, and the Contested American Landscape” by Stephen Fan.

•

Watch The Forgotten Ones, which profiles elderly people who are struggling as they grow older alone and cling to one another for support.

•

Watch Satellite Babies, stories of Chinese families that have their children in America and immediately send them back to be cared for by relatives, only to have the children return to the U.S. for school at ages five or six.

Historic and Current Conditions Cities have long faced the challenge of housing waves of incoming populations. Urban centers, especially New York City, experienced influxes of migrants that tend to initially congregate at the city’s core. Coastal cities, especially, have become centers for immigrants from all over the world. Despite having access to a larger housing market throughout New York City, Chinese immigrants, especially lower income, have settled in groups in select neighborhoods and in some similar living conditions. Many Chinese immigrants are currently concentrated in three neighborhoods in New York City: Sunset Park, Manhattan’s Chinatown, and Flushing.

Many studies and scholarly articles, such as Tarry Hum’s book on Sunset Park and Nancy Foner’s book on new immigrants in New York, explore the impact of the growing Asian population on the local economy. However, there is little, if any, recent research on their housing conditions or what the New York City government has done for immigrants in regards to housing. More recently, some articles and government documents have been released, covering the issue overcrowded housing conditions in New York City. One article run by the New York Times exposes the conditions of an apartment in Queens that has been illegally subdivided, with the kitchen also serving as a bedroom. The tenants of the apartment are immigrants from Mexico. A report released by New York City Comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, also studies the overcrowded and illegal housing conditions in New York City. According to the report, “nearly 70 percent of crowded dwellings in New York City are occupied by an immigrant head of household and over 45 percent of all residents living in crowded dwellings are foreign born.”

Findings on Housing, Demographics, and Community Interviews and questionnaires provide a deeper understanding of the current living conditions of tenants in Chinatown and Sunset Park. Community organizers and the tenants themselves offer a glimpse into the existing conditions. While a multitude of community organizations exist in both neighborhoods, only a handful of people work directly with tenants themselves specifically on housing issues. Interviews and questionnaire responses through Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV), New York City Chinese-American Planning Council (NYC CPC), and Charlie Lai provide a brief introduction into the life of the Chinese immigrant, both elderly and young, and recent and old. The interviews and questionnaires ask questions about overcrowded housing, choosing where to live, qualities of housing, and affordability of housing. Respondents Demographics •

81.2 percent of respondents from the Chinatown/ LES questionnaire earn less than $20,000 a year. The remaining 19.1 percent earn the next lowest bracket of annual income from $20,000 to $34,999.

•

Excluding those who do not know their unit sizes, respondents in units less than 100 square feet comprise 40 percent of the total (20 out of 50 respondents). Also excluding those who do not know, 24 percent of respondents live in units 100 to 200 square feet in size.

•

30 percent of households in Chinatown and 36 percent of households in Sunset Park pay 50 percent or more of their income on rent. Paying more than 30 percent of income on rent is considered rent-burdened.

Many Chinese immigrants work in these areas and find convenience in being able to walk to work. However, a common thread among the interviews is that more and more Chinese immigrants are finding work outside of these areas and even beyond New York City. This has led to a transitional lifestyle among many Chinese immigrants who go through Chinatown/LES and Sunset Park. Chinatown, in particular, has a high number of people in transitional housing. As job prospects for Chinese immigrants in New York City have decreased, many new immigrants have begun to find work in nearby regions, such as New Jersey, or sometimes as far as Ohio or North Carolina. Transitional workers return to New York City periodically once a week or month with commuting assistance provided by employers.

•

This transient lifestyle has had a couple of immediate implications: 1) the temporary overcrowding of workers who stay with friends and relatives, and 2) the state of health for those who make temporary dwellings of spaces that are not intended for such uses.

On Defining “Overcrowding” •

As an organization that has fought against tenant harassment and the unjust eviction of tenants, CAAAV is wary of using the term “overcrowded” because it seems to be used as an excuse used by the City to kick people out of their apartments or dwelling units when they have no other choice or option. Oftentimes, tenants do not want to live in their current overcrowded situations, but living in cheaper or overcrowded housing in Chinatown is a necessity in order to save money.

Choosing a Community in Which to Live •

All interviewees agree that common language plays a large role in attracting new Chinese immigrants into the two neighborhoods. Any services, facilities, or community resources can be accessed through the Chinese language. Of particular importance is the presence of community organizations that have staff speaking multiple dialects of Chinese.

•

Similar to the common language, Chinese immigrants can find familiar foods, products, and services in Chinatown and Sunset Park. Doctors who specialize in Eastern medicine are located in these areas; grocery stores that sell Chinese and other Asian produce are abundant; and Chinese restaurants can be found on nearly every block.

•

When considering a community in which to live, the top three considerations that respondents take are Language (41.7 percent), Transportation (41.7 percent), and Existing Relationships (35.7 percent).

MultipliCity 2017

•

Photo: Annie Ling

Place of Work and Temporary Housing •

The decision to stay within Chinatown/LES and Sunset Park is often attributed to distance to work.

Quality of Housing •

•

NYC CPC, CAAAV, and Charlie Lai all agree that the City could do a better job regulating and inspecting buildings and upholding landlord to standards. Beyond incentivizing developers to invest in new construction, New York City should focus on repairs and regulation of existing buildings. The majority (70 percent) of respondents do not share common facilities, such as bathrooms and kitchens, with other people living in the house. The largest portion of respondents who must share facilities in the household, such as a kitchen and bathroom, are those who live in a unit less than 100 square feet.

Affordable Housing

MultipliCity

2017

•

For all interviewees, affordable housing is one of the most pressing issues facing Chinese immigrant community and all of New York City. The issue is not only about the affordability of housing, but also the availability of affordable housing. Residents of Sunset Park feel this need, especially with the absence of public housing in the area. While the City has provided affordable housing in Red Hook and Coney Island, Sunset Park residents feel overlooked. Furthermore, they see projects to develop the waterfront along 1st and 2nd Avenues and feel the land could be utilized for public housing instead. Respondents most commonly (65.5 percent) consider Affordability, Unit Size (21.4 percent), and Privacy (15.5 percent) when searching for housing. One respondent who resides in Chinatown also listed having the convenience of an elevator in the apartment building as the main appeal to the unit.

