Neighborhood Responses to Abandonment & Gentrification:
A Case Study of the Lower East Side
by
SHAMPA CHANDA
B. ARCH., The City College of New York, CUNY
(1987)
Submitted to the
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
of the degree of
Masters in City Planning
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
May 1989
©9
Shampa Chanda
1989.
All rights reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to
reproduce and to distribute copies of this thesis
document in wiole or in part.
Signature of Auth or_
Department of
Urban Studies and Planning
May, 18, 1989
Certified by
Langley C. Keyes
Cijiy and Regional Planning
Tfegfs Supervisor
s
P40 dof~ssorAccepted by
Donald A. Schon
Director, Masters in City Planning Committee
INST. TCt
E831
R -A -'
Neighborhood Responses to Abandonment & Gentrification:
A Case Study of the Lower East Side
by
Shampa Chanda
Submitted to the
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 18, 1989 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Masters in City Planning
ABSTRACT
This thesis studies how the various neighborhood
organizations and the residents of a community in the City of
New York, the Lower East Side, have been addressing the
pressures of Abandonment in the 1970s and Gentrification in
the 1980s. Case studies of neighborhood organized programs to
abandonment and gentrification are
mitigate the impact of
The
the dynamics of the community.
studied to analyze
HOMESTEAD PROGRAM and the CROSS SUBSIDY PLAN, solutions to
gentrification,
respectively, show the
abandonment
and
to preserve the
commitment of the community in trying
households.
income
moderate
and
the
low
for
neighborhood
Subsidy plan, developed by the Joint
The Cross
strength of the real
Planning Council, positively uses the
estate market to propose housing for the low and moderate
rehabilitate abandoned
It has three parts:
income people.
low
and moderate income
the
for
city-owned properties
to check tenant
unit
an
enforcement
establish
households,
and special zoning to promote future lowharassment, etc.
The Council has been
income housing in the neighborhood.
department, Housing
housing
City
York
the
New
with
negotiating
However, the organization's
Preservation and Development.
commitment towards housing and its efforts to be selffrom being
the
plan
delayed
partly
sufficient have
implemented.
The Cross Subsidy Plan can benefit the Lower East Side
community if the Council chooses to differentiate between the
immediate housing need and the future housing need for the low
and moderate income people. The plan can be better executed
if the council implements the rehabilitation of the low and
the immediate housing
moderate income units now to fulfill
need and the enforcement unit and special zoning afterwards
for the future.
Thesis Supervisor:
Title:
Langley C. Keyes
Professor of City and Regional Planning
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I firstly, want to extend my warmest thanks to my
advisor, Langley Keyes, for his support
and his guidance
throughout the thesis preparation. I also want to thank the
other member of my thesis committee, Mel King, who gave me
confidence in my thesis and gave valuable feedback throughout
the study.
A critical
part of this thesis was based upon
interviews conducted with the individuals
involved in the
development of the Lower East Side.
I am grateful to all the
people who took their time out to meet with me and help
me
understand the different issues concerning the community. I
want to thank: Lisa Kaplan, JPC Council Member; Carol Watson
and Howard Brandstein, LESCAC staff; Mary MaCarthy, editor and
Marlis Momber, photographer, the Quality of Life Magazine;
Walter Roberts, Project Manager of the Cross Subsidy Plan at
the HPD.
Finally, I want to thank Ayesha Malhotra, V.S. Mani
and Rupa Chanda for their
support and assistance in the
preparation of this thesis.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
..............................
6
Chapter I-- History of the Lower East Side
11
Chapter II-- Abandonment and Gentrification
19
Chapter III-- Responses to Abandonment &
Gentrification ...............
43
Chapter IV-- Cross Subsidy Plan
...........
66
Conclusion
................................
91
Appendices
................................
95
Bibliography ..................................
100
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AHOP
: Artist's Home Ownership Program
CB
: Community Board
CD
: Community Development
CLT
: Community Land Trust
CSS
: Community Service Society of New York
DCP
: Department of City Planning
HDFC
: Housing Development Fund Corporation
HPD
: Department of Housing, Preservation & Development
HUD
: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
JPC
: Joint Planning Council
LES
: Lower East Side
LESCAC
: Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference
LEU
: Local Enforcement Unit
MRA
: Mutual Housing Association
MOU
: Memorandum of Understanding
NSA
: Neighborhood Strategy Area
PICCED
: Pratt Institute Center for Community &
Environmental Development
RAIN
: Rehabilitation in Action to Improve Neighborhoods
RFP
: Request For Proposal
RFQ
: Request For Qualification
UHP
: Urban Homestead Program
XSP
: Cross Subsidy Plan
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
The Lower East Side (LES) has historically been a community
of transition,
a community
which has changed with the growth
of New York City.
Today, it is a neighborhood
to
from
save
itself
developers.
falling
Like many other poor
to
speculators
sections in
it faces a high real estate
This
game
has
game
that
resulted
in
is
and
New York City,
abandonment [11 between 1950 and 1970.
LES faced
city.
prey
that is trying
At present,
occurring
gentrification
in the
[21
and
displacement.
The LES has historically been a
moderate
income
residents.
community for
Gentrification
the low and
has
made
it
difficult for these lower income groups to reside in this
area.
Many private landlords and
home owners
benefit from the increase in real estate value.
1 ABANDONMENT
occurs when
a building
are trying to
Some have
owner "...loses any
economic interest in the continued ownership of the property
beyond the immediate future, and is willing to surrender title
to it without compensation."
Peter Marcuse, "Abandonment,
gentrification, and displacement:
the linkage
in New York
City," in Gentrification of the city,
(Allen & Unwin Inc.,
1986), p. 154.
2 GENTRIFICATION is the
"...rehabilitation of workingclass and derelict housing and the consequent transformation
of an area into a middle-class neighborhood." Neil Smith &
Peter Williams, "Alternatives to orthodoxy:
invitation to a
debate," in Gentrification of the city, (Allen & Unwin Inc.,
1986), p. 1.
low
the
by
made renting of apartments
moderate income
and
Others have
often by doubling the rents.
families difficult,
turned their buildings to developers who have in turn sold the
apartments as condominiums, at market prices.
To
i.e.
abandonment,
check
prior
of
deterioration
Their focus was on saving
crumbling down.
(UHP), originally
Preservation
and
neighborhood
the
the
gentrification,
to mitigate
in order
community organizations formed programs
the
to
remaining
due to abandonment.
housing
stock from
Programs such as the URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM
developed
Development
by
the
(HPD),
Department
of Housing,
undertaken.
were
The
UHP's aim were to give ownership to tenant members who through
It also aimed
"sweat equity" [3] rehabilitated the tenements.
at encouraging ownership among the locals of the LES.
To check
the late
the impact
1980s, the
of gentrification,
neighborhood housing advocate group, the
Joint Planning Council (JPC),
in
HPD.
1984,
which
which occurred in
after
proposed a
three-part strategy
much modification was approved by the
This program is known as the CROSS SUBSIDY
PLAN.
Under
this program, the city will sell parcels of city-owned land in
the LES at market rate to the developers.
The
money from the
sale will be used to rehabilitate city-owned vacant structures
for low and moderate income housing in the LES.
3 Sweat Equity is referred to the process when the
residents and the tenants of a neighborhood contribute their
leisure time to rehabilitate building to live there.
The JPC has had
need
for
future.
more
many disagreements
affordable
However, in
goal, the
JPC has
addition
the
affordable
JPC
to
for
zoning
considers
housing.
It
as
to
on
this primary
other issues
curb
the
such as the
market-rate housing,
essential
wants
HPD over the
the present and the
focusing
concentrated on
application of special
which
housing
with the
to
providing
implementation
more
of the
primary goal and the secondary issues now to secure the future
objective of permanent affordable housing in the LES.
AIMS:
The thesis looks at the LES as it has developed,
changes
in
the
neighborhood
confrontation between
changes
which
the
resulted
city
that
have
and
the
i.e.,
the
led to the present
community.
These
from economic, historical and social
factors, have given the community and the JPC
the strength to
organize projects
such as the Homestead Program and the Cross
Subsidy
protect
Plan
to
the
abandonment and gentrification.
to which these programs
and examines
LES
the
pressure
of
This paper studies the extent
have united
their ability
from
the neighborhood
to preserve
so far
the neighborhood for
the low and moderate income community in the future.
Both the Cross Subsidy Plan and the Homestead
trying
to
residents to
community.
preserve
own
the
property
neighborhood
and
bring
and
pride
programs are
encourage
back
the
into the
In the case of the Cross Subsidy Plan, the JPC has
geared the project towards securing permanent low and moderate
not
housing
income
only
This thesis studies the
future.
community strength
that has
various other community organizations in
JPC and
enabled the
present but also for the
the
for
the political
the LES to fight against the HPD and
forces of
The paper also examines how JPC's focus on securing
the city.
future housing for the
poor has
created a
stalemate between
the city and the neighborhood.
