Brooklyn101, varieties on a city life

BROOKLYN 101 five chapters on a city life

BROOKLYN 101

acknowledgement

Studio Brooklyn

methodology

BROOKLYN 101 SOCIAL ENCLAVES

COLLECTIVE CULTURE

SITE ANALYSIS

Red Hook

SITE ANALYSIS

Crown Heights

SITE ANALYSIS

East New York

EXPERIMENTS 13 EXPERIMENTS

Red Hook Crown Heights East New York

PLANNING THE CITY

LIVING MODELS

CITY ECOLOGY

Chapter index

Introduction Social Enclaves

Collective culture

3

Planning the city

Living Models

City ecology

Annex

Greenpoint

Manhattan

Williamsburg

DUMBO Navy Yard Brooklyn Downtown Heights Brooklyn Cobble Hill

Red Hook

Boerum Hill

Bushwick Fort Clinton Hill Greene

Carroll Gardens

BedfordStuyvesant Cypress Hill

Prospect Heights

Queens

Gowanus Park Slope

Crown Heights Brownsville East New York

Prospect Lefferts Park Garden Windsor Greenwood Terrace Prospect Cemetery Park South Parkville

Sunset Park

East Flatbush

Canarsie

Flatbush

Bay Ridge

Borough Park

Flatlands Bergen Beach

Midwood Dyker Heights

Bath Beach

Staten Island

Gravesend

Mill Basin

Marine Park

Bensonhurst

Fort Hamilton

Brooklyn Marine Park

Sheepshead Bay

Gerritsen Beach

Navy Yard

Bushwick Brooklyn Heights Downtown Clinton Brooklyn Fort BedfordHill Cobble Greene Stuyvesant Bushwick Boerum Navy Yard Hill Brooklyn Hill Carroll Downtown Heights Prospect Greenpoint Clinton Fort Gardens BedfordRed Cobble Brooklyn Hill Greene Heights Stuyvesant Hook Boerum Park Hill Gowanus Crown Heights Hill Slope Carroll Prospect Brownsville Greenpoint Gardens Red Prospect Heights Lefferts Hook Park East Flatbush Gowanus Park Williamsburg Garden Crown Heights Slope

Brownsville Windsor DUMBO Greenwood Prospect Terrace Lefferts Prospect Cemetery Navy Yard Bushwick Park East Flatbush Williamsburg Garden Park SunsetBrooklyn South Park Heights Downtown Parkville Clinton Fort BrooklynWindsor BedfordDUMBO Greenwood Hill Cobble Greene Prospect Terrace Stuyvesant Bushwick Canarsie Navy Yard Flatbush Cemetery Boerum Hill Park SunsetBrooklyn Hill South Park Heights Carroll Downtown ParkvilleProspect Fort Clinton Gardens Brooklyn BedfordRed Heights Hill Cobble Greene Stuyvesant Canarsie Hook Flatbush Park Boerum Hill Gowanus Crown Heights Slope Hill Carroll Brownsville Prospect Gardens Prospect Red Heights Lefferts Park East Flatbush Hook Gowanus Park Garden Crown Heights Slope

Ghettoization

Brownsville Prospect Lefferts Park Garden Ghettoization

East Flatbush

Sea Gate

Coney Island

Brighton Beach

Manhattan Beach

Cypress Hill

Cypress Hill

East New York

Queens

Queens

East New York

Cypress Hill

Cypress Hill

East New York

East New York

Queens

Queens

Barren Island

map index

Greenpoint

Williamsburg DUMBO

Navy Yard

Brooklyn Downtown Heights Brooklyn

Bushwick

Fort Clinton Hill Greene

Cobble Hill

Boerum Hill Carroll Gardens Red Hook Gowanus Park Slope

BedfordStuyvesant Cypress Hill

Prospect Heights Crown Heights Brownsville East New York

Prospect Lefferts Park Garden Windsor Greenwood Terrace Prospect Cemetery Park South Parkville

Sunset Park

East Flatbush

Canarsie

Flatbush

Bay Ridge

Borough Park

Flatlands Bergen Beach

Midwood Dyker Heights Fort Hamilton

Bath Beach Gravesend

Mill Basin

Marine Park

Bensonhurst

Sheepshead Bay

Brooklyn Marine Park Gerritsen Beach

Sea Gate

Coney Island

Brighton Beach

Manhattan Beach

Barren Island

introduction

Ma

nh

att

an

The Bronx

Queens

Brooklyn

Staten Island

20

introduction

| Comparison

introduction

The Five Boroughs of New York City 183 km²

2.504.700 inh.

oughs: Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, lation of New York City is not evenly Brooklyn houses slightly more than 30

1.385.108 inh. .

109 km²

terms of population. ough in terms of surface area. It has 59 km²

a total surface area of 183 km² and

1.585.873 inh.

covers thus almost a fourth of the total surface area of New York City.

ants per km², according to the 2010 2.230.722 inh.

281 km²

U.S. Census Tracts. Brooklyn takes

itants per km² in the Bronx. Queens and Staten Island have the lowest 151 km²

468.730 inh.

density, with densities of 7.939 and

verse ethnicity and the racial groups 12,9% 31,9%

30,1%

9,5% 17,7%

7,5%

11,3% 22,9%

17,3%

oughs. The largest concentrations

3,6% 10,5%

25,4%

Staten Island and in Manhattan. The 19,8%

Bronx has the largest population of

27,5% 53,5% 64% 48%

35,7%

27,6% 10,9%

2,1%

1,9%

2,3%

4,2%

1,7%

Brooklyn

The Bronx

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

the Bronx. The percentage of Asian cept for Queens, where all the racial

Blacks Asian

White

Hispanic

Other

Ethnicity of the Different Boroughs

21

A History of Brooklyn’s development

1

.

In

some Indian paths we can recognize important roads that we know today and Kings Highway. In 1609 New York son and his crew of the Dutch East India Company. They were looking for a western route to get spices from

1

lands, New Utrecht and Gravesend 2 .

By 1664, the English took control and

next 100 years, Brooklyn developed steadily under British control. Until in

Independence’, announcing that the American colonies were no longer

2

part of the British empire. The war lingered until 1783, when America took control. A time of peace followed, and in 1807 the Manhattan Grid was 3

connecting Manhattan and Brooklyn which resulted in the development of

Village

Native American

Concentration

Grid Important Green

22

introduction

| History

3

Brooklyn to East New York for a dec 4

great wave of European immigration.

The Fulton Ferry since 1814 made it easy for people to move to Brooklyn.

By 1860, Brooklyn was the 3th largest city in America. The exploding popula tion resulted in the creation of parks 4

as open spaces, for example Central

tion occured in the 1870’s

. And the

Brooklyn. In 1880 there was a second great wave of Europian immigration which continued until the early 20th century 6. Completion of the Brooklyn

tions. For example the NY&Manhattan

holiday culture. It attracted people to live in Howard Beach.

6

1600s

1

1700s

2

1840s

1 3

1860s

2 4

1870s

3

1880s

4 6

23

zation towards the shore and Coney 7

riod, replacing steam driven transport.

In 1898, Greater New York is formed

8

7

the next decades. In 1909, also the Manhattan Bridge made a connection By this time, Brooklyn is almost fully

1920s, the focus shifted to Jamaica Bay for industrial activities, planning docks along its waterfront

9

. In the

8

concept, the parkways. Belt Parkway

Bennett Field was opened in 1940 and JFK Airport in 1947.

Village

Native American

Concentration

Grid Important Green

24

introduction

| History

9

Map

1766 1866

1897

1872

1962

1890s

2 7

1920s

3 8

1960s

4 9

Patchwork of Historical Maps

Social Enclaves Brooklyn, a Borough of Neighborhoods The social tissue of Brooklyn is constantly transforming. It has become a global attraction for national and international migration in its Post-Industrial development, using its strategic location next to Manhattan combined with its identity of a diverse tissue of religious, ethnic, economic or cultural enclaves. At the same time Brooklyn has become a global creativity centre, and a gateway into the American city fabric. The desirability of Brooklyn’s diverse social tissue has become so successful that a real estate market has emerged that focuses on into a multicultural hub. Displacement of inhabitants is the downside of the success of this model, creating an internal migration pattern of poorer neighborhoods being pushed to area’s with less opportunities for development. It causes a delicate balance between coexistence and an urban frontier between poor and rich.

Essay

28

Titel Hoofdstuk | Titel Deelhoofdstuk

Essay

Basisuitleg Map

29

Essay

30

Titel Hoofdstuk | Titel Deelhoofdstuk

Essay

Basisuitleg Map

31

Essay

32

Titel Hoofdstuk | Titel Deelhoofdstuk

Essay

Basisuitleg Map

33

Connected to Manhattan Connection with and proximity to Manhattan has a great influence on the social tissue of a neighborhood.

Historically, the East River crossings between the two boroughs were important factors in the demographic growth of the Borough. Infrastructural links between boroughs like the Fulton Ferry or the three bridge connections and

between

Brooklyn

Manhattan

created

essential

links for migration to the East River neighborhoods

in

Brooklyn

and

the development of the Brooklyn harbor. The subway tunnel and the Brooklyn-Battery road tunnel created an opportunity for neighborhoods that

were

not

in

proximity

to

Fulton Ferry (1814)

Manhattan to still develop a rich

Brooklyn Bridge (1883) Williamsburg Bridge (1903)

and diverse social tissue. Induced

Joralemon Street Tunnel (1908) Manhattan Bridge (1909)

by the suburbanization movement in

the

50’s,

the

Parkway

Clark Street Tunnel (1919)

road

Montague Street Tunnel (1920)

system provides a connection to

14th Street Tunnel (1924)

Manhattan for neighborhoods with

Cranberry Street Tunnel (1932)

a

great

distance

to

Rutgers Street Tunnel (1936)

Manhattan

Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (1950)

and this creates vibrant suburban

NY Waterway (1986) Manhattan

communities like Canarsie.

Brooklyn

3 000 000 people

2 000 000

1 000 000

1810

34

1830

1850

1870

1890

social enclaves | Connection with Manhattan

1910

1930

1950

1970

1990

2010

Map

MANHATTAN

Greenpoint

QUEENS Williamsburg DUMBO Navy Yard Brooklyn Heights Downtown Brooklyn Cobble Hill

Red Hook

Bushwick

Fort Greene Clinton Hill Boerum

BedfordStuyvesant Cypress Hill

Hill

Carroll Gardens

Prospect Heights

Gowanus

Crown Heights

Park Slope

Brownsville East New York

Prospect Park Lefferts Garden Sunset Park

Windsor Greenwood Terrace Prospect Cemetery Park South Parkville

East Flatbush

Canarsie

Flatbush Borough Park Bay Ridge

Flatlands Bergen Beach

Midwood Dyker Heights Fort Hamilton

Bath Beach Gravesend

STATEN ISLAND

Mill Basin

Marine Park

Bensonhurst

Sheepshead Bay

Brooklyn Marine Park Gerritsen Beach

Sea Gate

Coney Island

Brighton Beach

Barren Island

Manhattan Beach

East River Crossings

35

a physical impact on Brooklyn’s building tissue. Some neighborhoods have developed a distinct building stock because of their connection with Manhattan and a certain crowd has migrated into the tissue of Brooklyn because of the connection or disconnection with Manhattan.

Identities like metropolitan Brooklyn, connected with Downtown Brooklyn

1

not have been possible without the proximity and very good connection with Manhattan. The Brownstone belt developed into the area for the new hip, young and progressive middle class, because it combined a distinct character with the Brownstone typology and a very well organized public

transport

Manhattan.

At

connection the

with

outskirts

of

Brooklyn, neighborhoods that have

2

severely changed due to the urban renewal programs of the city in the 1950’s and 60’s, and the public housing developments in the 1930’s to the 60’s are still struggling with their heritage because they lack connection with the centre of the city, creating a situation in which almost no major developments will take place.

3

Downtown Brooklyn Brownstone Belt Public Housing 1930s-1960s

36

social enclaves |

Borough Hall

1

Boerum Hill

2

Albany II

3

Map

MANHATTAN

Greenpoint

QUEENS Williamsburg DUMBO Brooklyn Heights Cobble Hill

Navy Yard Bushwick

Downtown Brooklyn Fort Greene Clinton Boerum Hill Hill

Carroll Red Gardens Hook

BedfordStuyvesant

Cypress Hill

Prospect Heights

Gowanus

Park Slope

Crown Heights East New York Prospect Park Lefferts Garden

Windsor Greenwood TerraceProspect Cemetery Park South Parkville

Sunset Park

Brownsville

East Flatbush

Canarsie

Flatbush

Borough Park

Bay Ridge

Flatlands Bergen Beach

Midwood Fort Hamilton

Dyker Heights

Bath Beach STATEN ISLAND

Mill Basin

Marine Park

Bensonhurst

Gravesend

Sheepshead Bay

Brooklyn Marine Park Gerritsen Beach

Sea Gate

Coney Island

Brighton Beach

Barren Island

Manhattan Beach

Typological Tissue

37

Over the past decades the image of

Brooklyn’s

neighborhoods

Brooklyn Heights

has

strongly evolved. In the 1970’s and

Boerum Hill

Cobble Hill Carroll Gardens

80‘s working class neighborhoods suffered from the deindustrialization

Downtown Brooklyn

Clinton Hill

St

Fort Greene Prospect Heights

of the Borough, causing large scale

Crown H Red Hook

social and economical problems like

Gowanus

Park Slope

high crime rates and unemployment.

Prospect Park

These neighborhoods became the

Lefferts Garden

ghetto’s that characterized the inner 1

same time the migration of a new young middle class into the social tissue has completely transformed these neighborhoods into what is

Brooklyn Heights

now often labeled as the gentrifying

Cobble Hill Carroll Gardens

neighborhoods. Newspaper articles discussing a neighborhood give a

Downtown Brooklyn Boerum Hill

Clinton Hill

Prospect Heights

good indication of the identity of a neighborhood. By investigating New

Crown H Red Hook

York Times articles of the last decades discussing a neighborhood and looking we can see an evolution in the identity and social tissue of the neighborhoods located in the studied strip.

1

Ghettoization

2

before 1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010

38

social enclaves | Historical Variation of Identity

St

Fort Greene

Gowanus

Park Slope Prospect Park

2

Lefferts Garden

STRIP

Bushwick

Cypress Hill

Bedfordtuyvesant

East New York

Heights

East Flatbush

QUEENS

Brownsville

Bushwick

Cypress Hill

Bedfordtuyvesant

East New York

Heights

East Flatbush

QUEENS

Brownsville

39

Ethnic Enclaves Next to the connection with and proximity

to

Manhattan,

diversity

is

social

transformation

one

of

Global

migration

ethnic

the

biggest models.

to

Brooklyn

creates a tissue of ethnic enclaves in

which

each

has

their

particular

characteristics.

connected

with

public

own When

transport,

these neighborhoods become an attraction point for a progressive young middle class from all over the world. The desirability of this condition has created a real estate market that focuses on diversity and connectivity but it results in the significantly rise of land value in these

neighborhoods.

This

effect

1

displaces the original inhabitants of the neighborhood. Internal migration of poorer inhabitants being displaced of their neighborhoods is a result of a new middle class public moving into the neighborhood. Completely destroying the social and economic diversity of the neighborhood system in Brooklyn and defining a new social frontier between different ethnic and income groups. An example of this transformation model is Prospect Park which was once a ghetto neighborhood but is now one of the neighborhoods with the highest land value and a white upper class population.

100% White

2

100% Black

40

100% Hispanic

social enclaves | Ethnic Diversity

Map

3

4

Ethnic Diversity

1

Low Income

2

Middle Income

3

High Income

4

Median Household Income vs Diversity

41

Displacement The ethnicity of its population is one of the defining elements for the image of a neighborhood in Brooklyn. An ethnic group settles in a neighborhood and develops a sense of community in its environment.

Neighborhoods like Sunset Park, which has one of the largest Latin American

communities

in

New

York City, becomes a focus point for immigrants and creates a social gateway into the city fabric. The current

transformation

gentrification this

model

however

neighborhood

Displacement

of

of

threatenes dynamic.

the

original

population of a neighborhood due to the rise of land value creates a

1

Increase In Native White Population Decrease In Native White Population

situation where ethnic populations are

being

pushed

out

of

their

neighborhood to the outskirts, or to less connected parts of the borough.

These

places

initiatives

and

lack

development

therefore

their

inhabitants will have less economic oppurtinities to develop themselves, creating a stronger division of rich and poor.

2

Increase In Native Black Population Decrease In Native Black Population

42

Social enclaves | Displacement

Map

3

Increase In Latin American Population Decrease In Latin American Population

4

Increase In Native White Population Increase In Native Black Population Decrease In Native Black Population

White Population

1

Black Population

2

Latin American Population

3

Biggest Changes

4

Increase In Latin American Population

Population Changes of Three Largest Ethnic Groups in Brooklyn 2000-2010

43

Essay

Springboard or Well, Brooklyn’s network of neighborhoods To understand the complex network that Brooklyn is we start by looking at the base, it’s population. The people that live in the borough form it’s identity, give every spot it’s characteristics, create the challenges that the city faces. Brooklyn is a multicultural city, the place where a wide variety of lifestyles develops. People that have visited Brooklyn have a specific image of neighborhoods like Crown Heights, Williamsburg, Red Hook, East New York, or BedStuy exactly because of the cultural, ethnic, economic or religious groups that live there and that color the streets and define the feel of the neighborhood. It’s unique combination of an inner city suburb lifestyle and a close connection to the metropolis creates a condition which attracts a global audience. Being local and global in one gesture is an appealing identity for a young middle class and the transformation Brooklyn went trough over the past 50 years has made it a fresh and affordable alternative for a new generation of creative people. The ethnic groups living in the borough create gateways into the United States for immigrants from around the world.

Brooklyn’s diversity is what creates it’s identity.

Brooklyn’s social tissue has always been greatly influenced by it’s location next to Manhattan. Lying right across Lower Manhattan it enjoyed the benefit of the growing importance of Manhattan’s harbor to urbanize it’s territory. In the 19th century Brooklyn grew to become the third largest city of the United States, a twin for the growing metropolis on the other side of the East River. After the annexation as one of the five boroughs of New York City, infrastructural connections between Manhattan and Brooklyn caused an internal migration pattern and a demographic increase for Brooklyn. But it also created a hierarchical organization between the two former cities. Brooklyn evolved from an independent city into the main residential suburb of the city, connected with the metropolitan centre of Manhattan by a system of bridges (the Manhattan, the Brooklyn and the Williamsburg bridge) and subway lines.

Brooklyn as a collection of urban middle class and creative enclaves is a condition that gained great importance in the 50’s and 60’s in the aftermath of the suburbanization movement and the emptying of the inner city. It became the third social paradigm for the city, an answer to metropolitan impersonality and to suburban artificiality and boringness1. Brooklyn’s working class neighborhoods close to the East River bank that are known today as the brownstone belt2 became the stage for an anti movement

44

Social enclaves | Springboard or Well

against modernist planning tactics and a search for authenticity. The area was severely damaged by the de-industrialization of the city, and it’s population consisted of a working class spending their working days in the industries that were disappearing. Urban renewal plans where the method to deal with these situations by the city, clearing out the slums to be replaced by towers in the park. As a reaction a movement of urban pioneers, who were attracted by the authenticity and the social diversity of the area, would revitalize the existing building stock and within this movement a large social capital3 grew that gave these neighborhoods a strong identity. They grew out to become a new model for the city, a collage of inner city suburbs.

Being periphery and centre at once is the condition that is defining for Brooklyn.

Neighborhoods like Prospect Park, Cobble Hill or Brooklyn Heights benefit from having the identity and density of a suburb that is well connected to the centre by public transport to attract a global middle class.

This group is attracted by the combination of living in the global metropolis New York without having to deal with the extreme density and metropolitan lifestyle that defines Manhattan. With the rising housing prices in Manhattan and the upperclass identity a young generation of creative people became attracted by the authentic identity and relatively cheap housing prices of Brooklyn, and in neighborhoods like

Essay

Williamsburg or Fort Green this has caused a creative revolution.

The popularity of this living condition has grown to a global scale over the course of 50 years. A young, wealthy public is appealed by Brooklyn’s double identity and a real estate market focussing on spotting the next neighborhood to become revitalized has emerged from it’s popularity.

It gives these neighborhoods enormous economic potential to attract developments and new inhabitants. But it’s popularity has also a contradictory effect. The desirability of this lifestyle has made housing prices grow steadily in these neighborhoods. As a result the original poorer and more diverse population is being displaced to other areas of the borough, adding to a growing frontier between poor and rich social groups4. The end station of this evolution can be seen in neighborhoods like Park Slope, which has now one of the highest housing prices of the city and there is little left of the self organizing street tissue it had 40 years before. Gentrification is one of the important issues that Brooklyn is facing today, and it is constantly looking for a balance between revitalization and displacement.

New York is the example of a global city, attracting a population from around the world to form vibrant communities in its tissue. had to attract a foreign born public has always played a key role in the economic, cultural and social health of the city. The last migration wave that started in 1970’s is a defining factor in understanding the current social tissue of the city. New arrivals of the 70’s helped mitigate the catastrophic population losses that hit the city with the suburbanization movement, and the growth in influx of immigrants in the 80’s and 90’s helped the city reach a new population peek of 8 million inhabitants in 20005. By then 36 percent of New York’s population was born outside the United States, and this figure is still growing today.

The city government has realized the importance of global immigration towards

its territory and has adapted its politics to keep attracting immigrants. Instead of trying to keep foreign illegal aliens out of its territory, the city has taken on a political position to attract immigrants by adapting its laws to protect the immigration status of its inhabitants. It also created a series of public instances, like the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs6, that engage themselves with the well being of it’s immigrant population. Often marked as a “Sanctuary City”7, a safe haven for immigrants, New York as often been at the centre point of political debate about immigration policies in the United States, but the economic, social and cultural impact that immigrant groups have on New York is of such importance that city government still keeps its immigrant friendly political stands. Mayor Bloomberg has always expressed the importance of immigrant groups, like recently on the launch of the One NYC One Nation campaign:

“For generations immigrants have come to New York City to pursue their dreams and make our City great. While we continue to make the case for sensible immigration reform in Washington, at home we must also work to continue empowering immigrants to contribute to the cultural and economic well-being of our City - because the more civically engaged New Yorkers are the stronger our neighborhoods 8 become.”

