Urban Review Fall 2009

URBAN REV I E WURBAN REVIEW / VOLUME 7 / ISSUE 13 / FALL 2009

2

U R B A N R E V I E W / V O L U M E 7 / I S S U E 1 3 / F A L L 2 0 0 9

souvenirs of the west side line: a memory of economic changeconor clarke

exploring chinatown: how a community is responding to global forcesyichen yu terri mills

4

6

table of contents

tHeoRY

PRactIce

IDeameaty issues on the table melanie bower

feeding the beast: planning for a sustainable food system in the metropolitan agealexandra handson

lit review: the urban desert phenomenonheidi exline

8

10

12

eyes wide shut: the east river plaza cba lessons learned paulo h. lellis

nyc and ppp: an update on the private role within public infrastructure terri mills

the landlord-tenant Relationship in the Wake of 100 Rezoningsahmed tigani

14

16

18

3


Managing Editor& CrEativE dirECtor

The Urban Review Staff would like to thank the students for their outstanding contributions and the Auxiliary Enterprise Board for their support. This issue was printed by Greendot, a division of Pruduktion, Inc.*All references available upon request.

Dear Fellow Urbanist,

Let’s hear it for New York—and Jay-Z and Alicia Keys for ingeniously reminding us that the renowned streets of NYC can take us anywhere, that people from all walks of life around the world seeking opportunity and change exists and that this very type of ambitious energy infused with hope has transformed and shaped one of the greatest cities in the world today. But with such greatness comes responsibility—and a price. As rising planners and policy makers, it is our responsibility to lead, educate and effectively plan for the future—now, more than ever.

December 2009 marks the thirteenth issue of the Urban Review and the end of an unprecedented decade: one that has sent shocking waves of change—largely due to record human growth, development and economic success followed by disruptive unconscionable decisions and actions—with New York City as its epicenter. The past ten years have consisted of extreme highs and lows beginning with the traumatic attacks of September 11th followed by a sharp temporary disruption in the economy. New Yorkers rebounded immediately with short-term economic fixes to recoup and regain what had been lost as evidenced by the record rise of the financial and housing markets and land appreciation, all of which symbolized economic strength and unparalleled growth through numbers: a universal language that could be easily communicated to the rest of the world. But what remained invisible during this time were poor policy choices, ill-conceived private sector actions and the overall deregulation the financial markets, which in turn, has only exacerbated the nation’s current economic state. Layer on the impacts of unforeseen speeds of urbanization occurring in the BRIC countries and climatic disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and detrimental earthquakes and tsunamis in Asia; global policy makers and planners have quite an agenda. NYC policy makers, however, have made considerable progress by adapting and planning for the future with the 100 rezonings, PlaNYC and developing new initiatives dedicated towards diversifying the economy. Questions remain. What about the ubiquitous need of affordable housing, sustaining the immigrant business communities, providing access to healthy foods and fixing the aging infrastructure. How will we prioritize these issues?

This semester’s outstanding contributors reflect on some of these pervasive issues that have resulted from the decade’s whirlwind of extreme change from three perspectives: personal, community and regional. The articles address and challenge policy decisions as well as present innovative approaches and solutions to meet future needs of New York and beyond. Thanks to my fellow colleagues and music streaming through my ipod, I am inspired to not just walk the streets of New York, but to improve them—with the very same energy that makes this city so great. I encourage you to think creatively and do the same.

Terri Mills Managing Editor

table of contents

staff

aSSiStant Editor

Melanie Bower Heidi Exline Alexandra Hanson Terri Mills Bernetta Parson Ahmed Tigani

StudEnt pEEr rEviEw board a SpECial thankS

ahMEd tigani - is a first year MUP and is interested in the interesection between politics and economic development issues and serves as the APA student representative.

MElaniE bowEr - serves as the president of GUAPA and is a second year MUP. She is an NYC history buff interested in pat-terns in land use at the urban/rural interface.

JESSiCa hECkEr - is a second year MUP and interested in creative approaches towards addressing issues in sustain-able and international devel-opment.

JiM diEgo - is an architect and a creative type. Jim is a second year MUP with a focus in eco-nomic development and can be found performing with his a cappella singing group.

aSSiStant dESign Editor

layout EditorS

tErri MillS - a second year MUP with a focus in the relation-ship between environmental design and the socioeconomic landscape. Terri aspires to cre-ate change through intelligent forms of development within an international context.

theory

there is no better time than a weekday morning to discover Inwood Hill Park. Protected and well preserved, the 200 acres of barely manicured grounds arguably hold New York City’s deepest roots. No matter how much New York City history you have read or heard, there is something much more profound about discovering a living, concrete piece of it: one that has been recycled and reworked, over again and again, to adapt to urban change. Inwood Hill Park is not only character-ized by a natural landscape, but also by a deep contrasting texture, that consists of scattered ruins and structures, which have over time been shaped by New York City’s economic cycles. I set out for a walk to revisit a few favorite places to learn more and to remember why and how his-tory repeats itself.

I entered Inwood Hill Park and headed to the northern most point of Manhattan where the Harlem River curves around Spuyten Duyvil and empties into the Hudson River. I could see the old swing bridge—a

product of Robert Moses’ West Side Improvement Project, which was first constructed for freight trains but now serves a different need by car-rying Amtrak passenger trains—and the Hudson River flowing under the Tappan Zee Bridge and the George Washington Bridge before emp-tying out into the Atlantic. As I looked south, I noticed that the entire west side of the park, a large open space, on this weekday morning, was completely stripped bare of recreating urbanites. It appeared as though the park were from another time: dirt soccer fields, rather than typical turf grounds, filled with oddly-shaped stones, small and large; the old roller-hockey rink that has been recycled for Mexican volleyball use; the Indian Caves in the preserved wilderness where this island Mannahatta was founded—and the eroded old paths lined with broken lights that still lead the way. All of these scattered objects share a common thread: a memory. This memory was based on historical changes—economic and political—and now lends itself as a present snapshot infused with the future.

4


Conor Clarke

s o u v e n i r s of the west side line

“The city . . . does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand, written in the corners of the streets, the gratings of the windows,

the ban“The city . . . does not tell its past, but contains it like the lines of a hand, written in the corners of the streets, the gratings of the windows, the banisters of the steps, the antennae of the lightning

rods, the poles of the flags, every segment marked in turn with scratches, indentations, scrolls.”—Italo Calvino (1974:11)

A MeMorY of eConoMiC ChAnGe

Parked on an inward-looking bench, a massive wrought iron fence came into relief. From a distance the fence appeared to have been over-taken by time in the form of the surrounding greenery, but the real sense of history in this fence is not clear until one stands up close and peers inside. The history slowly crystallized when the iron fence met its prede-cessor: a rusty old chain link fence half its height, standing close behind as if providing moral support. The two fences were brilliantly suspended by a jungle of vines, representing the fascial tissue of history, inherently weaving through both fences, connecting the two. I continued to peer through this four dimensional thicket just as Marcel Proust might have when he viewed the edifice of his old church in Combray and conceived of it as occupying a fourth dimension: time (1981:66). These objects and structures reflect the emblematic history of the West Side Line, a railroad that was both abandoned and brought back into use due to great economic, political and social change.

“By the 1860's, the Lower West Side was a bustling center of ship-ping, and loft and factory development extended up to the West 50’s, following the railroad.” (Gray 1988) That railroad was the West Side Line. Constructed in 1851, the railroad tracks moved freight from Al-bany down along the eastern bank of the Hudson River, across the old swing bridge located in Inwood Hill Park, down the west side of Man-hattan past 34th Street now known as Penn Station to the endpoint at Chambers and Hudson Streets. The West Side Line was core to the eco-nomic expansion of the old manufacturing and warehousing neighbor-hoods, the Meatpacking District and Chelsea, and further responsible for forming the physical development and supporting infrastructure of these neighborhoods. How things change, greatly.