Government Priorities •

Respondents feel most strongly about the New York City government prioritizing Affordable Housing, with two-thirds of respondents including it on their list of most important issues to address. Among other priorities, respondents also list safety and crime in immigrant neighborhoods, increasing public housing, more subsidies, a better education system, and programs to help immigrants transition into a different society.

Recommendations

Expand the Micro-Apartment Typology The current typology and standard of microapartments will not adequately address the needs to the Chinese population. Taking the Kips Bay microapartment development in New York City as an example, micro-apartments are currently built with a very specific design in mind, including luxury services and amenities and static single or couple households. Changing these spaces is not suggesting that low-income immigrant populations cannot have well-designed and high quality living spaces. But money spent on services that are beyond basic necessities can be put to other uses that better serve the population. For the Chinese immigrant community, their needs and desires include more affordable housing and more immigrant services. Money allocated towards luxury services can, instead, go to building more apartments or funding immigrant services within the building.

Prioritize Vacant or Developable Land for Housing and Community Resources In order for low-income residents and community organizers to feel like the government and the City is attempting to address their needs, they need to see evidence of such efforts. The City should utilize vacant or developable lots for community uses. Rather than from high tech industries, Sunset Park residents could benefit from additional schools, community centers, and affordable housing. The City should also advocate for investors to provide equity for affordable housing developments, community services, or local businesses that will support the community.

Strengthen Local Industry to Provide Greater Job Opportunities for Chinese Immigrants Rather than mainly trying to attract foreign business, the City should begin to focus efforts on the assets of capabilities of local employees. Chinatown’s formerly thriving garment industry shows that the Chinese immigrant population is able to contribute positively toward the local economy. Areas that have been targeted for local business, such as Industry City, should also promote businesses that can employ people from the same area. Industries like Chinatown’s formerly thriving garment industry are well-suited for

Chinese immigrants, who possess technical and manual labor skills, without requiring that they entirely learn another language. Another way to address this would be to provide educational opportunities for Chinese immigrants to improve their skills so they are not restricted to certain industries and geographies of work.

Rethink and Redefine Regulation on HomeSharing To promote a different approach through design, the government should first set the circumstances under which innovative design can take place. As mentioned earlier, while the FHA does not allow for discrimination based on race and national origin, regulations still exist that primarily negatively impact immigrants. Rather than enforcing regulations based on the current norms, the FHA should consider redefining existing regulations on housing.

Planning,

Cultural competency is not only necessary to bring policy-makers to a greater understanding of cultural practices, but also the neighbors to those in

MultipliCity 2017

Increase Cultural Competency Design, and Policy-Making

these living situations. In Sunset Park, where many residents have become outraged with the conversion of basements to illegal dwellings, much of the anger may emerge from the misunderstanding or lack of knowledge around the situation. Residents from â&#x20AC;&#x153;outsideâ&#x20AC;? the immigrant population may gain a better sense of empathy when understanding that these illegal situations arise not out of desire, but often out of necessity. Through this understanding, they may even advocate for greater affordable housing in the area rather than the eviction of residents who have little other housing options.

Photo: Apartment interior by Thomas Holton

Professor Interview

David Dyssegaard Kallick

MultipliCity

2017

David Dyssegaard Kallick is an Assistant Visiting Professor at the Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment, where he teaches Urban Economics. Kallick is also Deputy Director at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research, and education organization that studies New York State economic and budget issues. Tell us a little bit about your background. What interests you the most about economics?

hen I was at college, what really grabbed my attention was philosophy, literature, literary theory. I went to Yale in the early 1980s, when deconstruction and postmodernism were all the rage. I was in seminars with Jacques Derrida and Harold Bloom, I learned to speak French and German—it was very exciting. But after college, I found that the political direction of the country was changing in ways that I found very disturbing, and I wanted to be part of turning that around. Maybe I can explain my interest in economics by talking about some graffiti I saw in East Germany in December of 1989. It was a world-shaking moment. The Berlin Wall had just been opened. Should there be private property? Government regulation? Were there new economic models, or should East Germany unite with West Germany? Everything and anything seemed possible, and the atmosphere was electric. One bit of graffiti that stuck with me reflected a frustration with idealistic hopes, and said: Es geht um meinen Lebensstandard im Jahr 2012. Wer mit mir darüber reden will muss sich verdammt gut auskennen! Roughly: “What’s at stake is my standard of living in the year 2012. Don’t expect me to pay much attention

Nitisha Raje

unless you know damn well what you’re talking about.” To me, economics is a way to rigorously test your hopes about the outcome of a project or policy. To make sure, in other words, that when you make a policy proposal you “know damn well what you’re talking about.”

You teach Urban Economics at Pratt Institute’s GCPE. What led you into teaching at Pratt?

edited a magazine called Social Policy for eight years, which was kind of like going to graduate school for me. I worked with some great economists—as well as sociologists, movement activists, and political analysts—commissioning and editing articles, and working with them on different kinds of convenings. Then, in the late 1990s, I worked for a think tank called the Preamble Center, focusing on globalization, economic polarization, and racial disparities in the economy. I have been working at the Fiscal Policy Institute since 2001, focusing first on New York City and New York State budget and economic issues, and on the rebuilding of New York after September 11, and then also on immigration. Over the years, I’ve worked with a number of people from the Pratt Programs for Sustainable Planning and Development. I have a tremendous amount of respect for them and for the

the World Trade Center, to name a few of the hundreds of topics that came up.

It may be a coincidence, but as it turns out my predecessor teaching Urban Economics, Moshe Adler, had worked side by side with me some years back the Fiscal Policy Institute. I’m not sure John knew that when he asked me to join Pratt, but it was a fortuitous connection. As my students know, Moshe’s book Economics for the Rest of Us is still required reading for the class.

