Urban Regeneration In New York: Analyzing History, Processes, And Impacts

The Definition and Process of Urban Regeneration

Question:

Describe and Analyse the Regeneration of One Urban Area or Region of Your Choice.

Urban regeneration as in United Kingdom is also known as urban renewal or urban revitalization in United States of America. This relates to the process of redeveloping cities where often urban decay is identified. In the late 19^th century modern attempts to renewal had been initiated in the developed countries (Bridge, Butler and Lees 2012). The program had gone through an intense phase under the rules of reconstruction. A major impact of the process has been found on various urban landscapes which has also played an important role in demographics and history of cities all around the world. The process of regeneration includes demolition of structures, relocation of businesses, relocating people and using eminent domain in form of legal tool to usurped private property to initiate city development projects. The process is at times also carried on in rural areas and is referred to as village renewal but it is not the same in practice as urban renewal (Cochrane 2007).

In certain cases urban regeneration may cause less congestion and urban sprawl where expressways and freeways are received by the cities. Proponents see urban regeneration as a reform mechanism and an economic engine. However critics of the process see it is a measure for control. In certain cases it may enhance the condition of the communities and on the other hand it may also cause the demolition of existing neighborhood (Couch, Fraser and Percy 2003). The purpose of this paper is to analyze urban regeneration in the city of New York.

The majority of urban regeneration projects in NY initiated during the interwar period (Diamond et al. 2010). One of the prototype urban regeneration project was the designing and construction of the famous central park in NW by Daniel Burnham. In the same way the efforts provided by Jacob Riis towards supporting to demolish disregarded parts of NY in the 19^th century are also formative. The restructuring of large sections of the NY City and state by Robert Moses was a significant, prominent and notable example of urban regeneration. The constructions of new highways, housing projects, public parks and bridges were also directed by Moses. The early projects in NY usually focused on sum clearance and were implemented by the local public housing authorities. These authorities have been imposed with the responsibility of demolishing slums as well as building housing facilities which can be afforded by the citizens (Campkin 2014).

Urban Regeneration in New York: History and Early Projects

The GI bill (Serviceman’s Readjustment Act 1944 provided guarantee in relation to veterans administration mortgages under favorable terms to veterans, which instigated suburbanization during the post world war II period.  During this period the places like Michigan, Levittown and NY had been changed from mere farmlands to cities which had been occupied by thousands of families in just a few years.  The process of urban regeneration in NY had been kick started by the Housing Act of 1949. Provisions for Federal funding had been provided by the legislation to the cities in order to cover the cost of acquiring areas within the city which were perceived to be slums. Private developers have been provided to NY for the purpose of constructing new housing. The phrase used in relation to this at that time was “urban redevelopment”. The phrase urban renewal had been made popular through the enactment of the Housing Act in 1854. This made the program more enticing to the developers as it had the provisions of providing FHA-backed mortgage among other things (Goodchild 2008).

In the mid 1950 Slum Clearance Plan under the Title I of the Housing Act had been published by the Mayor’s Committee on Slum Clearance. The reports consisted of renewal and clearance plans for many slum areas such as Gramercy Park, Lincoln Square and Penn Station South. Usually the reports consists of regeneration plans, description of problems in the area, and relocation plans along with other material information. A few follow up reports which were entitled Title I Slum Clearance Progress had been released in the latter 1950s.  A series of Urban Renewal Designation Reports had been published by the City Planning Commission in the 1960s.  A few examples of such reports are the Fort Greene and Ebbets area reports in which the City Planning Commission’s study of the area, summary of what took place in public hearings and recommendations had been discussed (Hatherley 2011).

The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation along with the port authority of New York and new jersey have taken the initiative to embark an inclusive and open public process to plan the future of the site if the World trade center and its adjacent areas. LMCD is a state city corporation which has been established in relation to the aftermath of September 11 to coordinate and oversee the rebuilding and revitalization of Lower Manhattan to the south of Houston Street. The owner of the 16 acre site which was the base of the World trade center once is the Port Authority.

The Housing Act of 1949 and Urban Renewal in New York

The objective and goals of the board has been documented in the document named Principles and Revised Blueprint for the Future of Lower Manhattan which has been developed by LMDC through proactive listening and collaboration with public input process. The initial program for the site initiates with fitting of a memorial and also consists of office and retail space, transit facilities, infrastructure and a hotel. Keeping in mind such preliminary requirements the program seeks inspiration and guidance from previous programs taken place around the world (Owhin and McCarthy 2013).