After World War II, the City’s existing urban landscape largely shifted. New York City experienced the impact of sprawl and its mul-tiple economic and social implications. A major result of this sprawl was the decline of freight transportation, followed by parts of the West Side Line. As demand continued to decrease, the original freight route was discontinued in March 1983, causing freight service to thin even more and the High Line in Chelsea became obsolete (Scull 1991). Many argue that the reason for this abandonment was the rise of the interstate high-way system and the use of trucking as a more popular way to transport freight (Gray 1988, Friends of the High Line 2008), but attention must also be paid the decline of the manufacturing sector and new, emerging economic sectors in the City throughout the latter part of the twentieth century.

In the early 1950’s the manufacturing sector as a whole began to decline causing the City to lose many working class jobs. The decline remained consistent throughout the 1980s, accelerating particularly in the period from 1977 to 1989. While this trend was in response to past economic and socials shifts, its impacts are still experienced today. While the city added jobs during this period, the number of manufacturing jobs decreased from 538,600 to 360,600, as goods-producing corporations increasingly chose to relocate outside the city for cheaper space, lower operational costs and easy highway access. Meanwhile, jobs in financial and corporate services, entertainment, culture, tourism and health and social services increased dramatically (Freeman 2000:143, 293). The early part of this change was captured in what Danny Lyon calls “the de-struction of Lower Manhattan,” a massive project that demolished many of the old industrial and food warehouse buildings that occupied Lower Manhattan to pave the way for the World Trade Center and other finan-cial symbols. (Lyon 2005).

By the late 1990s, a combination of new policy making and emerg-ing economies led New York City to become a more habitable and en-joyable place for professionals and an attractive destination for tourists,

a result of the finance, insurance and real estate industries and the con-comitant gentrification of erstwhile violence-plagued neighborhoods. The early 1990s were a true turning point for the city, but it was not experienced until almost a decade later. Many neighborhoods in the city were still seen as unattractive to the wealthier social groups that fueled these emerging economic sectors. Consequently, the West Side Line was revived and brought back into service—except this time it carried pas-sengers to Penn Station and points south.

These same rail tracks, known as the West Side Line, that run along western Manhattan through the Bronx and along the Hudson River provided a passenger service parallel to the tracks of the popular Metro-North, which carries daily commuters through the heart of the city to upstate destinations. Theodore W. Scull wrote, “Metro-North’s former NYC Hudson River passenger main line diverges east at Spuyten Duyvil along the Harlem River and through central Harlem to the Park Avenue Tunnel. In so doing, it passes through a depressing scene of urban decay, whereas the West Side Line makes for a noble New York City entrance.” (1991:17) The once old freight route was resurrected, becoming new and alive again. It adjusted to the demand, carrying people instead of goods and commodities. The new route was inaugurated on a spring day in 1991 with a special train carrying politicians and enthusiastic passengers past the thickets of Inwood Hill Park, through the soon to be revital-ized Riverside Park and into the tunnel at 123rd Street that had been freshly cleared of the homeless people, who had occupied it throughout the 1980s.”

As I continued my walk, I noticed much of the past debris had been cleared, but some scattered remnants remained, including the decayed buildings of old freight stations represented by plaques that visually pre-serve the memories of the many contractors who built the West Side Line railroad and thus contributed to part of the rise and fall of New York City’s manufacturing history.

The rusty old fence, merged to the new, is a remnant of the old West Side Line and is emblematic of New York’s turn toward revitalization. This fence serves as a concrete symbol and is just one of the many sou-venirs I have been collecting over the past few years that have deepened the contrast of history as the forward-looking present continues to grow alongside and on top of them. Walter Benjamin understood commodi-ties in this way, arguing that “Experience is ‘withered,’ a series of ‘souve-nirs.’ 'The “souvenir” . . . is the schema of the transformation of the com-modity into a collector’s item.’” (Buck-Morss 1989:189) Similarly, the old fence and train tracks were originally mass produced in commodity form to the standardized specifications of American railroads. But they have taken on a new character as the remnants of an old way of life. The rust and the vines have collected and transfigured these commodities in the form of a souvenir.

Inwood Hill Park contains souvenirs scattered throughout its natu-ral landscape. A glance will reveal the wrought iron gate and its living surroundings that tower above the soccer fields. Beyond the foreground, is the rust, a souvenir that represents a longstanding transformation of urban change and holds a deep part of New York City history. When reading these souvenirs, I see the abandonment of old industrial New York, a city whose open carcass lies decaying along the West side of Manhattan down through Chelsea and into the Meatpacking District. But right on top, screams the whistle of the new economy riding majesti-cally on the Amtrak trains to mid-town and points south.

Conor Clarke is a first year MUP at Hunter College.

5


DoyersStreet taken by Munual Hertado, Flicker

6


explorinG ChinAtown: how A CoMMunitY is respondinG to G l o b A l f o r C e s

Yichen Tu & Terri Mills

there is no place like Chinatown—New York City China-town, that is. Where space was once considered an ethnic ghetto and a decaying slum in Manhattan’s Lower East Side, is now treated as a valuable commodity—positioned as the next rising neighborhood as young, eclectic urbanists pour the streets seeking to unwind from a 12 hour day at a nearby underground bar or swanky burlesque lounge—priced as the next coveted place and destination: a place to profit from, rather than a place to experience culture and appreciate the real beauty of what it means to be diverse in New York City. And, unfortunately, the experience of Chinatown’s invaluable historical and rich cultural landscape that represents generations of Chinese immigrants appears to be depreciating rather quickly. The largest Chinese population in the Western Hemisphere in-habits Chinatown today; however, this is changing. Already, China-town’s sheer density and cultural diversity lends the Lower East Side a unique level of sensual stimulation—from the bright and bold fluores-cent Chinese signage that wraps around the street walls to the fresh, exotic foods for sale—one that distinguishes the neighborhood from all others. As in other immigrant neighborhoods, it is easy to observe Chinatown’s multiple physical transformations as evidenced by multi-faceted, tightly knit layers of old and new urban fabric—a sole reflec-tion of perpetual economic, political and social cyclical change. Over the past decade, the suddenness of change has become over-bearing and started to loosen these existing layers. Specifically, recent macro socioeconomic forces compounded with micro political and market-driven pressures have even caused some of them to break—revealing vulnerable spaces that hold thousands of stories about a for-gotten history and social evolution that has internally and externally shaped the Chinatown we experience today. Yet as this politically pow-erless community continues to become more vulnerable to a market driven-economy with a burgeoning real estate market, the question remains: what is being shaped for tomorrow? And for whom? Gentrification and displacement are general and all too common terms that only attempt to describe these effects of change within Chi-natown, and, in fact, undermine critically the breadth and depth of the deep-rooted socioeconomic and political issues that remain. Since Mandarin is my native tongue, I, with the help of a fellow classmate,

arranged for an informal interview with an active member of the busi-ness and residential community to learn more. My experience was invaluable and the lessons learned were greater than any newspaper article, blog, magazine story or report could provide.ChiNatowN: iNdividuaLLY uNited Meirong Song, a member of the Chinese Staff and Workers As-sociation (CSWA), a non-profit dedicated to fighting against social inequality among immigrants, was kind enough to meet with me and discuss the economic relationships that have built and sustained the diverse and unique business community not just within Chinatown, but among Asian communities across the US such as Colorado and Florida; and how forces of economic change and recent policy issues—global and New York centric—have disrupted what [their] community has worked so hard to build. I met Meirong at her flower shop on East Broadway, an area heav-ily populated by the Cantonese. Originally bounded by Mott Street, Pell Street and Bayard Street, Chinatown was home to early Chinese immigrants, who came over to the United States from the southern coastal providence of Guangdong situated in the Pearl River Delta Re-gion, one of China’s leading economic regions, near the highly urban-ized cities: Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Dongguan, directly across from Hong Kong. These generations of diverse immigrants have engraved a deep cultural history into today’s thriving economic and residential community of Manhattan’s Lower East Side, which has grown to oc-cupy two square miles bounded by Broadway on the west, Essex Street on the east, Madison Street on the south and Broome Street to the north. Currently, Chinatown’s social makeup consists of ethnic groups from Hong Kong and the Guangdong, Toisan, and Fujian provinces of China. As I spoke with Meirong, I learned that the population is dramatically shifting and growing even more dynamic with more and more immigrants coming from Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Fujian province in China. What is most amazing about these culturally dis-tinctive Asian populations is the little space they share, especially at home, and yet, how united these populations remain, something the US could learn from. As such, given the great risks and successes these communities have experienced and how they have added to the rich-ness in diversity within Manhattan, why do current policy trends such as the rezoning the Lower East Side appear to act as barrier to growth,