FRAMEWORK:
historical background
provides the
Chapter I
characteristics of
It describes the changing
to the LES.
the inhabitants
of the neighborhood from the early 1800s to the present.
focuses on the changes that have occurred since
Chapter II
1950.
It discusses
of new
the settlement
immigrant groups,
like the Hispanics and the Asians as well as the settlement of
artists.
swing
The neighborhood, during this period, went through a
being
from
abandoned
by
the homeowners to being the
object of interest of speculators and
developers. The chapter
describes the impact of both abandonment and gentrification on
the neighborhood.
Chapter
III
studies
the
implementation
of
the various
programs by community organizations to address abandonment and
gentrification.
residents
of
programs which
the
LES
organizations united the
how these
It shows
to
the community
fight
against the city and their
did not
consider to
be in its
interest.
The chapter describes the homestead program run by
a community group and its
also comments
on a
implementation.
three-part plan
In
addition, it
that was proposed by the
JPC to address the pressure of gentrification in the LES.
Chapter IV explains the formation of the Cross Subsidy Plan
and the changes it has undergone since the introduction of the
JPC's three-part plan.
changes
and
the
It also examines the reasons for these
form
these
chapter also discusses the
in the
plan.
modifications
reasons for
have taken. The
the HPD's involvement
It also examines the disputes over some issues
relating to the Cross
Subsidy Plan
between the
city and the
community, and describes their different view points.
SOURCES:
This
thesis
is
based
members, the HPD staff,
LES residents,
newspaper
neighborhood.
on
several
interviews
the Homesteader's
were
used
gentrification
Second hand data
to
provide
and
for
with
the
Magazine and
historical
displacement
the
from various papers published on the LES.
JPC
organization, some
and several community activists.
articles
background
on
paper
in
the
was obtained
CHAPTER I
HISTORY OF THE LOWER EAST SIDE
This chapter
provides the historical background to the LES
starting from the early
the period
describes
the
the
the present.
It describes
migration from the European countries and
of mass
its impact on
1800s to
housing
condition
development
of
in
the
the
LES.
character
It also
of
the
neighborhood.
HISTORY:
New York City has been a point of
entry for
refugees from
all over the world, welcoming the new people into the "land of
opportunity."
Most of the newly arrived immigrants settled in
the five different boroughs of New York City and the rest went
in search of jobs in the other neighboring
City was
states.
New York
dotted with many immigrant settlement neighborhoods.
One such neighborhood in
the
borough
of
Manhattan
was the
Lower East Side (LES).
From the early days of the City's history, the LES has been
a residential neighborhood.
has
changed
During the
those
who
with
the
in
commercial activities
seaport
various
17th century
worked
and
the
Its economic and ethnic character
stages of the city's growth.
the LES
was an
ideal residence for
Manhattan where the administrative and
were performed.
trading
area
had
Its
proximity to the
attracted
different
professional, cultural and ethnic
the Dutch and
groups, like
Sephardic Jews to reside there.
FROM 1800-1930, A TRANSITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD:
In the
early part
neighborhood.
1800s,
of the
It was
the
a neighborhood
LES was an affluent
where business people,
administrative officials and even prominent people like George
Washington, the then newly elected president,
periods of time.
But shortly after 1840, the character of the
neighborhood started
States of
place.
changing.
America from
The migration
They
to the United
the different European countries took
This was the starting ground for
of immigrants.
lived for short
different new groups
came to the country for various reasons
for example, to free themselves from the political, social and
economic oppression in their homelands and start afresh in the
United States.
By this
residential
time
the
only;
character
the
LES
of
had
new
immigrant
Chinese, German
groups
LES
become
newcomers came in search of jobs.
these
the
The
the
areas in
the downtown,
Greenwich, and, later on,
residential locality
the
place
where the
Irish,
Polish and
jobs were mostly low-skilled and low-paying.
the neighboring areas like
no longer
ethnic backgrounds of
included
Jews, Ukrainians,
a
was
financial
Germans,
Italians.
The
The proximity to
and administrative
the industrial and commercial area in
the Midtown
made the
for the immigrants.
LES an ideal
Industrial work was
available readily to the immigrants and
located in
the garment industry,
the downtown, was the largest employer in the LES.
Its proximity to
the
downtown
area
and
to
the industrial
garment district made it an ideal residential location for the
immigrants.
This increased
the
demand
for
housing
in the
neighborhood.
HOUSING CONDITION:
Historically
the
LES
has
been
a
mainly
residential
neighborhood and especially, over the decades, it had become a
neighborhood
that
housed
rents.
Tenements were
period
of
mass
wide by
the
influx
tenements, i.e. shaped
many
low-income
main
into
like
housing
the
families
stock
during this
neighborhood.
dumbbells,
covering
at low
Dumbbell
20-25 feet
100 feet deep building lot and containing 4 four-room
units per floor, [1] were
the
standard
housing
units.
To
accommodate the large number of incoming people, families were
cramped
into
settlement in
the
tenements.
the LES
This
as compared
led
to
high
density
to the rest of Manhattan.
The population density per square mile in the LES was 234,080,
in Manhattan was only 73,000 in early 1910.
As
a
were poor.
result
of
this overcrowding, the living conditions
People lived in cellars, in
rooms without natural
air and light, and in the corridors of the buildings.
1 Harry Schwartz, Planning for
(Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 3.
the
Lower
East
The
Side,
immigrants needed shelter at low rents.
low
rent
housing,
coupled
The
availability of
with the proximity to their work
places, made the LES the prime choice of the immigrants.
The chief concern of the
their living
and save
refugees
money.
was
to
some
They attempted to save a major
portion of their earnings for the
future and
order
living standards.
to
better
their
present
spent little in
little need to invest in their "shabby" abodes.
neighborhood was
a place
was
a
transitional
To
They saw
them the
to make a start for the future that
lay ahead in the U.S.A. and not a
it
how earn
place to
neighborhood.
stay permanentlyAs
their
condition improved, they fled to the better parts
economic
of New York
City and the newly formed suburbs in the other boroughs.
had little incentive to stay in the LES.
in this
economic
"turnstile" motion,
prosperity
of
Thus,
They
being caught
the LES did not benefit from the
the
immigrants.
It
remained the
neighborhood for the newer influx of immigrants.
1930 TO 1950 PERIOD:
After the
occurred.
1840s, not
much housing
The only addition
construction
of
24,000
apartments in the
neighborhood's
low
locality.
stagnation
benefits of the city's
construction of
to
and
Part
was
economic
new roads
the
that
and
and mass
development in the LES
housing
moderate
of
it
the
stock
was the
income
public
reason
for the
did not receive the
physical
growth.
The
transit systems like the
Lexington Avenue subway line ran along
the LES.
The
the western
border of
area was little disturbed by these changes and
thus remained isolated.
The expansion of the city was towards
the
north
west
and
the
and
in
Furthermore, not much was
invested in
not have
since it
been profitable
the
other
boroughs.
the region.
It would
had become a home for the
poor and the destitute with low-paying or no jobs.
By the 1930s, the condition of the neighborhood had further
deteriorated.
The
condition
less attractive to people
immigrants were
with higher
being replaced
later by the Puerto Ricans.
housing rents
the city.
Also,
the other
welcoming
ethnic groups.
this
from the South and
LES because the
people
and
and Puerto
Ricans would have
A neighborhood like the
of
LES that
different ethnic backgrounds
was more
accepting of
the new
The late arrivals in the LES were not as lucky
previous immigrants.
time,
The outgoing
neighborhoods were predominantly
throughout the city's history
as the
by Blacks
They came to the
the Blacks
faced discrimination there.
been
income.
were affordable in comparison to other parts of
white middle-class,
had
of the tenements was becoming
the
lack
A
of
falling demand
affordable
for labor at
housing elsewhere
limited the residents' mobility to the other neighborhoods.
1950 TO THE PRESENT:
In the
1960s the
neighborhood due
to the
lack of proper
maintenance, and lack of interest on the landowners' part, the
housing situation had
buildings that
worsened.
Vacant
once stood there.
boarded
up
due
to
illegal
uninhabited
homeless and the
addition, it
and
drug
this
codes.
made
it
to
take
dealers
attracted a
ground.
Many buildings
evacuation of tenants and
failure to meet the city's building
looked
replaced the
More buildings were falling
prey to arson and were burned to the
were
land
newer kind
children," also known as the Hippies.
The neighborhood
attractive
shelter
for
the
here.
In
of people --the "flower
By
this time
the LES
had become a haven for drug addicts, the junkies.
However,
from
the
interest in the LES
urban
professionals,
mid
has
1970s
been
onwards
regenerated.
developers
and
to
the
present,
Artists, young
homeowners are the new
groups taking part in the neighborhood's development.