A kind of civic infrastructure developed rather quickly that brought people together to understand the issues and advocate for appropriate planning priorities. I had just started at the Fiscal Policy Institute, and I coordinated what became a part of this infrastructure: The Labor Community Advocacy Network (LCAN), which brought together people who were focused on social and economic justice issues. Other key groups were New York, New Visions, which engaged architects, designers, urban planners and engineers. Rebuild Downtown Our Town (RDOT) represented people who lived near the World Trade Center in the Financial District and Tribeca. And the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York was an umbrella organization convened by the Regional Plan Association that included the Partnership for New York, the Real Estate Board of New York, and other powerful city actors, as well as representatives of the other groups. There was also an important effort to engage a wide range of New Yorkers in thinking about the possibilities of rebuilding, called Imagine New York, that was spearheaded by Eva Hanhardt, now at Pratt and then at the Municipal Arts Society. Together, those five groups won an American Planning Association’s Lawrence M. Orton award in 2003 as “civic voices for Lower Manhattan.”

How does your work associate with planning? Do you advise/ discuss with planners on certain issues? Could you elaborate on a certain project?

y most extensive direct involvement in planning issues was around the rebuilding of New York after September 11th. Immediately after September 11th, Lower Manhattan was a frozen zone patrolled by military vehicles; regular traffic was not allowed in or out. The subways stopped and many phone lines were out of service. There was a recession, which was centered on Wall Street and the collapse of the dot-com bubble. And then there was a $20 billion promise from the federal government to help rebuild New York City. It was a highly fraught atmosphere. A lot was at stake emotionally, economically, politically, socially. We saw a tremendous outpouring of interest in how Lower Manhattan would be rebuilt. Everyone in the region, it seemed, felt like a stakeholder. And in a very real way, everyone was. But it was unclear what was within the realm of possibility. The World Trade towers were largely considered an urban planning mistake— two giant buildings on a barren plaza—but naturally no one had given any serious thought to replacing them. In order for people to have a meaningful voice in the decision-making process they needed to be informed about a very wide range of issues. No one person or organization had an overview on everything. It took an extraordinary coming together of a range of stakeholders and people with a range of particular types of expertise to understand all the interlocking issues. How there could be more vacant offices after the destruction of 12 million square feet of space than there was before; the subway connections; the need for housing; the electricity infrastructure; and why people always complained about the absence of retail near

Anyone who was around Pratt in 2001, 2002, 2003 will remember all of this. A large number of people at Pratt were instrumental to the process: . The Pratt Center for Community Development (before its name change) was a co-sponsor of Listening to the City, which brought together 5,000 people to give feedback to the initial proposed plans for rebuilding. And the amazing Ron Shiffman was a central player in I think literally all of the coalitions I mentioned.

MultipliCity 2017

programs. So, when John Shapiro asked me to join I jumped at the opportunity.

There’s so much more to say about the rebuilding after 9/11, but let me add one topic that may seem relevant to the class I teach. A very serious, and very expensive, proposal was a tunnel under the East River that would allow for a “one seat ride” between JFK airport and the basement of the World Trade Center. Even once we understood what the project really represented—not so much an airport connection as a way for commuters from Long Island to Lower Manhattan to save time and not have to rub elbows with subway riders—it still seemed like a useful addition to the city’s transit system. What killed the project in our eyes was the cost-benefit analysis. Many of us were reluctant to come to that conclusion, but there were just not enough

transit riders who would gain enough for it to be worth putting a $1 billion “downpayment” (as the governor proposed) on a project with an estimated cost of $6 billion. The story of how that downpayment money was used has a number of twists and turns, but one really positive outcome was $150 million that was allocated to the dramatic revitalization of Manhattan’s East River Park – which at the time was really dilapidated. So the cost-benefit analysis wasn’t strong enough, and the opportunity costs were too great.

Could you elaborate on your work for the Fiscal Policy Institute today, and the Immigration Research Initiative?

MultipliCity

2017

y work at the Fiscal Policy Institute is mostly focused on immigration. I am the director of FPI’s Immigration Research Initiative, where we’ve written a number of big and, I think, groundbreaking reports about the economic role of immigrants— showing the close connection between immigration and economic growth at the metro area, the powerful role of immigrants in “Main Street” businesses and the way that helps revitalize urban areas, or the level of economic integration of refugees in the United States. I have connected immigration and urban planning in several places, including a chapter on the economics of immigration in New York to One Out of Three, edited by Nancy Foner, which is a go-to text for classes on city-level immigration, and in an article for the Regional Labor Review looking at what happened to a range of workers at the local level as immigrants entered the Long Island economy, and in a more accessible format in Proof Magazine or in the book New York 400. We have a great network of groups we work with in other states, the State Priorities Partnership, that FPI helps support in doing immigration work. And we do a lot of work to try to shift the media coverage of immigration to reflect a better-informed picture of the role immigrants are playing. We are in the media quite a bit, but if I could point to one piece I am particularly proud of it would be a front-page story in the New York Times about the fact that immigrants are not all in lowskill jobs. In general, FPI’s focus is on New York State—the immigration work is the one area where we do national analysis. Every year, the FPI develops a briefing book on the New York State budget to help legislators and the public understand in real time what’s at stake in the annual budget negotiations. FPI also presents regular analyses of economic issues relevant to New York

State and its regions, from racial disparities among low-wage workers in New York City to a report on the state’s underinvestment in public higher education to the economic impacts of closing local post offices. I am also deputy director at FPI: I contribute at least a little to all of FPI’s bigger projects, plus I write opeds and make public presentations. A fun part of my job is also to engage in the public debate on a range of topics, including a recent foray on Fox News about the use of cell phones to pay for purchases instead of cash.