7


rather than sustain and support the socioeconomic landscape within Chinatown today? forCes of ChaNge Meirong was animated and passionate. She seemed like a woman who knew the streets, the key players and actors, and could speak about the forces of change Chinatown was experiencing. I was right. It is little wonder Meirong became a successful business woman owning a flower shop and an event planning business. I entered the spotless, obviously well-managed flower shop that my new friend had successfully built over 15 years along with her event planning company, and she went on to explain that new and costly development projects and luxury condominiums are resulting in very high retail and commercial rents, which have now, put her flower shop business at risk. Specifically, Meirong noted “the rent is currently four times higher than the previously negotiated price.” I was shocked and was curious what that equated to in actual dollars for the flower shop and other businesses. She continued to fully disclose the lease negotia-tion process, where landlords demand extra money, which is similar to a security deposit and as I learned later is technically referred to as key money, which is not even returned in some instances—in order to just hold the space as the tenant and landlord discussed the terms. If this "key money" is not recorded, it is deemed illegal. This practice is sur-prisingly ubiquitous throughout the City, involving lease transactions, specific to small businesses, especially those owned by immigrants. I wondered how the City could allow these practices and if there was a way to prevent it. We discussed how these existing illegal transactions layered on top of the physi-cal and socioeconomic side effects from the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster and the record-time rebound of a high performing, market-driven economy, which we are all now experiencing another cycle of negative side effects of sudden economic success and supportive policy or possibly lack thereof. So what does this all mean for Meirong and her family? Most likely, she explained that she and her non-English speaking family will be forced to move from her home and Chinatown, leaving behind friends and loyal customers, which will tax the productivity of other small businesses that rely on Meirong’s business. But if Meirong is lucky, the Fujian community groups and friends will come through with a plan to help her. I have full confidence that they will. As an immigrant from Fujian, Meirong opened her flower shop with the help and guidance of the tightly woven Fujianese community within Chinatown. Meirong told me she launched her event planning business soon after the flower shop, which provides tailored services, planning and coordination for many, if not all of the Fujianese funerals and weddings in Chinatown, taking care of the flowers and printers and even making reservations at Fujianese restaurants nearby. This is one example of many socioeconomic relationships among the entre-preneurs that have created a cultural symbol in Chinatown in which the Cantonese, Fujianese, Taiwainese and Chinese clearly illustrate how the collective relationships serve as the backbone to the sustain-ability and growth of their small business communities—in New York and the US. While Chinatown itself may have minimal political power within New York City, a robust internal political framework does indeed ex-ist. What I didn’t realize was how far, literally, these social networks

and frameworks extend: across the country. And how recently due to the taxing economic forces, more and more businesses and residents are moving to other Chinatowns, outside of New York City, for better working conditions and quality of life. However far the families and networks do extend, I learned that they still—quite often—come back to Chinatown in Manhattan for special events and celebrations, goods and services and even labor. Impressive. But, what happens when the socioeconomic chain starts to break? What happens when the small businesses are forced out along with residents that have built them? The impacts are mostly experienced by Chinese immigrants and busi-nesses in Manhattan, but also ripple as far as Miami and Colorado. Thus as rising high-end development projects drive up existing rents and new populations emerge, the social dynamics will start to reflect a new sense of culture: one that has different values—or maybe even valueless. Meirong took me to the mall on East Broadway to meet and speak with a few more of Meirong’s friends and business owners. I was intro-duced to Jimmy Zhang, the owner of a large banquet style restaurant that specializes in authentic seafood cuisine. As Meirong introduced me and explained my interests in learning about the business commu-nity’s challenges in Chinatown, Mr. Zhang kindly shared his personal and professional trajectory with me. Through a different yet similar lens, I was inspired all over again.

Mr. Zhang provided me with another ex-ample of how [global] economic drivers negatively affected the operations and location of his manufacturing business in the Garment District; if it were not for the Chinatown community groups and tightly knit social networks, he would be bankrupt and would not be able to operate his restaurant business that he has come to love. We continued to speak to a few more local immigrant business own-ers who are being forced out of current leases or suffering from extremely high rents due to the surrounding new devel-opments. From the printer companies to the kitchen suppliers to the ethnic food

distributors and labor exchange agencies, the Catonese, Fujianese and Chinese exuded great passion and sense of pride, but at the same time, frustration and stress was ingrained in their facial compositions. Is there a way that policy can provide adaptive services and linkages be-tween the existing and emerging Chinatown communities. How can the two benefit one another? What are the ways to leverage China-town’s economic relationships and strengths as the current population and businesses communities try to adapt to the impacts of change? I stood on the edge of Canal Street and watched a crowd of tourists bargaining with the Chinese vendors. The streets were over-flowing with people. Some bustled around others who huddled around the vendors, negotiating products. I smiled as I was reminded of home. There is no other place in the City—or maybe in the country—that merges the western culture and eastern culture with such distinction, sustaining a clear portrait of each. Have New Yorkers forgotten the value of this social dynamic? Maybe. Or maybe they just forgot how to experience it and appreciate the beauty of diversity. Maybe the City should consider examining ways to preserve space that lends such a unique experience, so that Chinatown can adapt to change and grow, rather shrink. Yichen Tu is a first year MUP at Hunter College. Terri Mills is a second year MUP at Hunter College.

idea

8


Melanie Bower

in 1905, Upton Sinclair published his groundbreaking novel The Jungle. This exposé of Chicago’s meat packing industry shocked readers with its accounts of unsafe and unsanitary practices in slaughterhouses and processing plants. The reforms prompted by The Jungle paved the way for the Pure Food and Drug Act and, eventually, the FDA. More than a hundred years have passed since the public's eyes were opened to the problems surrounding the production of meat. Yet rather than moving toward a solution, the issue has seemingly grown more complex. Our food seems no safer than it was a century ago, with the FDA recall-ing hundreds of thousands of pounds of E. Coli tainted beef each month. Food poisoning aside, Americans are coming to terms with the numerous health problems associated with eating meat. Heart disease, the number one killer in the US, is linked to diets high in red meat as are certain cancers and strokes. Add to this fact the undeniable environmental impact of raising meat. Perhaps it is easy to see why

some vegetarians are so self-righteous. Today, it is not just on-the-fray vegetarians who point to the problems with eating animals. Issues surrounding meat are increas-ingly noted in the media and reputable organizations like the Pew Charitable Trust have conducted major studies which criticize our

systems of growing meat. America has made strides in understand-ing the magnitude of the problem. Books like The Omnivore’s Dilemma and Fast Food Nation are the Silent Spring of a new generation of eaters who demands to know where their food comes from. Yet even as we unravel the complexity of America’s food systems, meat hardly seems to be at the center of the debate and it is far from the minds of planners and policy makers. From a production perspective, growing meat is incredibly ineffi-cient. Almost one third of land on

this planet is involved in livestock production. Estimates vary, but it takes about 10,000 gallons of water and 5 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. And it takes more than just corn to and water to turn a cow into a burger. From start to finish, it takes

“THE INTENSIvE ENERGY INPUTS REqUIREd To GRow MEAT MEANS THAT lIvESToCk oPERATIoNS ACCoUNT foR 18% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions - MoRE THAN THE ENTIRE TRANSPoRTATIoN SECToR.”