The present
of the
LES has
social, political
been heavily
new wave of people,
many of
and economic situation
influenced by the entry of this
whom are
first time homeowners.
This group of people and their input into the housing stock is
mentioned in greater detail in the subsequent chapters.
FIGURE 1.1
The Flow of Migrants to the Lower East Side
19th CENTURY
Migration to the U.S.
European Settlers from 1840 onwards
.
.
.
.
.
Irish, 1840
Germans, 1860-1870s
Chinese, after 1849
German Jews, 1880s & 1890s
Italians, 1890
20th CENTURY
. Blacks, Puerto Ricans, 1940
. Hippies, 1960s
. Artists, early 1970s
"Yuppies," 1980s
CHAPTER II
ABANDONMENT AND GENTRIFICATION
It studies the
present.
to the
the 1950s
LES from
in the
settlement of new ethnic groups in the LES at a
experienced
gentrification.
This section
by
reasons for these
examines the
on the neighborhood and its
consequences
their
and
changes
time when the
followed
abandonment
neighborhood
taken place
that have
This chapter focuses on the changes
inhabitants.
POST-1950 PERIOD:
low-income neighborhood in
Post-1950, the LES had become a
A period of decline followed an earlier period
New York City.
(at
residences
temporary)
least
and
unemployed,
set up
Economically
a fewer
number of
did arrive in the
immigrants who
Those
neighborhood were poor
the LES.
neighborhood and
well-off people left the
people in-migrated.
in
to
flocks
in
came
of mass immigration, when people
and
were
living on
The ethnic mix of the neighborhood during the post-
welfare.
1950 period comprised of mostly Hispanics,
Blacks, Asians and
Whites.
By
the
The
deteriorated.
conditions,
onwards
the
mid-1960s
and
were
took
economic
consequences
felt
the
from
form
the
of
condition of the LES had
of
latter
mass
poor
the
half
economic
of the 1960s
abandonment,
and
loss of
dilapidation and
the
by
However,
structure.
services and social
housing stock,
neighborhood
the
late-1970s
a new group of professionals, the artists.
started attracting
Their introduction into the neighborhood characterized certain
the region as "arty."
parts in
As the demand for housing and
this professional
group increased, the
landlords started charging higher rents.
This increase in the
work among
space for
rent of the tenements
Speculation
on
affected
property
value
property
in
value
the LES.
escalated the price of these
buildings.
the
By
had
neighborhood
the
of
end
fallen
1970s
prey
just like the rest of the city.
speculators
unification of the neighborhood.
had suffered
being re-populated by
1980s.
While the
new
1970
.
Table
developers and
Pressure from
displacement
Thus,
professional
total population
1985 increased by 3.29%,
the
and
mass
a neighborhood which
population in the mid-1960s, was
in its
a loss
1980s,
early
the
to developers and speculators
gentrification,
to
led
and
it declined
groups
in the
by
the mid-
LES from 1980 to
by 10.54%
from 1960 to
2.1 shows the percent change in the population
from 1950 to 1985 in the LES.
20
TABLE 2.1
Total Population of the LES (1950-1985)
Year
% Change
Total Population
1950
1960
1970
1980
1985
215,692
193,771
173,331
154,800
159,900
-10.16
-10.54
-10.69
+ 3.29
Source: i) Harry Schwartz, Planning for the
Lower East Side; 1950, 1960, 1970, p. 13, and
ii)
Manhattan Community District 3, 1980,
1985, p. 39.
ABANDONMENT
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE MID-1960s:
During the
late 1960s, New York City underwent a change in
its economic structure.
industrial and
Heavy industries were replaced by new
service sector
by new automated technology.
working-class
residential
activities which were operated
At
this
time,
neighborhood.
the
LES
was a
In the mid-1960s,
about 80% of the neighborhood residents worked in the business
and industrial
economic
unsuitable
districts of
changes,
for
the
the
Manhattan.
skills
jobs
of
available
the
However, with these
residents
in the city.
became
Few older
industries, like the garment industry, remained in the city to
hire workers from the neighborhood. [1] There were few
1 Manufacturing jobs decreased by 90,000 between 19581968. The largest decline were in apparel, food processing and
construction. Harry Schwartz, Planning for the Lower East
Side, (Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 188.
low-skill jobs available for the new residents of
thus,
many
became
unemployed.
Table
the LES and
2.2
shows
the
occupational breakdown in the LES in 1970.
TABLE 2.2
Occupational Distribution of the Labor Force (1970)
Occupation
Number
Percent
Professional & Managerial
Craftsmen
Service, Clerical & Sales
Operatives & Laborers
Unemployed
12,457
5,213
29,464
15,050
4,072
18.8
7.9
44.5
22.7
6.1
Total
66,256
100.0
Source: Harry Schwartz, Planning
p. 183.
The
new
residents,
i.e.
the
for the
Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and
Chinese, were working in low-skilled and
unemployment
rate
was
10%
receiving public
assistance
public assistance
in 1967).
these new
substandard
residents'
housing.
family
41%
(around
low-paid jobs.
The
of the households were
30,000
people received
[2] The paucity of money affected
living
accompanied by changes in
small-sized
and
Lower East Side,
standards,
Moreover,
the
the family
households
and
many
lived in
economic changes were
structure.
increasingly
Single and
replaced
large
families.
2 Harry Schwartz, Planning for
(Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 183.
the
Lower
East
Side,
ABANDONMENT DURING THE MID-1960:
Abandonment of an entire neighborhood occurs when
public and/or private parties act on the assumption
that long-term investment in the neighborhood, whether
in
maintenance
and
improvements
or
in
new
construction, is not warranted. It is only a matter of
time before residents of an abandoned unit or an
abandoned neighborhood are displaced. [31
The building owners
of
these
tenements,
which
were mostly
privately owned, in the LES were unable to attain higher rents
from their economically depressed tenants during
them little incentive to maintain the structures or
This gave
to pay property taxes.
earn
profits
from
The
owning
to
owners saw
and
The
resulted in abandonment.
started
this period.
deteriorate,
little opportunity to
maintaining
conditions
due
to
housing.
of
the
This
the tenements
lack
of
proper
maintenance.
As
the
housing
uninhabitable, the
As more of them
quickened
the
conditions
tenants started
left, more
pace
neighborhood fell prey
of
worsened
tenements became
abandonment
block and building by building."
became
leaving their residences.
dilapidation
to
and
and
unused and this
abandonment.
"gradually,
The
block by
[4] It appeared like a
scarred community; the abandoned buildings were patched with
"Abandonment,
gentrification, and
3
Peter
Marcuse,
displacement: the linkages in New York City," Gentrification
of the city, (Allen & Unwin Inc., 1986), p. 154.
Logan & Harvey Molotch, Urban
4 John
(University
Place,
Political Economy of
Press,1987), p. 115.
Fortunes: The
of California
wooden
and
boards
in 1970. [5] After the buildings were abandoned
were occupied
the
had
buildings
During
started
for
areas
period
this
abandonment, the New York City
mass
Table 2.3
properties.
the owners
of
These properties are referred
pay property taxes.
to as the IN-REM
because
properties
these
acquiring
failure to
of
homeless people.
the
for
shelter
a
become
the abandoned
of
Some
dealers.
drug
serving as
such as
tenements were being misused for purposes
storage
abandoned
These
common.
became
buildings
settlement and
illegal
residents,
the
and
by their owners
of
66,800 units
an estimated
units were lost to abandonment and
usage
Nearly 6,800 residential
blocks.
cement
shows the
Land Use
pattern in the LES in 1969 and 1986.
TABLE 2.3
Land Use on the LES (1969 & 1986)
Land Use
Number of Acres
1969
Residential
Commercial & Industrial
Vacant Land
Vacant Buildings
Others
Total
347
91
6
% of Total Area
1969
1986
3,142
970
491
34.1
9.0
0.6
1986
62.8
19.4
9.8
-
1.5
-
557
397
54.8
7.9
1,016
5,000
100.0
99.9
15
i) Harry Schwartz, Planning for the Lower East
Source:
Side; 1969, p. 8. and ii) Manhattan Community District 3,
1986,p. 39.
5 Harry Schwartz, Planning for
(Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 54.
24
the
Lower
East
Side,
FIGURE 2.1
Vacant land and Buildings
The neighborhood had become a
haven
for
and other
drugs
illegal activities and became an unsafe residential area.
City reduced many of its
interest in
services,
maintaining the
conditions of the roads,
structures made
because
neighborhood.
footpaths,
along
of
its
The
lack of
The deteriorating
with
the housing
the LES appear physically unattractive to any
interested new-comer.