1 Ghent Urban Studies Team, The contemporary social landscape, The urban condition, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 1999 2 Osman S. , The Invention Of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the search of authenticity in postwar New York, Oxford University Press, New York, 2011 3 Social capital : stocks of social trust, norms, and networks that people can draw upon in order to solve common problems.

4 Smith N. , The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city, Routledge, 1996 5 The Newest New Yorkers, Population, internet, 13/04/2012, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/nny_exec_sum.shtml 6 Moia, internet, 13/04/2012, http://www.nyc.gov/html/imm/html/about/about.shtml 7 Luo M,, A closer look at the ‘Sanctuary City’ argument, internet, 13/04/2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/us/politics/29truth.html?_r=1&scp =1&sq=sanctuary+city+new+york&st=nyt 8 Mayor Bloomberg launches one NYC one Nation, internet, 13/04/2012, http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem. c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml %2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2011a%2Fpr119-11.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

45

Essay

The large percentage of immigrant population manifests itself in the neighborhood tissue of the different boroughs. Brooklyn is no exception to this, containing the second largest percentage of non-native population of the city in its built tissue. Each ethnic group has developed its locational pattern which results in a mosaic of different neighborhoods, each having their specific needs and problems. It is important to realize that immigrants are not a homogeneous group but rather a network of nationalities and generations that all have a specific history with the city which creates specific situations each group is facing.9 Some groups have concentrated in large quantities in a certain area creating ethnic enclaves, neighborhoods that become defined by its ethnic inhabitants. Strolling trough neighborhoods like Sunset Park, one of the largest Latin American neighborhoods, is like entering a small world that has its own language, a social image and defining feel to them that is fundamentally different from the rest of the city.

Other ethnic groups have a much less concentrated locational pattern, and in some neighborhoods different groups “share” a territory, resulting in “polyethnic enclaves”10 a new phenomena growing out of the latest migration movement. Ethnic neighborhoods become places of arrival11 for new immigrants and this dialectic movement creates the wave that characterizes the immigration pattern of the last 30 years. If these places of arrival have the opportunity to develop themselves they add in a great manner to the social tissue of the city. But when these neighborhoods are not properly dealt with they can deteriorate back to the ethnic ghetto’s that where defining for Brooklyn in the 70’s and 80’s during the urban crisis. Brownsville and East New York are examples of neighborhoods where the urban crisis is still leaving its marks.

High crime rates and unemployment in combination with housing and connectivity problems is still causing social issues

that ask for a city government approach to be resolved. These neighborhoods are enclaves of exclusion, places laking the potential for economic developments because of their lack of subway connections, social risks, or lack of consuming public.

Over the course of 50 years Brooklyn has grown beyond the identity of a residential suburb, the little brother of Manhattan.

Brooklyn’s evolution is the anti-these to Manhattan’s transformation, focusing on an authentic lifestyle in close contact to the metropolis, and this attracts a global young, hip and middle class public. At the same time some of Brooklyn’s neighborhoods are still dealing with the effects of the urban crisis of the 70’s and 80’s, trying to form wealthy base for ethnic groups to develop vibrant communities that can attract economic developments and continue the unique authenticity of the borough. It is Brooklyn’s challenge to find a balance between these two transformation models, to develop a method of inclusion for both identifiers of its social tissue.

Rones David R., Krausen L. Steven, Housing the city op Immigrants, research by Community Service Society, 9 Krase J. an Hutchison R, IMMIGRANT GLOBAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN NEW YORK CITY, Research in Urban 10 Sociology, Volume 7, 2007, pp.25-55 Sanders D., Arrival Cities, Vintage Canada, Toronto, 2010

46

Social enclaves | Springboard or Well

collective culture An Assembly of Images Brooklyn’s varied social tissue operates as

condition, the public space and the build collective memory, as well as the image the city transfers to the outer world. Today, this image is increasingly getting more and more recognition on a global level, revealing a different New York City than the well-know Manhattan-story: less urban, more urbane.

Manhattan Today, New York City is widely associated with the image of a vibrant attraction

pole

for

tourists

and

businesses, while in the 1970’s the city was rather known as a violent, ‘horror’ city. This reversal happened thanks to very succesfull city branding strategies. The city of New York and businessleaders to produce citybranding operations such as the Big Apple-campaign

1 .....(1971),

& CO promotions

2.....and

NYC

various I

3 (1977 Love New York-campaigns .....

until now). Manhattan’s city branding functions served as a magnifying glass for selective spots in the city, such as ground zero and Time Square. But meanwhile the city’s part above 96th street and the other boroughs became obscure.

Brooklyn In

the

last

decades,

Brooklyn

started to create its own Brand. In a fragmented way and through bottomup tactics, a brand with many facets emerged. Among these facets are: a tourist destination offering attractions such as Brooklyn Music academy and Brooklyn Bridge for living

5

4

, a desirable place

, as well as the cradle of

black hip hop

6

, and the ideal place

to start a business or expose a ‘hip’ lifestyle

7

. This variety makes the

brand attractive, not only for tourist and businesses but also for Brooklyn’s inhabitants.

54

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | City Branding

observation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Branding Concentration

55

During the last two decades, the emergence of the brand Brooklyn sparked a new sort of economic activity

in

the

commercial

and

borough. industial

This revival

tends to counterweight the lang period of industial decline New York City, a city that previously focussed only on the service sector and tourism. Many of the Brooklyn-based businesses carry the name ‘Brooklyn’ in order to 1

Brooklyn. Businesses that played keyroles in this industrial development are Brooklyn Brewery since 1994 and Brooklyn Industries since 1997 ......

Succesfull events such as the 1 Brooklyn Flea Market ..2 characteristics

associated

to

the

brand Brooklyn too, in order to attract costumers from other boroughs and even tourist from overseas.

2

56

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Entrepreneurial Brooklyn

collage

Brooklyn-named Trade Marks

57

The

streetlife

demonstrates

the identity of a borough. Each has

one

or

more ST

neighborhood

St Jh ons deli foA o

CO URT

commercial streets that are used

Fiv stro e guys B ng p u B co tler S Cob sweet rowns nail & lace chobble treet to m ble hill elissa ne es spa cola hill c Bu tate fitne p a t ro inemtler S ti ss c s om as tre olle serie pizz et ctiv nob azz Bu e le c tler toy unio lean clas s sic n m ers Do imp a ug rket ress m s as eo cou ions g l S Deg c t if rt p r k& u raw astr t card y fr stom eet D Stre y sh s uit o et D o an tailor ugla o dv egra ss n p h cean eg om sp Str w S eda gie ee e tree itali an a t d a De n d gra eli beau ty wS tre et De gra wS tre et

STR EET

by inhabitants for their shoppings,

one Linco

CO URT

leisure or to make a certain lifestyle

ln Av

c

STR EET

galleries,

streets: restaurants

coffeeshops, or

other

commercial activity that reacts on the

enuela

pin

CO URT

commerical

love

broa d Nostr happy way gro wo and A venu k chin e No stra

lifestyle and wishes of the gentrifying class. On the other hand, these streetscapes display the bankrupcies, foreclosures and bad living conditions too. In the neigborhoods of Red Hook, Clinton Hill, Park Slope and Crown in respectively Van Brunt Street, Court Street, Vanderbilt Avenue and Franklin Avenue.

Further

located

from the Hudson river, Uteca Street and New Lots avenue show different

VA N

RE ET

ST

T

BR UN

Other

Art gallery

Food store

Shop (clothes, fur- niture,books,...)

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Livable Brooklyn

rks A pe venue un nas foo St Ma w!nknameab d markerk s A le t s venu eco beau books e oda bar St Mark ty ba s r sea pros may food cafe pect b it a on heig eton taqueri hts re a on v a lt a n y p n ama olish d Pros ska bar o erbilt pect f bro Plac milk bar r old b oklyn e Pro rook lyn b spec agel tP shop lace Pros pla quali pect ty laupet sup n b happ P lace ndro ply Pro amo y cleane mat rina rs india met fo ferm place e joyceodmarke care n shan ted Park e fine d bakes ts the ghai s grapes h ry Plac nd w e Pa cleaninop a brooklyntress frea ine liseo rk Pla g pizza e o ce P ark pieces steria de factory l borg Plac e Pa o rk Pla ce P ark P lace

E

et ar St m re C ac et ho offe y pe y er Dik e i r k an stre m ed e b m en et d a a b tl lip n al an et C st sin b ott er an ch of W ick St ake a d inte d ol or fey re d i v rn co th F e St i re no ati tS or t D re ad on t D ik tre et al ifia em et dr W nc an a ol wi e St c ng re ot et St re et W ol co tS tre et

VA N

Cafe, bar, restaurant

St

re

ph

BR UN

criminality.

58

y

ENU

ffe

RBIL T AV

an

St M a

Co

NDE

m

et

E VA

ke

na te ’s

ENU

St

re

Di

T

suffer from bad maintanance and

y

ILT A V

by immigrant commercial activity but

ffe

ERB

streetscapes are primary dominated

Co

VAN D

two

VA N

These

ET

place.

RE

take

ST

didn’t

Oth Sho Art Foo Caf

STRIP

FRA NKL IN

FRA NKL IN AV ENU E

FRAN KLIN AVE NUe

et a Stre Wyon

et tre g a S din on bed Wy et e & tre itur a S rn on s fu Wy lot w t ne te on sta rm le Ve et rea za H tre izz tS PP lp on ina orig

rm Ve

joh

W

EW

EN

NU

E AV TS LO

E

NU

E AV TS LO

y’s nn

Je icken ew fried ch eN crown Avenu Jersey e New Avenu Jersey NE

t deli new lo kings treet ont S t Verm Stree

Aven od c ue St Jho orpo ns ra sA my s tion pace j’s venue S t Jho won ns A laun g venu cultu ch p e ral a rts lily & fi ad g abou a hig t time ie Linco nica 3 d’s ln A venu chav ella’s e Lin coln Aven briste ue L n’s c incoln ne tr afe ee beau ty bo utiqu e ocery nese nam and ’s Aven fruit ma rk ue N ostra et nd A venu e

ue

n ve yA

rse

CA AV

Park Place Park Plac e Par

UTICA AVENUE UTI

s Av enue

sam’s same day clea adonijah health ners food ladies stop Sterling Place Ster

ospe

ct

ling Pl

barbara gift sho

p crown fried chic dbest spot ken & pizza

UTICA AVENUE

p

k Place Park Plac e Park Place primitos corpora hardee restaur tion ant ayana’s

caribbean fried

chicken ace Sterling Place Sterling Pl

best deal deli

& grocery

photo max

St Johns Place St

Johns P

lace St Johns Plac e St Johns Pl

her op (clothes, furniture, books,...) gallery od and Drinks Store fe/ bar/restaurant

A Collection of Streetscapes

59

ffe

y

St

re

Di

ke

na te ’s

m

an

et

ffe

ph

ar

St re

Co

y

St

re

m

et

VA N

Co

y

ST RE E

Di

RT

ST

VA N

BR UN T

ST RE E

T

VA N

BR UN T

m

T

C ho offe pe y e re rie kem ke an stre d b et d b ntl lip as an al an et C in st ba otta er i an ch of W i n ck St ke d d ol or fey i te r co th Fo eet d vin rna St re tS o tio re ad rt Di tre na et Di ke et ld fia m W ra nc an ol wi e St c ng re ot et St re et W ol co tS tre et et

ac

CO U

RT

STR

EET

CO U

RT

STR

EET

CO U

Fiv stro e guys B ng p u B co tler S Cob sweet rowns nail & lace chobble treet to m ble hill elissa ne es spa col hill c Bu ta fitne t at roo inem ler S ss cpatisse te olle rie pizz m as tree ctiv nob tB a z e le z to utle unio clean clas ys r sic n m ers Do imp a u r k g ress et ma s io e ol c s S cou ns g Deg t if rt p r k& u raw astr t card y fr stom eet D Stre y sh s uit o et D o an tailor ugla o dv egra ss n p h cean eg om sp Str w S eda g ee e tree a i e i ta an t De lian d d be gra eli au ty wS tre et De gra wS tre et

St M a

VAN D

ERB

ILT A V

ENU

E VA

NDE RBIL T AV

ENU E

rks A pe venue un nas foo St Ma w!nknameab d markerk s A le t s venu eco beau books e oda bar St Mark ty ba s Av r seafo enue pros o d m c pect aya afe biton heig eton taqueri hts re a o n va nam alty polis nderb Pros aska h ba pect r of b ilt Plac milk bar r old b rook e Pro rook lyn lyn b spec agel tP shop lace Pros p quali la pect ty laupet sup n b happ Plac ndro ply e Pro amo y cleane mat spec rin rs t india a met place food fe rm ente joyce marke care s h a d ts e fi n ba Park the b ghai strgrapes a Plac ne dry c keshop es ro n le e Pa alise oklyn p s free d wine rk Pla aning izz oo ce P ark pieces steria d a factory el bo Plac rgo e Pa rk Pla ce P ark P lace

60

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Livable Brooklyn

OBSERVATION

FRAN KLIN AVE NUe

FRA NKL

IN AV ENU E

FRA NKL

IN

St Jh ons Aven deli fo u od c e St Jho orpo ns ra s Av my s tion enue pace j’ St Jh s wo ons one ng Aven love la u ue nch cultu p ral a a d rts lily & fi g abou Linco t ln Av ti la m enue higien e Linco ica 3 d’s ln A venu chav ella’s e Lin coln Aven briste ue L n’s c pine incoln afe tree beau ty bo utiqu broa e d Nostr happy way gro wo ce and A venu k chines ry e No stran e nam ’s d Aven fruit ma rk ue N ostra et nd A venu e

UTICA AV

Park Place Park Pla

ce Par

Sterling Place Ste

rling Pl

barbara gift sho

St Johns Place St

chicken ace Sterling Place Sterling Pl

best deal deli

Johns P

& grocery

lace St Johns Pla

ce St Johns Pl

W

H

t te on sta erm le tV a rea ee zz r t piz tS al on gin or i

ey

ers

wJ Ne

y’s nn

joh

rm Ve

PP

NE

E

NU

E AV TS LO

et tre g a S din on bed Wy et e & tre itur a S rn on s fu Wy w lot ne

t deli new lo t kings Stree rmont UE

EN AV TS LO

et a Stre Wyon

t Ve Stree

n hicke fried c e crown Avenu Jersey e New Avenu W

caribbean fried

photo max

Jersey NE

k Place Park Place Park Place primitos corpo rat hardee restau ion rant ayana’s

UTICA AVENUE

p crown fried chi dbest spot cken & pizza

UTICA AVENUE

sam’s same day cleaners adonijah health food ladies stop

ue

en Av

A Collection of Streetscapes

61

A formal appearance of a collective culture in the public realm is that of representative space. This type of public space tends to provide the cityscape with credibility and prestige, a sense of character, a shared identity, and serves as a forum for civic activity. Today, the big representative spaces are rather anachronisms from another era of politics. They have a strong classical design language and represent the power of the nation, the city or the borough. In Brooklyn, most of

these spaces are located close

to the northern tip of Prospect Park, the former center of the borough.

Examples are Grand Army Plaza in front of Brooklyn Public Library and Camden Plaza in front of the Borough Hall. These public spaces are less vulnerable for processes their scale and public functionality.

However, today the city invests less in big-scale representative spaces.

While collective culture today is often experienced in other sorts of space (community centers, urban farms and parklets), the classical squares and promenades are still the prime location for parades, festivals and folklore.

Public space and institutions Open space Landmark

62

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Livable Brooklyn

STRIP

Representative Space

63

al neighborhoods and hipsters remain tat, a whole different cool emerged in time. A movement of rappers, among them Jay-Z and Biggie, entered popular culture while evoking the problems and racial experience in their neighborhoods. Through their video clips and lyrics, Brooklyn got to be known

1

as a gangsta rap cradle for millions of hip hop fans.

2

3

“ Lemme tell you where I grew up at

that. Where fake thugs got they vests shoot up at Brooklyn! Beef, who want that? “ Foxy Brown, BK Anthem 4

64

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Hip Hop Brooklyn

observation

5

6

7

The Notorious B.I.G., Juicy2 Fabolous ft. Jeremih, My Time

.

Jay-Z, 99 Problems

3

.

Busta Rhymes, Break ya neck

4

.

Foxy Brown, BK Anthem

5

.

Mos Def, Ms. Fat Booty 8

1

2 .

6 .

Lil’Kim, Lighters Up

7

.

Spike Lee ,Do the Right Thing

8

.

Brooklyn Hip Hop Video Clips

65

In the virtual realm, the emergence

The amount of neighborhood-related blogs in Brooklyn can highlight the areas that are transforming and even accelerate the process. The branding of Brooklyn as a hipster locus happened partly thanks to this new way of spreading the news. However, blogs are not only used by hipsters.

The phenomenon is used by both the ones that aim to transform neighborhoods by promoting its advantages, as the local community that uses the internet as a powerful tool to react to this transformation. In this sense, the internet led to a different kind of space to experience collective culture.

66

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Brooklyn Blogs

STRIP

Concentratrion of Brooklyn Blogs

67

68

COLLECTIVE CuLTURE | Observation Prospect Park

Forty minutes of visitors, photographed every minute between 3.00PM and 4.00PM

69

I ma gining B r ooklyn

From fragmented tactics to a general strategy?

Seventy years ago, American writer and Pulitzer prize winner, James Agee stated that ‘this fact alone, which of itself makes Brooklyn so featureless, so little known, to many so laughable, or so ripe for patronage, this fact, that two million human beings are alive and living there, invests defense, or need of notice.’ 1 In his article on New York City for Fortune magazine, he describes Brooklyn as an endless, low-rise working-class living area, both depending on and ensuring well-known travel guide Lonely Planet, put Brooklyn on the tourist radar proclaiming ‘a cultural movement has emerged and now Brooklyn is the hippest part of the city.’

A lot has changed since James Agee crossed the Brooklyn Bridge commissioned to describe Brooklyn. The borough now has its own skyscrapers, is home to numerous businesses carrying its name and attracts new people from all over the world to inhabit its housing stock. Partly thanks to the pen of Neil Simon, the camera of Spike Lee and beats from Jay-Z to MGMT, Brooklyn has a world-wide cultural profile.3 There are Brooklyn tourists now, ‘drawn over the bridge by guidebooks or carried by tour buses’ that stop at the Brooklyn Music Academy, Prospect Park and other of the borough’s landmarks.4 Its current profile can hardly be more different from the monotonous, working class, ‘sorry reputation’ the borough faced in the past.5 Various experts cite Brooklyn’s claim to be ‘authentic’6, a place where ‘history, character, culture and integrity rolled into one.’7 However, the current profile is hard to pin down; Brooklyn tends to represent a list of things, among them ‘a hip, creative, cultural ethnicity’, ‘the epicenter of cool’ and a ‘brand name, yielding world-wide instant recognition.’8 Off course, the shortcomings of this image-making have to be considered.

In this essay we will try to uncover what the brand Brooklyn means, as well as what the risks are that it poses. Indeed, while creating Brooklyn’s newly flourishing profile, significant parts of the borough

70

COLLECTIVE CULTURE | Imagining Brooklyn

remain excluded and other rises, falls and evolutions are being obscured.

The process of providing cities with an image, a cultural significance in order to improve its symbolic and economical position, is applied world-wide in various forms. In the conception of this urban reinvention process, New York City played a pioneering role.

A brand, the magnifying glass

During the 20th century, deindustrialization hit New York notably hard, and in 1975 the city was facing bankruptcy and was no longer able to cover ‘basic operating expenses like transportation, sanitation, education and policing.’9 City dwellers who could, fled to the suburbs, causing even more damage to the city’s tax and job base.

New York, once the symbol of a modern city, in all its contradictions – from the workingclass, polyglot Ghotam to the sophisticated New Rome of modern art and high fashion – started to evoke the single urban imaginary of a racist, post-apocalyptic Horror City.

Moreover, due to the many media and publishing companies located in the city, this representation was spread rapidly on a global scale, causing long-lasting damage to New York’s image.

New York City joined, like many other cities facing government cut-backs and recession, an inter-urban competition to

ESSAY

retain and attract new markets in financial services, real estate, entertainment and tourism. The city practiced enthusiastically the neo-liberal policy of de-regularization, favoring business development. Billions of dollars where solicited for tax brakes, subsidies, grants and zoning changes. In the late 1970s, the city began to use mass marketing as a strategy for the first time. A marketing program funded by the city, state and private business was established that created the brand Manhattan, emphasizing its advantages as a place to do business and attract tourists and conventions.10 Stating that ‘brands give products, services, places and events an additional symbolic value, making them transcend their material value,’ Hans Mommaas, professor in Leisure Studies at the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, gives a fine description of what happened to the declined Manhattan of the 1970s until the end of the century.11 Along with marketing firms and business leaders, the city transformed itself into an entrepreneur, packaging and selling the image of Manhattan as a global brand. It was within this policy that big campaigns such as the nationwide Big Apple-campaign and the worldwide I Love NY-campaign were held in 1971 and 1977. And the marketing worked, as both the increase in travel receipts and tax revenue were significant and Manhattan’s tourist sites from 96th street to

the world trade center saw rapid economical growth. When Mayor Rudy Giuliani got both the tourist and media production under his watch in the 1990s, Manhattan’s image circulated in film and television globally (in television programs such as Friends and ), thus attracting more tourists. At this stage, New York’s previous imaginaries, from Gotham to Asphalt Jungle or even the colorful nightlife of early I Love New York-commercials, got replaced by a much more sanitized urban imaginary.

Brands should also be, in order to be successful, a “ source for spatial identification and differentiation, recognition, continuity and collectivity for its own inhabitants ” – G. Evans The branding of Manhattan certainly repositioned the city as an attractive base for cultural and economical development.