You have written about social and economic policies in Denmark. Can you discuss some of that?

enmark seems to be getting a lot of attention these days: internationally famous restaurants, Scandi-noir television shows, and now even books about the concept of “hygge,” Danish for coziness. My interest in Denmark really began when I met my wife, who is Danish. It’s because of her— or, really, because of our kids—that I learned to speak the language. But my involvement with Danish social and economic policy has gone beyond my family relationship. There is a lot that I think the Danes really get right. The labor market system of flexicurity – flexibility plus security - is emblematic. The Danish economy is very dynamic in part because workers embrace new technology, even if it means many of them will be displaced from their jobs. That’s because they have a very strong safety net, so if people wind up unemployed they will get good benefits and continuing educational training. The system creates an upward spiral of increased productivity that’s good for both businesses and workers as the economy sheds lowskilled, lower-wage jobs and gains higher-skilled, higher-wage jobs. Add to that a free higher education, good public transportation, and widespread gigabyte per second internet access, and it starts to look like a model we should pay attention to. Paradise? Well, no. Just look at how hard it seems to be for Danes to come to grips with the integration of immigrants, and the rise of a xenophobic nationalist party that got 21 percent of the votes in the 2015 election. Still, there’s a lot I think we can learn from the

Fundamentals Studio

Concrete Safaris Chloe Bean

MultipliCity 2017

Rendering: Parklet, before and after, by Yi-Chun Liu

pring 2016’s Fundamentals Studio partnered with Concrete Safaris, a NorthManhattan based non-profit, and its executive director Mac Levine. Concrete Safaris asked the Fundamentals of Planning class to identify the implications of both the Department of City Planning’s (DCP) rezoning proposal for East Harlem and the New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) Next Generation Plan for the community gardens Concrete Safaris operates. The studio’s goal was to assist Concrete Safaris as it seeks to sustain and expand its programs and to participate effectively in the rezoning conversations in terms of open space availability. In order to accomplish this goal, the studio provided specific recommendations in relation to Concrete Safari’s programming as well as a comprehensive analysis of potential risks and challenges to the East Harlem neighborhood as a whole.

Our Client

oncrete Safaris provides youth in Upper Manhattan with experiential education to become environmental leaders and health advocates for themselves and their communities. To accomplish these ends, Concrete Safaris has developed programs in the Neighborhood of East Harlem centered around community gardens and outdoor play. Concrete Safaris has two community gardens in the neighborhood, both located on NYCHA property. One garden is located on the grounds of the Jefferson Houses, between First and Second Avenues and 115th and 113th Streets, while the other is within the Washington Houses, between 98th and 97th Streets and Third and Second Avenues. Because the Jefferson and Washington Houses serve as a focal point for Concrete Safaris’ work, the Studio’s activities were centered around their locations.

About East Harlem

he neighborhood of East Harlem, together with Randall’s Island, makes up Community District 11 of Manhattan. The neighborhood sits in the northeast corner of the island of Manhattan, bounded by East 96th Street to the south, 5th Avenue to the west, and the Harlem River, which joins the East River south of Randall’s Island, to the north and east. The western edge of East Harlem, from East 96th to Tito Puente Way (formerly East 110th Street) adjoins Central Park. The neighborhood of the Upper East Side lies directly to the south of East Harlem, while Central Harlem lies to the west.

Historically identified as one of the strongest cultural areas of New York City, East Harlem has been constructed by a particularly diverse and active population of working class immigrants. Most recently, East Harlem has been home to immigrants from Latin America, particularly from Puerto Rico, earning it the nickname El Barrio. Its community maintains the cultural heritage and many physical landmarks that continue to index some of the most important built, social, economic and political urban milestones of the 19th and 20th centuries. The culture of the neighborhood remains strong in the context of increasing economic pressures, growing risks of climate change, and shifting resident demographics.

Map: Location of NYCHA housing in study area MILES 1/8

1/4

1/2

East Harlem

Focus Area (Census Tracts 180 & 156.02)

NYCHA Properties

RIV

12 5 T H S T

116T H S T

ER RIV

JEFFERSON HOUSES

10 6T H S T

FDR DRIVE

CENSUS TRACT 180

C E N T R A L PA R K

5 T H AV E

THOMAS JEFFERSON PA R K

WA R D S I S L A N D PA R K

WASHINGTON HOUSES 96T H S T

CENSUS TRACT 156.02

3 R D AV E

2 N D AV E

R A N DA L L’ S I S L A N D PA R K

PA R K AV E

MultipliCity

MARCUS GARVEY PA R K

2017

Manhattan Community District 11

Highlights from Two Critical Plans

ast Harlem has received considerable planning attention in recent years as this context changes. Many of these plans will be addressed in this report, but three in particular were useful for the framing of our recommendations. First among these relevant reports is Mayor De Blasio’s Housing New York: Five Borough, Ten-Year Plan, which aims to build and preserve 200,000 affordable units in the city. The Mayor’s May 2014 report identified East Harlem as an area with underused land that can support the development of new housing opportunities.

East Harlem’s political representation to the City, including New York City Council Speaker Melissa MarkViverito along with Community Board 11, Community Voices Heard, and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, released the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan in February 2016. The plan not only makes recommendations for the housing and open space changes addressed in the Mayor’s and NYCHA’s plans, but it also suggests a combination of short and long-term policies and projects to preserve the affordability and cultural diversity of the neighborhood. The Neighborhood Plan was created in conjunction with a series of community vision workshops and therefore provides valuable insight into the needs and goals of East Harlem residents. Our recommendations seek to address these community demands with more specific strategies. These plans portend significant change for the neighborhood and especially for its lower-income residents and the community organizations that serve them. In order to help Concrete Safaris explore the implications of these coming changes and serve the population of East Harlem, Pratt Institute’s Fundamentals of City Planning Studio has prepared an analysis of the existing conditions of East Harlem as a first step to provide recommendations for future action.

ur examination of East Harlem’s existing conditions was performed through three distinct lenses: the built environment, the socioeconomic environment, and the natural environment, which included physical infrastructure. The built environment section covered current and proposed zoning, the age of the neighborhood’s building stock, land use, and implications of existing plans. The socioeconomic chapter incorporated current demographics of East Harlem along with economic characteristics such as poverty levels and rent burden, affordable housing, and workforce opportunities. Finally, the natural environment and infrastructure chapter reviewed East Harlem’s open space and transportation systems, its solid waste and energy infrastructure, and a series of environmental justice issues including air quality, food access, and climate change impacts. Each dimension of study revealed specific strengths and weaknesses that currently characterize the neighborhood as well as opportunities and threats that face it. We concluded that the strengths of East Harlem’s built environment lie in its dense, mixed-use development; its strong community ties based on physical locations, such as La Marqueta; and the existence of contextual rezoning in core areas. Weaknesses of the built environment include the R7-2 zoning of NYCHA developments, a lack of connection to large open spaces, and a lack of historic designation. However, the presence of a significant amount of publicly-owned vacant land represents an opportunity to address these weaknesses.

