Affordable Housing, New York Style

Over this past weekend I was walking the streets of Park Slope, Brooklyn, trying to finish all the things that one needs to do on the weekend when he returns to the working world. In the middle of my errands, a young woman handed me a flyer, offering as an explanation, "Support affordable housing in Brooklyn." Always wanting to be in touch with my surroundings, I rejected my better judgment and took the flyer. As promised, it was an advertisement for a local advocacy group called the Fifth Avenue Committee, and one of their proposals -- a new "affordable housing" project at 575 5th Avenue, intended to cater towards seniors, soon-to-be released foster children who have reached the age of maturity and homeless adults looking to turn the corner. A noble endeavor indeed, but what raised my eyebrows was something considerably more mundane -- the cardstock of the handout. I'm a little more mindful of such details these days, as my wedding invitations will be going out the door in the next few weeks. A few blocks further up the street, another civic-minded type offered me another cause with another accompanying sheet -- this time involving a drive to recycle used electronic equipment. Besides the fact that the fellow was handing me paper in an effort to promote recycling (which seemed counterproductive), he wanted me to take a flimsy white sheet of paper, unlike the fancy, substantial, off-white offering from the affordable housing people. That professionally-prepared advertisement, complete with a picture of the proposed structure, got me to thinking about how (and why) such an outfit could (and would) spend such time, money and effort on such luxurious disposable pleas for help.

The answer got a little clearer when I learned that over in Manhattan, around Columbia University, another unusual proposal is circulating through the grapevine for a potential future rezoning that would impact the neighborhood. Columbia is in the midst of proposing a massive $7 billion expansion into 17 acres of West Harlem, on the current edge of the school's campus. The plan would bring as many as 18 new towers that would dwarf the other surrounding buildings in the otherwise lower-income neighborhood. The Borough President's answer to this infiltration into one of the last "affordable" areas in Manhattan is to rezone the area so as to mandate the preservation of the current scale of the neighborhood. Right now, the area is populated mostly by four- to six-story buildings. Despite the likewise laudable approach, which includes protections against tenant harrassment to vacate their homes and businesses, the plan would not impact Columbia's vision. In addition, developers would be able to build larger-scale structures as long as they provide street-level space to locally-based retail businesses. One current landlord has characterized the plan as "throwing the community a bone so that Columbia can bulldoze the neighborhood."

As in the Park Slope case, how far have these communities really gone to preserve some semblance of "affordability" in New York City? Is this a goal that's really just a lost cause? Of course, all metropolitan regions must contend with the issue of attracting capital to more cost-effective housing and retail options. Even New Orleans, which is facing the problem of attracting capital to any part of the city outside the French Quarter, has tried again to raise the profile of its plight by designating 17 areas in the city as "development areas." With $1.1 billion in financing, which still must be approved, Mayor C. Ray Nagin and the other supporters of the plan, hope that this more modest approach will receive support, and serve as spurs to development for the rest of the city. Sure, without some effort to hold onto that elusive "affordable housing," the cause is completely lost. But what is the true impact of such half-hearted efforts? Have New Yorkers, and those Americans fortunate enough to be able to retain a good home, simply turned their thoughts elsewhere, and given up on the cause? Or is it that it's so hard for the overwhelming majority of Americans to find and hold onto that good home that "affordable housing" itself is just an illusion? When the subject is left to a few like-minded folks, they are forced to focus on fancy fliers, trying to sell to the community the "bones" that are all that is politically feasible.

The answer to these queries, like most involving land use, depend on who you ask. As for me, my solace came a few blocks after the fellow who wanted me to recycle my computer, where I found a pack of Girl Scouts selling their addictive cookies, allowing me the chance to lose myself from such heady subjects in the comfort of a handful of Thin Mints. At least for a little while.

The New, New Thing (Well, Not That New)

The other day, while perusing the offerings at the local Barnes & Noble, I came across an intriguing new publication, at least one that I had not seen previously. It’s called The Next American City, a periodical created in 2003 and which publishes four times a year. I picked up the Winter 2006 edition, with a cover article on immigration and its impact on cities. Not a one-note affair, the issue also tackles such far-ranging urban questions as the Canadian Geese problem of New Jersey, and toilet legislation in Portland, Oregon. The brainchild of The Next American City, Inc., a “not-for-profit organization founded by a new generation of urban thinkers and leaders to promote a new vision of socially and environmentally sustainable economic growth in America’s cities and suburbs,” the magazine sets lofty goals for its purpose. Even the New York Times proclaims that the group has started a “subtle plan to change the world.” I wish them luck in their pursuit, aiding in their grand vision by promptly signing up for a subscription.