But according to Greame Evans, professor Urban Cultures at the London Metropolitan University, brands should also be, in order to be successful, a ‘source for spatial identification and differentiation, recognition, continuity and collectivity for its own inhabitants.’12 Since the city branding of New York was conceived by the city, state and private business, it’s clearly a top-down process which tends to favor a small cashrich group and holds the risk to mean little

AGEE, James, Brooklyn Is. Southeast of the Island: Travel Notes, Fordham Press New York, New York, 1968 HOPKINS, Roz, Blue List. The Best in Travel 2007, Lonely Planet Publications Pty Ltd, Victoria, Australia, 2007 The references to Neil Simon, Spike Lee and Jay-Z are borrowed from Jake Mooney. MOONEY, Jake, ‘Brooklyn: The Borough Behind the Brand’, in: City Limits: Defining Brooklyn, 2008, Vol. 35, No.1, New York, p10-p11 4 MOONEY (2008) 5 This terminology is borrowed from Sharon Zukin. ZUKIN, Sharon, The Naked City: The Life and Death of Authentic Urban Places, Oxford University Press, Oxford, USA, 2010 6 Examples can be found in Sharon Zukin’s Naked City, which treats Authenticity in Brooklyn in various Chapters, And in Brittany Hudson’s article ‘The Branding Power of Brooklyn.’ ZUKIN (2010), HUTSON, Brittany, ‘The Branding Power of Brooklyn’, 2010, on: http://madamenoire. com/106616/the-branding-power-of-brooklyn/, last visited on: 09/04/12 7 HUTSON (2010) In order of reference: COTTER, Holland, 2004, New York Times, in: ZUKIN (2010); ZUKIN (2010); PARKER, Farrah, 2008, in: HUTSON (2010) 8 GREENBERG, Miriam, ‘The Limits of Branding: The World Trade Center, Fiscal Crisis and the Marketing of Recovery’, in: International Journal of 9 Urban and Regional Research, 2003, volume 27.2, p.386-p.416 10 New York Department of City Planning, Economic recovery: New York City’s program for 1977-1981, DCP, New York, in: GREENBERG (2003) 11 MOMMAAS, Hans, City Branding: Image Building & Building Images, NAi Publishers, Rotterdam, 2002 12 EVANS, Greame, ‘Hard-Brandening the Cultural City – From Prado to Prada’, in: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2003, volume 27.2, P. 417-440 1 2 3

71

for the big crowd. Since its conception, the brand omitted all life and culture above 96th street and other boroughs but Manhattan. In this sense, the brand Manhattan magnifies certain aspects of the city (businesses, finance and tourism) and places (for example the World Trade Center and Times Square) on a unseen scale but it overlooks the city’s own inhabitants.

Although Manhattan’s profile remains successful and keeps attracting millions of tourists each year, it seems a shift is taking place. Manifestations such as ‘Occupy Wall Street’, located in the epicenter of the brand and thus world-wide featured, are creating a negative stigma damaging the sanitized image that represented New York until now.

Brooklyn, the borough behind the brand

The branding of Manhattan served as model for many other cities. Brooklyn’s current Borough President Marty Markowitz is familiar with the methods that made Manhattan re-flourish. However, his attempts to promote Brooklyn internationally, were not so much of a success. Despite the shiny

“ Whereas Manhattan became a brand through top-down politics, Brooklyn created its current image much more through bottom-up processes. ” central tourist office, a website and all kinds of Brooklyn merchandising he established, he discovered on a promotion tour through Europe that “multiple travel agencies didn’t know what Brooklyn was, other than they had a bridge.’13 In Brooklyn a different kind of brand was conceived. Whereas Manhattan became a brand through topdown politics, Brooklyn created its current image(s) much more through bottomup processes. Through these opposite operations Manhattan created a single framework favoring the financial, touristic

72

COLLECTIVE CULTURE | Imagining Brooklyn

and entertainment sector, while Brooklyn tended to create a less one-sided image.

The brand Brooklyn has several facets, including a desirable place for living, the ideal place to expose a hip lifestyle or to set up a business, or the cradle of gangsta rap.

Livable Brooklyn

In the forties, a small group of literary men and woman showed an interest in Brooklyn, seeking a haven from the high rents in Manhattan and looking for a ‘small, personal life.’14 At that time, Brooklyn had the image of a place that once had a culture and aristocracy but was in time transformed into an ‘unknown land full of factories and homes on gigantic avenues.’15 Acting as ‘urban pioneers’, a term defined

by Neil Smith in The Urban Frontier, the intellectuals crossed the Brooklyn Bridge and settled in the area close by the base, named Brooklyn Heights.16 Their aim for a more personal lifestyle was a clear response to the modernist vision of cities with towers, highways, and public housing and thus against the image of Manhattan.

As much as they rejected this vision, they were freightend by the idea of living in suburbia. The abandoned brownstone neighborhoods of Brooklyn served well as an alternative space for both the modern paradigm and suburbia as this morphology appeared ‘historically diverse’ or authentic.17 Supported by their social networks in Manhattan, the newcomers developed ‘into an influential political force and, less expected but even more important, into an image-maker for the city.’18 Following Brooklyn Heights’ rebirth, the borough boasted a series of ‘diverse enclaves’.

By the 1970s, many neighborhoods were transformed and named historically: Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, Park Slope, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill. This specific historic theming appeals to the intellectual class because it acts as a ‘middle brown link between the

ESSAY

branded fantasy and elite taste.’19 Ultimately, this elite intellectual group succeeded to make their own Brooklyn more viable for the outside, through their pens, their art and networks, as a place of qualitative and quiet living, different from both the suburbs and the city center: more urbane and less urban.

In the very early gentrification of the 1940s not only the modern city was considered threatening but also the industrial cityscape of polluted factories at Brooklyn’s waterfront disturbed the lifestyle the residents envisioned. Half a century later, it is at these areas in particular that gentrification becomes rampant.

Hip Brooklyn

In the 1990s, the process of gentrification expanded beyond the Brooklyn quarters with appealing brownstones and excellent transportation access, into those with ‘considerably less desirable housing, challenging transportation connections and few amenities.’20 Williamsburg started to attract artists, journalists, writers, actors and filmmakers. Later Greenpoint and even the isolated port-area of Red Hook started to experience a similar influx. In the building stock left behind by deindustrialization they found the studio spaces that had become too expensive in Manhattan. Again, the image of Brooklyn as alternative space convinced them to move here. Brooklyn turned out to be the ideal playground for the new creative class to organize new kinds of urban initiatives. DIY (Do It Yourself) parties,

alternative events and performances, often without investment of either private developers or government ‘created an opportunity for a new culture to thrive.’21 New media such as blogs and email servers covered these new initiatives so that they emerged to a wider public faster than ever before. Hipsters and twentysomethings got attracted. On the one hand because of the sky-high rents in Manhattan, on the other because this seemed a place where they could make their lifestyle viable.22 Williamsburg’s growing prominence as a Hipster locale oddly confirms the principles Jane Jacobs conceived thirty years before, that old buildings with low rents will act as ‘incubators for new activities.’ But while her vibrant description of the streetscape was based on the neighborhood’s existing owners and residents, in reality that streetscape took the form of a ‘new terroir for indie music, alternative art, and trendy restaurants.’23 This new community consolidates, just like the early gentrifiers in the 1940s, the gab between the authenticity of historic houses and vibrant street life, and the authenticity of the lower class families that inhabited them.

Entrepreneurial Brooklyn

The image described in the two previous paragraphs made Brooklyn an attractive locus for entrepreneurs with social, cultural and economical capital who were able to spark a commercial revival. During last decade, the name Brooklyn turned out as

13 MARKOWITZ, Marty, 2007 14 JORDAN, June, 1984, in: ZUKIN (2010) Among the intellectuals were poet W. H. Auden, poet June Jordan and writer Truman Capote.

15 OSMAN, Suleiman, The Invention Of Brownstone Brooklyn: Gentrification and the search in Postwar New York, Oxford University Press, Oxford, USA, 2011 16 SMITH, Neil, The New Urban Frontier, Gentrification and the revanchist city, Routledge, London and New York, 1996 17 OSMAN (2011) 18 ZUKIN (2010) 19 BYRNE, D., Understanding the urban, Palgrave, Basingstoke, Hampshire, 2001 20 NEWMAN, K. and WYLY, E., Gentrification and Resistance in New York City, on: http://www.nhi.org, last visited: 07-12-2011 21 ZUKIN (2010) 22 HUTSON (2010) 23 Id.

73

an ‘attractive marketing tool for an evolving numbers of entrepreneurs.’24 After a long period of industrial decline, some new industries got attracted to the area. They were different from the former industries and strongly affiliated with Brooklyn’s new identity. When these local industries extended globally, again Brooklyn’s new

“ Brooklyn-named products are seen as ‘authentic, handcrafted and pure’ reacting to the rest of America’s mass-produced image became known outside the city. In 2010, Crains New York counted at least 70 companies tapping the Brooklyn name and the amount was still growing. Brooklyn Brewery, a company that returned to Brooklyn in 1994, played a key role in this process, among clothing retailer Brooklyn Industries founded in 1997 and Brooklyn Wine Co. founded in 2007. For these brands, Brooklyn represents ‘a quality of life, extending into a quality of the product.’25 Steve Hindi, co-founder of Brooklyn Brewery says Brooklyn-named products ‘are seen as authentic, handcrafted and pure’ reacting to the rest of America’s mass-produced bigbox culture.26 This authenticity indicates both the popularity and the risks of the Brooklyn branded products. As more and more products adapt the name Brooklyn, without an intrinsic connection with the borough, the risk for ‘Brooklyn fatigue’ exists.27 Another risk is to be found in the high manufacturing costs, and the lack of manufacturers in the city. Because of this, Brooklyn becomes untenable as home base for some businesses and the production of the authentically handcrafted Brooklyn products starts to happen overseas.

74

COLLECTIVE CULTURE | Imagining Brooklyn

Hip hop Brooklyn

While gentrification took place in several areas throughout the borough and Williamsburg was becoming the epicenter of cool in the 1990’s, many other parts of the borough did not transform and remained stuck in serious problems such as bad housing, failing schools, lack of jobs, and high crime rates.28 Often these miserable conditions were to be found in neighborhoods located further from the Hudson waterfront and inhabited by mainly poorer Latino and Afro-American residents. In exactly these neighborhoods, a completely different image of Brooklyn as cool was developed. A new generation of rappers emerged that mentioned neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy or East Flatbush or a public housing project like Marcy Houses in their lyrics, ‘evoking their problems and racial experience.’29 Figures such as Jay-Z (whose name is said to derive from the J/Z lines stopping at Marcy’s houses) and Busta Rhymes were able to enter popular culture and thus developed the black, hip hop-imagery of the borough.

Sharon Zukin states that the ‘naming of neighborhoods gave hip-hop artists a means of branding their products in terms of origins’. On the other hand, for the neighborhoods it meant a positioning as ‘the epicenter of cool’ for an international group of hip hop fans.30 Although this facet of the Brooklyn brand became considerably visual in popular culture, the neighborhoods did not benefit from such a cultural production.

Zukin blames it on the missing dialogue with Manhattan: while Brooklyn Heights’ intellectuals and Williamsburg’s Hipsters can still profit from the critical cluster and capital of Manhattan, Bed-Stuy’s rappers remain far from this border. However, just like Williamsburg’s bands, cloths and art, Brooklyn’s rap music became a considerable global brand.

ESSAY

‘Brooklyn means a million different things to a million different people, but it all adds up to a positive image’, recalls entrepreneur Steve Hindi. A brand representing a quality of life, a lifestyle, hip and hip hop culture, as well as a whole range of products carrying its name. Recalling the theory of French social scientist Michel De Certeau on the contrast between a strategy, formulated on the basis of a clear center with a higher degree of generality and coherence, and tactics, leading a more fragmented, informal and less regulated, but at the same time ‘deeper’ existence, Brooklyn’s image making is situated in the second approach.31 This branding makes explicit, normal and coherent that what was already present in the city in implicit and fragmented form.32 Whether it were the DIY-parties, hip-hop lyrics or community gardening, many of it was picked up to form this ‘positive image’.

In contrast to Manhattan’s branding, the brand Brooklyn presents itself as being

normal and coherent that what was already present in the city in implicit and fragmented form. ” much more affiliated with the actual population. From our study on the creation of the brand Brooklyn, we conclude that this also seems to reflect the actual

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

way in which this branding was developed.

According to Evans, the successful branding of a place can provide a sustainable link between the individual and collective culture and identity, reconnecting the locale with its inhabitants in a sense of socio-cultural ‘belonging.’33 Especially through its actual affinity to the population, the Brooklyn brand may indeed stand a good chance to convey such a sustained effect.

However, both future risks and current problems of the brand Brooklyn must be named. The brand may be well affiliated with populations in Park slope (livable Brooklyn), Williamsburg (hip Brooklyn) an Bed-Stuy (Hip Hop Brooklyn), there is no mentioning of East New York, Bushwick, Bensonhurst and other neighborhoods where changes take place that fit neither of these labels. All of this makes up a Brooklyn, too complex to fit one slogan. In an area as big as Brooklyn, this may seem evident, and even harmless.

The danger is, though, that in places such as Brooklyn, where the ‘brand’ is successful in tapping existing cultural tactics, that these tactics become upgraded to the level of strategies which then in the worst case become ‘subject to rationalization.’34 At the moment when high-rise towers proclaiming a unique Brooklyn lifestyle and handmade Brooklyn messenger bags are fabricated in south east Asia, it does not seem hard to tell whether the brand that made Brooklyn popular is enhancing or is starting to destroy itself in this way.

HINDI, S., 2010, in: CHAPATTA, B., Companies tap into Brklyn’s Power of Cool, 2010, on: www. crainsnewyork.com, last visited; 07-12-2011 id.

MOONEY, J., Yo, Brooklyn Brand, What’s Up?, 2008, on: cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com, last visited: 07-12-2011 ZUKIN (2010) Id. Id. Id. DE CERTEAU, Michel, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press LTD, Londen, England, 1984 MOMMAAS (2002) EVANS (2003) MOMMAAS (2002)

75

PLANNING THE CITY An Amalgam of Authorities New York City is often described as ‘the Capital of Capitalism’. The city is shaped by economic interests that are translated in city planning and zoning laws. In 1811 the Manhattan grid was designed to facilitate the buying, selling and improving of real estate. to guard the air and light quality and the property value, of several high-rises. In a big part of NYC’s history private investors had a current neoliberalism, favoring free market, leads to a great dispersion between social classes. This provokes reaction from several minority groups and communities. The latter have a say in city planning since the community districts in the 1960s. Though, it’s questionable whether they have a fair share in the process.

Essay

Zoning Tools and Tendencies

1929 stock marke

example, in the beginning of the 20th

of standard real estate formulas,

1900s loss of light and air

1900s migration peak

1930s more emigratio

LAISSEZ - FAIRE ECONOMY identity migration safety

82

KEYNESIANISM

1916 government spending evolution of tax rates

Titel Hoofdstuk | Titel Deelhoofdstuk 6 PLANNING THE CITY | Timeline

FIRST ZONING WW I

1929

GREAT DEPRESSION

Timeline Essay

et crash

1972 oil crisis

2007 credit crisis

1960s creation community districs

1989 contextual zoning

1960s problematic density

on than immigration

1990s migration wave

1970s riots 1994 Rudy Guiliani

1960

1979 SEQRA

M

1977 clean air act

2001 9/11

1997 Kyoto

NEOLIBERALISM

1961

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS WW II

1973

OIL CRISIS

2008

FORECLOSURE CRISIS

ZONING REVISION

Basisuitleg Map

7 83

Zoning 1916

1

2

1 2

3

3 residential business parks and

84

PLANNING THE CITY | Zoning

undetermined

Map

Zoning in 1916

85

Zoning 1961

buildings and the overall density of the

1

in a building to the area of its lot and

1 2

2

in front parks residential

86

PLANNING THE CITY | Zoning

Map

Zoning in 1961

87

Zoning 2011

the Zoning Toolbox is expanded

1

1

set up to provide an understandable,

diagrams, photographs and easily

parks residential

88

PLANNING THE CITY | Zoning

Map

Zoning in 2011

89

Rezoning

gets adjusted but sometimes areas

and approved by the Department of

1

PLANNING AND ZONING

growth transit-oriented development sustainable communities ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

LAND USE APPLICATIONS

ZONING CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS

SUPPORTS

planning growth and development housing business industry transportation distribution recreation and culture comfort convenience health and welfare

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

1

90

PLANNING THE CITY | Zoning

disposition of City Property

proposed by DCP initiated by taxpayer Community or Borough Board Borough President City Planning Commission City Council Mayor (Private applicant)

PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESSES UNIFORM LAND USE REVIEW PROCEDURE CITY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW

Map

91

Uneven Development

the disparity of property values in to uneven urban development, a

devaluation of land and real estate

landbanking those areas, due to

are not fully representative for this

poverty treshold poverty treshold

92

PLANNING THE CITY |

Map

93

An Amalgam of Authorities Uneven urban development in New York City

New York City often is described as ‘the Capital of Capitalism’ 1. Since the city’s origin, its development has been based on economics and the exploitation of land. The Dutch laid the first foundation of NYC in the 16th century to profit from the site’s natural harbor and to consolidate their position in the global market. Due to its location the city became an active speculative environment, luring lots of immigrants in search of prosperity. ‘In 1811 the Manhattan grid was designed to facilitate the buying, selling and improving of real estate’.2 In this real-estate driven market the city’s capitalism becomes most visible. This essay tries to describe NYC’s socioeconomical history and the relation to its decision-making, concerning urban planning and zoning.

the early 20th century: local real estate

‘In the nineteenth century, New York City was the financial center of an emerging global empire in the Americas’.3 The city achieved formal political status in 1898 with the consolidation of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island. At that time, the Western World was characterized by a laissez-faire economy, an economic system free from state intervention and driven by market forces, ‘centered on the belief that human beings are naturally motivated by self-interest’.4 Instead of resulting in a balanced system of production and exchange based on mutual benefit, this policy caused a huge dispersion between social classes, making the wealthy even wealthier. Lots of New York elitist entrepreneurs ‘traded the commodities produced throughout the American hinterland and invested the surplus in new speculative ventures’.5 They decided to invest their assets into local real estate, mainly in Manhattan. The city government had the opportunity to develop a regional planning for the city, but strongly influenced by wealthy real estate developers, they rejected the idea of a comprehensive planning for the entire city and let ‘the real estate industry take the initiative in developing the five boroughs’.6 As a result, the central core (Lower Manhattan) became overdeveloped and sprawl spread along the

94

planning the city An Amalgam of Authorities

first subway lines7 into the outer boroughs, causing an ‘uneven urban development, a fundamental principle of capitalistic growth’.8 Besides the new transportation technology, the invention of the elevator contributed to the rapid development of Manhattan. Highrise structures were the most profitable way to built because land was scares and height was unregulated. Not only the construction of residential towers was popular. Because of the city’s importance as financial center, businesses needed to expand their office space and also housed in skyscrapers.

These towers were ‘not only the locus of business but also the businesses themselves’.9 Their design didn’t only depend on air, light and site but was a product of standard real estate formulas, leading to maximum financial gain. As taller buildings started to appear all over, New Yorkers began to protest the loss of light and air, as early as the 1870s and 1880s.

‘In response, the state legislature enacted a series of height restrictions on residential buildings, culminating in the Tenement House Act of 1901.’10 ‘Since Manhattan is finite and the number of its blocks forever fixed, the city cannot grow in any conventional manner, making its land extremely valuable’.11 ‘The higher the value of land, the taller a building must rise

ESSAY

to reach the point of maximum economic return.’12 Unregulated height and the urge for increasing profit caused an oversupply of high-rise in some city districts, putting smaller and older skyscrapers in permanent shadow. This created a stage for the nation’s first comprehensive zoning resolution.

But also other forces were at work. Due to an influx of new immigrants, a housing shortage developed and slum landlords were able to rent tenements with minimum standards and maximum bulk. Warehouses and factories began to encroach upon the fashionable stores, near Fifth Avenue. These intrusions called for zoning restrictions that organized separate districts for residential, manufacturing and commercial use and regulated height and bulk control for all uses.13

“From the start, zoning and planning focused on Manhattan, where the stakes in land were the highest.”

In 1916, the first Zoning Resolution was constituted and required setback for highrise and ‘designated residential districts that excluded what were seen as incompatible uses’.14 Earlier attempts to regulate urban development failed due to a lack of backing of business and real estate forces, leaders

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

of the free-market. ‘However, given the condition of oversupply, building owners and developers began to favor zoning restrictions on new construction’15 , afraid for devaluation of their real estate properties.

Remarkable is, that the zoning resolution wasn’t a future vision on the city or comprehensive land-use planning that tried to integrate social and cultural development.

It primarily followed the existing land market.

And that was how powerful property owners wanted it. The 1916 Zoning Resolution still ‘allowed for new land subdivisions and could be changed to accommodate even greater growth with changing market demand’.16 ‘From the start, zoning and planning focused on Manhattan, where the stakes in land were the highest. Most parts of the other boroughs outside Manhattan were zoned as “unrestricted”. That meant that industry, housing and commerce could be mixed.’17 The land outside Manhattan became the place were small developers could establish themselves. The other boroughs permitted low- to midrise housing development and the location of smaller businesses on relatively cheap land. They generated typical mixeduse neighborhoods, such as Red Hook, Greenpoint and Williamsburg in Brooklyn.

‘New York City’s Zoning Resolution was made to protect the interests of Manhattan real estate, leaving the rest of the city to the vagaries of a less imperial and somewhat

WILLIS, C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, New York, p34 KOOLSHAAS, R., Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, The Monacelli Press, 1997 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p58Urbanization, 010 Publishers, X., Laissez-faire economic, http://www.businessdictionary.com/, last visited: 12-04-2012 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p58 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p59 The first underground line of the subway opened on October 27, 1904. (X., New York City Subway, http://en.wikipedia.org) KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p11 WILLIS, C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, New York, p10 NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, About Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov, last visited: 12-04-2012 KOOLHAAS, R., Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, The Monacelli Press, s.l., 1997 WILLIS, C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, New York, p88 Information from NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, About Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov, last visited: 12-04-2012 NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, About Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov, last visited: 12-04-2012 WILLIS, C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, New York, p68 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p61 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p63

95

less profitable marketplace.’18 As time went by, the cheaper land in Manhattan became scarce and high-rise development started to spread to the outer boroughs that were accessible through mass transit.

the great depression : new deal policies

The 1916 zoning law renewed the confidence of developers and real estate agents in construction. They used their surpluses, required from foreign or domestic labor, to invest in Manhattan real estate and development along the newly built transit lines. The renewed confidence in construction, together with the subway expansion coupled a building boom in Manhattan with an explosion of new development in the outer boroughs in the 1920s. The distance between rich and poor grew. ‘In the early twentieth century, a national urban reform movement arose, that wanted to address the miserable living condition in the “slums” to eliminate the breeding grounds for both disease and radical political ideas. Robert Moses, known as ‘the master builder’ of mid-20th century New York City, was the reform movement’s most accomplished representative. He cleared working-class neighborhoods, built highways and parks for the new middle class, and created down-town development opportunities.’19 As new development expanded, minority groups started to be displaced from their neighborhoods because of rising rents. ‘But labor began to fight back.’20 In the early decades of the twentieth century, tenants advocated legislation to control rents and evictions. In 1921 the New York State passed the first law regulating rents.