The social structure in the LES was also
the
economic
conditions.
being affected by
People of this neighborhood were
forced to witness the deterioration of their community.
many
of
the
residents
were new immigrants, like Hispanics,
Blacks and Asians, they were less
how to
Since
familiar with
the city and
of the political process for their own
take advantage
Thus in the early period, right after settling, they
benefit.
and faced
remained passive
the consequences
of economic and
physical abandonment by the owners and the City.
organize themselves
They did not
into a community to check degeneration of
their neighborhood.
ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS:
In the post-1950 period, the
changed
as
a
result
people.
The chief
Asians and the Jews.
of
the
ethnic
mix
of
the
in-migration of new groups of
immigrant groups
were the
Hispanics, the
Over the years, these ethnic groups gave
the LES a distinct character, which is seen even today.
character,
as
LES had
mentioned
later,
26
This
enabled the neighborhood to
unite and help renew the LES.
Apart from the
Puerto
Ricans
stabilized
older
arrived
over
religious lives
the
in
groups,
the
years.
a
large
LES
after 1950.
Their
cultural,
out a
-- Italians,
niche for themselves.
immigrants --the
drifted to
area
and
social
others
Table
2.4
the Puerto
They mainly owned
1960s, another
Chinatown community
settled
and
Like
Chinese-- settled in the LES.
the existing
Chinatown.
Their flow
Ukrainians--
grocery stores in the neighborhood. In the mid
flow of
number of
altered the nature of the neighborhood.
the previous immigrants
Ricans carved
ethnic
Many
in the downtown
at
the
border
of
shows
the
ethnic
breakdown
the
LES
and
of the
neighborhood.
TABLE 2.4
Ethnicity in the LES (1950-1980)
Year
White
Nonwhite
1950
1960
1970
1980
190,248
117,121
83,330
46,629
12,024
25,813
41,031
51,236
Puerto Rican
13,690
50,837
48,970
56,924
Source: i) Harry Schwartz, Planning for the Lower East
Side; 1950,
1960, 1970, p. 13 and ii) Manhattan Community
District 3, 1980.
Note: Nonwhite includes Black,
group.
Chinese
and
other ethnic
immigrants, the new
to leave since
Unlike the earlier
immigrants
were
restricted
increased
rent
and
the
to
due
resided there.
members also
other family
partly
little incentive
neighborhood with
their new
in the community settled in
people
of
groups
new
These
real estate values
factor, that
Another
elsewhere in the city.
the LES
to
caused the new
immigrants to remain in the LES, was their lack of familiarity
with the city, how it functioned, and its setting, as had also
been
earlier immigrants. Each group tried to
the
with
true
stay within its community, with its
own people
who spoke the
same language,
shared the same values, culture, and religion.
They wanted to
make
According
children.
and
friends
LES
to
knitted
had
immigrants
home
new
a
relatives
their
for
themselves
community
lives
organizers,
around
their
better
jobs
these
family,
their church, in contrast to the
and
residents in the other part of the city who focused
attaining
and their
mainly on
with higher salaries. This phenomenon
was particularly striking among the Puerto
Ricans, which gave
the LES a distinct Hispanic character. [6]
The Puerto Ricans,
were
like the previous immigrants,
them less
jobs.
unskilled
and
this made
qualified for the new type of service and automated
Due to
living expenses,
the lack
of proper
families and
income to
meet the basic
friends took refuge with their
relatives in the public housing
of
"One Hundred Years
6 Thomas Glynn,
9.
p.
LOISAIDA," Neighborhood, Spring, 1983,
28
Exploitation:
[71
LES.
the
in
projects
the
Thus
tenements
became
overcrowded.
SETTLEMENT OF ARTISTS IN THE 19605:
Hippies,
only
albeit
residential groups, the
group
short while.
a
for
that
took
conditions of
They
them
housing
attracted by the cheap
with standing.
at
Unlike the other
the social
affect
not
were only a transitional
physical
deteriorating
the neighborhood
assumed that
an
rent; the
affordable
price.
low quality
They were
of housing not
Thus, the hippies preferred living in the LES,
since it had become isolated by
of detachment
also attracted
reason for their arrival to the
The
the LES.
the
of
advantage
LES is not clear but it can be
provided
did
Hippies
the neighborhood.
context of
neighborhood
the
late-1960s,
the
During
from material
this time.
Their philosophy
wealth could be practiced amidst
the rubble of the LES.
Following the hippies, in
They
neighborhood.
priced tenements.
bordered the
They
too
the 1970s,
to the
came in search of affordable, low-
were displaced
western part
artists came
from the
SoHo, which
of the LES, due to gentrification.
By the end of the 1970s and early 1980s, several small art
7 New YorK City Housing Authority recorded increasing use
of the building utilities in the public housing. This showed
the units.
that more number of people were living in
Displacement pressures in the Lower East Side, (CSS Working
Paper, 1987), p. 5.
29
galleries and boutiques, emerged along the border of
Greenwich, and
SoHo and
covering from Avenue A
streets,
refer
to
also in
to
Map
and
Village (the area
between
2.1).
disrepair by their owners
comers.
D
the East
the LES,
Houston
and 14th
Tenements that were left in
attracted
higher
rents
from new-
For example, while a person who had been living in a
rent controlled apartment for
month, the
many
years
paid
only
$115 a
newcomer paid $700 a month for the same apartment.
[8] Such differences in rent prices became common
Since there
was an
rents, they
also started
in the LES.
incentive for the owners to demand higher
investing money
in maintaining the
buildings.
In the
1970s, the
LES was
low-income residents.
Hispanic (refer
predominantly made up of poor,
The ethnic
to table
mix
2.4).
and
young
suburbs, but was
It
shows
a
a
flow
of
professionals
from
the
slow.
household according
Following
is
co-relationship
background
and
character.
According to this study,
income
defined
is
White and
a
artists, young
SoHo
and the
breakdown
of the
to the ethnic background, age and income.
strong
the
mostly
Even though the neighborhood
was facing abandonment, there was
students,
was
household
as
a
between
income
family
and
the
ethnic
the neighborhood
conducted in
1969, low-
earning between $4,000 and
$6,000 annually; moderate-income, between $6,000 and $12,000
8 Craig Unger,
"The Lower East Side:
Neighborhood," New York, May 28, 1984, p. 33.
31
There
goes the
annually; middle-income, between $12,000 and $16,000 annually.
. Low-income, middle aged,
those households
without
residents of the LES before
in tenements. They represent
elderly White Household: are
school
children; have been
1950 and majority of them live
15,000 to 20,000 households.
. Moderate & Middle-income white Household: are the
newest arrivals, the young families without school age
children; live in tenements, new cooperatives. They are
12,000 to 15,000 households. Artists fall in this
category.
. Low-income, young and old Puerto Ricans, Blacks, Chinese
Household: are the new immigrants, residing ten years back;
40% live in public housing and the rest in tenements. Out
of 67,000 total households in the LES estimated 20,000 to
25,000 fall in this range.
. Moderate & Middle income young, older Puerto Ricans,
Blacks, Chinese Household: are the new growing middle
class;
live
in
cooperatives, public housing and
rehabilitated tenements; are two wage earning family.
They constitute 6,000 households.
. Moderate & Middle income aged White Household:
attached to the community;
live
in
rentals
cooperatives. They represent 10,000 households. [9]
This
distinct
difference
created barriers within the
the neighborhood
of
identity between households
community.
"LOISAIDA", a
are
and
The Hispanics called
Spanglish name
for the Lower
East Side, and identified it with a struggling community.
other name
given to
the area
The
was the "Alphabet City," which
identified it with the arty and affluent. [101
9 Harry Schwartz, Planning for
(Praeger Publishers, 1973), p. 16.
the
Lower
East
Side,
Lisa W. Foderaro,
10
"Will It Be Loisaida or Alphabet
City," The New York Times, May 17, 1987, section 8, p. 1.
The struggling community residents considered the artists a
danger for them and for their
threat and
a sign
community.
This transition from a
an arty
of possible
struggling neighborhood to
and affluent residential area (with art galleries and
increased rent)
made the
locals unite
and take
part in the
preservation of their neighborhood.
GENTRIFICATION
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES SINCE 1970:
According to
the 1980 census, gentrification was still not
very visible in the neighborhood.
in the
LES was
The median household income
$8,782, which was much lower than what it was
in Manhattan, $13,905.
population), higher
The rate of poverty
was 32.8% (50,774
than the poverty level of 20% in the city
(285,657 population).
The
deteriorating
housing conditions
and the demolition of housing had reduced the housing stock by
7.5% by 1980.
The above
statistics indicated
the depressed
economic condition in the LES. [11]
Yet
the
neighborhood
at
the
same time was increasingly
attracting the professional groups --the artists-and
the
late
1970s.