MultipliCity 2017

One year later, NYCHA released its Next Generation NYCHA (NextGen NYCHA) plan to detail radical change that the Housing Authority plans to correct its severe funding issues. The report includes NYCHA plans to develop underutilized space within its housing developments. Increased density is called for, as are changes in areas like security infrastructure, workforce development, and after-school programming.

Summary of Existing Conditions

The neighborhood has a particularly strong social fabric, strong political representation, a high concentration of community-based organizations (CBOs), and an abundance of affordable housing units. These strengths are counterbalanced by high rates of poverty, low workforce participation, and high crime rates, especially around NYCHA housing developments. The potential expiration of affordable housing, coupled with rising rents for both commercial and residential properties, poses a major threat to the affordability and existing character of the neighborhood. Still, opportunities lie in the potential creation of affordable housing in new developments; the rise of new charter schools, daycare and after-school facilities; and a large, untapped workforce. The neighborhood of East Harlem benefits from its proximity to large parks, like Central Park and Randall’s

MultipliCity

2017

Island, and its high saturation of recreational fields. Despite these strengths, residents of East Harlem have higher than average asthma rates and still face issues with access to open space. In addition to these current weaknesses East Harlem is extremely vulnerable to threats of climate change. We saw significant opportunities for the neighborhood in its waterfront location, the development of the 2nd Avenue subway line, and possibility of improvement of NYCHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open spaces through the NextGen NYCHA plan.

Diagram: Participatory budgeting for NYCHA residents

Recommendations

fter completing the Existing Conditions Report, we created deliverables that seek to build on East Harlemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strengths and opportunities in order to address its weaknesses and threats. The goal of this series of recommendations was to assist Concrete Safaris in navigating the predicted changes in East Harlem in a way that will best serve its residents. These recommendations are organized under three major objectives. Objective 1 addresses affordability and workforce development for the community to remain in place and flourish. Objective 2 seeks to improve health, safety, and environmental quality in

the community. Objective 3 aims to build off of East Harlem’s existing strong social capital to increase social ties across cultural and economic lines.

development of community-based climate resiliency strategies and infrastructure in East Harlem.

Objective 1: Provide the tools and strategies Objective 3: Increase social ties across cultural for the community to remain in place and and economic lines flourish

Some significant recommendations under this objective include promoting access to financial services through a partnership with the Lower East Side People’s Federal Credit Union, establishing a network of communitybased organizations and workforce development programs, and promoting employment through growth of the green jobs sector.

Objective 2: Improve health, safety, and environmental quality in the community

he second series of recommendations is focused on what Concrete Safaris might do to help make East Harlem a better and safer place to live and play. These recommendations focus on building upon the neighborhood’s potential for open space while promoting environmental justice and public health. Recommendations to increase open space included promoting the use of vacant lots and advocating for a new greenway network and community-driven East Harlem waterfront access plan. As East Harlem is extremely vulnerable to climate change, we also included recommendations to advocate for the

he final series of recommendations concentrate on maintaining and enhancing the strong sense of community that exists in East Harlem. These recommendations provide programs and strategies that could be utilized to further incorporate new or marginalized populations, such as youth, ex-offenders, and the emerging Chinese population, into the social fabric of the neighborhood. Significant recommendations include the creation of a Concrete Safaris Youth Council program, promoting workforce strategies for reintegrating formerly incarcerated men and women, and advocating for participatory budgeting to address the outstanding needs of the NYCHA Community. The integration of the emerging Chinese population of East Harlem into the neighborhood fabric was of particular concern to our client, and as such we recommended the implementation of diverse cultural programs to promote the inclusion and empowerment of this new population. The Fundamentals Studio determined that as East Harlem continues to experience economic, environmental, and demographic change, the community’s strength and rich culture are its best protection against the threat of displacement. We feel that Concrete Safaris is well-positioned to maximize East Harlem’s existing assets through targeted advocacy and programming that connects community stakeholders, promotes resident participation and autonomy, and builds the engagement and capability of youth. We hope that these recommendations will provide strategies for action that improves the quality of life for all existing and new residents in East Harlem.

MultipliCity 2017

ith rising rents and a proposed rezoning of the neighborhood, residents of East Harlem are facing financial pressures that will make it increasingly difficult to remain in their neighborhood. To combat this threat, our first series of recommendations are organized under the objective of providing the tools and strategies East Harlem residents need to not only afford to continue to reside in their neighborhood, but also to prosper with financial security and meaningful employment. This objective covers three main focus areas: affordable housing, zoning, and workforce development.

Preservation Studio

East Harlem

MultipliCity

2017

Abigail Ellman

Rendering: Augmented reality preservation of intangible heritage

nlike most studios at Pratt, the Fall 2016 Preservation and Planning Studio did not involve developing a set of recommendations for a community-based client, nor was it driven by short term impacts that respond to current issues. Rather, students from the departments of Historic Preservation, City and Regional Planning, Urban Placemaking, and Sustainable Environmental Systems were tasked with planning for a distant and uncertain future, extending considerations beyond the more immediate impacts of specific actions and tools now under review.

Goals of the course 1. Through a process of Scenario Building, project the potential physical, social, and economic characteristics of the neighborhood of East Harlem in the year 2046 and identify the key drivers of change 2. Determine how these potential futures can (and should) shape preservation and planning efforts in 2016-2017 in order to prevent certain negative impacts from causing major damage to the neighborhood

Renderings: East Harlem Living Heritage Museum

Our Process n the first phase of the semester, students absorbed all existing planning and preservation documentation that has been done across multiple issue areas. This work included: • • •

The East Harlem Neighborhood Plan Citywide plans such as OneNYC and Next Generation NYCHA The work of recent Pratt Planning and Preservation studios focused on East Harlem

In the second phase, the Regional Plan Association’s model for Scenario Planning was used to determine the uncontrollable and unpredictable forces that will have the greatest impact on the future. The purpose was to understand the strengths and vulnerabilities of the community today. Seven main driving forces were identified, and of the seven, two overarching drivers emerged: Climate Change and Globalization. East Harlem is incredibly vulnerable to climate change, with 53 percent of the community district in the 2050 100-year floodplain. In terms of globalization, since 2000 there have been major demographic changes in East Harlem. The Hispanic population dropped from 56 percent to 48 percent and the White population doubled between 2000 and 2015. In the third phase, students addressed for whom they would be planning, and how to plan for a community that does not yet exist. This process was informed through consultations with community organizations, advocates, and preservationists now

These three phases were drawn upon to build recommendations for East Harlem that would foster an equitable, resilient, and culturally rich neighborhood within the context of established future driving forces. Interventions were tailored and scaled to respond to the varying degrees of impact of the primary drivers so that planners and preservationists in the next ten, twenty, and thirty years can apply them nimbly to changing circumstances.