But the new legislation and upcoming community protests didn’t stop New York City from rapidly developing. Rising competition between private entrepreneurs caused increasing land and property prices,

96

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

far above the actual value. These asset bubbles didn’t only occur in the construction and real-estate market, but in the entire economic system. ‘The crucial point came in the 1920s when banks began to loan money to stock-buyers since stocks were the hottest commodity in the marketplace.

Banks allowed Wall Street investors to use the stocks themselves as collateral. If the stocks dropped in value, and investors could not repay the banks, the banks would be left holding near-worthless collateral. Banks would then go broke, pulling productive businesses down with them as they called in loans and foreclosed mortgages in a desperate attempt to stay afloat.[…] In October 1929 the New York Stock Exchange’s house of cards collapsed in the greatest market crash seen up to that time.’21 The asset bubbles burst and induced the Great Depression. The true causes of this economic crisis remain arguable. Those in favor of the laissezfaire economy believe it was primarily a failure of state agency, but those advocating interventionism blame the free-market.22

“Roosevelt tried to revitalize a mass-consumption based economy by revitalizing the masses ability to consume.”

At the threshold of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover became President of United States. He resisted calls for government intervention to get the economy out of the Great Depression on behalf of individuals.

He believed that the economy would right itself, if it was left alone. He even believed government spending should be continued to be cut, but the Congress forced him to intervene. ‘Hoover’s efforts consisted of spending to stabilize the business community, believing that returning prosperity would eventually “trickle down”23

ESSAY

to the poor majority.’24 He was easily surpassed by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the presidential election of 1932. The new president wanted to defeat the Depression through the politics of the New Deal, which primarily sought to save capitalism and the fundamental institution of American society. The first New Deal, from 1933 until 1935, seemed to be a continuation of the “trickle down” policies of Herbert Hoover, but better-funded, and ‘aimed at restoring the economy from the top down’.25 Due to right-wing opposition, Roosevelt tended to be pushed to the Left. The second New Deal, from 1935 until the 1940s attempted to end the Depression by spending at the bottom of the economy. With a ‘Keynesian’26 economic policy, Roosevelt tried to ‘revitalize a mass-consumption based economy by revitalizing the masses ability to consume’.27 John Maynard Keynes, a British economist argued that the private sector wouldn’t support production enough to bring the economy out of recession. He professed governmental intervention was needed to cope with deficits in times of financial crisis, by increasing government spending, cutting taxes, and providing public (social) housing. The government had millions of New Deal tax dollars to spend, but the states nor the cities had projects ready.

18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25

26 27 28 29

Robert Moses ‘was one of the few local officials who had projects planned and prepared. For that NYC and Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia could count on Moses to deliver to its Works Progress Administration (WPA) and other depression-era funding.’28 The WPA was a huge federal jobs program, that hired unemployed workers in order to get them and their families back on their feet. ‘Moses helped LaGuardia build New Deal projects that created jobs and public places, including parks and a new subway system. Since there were no massive displacement pressures from real estate during the Depression, the new public works didn’t have substantial negative impacts on neighborhoods.’29 Examples of such projects are the Long Island Parkway System, the First Houses, which is the first public housing project, and ten gigantic pools, constructed under the WPA Program.

One such pool is McCarren Park Pool in Brooklyn.

THE POSTWAR PERIOD : THE HEYDAYS OF ROBERT MOSES

It wasn’t the new Keynesian economic model that pulled the United States out of the Great Depression, but the increased government spending on World War II. Roosevelt and the Congress spend what

ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p63 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p64 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p84 X., The Great Depression and New Deal, 1929-1940s, http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/ Information from X., Great Depression, http://en.wikipedia.org “Trickle-down economics” and “the trickle-down theory” are terms in United States politics often used by the American right to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided by government to businesses and the wealthy will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.[2] The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that “money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy.” (X., Trickle-down, http://en.wikipedia.org) X., The Great Depression and New Deal, 1929-1940s, http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/ An example is the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), passed in 1933. This act accepted the long-held premise that low farm prices resulted from overproduction. Thus, the government sought to stimulate increased farm prices by paying farmers to produce less. The regulation only helped the largest and best capitalized farmers, because they had to hire less employees for production works. The unemployment rate among poorer farmers increased and tenants couldn’t afford it to pay rent anymore and became homeless. X., The Great Depression and New Deal, 19291940s, http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/ The Keynesianism of the 1930s was the beginning of a mixed economy, predominantly still based on the private sector but with a significant role of government and public sector that regulated the economy by a monetary and fiscal policy. (X., Keynesian economics, http://en.wikipedia.org) X., The Great Depression and New Deal, 1929-1940s, http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/ X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p87

97

was needed to win the war. ‘This was an intensified version of what Roosevelt was already doing with the WPA and similar programs.’30 After the war, the government agreed that they should never allow for another depression to take hold and a period of unprecedented federal economic intervention followed. ‘In the Depression, federal public works and welfare programs helped stabilize the local real estate market and lift sagging land values.

Public investments in infrastructure and housing created new private opportunities in surrounding neighborhoods that developers cashed in on after World War II.’31 Robert Moses had power over all public works since he hold control of all federal appropriation to New York City. In the 1920s, he persuaded the current governor, Al Smith, to allow him to hold state and city government jobs simultaneously. At one point, he had 12 separate titles.32 ‘But the one position above all others, giving him political power, was his chairmanship of the Triborough Bridge Authority.’33 The authority was created in 1933 as a publicbenefit corporation by the New York State Legislature. ‘A public-benefit corporation operates like quasi-private operations, with boards of directors appointed by elected officials. Public authorities share characteristics with government agencies, but they are exempt from many state and local regulations. Of particular importance, they can issue their own debt, allowing them to bypass limits on state debt contained in the New York State Constitution. This allows public authorities to make potentially risky capital and infrastructure investments without directly putting the credit of New York State or its municipalities on the line.’34 The Triborough Bridge Authority was tasked with the completing construction of the Triborough Bridge35, which had been started by New York City in 1929 but had stalled due to the Great Depression.36

98

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

‘While New York City and New York State were perpetually strapped for money, the bridge’s toll revenues amounted to tens of millions of dollars a year. The agency was therefore capable of financing the borrowing of hundreds of millions of dollars, making Moses the only person in New York capable of funding large public construction projects.’

37

“Moses was the only person in New York capable of funding large public construction projects.”

In 1938, the City Planning Commission was established by the 1936 City Charter, for ‘the conduct of planning relating the orderly growth and development of the City’.38 The Commission had seven members appointed by the mayor. Since its origination, the commission was developing a Comprehensive Zoning Plan for the city.

Due to Moses’ increasing power in the 1940s39 , under Mayor Vincent Impellitteri, he was able to stop the design of the Zoning plan, ‘that would have restrained his nearly uninhibited power to build within the city’.40 He wanted to remake New York for the automobile. He saw it as entertainment, in line with modernists of the 1920s. The Federal Interstate Highway System was one of the largest public works projects ever implemented in the United States.

Moses was responsible for the construction of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, the Staten Island Expressway, the CrossBronx Expressway, the Belt Parkway and many more. The arrival of the car in the city center, was part of a massive national urban plan, launched by the federal government.

It was one of the reasons for the white flight to the suburbs, together with the deindustrialization. ‘Postwar urban policy was in fact a comprehensive plan for low-

ESSAY

density suburban development’41 and central cities with concentrated business districts. The globalization of production, as well as the increasing land prices in the city center (due to local real estate business), caused manufacturers to move out of the city center and into the suburbs.

Immigrants started to move into the city centers, because they were not accepted in the suburbs due to an exclusionary (zoning) policy. ‘Small municipal governments were spread throughout a fragmented territory, which allowed the new suburbanities to gain control over their community’s land, and adopt exclusionary land-use and zoning policies to protect their property values.’42 It’s remarkable that actually these small governments were the foundations of ‘local decision making and community participation as opposed to federal intervention’.43

“ A conservative estimate of the number of people displaced by the Moses bulldozer was 170 000 people between 1945 and 1953.”

The federal urban renewal program would help developers by acquiring the land where

30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

poor people lived, to promote new highrise, commercial development and luxury residential buildings. ‘The 1949 Housing Act and subsequent housing bills gave local authorities funds for the assembling and clearance of urban land.’44 Public housing was provided for those poor people, displaced by urban renewal projects, and other low-income tenants. An early example of urban renewal is the building of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Moses cleared an eighteen-block area in the Lower East Side to build the Stuyvesant Town complex with 8755 apartments, which were only available for white middle-income people. Development began in 1943 and was completed in 1949.45 Moses was still responsible for securing the funds from Washington and developing the national urban policy. ‘Because New York was one of the most densely populated and liberal cities and had active social and labor movements, the job of stuffing the highways, new office buildings, and civic centers in and throwing the working class out was daunting and required a ruthlessness that Moses was able to provide.’46 ‘A conservative estimate of the number of people displaced by the Moses bulldozer was 170 000 people between 1945 and 1953. Later estimates

X., The Great Depression and New Deal, 1929-1940s, http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/ ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p87 He maintained four palatial offices across the city and Long Island, and actually holding control of all federal appropriation to New York City. For the city he was Parks Commissioner, and for the state, he was President of the Long Island State Park Commission and Secretary of State of New York (1927-1928), as well as Chairman of the New York State Power Commission, responsible for building hydro-electric dams in the Niagara/St. Lawrence region. (X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org) X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org X., New York State public-benefit corporation, http://en.wikipedia.org Under the chairmanship of Robert Moses, the agency grew in a series of mergers with four other agencies: Henry Hudson Parkway Authority, in 1940, Marine Parkway Authority, in 1940,New York City Parkway Authority, in 1940, and the New York City City Tunnel Authority, in 1946. With the last merger in 1946, the authority was renamed the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. (X., MTA Bridges and Tunnels, http://en.wikipedia.org) Information from X., MTA Bridges and Tunnels, http://en.wikipedia.org X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, City Planning Commission, http://www.nyc.gov He became the official representative of New York City in Washington D.C. (X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org) X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p70 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p70 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p70 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p71 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p88 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p72

99

by community advocates range in the millions.’47 Although the 12 000 people who were displaced by the Stuyvesant Town complex gave little or no resistance, community movements began to come in opposition to displacement with projects that followed. ‘Nevertheless, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the use of eminent domain gave the green light to slum-clearance projects all over the city and nation.’48 Robert Moses, for example, used the eminent domain to make room for the implementation of the interstate highway system. He stated that the highway system is of public importance and therefore automatically a reason for the clearance of existing neighborhoods. ‘Opposition to urban renewal continued to grow.’49 In order to cool of the opposition movements, Congress passed the 1954 Housing Act, allowing local authorities to restore the existing housing instead of bulldozing everything. Moses continued to use abundant federal money to construct public housing. However, the public housing wasn’t constructed anymore to provide jobs, according to the New Deal policy, but was developed to facilitate urban renewal and to house displaced people.

Those people were mostly poor and colored, making the public housing projects segregated ghettoes.

sought for other investment in the city center. With the poor people, segregated in public housing and the rich people, grouped in the suburbs or in market-rate apartments, the middle-income people had no place to go. Due to generous subsidies, lowinterest loans and tax incentives, principally through the state and city Mitchell-Lama programs, developers were able to make the construction of housing for the middleincome class, profitable.

‘The city’s dynamic postwar building boom led the city’s planners to propose a complete overhaul of the Zoning Resolution, consolidating Manhattan’s modern highrise skyline, opening up new frontiers for residential and industrial real estate development in the outer boroughs, and generally facilitating millions of square feet of new real estate growth.’51 The “unrestricted” districts in the outer boroughs were eliminated and replaced by residential and (mostly) industrial districts.52 The only place were small developers could establish themselves, was now also opened for big real estate corporations.

“The 1961 Zoning Resolution was really not much more than a new license for the next wave of real estate development driven by downtown expansion.”

the 1961 zoning resolution

‘The building boom in the 1950s added millions of square feet of office space to Lower and Midtown Manhattan.’50 Because of increasing property values in these central business districts, the pressure on the surrounding low-rent neighborhoods increased. Deindustrialization, on the other hand, caused a relocation of industrial businesses to the suburbs, leaving desolate buildings and large vacant land in the center of the city. The commercial and luxury market were saturated and developers

100

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

The new zoning code was influenced by Le Corbusier’s Tower-in-the-park model and the concept of incentive zoning. The latter meant the trading of additional floor area for public amenities. The FAR (floor area rate) keyed the amount of floor space permitted in a building to the area of its lot and could be increased twenty percent if a developer included a public plaza or arcade. ‘This incentive zoning needed to implement more open space at street level in the city’s most dense districts.’53 By imposing the first finite

ESSAY

limits on volume, also height was regulated.

The 1961 Zoning Resolution coordinated use and bulk regulations, but also incorporated parking requirements, to adjust the city to the automobile, and emphasized the creation of open space.54 ‘But the grand planning vision underlying the 1961 zoning was not regional. It was really not much more than a new license for the next wave of real estate development driven by downtown expansion.’ 55

the 1960s social revoltuion : jane jacobs

‘Just as the City Planning Commission gave birth to a new vision for the grand modernist city (which was embodied in the 1961 Zoning Resolution), an alternative vision emerged from the community movements.’56 Jane Jacobs, a writer and Greenwich Village activist, wrote a book, called ‘The Death and Life of Great American City’. The work was a critique towards the top-down, elitist city planning policies and urban renewal projects of the 1950s. Jacobs had no educational training in urban planning, architecture or whatsoever. Her book contained personal experiences, observations and ‘principles for understanding, preserving and developing central city neighborhoods. It incorporated the ideas of local activists, who were struggling to save their communities.’57 Jacobs claimed that the urban renewal policies of the 1950s destroyed communities and created isolated, unnatural urban spaces. She advocated the abolition of

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

zoning laws and restoration of free markets in land, which would result in dense, mixed-use neighborhoods.58 Jane Jacobs was the leading lady in the community movement, opposing the Lower Manhattan Expressway, proposed by Robert Moses.

This expressway would cut right through the West Greenwich Village and would displace thousands of people. However, Moses insisted that the project must be completed and he would book no opposition.

But Jacobs didn’t back down either. She believed that cities were made out of more than just movement of commuters.

According to her, people in the streets and the relationships that are created and fostered, make up the urban field. In 1964, the Mayor and City Hall sided with the West Villagers and this time Robert Moses was defeated. The victory for Jacobs and her advocacy movement symbolized great change in the building and conceiving of cities. Even groups as small as the West Village neighborhood could have a voice and win a real change in the face of the local government.59

“Jane Jacobs helped to create a public consciousness of the value of neighborhoods and the threats posed by large-scale development.”

An example of the influence of the community on the local government is

ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p90 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p90 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p72 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p73 The planners who prepared the 1961 zoning revision were overly optimistic about industrial expansion, and many mixed-use neighborhoods were rezoned exclusively for industry – which would later invite noxious uses and lead to environmental justice campaigns. (ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p73) WILLIS, C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, New York, p141 Information from NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, About Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p73 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p92 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p92 Information from X., Jane Jacobs, http://en.wikipedia.org Information from BAUM P., ELIAS, J., Video on Robert Moses, 2008, http:// pcj.typepad.com/planning_commissioners_jo/2010/03/moses-jacobs. html 101

the Cooper Square Alternate Plan. This plan was the first community plan in the city and was completed in 1961. The plan was a response to the urban renewal plan, sponsored by Robert Moses, that would have leveled an eleven block area and built middle-income housing. But the Cooper Square Committee fought both the city and real estate abandonment to preserve low-cost housing for low-income tenants.

The committee set up one of the city’s first community land trusts, an important and underutilized mechanism for securing community control of land.60 ‘A community land trust is a nonprofit corporation which acquires and manages land on behalf of the residents of a place-based community, while preserving affordability and preventing foreclosures for any housing located upon its land.’ 61 In line of the previous community activism, Jane Jacobs helped to create a public consciousness of the value of neighborhoods and the threats posed by large-scale development. She and her book influenced the further course of community planning.

THE year 1968 : reform and revolt 62

Although a public consciousness of the value of neighborhoods had been created, the city government continued to ignore the smallness and intimacy of these neighborhoods, by favoring constant growth and downtown development. ‘The Department of City Planning completed in 1969 the city’s first, last, and only masterplan. The document described the city neighborhood by neighborhood and set out general land-use policies to guide future decision making.’63 The plan reopened the doors for urban renewal projects and still didn’t ‘provide concrete measures to address the needs of working-class

102

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

neighborhoods’.64 But it was rejected by the real estate industry because it might have limited growth in some areas of the city. The City Planning Commission let the master plan die without a struggle and was once more subordinate to the wishes of the market. ‘Since the 1970s the city’s planning agency dropped all pretexts at planning, both comprehensive and community-based and instead, focused its efforts on the care and maintenance of zoning regulations.

Flaunting a basic principle of city planning, the city’s professionals rezone without a plan of any kind and instead claim that zoning is the plan.’65

“Mayor John Lindsay started a series of reforms that would open City Hall to greater consultation with neighborhoods.”

‘There were many critical turning points in the 1960s, but one year stands out as emblematic -1968.’66 The 1968 revolts of students all over the world, resemble the highlighted urban issues. Many students criticized left parties for ignoring housing and community issues, among others. ‘In the United States, the civil rights movement67 , led by a broad coalition of black churches, students, and progressive labor, was the leading national force for progressive social change.’68 ‘President Lyndon Johnson’s national War on Poverty was also an important backdrop to 1968.’69 This can be seen as a continuation of Roosevelt’s New Deal policy and WPA program. One of the initiatives of the War on Poverty was the Model Cities program. This program was a major precursor to community planning.

Three Model Cities were established in NYC – Central Brooklyn, Harlem and the SouthBronx. The program supported communitybased planning and democratic participation in decision making, by providing financial

ESSAY

aid.70 During that time the Republican John Lindsay was mayor of New York City.

‘He started a series of reforms that would open City Hall to greater consultation with neighborhoods.’71 He created little City Halls, and linked the community planning boards. ‘As required by the City Charter of 1963, the city was divided into 62 community districts and the role of community boards as advisors to the city government was statutorily established in 1968. During the next decade, the boards gained stature as effective vehicles for the expression of local views on a wide variety of public issues, especially those related to land use.’72 John Lindsay declared 1970 as ‘the year of the neighborhood’.73 One of his following initiatives, together with Governor Nelson Rockefeller was to claim the toll revenues from the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority to cover deficits in the city’s agencies, including the subway system. The latter was remarkable at that time, since Robert Moses ‘actively precluded the use of public transit, that would have allowed the non-car-owners to enjoy the elaborate recreation facilities he built.’74 The TBTA was turned into the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Moses was removed from his position and from then on, out of power.

THE 1970s fiscal crisis : origin of neoliberalism

The 1970s were characterized by the outmigration of capital. ‘A new international division of labor produced an accelerated flight of industry from Rustbelt to Sunbelt, the growth of a global assembly line, and the rise of newly industrialized countries in Asia and Latin America.’75 The impact of this globalization movement was devastating for the City of New York, were the local economy depended on excess capital from global profits.76 Together with the oil crisis of 1973, this resulted in a disinvestment in industry and urban infrastructure. The postwar boom ended abruptly and was followed by the withdrawal of landlords out of neighborhoods. ‘Housing abandonment became widely spread.’77 Homeowners in neighborhoods, that were in realtors interest for redevelopment, became the victim of blockbusting. The real estate agents spread the word in these, mostly white, neighborhoods that people of color were moving in. Homeowners sold their property beneath market value to the realtors, which in turn rented them to the colored people at sky-high prices. Insurance companies started redlining, refusing the loan money to people who want to move into risky neighborhoods, where blacks lived. The

60 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p32-33 61 X., Community land trust, http://en.wikipedia.org 62 After ‘1968: Emblem of Revolt and Reform’ (ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p94( 63 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p74 64 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p74 65 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p74 66 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p94 67 The civil rights movement was a worldwide political movement for equality before the law occurring between approximately 1950 and 1980. (X;, Civil rights movement, http://en.wikipedia.org) 68 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p94 69 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p95 70 Information of ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p95 71 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p95 72 NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, About Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov 73 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p95 74 X., Robert Moses, http://en.wikipedia.org 75 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p75 76 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p95 77 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p75

103

term is derived from the red line that was drawn on the map to align the areas where banks would not invest.78

“Officials blamed the victims, the ghetto, welfare and, above all, poor people of color for the fical crisis.”

In 1969, Nixon became president and ended the War on Poverty policy, initiated a few years earlier. He cut government spending and withdrew federal funds from central cities, like New York. Although, the city was facing challenges as big as in the Great Depression, the federal government was pulling out. Nixon and the Congress decided to designate the authority of revenue sharing to local governments, which leaded to even less federal assistance. The only advantage coming from the fiscal crisis and Nixon’s policy, was the end of urban renewal projects, because of the lack of funding. ‘The city would not have faced a fiscal crisis if the postwar liberal alliance between government and labor, inherited from the New Deal, had not eroded and the neoliberal era had not began.’79 There came an end to Keynesian economics, unable to contain the demands for greater individual freedom or to solve the economical problems. Both unemployment and inflation were high and increasing, and a period of ‘stagflation’ was initiated. Some people argue that the critique on society of the 1960s protest, emphasizing spontaneity and freedom and questioning government and authority, paved the way for the supplyside economy or neoliberalism.80 ‘This economic model entailed the globalization of market forces, the deregulation of financial institutions and the privatization of public services.’81 The revival of the 19th century liberalism with its free market economy, differed from its precursor in its competition policy, one of the few regulations imposed

104

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

by the state. These laws of competition ensured that private producers must constantly seek for new and cheaper production methods, labor or materials, new markets and real estate deals, creating economical dynamism and instability.