From
this
period
neighborhood characteristic started changing.
in the mid
onwards,
the
This change was
a slow process and was not evident in the 1980 census of
11 Displacement pressures
Working Paper, 1987), p. 8.
in
the
Lower East Side, (CSS
the
LES.
evident
However,
in
a
the
few
signs
census
of
neighborhood
change were
tracts. (refer to Appendix 1) The
median household education level
was lower
than that
of the
rest of the city. [12] But from the beginning of 1980 onwards,
the changes in
(see Map
the
2.2).
neighborhood
A survey
were significant
conducted by the Community Service
Society of New York (CSS) in
number of
character
1984, found
an increase
adult college-educated people.
The education level
among the residents in the above sixteen age
was 58.7%
as compared
to 35.2%
in the
group after 1979
among the residents prior to
1979 (see Table 2.5). These changes in the
LES were
a strong
indication of the occurrence of gentrification.
GENTRIFICATION:
As
mentioned
in
the
introduction,
process by which working-class
gentrification
is a
neighborhoods become inhabited
by middle and upper income groups and there by, increasing the
property value.
causes
The term applies to the
change
neighborhood.
in
the
social
and
Gentrification is
housing market.
physical
often
It
character of a
measured
by changing
socioeconomic characteristics, such as income group, household
size,
education
profession.
12 Ibid.,
background,
racial
mix
and
the
type
The physical characteristic is observed by the
p.
7.
of
MAP 2.2
Type of Change:
35
1970-1980
TABLE 2.5
Characteristics of Households
By Length of Residence in the Lower East Side
(in percents)
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE ON THE
LOWER EAST SiDE
Proportion of
Sample
RACE
Black
Hi sp ar i c
Asi
Wh i t e
PRIOR 1970
37.7
37.2
25.0
1.4
30.1
50.0
13.5
4.2
29.2
3.5
63.2
100.1
6.2
14.4
6.2
73. 2
95.
EDUCAT*ION
0-8 Years
9-11 Years
12 Years
13-15 Year-s
16+ Years
26.1
14.8
35.2
12.7
11.3
100. 1
I NCOME
*:0-$9 ,999
SINCE 1979
ALWAYS
1B.3
11. 3
18.3
16.9
35.2
100 . 0
69.4
100.0
5.2
2.1
17.5
58./
100 . 0
38 . 5
23. 9
3.6
43.*
6.7
100.0
23.4
100Q.0
19.U
1026
AGE OF OLDEST HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
12-24
6.9
25-34
15.1
35-44
15.8
45-64
37.7
65+
23.3
98. 8
4.9
21.5
26.4
31.9
13.9
96.6
113
58.8
5.2
1.C
100.
42.4
8.3
17.3
15.3
16.7
100. 0
3.1
30, 9
18.6
4.1
6. 2
97.9
$: 10 ,
$20
00-$19
, 999
000+
HOUSIEHOLD TYPE
Sing l e
Unrelated Adults
Families, ro Child
Families, Child present
Single Parent, child
prese
22.8
4.8
22.8
33.8
15.9
100. 1
SOURCE: "Displacement Pressures in the Lower
(CSS Working Papers, 1987), p. 16.
36
East Side,"
4 4 .4.
improvements
based
on
made
the
cooperatives
on
existing
number
and
of
structures.
conversions
condominiums
from
tenements
in the neighborhood.
important indicator of gentrification
real estate
It can also be
market, represented
is
the
to
Another
growth
of the
by the entry of speculators,
private developers and some times public agencies.
The changes
associated with
in
the
neighborhood
since
1980,
have been
the emergence of the new group, the "YUPPIES"
--the young upwardly
mobile,
urban
professionals,
who have
received college education and earn more than $20,000 annually
(1980).
Many
are
together
with
unrelated
single,
unmarried
adults.
people,
Among
the
married couples tend to have fewer children.
urbanites,
who
live
in
single
often living
YUPPIES, the
Unlike the sub-
family houses away from the
city, the life style of the yuppies attracts
them to
life in
the city. [131
THE YOUNG URBAN PROFESSIONALS:
The YUPPIES
settled in
proximity of the area
the LES
to the
for various reasons.
downtown Wall
The
Street area, the
Midtown, and Greenwich village and the low rents in the LES as
compared to the rest of the city.
They
were willing to
"...
take their chances with a desperate building."
13 Phillip L. Clay, Neighborhood Renewal,
1979), p. 19-21.
(Lexington Books,
14 Thomas Glynn,
"One Hundred Years of
LOISAIDA," Neighborhood, Spring, 1983, p. 9.
37
[14]
Exploitation:
Many young
professionals were
also finding their home in the
adjacent neighborhoods of the
LES,
like
SoHo,
They
were the new professional
and
Cooper
Square.
groups, following the artists, to
neighborhoods.
come
the
and
Greenwich, the
settle
in these
At the same time, the real estate values were
increasing in the New
York City
and the
LES became
a prime
speculative territory due to the influx of YUPPIES.
THE CHANGING MARKET:
By
the
end
of
1970s,
abandoned buildings.
Unlike
neighborhood,
the
young
higher
and
were
rents
apartments.
the LES had become a reservoir of
The
the low-income
professionals
also
capable
developers
opportunity to renovate these
and
vacant
residents of the
could
of
afford to pay
owning
landlords
buildings
their own
seized
and
the
sell or
rent them at higher (market) price to the young professionals.
Thus, the derelict buildings that
had
years
high value.
earlier,
were
five-story tenement at
commanding
270
East
10th
been
worthless
Street
For example, a
was
$5,706 in 1976, which was later re-sold in 1981 for
[151 Rents for the renovated apartments were between
five
times
more
than
the
a few
sold for
$130,000.
three to
average rent in the neighborhood
($150-$225 per month).
15 Martin Gottlieb, "Space Invaders: Land Grab on the Lower
East Side," The Village Voice, December 14, 1982, p. 10.
38
FIGURE 2.2
Neighborhood Outdoor Cafe
New Market rate Development
39
The sudden
change in
the value
of the
buildings and the
land made the LES an attractive area to invest in.
Nearly 65%
of total housing stock was privately owned in the neighborhood
(see Table
private
2.6).
For profit
properties
regarded this as a
to
the
the owners
market.
possible threat
were selling these
The low-income tenants
to the
community and its
people.
TABLE 2.6
Residential Buildings in the LES (1979)
Ownership type
Vacant
Private
City-owned
Total
Occupied
Total
70
201
492
98
562
299
271
590
861
Source: Quality of Life in Loisaida, Vol. 2, no. 3,
September, 1979.
The landlords who had showed little interest in taking care
of their buildings during the 1970s,
were now
to rent the apartments at a higher price.
repairing them
Often the greed for
more money encouraged the landlords to use illegal
rid
their
buildings
migration of higher
of
low-income
income
groups
tenants.
and
the
tactics to
Thus the in-
escalating real
estate values created pressures on the low-income residents in
the LES.
A study conducted by the CSS in
various eviction
tactics used
by the
low-income tenants from their buildings.
40
1984 identified the
landlords to evict the
They were:
half of the
1. Excessive rent burden: More than
household paid 30% of the gross income towards rent,
where as 25% is the rule of thumb.
2. Overcrowding: In 1984, 22% of the household lived in
overcrowded condition. Higher rents forced them to "find
shelter illegally with friends and family..."
3. Deterioration: Buildings faced maintenance problems.
Most of the respondents complained about the problems
hot water,
(heat,
services
building
with basic
deteriorating
occasions
electricity). There was in many
buildings were sold for profit.
4. Suspicious fire: Fires of suspicious kinds in the
buildings were reported by 12% of the respondents. This
was one of the methods adopted by the landlord to evict
tenants.
16% of respondents indicated that the
5. Warehousing:
landlords had purposely kept vacant apartments off the
market. In some cases the landlords paid drug addicts to
live in these apartment to harass the tenants.
6. Tenant Harassment: Owners or managing agents would
harass the tenants and have forced relocation. [16]
The
reasons
for
such tactics was to evict the
employing
low-income tenants and either turn over the properties
to the
private developers or rent the apartments to the higher income
The turnover
households, after renovation.
from
one
developer
to
another
exchange the property value
was
high
of the properties
and
increased sharply.
during each
For example,
the Christodora building, a landmark of the LES, was sold in
16 Displacement Pressures
Working Papers, 1987), p. vi.
in
the
Lower East Side, (CSS
1983 by one developer to another
profit of
for $1.3
million, earning a
2,000%. [171 Such incidents and their impact on the
character of the neighborhood and
the
emergence
of
the new
upwardly mobile young professionals, signified gentrification.
"The Lower East Side:
17 Craig Unger,
Neighborhood," New York, May 28, 1984, p. 33.
There goes the
CHAPTER III
RESPONSES TO ABANDONMENT & GENTRIFICATION
This chapter studies the programs carried
and
the
neighborhood
different
organizations
challenges,
faced by
the LES.
viz;
It
blight.
abandonment
the city
address
the
two
and gentrification,
analyzes the role of the city and the
city programs that were
from urban
to
out by
implemented to
save the neighborhood
Programs run by the various neighborhood
organizations to deter abandonment
community residents
are also
and
their
impact
on the
mentioned in this chapter.