MeAtY issues on the tAble

9


35 calories of energy to produce one calorie of beef. So what does all this waste mean? The intensive energy inputs required to grow meat mean that livestock operations account for 18% of worldwide greenhouse gas emission. That’s more that the entire transportation sector. And it’s not just wasted energy that poses a problem. The manure generated by industrial farm ani-mal production (IFAP) is responsible for widespread pollution of groundwater. The EPA estimates that 75% of all water pollution in the US is caused by agriculture, mainly by IFAP. In some Mid-western communities, tap water is virtually undrinkable due to high levels of contaminants from livestock operations. Illnesses caused by contaminated tap water are just one of the public health risks associated with meat. The global epidemic of diet related disease is just one way that meat makes us sick. E coli is found beef more than all other foods, causes 75,000 illnesses, 2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths, in addition to costing over $400 mil-lion annually; yet, the nation is currently gripped with fear over the swine flu “pandemic”. Media outlets have devoted countless head-lines to new cases, and the debate on vaccina-tion rages. However, there is general reluc-tance to acknowledge the connection be-tween CAFO’s and outbreaks like swine flu and bird flu. These diseases, which origi-nated in animals, have mutated to infect hu-man populations. The connections between intensifying livestock production, globalized networks of food dis-tribution and global pandemics remain uncertain. But given its importance, these connections are sur-prisingly given little attention in the me-dia. For example, the nation seems to prefer to collectively focus on fighting the “epidemic” or the symptom, rather than identifying the causes and addressing the problem. Even as Americans clamor for the swine flu vaccine, the Worldwatch Institute notes that livestock in the country consume eight times more antibiotics than humans do. This absurdity goes virtually unmentioned. Eating meat has become so ingrained in American lifestyle that is it hardly questioned. Nevertheless, the problems associated with meat are becoming hard to ignore. The examples cited above are just several of ways in which growing meat harms the environ-ment and threatens our health. Yet while driving an SUV is looked down upon as wasteful, hamburgers seem immune from the culture

of shaming which coerces individuals into making more responsible choices. The Small Planet Institute likes to gently remind people that if Americans replaced just one meat-based meal with a vegetar-ian dish, it would be the same as taking 5 million cars off the road. But burgers are as American as apple pie, and America’s per-capita meat consumption has doubled since the 1950’s and continues to rise. Ultimately, food remains a personal choice—and less than 4% of adult Americans choose not to eat meat. Why should planners, policy makers, or anyone else, care what other choose to eat? Quite simply, the implications of eating meat extend far beyond the realm of mere personal choice. The cost of meat—to our collective health and to our environment—is shared by us all. In many cases, the implications of eating meat are obscured by the complex and largely invisible power dynamics that control where our food comes from. To look at a Big Mac and see melting polar ice caps takes some imagination. It is within the purview of planners to make our systems of farming meat more transparent and

accountable. For ex-ample, Sweden is leading the way with a voluntary labeling system for food items which provides the item’s “carbon footprint”. The US has some noteworthy exam-ples to learn from. New York City re-cently passed laws requiring franchise food operators to post nutritional in-formation alongside menu items, and Los Angeles passed a zoning ordinance banning construc-tion of new fast-food restaurants in

a neighborhood with a disproportionately high rate of diet related disease. These are illustrations of how good policy and planning can help raise consumer awareness and make responsible choices about food. A wholesale ban on burgers is not likely anytime in the near future. But our current system of farming meat is not sustainable and America needs a paradigmatic shift in its attitude toward meat. Planners and policy makers can lead this shift—by moving meat to the center of the debates on climate change and food security. Melanie Bower is a second year MUP at Hunter College.

“E ColI IS foUNd IN BEEf MoRE THAN All oTHER foodS, CAUSING 75,000 illnesses, 2,000 hospitalizations and 60 deaths and costs over $400m annually; YET THE NATIoN IS CURRENTlY GRIPPEd wITH fEAR ovER THE swine flu “pandemic”.”

10


fEEdING the beast:PlANNING foR A

SUSTAINABlE food SYSTEM

on Earth Day 2007, Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled a comprehensive plan designed to make New York City a national leader in environmental sustainability. PlaNYC 2030 set ambitious goals for energy efficiency, increased green space, clean water and improved public transit, even as the city is projected to grow by nearly a million people over the next two decades. However, con-spicuously missing from the plan was food. PlaNYC makes only a passing mention of food in connection to revitalizing the area around the Hunts Point Terminal Market. It is not unusual that New York City’s comprehensive plan left food out of the picture; planning has been ignoring food for decades. What is unique is the public outcry that followed. After its release, organizations, academics and members of the general public throughout the city raised concerns that PlaNYC contained no substantive proposal for the future of food in New York City. The public’s response was so strong that the Mayor’s Office of Long Term Planning and Sus-tainability intends to revise PlaNYC in the coming year to include a section on food. This reaction reflects a growing public attention to food issues, evident in the expansion of alternative food mar-kets, the increasing prevalence of food related stories in the national media and the popularity of authors like Michael Pollan, who are sounding the alarm about the unsustainable nature of America’s current food system. The issue of food sustainability for New York and many other

metropolitan areas across the country is two-fold. The first concern deals directly with the environmental sustainability of the way we transport, buy and consume food. The current industrial food sys-tem prioritizes large-scale monocultures and is highly fossil fuel intensive. It takes as many as ten calories of energy to produce just one calorie of food this way. In addition, up to a third of the America’s current greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to food production, processing and transport (Pollan, 2006). The chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that are required to sustain large scale monocultures further contribute to environmen-tal degradation as they run off into local water sources and cause soil erosion and top soil loss, making farmlands less viable for future growing. In addition, globalization has further contributed to the environmental impacts of this system with an international food trade that includes such wacky exchanges as Britain both importing and exporting 15,000 tons of waffles annually (Rosenthal, 2008). While much of this current system is a result of federal policies that have supported these types of large-scale industrial farms and international food trade, metropolitan areas such as New York must grapple with the realities of where our food comes from in order to ever be able to claim authentic sustainability. The second issue of sustainability goes to the heart of the food system: we all must eat to survive. Metropolitan areas must figure out how they are going to feed their growing populations over the

Alexandra Hanson

IN THE

m e t r o -politan AGE

www.urban-age.net

11


coming decades. The food riots that have taken place all over the world in recent years illustrate this. The recent increase in the use of food to develop biofuels, coupled with poor harvests in 2006 and 2007 resulted in hyperinflation in 2008 for food staples such as wheat, corn and oil that led food riots in over 15 countries (Rice, 2009). While mainly in the developing world, these riots reveal how closely civic order is tied to a country being able to provide enough food for its citizens. In America, however, we currently face a very different problem. Policies put in place dur-ing the Nixon administration and nurtured by subsequent ad-ministrations have created a surplus of cheap calories that are making many Americans sick. In 1972, a combination of massive sales in American grain exports and a poor farming season drove food prices in US to record highs. As a response to political pres-sure brought on by the increased cost of food, Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture designed a system of direct government payments to farmers, which flooded the market with cheap commodity crops and ensured that Americans would always have access to inexpensive food. This policy benefited major agribusiness com-panies such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Cargill by enabling them to purchase raw materials such as corn and soy and transform them into “value-added” products that come with a substantial mark-up in price (Pol-lan). While a boon for agribusiness, the regular consumption of these products is wreaking havoc on the health of mil-lions of Americans. This trend in food processing has been exacerbated over the past few decades by disinvest-ment in center cities by the supermarket industry. Beginning in the early 1980s, supermarkets began to follow their wealthier, of-ten white customers out to the suburbs, claiming that the higher costs of operating in urban areas associated with rent, insurance, security and space constraints made it inefficient for them to op-erate in inner-city areas. After all, they argued, supermarkets are a business. The result was millions of poor, largely minority urban residents that were left in the middle of food deserts, without ac-cess to fresh produce (Winne, 2008). As the supermarkets moved out, the fast food chains moved in. This trend has been mirrored in rural areas, as once-diverse farmlands have been converted into monocultures for commodity crops. Many American farmers no longer produce food that they and their families can eat. Due to low population density and extreme poverty, these rural areas lack the economic clout to sustain supermarkets. With these food deserts has come the crisis of obesity and related health epidem-ics that are now straining the American medical system and dra-matically impacting the quality of life for millions of Americans. If current trends continue, health care costs related to obesity would account for one in every five dollars- or $344 billion- spent on health care in 2018 (Sack, 2009). While supermarkets have begun to creep back into cities, much work still needs to be done to address the many urban and rural areas that remain in desper-