However, the city still helped the real estate business, by handing out enormous tax breaks to downtown corporations and developers, who argued that these incentives would help to keep local business and their money in town. The government contracted out public projects and services, that needed to be tied to private real estate development.82 On the other hand, both local and federal governments advocated ‘the withdrawal of city services from communities of color that were deemed unworthy of being saved’.83 ‘Officials blamed the victims, the ghetto, welfare and, above all, poor people of color’84 for the fiscal crisis. The real estate industry related the law of rent control to the current urban problems, and claimed that the city could build its way out of the crisis.85 In 1974 a new state legislation announced the end of rent control and the beginning of rent stabilization. It is in this real estate cycles that cities primarily grow. ‘Their skylines, the heights of buildings, their density and their spatial distribution, graph these cycles in 3D, causing uneven urban development.86 Community plans usually react to these real estate development trends, particularly at the peaks of their boom and bust cycles.’87

the 1970s ideal: community land

‘During the fiscal crisis, the private real estate market collapsed in many workingclass neighborhoods. This created a vacuum that community organizers and activists filled with new alternatives.’88 Community plans offered alternatives to public and private development schemes and posed direct challenges to private developers.

ESSAY

The displacement of local small-scale real estate out of the commercial core of the city, gave free rein to the hegemonic sectors of real estate in the core. While these extensive development in the central business districts put pressure on the surrounding neighborhoods, new opportunities arise at the periphery, where there were no developers because land was worth less than nothing. Here could displaced people form alliances to protect and develop community land.89 ‘The idea was born of taking over neighborhoods and of people seizing their turf.’90 The new ideal of ‘community land’ consisted of the idea that people could control their own land. ‘Squatter and homesteaders were among the first to take direct action’91 and to take over abandoned buildings. Some organized themselves to do their own renovations, which indicated the idea of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) strategies to improve the neighborhood. However, the official landlords of these desolate buildings didn’t pay taxes anymore, contributing to the fact that the city could take control of the ‘in

rem’92 property. Edward Koch, the Mayor of New York City at that time, ‘set the policy for in rem housing in accordance with the rising neoliberal philosophy that reigns today: make sure no human tragedies occur, and do everything possible to get the property back on the market’.93 The latter was the reason why banks where still giving modest support to the efforts of the community.

The improvements, realized by the locals, contributed to the attractiveness of the neighborhoods and phenomena, such as gentrification and revival of the real estate market. ‘From the start, tenants organized to fight the city’s policy.’94 Communities did everything in their power to stop the city auctions, that the mayor was organizing in order to sell all the city’s vacant land and buildings. ‘Some community groups even proposed that the city consciously creates a land bank in which vacant properties would be held for future development, but the city refused. A land banking strategy would have allowed government or neighborhood residents to come up with comprehensive redevelopment plans’95 , that were easier

78 Information from X., Redlining, http://en.wikipedia.org 79 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p76 80 “There have been several affinities between neoliberal ideas and the claims of 1960s movements besides the emphasis on freedom and spontaneity. They also share an explicit anti-statism: instead of the state, individuals, communities, or ‘voluntarism’ should be playing stronger roles for vibrant societies. Both view ‘too much state intervention’ as hindering not only personal development and self-realization, but also societal sefl-regulation (which the neoliberals prefer to see happening via the market and economic rationality, whereas progressive movements would like to see it happening through alternative networks). Hence, there are strong overlaps in the appreciation for autonomy, self-determination and self-management.” (Margit Mayer in KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p47) 81 KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p7 82 An example of this policy is the Brooklyn Bridge Park, where commercial interests, that have their hands on the purse strings, have a powerful role in shaping the public space to their advantage. (ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p78) 83 Roger Starr, the city’s chief housing administrator, advocated “planned shrinkage”. At the federal level, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixon’s chief urban adviser, advised a policy of ‘benign neglect’ of central cities. (ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p77) 84 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p77 85 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p77 86 WILLIS, C., Form Follows Finance, Princeton Architectural Press, 1995, New York, p155 87 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p79 88 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p97 89 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p79 90 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p98 91 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p98 92 In rem is a legal term describing the power that a court may exercise over property (either real or personal) over whom the court does not have “in personam jurisdiction”. The latter means that the city doesn’t own this property. (X., In rem, http://en.wikipedia.org) 93 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p99 94 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p99 95 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p100

105

to establish with a single property owner.

However, starting from the 1980s, there were less and less abandoned buildings since gentrification and new building booms in the real estate market occurred. Today the later process is slowed down by the new economic crisis that initiated in 2008.

“Community development corporations were born in New York City.”

If the community did get their hands on community land, the question was what to do next. How do you finance the repairs?

How do you improve buildings and also ensure that they are still affordable to current tenants?96 ‘To address these questions, tenants formed their own associations, at first informally. They sought advice from professionals, sympathetic housing reformers and foundations. Community development corporations (CDCs) were born in New York City and in other central cities around the nation that were facing widespread abandonment. […]

They were set up as nonprofit development corporations under state law.’97 The CDCs often originated from a building or group of buildings, then mobilized the neighborhood and searched for partnership with institutions, who had access to capital.

Their overall social mission was to reverse neighborhood abandonment by controlling the use of land and buildings and changing government policies.98 After feeling the pressure from the bottom up, the local government became to see the CDCs as allies. With the real estate industry still disinterested in abandoned neighborhoods, the CDCs had legitimate space to grow. ‘In effect, CDCs grew out of a convergence of two trends – grassroots efforts to take control of neighborhoods and City Hall’s interest in washing its hands of responsibility for neighborhood renewal.’99 Due to the

106

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

pressure of the neighborhoods, the city invested in the rehabilitation of in rem buildings and contracted their rehabilitation and management out to the CDCs. ‘Despite its vaunted partnership with CDCs, the city has never given them access to the big development plums.’100 Owning a few buildings is a far cry from protecting all low-income housing neighborhoods for displacement and disinvestment.

the 1970s planning : ULURP

In the 1970s and 1980s elites started to propose reforms in the city policies and promised some measure of community control over land use.101 The revisiting of the City Charter in 1975 established communitybased planning through the creation of 197a and 197–c plans and constituted the role of the 59 community boards in the official land-use review process. The section 197-c of the new City Charter defined the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP).

This was the most important land-use reform after the first Zoning Resolution in 1916. Community-based planning was defined as essential to the city’s vitality.

‘It could seek to address a variety of issues including preserving neighborhood character, promoting affordable housing, facilitating new development or encouraging local employment.’102 The community could address new plans by applying for a 197 a-plan or 197-c plan. ‘A 197-a plan authorizes community boards and borough boards, along with the Mayor, the City Planning Commission (CPC), the Department of City Planning (DCP) and any Borough President, to sponsor plans for the development, growth, and improvement of the city, its boroughs and communities.

Once approved by the CPC and adopted by the City Council, these plans guide future actions of city agencies in the addressed areas.’103 If community plans required

ESSAY

any kind of ‘application respecting the use, development or improvement of real property subject of city regulation’104 , application for a 197-c plan or ULURP was necessary.

“The final decision in an ULURP process is reserved for the City Planning Commission and City Council and the community boards votes are to be advisory only.”

The Charter’s intent in requiring ULURP was to establish a standardized procedure whereby application affecting the land use of the city would be publicly reviewed.

ULURP included ‘a role for the community boards in all major land-use decisions such as zoning changes, urban renewal plans, acquisition and disposition of city property, special permits and City Map changes.’

105 ‘Key participants in the ULURP process are the DCP, CPC, Community Boards, the Borough President, the Borough Boards, the City Council and the Mayor.’106 In order to start the ULURP-process, any person or agency should fill in a standardized Land Use Review Application and file all required accompanying documentation with the Department of City Planning (DCP). The latter is responsible for certifying that the application is complete, and ready for public review. A certified application is then, within nine days, sent to the affected Community

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

Boards, Borough President, the City Council and if appropriate, to the Borough Board.

Within sixty days of receiving the certified application, the Community Board is required to hold a public hearing and adopt and submit a written recommendation to CPC, the applicant, the Borough President and when appropriate, the Borough Board.

After receiving the Community Board recommendation, or if the Community Board fails to act, the Borough President shall submit a written recommendation to the City Planning Commission. CPC, in turn, must hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the application within 60 days of the expiration of the Borough President’s review period. City Planning Commission hearings are generally held twice a month.

In some cases, the City Council also reviews an ULURP action, but this doesn’t happen automatically. Only zoning map changes, housing and urban renewal plans and the disposition of residential buildings107 are automatically reviewed by the City Council.

Mayoral approval is not required. A decision by the City Council to approve or disapprove a land use application is considered to be final unless the Mayor elects to veto a Council action within 5 days of the vote.108 The final decisions are therefore reserved for the CPC and City Council and the community board votes are to be advisory only.

Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p101 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p101 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p102 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p102 For example, since the 1980s the city has used established private developers to build one- to four- family homes on choice vacant land through the New York City Housing Partnership, turning to CDCs only for help in marketing the completed units. (ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p103) Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p104 NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, Community-based planning, http://www.nyc.gov NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, Community-based planning, http://www.nyc.gov NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, Uniform Land Use Review Process, http://www.nyc.gov ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p104 NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, Uniform Land Use Review Process, http://www.nyc.gov Except to non-profit companies for low-income housing. (NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, Uniform Land Use Review Process, http://www.nyc.gov) The explanatory text on ULURP is based on the nyc.gov-website and consists quotations from NYC DEP. OF CITY PLANNING, Uniform Land Use Review Process, http://www.nyc.gov

107

the 1970s zoning adaptations

‘Despite these limitations, the growing involvement of neighborhood residents and activists with land-use issues, through community boards or other communitybased organizations, spurred new changes in land-use policy. An important development beginning in the 1970s was the creation of a new array of flexible zoning techniques that would patch up the holes in the 1961 Zoning Resolution.’109 The public space below the Tower-in-the-Park was found unpleasant and high-rise towers popped up in lowrise neighborhoods, leading to community opposition. ‘Pressure from communities gave rise to ‘contextual zoning’, which would incorporate height, bulk, and setback rules’110 for new development, that would take into account the existing built form.

The City Planning Department, however, turned this policy into a new opportunity for development. While proposing contextual downzoning in residential neighborhoods, it designated upzoning to strategic avenues, allowing for bigger growth.

Besides contextual zoning, the first mixeduse zoning was instituted in the 1970s.

Before that, neighborhoods containing both industry and residential use, were zoned solely industrial or residential, holding back one another. In Williamsburg, Brooklyn, the first mixed-use zone was established.

‘Both industry and housing could expand within limits.’111 The mixed-use zoning was a way to capture the viability of mixed-use neighborhoods, discussed by Jane Jacobs.

After applying several mixed-use zones, a new mixed-use district was developed by the Department of City Planning, in the 1990s. The designation of this district legitimized the rapid conversion of industrial buildings and land into housing, without the public review that is required by going through ULURP. That’s why the Department of City Planning now puts mixed-used zones in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods,

108

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

such as Greenpoint and Williamsburg in Brooklyn. ‘The mixed-use zone is, in effect, a back-door residential zone posing as a preservation tool.’ 112 Another new tool was historic preservation.

In 1965 the Local Preservation Law was constituted, establishing official landmarks, mostly located in upscale neighborhoods.

Although community activists started using the preservation law, as a way to fight for ‘landmark districts as part of larger community-preservation and cultural strategies’.113 ‘The 1970s also saw the proliferation of localized special zoning districts of all kinds.’114 The designation as special zoning district contains unique regulations and often requires some sort of discretionary review for all new development. This review includes the local community boards. The special zoning districts are used for local land-use and democratic control, but are often misused to serve as exclusionary zoning regulations. In Battery Park City, for example, the business-driven master plan ended up excluding low-income housing.

‘Finally, environmental review requirements established in the 1970s became part of the ULURP process. City legislation required that all land-use applications going through ULURP include a detailed statement disclosing potential negative environmental impacts.’ 115

from 1980s until today : in practice

Throughout the city’s history, working people have been displaced from one city tenement to another, especially after they made improvements to their housing and neighborhood.116 Real estate agents and developers became attracted by the improved neighborhoods and tended to capitalize on these improvements, as tenants and small business owners invest their time and money to gradually upgrade

ESSAY

their neighborhood. ‘The new investors effectively appropriate the value generated by others. This is the essence of what is now known as gentrification. It is not simply a change in demographics. It is the appropriation of economic value by one class from another.’117 But people started to fight back. Since the upcoming popularity of community movements in the 1960s, opposition to unthoughtful urban renewal projects grew in time. ‘This is a contradiction of modern capitalism: the greater its influence, the more there arise spontaneous efforts to counter or adapt to its rule.’118

“Many of the big urbanization projects have nothing to do with the real needs of the mass of the population, but are absorbing surpluses and speculating on it.”

In the 1990s and the beginning of the 21th century, a tendency existed (and still exists) among architects and urbanists to ignore the actual political and economical forces behind the uneven urban development, caused by the overdeveloped central business districts and the distressed neighborhoods in the periphery. Talking about the ‘natural’ expansion and formation of cities ‘beyond the reach of man’119 , their role shrunk to city-branding and addressing the packages

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

of buildings and cities; a total surrender to the demands of investors and developers.

No longer concerned about the city’s health, as during the heydays of modernism, they start to design iconographic, secluded buildings (commissioned by wealthy private developers), resulting in a surplus of tenements or office spaces built for the upper income class. Many of the big urbanization projects have nothing to do with the real needs of the mass of the population, but are ‘absorbing surpluses and then speculating on it’.120 It is due to the creation of this asset bubbles, that the economic and foreclosure crisis originated in 2008.

Although the city has a chronic shortage of affordable housing, this isn’t the most profitable typology to construct and thus very hard to accomplish. By inclusionary zoning Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, tries to obligate private developers to put at least 30% of affordable housing into their new developments in exchange for tax incentives and other advantages121 , ‘leaving aside the fact that ‘affordable’ is defined in such a way to exclude those really in need’.122 Although Bloomberg, a proponent of the free market and a businessman himself, is addressing challenges such as growing population, changing climate and aging infrastructures123 , he tends to use these as

ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p105 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p106 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p106 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p106 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p107 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p107 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p107 Information from ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p108 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p108 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p108 KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p14 KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p36 Information from BLOOMBERG,M., PlaNYC, 2011 KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p36 Information from BLOOMBERG,M., PlaNYC, 2011

109

pretences for actual economical interesting developments in favor of the private sector.

Under the guise of a deficit for transit renewal, the city department, today, rezones transit-oriented and subsequently successful neighborhoods, allowing densification, and hereby fostering the disparity of property value in different parts of the city. Naturally this rezoning is more profitable and raises real estate value more than investing in distressed areas. The current policy is inclined to lead to the devaluation of the soil and real estate in those areas, facilitating the purchase of cheap land and the origin of new development there. The testimony of Bloomberg in PlaNYC 2030 to create sustainable communities by the preservation of existing neighborhoods and the provision of social housing and mixed use in needy areas, can thus be questioned.

“The city is implicitly landbanking non-rezoned areas.”

The city is implicitly land banking these nonrezoned areas and passively waiting, due to scarce city budget and a lack of real estate interest, for future development there. The disinvestment in abandoned neighborhoods, however, gives local communities legitimate space to develop community-based initiatives. In line with the DIY-movements of squatters and homesteaders in the 1970s, today, several reactionary approaches originate in those distressed neighborhoods, beyond the accumulation of capital. Not only local residents seek to improve their neighborhood, also artists and architects, with a social responsibility toward the city and its inhabitants, try to come up with proactive ways of waiting for this unforeseen future and give purpose and meaning to acres of vacant land and the thousands of desolate buildings. By designing often temporary, spatial interventions they criticize

110

planning the city | An Amalgam of Authorities

the current state of policy, and provide a political place for disagreement. ‘Only a broad coalition between architects, artists, residents, communities, local municipalities and government can initiate meaningful urban change.’124 This is hardly possible in a neoliberal economy; a post-political, post-democratic system ruled by private developers looking to maximize their capital.

The demands of the market should be defied for the general benefit of society125 ; a society characterized by different social classes, that opposes today’s populist view, defining everybody that doesn’t fit the system as an outsider. Genuine political spaces should be founded as places for litigation for those outsiders, uncounted and unnamed, and not merely for the negotiation of interests. . ‘All manner of friction, cracks, fissures, gaps and vacant spaces’126 , characteristic for the non-rezoned neighborhoods, are political places that accept conflict by including all social classes and functional hibridity. Should these areas wait for ‘development’? By defining profitable, transit-oriented built environments as ‘developed’ is to say that other zones, without those features, are ‘undeveloped’ and subordinate, and thus waiting for ‘development’, as a desirable future goal.

But it is this theorem that present tendencies contradict by arguing that those ‘developed’ areas are oligarchic places that don’t allow diversity or conflict, thus political debate, and therefore aren’t the proper urban developments. Is the proactive waiting of revolutionary architects and artists actually waiting at all or is this urban experimentation a different approach towards city growth?

“Tom Angotti sees community land as a solution to slow or stop the process of displacement and to ‘proactively’ act on the acres of vacant land, available in the city.”

ESSAY

Tom Angotti, the author of ‘New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate’, focuses on the importance of community land. He sees community land as a solution to slow or stop the process of displacement and to ‘proactively’ act on the acres of vacant land, available in the city. ‘To gain control over their land, communities do not necessarily need to own the land. Community land may be held in various forms of social ownership or regulated in a way that is consistent with community strategies. More concretely, community land is land taken out of the speculative real estate market and owned by public nonprofit, or private entities that are responsible for holding the land in public trust, using it for a public purpose, or limiting profits from resale.’127 Could the unevenness between the overdeveloped city center, controlled by the free market, and the occupied community land, controlled by local residents, be a solution to balance the global real estate business and community planning?

‘

KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p19 125 KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p19 126 KAMINER T., ROBLES-DURAN, M., SOHN, H. (Ed.), Urban Asymmetries: Studies and Projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, p42 127 ANGOTTI, T., New York for Sale: Community Planning Confronts Global Real Estate, The MIT Press, s.l., 2008, p21 124

111

LIVING MODELS Typology and Society “In recent times one of the most problematic approaches to cities is the understanding of the city as ‘a given’ or as an organic, natural phenomenon. […] The forces which are portrayed as the makers of the city are characterized as self-generative, selfpropelling and immune for urban agency. … In the absence of history and the human subject, the urban environment is naturalized, and the specific struggles, social movements, economic changes or political decisions which construct the city become invisible. … Things appear ‘just as they are’; the process which is the city disappears in a static conception of reality.” - Tahl Kaminer Urban Asymmetries However seeing the city as an evolving socio-economic phenomenon and identifying the major forces at work in a specific urban context is crucial. This chapter examines the relation of political economic changes in New York City and the United States to social phenomena and typologies inherent to Brooklyn.

A sampling of building blocks Architecturally,

the

Borough

of

Brooklyn offers an interesting window into the changing values of American society over the 20th and early 2st

1

centuries. The different types of

3 2

buildings trace the city from the 19th

5

century’s rapid urbanization, over the Great Depression and the following post-war urban renewal projects, to the very recent foreclosure crisis. A quick sampling of building blocks across the study strip shows a great diversity in typologies – from old warehouses in Red Hook Slope Heights

2 3

1

, brownstones in Park

, old tenements in Crown ,semidetached multi-family

homes in East New York single-family Howard Beach

detached 5

4

, to the

homes

in

.

1

4

118

LIVING MODELS | Overview

4

Observation

2

3

5

A sumbled mixture of typologies

119

Typology and society through time The

creation

of

new

typologies

is often the result of a change in society. Whether they are designed to deal with an enormous growth of population or whether they are proposed as the cure for the post-war

130

inner city decline. This timeline shows

120

the relation of the different typologies

110

to socio-economic phenomena. The

100

following pages of this chapter will

90

cover each period more detailed.

80 70 60

LAISSEZ - FAIRE ECONOMY home value in the U.S. population growth Brooklyn population growth Manhattan

120

LIVING MODELS | Overview

1890

1900

SUBWAY SYSTEM

1910

1920

MASS PRODUCED VEHICLES WW I

1930

GREAT

NY

Timeline

P

KEYNESIANISM 1940

T DEPRESSION

YCHA

WPA

NEOLIBERALISM 1950

1960

WHITE FLIGHT WW II

URBAN DECAY

1970

1980

1990

2010

FORECLOSURE CRISIS

OIL CRISIS SOCIAL UNREST

2000

INFORMATION AGE

Society and typology through time

121

1900s - 1930s To meet the enormous growth of population caused by the Transatlantic Immigration in the end of the 19th century, the tenement

1

, one of New

York’s most famous typologies, was designed to maximize the amount of rentable units. The economic prosperity of the golden twenties resulted in a higher standard of living for the middle and upper class. These conditions gave birth to the garden apartment

2

. This new typology was

created, not to maximize the amount of units, but to provide quality housing for the rich.

speculations

of

the

twenties

contributed to the Great Depression, which lasted until 1939 and caused an important shift from 19th century laissez-faire to the Keynesian Plan.

Keynes idea was simple: to keep people fully employed, the government is slowing. Therefore, in the 1930’s New York City focused on large scale, rationalized

urban

development

such as the Williamsburg Homes

3

,

built in 1938. This change in policy resulted in the creation of numerous governmental agencies, such as the NYCHA, founded in 1934, and the WPA, founded in 1935.

1900

122

1930

1950

1970

1990

2010

LIVING MODELS | Genealogy of typologies

Comparison

1

2

3

From economic prosperity to the great depression

123

1950s-1960s In the 1950s heavy manufacturers began to move to cheaper locations outside the city and old ports, such as Red Hook Harbor, became less active

as

large

container

ships

This relocation of employment was, together with the mobility due to the new Highways, one of the main reasons for the White Flight and the corresponding suburbanization.

In the same period thousands of

URBAN DECAY

began to dominate shipping trade.

Afro-Americans and Puerto Ricans, attracted by the post WWII economic This

radical

demographic

shift,

accompanied by retreat of industry out of the city, was the breeding ground for the decline of Brooklyn in the 1960s.