The
chapter focuses in particular on the homestead program and the
community land
trust which was operated by a community group,
for affordable
housing.
the
JPC's
role
in
The chapter
the
LES
and
also discusses briefly
its
goal
of
saving the
neighborhood from the pressure of gentrification.
CITY ORGANIZATIONS:
Like other poor sections
faced
with
abandonment
in
of New
the
York City,
1970s.
The
reducing its services in these neighborhoods.
infrastructure had
poor financial
interest in
low and
interest
state
during
deteriorate.
this
was
City started
The
quality of
The City was in a
period.
It
had little
spending money on public housing projects for the
moderate
in
begun to
the LES
income
building
people.
maintenance
The
landlords'
resulted
lack of
in abandonment.
properties, the
abandoned their
While the property owners
a large number of these properties, referred to
City acquired
The Department of Housing, Preservation
as IN-REM properties.
(HPD), the
and Development
city's housing agency, maintained
organization) But
for
2
these properties. (see Appendix
the
HPD's structural
due to its weakened financial situation the
these acquired
to maintain
City did not consider it feasible
properties that were in poor condition and housed only a small
number of occupants.
to renovate them
it proposed
Second,
city-owned buildings.
down these
proposed shutting
First, it
and made available for low-income people, over a period of few
resistance from the LES community.
faced
City
The
years.
Despite resistance, the City implemented the first part of the
plan.
However, the second part did not materialize.
Aware of the need
increased.
income
the demand for low-income housing
same period,
During the
the
people,
City
to house
the low
and moderate
programs to upgrade the
developed
poorer neighborhoods by disposing the city-owned properties to
Furthermore, since the City
the residents of the communities.
on
was short
funds,
monetary support
it
was
not
to
willing
provide much
to these residents and wanted to have little
on-site and off-site supervision.
The
HPD
program,
in
developed
the
programs
early
provided financing to the
yearly interest,
such
as
the
Sweat
Equity
Sweat
Equity program
prospective tenants
at one percent
1970s.
The
up to thirty years for gut rehabilitation of
and
income
moderate
their labor.
was
households participated by contributing
and required long
However, the process was long
term commitment
program
this program low
Under
abandoned buildings.
the city-owned
from the
transformed
By the end of 1970s, the
tenants.
into
the
Homestead Program
Urban
(UHP).
URBAN HOMESTEAD PROGRAM:
The Urban
Homestead Program
was initiated in July 1980 by
The idea behind the program was to:
the HPD.
... give
organized
neighborhood
with technical
residents
skills the opportunity to renovate, manage and purchase
deteriorating city-owned multiple dwellings. [1]
assistance, up
The program provided limited
$10,000 per
apartment towards
to a
renovation cost
maximum of
of the vacant
city-owned buildings (consisting of at least three and no more
than twenty
units), in the form of a grant to the prospective
homesteader.
The
neighborhood
where
located.
groups
homesteaders
the
were
buildings
the
under
After the renovation, the HPD sold
of
homesteaders
at
$250
per
residents
the
of the
program
were
the buildings to
apartment.
These
homesteaders were required to operate the buildings under
1 Department of Housing Preservation and Development,
Division of Alternative Management Program, Urban Homestead
Program Request for Proposal Document, December 9, 1983.
Article XI of the Housing Development
as a
moderate income housing cooperative.
low and
future
ensured the
Fund Corporation (HDFC)
affordability
and also
income housing
of
reduced the
the
low
The co-op
and moderate
HPD's responsibility of
maintaining the buildings.
Since the inception of this program,
Eleven
units,
176
representing
buildings,
these
of
Currently, under
have
the program,
twenty one buildings,
been
rehabilitated and sold.
were
located
in
the
LES.
out of twenty eight buildings,
four buildings are located in the LES.
[2]
However, according to the community organizers, the program
difficulties in attracting the low-income people of
has faced
the LES.
organizers contend
The
administrative
knowledge
required for homesteading.
required to
find financing
that the
people lacked the
administer the contractual work
to
In addition, the homesteaders were
to pay the difference between the
total rehabilitation cost, approximately $60,000 per apartment
x number of apartments, and the grant ($10,000 per apartment).
In the LES the median family income was
$10,727 in
1980. [3]
Because of the poor
2 Interview with the Deputy Director Eloise Carrigan of
Division of Alternative Management of the HPD, April 7, 1989.
is responsible for operating the Urban
This department
Homestead Program.
Side Catholic Area
3 Interview with the Lower East
It has
1989.
26,
March
staff, Carol Watson,
Conference
LES.
the
of
modified the HPD's UHP to help the poor people
46
economic standing, banks often refused to lend money
to these
groups of homesteaders.
In fact,
"a
lot
in the LES the sweat equity and the UHP attracted
of
middle-class
homesteaders.
[4]
Many
people...
of
whites
from
Yale",
as
these homesteaders ideologically
believed that
... they were saving the neighborhood for low-income tenants
through co-oping-showing
low-income
possible to own their building. [51
Because of the
residents
homesteaders'
the
of
LES
and did not
how
characteristics,
suspected
introduce gentrification into their
poorer residents
people
that
the
is
the poorer
project
neighborhood.
it
would
Since the
of the LES were unable to generate financing
receive
long
term
commitment,
they
were less
capable of completing the program.
The homesteaders
of the
LES were
whose median family income was $12,433
the
UHP
guideline,
"...annual household
they
income
were
did
first-time home owners,
(1979).
eligible,
not
as
exceed
According to
long as their
six
times the
projected annual maintenance charges," [61 approximately
4 Thomas
Glynn, "One Hundred Years of
LOISAIDA," Neighborhood, Spring, 1983, p. 9.
Exploitation:
5 Ibid.
6 Department of Housing Preservation and Development,
Division of Alternative Management Program, Urban Homestead
Program Request for Proposal Document, December 9, 1983.
47
$3,000 per year per unit in a building. [7]
Even though, the UHP program was designed to
help the low-
income people of poor neighborhoods like the LES, according to
the
community
"properly
to
sort
who represented
resident immigrants,
on
households
the
nearly 40% of the
did not
UHP.
household in
benefitted from
the LES
the Chinese, and
security, which was
(according to 1970),
programs such as the sweat equity or
made them less
The programs were designed in a way that
attractive
to
designing the
LES
these
programs,
that the
51% of the residents in
social
and
welfare
contended
Blacks and
the LES, like the Puerto Ricans,
designed
needy" from the
the
organizers
community
community. [8] The
and
poor
the
out
not
was
program
the
organizers,
groups.
did
Furthermore, the City in
consider
not
the difficulties
these people would face in joining them.
The people
Koch
of the LES had received little support from the
administration.
The
residents
felt
that
the
administration was willing to help the poor neighborhoods only
to a limited degree
and
was
more
interested
in supporting
private developers in gentrifying the neighborhood.
7 Average maintenance cost/apartment, according to the
LESCAC program is $250/month. Therefore, maintenance cost will
be $250 x 12 = $3,000/year. The Homestead building is required
to have a minimum of 3 units and a maximum of 20 units. Hence,
will be $9,000
cost/building
maintenance
minimum
the
approximately and, the maximum will be $60,000 approximately.
8 Interview conducted with the Lower
Ares Conference Staff, March 26, 1989.
East
Side Catholic
NE IGHBORHOOD ORGANI ZAT IONS:
During
the
mid
1970s,
neighborhood organizations in the
LES, developed programs in
abandonment
on
the
order to
low-income
people.
Housing Development Inc. (renamed
Adopt-a-Building; Coalition
for
Committee; Pueblo
"...
human
Many of which were
Organizations such as:
still in operation in the early 1980s.
from Coalition
effects of
mitigate the
housing);
Cooper
Sq. Development
Nuevo, mobilized tenants to make them aware
of their rights as a
"...demand their
resident
of
the
LES..."
and thus
remain in the LES form the city."
rights to
[9] The type of tenants they were serving were poor low-income
young
older
and
households) those
(20,000-25,000 estimated
who were
Rican, Black and Chinese households
Puerto
victims of
abandonment and
on welfare, those
needed housing but were
unable to attain it.
These groups
decade.
been to
The aim
help
residents and
services
have now
as
been in
of these
upgrade
[10]
operation for
and other
the
an
alternative
improvement programs.
to
such organizations has
neighborhood
provide housing for them.
the
more than a
for
the poor
They visualize their
city's
neighborhood
These community groups serve different
9 Brent Sherman, "Eviction Notice," The Quality of Life in
Loisaida, vol. 2, no. 2, Summer, 1979, p. 3.
10 Upgrading is a process where "physical improvement by
incumbent residents takes place at a substantial rate with no
or
status
socioeconomic
the
in
change
significant
L.