ate need of access to fresh produce. Addressing the sustainability of our food system is especially important in the context of America’s recent transformation into a metropolitan nation. The interconnectedness of the metropoli-tan region demands a new form of governance and style of plan-ning to effectively manage this new reality. Government officials and planning authorities have already begun to recognize this fact in some areas, particularly concerning transportation. Yet again, food is conspicuously missing from regional planning efforts. The need to incorporate food into regional planning becomes even more pressing in light of the reality that more than half of total farm production in the US, including 86% of fruit and vegetable production and 63% of dairy production, takes place within these “urban influenced” areas (American Farmland Trust). At more than double the national average, the rapid growth of metro ar-eas poses a significant threat to the preservation of these vital farmland resources and regional farm infrastructure (American Planning Association, 2007). The idea that we can negate this problem by simply importing enough food to cover the regional loss in production capabilities is predicated on the belief that transportation fuel costs will remain stable, an assumption that

has proven false over the past few years. Protecting local and regional agri-cultural capacities both within and be-yond metropolitan borders is essential to the sustainabil-ity and security of America’s food sys-tem. On May 11th, 2007, just a

few short weeks after Mayor Bloomberg unveiled PlaNYC, the American Planning Association (APA) released its Policy Guide on Community and Regional Food Planning. While overly sup-portive in its treatment of the current industrial food system, the APA’s guide lays the foundation for food systems planning to become part of the larger planning discourse. It recognizes that food runs through many of the challenges facing the US today, from the environment to public health and even demographics, noting that the aging population of farmers (over half of which are 65 or older) is a major concern for the future of farming in the US (American Planning Association, 2007). However, it is not enough to simply fold the idea of food into the existing so-cial and spacial landscape. In the words of journalist, author and now pop-food guru Michael Pollan, America can do better. We must do better if we are ever to achieve our much touted and desperately needed goal of a more sustainable society. With their unique, interdisciplinary understanding of the built environment, planners can and must be at the forefront of constructing this new food system to ensure the future sustainability, quality and safety of America’s food. Alexandra Hanson is a first year MUP at Hunter College.

“If current trends continue, health care

costs related to obesity would account for

one in every five dollars.”

obesity and other diet-related diseases have become an epi-demic in this country. And while a complex set of reasons related to policy, genealogy and social factors has been used to help explain why rates continue to climb, many studies are also looking at how limited access to healthy food might be contributing to the obesity epidemic. This literature review will discuss the increasingly pervasive issue of food access, how this problem disproportionately affects low-income and mi-nority people, its implications on immediate communities and potential solutions. prevAlenCe of food deserts

In both rural and urban low-income and minority communities, residents often find themselves living in the middle of food deserts: areas with limited options to healthy, affordable food. In densely packed urban areas, this generally means residents cannot easily access a supermarket or grocery store with a significant variety of options within a comfortable walking distance. Supermarkets have often left inner cities for economic reasons. Ac-cording to Mead (2008) the automobile allowed the wealthy and the middle class to move out of cities to suburbs; and because of their exten-sive buying power, they were able to bring the supermarkets with them. Another large economic factor that has caused supermarkets to leave is the cost of rents and complex lease terms, specifically in areas like New York City, which equates to slim profit margins. (Gonzalez, 2008). Pothukuchi (2005) noted that inner-city operational costs, such as labor and insurance, were found to be higher than outer-city or suburban ar-eas and further deter supermarket development there. Suburban markets also offered supermarket chains the ability to streamline their operations to cater to homogenous suburban populations. Altering this formula for minority community stores, typically within the inner-city, was seen to represent high marginal costs. Therefore, the supermarket and grocery store economic sustainability proved a success outside of the inner city—and supporting operations and services also fled. Other factors offered as explanations for supermarket flight, accord-ing to the Nayaga and Weinberg (1999), include more spacious and se-cure environments in the suburbs and strict inner city zoning ordinances that made it challenging for supermarkets to develop. dispArities in ACCess to heAlthful food

Given the fact that the supermarket businesses are primarily located outside inner cities, and that low-income and minority groups tend to live in the inner cities, it is little wonder that the literature finds evidence that food deserts tend to disproportionately affect low-income and minority neighborhoods more than upper and middle class neighborhoods. Powell, Slater, Mirtcheva, Bao and Chaloupka (2007) confirmed that disparities exist in food access among different socioeconomic and ra-cial groups. Their study focused on census and market data to deter-

mine income levels and prevalence of food stores by community. The data analysis found that low-income neighborhoods have fewer chain supermarkets and more non-chain grocery stores and convenience stores, noting that studies indicate that larger supermarkets and chain stores stock more healthful food than their smaller and non-chain counter-parts. In addition, they found that this disparity has affected minorities more severely than Whites. Even after taking income into account, the availability of chain supermarkets in Black neighborhoods was only 52% of that in White neighborhoods. Hispanic neighborhoods had only 32% as many chain supermarkets compared to non-Hispanic neighborhoods, and non-chain supermarkets and grocery stores were more prevalent in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Other study findings support the results of Powell’s findings. Mor-land, Wing and Diez Roux (2002) examined a similar question and found that there are over three times as many supermarkets in wealthier neighborhoods compared to lowest-wealth neighborhoods, and that su-permarkets are four times more common in White communities as com-pared to Black communities. iMpliCAtions of food deserts

When large supermarkets disappear from the urban core, the re-duction and limited food options can negatively impact the diets of the neighborhood's residents. Morland, Wing, Diez Roux and Poole (2002) showed that the physical availability of supermarkets meant residents were more likely to consume more fresh fruits and vegetables. Their find-ings complimented the findings of Cummins and Macintyre (2006) who cited a US study that indicated the presence of supermarkets was as-sociated with lower rates of obesity, and that low-income residents con-sumed more fresh fruits and vegetables when they were within sufficient proximity to a supermarket. Another area of the literature goes further and attempts to answer where there is a causal link between poor food access and diet-related diseases. In "Supermarkets, Other Food Stores, and Obesity: The Ath-erosclerosis Risk in Communities Study," Morland, Diez Roux and Wing (2006) attempted to determine if such a relationship between the availability of supermarkets, grocery stores and convenience stores to cardiovascular disease risk factors, like obesity, diabetes, and hyperten-sion, exists. About half the research participants lived in areas with at least one grocery store; however, only about 25% lived in an area with a supermarket. Morland, Diez Roux and Wing deferentiated between supermarkets and grocerty stores by defining supermarkets as large, cor-porate-owned chain stores and grocery stores as smaller, non-corporate owned food stores. From these groupings, they were then able to illus-trate that a higher amount of supermarkets was associated with a lower rate of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, and that a greater availability of grocery stores and convenience stores was associated with higher rates of obesity. Cholesterol levels among participants were not affected by the prevalence of supermarkets. While there were limitations to the study,

12


Heidi Exline

lit review the urbAn food desert phenoMenon

researchers were able to conclude that results strongly suggested there was a positive correlation between the local food environment and over-weight and obesity. Establishing a causal relationship between food deserts and diet-related diseases has been difficult. Regardless, food deserts can still have a negative impact on the health of a community’s residents. In "Barriers to Buying Healthy Foods For People With Diabetes: Evidence of Envi-ronmental Disparities," (Horowitz, Colson, Hebert & Lancaster, 2004) researchers conducted a survey of residents of East Harlem, New York City to determine the reasons diabetes patients were prevented from fol-lowing diet recommendations. The study investigated the availability and cost of food in East Harlem, where diabetes and obesity rates were the highest in the city, and compared it to the wealthy neighboring Upper East Side, which had the lowest rates of diabetes and obesity. The food landscape survey findings indicated that while East Har-lem had more food stores per capita, more of those stores were bodegas, and fewer of those stores stocked the recommended foods for diabetic patients. Furthermore, it was not a surprise to see that Upper East Side residents were more likely to live on the same block as what the study concluded were “desirable” stores (stores that carried at least one item from the recommended food items list); yet, East Harlem residents were more likely to live within a block of an “undesirable” store (defined as any store not clas-sified as desirable). Results of the study supported the other evidence: that when there are distance barri-ers to healthful food, people are less likely to access and consume the more healthful food, and therefore, residents’ health is negatively af-fected by poor food access in their neighborhood.potentiAl solutions