Of course, the whole idea of what a “city” is and should be has received the attention of thinkers and leaders for quite some time. The Greek thinker Thucydides wrote that “men make the city.” Shakespeare likewise noted, “What is the city but the people?” Even the love/hate relationship we have with our urban environments has passed through the ages. The Roman writer Horace described the phenomenon in connection with his home city: “In Rome you long for the country; in the country – oh inconstant! – you praise the distant city to the stars.” And those that have devoted their lives to cities have discovered the basic truths. Jane Addams of Hull House fame wrote, “Private beneficence is totally inadequate to deal with the vast numbers of the city’s disinherited.” And the insensitivity towards the city has been a constant. Take Former Vice President Spiro Agnew, who once proclaimed on a campaign stop, “if you’ve seen one city slum you’ve seen them all.”

The most fabulous thing about cities is that they are one of those phenomena that neither goes out of style, nor reaches a level of complete understanding. It’s not like polio, or the source of a seemingly endless river – there is no “answer” to the issues surrounding cities, only choices that will either make things better, or create more problems, or some combination of both. Sure, you can solve the toilet shortage problem in an area by installing more of them, or rid yourselves of an influx of Canadian Geese by poisoning them. But determining the big questions, square among them matters of land use, a metropolitan area must weigh the impacts, which are inevitable and unavoidable, and calculate the lesser of evils.

For instance, the developer Bruce Ratner, who recently purchased the New Jersey Nets, will be constructing a mega complex of retail and residential construction, along with a new arena for his basketball team, just up the street from my new home in Brooklyn. Residents have voiced their objections to the disruption that the construction will cause, and the eventual traffic concerns caused by the arena. Ratner and the city have touted the economic benefits that the new development will bring, and the prestige for Brooklyn in once again serving as the home for a major league sports team. Either way, who’s right? Not knowing the answer is what makes such questions interesting in its endless permutations, just like a debate on sports talk radio about the Nets could turn in a multiplicity of directions.

So I look forward to another voice such as The Next American City, as we continue to attempt to answer the unanswerable questions facing cities and their future.

New Urbanism

This week, as we start this new year, my fiance and I are moving into our new home -- a pleasant one-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn, New York. As we settle into Brooklyn, I've been looking around trying to process not only where the supermarket is, and figuring out how to utilize every square foot of our smaller place, but I've also been studying the people in this strange, new environment. When I first watched the wave of denizens exiting our subway station after a work day, I realized that we're not in Los Angeles anymore.

I spent most of my childhood in New York, and I lived in the New York area (Northern New Jersey) for many years after law school. However, I've never actually lived in New York City -- always in "the burbs." And although we lived in Los Angeles proper, no matter how congested the "city" is, the place is still built for the automobile. Now that I'm here, I'm adjusting to the concept of walking a lot more than I'm used to, spending more time hunting for parking and climbing more stairs (particularly to our fourth-floor walk-up). My fiance lived in Manhattan for many years, so she embraces the opportunity. But as a lazy suburbanite, what am I to do?

The art of living in New York (and other similar urban settings), I'm quickly coming to realize, is how to minimize inconvenience. Unless you have a large source of funds, you will have to contend with daily questions that most suburbanites don't have to consider. The first choice we've made, at least to start, is that we will be keeping our car. Our little chariot has made the journey across the country, twice, along with traversing the landscapes on either coast. That means that I join the world of "street parkers," as we contend with street cleaners, parking meters and fire hydrants. Granted, we do live literal steps from the subway, and the bus runs outside our door. But there will be times when we will need that freedom of movement. That means we'll have to pay the price for that right. Transportation of us, and our stuff, will be a careful computation henceforth. Our daily routines will be governed by this reality.

For most of my years as a student and professional in the land use field, I have been a proponent of precisely this type of living -- pedestrian-friendly environments, mixed-use streetscapes and public transportation as the main method of moving people. Only now will I experience this style of urban life on a day-to-day basis. Sure, living in Northern New Jersey and West Los Angeles offers its share of headaches, but they are mostly connected to the all-mighty automobile and all the other cars with which one must contend. The issues that face us now are of a different nature.

But because our new living situation offers different challenges, it also offers a number of distinct advantages. Why would people choose to live this way otherwise? First, we are in the middle of a vibrant neighborhood, with cultural and shopping offerings within a block. We are a subway ride to anywhere within one of the greatest cities in the world, and all that it has to offer in terms of work and play. I can even get to Jersey by train quite conveniently. We are close to our families, and to a circle of friends. All this access, and we don't have to drive to get there. The thought alone puts a smile on my face. So for all the inconvenience, which I cannot ignore as a self-respecting suburbanite and a lawyer looking for all the possibilities, there is tremendous potential. I welcome the opportunity, and look forward to the experience because I know that it will only enrich my understanding of the built-up environment. Not to mention I can finally find a decent bagel and slice of pizza again.