The goals and objective which have been documented in the LMDC Principles and Revised Blueprint for the Future of Lower Manhattan are as follows

• Respecting the site of the WTC in form of a place of remembrance and reserving an area on the site for the purpose of make one or more memorials
• In order to ensure the long term viability of lower Manhattan facilitating the continued revitalization of the area
• Restring in proportions or all of the street grids and reintegrating the former WTC site along with the rest of the downtown
• Eliminating west street which acts as the barrier between battery park and park city
• Coordinating mass transit services for the purpose of providing a coherent integration between the rest of the city and region and Manhattan
• Establishing a unique transit hub linking subway, path and regional rail service in form of a gateway towards lower Manhattan
• Establishing downtown facilities for the purpose of accommodating the anticipated rise in tour, charter as well as public buses and exploring opportunities for service and off street vehicular access
• Enhancing residential life and expanding the residential population for establishing a strong community sense in lower Manhattan.
• Promoting commercial and retail opportunities which would support lower Manhattan as a vibrant place having activities all day long
• Providing for expanded or new culture for civic and cultural institutions for Manhattan
• The project aims to bring economic benefit as well as social happiness to the citizens of NY

The regeneration program have provided several local Agencies with Federal funds along with the power of eminent domain for the purpose of tearing down buildings condemning slum neighborhoods and reselling the land at reduced prices to private developers. For quite some time it has been pointed out by a few housing experts and city planners that the general aim of album regeneration was not being achieved and  Critical studies of a number of renewal projects have been produced by social scientist. The some clearance project has also been criticized by various eminent social and architectural pretty led by Jane Jacobs trying to preserve certain neighborhoods like the Greenwich Village with small Apartment house brownstones lofts against encroachment of high rise project developed for the luxury market as well as the poor. However the aim of such efforts have been to save the city for the people and mainly aimed private clearances which were outside the federal program (Minton 2012).

However where criticism of urban regeneration programs has been sporadic and sporty in the past science are visible that as a whole the program is now being tellingly and seriously valuated. To complete studies done by Charles Abram and Scott Greer all about to be published and highly negative analysis done by an ultra-conservative economist has already appeared in Martin Anderson the federal bulldozer. The data provided by the study are based largely on information collected by the urban regeneration administration. According to the data what the programs have accomplished includes that it has cleared various slums in order to generate land for luxury housing along with a few middle-income projects. The program has also provided inexpensive land for expanding hospitals shopping areas colleges, libraries and similar Institutions which were located in slum areas. In the year 1961 according to the data 126000 dwelling units have been destroyed and only 28000 have been built. The average monthly rental of such elected dwelling units in 1960 rise from dollar $158 - $192 in 1962 which was a staggering figure for any area which is outside Manhattan (Power, Plo?ger and Winkler 2010).

Recent and Ongoing Urban Regeneration in New York: The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation

Therefore it is not required to state that any of the slum dwellers who had been this post during the process of regeneration did not have the resources to move into such newly developed apartments.

Neighborhood reestablishment offices should move the seized occupants in "standard" lodging inside their methods previously decimation started, yet such empty lodging is rare in many urban communities, and through and through inaccessible in a few. What's more, since the offices were under solid strain to clear the land and get reestablishment ventures going, the movement of the inhabitants was restlessly, if not savagely, taken care of. In this way, a 1961 investigation of recharging ventures in 41 urban areas demonstrated that 60 for each penny of the confiscated inhabitants were simply migrated in different ghettos; and in huge urban communities, the extent was significantly higher (more than 70 for every penny in Philadelphia, as per a recent report). Restoration some of the time even made new ghettos by pushing relocatees into regions and structures which at that point progressed toward becoming stuffed and crumbled quickly. This has chiefly been the situation with Negroes who, both for financial and racial reasons, have been compelled to bend over in different ghettos. Surely, in light of the fact that just about 66% of the cleared ghetto units have been possessed by Negroes, the urban recharging program has frequently been portrayed as Negro leeway, and in excessively numerous urban areas, this has been its aim (Raco and Imrie 2003).

Also, those confiscated inhabitants who discovered better lodging for the most part needed to pay more lease than they could manage. In his cautious investigation of movement in Boston's intensely Italian West End,2 Chester Hartman demonstrates that 41 for every penny of the West Enders lived in great lodging in this alleged ghetto (along these lines proposing that quite a bit of it ought not have been torn down) and that 73 for each penny were migrated in great lodging—thanks to some extent to the way that the West Enders were white. This change was accomplished at a substantial cost, be that as it may, for middle rents ascended from $41 to $71 every month after the move (O’Brien and Matthews 2015).

As indicated by recharging authorities, 80 for every penny of all people moved now live in great lodging, and lease increments were legitimized in light of the fact that many had been paying unduly low lease some time recently. Hartman's examination was the first to contrast these official insights and lodging substances, and his figure of 73 for every penny challenges the official claim that 97 for each penny of the Boston West Enders were legitimately re-housed. This inconsistency may emerge from the way that recharging authorities gathered their information after the poorest of the evacuated inhabitants had fled in frenzy to different ghettos, and that authorities likewise inclined toward a fairly tolerant assessment of the migration lodging of those really examined to make a decent record for their organization (Tallon 2013). (Then again, when they were confirming ranges for freedom, these authorities frequently misrepresented the level of "scourge" with a specific end goal to demonstrate their case.)