When examining the potential solutions to food deserts, the literature presents both policy and physcial approaches. A policy based strategy, for example, was initiated by The Food Trust, an advocacy organization in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Food Trust’s research ultimately led to the The Fresh Food Financing Initiative in Philadelphia—a rather large undertaking (Giang, Karpyn, Laurison, Hillier & Perry, 2008). In light of data indicating Philadelphia had the second lowest number of supermarket stores per capita of many of the major U.S cities, The Food Trust researched the impact on low-income Philadelphia communities and developed an advocacy campaign that was critical in surfacing the pervasive issues to the forefront of the po-litical discussions. The research resulted in, among other items, a map layered with supermarket purchasing data, mortality rates classified with the help of physicians from the Philadelphia Department of Health and demographic information. The final findings indicated an uneven dis-tribution of food was disproportionately affecting low-income residents who were found to have higher rates of diet-related diseases. As a result of the study conducted by the Food Trust, Pennsylvania then launched The Fresh Food Financing Initiative to help finance su-permarket development in low-income communities where traditional lenders were not always filling that role. The initiative has created thirty-two grocery stores in under served communities. Taking a physical approach in proposing another potential solution

to food access challenges in the city could prove to be urban gardening. Altieri, Companioni, Cañizares, Murphy, Rosset, Bourque and Nicholls (1999), conducted a case study on Havana, Cuba’s urban gardening pro-gram. The city was responding to the loss of trade they experienced due to the collapse of the socialist bloc in 1989 and was therefore looking for creative ways to access fresh food for its residents. They turned to urban gardening. By most accounts, the urban gardening program in Havana has been a success. Several factors can be attributed to this. Political support for the gardens was one important factor; second was appropriate resources including personell expertise to advise the communities. Mort impor-tant, Cuba created a government department to assist urban gardeners with a three prong approach: physical development responsible for help-ing to secure land rights for the gardeners; policy to enact city legislation for all available land to be available for food production; and community development responsible for successfully organized gardeners into clubs to pool resources. As a result, Cuban gardeners were successful in grow-ing food for themselves and were also able to give away produce to needy

community organizations or sell it to others. While the gardens pro-vided fresh produce to Havana residents, the positive effects of the urban gardens went beyond this basic need. The gardens helped build a sense of com-munity and empowered resi-dents. They provided a reason to clean up garbage-strewn lots. And they helped revive some traditional crops that had fallen out of use.ConClusion

The literature covers the issue of food deserts fairly ex-

tensively, but questions remain. Is there sufficient demand in low-income communities to support supermarkets, operationally and economically? Perhaps one reason supermarkets do not exist in low-income communi-ties is because residents of those communities are not buying healthful food. Or is the issue one of affordability? Does healthful food cost more than unhealthful products, and are residents able to afford the healthful food? For example, people with low incomes often pay their rent, electric bill, and medical bills before buying food, and therefore have to turn to soup kitchens and pantries for whatever food they can get for free, re-gardless of its value to their health. Further study related to people’s exposure to food deserts not just for part of their life, but for generations is also needed. It is possible that low-income children who grow up around fast food chains and live on blocks with only bodegas are being raised by parents who had similar experiences; and perhaps their grandparents also had similar experiences. Children who grow up in this environment become accustomed to shop-ping at bodegas, buying low quality, low nutritional value, convenience foods, so that as adults they continue the habits they learned as kids. When this is compounded by a lack of supermarkets and healthful food in the neighborhood, the challenge to eat healthy is even greater. There-fore, the demand for healthful food options remains low because genera-tions of knowledge have been lost due to extended exposure to barren food landscapes. Providing communities with this lost knowledge might be one piece—a large piece for that matter—of the fixing food desert problem.

Heidi Exline is a second year MUP at Hunter College.

“...IS THERE SUffICIENT dEMand in low-inCoME

CoMMunitiES To SUPPoRT SUPERMARkETS, oPERATIoNAllY

ANd ECoNoMICAllY?”

13


practice

e y e s w i d E shut

l e s s o n s l e A r n e d f r o M t h e east river plaza C b A

14


Paulo H. Lellis

a new face of Harlem has emerged. On November 12, 2009 the East River Plaza opened its doors and with big box store Costco welcoming its first customers. Located between 116th and 119th streets and Pleasant Avenue along the FDR Drive, the 500,000 sq. ft., the plaza has been mired in delay for over 10 years. It is now 90% leased. The new development brings hope to community residents like former Chairman of East Harlem’s Com-munity Board 11 (CB11) David Givens who contends that the “shopping center would provide jobs with benefits that are scarce in Harlem.” However, this is New York City, and many other residents oppose it. Residents fear that delivery trucks and air pollution will engulf their neighborhood once the mall is open; and that the plaza may not reflect the basic needs of the com-munity’s poor residents. Thus, the development merits a closer look. This article examines the use of community benefits agreements (CBA) and local political support to mitigate some of these concerns over the East River Pla-za development. Major concerns include the provision of local jobs, pollution mitigation, measures to reduce displacement, and the provision of access to the plaza’s retail products. While, many economic and political variables af-fect the development process, this article specifically recommends that com-munities remain vigilant in monitoring CBAs between in order to realize the benefits that were agreed upon during the development process.

community change East Harlem is a gateway community undergoing changes. The area has been home to Italians, African Americans, and Puerto Ricans since the 1930s. Currently, the area’s population is roughly 117,000 of whom 34% are African American and 32% are Puerto Rican. The yearly median household income is roughly $21,000. It was in this working class community, where the Blumenfeld Development Group (BDG), also known by their actions under Tiago Holdings, identified an opportunity to develop an abandoned site (See Figure 1).

In 1996, BDG purchased the old abandoned Washburn Wire Factory site for $3.1 million in order to develop a shopping center. The factory site, which had been out of service since 1976, was just one example of many manufacturing businesses leaving NYC during a period of economic restruc-turing. According to previous Deputy Mayor Dan Doctroff (2006), a few decades ago NYC was home to various manufactures, but these industries “suffered competition that has drawn manufacturing out of the Rust Belt. NYC had too many costs to hold onto these industries” (p. 22). Doctoroff highlighted the difficulties faced by industry and show how larger forces shaped the landscape in New York. With many lots being occupied by aban-doned factory buildings, the stage was set for new development in former manufacturing sites in East Harlem, NYC and the US.

In order to accommodate new economic growth, the City Planning Department rezoned the site of the factory in 1999 from an M2-2, manu-facturing area, to C4-4, which was intended to attract and encourage com-mercial business growth. Former East Harlem Councilman Philip Reed also favored the rezoning, reflecting the community’s and the city’s support of the development when the council voted 44-0. The site lies within the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Development’s designated NYC Empowerment Zone (NYCEZ) and it is part of the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone (UMEZ), which makes the project eligible for government funds. At the recommendation of the UMEZ Development Corporation (UMEZDC), the NYC Empowerment Zone Corporation (NYCEZC) approved $15 mil-lion in funding, of which $5 million were from federal block grant money, for the project in 2001. The factory was demolished by 2003 and, after years of seeking public subsidies, the project received financial support when Forrest City Ratner Company (FCRC) partnered with BDG in the development of the plaza.

increasing the profit margin

Developers and retailers are key economic development stakeholders in East Harlem. According to Quackenbush (2003), developers and re-tailers rely on market research companies to determine crucial factors, like household income, in order to locate businesses in neighborhoods. However, these statistics often ignore income density and highlight sparsely populated suburban areas with high incomes as areas for developments. Quackenbush (2003) quotes Milwaukee’s Mayor John Norquist and states that because of “dense population and purchasing power, developers are discovering city lo-cations” (p. 8). New York Times columnist Terry Pristin (2006) claimed that Costco has already tried to enter Manhattan in locations like 14th Street, 23rd Street, and 55th Street, as well as 116th Street. David Blumenfeld of BDG showed his enthusiasm for investing in the inner city when he said, “Harlem is in a boom.” Because of the potential to increase profits in inner cities, developers and retailers are seeking interest in larger developments.

new development & grassroot opposition

A vocal critic of the project was the East Harlem Business and Resi-dents Alliance (BARA), a group formed in 1998 as a response to the plaza development. BARA’s concerns included the pollution of additional traffic, displacement of businesses, and local hiring by the retailers and developers. In order to combat the project, which had received support representatives like East Harlem Councilman Philip Reed and a green light from the city, the organization turned to legal mechanisms.