MultipliCity 2017

active in the community, with an understanding that these stakeholders will shift considerably in 2046. Ultimately, three primary stakeholder groups were selected: enlightened developers, community advocates, and values-based preservationists. For each group, mission statements and objectives were crafted, the biggest challenges and issues identified, and interventions that would work flexibly in the still uncertain future explored.

Diagram: The process

Recommendations The studio produced three broad categories of recommendations: 1. Water and Open Space 2. Development 3. Preservation

culturally significant aspects of the neighborhood can be preserved. In order to achieve this complex task, the recommendations aim to optimize the outcomes of preservation efforts in East Harlem, harnessing, among others, advanced technologies that will become more readily available in the coming years and decades.

MultipliCity

2017

he Water and Open Space recommendations included bold proposals for mitigating the threat of flooding and creating new exciting open spaces. In doing so, the recommendations turn much of the 20th century planning status quo on its head by envisioning a future in which existing natural systems are recognized and utilized, and transportation planning no longer prioritizes the automobile. The Development recommendations took on some of the most essential questions facing planners and preservationists in New York City today: How do we plan for development without displacement of people and historic fabric? How can the economic opportunities of a changing neighborhood be made accessible to current residents? If future development is inevitable, regardless of future rezonings and globalization, it need not be synonymous with displacement or result in the loss of existing neighborhood character. The studioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendations address a variety of ways to harness development to work for the community and connect residents to resources. The Preservation recommendations engaged creatively with a difficult concept for historic preservation: change and loss. In response to threats from development and more frequent flooding, the interventions contemplate how the neighborhood would preserve its character in the future, both physically and culturally, while also reckoning with the fact that not all structures and

Between Randallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Island and FDR, 2046 Rendering: Transformed edge between Randallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Island and FDR, 2046

Interview with Outgoing Chair

John Shapiro David Burney

MultipliCity 2017

DAVID: What brought you to Pratt as the Chair of the GCPE program? JOHN: I drank the Kool-Aid forty years ago as a

that’s a direct quote - our students weren’t able to take those courses so that we now had a gap in expectations for about 50% of the students.

DAVID: At that time was there a contextual urban design course?

student and I knew I always wanted to come back and teach. I had been asked two other times if I would chair the program and turned them down, the third time was the charm.

JOHN: No.

DAVID: How was the program when you came in as Chair?

DAVID: Because you were relying on the architecture school?

JOHN: When I came in I interviewed the students.

JOHN: Correct.

Students had three main complaints about the CRP program. One was that all the electives kept getting canceled because of under enrollment. The second complaint was that we are in a school of architecture and they came thinking that there’d be urban design courses. But because the urban design program was under new leadership that had the principle that planning, “brings down the quality of design” – and

And then the third problem was that there was no administrative assistant at all and so the chair didn’t have time to do anything except process paperwork. I saw the solution to all three of those problems was doubling enrollment. To make the CRP program the best version of itself, meant doubling enrollment and then introducing electives.

DAVID: Because then you could justify hiring an administrative assistant and provide a contextual urban design course?

MultipliCity

2017

JOHN: Among others! We introduced the UPM

courses at that time. There were lots of other courses that students were asking for that we weren’t teaching. The second thing was that ten years prior, Ron Shiffman in a discussion about the future of the profession, brought up the idea that the profession was becoming more multidisciplinary than ever and with more specializations than ever. He said there ought to be a way to come into Pratt through one door, meaning one discipline, and leave maybe through that door and maybe through a different door. Over the years Pratt had created an urban design program that was now off by itself and didn’t want to play with us and a construction management program and a facilities management program that were part of the architecture school which now had a separate chair and were in Manhattan. There was an historic preservation program, which when I arrived was told they were about to get their own chair and be in Manhattan by themselves, and there was Eva Hanhardt trying to create a sustainability program. Eva, if you guys don’t know, when she’s in the building she’s the smartest person in there, so it was a brilliant program but it was getting no support from the chair of the GCPE and no support from the dean. The way that I came up with a solution to implement Ron’s vision was to create the GCPE program where we would partner with the construction and facilities management programs, create a planning-oriented urban design program around place-making, which would be transdisciplinary (planning, management, etc.) and wouldn’t be just an urban design program (because then we would be moving into something that already existed), to create a real estate program, to strengthen the sustainability program, and to bring historic preservation back to Brooklyn. The goal was to bring everything back to Brooklyn and infuse it all with the CRP program’s original progressive, participatory agenda, otherwise known as “Pratt values.” Then to create a requirement that everybody has to take at least one multidisciplinary studio after having the foundation of their own single disciplinary studio.

DAVID: Before you go on, let’s back up a little bit. So in order to accomplish all of this you had to increase enrollment… JOHN: Across the board.

DAVID: …So how did you go about doing that? JOHN: Well the first thing was the catalogue description made us sound like every other program. One of the first things I did was to rewrite it to say we‘re not going to try to be a generic planning program.