Clay,
Phillip
population."
of
the
characteristics
Neighborhood Renewal, (Lexington Books, 1979), p. 7.
49
parts of the
of
definition
the
is
Following
groups.
form management
to
tenants
the
helping
LES,
some
of
the
neighborhood organizations and their role.
DEFINING THE ORGANIZATIONS & THEIR ROLE:
in 1970
group founded
Adopt-A-Building is a housing
by a
Harlem churches, rehabilitates city-owned properties
group of
in the LES and manages them
cooperatives.
as low-income
The
program receives funds from the city's housing improvement and
from Housing and Urban Development and other federal programs.
Adopt-a-Building
[11]
1970s,
program
the
neighborhood
in
the
generous in the
was
employment
secured
residents
neighborhood development
funding
federal
When
neighborhood
training,
and
planning
organization, program
planning."
"job
emphasizes
98%
for
of
the
rehabilitation of buildings,
after a job training period.
out of the
Coalition Housing Development, Inc., was formed
Coalition of
Human Housing
about
ten years ago.
LES. Its role
one of the many active groups in housing in the
in the
It became
neighborhood has been to manage low-income housing for
the LES residents in the area between Houston
Street and
between Avenues
the complaints of the
A and
residents,
D.
Street and 14th
It deals directly with
educates
the
tenants, and
deals with incidents of tenant harassment in these low-income
11 The Quality of
April, 1979, p. 13.
Life in Loisaida, vol. 6, no. 2, March-
which
buildings,
also
It
jurisdiction.
its
under
are
supervises the tenant organizations.
Development Committee
Cooper Sq.
Housing
as the Coalition
Development,
services
management
provides
serves a similar purpose
region between the
14th Street and between Bowery Street
and the
is
Currently, it
and 1st Avenue.
It too
tenant
supervises
and
organizations in low-income housing in the
Houston Street
LES.
the
in
working
the
with
HPD in
developing new zoning guidelines for future affordable housing
in this region.
Pueblo
Nuevo
services to
Street
and
is
in
achievements
providing
management
bordered by Delancey Street and Houston
the area
Forsyth
for
responsible
and
1984,
Columbia
construction
the
was
One
Street.
buildings consisting of 171 new apartments,
of
of
its
apartment
which it manages.
[12]
ADDRESS ING ABANDONMENT:
The aim
of the
organizations described
mid 1970 period was to prevent
being displaced.
Displacement
abandonment by property owners.
investing less
the
people
above, during the
of
was occurring
Because
the
LES from
as a result of
property owners were
in managing and maintaining the buildings, the
condition of the housing was deteriorating and consequently
12 Ibid., vol. 7, no. 2, March-April, 1984, p. 5.
51
a better
afford
units, but the poor who were unable
left these
quality home,
could
who
Those
displacing the residents.
to find an alternative, remained in these deteriorating units,
became
with
in
moved
homeless,
strategy adopted was to mobilize the tenants to
in their
taking over
This required
of the
the role
i.e. collecting
latter's absence,
take interest
was on Tenant Management.
The emphasis
buildings.
Thus, the
other families.
landlords in the
the rents, maintaining the
buildings, etc.
At the same time, in 1979,
pressure
of
HPD's
the
was
LES
also
facing the
cost efficiency program, "consolidation."
This program called for
shutting down
the "most deteriorated
and the least occupied" in-rem buildings in New York City. The
tenants in these buildings were
better condition.
buildings in
to
move
to in-rem
The HPD's reason for carrying
reduce the
out the project was first, to
buildings which
required
cost of maintaining
were in poor condition, with few tenants, and
second, to rehabilitate these vacant buildings
for the future
low-income residents.
Even though
consolidation was considered a good thing [13]
by the above mentioned four housing
were about
340 in-rem
properties in
groups of
the LES (there
the neighborhood), they
felt that moving tenants without their involvement in the plan
would be considered a threat to the community and its
13 Ibid., vol. 2, no. 2, Summer, 1979, p. 3.
52
people.
These
four
organizations
moderate income tenants to fight
mobilized
the
against
the
low and
program.
The
overall emphasis of the list of demands prepared by the groups
was 'Tenant
Eventually some
Participation'. [14]
of the in-
were boarded-up but they remained vacant for an
rem buildings
extended time period.
Today in the 1980s the consolidation is
still occurring but not as rapidly as earlier.
These
housing
groups
tenant organization
concerned
with
did
not
limit their activities to
and participation
the
LES
as
consolidation in the summer
a
only.
They were also
neighborhood.
of 1979,
Following
the neighborhood showed
by demanding its right as a designated Neighborhood
its unity
Strategy Area (NSA).
Community Board
By
as
designated
being
the
NSA, the
(CB) #3, which represented the LES community,
would be eligible to receive Community Development (CD) grants
for
the
neighborhood
affordable
members
housing,
of
the
in
order
economic
housing
to
address
development,
advocate
groups
problems
etc.
[15]
The
mobilized
the
neighborhood residents to show their support for their
Furthermore,
to
convince
commitment
towards
encouraged
the
the
residents
support the CB #3.
the
LES,
to
City
of
the
join
the
CB #3.
neighborhood's
community
the
like
organizers
public meetings and
Today, the neighborhood has NSA status.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., no. 4, December, 1979, p. 5.
53
The various neighborhood
tenant
management
maintenance
and
residents were
management
and
tenant
management.
mobilized in
and in their neighborhood.
groups
had initiated
participation
Through
such
in
housing
programs
the
taking interest in the buildings
This
had united
the residents to
fight for affordable housing and had made them aware of the
possibilities
of
housing
attaining ownership and
ownership.
developing
Thus,
housing
the
goal
of
cooperatives was
possible to achieve.
As mentioned
earlier, the HPD had initiated a sweat equity
program and later the UHP to help low-income
house and
to improve
poor neighborhoods.
LES did
their
not see
in
The housing
receiving
the higher
Habitat
designed
residents
for
Humanity,
programs
Thus,
and
the
specifically
rehabilitate
the
54
of
city-owned
the Lower East Side
contended
that
the these
income groups in the LES, not
the
LESCAC
and
the like,
Hispanic Housing Coalition,
to
city-owned
cooperatives as homesteaders.
the poor people in
ownership
advocate group,
the low-income residents.
organizers of the
as helping
Catholic Area Conference (LESCAC),
programs benefitted
housing stock in the
However, the community
the programs
neighborhood
buildings.
the deteriorating
people own their
help
the
buildings
low-income
and
form
HOMESTEAD PROGRAM:
The LESCAC started a homestead program in 1982.
The LESCAC
homestead program was an extension of the HPD's UHP to fit the
social and economic characteristics of the community.
framed
around
its
and
LES
the
program, according to Howard
It was
The Homesteading
people.
the LESCAC,
Brandstein of
is a
process
...enabling community residents to participate in the
rehabilitation of a vacant, City-owned building. Once
managed
and
owned
is
building
the
completed,
cooperatively by those who participated. It means hard
work, usually on weekends, to remove much of the old
a building and to prepare it
interior form (or "gut")
for new heating and electrical systems. [16]
A program
such as
the homestead
program required commitment
from the participants for an extended
program could be devised
becoming
more
committed
previously was in the
residents were
least.
at the
five years
minimum of
implied
to
earlier
period of
the
that
The fact
period
organized
than
abandonment.
The
and
of
that such a
neighborhood was
the
idea
time, i.e. a
more aware of the problems in the LES and were
serious about their duties towards the neighborhood.
This commitment from the LES residents made it
achieve ownership
and formation
of co-ops.
possible to
According to the
LESCAC organizers homesteading is more than just
16 Ibid.,
vol. 10, no. 1, January-February, 1987, p. 9.
rehabilitating buildings.
It
is
a
way
to
strengthen the
community and the cooperative movement in the LES.
... a
process
that
connects
community
residents
buildings and land, establishing a physical
community, social and political life. [17]
LESCAC's definition
to
space for
of the homestead program is similar to
that of the UHP by HPD.
those under
It is
the LESCAC's
Every
homestead building, including
program, needs
the approval of the
HPD and certificate of occupancy from the City and is required
to abide
by the
HPD's UHP 'Request for Proposal' (RFP).
difference lies in the role of the organizers
The
LESCAC
assistance.
helps
the
homesteaders
by
The
in the program.
providing technical
These following services were not provided by the
HPD for its program. [18]
1. Fund raising, identifying the funding sources and making
contacts ad proposals.
2. Communicating
with the
government
agencies on behalf of the Homesteaders.
and
private
3. Giving sweat equity guidance.
4.
Seeking
architectural
services
Institute or other organizations.
through
Pratt
5. Preparing cost estimates for construction.
6. Preparing membership documents and by-laws.
7. Providing regular reports on fund
behalf of the Homesteaders.
raising efforts on
17 Ibid., vol. 7, no. 2, March-April, 1984, p. 17.
18 Lower
8, 1985.