BARA took action against the project on several occasions. In February of 2003, after the building demolition had begun, BARA requested

15


that the UMEZDC pursue a historic preservation review according to Sec-tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act because the project was receiving $5 million in federal funds. After no review took place, BARA filed a suit to require The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a review and force NYEZC, UMEZDC, and Tiago Holdings to stop demolition. On August 19, 2003, the district court dismissed the motion to halt de-velopment under the premise that the plaintiffs had “demonstrated neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor irreparable harm.” On June 11, 2004, the district court issued a statement that there was not enough federal involvement in the project for a review. An appeal was launched by BARA in September 27, 2005, and on November 22 it was decided that, based on information obtained from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a Section 106 was not applicable. Although BARA tried to stop the devel-opment citing environmental concerns, the organization was not successful. Much like the former, the City Planning Department and the City Council, the courts ruled in favor of the East Harlem development.

a community benefits agreement is formed

Community concerns regarding jobs, pollution, and displacement have been partially addressed by agreements formed between CB11 and Tiago Holdings. According to Gross, Leroy and Janis-Aparicio (2005), commu-nity benefit agreements are contracts between developers and communities which outline benefits that developers agree to provide in return for a com-munity’s support for a project. CB11 entered into an agreement with the developers that was formally stated in a document called a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In a letter from Bruce Ratner, David Blumenfeld, and Tiago Holdings (2007) to CB11, the developers conceded that despite entering into an agreement with UMEZ to have 35% of construction jobs for the East River Plaza site go to locals, they had only managed to reach a target of 27%. According to the developers, these figures were due to the spe-cialized labor during the early stage of the project. The developers claim they will exceed the target as constructions progresses. As for providing retail jobs to the local economy, the tenant lease agreements require tenants to make “good faith efforts” to have 60% of workers during year 1, 70% of workers during year 2, and 75% workers during the third year be locally hired. Yet, CB11 must keep a watchful eye because the agreement’s nonbinding lan-guage allowed the developers to fall below the construction jobs target.

The MOU has also addressed concerns over pollution. According to The New York Times, a figure from 1999 suggests that 20% of students in East Harlem schools have asthma compared to 5% - 10% nationally. In 2007, Immunologist Kiran Shah suggested that the figure for asthma rates among children in the area is more like 25%. BARA (1999) had expressed their concerns regarding the health of the community by stating that the devel-opment “will increase our asthma rates…the highest reported rate of asth-ma hospitalizations in the country.” In April of 2009, Community Board Member Matthew Goldstein commented on the development by stating, “Nobody is against job creation, but there are many health concerns.” The MOU outlines that Tiago Holdings will provide $100,000 to a non-profit for the purpose of green-scaping, or landscaping that is ecologically friendly, and $150,000 over three years to a health care provider for programs such as asthma prevention. The community will suffer from the development’s emis-sions for a combined return of under $300,000. Thus, monetary concessions have been used as a proxy for the community’s health.

Displacement of businesses has also been a key issue in the plaza’s de-velopment. Because the plaza’s site extended beyond the factory’s location, eminent domain was considered a viable option and thus used to clear areas for construction. One example included the razing of Minic Custom Wood-work, a 70 year old family business that located in Harlem in 1981. William Minnich and other members of the neighborhood filed a law suit against the project, but the trial court ruled it out due to the fact that the plaintiffs had missed an earlier chance to appeal under a findings and determination no-tice, which allowed for property condemnation. Mr. Minnich then brought a federal lawsuit challenging the merits of the notice of requirements in the

New York eminent domain law; but, the courts once again ruled that the suit was filed after the state court proceedings. Mr. Minnich agreed to sell the building of the family business. Although the removal of Mr. Minnich’s business may never be justified, the developer included provisions for local business assistance in the MOU. The developers will provide 20,000 sq. ft. of space at market rate for local businesses. Additionally, the developer will work with CB11 to provide start up assistance including waivers of rent for up to three months, a waiver of a security deposit, and the plaza will pay for a vanilla-box fit out, or adapting local businesses to a formulaic space in the plaza. The developers sought to address the displacement of businesses by offering 4% of the development’s retail space to local businesses. Thus, con-cessions were used by the developers to appease community concerns.

community benefits remain Questionable

One of the biggest controversies regarding the plaza was whether Cost-co’s products would be available to low-income Harlemites. In a public hear-ing on March 5, 2009, CB11 member Matthew Washington contended, “al-lowing Costco to come into Harlem without accepting food stamps would be a slap in the face.” He then urged the City Planning Commission and CB11 to vote against a special permit to give the retailer permission to make deliveries between 12 and 5 AM as means to stymie its ability to operate in the community and address community concerns over noise from overnight deliveries. Not only would the retailer not serve a portion of Harlem’s popu-lation, but its operations along the delivery route would subject Harlemites to sleepless nights because of noise pollution. Furthermore, Washington (2009) contends that Costco’s reasoning for not accepting food stamps in the location is that it would cost the company too much money to adapt their equipment to the specialized food stamps equipment. But, he then goes on to suggest that this reason is unfounded since the federal government provides equipment free of charge to stores that accept food stamps and earn over $100 a month. Nevertheless, the board voted to approve the permit on March 17, 2009 and the developer addressed some of the community’s con-cerns over the delivery route through concessions. The MOU stated that the developers would provide double panned glass windows and air condition-ers to residents whose windows face 116th Street between 1st and Pleasant Avenues as well as those facing Pleasant Avenue between 116th and 117th Street in order to mitigate the noise pollution.

But community leaders were key stakeholders for the interests of low-income residents as they urged the superstore to accept food stamps. Ac-cording to Jim Dwyer’s article on the May 12, 2009 edition of The New York Times, Councilman Jim Gioia had previously questioned the company’s refusal to accept food stamps at their Queens location. On May 19, 2009, Comptroller William C. Thompson sent a letter to the Chief Executive Of-ficer of Costco, Mark Sinegal, and requested that the company consider ac-cepting food stamps to furnish its reputation as a good neighbor and to stay competitive in a downtrodden economy. Combined with pressure from Congressman Charles Rangel, the political floodwaters finally persuaded Mr. Sinegal to allow the Harlem location to participate in Costco’s trial food stamps program. Thus, the involvement of community leaders and politicians forced a change in the retailer’s policy. At least one retailer in the plaza will be able to serve nearly 30,000 low-income residents.

lessons learned

The events surrounding the realization of the East River Plaza show how a community responded to new forms of development. Community support for the plaza came from representatives like David Givens, and dis-sent from groups like BARA. Major concerns over jobs, pollution, displace-ment and access to local goods and services in relation to the development were addressed in the formation of a CBA supported by political action from community representatives. However, due to other economic and political variables, the developer has had difficulties meeting the jobs target. Thus, it is highly recommended that CB11 and the community monitor the CBA such that they do indeed benefit from what was initially agreed upon.

Paulo H. Lellis is a second year MUP at Hunter College.