Criticism and Impact of Urban Regeneration in New York

With respect to the substandard rents paid by ghetto occupants, this is valid in just a little extent of cases, and afterward generally among whites. Land financial analysts contend that families should pay no less than 20 for every penny of their salary for lodging, yet what is reasonable for center wage individuals is a weight to those with low wages who pay a higher offer of their income for sustenance and different necessities. However all things considered, Negroes for the most part need to commit around 30 for each penny of their salary to lodging, and a Chicago ponder refered to by Hartman reports that among non-white families acquiring under $3,000 a year, middle lease ascended from 35 for each penny of pay before movement to 46 for every penny a short time later.

To intensify the disappointment of urban restoration to help poor people, numerous freedom zones (Boston's West End is a case) were picked, as Anderson brings up, not on the grounds that they had the most exceedingly terrible ghettos, but rather in light of the fact that they offered the best destinations for extravagance lodging—lodging which would have been constructed whether the urban reestablishment program existed or not. Since open assets were utilized to clear the ghettos and to make the land accessible to private manufacturers at lessened costs, the low-salary populace was in actuality financing its own evacuation for the advantage of the rich. What was improved the situation the ghetto occupants consequently is starkly recommended by the accompanying measurement: just a single portion of one for every penny of every government use for urban reestablishment in the vicinity of 1949 and 1964 was spent on migration of families and people; and 2 for every penny if installments are incorporated (Sykes et al. 2013).

At last, in light of the fact that the arrangement has been to clear an area of all ghettos on the double keeping in mind the end goal to amass vast destinations to pull in private engineers, whole neighborhoods have every now and again been demolished, removing individuals who had lived there for quite a long time, shutting down their foundations, destroying independent companies by the hundreds, and dissipating families and companions everywhere throughout the city. By expelling the structure of social and passionate help gave by the area, and by compelling individuals to modify their lives independently and in the midst of outsiders somewhere else, ghetto freedom has regularly come at a genuine mental and in addition monetary cost to its assumed recipients (Minton 2012). Marc Fried, a clinical analyst who contemplated the West Enders after movement, detailed that 46 for each penny of the ladies and 38 for every penny of the men "give proof of a genuinely extreme melancholy response or more regrettable" in light of inquiries regarding leaving their tight-weave group. A long way from "modifying" in the long run to this injury, 26 for every penny of the ladies stayed dismal or discouraged even two years after they had been pushed out of the West End.

References

Bridge, G, Butler, T and Lees, L (Eds). 2012. Mixed Communities: Gentrification by Stealth? Policy Press.

Cochrane, A. 2007. Understanding Urban Policy?: A Critical Approach. Blackwell.

Couch C, Fraser C and Percy S. (Eds). 2003. Urban Regeneration in Europe, Oxford: Blackwell

Diamond J, Liddle, J, Southern, A, and Osei, P (Eds). 2010. Urban Regeneration Management: International Perspectives, London: Routledge

Furbey, R. 1999. “Urban ‘regeneration’: Reflections on a Metaphor.” Critical Social Policy 19 (4): 419–45.

Goodchild, B. 2008. Homes, Cities and Neighbourhoods, Aldershot: Ashgate

Hatherley, O. 2011. A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain. Verso Books.

Leary-Owhin, M. 2016. Exploring the Production of Urban Space: Differential Space in Three Post-Industrial Cities. Policy Press.

Leary-Owhin, M and McCarthy J (Eds). 2013. Routledge Companion to Urban Regeneration, London: Routledge.

McBane, J. 2008. The Rebirth of Liverpool: The Eldonian Way. Liverpool University Press.

Minton, A. 2012. Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City. Penguin.

O’Brien, D and Matthews, P (Eds). 2015. After Urban Regeneration: Communities, Policy and Place. Policy Press.

Porter, L and Shaw, K. 2009. Whose Urban Renaissance??: An International Comparison of Urban Regeneration Strategies. Routledge.

Power, A, Plo?ger, J and Winkler, A. 2010. Phoenix Cities?: The Fall and Rise of Great Industrial Cities. Policy Press and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Raco, M, and Imrie, R. 2003. Urban Renaissance??: New Labour, Community and Urban Policy. Policy Press.

Sykes, O, Brown, J, Cocks, M, Shaw, D and Couch, C. 2013. “A City Profile of Liverpool.” Cities 35: 299–318.

Tallon, A. 2013. Urban Regeneration in the UK (2^nd Ed), London:Routledge.

Urban Task Force. 1999. Towards an Urban Renaissance, London: E&FN Spon