Neighborhoods began to deteriorate and became centers of drugs and crime. The drawing on the right shows a schematic representation of Brooklyn’s spatial relations at the end

DEINDUSTRIALISATION

prosperity, immigrated to New York.

SUBURBIA

of the 1960s.

>60% black in 1950 >60% black in 1960 >60% black in 1970 >60% black in 1980

1900

124

1930

1950

1970

1990

2010

LIVING MODELS | Genealogy of typologies

Map

125

1950s-1970s The malaise of the American cities was expressed in social unrest and riots in the late 1960s and 1970s. This urban decay caused an even bigger address the urban decay, many urban renewal projects, so called slum clearances, took place in Brooklyn.

Since the 1950s the NYCHA boomed as a part of Moses’ plan to clear old tenements and remake New York as

1

a modern city.

Originally

intended

for

working

families, the projects increasingly became

occupied

by

low-income

families, many of whom had no working adult. Most of the public housing projects have over 1000 apartment units each, and most are built according to the modernist, tower in the park idea. Today, the projects represent irreversible scars in Brooklyn’s fabric. The immense towers symbolize the brutality of the post-war urban planning.

1900

Albany Houses, 1950

1

Red Hook houses, 1955

2

Prospect Plaza, 1974

3

1930

1950

1970

1990

2

2010

3

126

LIVING MODELS | Genealogy of typologies

Comparison

Slum clearance: isometric drawing of the Boulevard Houses (1955)

127

From guardian to auctioneer By the end of the 1970s nearly 1 million people had left New York City since the 1950s. The city seemed doomed, populated primarily by the very poor and very rich, an amalgam of decay and concentrated poverty with bastions of power and wealth.

However the drastically reduced real estate values in combination with the

weakened

city

administration

created an ideal condition for urban restructuring. Since the 1980s, the city applied a total new way of city planning. The city didn’t aim anymore to construct housing themselves.

1

Due to the urban crisis of the 1970s the HPD possessed about 1 million vacant They

lots would

or

vacant

cheaply

buildings. sell

these

organizations, like for example the East Brooklyn Congregations, lend construct the houses. Via policies the city makes sure that owners can

2

get mortgage loans below market interest. This means that both the developers and the consumers are indebted. This is a successful system for a while, until the interest rates get higher and higher...

1900

128

1930

1950

1970

1990

LIVING MODELS | Foreclosure crisis

2010

3

government

Scheme

bank

89th St. 156, Howard Beach

1

Warwick St. 774, East New York

2

Russell St. 12, East New York

3

The underlying mechanism

129

The foreclosure crisis

triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble, which peaked in 2008.

Subprime lending and adjustable rate mortgages since the 1980s caused banks to provide housing loans too easily, causing rapid increasing real estate value. Real estate bubbles are unavoidably followed by severe real estate value decreases, resulting in negative equity, which means that the houses become less worth than the mortgage. The consequential increase of foreclosures creates an increase of the housing supply, which causes an even greater decline of real estate values. This downward spiral resulted in an extremely fast growth of

1

2.5% - 5% 5% - 10%

foreclosures between 2006 and 2008.

> 10%

Since the 1980s banks no longer shunned segregated minorities and let them own a house via subprime lending.

The

homeownership

of

black families in Brooklyn almost doubled in the 1990s. This explains the clear relationship between race and foreclosure. The neoliberal policy resulted

in

uneven

geographical

development and a vast shortage in affordable housing in the regions affected by the foreclosure crisis.

2

2.5% - 5% 5% - 10%

1900

130

1930

1950

1970

1990

LIVING MODELS | Foreclosure crisis

2010

> 10%

Map

3

2.5% - 5% 5% - 10% > 10%

foreclosure 2006 1 4

60% non-white 4.

2foreclosure

2007 2

3foreclosure

2008 3

60% non-white 2008 4

The fast growth of foreclosures since 2006 in relation with Brooklyn’s racial composition

131

Typology and Society “In recent times one of the most problematic approaches to cities is the understanding of the city as ‘a given’ or as an organic, natural phenomenon. […] The forces which are portrayed as the makers of the city are characterized as self-generative, self-propelling and immune for urban agency. … The absence of the human agency, whether the result of pessimism regarding the human subject’s prowess or an acceptance of market dictates, is arguably one of the most troubling outcomes of such an approach. … In the absence of history and the human subject, the urban environment is naturalized, and the specific struggles, social movements, economic changes or political decisions which construct the city become invisible. … Things appear ‘just as they are’; the process which is the city disappears in a static conception of reality.” - Tahl Kaminer1 However seeing the city as an evolving socio-historic phenomenon and identifying the major forces at work in a specific urban context is crucial. This essay examines the relation of political economic changes in New York City and the United States to social phenomena and the morphology/ typology inherent to Brooklyn.

To meet the enormous growth of population in the end of the 19th century2, the tenement, one of New York’s most famous typologies, was designed. There was a significant growth of consumer spending, since mass production made technology affordable to the middle class.

Mass-produced vehicles, for example, became common throughout the U.S. and consequently, highways and expressways, funded by the government, were built. The technologic progress also resulted in an expanded subway system. This is very important, since Brooklyn provided cheaper land, still well connected with Manhattan.

In the mid-twenties, for the first time more people lived in Brooklyn than in Manhattan.

The economic growth in the 1920s was the result of reduced regulation inherent to the supply side policy3. The economic prosperity resulted in a higher standard of living for the middle and upper class. These conditions gave birth to the garden apartment. This new typology was created, not to maximize

134

LIVING MODELS | typology and society

the amount of units, but to provide quality housing for the rich.

But overconfidence and unregulated speculations of the twenties contributed to the speculative bubble4 that sparked the stock market crash in 1929. The following Great Depression lasted until 1939. During this crisis a wave of homelessness swept the nation. This resulted in a new interesting typology. These so called hoovervilles are temporary favela-style communities for the homeless. The stock market crash caused an important shift from 19th century laissezfaire5, free from any state intervention, to the Keynesian Plan. By intervening in the economy via regulations and planning Keynes believed that the government could ‘fine tune’ the economy and prevent crisis.

Keynes idea was simple: to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing, as the private sector would not invest enough to keep production at normal level. In the 1930s New York City focused on large scale, rationalized urban development. This change in policy resulted in the creation of numerous governmental agencies, such as the NYCHA6, founded in 1934, and the WPA7, founded in 1935. The agency’s first realization - the Williamsburg Houses, built in 1938 - was the first public housing project in the U.S.

ESSAY

Military spending during WWII caused a significant turning point in New York’s economy. The economic growth resulted in a major building boom, particularly in public housing and public transportation areas. However in the 1950s heavy manufactures began to move to cheaper locations outside the city and old ports, such as Red Hook Harbor, became less active as large container ships began to dominate shipping trade. This relocation of employment was, together with the mobility due to the new Highways, one of the main reasons for the White Flight8 and the corresponding suburbanization. In the same period thousands of Afro-Americans and Puerto Ricans, attracted by the post WWII economic prosperity, immigrated to New York City during the Great Migration.

This radical demographic shift, accompanied by retreat of industry out of the city, was the breeding ground for the decline of the inner city in the 1960s. Neighborhoods, such as Crown Heights and East New York, began to deteriorate and became centers of drugs and crime. The malaise of the American cities was expressed in social unrest and riots in the late 1960s and 1970s. This urban decay caused an even bigger flight of the white middle class. To address the urban decay, many urban renewal projects, so called slum clearances, took place in Brooklyn. Among them are the Red Hook Houses (1955), the boulevard houses (1953) in East New York and the Prospect Plaza Houses in Crown Heights (1974).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

By the end of the 1970s nearly 1 million people had left New York City since the 1950s. The city seemed doomed, populated primarily by the very poor and very rich, an amalgam of decay and poverty concentration with bastions of power and wealth9. New York had definitely lost its role as an industrial producer. However the drastically reduced real estate values in combination with the weakened city administration created an ideal condition for urban restructuring. Since the 1980s the city retreated from previous governmental control of resources and regulations, including public services, industries, and social rights, as neoliberalism was introduced.

“The destruction (of East New York) accompanied a racial shift in the population, from 85 percent white in 1960 to 80 percent black and Puerto Rican by 1966.” – W. Thabit From an urbanism’s perspective the neoliberal status quo is best represented by urban sprawl based on catalogue housing, by strategic redevelopments projects aiming for the so-called Bilbao-effect, and by highend business districts, since the shift toward neoliberalism also defined new forms and organization of production. The rise of information industries and of the service

Tahl Kaminer, Miguel Robles-Duran and Heidi Sohn, An introduction: Urban Asymmetries, Urban Asymmetries. Studies and projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, pp. 14-15 For example, from 1900 until 1920, NYC’s population grew with over 2 million people.

Supply side economic policy: Lowering barriers for people to produce goods and services by lowering income tax and capital gain tax, and allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.

Speculative bubble: trade in high volumes at prices that are considerably at variance with intrinsic values. It could also be described as a trade in products or assets with inflated values.

Keynes, J.M. , The End of Laissez Faire, Hogarth Press, United Kingdom, 1926, p.362 New York City Housing Authority provides public housing for low- and moderate-income residents throughout the five boroughs of New York City.

The Work Progress Administration was the largest and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unskilled workers to carry out public works projects, including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large arts, drama, media, and literacy projects.

White flight has been a term that originated in the United States, starting in the mid-20th century, and applied to the large-scale migration of whites of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions to more racially homogeneous suburban or exurban regions.

Kaminer, Kahl, The decline of the industrial city: the limits of neoliberal urban regeneration, The 4th International Conference of the International Forum on Urbanism, TUDelft, 2009

135

sector, accompanied by the relocation of industrial production to ever more distant places and the need for specific types of concentrated office work, including sales, distribution, contracts, marketing and accounting, meant that the ex-industrial city could re-define its role as a global hub for these functions10. In a decade, the city’s especially Manhattan’s, image transformed from a decaying metropolis to one of the world’s preeminent global cities. Brooklyn’s position towards this redefining of the city is complex. However it’s important to understand that the post-industrial city not only needed to provide high-end headquarters for international corporations, but also the playing field for the white collar employees of these companies. This feature of the post-industrial city caused a new wave of gentrification and probably had the biggest influence on Brooklyn as a predominantly residential borough.

Since the 1980s banks no longer shunned segregated minorities and let them own a house via subprime lending. The homeownership of black families in Brooklyn almost doubled in the 1990s.

Neoliberalism also implies a total new way of city planning, as there’s a shift from politics toward policies. Unlike the city-controlled urban renewal projects, the city doesn’t aim anymore to construct housing themselves.

Instead they encourage private developers to construct housing with subsidies and low-interest loans. Due to the urban crisis of the 1970s the HPD11 possessed about 1 million vacant lots or vacant buildings.

They would cheaply sell these lots to a private developers, who lends money from a financial institution to construct the houses. Via policies the city makes sure

136

LIVING MODELS | typology and society

that owners can get mortgage loans below market interest. This means that both the developers and the consumers are indebted.

This is a powerful system for a while, until the interest rates get higher and higher, which eventually results ina credit crisis.

The late-2000s financial crisis, considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s, was triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble12, which peaked in 2008. Subprime lending13 and adjustable rate mortgages14 since the 1980s caused banks to provide housing loans too easily, causing rapid increasing real estate value.

Real estate bubbles are unavoidably followed by severe real estate value decreases, resulting in negative equity, which means that the houses become less worth than the mortgage. The consequential increase of foreclosures15 creates an increase of the housing supply, which causes an even greater decline of real estate values. This downward spiral does not only affected the consumer side of the housing market, but also the developers, since the financial institutions are not only lending to the consumers, but also to the housing construction industry and private investors worldwide, and resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world.

Since the 1980s banks no longer shunned segregated minorities and let them own a house via subprime lending. The homeownership of black families in Brooklyn almost doubled in the 1990s. This explains why there’s such a clear relationship between race and foreclosure. By studying these subjects it became more and more clear that private developers fail to meet

ESSAY

the needs of the minorities. The neoliberal policy resulted in uneven geographical development. Furthermore the retreat of governmental control has meant a vast shortage in affordable housing. . The neoliberal model also fails to recognize the threatening climate problems, let alone to solve them. However, when a crisis is recognized as a correcting mechanism, as a result of the impossibility of a reaching equilibrium of supply and demand, the search for radical alternatives should, today more than ever, not be abandoned. I believe that as an architect and planner we can help the construction of an alternative in the form of strategic projects, new urban systems or radical new typologies.

10 Kaminer, Tahl, An introduction to Newark: The continuous crisis of the obsolete city, Urban Asymmetries. Studies and projects on Neoliberal Urbanization, 010 Publishers, Rotterdam, 2011, pp. 195 11 The Housing Preservation Department 12 A real estate bubble is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real estate markets. It is characterized by rapid increases in valuations of real property such as housing until they reach unsustainable levels and then decline.

13 Subprime lending means making loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining the repayment schedule.

The adjustable rate mortgages are a direct result of the retreat from the Keynesian plan after the 1970s crisis. It was approved under Reagan 14 as the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 which deregulated savings and loan associations and allowed banks to provide adjustable-rate mortgage loans.

15 Foreclosure is the legal process by which a mortgage lender (mortgagee), or other lien holder, obtains a termination of a mortgage borrower (mortgagor)’s equitable right of redemption, either by court order or by operation of law (after following a specific statutory procedure)

137

city Ecology How Livable is Brooklyn?

For the first time in history of mankind, more than half of the world’s population is living in an urban condition, making the livability of the contemporary city a major topic. Within the wider term of ‘city ecology’, we approached different issues the city, and Brooklyn specifically, is facing today.

We categorized these under water, air and food. Three large scale systems that affect how Brooklyn is experienced. Although addressed as problematic, we believe that a large potential lies within these subjects for further developing the city.

PlaNYC PlaNYC is a catch-all initiative that consists

of

ambitious

objectives

New York City is challenging itself to fulfill by 2030. Topics such as water quality, energy consumption, transportation,

greenery,

etc.

are

addressed to significantly improve the quality of life for its inhabitants, and this on the long term. The goal is to consolidate the city as one of the ‘greatest’ and ‘greenest’ 1_in the world and to become the first environmental sustainable metropolis of the 21st century. This all within

1

the challenging circumstances we find ourself in today. A growing population, an evolving economy and global climate change are just some of the topics to tackle. By taking action the city is committed to shape this changes and determine their future their self. This cutting edge plan will probably define Bloomberg’s 3 ___legacy and set an example for

other cities. Now, five years after its launch, the public opinion on the plan is laudatory. Despite of the recession, most of the initiatives are on track.

For example, a half of the million trees promised, are already in the 2 streets __.

2

146

City Ecology

| PlaNYC 2030

Vision

-%

EaVCN8 EGD<G:HH

DGI '%&%

3

Main Goals PlaNYC

147

Waterfront Accessibility Brooklyn is part of an island, but it doesn’t feel like it’s surrounded by

water.

In

comparison

with

Manhattan, a great part of the borough doesn’t have access to natural landscapes such as water or parks. The only physical element is the built environment, creating an artificial landscape on its own.

The connection to the waterfront is often obstructed by fences, a major

1

part of the shoreline is inaccessible and even invisible. When comparing real-estate

prices

of

different

neighborhoods with each other, a correlation between more expensive regions

and

regions

with

water

visibility and/or access is clear. This means that the rather exclusive shore access is regarded as valuable.

New York started a few years back to take action to give the shore back to the public. Brooklyn Bridge Park is definitely the forerunner in defining the shoreline as the face of Brooklyn again. The Greenway Plan gives an overview of the different pedestrian/bicycle

corridors

that

were implemented and those that are planned in the future, creating a network across the borough and along its shores.

1

2

Fence at Gowanus Canal, Red Hook

2 Inaccessible Shore

148

Waterfront View

Planned Greenway

High-priced Area

Existing Greenway

city Ecology

| Water

Map

Waterfront Accessibility and Greenway

149

Impervious Surfaces New York is characterized by its extreme form of urbanization. Over time soft surfaces such as grass plains and wetlands were replaced by streets, sidewalks, docks ... all surfaces

where

rainfall

canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t

be

retained in the soil. This caused a great reduction of natural infiltration of rainwater in the ground. The water infrastructure of New York is dimensioned for a specific amount

1

of rainfall, but in days when there are peaks, natural infiltration could act as a buffer, unburdening the sewer system.

2

1

Cross Bay Boulevard, Howard Beach

2

Prospect Park

3

Aerial View of NYC, NASA Hard Surfaces Soft Surfaces

150

city ecology

| Water

AErial view

3

Hard Surfaces in NYC

151

Water Run-off and Sewage Outfalls The water infrastructure of New York is aging. It is designed in such a manner that harms the waterways and

surrounding

frequently.

As

ecosystems

the

schemes

1

.

indicate, in case of heavy rainfall, the sewers are not able to cope with all the water and raw sewage is mixed with runoff water and immediately dumped

into

the

surrounding

waterways. This is a major issue for the health of the city. Water quality .2 of

deteriorates because the amount contaminants

surpasses

the

ecosystems capability to regenerate.

The fragile ecology of Jamaica Bay is in biggest danger, mostly because of the location of JFK Airport at the bay.

If no action is taken, none of what was once a flourishing biodiverse region, will survive. Now, the city is slowly starting to implement different strategies in its five boroughs to deal with storm water to avoid csoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in a sustainable and economical way.

Infiltration corridors, watersquares,â&#x20AC;Ś all small scale actions that generate a cumulative effect in aiding the natural infiltration.

1

Bad Waterquality

152

CSO

Medium Waterquality

Industry

Good Waterquality

city ecology

| Water

Strip

2

153

Rising Currents New York, just like most of the multimillion cities in world, is located in

a

low-lying

societies

area.

developed

interesting

trading

The

great

because

of

opportunities.

New York developed one of the most flourishing harbors. But the location at the water makes the city particularly fragile for rising sea levels caused by global warming.

The ice caps are melting and due

1

to temperature rise, heavy storms become more frequent. The map shows the different storm categories and which parts of the city would be blank in case of a hurricane.

Rising

current

is

a

topic

that’s

luckily gained in attention the past few years. Expositions such as the “Rising Currents” at the MOMA aid in creating an awareness of the issue. And although the exposition mostly

consisted

of

large-scale

urban projects as the solution, public participation remains important. As Bloomberg said: ‘the time to act is now’. And who else but New York should lead the example?

1

Hurricane Irene, Belt Parkway

2

Closed Subway Station for Irene Category 1 Storm Category 2 Storm Category 3 Storm Category 4 Storm

154

city ecology

| Water

2

Map

Evacuated Floodingzones

155

Air Quality Although yet much improved, the city of New York still lacks clean air and even fails to meet federal standards. It does effect asthma and

cardiovascular

diseases

but

it also hits the most fragile of our community: children.

the

elderly

PlaNYC

wants

and

the

to

turn

this around for the better. Thanks to the New York Community Air Survey,

scientist

can

track

the

1

particulate matter in the air and even define what causes it. The main source of air pollution in New York is surprisingly not cars, but fuel oil of buildings. Where in other cities the ratio would be around 50 50, thanks to the extensive mass transport

system

and

building

density, transport becomes a lot less of a perpetuator. New York looks to replace the most polluting boiler by 2015, in an effort to fight those diseases and improve the quality of life for its inhabitants.

1

Smog over Manhattan and Brooklyn

2

Air pollution at Brooklyn-Queens Expy High Part. Matter Respiratory Illness Old Oil-boilers Polluting Roads

156

city ecology

| Air

2

Map

Roads and Old Boilers as Main Airpolluters

157

Distance to Work A great part of the environmentallyfriendly character of a city is defined by the time and distance to the workplaces of its inhabitants. New York

has

established

such

an

effective and robust mass transport system and is so dense, that it scores pretty well in comparison with other great American cities. Less traveling by car also reduces the amount of fuel combustion and keeps the air clean. We can see on the map of the US

1

that in the central states,

the distance to work is rather small.

This is due to most people living and working in the same, relative small cities. In Brooklyn we can see that some areas score rather well.

A great example is Sunset Park, where a close community of mostly hispanics live. They are a true walk to work community, that stands an example in the pursue of becoming an environmental-friendly metropolis.

1

158

10% in 10min to work

Subway Line

25% in 10min to work

Subway Station

50% in 10min to work

Important Road

70% in 10min to work

1% in 10min to work

city ecology

| Air

Map

Percent of People Living at 10 Minutes from Work

159

Distance to Parks and Services The proximity of services and parks reveal where living conditions are better and which areas are the most desirable for a more whealthy public to settle. Areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in the west, such as Brooklyn Heighs, Park Slope, Carrol Gardens, Boerum Hill have more

D SPORTFIEL

services and parks in its proximity.

EN

RD

20 min

GR

EE

NO

TY

15 min

PE

NS

PA

CE

10 min

GA

M

M

CO

I UN

5 min

10min to Park since 2007 10min to Park in 2007 PLA

YG

160

city ecology

| Air

W

A

R TE

ION BWAY STAT

NT

O FR

RO

UN

D

SPORTFIELD

Strip

GR

EE

N

20 min

OP

EN

AC

E

10 min

N MU

N

DE

AR

YG

IT

15 min

SP

M

CO

5 min

PL AY

T

SUBWAY STATION

ON

FR

ER

T WA

Proximity of Parks, Subway, Waterfront,...

GR

OU

ND

161

JFK International Hub Although the city might be promoting local development of crops, New York still remains an enormous cargo hub for the US

1

. In 2003 JFK Airport

moved 21% of all US international air freight by value. It is a major hub for air cargo with Europe, which is mostly linked with a global supply chain. New York imports tons of cargo from abroad, most often from Asia.

Having

this

major

airport,

2

so close to the city center, has a large influence on air pollution and noise nuisance, for example in Howard Beach Bay

3

2

and Jamaica

. However it keeps New York

competitive on a global scale.

3

1 Airport Noise Helicopterroutes Important Road

162

city ecology

Cargo Destination

| Air

Map

163

Obesity 3.2

million

New

Yorkers

are

overweight or obese. Obesity is an issue not only New York, but the whole country is dealing with. It’s the epidemic of the 21st century. Obesity is due to different causes. One of them is easy access to fastfood, such as pizza restaurants on every corner .