16


Terri Mills

nyC and pppAn updAte on the privAte role in publiC infrAstruC ture

we are at a crossroads as a nation. Global economic forces have joined and quickly risen to the speed and strength similar to a cate-gory 4 hurricane. And when unforseen interruptions hit, the impacts are felt throughout our social, economic and physical infrastructures. Historically, our physical infrastructure—specifically transportation—has served as the backbone to our economic productivity and vitality and has been able to sustain such robust forces. However osteoporosis has set in—and we are bearing the costs. Policy makers are responding to the rapid pace of globalization and urbanization by re-strategizing and currently debating viable alternative methods towards strengthening and sustaining the perpetually pervasive issue of the nation’s aging infrastructure. Obsolete energy grids, broken sewer systems and increasingly delayed trains is unacceptable, especially within densely populated urban regions. How can the US remain eco-nomically competitive when its infrastructure continues to depreciate whereas rising economies only continue to appreciate? So I ask: is public-private partnership a viable option? In NYC? In October 2008, I was invited to attend an event organized by experts in the transportation [infrastructure] in-dustry—public and private—to discuss the feasibility of the private-sector role within public infrastructure. Former US Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters led the keynote with strong support in the public-private partnership (PPP) as a smart investment option. Gener-ally, under the PPP model a public entity assigns responsibility to a private-sector partner through a meticulous, long-term contract or concession. According to the project and terms of the concession, the partnership investment benefits vary for both sectors and so does the risk. An up-front payment from the private-sector party is made to the public entity in exchange for an agreed percentage of revenues over a specific time frame such as a profits from toll collections. Given the current status of limited funding, national debt and the whirlwind of fluctuating economic variables, the idea of PPP as an in-vestment option has begun to pick up speed. For example, after the event last year, the Senate passed the $13 billion bill for Amtrak upgrades and Governor Paterson announced the newly formed commiss ion to s tudy the viability of maximizing New York State’s infrastructure as-sets through public-private partnerships. The Governor supported this initiative by claiming “the private sector can be a source of innovation, allowing us to increase the value, efficiency and safety of our assets like our aging infrastructure system.” The Governor is right and the final report findings in June 2009 supports this claim. Next steps will be

enacting the policy recommendations to allow for the recommended pilot projects to get implemented. Potential benefits include: increased efficiency gains through construction and operations; 25-40% in cost savings; increased quality of product and services; congestion mitigation; private sector assumes risk from public sector; and increased expert innovation which leads to new forms of economic development. But, do these benefits outweigh the costs and risks? Last year, Secretary Peters agreed that the above benefits are indeed worthwhile. She noted “In the past 3 years the US has conducted the highest number of public-private partnership infrastructure transactions thus far.” Other speakers and experts were not so positive and mentioned that New York is muddled with rigid policies and stringent regula-tions, which only decreases the potential viability of the PPP model. Challenges and risk include, but are not limited too: potential increase in transaction costs; contracts needing to be drafted project specific;

green developments requiring envi-ronmental review; and translating the process and concept. These barriers equate to time and costs and added risk for both sectors. The level of risk largely influences many investment decisions. In 2008 the US invested only 2% of their GDP into infrastructure related de-velopments, whereas China has in-vested 9% of their GDP. Moreover, China has allocated over $40 billion to fund new, green, infrastructure

projects while the US has excluded the busiest regional rail corridor and economic hub, the northeast corridor, from the $8 billion in high-speed rail stimulus funding. And locally lagging behind New York City has taken over 6 decades to invest in their subway expansion projects. Re-nowned as a city of reinvention, it appears as though the reinventing needs to be applied to the political infrastructure as well. Nonetheless New York is making progress, slowly. According to the key takeaways from Governor Paterson’s infrastructure investment study recommendations, the growing consensus is evident: private investment in public infrastructure is indeed a viable option and warrants the efforts of 26 pilot projects statewide. Completed major successes in the US include the Indiana Toll Road and the Chicago Skyway. Political power is required to achieve similar transactions. To remain globally competi-tive—specifically within the current economic climate—New York’s pol-icy makers should consider partnering and leveraging the expertise in the private sector to implement similar models, quickly, so we can strengthen our building blocks and continue to rise with the rest. Terri Mills is a second year MUP at Hunter College.

“our physical infrastructure has served as the backbone to our economic productivity and vitality;

however osteoporosis has set in”

THE landlord-tEnant RElATIoNSHIP IN THE wAkE of 100 rEzoningS

recently I was surprised to discover a letter under my door from a “Henry Fishbein”. The letter explained that my building along with a large section of the apartment buildings in East Harlem bought by Dawnay, Day Real Estate, a subsidiary of a larger London based fi-nancial group nearly six years ago, had filed foreclosure papers and were now under his receivership. Until the situation was resolved Mr. Fishbein would be overseeing our day-to-day needs through a new management company (actually it was the same old company just re-branded with a different name) while the mess was being sorted out and control could be transferred to a permanent owner. An emergency meeting was held the following Friday evening in the basement of Councilwoman Viverto’s office on 115th Street between Park and Lexington. Peo-ple came ready to talk—no scream—and pushed and shoved their way into the building. Amid yell-ing and confusion, hous-ing attorneys tried to help answer questions posed by worried tenants confused as to what this meant for their future stability and more importantly their leases that kept the roof over their families head. This kind of story is not unique and might start becoming a more common scenario for many New Yorkers. In a market already suffering from devalued properties bought during a pe-riod of high prices fueled by massive speculation, landlords are starting to make difficult decisions as they struggle to pay off excessive mortgages originally justified by the projected profits they expected to reap later on. It’s no secret that developers wheel a great deal of influence within City Hall as they pushed for incremental roll backs in renter's protection throughout the five boroughs. However, recently there has been a backlash and some landlords have been successfully tried in civil courts for abusing the agreements between the owners and their renters. Recent tenant rights legislation signed into law by Governor Patterson has given tenant advocates new hope. This was quickly followed by a big win when a recent decision by the New York Court of Appeals(www.wsj.com) held corporate developer giant Tishman Speyer and partner Blackrock Capital liable for illegally converting J-51 rent stabilized apartments into luxury condos in both the Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town properties to dramati-cally increase rents and reap enormous profits. But while some predatory buyers and flippers have been rightfully accused of wrong-doing, some small time landlords from organizations such as the Rent Stabilization Association say they are in danger of los-ing properties that they honestly have worked to maintain and keep up to date for their tenants while paying property taxes in excesses of $50,000

a year. Back in June smaller property landlords were front and center as hearings came up to discuss possible rent hikes. Constance Nugent-Mill-er, a nurse and owner of a six-unit building in Crown Heights, Brooklyn testified, “I use my second income as a nurse to pay fuel bills and make repairs. I do what it takes to provide quality housing my tenants can af-ford.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/nyregion/23rent.html) So while tenants usually remain the focus of our sympathy when it comes to the woes of housing rights, we see that this artificial growth in the hous-ing market has put a number of the system players at risk. These current events serve as the prism with which I now view the recent celebration of the Department of City Planning’s 100th rezoning. Many of these elements are benchmarks for PlaNYC 2030, the Mayor’s plan for the sustainable growth of our city. When it comes to housing,

the plan uses market forces and government subsidies in its prepa-ration for the expected 1 million more people expected to move here. This was recently echoed by people like Jarred Katseff, a policy advi-sor on land use issues at the Office of Long-term Planning and Sustain-ability. While at a con-ference for the reuse sector at City College this past month Jarred

explained how measured and realistic goals will create positive change when you’re in an economy that doesn’t have surpluses to work with.

As we go further we must view the consequences of our current ef-forts to expand housing. More importantly we should question whether the decisions we are creating a separate pool of disenfranchised renters out-priced and made powerless by our current policies. By making our housing market more attractive through deregulation we could end up inviting the kind of high-risk betting that endangers the security of both renters and some landlords that are already living here. The only way to get back to a balanced relationship between owner and tenant is to ensure that the policies that are ignored through waivers, variances and public tax subsidies are more regulated to discourage large-scale develop-ers from exploiting weak rules and abiding by tenant protection rights. Treating an over bloated market will discourage landlords from putting themselves in risk and free up resources to helping struggling small own-ers which are oppressed by a state heavily reliant on property tax as a revenue stream making it inhospitable to industry and only profitable to develop unnecessary residential structures

Without quick action we can be sure to find many more tenants in the same position as the 70 or so people pressed shoulder to shoulder in the Councilwoman's basement no to long ago: abandoned, confused, and alone.

Ahmed Tigani is a first year MUP at Hunter College.

“These current events serve as the prism

with which I now view the recent celebration

of the department of City Planning’s 100th

rezoning--many of these elements are benchmarks’s for PlaNYC 2030”

17


Ahmed Tigani

18

CONTACT: URBAN REVIEW 695 Park Avenue West Building 1611 New York, NY 10065 PH: 212-772-5518 F: 212-772-5593

To learn more about the graduate program in urban affairs and planning at hunter college, visit our website at: www.maxweber.hunter.cuny.edu/urban

Documents

Urban Review Fall 2009