DAVID: We’re not! We’re not like NYU or Rutgers these other places, we’re unique. JOHN: That’s right. DAVID: So you managed to rewrite the course catalogue so that this was reflected in what people saw when they came to apply? JOHN: And it meant saying to ourselves and saying to

the leadership we’re a niche program. Which up until that point was not something that they liked to hear. Because if you’re generic you have a larger pool of people to draw from. My point was with some of the planning programs in the nation, 5 programs alone in NYC, unless we’re an inexpensive institution or unless we are the strongest version of any niche we chose, there’s no reason for someone to come to Pratt. It was not entirely supported but I didn’t see any other way to do it and very fast was proved to be right. Enrollment started shooting up. We used to be a New York school, everybody came from New York, and all of the sudden we were a national school. Now half of our enrollment is national rather than New Yorkers who want to go back to graduate school. The second thing was to say to city planning students and others, you now have the opportunity to go really deep into sustainability because there’s a whole other program that’s not the planners version of sustainability it’s its own version of sustainability, historic preservation, placemaking, real estate, etc. and someone’s there making sure that it’s the best program. I would say at this point 1/3 of our students come here for community development for the planning program, 1/3 come for a multidisciplinary education, and 1/3 come because we’re in a school of architecture and they’re interested in a place and design oriented degree. What makes that interesting is our competition is then in three different categories. For instance, our biggest competitor this year for the planning program was Harvard. For the other programs it was a lot of questions around capacity building because it can’t be my version of placemaking, sustainability, preservation, etc. We had to get people like yourself who are leaders

DAVID: I have to share with you when we did, for example, the DUMBO studio we had historic preservation and planning students, they worked beautifully together and learned DAVID: So, obviously one of the appeals of from each other and it worked out fine. But Pratt is this multidisciplinary aspect and, as here have been other studios that were less you say, there are five doors in but there are successful. five doors out… JOHN: It’s largely the responsibility of the professor, JOHN: Right, soon six and seven! for example planning professors using nothing but in each of those disciplines independent of being a planner.

DAVID: … Once we have real estate… JOHN: And GIS…

JOHN: Actually in the studios that I’ve taught, we’ve

never had this problem. If I had to guess - I’m going to be a little egotistical and a little autobiographical – I grew up with learning disabilities and didn’t know it. I didn’t know how to read until I was in 5th grade and I thought if I hung out with people that were smarter than I, maybe I would be smarter. So, I realized something recently that in my entire career I always wanted to work with people, I never wanted to work alone and I always wanted to work with people who I thought were more talented, smarter, more creative, knowledgeable, more of a leader, more of a listener than I am. For me, going into a multidisciplinary studio feels easier than going into a monodisciplinary studio.

DAVID: I think it depends to some extent on the attitude or the mindset of the student.

MultipliCity 2017

DAVID: Exactly, but one of the things we try to do is multidisciplinary studios and that has been more of a challenge, hasn’t it? Because how do you accomplish real-world teamwork – not that it’s easier on the outside - but you know you often hear that the HP students and sustainability students are overwhelmed by the planning students and it’s hard to craft a studio that is truly multidisciplinary and you’ve obviously addressed that issue with studio before…

planning jargon and just expecting the others to understand. Even little things that actually go a long way like referring to all of the students as planners instead of saying, “urbanists.” It’s sending microaggressions against other disciplines. I think there’s a need for whoever teaches the course to truly make an effort to honor every discipline that’s in the room and honor the disciplines that aren’t in the room. The second issue is the preparation of the students. Most of the programs have gone through a redesign where there’s some entry monodisciplinary studio which is supposed to provide the hard skills. The historic preservation students have been particularly handicapped going into these studios because they go in without any of the hard skills that the studio requires so they feel the double whammy of the planners making the assumption that preservation is a subset of planning – an immediate culture problem - and the professors have to nip that in the bud the first class. The second handicap is they’re always feeling like they’re playing catchup. So, it’s a work in progress.

DAVID: So it can be done, right? Multidisciplinary teaching is a functioning reality. JOHN: I would actually argue it is a functioning reality,

in particular for the historic preservation students, because most of them are hired in planning offices to be the preservationists or they’re hired in architecture firms. It’s very few that are actually going to get jobs that are in an independent preservation organization. If they don’t learn the jargon and mindset, we’re actually letting them down. I would argue that for the sustainability and for the historic preservation students, the wider world they’re entering into is going to require they know what the other disciplines are about.

JOHN: In this case the mindset of the professor. If DAVID: You often hear that graduates who leave the professor goes in already with a multidisciplinary Pratt and get jobs, whether it’s at city agencies point of view as opposed to trying to team up two or or non-profits and so on, people say, “Wow, three monodisciplinary professors… so for example Pratt students come here and they really know this is why I think you, Matt, and Daniel work so what to do.” To what do you attribute that? well as a team because the three of you are already multidisciplinary…

JOHN: A lot of things. One is Pratt established itself at

2017 MultipliCity

the start as a, “fight City Hall” advocacy ethic. Which means that the Pratt planners are interested in the real world than the theoretical world. Two, Pratt Institute started out as a career-oriented school, not an ivory tower. So there’s more of an emphasis on training and skills. Third, employers tell me that because the three studios that the GCPE students have to take, our students actually know how to work and know how to work in a team context, which is what they’re going to do. Fourth, our faculty are practitioners, so you’re able to create just the right amount of content for someone to be trained and ready to enter the workforce as opposed to knowing a lot about something more esoteric. The fifth reason is its New York City and we really push internships for our students and we have something like 60 fellowships lined up for students so they actually have on the job experience. We teach at night so they can actually get these jobs as opposed to being able to work one day a week or only in the summers. The final reason is that whole “Pratt values” thing. If you’re trying to have an impact it is a driver to being a problem solver. The whole idea of tactical urbanism is something I was learning 40 years ago. We called that “problem solving” in planning. We don’t end up going into an office and someone says, “Come up with a plan for waste transfer stations in Brooklyn” and we approach it as a theoretical thing, reading the literature of waste transfer etc. We approach it as a very practical thing and all very problem-solving oriented. There’s another aspect, the practitioner factor in other cities may not be the best teachers. We’ve got an eight million person region, which is like all of Denmark, so we’ve got practitioners who care about teaching, theory, best practice, they’ll be great teachers, and they won’t be the type that go in and just tell horror stories. Which is one of the dangers of practitioner faculty if you don’t have a lot of choices.