1

. When we compare the

percentage of obese persons in different areas of Brooklyn, we can

1

see that there’s a correlation with the availability of fresh food in those regions. As developed as New York may be, these regions are real ‘food deserts’. Low-income neighborhoods have the highest need. The number of overweight and obese inhabitants can be reduced by the presence of a supermarket. In New York, approximately 3 million people live in high need neighborhoods that have usually fewer and smaller grocery

2

stores.

Going local is the path the city has chosen, by supporting the creation of a large amount of community gardens

2

across the boroughs. Most

of all, they generate the fresh food

3

,

so much needed. But they also have a community bonding function and educate the people in regards with healthy food. The aspect of educating our youth is very important in order to 3

fight obesity.

26.8-31.6% obesity 23.8-26.7% obesity 18.4-23.7% obesity 8.8-18.3% obesity

164

city ecology

high need fresh food

| Food

Map

Correlation between Obesity and Fooddeserts

165

The Brooklyn Waterfront Shifting visions in our global age are shaping the built environment in a radical way. How we conceive the urban experience has shifted drastically over the years while planners work their way through issues the contemporary city has faced, and is facing tomorrow. Over the years the ecology and the livability of a city has increased in interest, shaping how the waterfront is used and perceived.

While globalization is moving industries out of the city, in search of more beneficial circumstances, people are moving into the city. For the first time in history more than half of the world’s population is living in an urbanized environment. Priorities are changing, making the city’s livability a major topic in urbanism. Issues must be resolved from large scale to human scale in order to create a socially and ecologically sustainable city.

Some 25 years ago, at urbanism or architecture conferences there was no discussion about making the city more ‘livable’1. When we take a look at PlanNYC 20302, we can conclude that there has been a major shift in attention. The quality of life has become a crucial criterion upon which cities can be criticized and governments are consequently prioritizing the issues about healthy ecologies. It has become the key to a city’s vibrancy and competitiveness. The wider term of ‘city ecology’, studies how New York deals with those issues, what already has been done and what the future scenarios could look like.

New York became one of the greatest cities of the world thanks to its sixth borough, the water. With almost 840 km of shoreline, the New York waterfront is not only expansive but also very diverse. The bay itself was home to one of the biggest and most successful harbors of the world for decades.

Thanks to its location on the East River and the accessibility of the Great Lakes through the Hudson River made shipping inland a possibility, which is an enormous asset to the bay. As a result, Brooklyn developed into an industry hub for the greater region and the population continued to increase rapidly due to European immigrations. The demand for land grew. Completion of the Brooklyn Bridge in 1883 caused a flow of

166

city ecology

| How Livable is Brooklyn?

citizens towards Brooklyn, which resulted in higher property prices along the Brooklyn waterfront. This phenomenon and the globalization of industrial activities caused a steady relocation of factories. This left the bay neglected, turning it into old unused industrial sites and parking lots.

Unlike Manhattan, a great part of Brooklyn isn’t in direct relationship with natural landscapes, such as water or parks. Where interaction with the water could be possible, accessibility is often not granted. A major part of Brooklyn’s shore is privatized and not publicly accessible.

Hurricanes may have played a crucial role in the redefinition of the waterfront3. Katrina in New Orleans was a shocking event and one of the biggest disasters America had ever seen. It did however force governments to realize the devastating impact nature can have, and do something. Overhyped in the media, the passing of Irene was the first time the New Yorkers were forced to contemplate their strong relationship with the waterfront.

People got aware of rising currents, even of climate change. It hit civilization on all levels. Even the homeless got a lesson in environmental education, as the subways were closed for the first time in history because of climate-related circumstances.

The hurricane identified the water as a risk, rather than an opportunity or a meaningful part of the contemporary city. But anyway, the people noticed there is actually plenty of water in New York City.

“Irene focuses our attention on our serious vulnerability, and we need to seize that moment -because too often our default position is to act like nothing bad is going to happen.” Chris Mooney4

ESSAY

Clearly, great opportunities lay within Brooklyn’s waterfront. The waterscape is a big topic in Mayor Bloomberg’s blueprint for a greater and greener New York.

Numerous initiatives were implemented

by Bloomberg over the past few years but even after years and years of redeveloping the shoreline, the margin for improvements remains significant. The greater vision has obviously been that of creating a sustainable framework for further development of economic growth while adding an accessible green belt for the people at the waterfront.

The green belt is part of a new ‘greenway’, where mobility, ecology and leisure are the grand interests, and gives the satisfaction of being able to reach the water5.

The Brooklyn waterfront has the potential to become Brooklyn’s face to the world. In the larger scale projects, they try to make the greenbelt financially self-sufficient by building luxury condos. This evidently has a major impact on all communities, living near the water and determines strongly the way the shore is experienced. This may result in the greenspace being treated like a backyard of the luxury condos rather than a public space. For example, the site of Brooklyn Bridge Park is not officially rezoned as a park because putting housing in a park is illegal. It is legally referred to as ‘civic and land-use project’, making the housing and commercial development open for potential expansion, because the ground is not protected as park. The heavy industrial period also created an enormous collection of great industrial heritage, which is now in danger. A lot of buildings have already been demolished, making place for new largescale projects.

The renewed interest in the waterfront also has an impact on the water quality.

For decades long, the shore was quite unreachable, making water quality not a priority. Consequently, the water was in very bad condition. Industrial dumping, sewage overflow and refuse dumping deteriorated the water incessantly. The first interest in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

New York waters was shown in the early 1900s, when more then 140,000 people died of typhoid6. However, it was not until 1972, that an official law considering water quality was constituted. CWA or the clean water act, creates the mandates New York has to comply with now. Over the years the quality has improved significantly, but it’s still substandard. Permits are required to dump polluted water into the waterbodies of the city, and they are obviously not easy to require. An obstruction in the improvement of the water quality is the inferior quality of the water infrastructure. It is already past its design life and consequently now working at a reduced efficiency7.

Since the waterfront is regaining accessibility, need for water recreation is emerging. In certain parts of the shore (such as in Red Hook and at the JFK airport) the water is still so polluted that contact with the water holds in health risks, making any leisure activities not an option. Millions of dollars are being invested by the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) in sewer and wastewater treatment plant upgrades8. The biggest challenge remains the reduction of the greatest polluter: the yearly 113562354 m3 9 “combined sewer overflow” in case of heavy rainfall.

Untreated sewage is then mixed with stormwater and discharged into the New York waterways. The contaminants present in the domestic or industrial sewage and in the surface runoff cause serious water pollution. Totally avoiding CSO’s is possible, but requires multi-billions of investment in new infrastructure10, which is not so selfevident in times of economic crisis, and hard to plead for. The so to say marginal improvement is diminishing. The key is now to opt for more sustainable ways of water quality improvements, with a network of green infrastructure installations. On a variety of scales efforts are being made: from small- scale urban agriculture projects such as the numerous community gardens to larger scale waterfront parks creating a

Making cities livable, internet, 18.10.11, http://www.livablecities.org/, PlaNyc, internet, 18.10.11, http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full_report.pdf Coastal flooding zones and Brooklyn development, internet, 02.11.11, http://bwrc.commons.gc.cuny.edu/) Hurricane Irene, Climate Change, and the Need to Consider Worst Case Scenarios, 25.08.11 internet, 06.11.11, http://www.desmogblog.com/ hurricane-irene-climate-change-and-need-consider-worst-case-scenarios Vision 2020, internet, 23.10.11, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/cwp/index.shtml Image: S.W.I.M. coalition Wastewater infrastructure needs of New York, internet, 02.11.11, http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/infrastructurerpt.pdf Wastewater infrastructure needs of New York, internet, 02.11.11, http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/infrastructurerpt.pdf Public information regarding water and wastewater rates, internet, 21.10.11, http://home2.nyc.gov/html/nycwaterboard/pdf/blue_book/ bluebook_2012.pdf DEP and DEC reach draft agreement on Green Infrastructure for CSO control, internet, 02.11.11 http://swimmablenyc.info/ 167

cumulative impact on the city’s ecology while improving living conditions for the communities. An important part of this network consists of wetlands. These soils are defined as land that is permanently or temporarily under water and create very valuable ecological regions. Industrial development destroyed most of it in the 19th century, replacing them with impervious surfaces such as docks, channels and quays. The wetlands are known for their great biodiversity being the habitat to a wide array of wildlife. Their biofiltering capabilities are the reason it is a great addition to water quality improvement. The conservation of the remaining wetlands (like at Jamaica Bay) and the reimplementation of engineered wetlands are a very actual aspect of sustainable development of Brooklyn, as they have a positive effect on tons of the contemporary challenges the city is facing.

Creating this ‘soft infrastructure’ also helps the stormwater management, what in turn helps reducing the problem of combined sewer overflow, since the water can be retained in the soil and the sewers don’t have to cope with all the rainfall when there are impervious surfaces. Using indigenous11 flora, considering the soil and the future maintenance, New York is engaged in creating resilient and sustainable urban infrastructure that can function as mitigation of climate change effect and support the growing population in the city.

This resilient, dynamic infrastructure is part of the slowly developing strategy that deals with the issue of rising currents, caused by climate change. Adding a submersible zone is sometimes the solution, while in other situations real flood protection has to be viewed in a sustainable framework, to reduce the impact zone of the flooding.

Like all major cities, New York’s current infrastructure is very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, but is still way ahead of other large American cities in dealing with these issues12. Actions with a long-term vision are needed though. The

consequences of climate changes should be dealt with in the most sustainable manner.

This requires a considerable amount of time and planning. So the central question that arose is how PlaNYC can be realized effectively in practice. In what sense is this matter of overambitious thinking? How can ecological issues that really need a long term planning and engagement be realized wacross different mayor legislatures? Bloomberg was a very designminded mayor, and how can his vision on sustainability be extended over the next candidacy?

11 Indigenous= home to the region 12 New Report Highlights Vulnerability of NYC Water Infrastructure to Climate Change -- and the City’s Efforts to Prepare, Larry Levine, 26.07.2011, internet, 03.11.11, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/llevine/today_nrdc_released_link_to.html

168

city ecology

| How Livable is Brooklyn?

annex

An atlas with general information.

Density Units Per Acre

Density People Per Acre

p174

p175

Housing Units Evolution between 2000 and 2010

Population Evolution between 2000 and 2010

p176

p177

Racial Group | Asian Percentage by Race

Racial Group | Black Percentage by Race

RacialW Group | Hispanic Percentage by Race

Racial GrouP | White Percentage by Race

p178

p179

p180

p181

Population by age 60 years and above

Population By Age 21 years and younger

Family Size People per Unit

TOPOGRAPHY Lines per 10 feet

p182

p183

p184

p185

LAND USE Manufacturing / Industrial and road connections

LAND USE

LAND USE Public Facilities / Institutions and open space

LAND USE Single-family and Multifamily Residential

p188

p189

p186

p187

172

Annex

| Content

and subway connections

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

0

1

5km

Reference Map

173

A

B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Density Units per Acre | 80 - 0

174

Annex

|

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Density People per Acre | 150 - 0

0

1

5km

175

A

B

C

D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Housing Units Evolution between 2000 and 2010 | 250% - 50%

176

Annex

|

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Population Evolution between 2000 and 2010 | 250% - 50%

0

1

5km

177

A

B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Racial Group | Asian Percentage by Race | 90% - 40%

178

Annex

|

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Racial Group | Black Percentage by Race | 90% - 40%

0

1

5km

179

A

B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Racial Group | Hispanic Percentage by Race | 90% - 40%

180

Annex

|

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Racial Group | White Percentage by Race | 90% - 40%

0

1

5km

181

A

B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Population by Age 60 years and above | 50% - 20%

182

Annex

|

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Population by Age 21 years and younger | 50% - 20 %

0

1

5km

183

A

B

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Family Size People per Unit | 3,50 - 1,50

184

Annex

|

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Topography Lines per 10 feet

0

1

5km

185

A

B

C

D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Land Use Industrial / Manufacturing and road connections

186

Annex

|

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Land Use

0

1

5km

187

A

B

C

D

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Land Use Public Facilities / Institutions and open space

188

Annex

|

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Land Use Single-family and Multi-family Residential

0

1

5km

189

contributors

Tom Thys Tom Thys is an engineer-architect and the owner of the practice Tom Thys Architecten, known for the design of various schools, primary schools. LAT Architecten is the partnership of Tom Thys together with Els Claessens and Tania Vandenbussche. He is a design assistant at the K.U.Leuven Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning since 1997.

Ward Verbakel tects with Nathan Ooms in 2006, a practice specialized in various aspects ranging from landscape design, master planning to residential projects. He teaches urban design at the K.U.Leuven and at GSAPP Columbia. From 2006 to 2010 Ward Verbakel worked as adjunct professor for the post graduate urban design studio for the European Master of Urbanism on water productive landscapes, water urbanism and human settlements. As researcher, he worked with Studioopenstad in 2003 and the Urban Research Group at K.U.Leuven. He has lectured at many schools from Leuven to NYC to Bangladesh and is a regular guest design critic for architecture schools.

Manuel Avila Manuel Avila is an architect and urban designer. Manuel was selected as Architect-in-Residence tectural experimentation and creative interdisciplinary exchange. In this position he developed the design for â&#x20AC;&#x153;Crown Heights Participatory Urbanismâ&#x20AC;?, a community-informed design project, in 2008 he participated in Global Studio, a community based design program in Johannesburg, South Africa and received an honorable mention by the forum for Urban Design in NYC at the Red Hook Bicycle Competition.

Moji Baratloo Moji Baratloo is an architect and an associate professor of architecture at Columbia University Graduate School Architecture Planning and Preservation, leading the design studios in architecture and urban design. For her professional practice she has received numerous awards and installations, exhibitions and furniture design. She is a recipient of several research grants and support by internationally recognized organizations such as National Endowment for the Arts, Australian Research Council and New York State Council on the Arts. She also founded the Urban Research Group in 2004 and helped establish the Store Front for Art and Architecture in 1981.

Matthias Blondia Matthias Blondia is currently a researcher at the Research Group Urbanity & Architecture (OSA) at the K.U.Leuven Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning.

192

contributors

Steven Delva Steven Delva is a landscape architect. He has his own practice DELVA Landscape Architects since 2009, and is since 2008 a guest tutor at the Academy of Architecture in Amsterdam. He is also a member of the think tank Het Vlaamse landschap roept om een sterk ontwerp since 2009 and the think tank about Landschap en erfgoed in de Westhoek since 2008, both located in Belgium.

Bruno Demeulder Bruno Demeulder is an engineer-architect and urban designer. He is the head of the Research Group Urbanity & Architecture (OSA) at the K.U.Leuven and also the program director of the POC Urbanism and Strategic Planning and the POC Human Settlements at the K.U.Leuven Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning. He is also a professor of urban planning at the Technical University of Eindhoven, since 2001. He is one of the founders of WIT architects, since 1993. Bruno Demeulder is known for his work about the history of the Belgian colonial urbanism in Congo and his various publications about the public space.

Jeroen Deschrijver Jeroen De Schrijver is an architect and a LEED Accredited Professional. He co-founded D+DS URBAN PLANT, a model for a building that is fully sustainable. And it is with URBAN PLANT that they won the World Architecture Community Awards of the fourth cycle.

Aurelie De Smet Aurelie De Smet is a PhD student at the K.U.Leuven Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning about the role of temporary use of voids in urban (re)development, guided

by Bruno Demeulder. She is also a research assistant at Sint-Lucas Architercture, Department of Architecture and Art.

Goedele Desmet Goedele Desmet is an engineer-architect and an assistant professor at the Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning at the K.U.Leuven since 2006. She is also the president of the editing council of the magazine A+ Belgian Review of Architecture.

Henk De Smet Henk De Smet is an architect and a mentor at the K.U.Leuven in the Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning since 1993. He started working together with Paul Vermeulen in 1989 and together they founded De Smet Vermeulen architecten. He was also involved in the workshops Hedendaagse Architectuur en Wederopbouw in de Westhoek in 2009.

Basisuitleg Map

193

Francis de Wolf Francis de Wolf is an engineer-architect and urban planner. He gained experience in the urban -

Bart Eeckhout Bart Eeckhout is one of the founding members and original researchers of GUST and has been ham University in Fall 2001, and the Catholic University of Brussels in 2002 to 2004. He is now an associate professor of English and American Literature as well as director of the interuniversity urban planning books City Life, The Urban Condition and Post Ex Sub Dis.

Lars Fisher ates an individual design practice. He is a teacher at the New York Institute of Technology. Lars Marble Fairbanks and Leslie Gill.

An Fonteyne An Fonteyne is an architect. She is one of the three founding members of noAarchitecten, launched in 2000. They mostly specialize in designing public buildings, working out the urban analyse to the structural details.

Pieter-Jan Ginckels Pieter-Jan Ginckels is an artist. He is known for pushing the boundaries of all media-forms by often using a tangible form of communication. He has had many solo exhibitions and group exhibitions in numerous places ranging from Mu.ZEE Oostende to Klerkx in Milan. And in 2011 Pieter-Jan Ginckels won the Young Belgian Painters Award 2011, Centre for Fine Arts.

Janina Gosseye Janina Gosseye is one of the PhD researchers at the Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning at the K.U.Leuven. She co-wrote the urban planning book Reclaiming (the urbanism of) Mumbai, together with Kelly Shannon in 2009.

Joseph Haberl Joseph Haberl is an architect. He has been working with Leeser Architecture since 2002. Leeser Architectureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s designs arise from cultural, social, and technological patterns which are present at the site. They won several design competitions and had several publications, with the latest being in The Wall Street Journal.

194

contributors

Hilde Heynen Hilde Heynen is full professor of architecture theory at the Faculty of Engineering Science and head of the Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning at the K.U.Leuven.

She is one of the senior academic staff on the Research Group Urbanity & Architecture (OSA) at the same department. She is also guest lecturer at the Architectural Association London. Together with André Loeckx, Lieven Decauter and Karina Van Herck Hilde Heynen wrote Dat is architectuur, a collection of key texts about architecture theory from the previous century, in 2001. And in 1999, she wrote the book Architecture and Modernity. A Critique. Hilde Heynen is a multiple published author in several magazines, like Archis, Assemblage, etc.

Yong Kim Yong K. Kim is an urban designer and project manager. He has been working at dlandstudio since 2007. Projects of his are the Gowanus Canal Sponge Park and the Downtown Brooklyn Streetscape. He designed, prior in his career, the winning entry for the masterplan of Giardini Di Porta Nuova competition in Milan, Italy.

Kaja Kuhl Kaja Kuhl is an architect and urban planner. She is the founder of youarethecity, a research and design practice in Brooklyn. Before founding youarethecity, she was an Urban Designer at the New York City Department of City Planning. Kaja Kuhl is an adjunct professor of architecture at the New York Institute of Technology and has taught and lectured in New York and internationally.

At Columbia University, Kaja teaches studios and seminars in Urban Design and Urban Planning.

André Loeckx André Loeckx is Doctor engineer-architect. He is professor at the Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning at the K.U.Leuven and responsible for all the Architecture Theory, Housing and Urban Development, Architectural Aspects of Planning and Cultural Antrotectural Yearbook from Flanders and of the Task Force Urban Policy of the Ministry of the Flemish Community.

Jan Mannaerts Jan Mannaerts is an engineer-architect. He is one of the three founders of 360 Architecten bvba, private companies to individuals. They search for design assignments which need a researchoriented design approach.

Justin Moore Justin G. Moore is an urban designer and city planner for the City of New York Department of City Planning. His remit includes involvement in the redevelopment of the city’s waterfront and high-density areas and this for a number of programs containing affordable housing, cultural and commercial centers, mixed-use industrial areas, and parks and open space. He also works as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Architecture at Columbia University in the graduate Urban Design and Urban Planning programs. Justin Moore is a LEED Accredited Professional, but also an active member of the New York Urban League, the SUPEFRONT Advisory Board, and the Brooklyn Greenway Initiative’s Technical Advisory Committee. He has been awarded with the Department of City Planning’s Barney Rabinow Service Award and the Michael Weil Urban Design Award.

Christian Nolf Christian Nolf is a PhD researcher at the Research Group Urbanity & Architecture (OSA) and teaching assistant at the Department of Architecture, Urban Design and Regional Planning at the K.U.Leuven since 2008

Richard Plunz Richard Plunz is an architect, professor of architecture and director of the Urban Design Program at Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, since 1992. He has taught at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the Pennsylvania State University and has held visiting positions at the K.U.Leuven and the Politecnico di Torino. He is known for his long-term research on architecture and urbanism in Italy and Turkey and in the United States. Richard Plunz is a receiver of the Andrew J. Thomas Award from the American Institute of Architects for his work in housing in 1991. Some of his books are Housing Form and Public Policy in the United States (1980), A History of Housing in New York City. Dwelling Type and Social Change in the American Metropolis (1990), and The Urban Lifeworld (2001).

Nina Rappaport Nina Rappaport is an architectural critic, curator, and educator. She is publications editor at Yale School of Architecture. Her current research and projects focus on the intersection of urban design and infrastructure, innovative engineering, and factory spaces. She recently published Support and Resist: Structural Engineers and Design Innovation in 2007 by Monacelli Press, Long island City, Connecting The Arts in 2006 by Design Trust For Public Space exploring Long Island City’s vibrant arts-and-industrial community and many others arts-and-industrial community. Her exhibitions include “The Swiss Section” at the Van Alen Institute, 2003, and “Saving Corporate Modernism,” Yale School of Architecture, 2001, among others. She is chair of Docomomo New York, a

196

contributors

Michael Ryckewaert Michael Ryckewaert is an engineer-architect and urban designer. He is a researcher in the Department of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning, K.U.Leuven, since 1998, where he also teaches design studio and seminars on housing. He is a researcher at the Research Group Urbanity & Architecture (OSA) since 2007, also at KULeuven. He has done research on housing, social exclusion, and the position of these phenomena in the urban landscape. And in December 2008, he was awarded with the three-yearly prize of Science and Technology of the Academic Foundation Leuven for his dissertation Working in the functional city. Planning the economic backbone of the

Giovanni Santamaria Giovanni Santamaria is an architect and urban designer. He is an adjunct professor of architecture at the New York Institute of Technology. Prior to this, he was a contract professor and researcher at the Politecnico de Milano from 2004 until 2008.

Gert Somers Gert Somers is an engineer-architect. In 2007 together with Jonas Lindekens, he founded ONO Multiprofessionele Architecturenvennootschap bvba. He is a guest lecturer at the MSCA Interiors Building Cities at TU Delft since 2011. He was a teaching assistant at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel 2007.

Angela Soong Angela Cen-Mai Soong is an architect, landscape architect, urban designer and adjunct assistant professor at Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation. She co-founded a r c h i p e l a g o s with partner Manolo F. Ufer. Angela Soong was the recipient of several academic awards during her studies at Columbia GSAPP and UPENN. And with SCAPE, the project Rising Currents: Oyster-tecture is currently exhibited at the Museum of Modern Arts.

Iwan Strauven Iwan Strauven is an architect, urban planner and lecturer at the Department of Architecture La Architecture/A+ at the Centre for Fine Arts of Brussels (BOZAR) since 2006. And since 2011, Iwan Strauven is a member of the executive board of the magazine A+ Belgian Architectural Review.

197

Maarten Van Acker

Urban Design Theory course, part of the Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program on Urbanism and Spatial Planning run by the Antwerp University Association at the Artesis Hogeschool Antwerpen. At the moment, he is conducting a post-doctoral research at Parsons, The New School For Design, on urban (infra) structures. This was made possible by being named a Francqui Foundation Fellow of the Belgian American Education Foundation in 2011. He has been a PhD researcher at the Research Group Urbanity & Architecture (OSA) , K.U.Leuven from 2007 until 2011. He also worked from 2004 until 2007 for the Planning Department of the City of Antwerp. And he contributed as an author or (co-) editor to several books and publishes regularly in professional journals.

Kiki Verbeeck straete in 2002. URA consciously works on basis of spheres and programmation. It never starts a project on an aesthetic basis, but creates architectural puzzles out of a deep-going study. She was a teacher at Sint-Lucas Hogeschool in 2006.

Joke Vermeulen Joke Vermeulen is an architect and a design assistant at the Department of Architecture, Urbanism O in 2008. It is a multidisciplinary design studio for architecture, urbanism and landscape design.

198

contributors

199

references

References

Introduction p 21

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p5_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p5_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

p 22 - 25

BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, It Happened in Brooklyn, p14, 2010, http://brooklynhistory.org/education/download/IHIB%20 Pre%20and%20Post%20Visit.pdf, last visited: 06/04/2012.

STILES, Edward, Plan of the Battle of Brooklyn, 1867, http://www.geographicus.com/P/AntiqueMap/BrooklynBattle-stiles-1867, last visited: 06/04/2012.

BACHE, A. D.; HASSLER, F. R., Map of New York Bay and Harbor, 1845, http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/ RUMSEY~8~1~33352~1170772:Map-of-New-York-Bay-and-Harbor-and-?sort=Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:Brook lyn;sort:Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=6&trs=122, last visited: 06/04/2012.

JOHNSON, unknown, Map of Brooklyn, 1866, http://www.bklyn-genealogy-info.com/Map/1866.map.index.html, last visited: 06/04/2012.

DRIPPS, M., Map of Kings County, 1872, http://memory.loc.gov/(...), last visited: 06/04/2012.

COLTON, G. W.; COLTON, C.B., New York City, Brooklyn and Vicinity, 1885, http://memory.loc.gov/(...), last visited: 06/04/2012.

BIEN, Joseph Rudolf, City of New York and City of Brooklyn, 1895, http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/ RUMSEY~8~1~26282~1110045:City-of-New-York--City-of-Brooklyn-?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:Broo klyn%2BNew%2BYork%2BN%2BY;sort:Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=58&trs=101, last visited: 06/04/2012.

WILLIAMS, unknown, Map of Borough of Brooklyn, 1923, http://memory.loc.gov/(...), last visited: 06/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, unknown, Map of Borough of Brooklyn, 1961, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Social Enclaves p 34 - 35

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p3a_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p3a_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, Metro Line Numbers Logo, http://www.mta.info/developers/resources/line_colors.htm, last visited: 06/04/2012.

HARRISON, Gabriel, Fulton Ferry Photo, 1890, http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/ww0005s.jpg, last visited: 06/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, Brooklyn Bridge Photo, 2005, http:/www.wallpapermaven.com/i/architecture/44/Brooklyn-Bridge-I-d.jpg, last visited: 06/04/12.

UNKNOWN, Manhattan Bridge Photo 06/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, Williamsburg Bridge Photo, 1910 http://www.nyc-architecture.com/BRI/B10.jpg, last visited: 06/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, Interstate 478 Logo, http://worldofsigns.com/grfx/sign/3942544.jpg, last visited: 06/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, New York Waterway Logo, 2011 http://nyharborparks.org/0pixtours/logo_nywaterway.gif, last visited: 06/04/2012.

p 38 - 43

SCHORZMAN, Julius, Demographic evolution of New York City, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_ Demographics_05_500px_Julius_Schorzman.png, last visited: 06/04/2012.

OASIS NYC, Median Household Income, 2010, http://oasisnyc.net/map.aspx, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Collective Culture p 54 - 55

FISHER, Eric, Locals and Tourists #2 (GTWA #1): New York 10/04/2011.

NYC&CO, Big Apple Ad, 1985, from: New York Convention and Visitors Bureau, The Big Apple Guide, JWJ Enterprises, 1985 New York.

GREENBERG, Miriam, The Limits of Branding: The World Trade Center, Fiscal Crisis and the Marketing of Recovery, in: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research volume 27.2, pp. 386-486.

NYC&CO,

, NYC & Company, 2011, New York.

NYC&CO, shot out of ‘I LOVE New York’ commercial, 2001, NYC & Company, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p-MjX3yCPk, last visited: 04/04/2012.

NYC&CO, shot out of ‘I LOVE New York’ commercial, 2010, NYC & Company, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZwE6bc1bDs, last visited: 04/04/2012. p 56 - 57

BUTLER, Jonathan, Brooklyn Flea Market

p 58 - 59

Research on streetscapes, http://maps.google.nl/, last visited: 13/11/2011.

p 62 - 63

UNKNOWN,

, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/landusefacts/landusefactsmaps.shtml, last visited:

26/09/2011.

NYCityMap Landmarks, http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap, last visited: 14/10/2011.

UNKNOWN,

, http://maap.columbia.edu/mbl_place/40.html, last visited: 02/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, Jamaica Bay, http://inhabitat.com/nyc/environmental-groups-reach-settlement-with-nyc-to-clean-up-jamaica-bay/, last visited: 02/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, 02/04/2012.

BRAZEE, Christopher D., Betsy head play center, 2007, New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, JM., Betsy head play center, 2008, http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/BetsyHead.pdf, last visited: 02/04/2012.

HENDERSON, Jim, New lots reformed church, 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Lots_Community_Church_jeh.jpg, last visited: 02/04/2012.

PHEEZY, p 64 - 65

, 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jfkairport.jpg, last visited: 02/04/2012.

NOTORIOUSBIG, Juicy music video, 2006, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JZom_gVfuw, last visited: 06/04/2012.

FABOLOUS; JEREMIAH, My Time music video, 2009, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAFWA7qxC0E&ob=av2e, last visited: 06/04/2012.

JAY Z, 99 Problems music video, 2003, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etl9kkIGaHo, last visited: 06/04/2012.

BUSTA RHYMES, Break Ya Neck dirty music video, 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xyXMde1QUE&feature=fvst, last visited: 06/04/2012.

FOXY BROWN, BK Anthem music video, 2011, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKPBTVxjQg, last visited: 06/04/2012.

MOS DEF, Ms Fat Booty music video, 1999, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtnVMq7Psb8&feature=fvst, last visited: 06/04/2012.

LILLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;KIM, Lighters Up music video, 2006, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8l_0N8lLWY&ob=av2e, last visited: 06/04/2012.

SPIKE, Lee,

, 1989, from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT2al2t2jnU, last visited:

06/04/2012. p 66 - 67

Research on blogs, from: http://www.google.be, last visited: 10/11/2012.

Planning the City p 82 - 83

TXPLANNING.org, Timeline of American Planning History, http://www.txplanning.org/aicp/Planning_History_1785_to_2000.pdf, last visited: 14/09/2011.

WIKIPEDIA, History of New York City, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_York_City, last visited: 15/09/2011.

p 84 - 85

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning Maps, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_zmaptable.shtml, last visited: 22/11/2011.

NEW YORK DOCK COMPANY, Bird’s eye view of property of New York Dock Company - The Premier Warehouses and Terminals, 1911, New York.

p 86 - 87

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning Maps, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_zmaptable.shtml, last visited: 22/11/2011.

UNKNOWN, Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses, http://www.gothamgazette.com, last visited: 19/11/2011.

UNKNOWN,

p 88 - 89

, http://sombrasyespejos.wordpress.com/, last visited: 20/11/2011.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning Maps, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_zmaptable.shtml, last visited: 22/11/2011.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING,

p 90 - 91

, from: http://www.nyc.gov, last visited: 20/11/2011.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning Maps, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_zmaptable.shtml, last visited: 22/11/2011.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/subcats/zoning.shtml, last visited: 03/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.shtml, last visited: 03/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 1 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 2 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 3 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 4 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 5 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 6 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 7 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 8 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 9 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 11 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 12 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 13 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 14 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 15 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 16 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 17 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 18 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012. p 92 - 93

PRATT CENTER FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Building communities of opportunity, 2009, http://prattcenter.net/sites/default/

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Zoning Maps, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_zmaptable.shtml, last visited: 22/11/2011.

Living Models p 120 - 121 SHILLER, J. Robert,

, Yale University, Yale, 2006.

SCHORZMAN, Julius, New York City Demographics, 2000, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_City_Demographics_06_500px_ Julius_Schorzman.png, last visited: 03/10/2011. p 122 - 132 ARCHITECTURAL RECORD (July 1920), , 1920, uit: PLUNZ, Richard, A History of Housing in New York City, Columbia University Press, New York, 1992, pp. 48.

QUEENSBORO CORPORATION, Figure 5.14. Queensboro Corporation formula for perimeter-type block organization applied to early , 1925, uit: PLUNZ, Richard, A History of Housing in New York City, Columbia University Press, New York, 1992, pp. 139.

COURTESY OF THE MUSEUM OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, the garden, unknown, uit: PLUNZ, Richard, A History of Housing in New York City, Columbia University Press, New York, 1992, pp.

154.

HEGEMANN, Werner,

represented a radical shift in design approach (middle), unknown, uit: PLUNZ, Richard, A History of Housing in New York City, Columbia University Press, New York, 1992, pp. 217.

PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION, Photograph shows an aerial view of the new “Williamsburg Houses,” a low-rent housing development in Brooklyn, New York City, New York, 1939, van: http://prints.encore-editions.com/500/0/williamsburg-houses-brooklynnew-york-city.jpg, last visited: 09/04/2012.

UNKNOWN, unknown,

, 1900, van: http://www.shorpy.com/node/4394?size=_original, last

visited: 09/04/2012. p 124 - 125 THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, , 2002, http://www.socialexplorer.com/ pub/maps/map3.aspx?g=0&mapi=SE0012, last visited: 11/12/2011. p 126 - 127 LEWIS,

, http://foreclosure.sam993.com/2012/01/11/occupy-your-

home-the-glasgow-family-is-occupying-a-foreclosed-property-in-east-new-york-photos-by-sam-lewisvocal-ny/,

last

visited:

03/02/2012.

GOOGLE,

, http://maps.google.be, last visited: 06/04/2012.

p 128 - 129 DATA CORPORATION, New York City Department of Finance, Furman Center, Number of single family homes receiving a notice of foreclosure Action (Lis Pendens), 2011, http://datasearch.furmancenter.org/, last visited: 24/01/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, , 2002, http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/ map3.aspx?g=0&mapi=SE0012, last visited: 17/12/2011. p 132 - 133 NYCHA, all the information and images used for the cardgame can be found at the NYCHA project descriptions, http://www.nyc.gov/ html/nycha/html/developments, last visited: 06/04/2012.

City Ecology p 146 - 147 THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PlaNYC (full report) A greener, greater New York, April 2011, http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/ planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_planyc_full_report.pdf, last visited: 06/04/2012.

PlaNYC, A greener, greater New York Progress Report, 2010, http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_ progress_report_2010.pdf, last visited: 02/02/12. p 148 - 149 CITY OF NEW YORK PARKS & RECREATION, Brooklyn-Queens Greenway Guide, September 2007, http://www.nycgovparks.org/ sub_things_to_do/facilities/images/Brooklyn_Queens_GreenwayGuide.pdf, last visited: 03/04/2012.

PROPERTY SHARK, Heat Map, Data based on latest sale price, 2011, http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/ny/New-York-City/ Maps?map=nyc2&x=0.52&y=0.6308333333333334&zoom=0&basemap=heatmap&tab=themes&ll=40.6522610025847, -73.9507419589818, last visited on 03/04/12. p 150 - 151 NASA, Aerial photo of New York City, September 2002, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3678, last visited: 06/04/2012. p 152 - 153 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,

, http://www.dec.

ny.gov/chemical/23837. html, last visited: 06/04/2012.

NYC OASIS,

, 2006, http://www.oasisnyc.net/map.aspx?zoom=1&x=1000500&y=217666.67&etabs=0&cat

egories=CLEANUP&mainlayers=CSO%2CCache_Transit&labellayers=&satellite=BaseCache, last visited: 06/04/2012.

NYC OASIS, Land use, 2010, http://www.oasisnyc.net/map.aspx?zoom=3&x=1004208.33&y=183583.34&etabs=0&categories =PROPERTY_INFO&mainlayers=%2CCache_Transit%2CLandUse2010&labellayers=&satellite=BaseCache&marker=1015791.666 6665%2C174791.67000002, last visited: 06/04/2012.

TOPOQUEST, Brooklyn, 2010, http://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=40.68750&lon=-73.93750&datum=nad27&zoom=32, last visited: 21/10/2011.

USGS, Nitrogen Loading in Jamaica Bay, Long Island, New York: Predevelopment to 2005, 2007, http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5051/ SIR2007-5051.pdf, last visited: 06/04/2012.

DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,

p 154 - 155 NYC OASIS,

, 2011, http://water.ky.gov/permitting/Pages/

, 2006, http://www.oasisnyc.net/map.aspx?zoom=1&x=985833.33&y=177833.33&etabs=0

&categories=&mainlayers=HURRICANE%2CLOTS&labellayers=&satellite=BaseCache, last visited: 06/04/2012.

IUDICI, Danny, Hurricane Irene waves pounding along Belt Parkway (for New York Daily News) wordpress.com/2011/08/hurricane-irene-waves-pounding-along-belt-parkway.jpg, last visited: 06/04/2012.

MINCHILLO, John,

, 2011, http://www.boston.

com/Boston/rf/image_835w/Boston/2011-2020/2011/08/27/Boston.com/Metro/Images/Irene.JPEG-0ec86.jpg,

last

visited:

06/04/2012. p 156 - 157 PLANYC, Air Quality, 2011, http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_air_quality.pdf, last visited: 06/04/2012.

NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Air pollution and the Health of the New Yorkers, 2008, http://www.nyc. gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/eode/eode-air-quality-impact.pdf, last visited on 23/11/11.

URBANFEEL, photos/30003006@N00/530910048/, last visited: 06/04/2012.

NYCEDC, Air pollution at the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, 2010, http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/10/ BQE_Pic.png, last visited: 06/04/2012. p 158 - 159 SOCIAL EXPLORER, Travel Time To Work, 2007 Census Track Estimates, http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g= 0&mapi=se0012&themei=767702.245349992.2278.291&l=-152.87380955440142&r=-39.06146801357414&t=56.17974758148193 4&b=20.688173845410347&rndi=1&style=seq%20%2D%20Orange, last visited: 21/11/11.

SOCIAL EXPLORER, Travel Time To Work, 2007 Census Track Estimates, http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g= 0&mapi=se0012&themei=767702.245349992.2278.291&l=-74.1830552384636&r=-73.73847573570704&t=40.73879599571228&b =40.59799611568451&rndi=1&style=seq%20%2D%20Orange, last visited: 21/11/11.

GOOGLE MAPS, Brooklyn, 2012, http://maps.google.be/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=Brooklyn,+NY,+USA&aq=0& oq=brookl&sll=50.805935,4.432983&sspn=4.930151,15.446777&vpsrc=1&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Brooklyn,+New+York,+Verenigde +Staten&t=m&z=12, last visited: 06/04/2012. p 160 - 161 PLANYC,

, 2011, http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/planyc_2011_parks.pdf, last

visited: 06/04/2012.

GOOGLE MAPS, Brooklyn, 2012, http://maps.google.be/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=Brooklyn,+NY,+USA&aq=0& oq=brookl&sll=50.805935,4.432983&sspn=4.930151,15.446777&vpsrc=1&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Brooklyn,+New+York,+Verenigde +Staten&t=m&z=12, last visited: 06/04/2012. p 162 - 163 WIKIPEDIA, John F. Kennedy International Airport, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport, last visited: 06/04/2012.

MCGRATH, Dorn C. Jr., Multidisciplinary Environmental Analysis Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport, 2007, http://www.tandfonline. com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944367108977964, last visited: 07/11/11.

INTERAGENCY AIR CARTOGRAPHIC COMMITTEE, New York Helicopter Route Chart, 1987, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_ item.pl?data=/gmdctr1/ctr00029.jp2&itemLink=&title=/gmdctr1/ctr00029.jp2&style=defaultstyle&legend=, last visited: 18/10/11.

GOOGLE MAPS, Brooklyn, 2012, http://maps.google.be/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=nl&geocode=&q=Brooklyn,+NY,+USA&aq=0& oq=brookl&sll=50.805935,4.432983&sspn=4.930151,15.446777&vpsrc=1&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Brooklyn,+New+York,+Verenigde +Staten&t=m&z=12, last visited: 06/04/2012.

DIGITAL VECTOR MAPS, Free Vector World Map (Rectangular), 2006, http://digital-vector-maps.com/world-maps-detail/4125/ Vector-World-Map-Rectangular-Adobe-Illustrator.htm#, last visited: 31/03/2012. p 164 - 165 NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, , 2008, http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/pdf/going_to_market.pdf, last visited: 13/11/11.

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, 2008, http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/pdf/going_to_market.pdf, last visited: 13/11/11.

,

Annex p 173

GOOGLE, Google Maps, 2012, http://maps.google.be/, last visited: 05/04/2012.

p 174 - 175 THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_h2_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_h2_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p5_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p5_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012. p 176 - 177 THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_h2_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_h2_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012. p 178 - 181 THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p3a_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p3a_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012. p 182 - 183 THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_sf1_p3_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_sf1_p3_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_sf1_p2_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_sf1_p2_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012. p 184 - 185 THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_p1_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

THE U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, t_pl_h2_ct.xlsx, 2011, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/download/census/census2010/t_pl_h2_ct.xlsx, last visited: 05/04/2012.

TopoQuest, TopoQuest Map Viewer, http://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=40.68750&lon=-73.93750&datum=nad27&zoom=32, last visited: 21/10/2011. p 186 - 189 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 1 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 2 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 3 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 4 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 5 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 6 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 7 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 8 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 9 last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 11 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 12 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 13 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 14 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 15 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 16 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 17 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, Brooklyn CD 18 pdf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

Contributors p 192-198

360 ARCHITECTEN BVBA, CV 360 ARCHITECTEN BVBA, 2011, HTTP://WWW.OFFICE360.BE/DOCS/OFFICE360_CV.PDF, LAST VISITED: 06/04/2012.

AVILA, Manuel, Work Samples + Résumé, 2012, http:// www.manuelavilaprojects.com/, last visited: 05/04/2012.

BOLLEN, Katrien, Bart Eeckhout Biography, 2008, http://www.gust.ugent.be/barteeckhout last visited: 05/04/2012.

JANSSENS, Tim, De Praatstoel: Joke Vermeulen, 2011, http://www.architectura.be/nieuwsdetail_new.asp?id_tekst=1662, last visited: 06/04/2012.

WILLAERT, Phillip, Artikel “Bevrijding van de historische obsessive door modern visies”, http://www.br-architect.be/DossierDetail. aspx?id=EBR0256N01, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unknown, BAM Instituut voor beeldende, audiovisuele en mediakunst, Bio Pieterjan Ginckels, http://www.bamart.be/persons/detail/ nl/482, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unknown, De Smet Vermeulen Architecten Bureau medewerkers, http://www.hdspv.be/bureau.html, last visited: 05/04/2012.

Unknown, K.U.Leuven Who’s Who, 2011, www.kuleuven.be/wieiswie/, last visited: 05/04/2012.

Unknown, K.U.Leuven, Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen Depertement Architectuur, Stedenbouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening: Bruno Demeulder, http://www.asro.kuleuven.be/new/asro.aspx?culture=nl-be&tabid=529, last visited: 05/04/2012.

Unknown, K.U.Leuven, Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen Depertement Architectuur, Stedenbouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening: André Loeckx, www.asro.kuleuven.be/new/asro.aspx?culture=nl-be&tabid=528, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unknown, K.U.Leuven, Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen Depertement Architectuur, Stedenbouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening: Michael Ryckewaert, http://www.asro.kuleuven.be/new/asro.aspx?culture=nl-be&tabid=540, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unkown, LAT Architecten, http://www.lat-architecten.be/, last visited: 10/04/2012.

Unknown, ONO Architectuur, 2012, http://www.ono-architectuur.be/index.php, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unknown, Pieterjan Ginckels Biography, 2012, http://www.pieterjanginckels.be/, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unknown, Team of BRUT, http://www.brut-web.be/team/francis-de-wolf, last visited: 05/04/2012.

Unknown, Team Steven Delva, http://delva.la/team/delva-team/, last visited: 05/04/2012.

Unkown, Team of Tom Thys Architecten, http://www.tomthys-architecten.be/?page_id=8, last visited: //

42127&CFTOKEN=85152642&lang=EN, last visited: 06/04/2012.

Unknown, URA team partners, http://www.ura.be/, last visited: 04/05/2012.

Unknown, Van Alen Instistute Projects in Public Architecture, 2010, http://www.vanalen.org/fellowship/fellows/03_2009_ commonTelic#bios_content%3Dtrue, last visited: 05/04/2012.

214

Studio Brooklyn Š