DAVID: You were here for almost nine years and you accomplished almost everything that you’ve set out to do. Is there any unfinished business? JOHN: There are three major unfinished things. One

is, I don’t consider myself the best administrator and I think as time went on and as the GCPE program became bigger and more complex, I needed to be a better administrator and manager as opposed to providing vision and energy. So, I think in that sense I was less effective. There’s a wealth of administrative stuff that we never got around to because we didn’t have the resources. But if I were a better administrator I would have figured out how to do it. There are courses

that have the wrong names, you know, there’s just loads of things like that. My last year I couldn’t pull off a single faculty meeting in CRP, just loads of stuff like that. I never created a system for the APA piece of the PAB accreditation, every time it’s like you have to write Moby Dick. That probably set in when the second PAB review started. I think that’s when my effectiveness went down. The second thing is the original vision of the multi-door, which everyone said was impossible but I still think is possible, was there’d be six masters programs, each of which would have its own certificate and the certificate program would allow someone with a different masters to say, “I don’t want to get two masters, but I do want to take an extra semester and I really want something more in depth and it’s at night so I can have my full time job. I can spread it out over a year, no big deal.” Secondly to say, “I have a full time job I don’t know if I want to get another masters, I do want to know this and then. Oh, I do love this topic! I didn’t realize that when I was learning community development if might turn into a planning degree or when I was learning creative placemaking that there’s this bigger topic of placemaking in general. I now want to go on and get the full masters.” In theory there’d be one for each of those, so they’re be six masters and there’d be six feeder or supplemental certificates. Finally, that there could exist a joint undergraduate degree that in your senior year you choose which of these twelve areas you want to then enter into as you complete your undergraduate degree so that you could graduate in five years with a certificate or five and a half years for the masters. We did the first tier of the GCPE, and that was the hardest tier, but we haven’t done the last two tiers. If we do from a business and management point of view, instead of having 160 students, we have 200 students. At 200 students there’s a whole other threshold of institute support. It’s the full realization of what Ron said because you could say to someone, “I understand that you want to be a community development person working for A Sustainable South Bronx, why don’t you get two certificates? One in green infrastructure and one in community development? Or why don’t you get your masters in sustainability and a certificate in community development?” Or say, “You want to work for community development corporation? Get a planning degree with an area focus in community development and then get a certificate in progressive real estate so that you can really learn how to build affordable housing?” It really provides the opportunity for students to design their

own degree to exactly match their ambitions.

DAVID: We’ve never had a PHD program, is there an obstacle to doing that?

chapter in a book and have been doing facilitation and mediation related to planning. It’s hard to say where the mediation, facilitation and planning work begin and end because it’s a combination. It’s a lot of fun and totally multidisciplinary.

JOHN: There are two obstacles. One is, which I’ve heard contradictory things about, that if you’re an institute you can’t have a PHD. But I’ve heard people say that’s not true, so I don’t know. It could be a hook for the institute to say, “This is not our priority.” The reason why this is not a priority, which is probably the real reason, is PHD students typically get 100 percent scholarship in exchange for teaching and I don’t think Pratt sees how that is a business model they can sustain as a tuition-based school.

DAVID: Is there a PHD program anywhere within an institute? and it was turned down and the School of Information and Library Science was proposing a PHD program and it was turned down. When I first arrived I had two other ideas besides the GCPE program. One was creating a satellite program in Connecticut which has no planning program and the second one was creating a PHD program. I also found among the full-time faculty, there was zero interest in having a PHD program. However, that could change overtime.

MultipliCity 2017

JOHN: GAUD was proposing the equivalent of a PHD

DAVID: Any final reflections? JOHN: I’m so excited about Eve! For a couple reasons.

Putting so much of my energy into the GCPE program, I think Eve, who is a community based planner and a PHD, is just the right person to come in and find ways to strengthen the planning program and to create a community development certificate program. She ran an undergraduate program, so she’s also the perfect person to explore a joint degree. So she has all of the perfect qualifications to be a leader. I’ve also worked with Eve in the past and if I felt there were things that I could have done better, I actually know from experience that she can do those things better than me.

DAVID: So what are you going to do now? JOHN: I originally didn’t want to be chair, I wanted to

teach. So I’m super excited about teaching. No matter what I’m going to be teaching and I won’t be teaching something unless I feel like I’m among the best people to be teaching it. I’ve also written an article and a

Post-Election Response

Where Do We Go from Here?

A letter to the GCPE community from its faculty and staff following the 2016 presidential election

Photo: Protest march on 5th Ave in Manhattan, Zach Bachiri

GCPE Community

e have a new president. However you chose to use your vote, we are all entering into a new American political era together, one that challenges principles that we as the GCPE community hold dear; namely, inclusivity, tolerance, sustainability, and peace. We have a long road ahead. We will need to organize to achieve a more perfect and democratic union. But democracy in a pluralistic nation means more than the majority rules -- it means protecting and respecting the inalienable rights of all peoples. The struggle must begin. Hopefully the arc of justice is tilted toward progress but it needs to be aided by clear thinking and the development of an inclusive movement for progressive change. Anger and fear must be translated into a clear vision of a future that will require persistence, cunning and struggle. We need to keep our optimism intact. Think of 1968: MLK and Robert Kennedy assassinated, Nixon elected, the My Lai massacre—it was a daunting and dark moment that threatened our democratic ideals and our freedom. But we have to move on. Sometimes it seems like its three steps forward, two steps back. But we have just had a black president, same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, the death penalty is fading from more states and criminal justice reform is gaining momentum, as even NRA members now favor some form of gun control. In the long game history is still on the side of progressive ideas. “Thinking nationally, acting locally” on women’s rights, sustainability, social and economic justice, diversity, immigration, workers rights, organizing, unionization, building coalitions, minimum wage — the path toward an inclusive, progressive social movement — assumes greater importance than ever. If anything, Trump’s election has proven that we stand united in our resolve to teach and practice a planning that ensures everyone is respected, has a place at the table and has access to opportunity. Use your classes as safe spaces to start or continue dialogues about the challenges we face and the agenda we must all be a part of. We will be providing opportunities for researchers, community organizers, and planners to strategize together.

We invite the ideas of the entire GCPE community on what to do next—you can e-mail any of us. Drop by 206 today if you feel like you want to talk or reflect. There are cookies and a big box of tissue in Eve’s office. Signed, The GCPE full-time faculty and staff: Ayse Yonder Jonathan Martin Ron Shiffman John Shapiro Nadya Nenadich Jaime Stein David Burney Eve Baron Adia Ware