East Side Catholic Area Conference document, June
According
to
responsibility of
the
HPD,
the group
understanding of the New
ability to
York
City
required
full
time
chores
Considering that
less-educated
and
accomplish.
completion.
to
help
This
along
commitment
did
people
not
have
would
of
They required
codes
an
and the
the
hindered
encourage
low-income
residents
LES were
as a first
been difficult
the
project's
Therefore, the LESCAC sees its services
and
To
individual
English
would have
have
the
with generating
from
the
language, such administrative work
to
building
were
perform the role of a professional contractor.
Homesteader.
poor,
services
of Homesteaders.
accomplish such administrative
funds
these
as a way
of the LES to
participate in the homestead program.
The
LESCAC
program
neighborhood; 80%
is
of the
program.
median
Approximately
for
income
residents
of
the
have benefitted from
of
$10,720 (1987).
handicapped people have also benefitted from this
housing through
demand
the
residents who
the LESCAC program earn a
Elderly and
for
seventy
the LESCAC
housing
is
residents
have
received
homestead program. [191 Since the
immediate,
by
providing
the
waiting
technical
assistance
to
shortened.
The HPD's program covered more than five years, as
the
homesteaders,
period
is
19 Around 6 buildings were completed under the LESCAC
program. I have assumed around 12 units/building. Under the
HPD's UHP 11 were completed in the LES, including the 6
buildings completed under the LESCAC.
57
compared to the LESCAC's program, which was completed
in less
than five years.
starts with LESCAC helping an interested group
The project
of local residents in becoming
identify
a
city-owned
interested group.
the $10,000
(in-rem)
After
received and
is granted to the
the difference
between the
cost, an estimated $60,000 per unit x number
of units, and the received
other means.
approval is
renovation cost
homesteaders, the LESCAC provides
total renovation
building in the LES for the
the HPD's
per apartment
will help
It
Homesteaders.
grant,
through
fund
raising and
The tasks of organizing the working teams in the
contractors for
different stages of renovation
and selecting
the
are carried out by the LESCAC.
major
building
systems,
on gutting
While the Homesteaders work
completing
the
building,
the
out the
LESCAC
interior and
carries
out
the
administrative tasks.
To discourage people
their
from
responsibilities
as
abandoning
homesteaders
LESCAC has established check points at
program to
example, if
excuse in
evaluate the
a member
the
membership and
after
joining, the
various phases
of the
commitment of the Homesteaders.
has been
absent four
For
times without an
six months then the membership is forfeited and any
money put into the project
Homesteaders are
the
by
required to
pay a
$50 per month for current expenses.
member
is
not refunded.
membership fee of $20 to
Each member needs
in 60% of his/her sweat (work time) into the project.
58
to put
After the
building is certified as a habitable unit by the
HPD, it is sold to the
homestead
HPD's,
the
UHP
requires
group.
formation
individual building homesteaders.
According
of
the
HDFC
to the
by
the
The HDFC is responsible for
maintaining the building.
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST:
To
further
ensure
the
future
housing stock in the LES, the
land trust.
The
low
and
LESCAC established
LESCAC required
Land
Trust
In
Action
(RAIN).
homesteaders;
a
a community
that the land on which the
homestead buildings are situated be sold
Rehabilitation
moderate income
by the
HDFCs to the
To Improve Neighborhoods Community
This
land
collective
trust
ownership
is
of
a
coalition of
land
insure that their buildings are available to low
as a way to
and moderate
income residents in the future.
Neither
the
LESCAC
nor
the
people of the LES visualize
housing as a commodity by which to make
see
it
as
a
basic
necessity.
incentive among the homesteaders,
designed to
be unfavorable.
profit.
Thus to reduce the profit
the resale
assets to its
In return the family receives expense cost ($20-$50 per
month) paid during the
($250
terms have been
For example, if a family decides
to leave the homestead co-op it has to sell its
HDFC.
Rather they
per
investment
year)
made
construction phase
paid
in
the
as
a
co-op
apartment
59
+ maintenance cost
resident
during
+ any capital
the
family's
occupancy.
This repayment is not adjusted for inflation.
The LESCAC
homestead program has taken the above mentioned
steps to ensure that the ownership remains with the low-income
people residents
of the LES.
This is because a large portion
of the LES is still privately owned, and
threat
that
private
people and abandon
there is
a possible
landlords might displace the low-income
the
buildings
or
justifies
the success of the program
sell
them
to private
developers for profit.
The
LESCAC
program
because it believes that the people, mainly the
low-income
extended
people,
period
community,
will
of
unlike
remain
time
the
in
since
the
their
previous
Hispanics and
community
roots
are
for
an
in
the
immigrants of the LES.
The
LESCAC and the other housing organizers' reason for supporting
the future
affordable housing in the LES is that the economic
condition of
the residents
is not
likely to
change for the
better.
Currently
groups.
the
It has
LESCAC
is
also been
assisting nearly four homestead
involved in
designing a
model of
collective ownership of land as a way to insure future low and
moderate income housing to address the
gentrification in
the neighborhood.
UHP a more formal
configuration
income
people
of
the
LES
and
increasing pressure of
The LESCAC has given the
has
assisted
the low-
in forming cooperatives and more
important, giving housing ownership.
60
FORMATION OF AHOP:
becoming an
attractive alternative
also
in the
more artists
As
neighborhood for artists only.
LES, the artists
their own co-op in the
forming
in
interest
expressed
cooperatives was
for many low and moderate
the residents
Among
income people.
of
concept
the
1970s
late
During the
moved in the
LES, the Artist's Home Owner Program (AHOP) was formed in 1980
with
interest
to
loans
would receive low-
The groups of artists
120 artist's lofts.
and rehabilitate the buildings.
purchase
grant
a
The HPD would provide
involved
city-owned unoccupied buildings for
seventeen
rehabilitating
program
The
HPD.
the
from
assistance
of
$50,000
per
building as
The buildings would be sold to the group of
renovation cost.
artists and run as co-ops.
protect
to
was
The aim of the program
the
artists from
being displaced by the booms in real estate market and to help
blight.
the neighborhood recover from the urban
was a
The community under
political issue for the community.
of
the leadership
the
several
This notion
homestead
organizations and
other housing organizations, united to fight against the City.
The project did not win the
support of
the LES residents.
The community
considered the provision of artist housing in a
neighborhood,
with
income
people,
housing
as
representing
sensitivity by the City in
for
low
lack
of
shortage
helping
the
poor.
and moderate
interest
and
Furthermore,
they
feared
the
replication
of the gentrification that had
occurred in the SoHo following
the
settlement
of
an artist
community.
IMPACT OF PROGRAMS ON THE LES:
The LESCAC Homestead program encouraged self-help method of
rehabilitating the abandoned
structures
in
the neighborhood
and owning them as co-ops.
More attempts were made in forming
housing co-ops and
the
being demolished
saving
in the area.
existing
housing
But the impact of the programs
were slow in affecting the economic and housing
the
neighborhood,
as
seen
projects focused on uniting
of their
from
the
1980
the residents,
projects, like
census.
These
making them aware
In the early part of the 1980s
changed
As
the
these
area
projects
from
an
became
abandoned
residential neighborhood, the LES began to
young
most of these
the Homestead program by the LESCAC (in 1982),
were implemented.
like
conditions of
rights as the residents of the LES, and helping them
attain housing.
slowly
stock from
urban
professionals,
successful and
to
a livable
attract outsiders,
college students, artists,
etc.
By 1980 a wave of higher
residing in the LES.
stop
the
impact
of
gentrification set in.
income groups,
the yuppies, were
The neighborhood had barely attempted to
abandonment,
when
the
pressures
of
RESPONSE TO GENTRIFICATION:
As the neighborhood began to establish a sense of community
organizations, it was
with the help from various neighborhood
upgraded, and
were increasing
Real estate and rents
LES.
in Manhattan and
Middle-class whites and
affordable rent.
still had
the LES
people from outside the
consequently attracted
to the area
owner, came
young professionals, first-time home
in search of housing in the 1980s.
real
The
followed these new groups of people
groups
estate
started buying
into the neighborhood and
properties from the
This led to an increase in the rents and a
private landlords.
displacement of the low-income people from the tenements.
This Gentrification process gained speed from 1980 onwards.
The central issue was no longer abandonment and its effects on
the
but
neighborhood,
gentrification.
the total
In 1980
units, lacked
About 15% of the inhabited units
than one
value and
person per
the
effects
the
of
Prior to gentrification, the condition of the
housing was deteriorating.
6% of
mitigate
to
ways
demand
residents increased.
room.
for
3,869 dwelling
units, or
complete plumbing facilities.
were overcrowded,
i.e. more
With the increase in real estate
housing,
the
rent
paid
by the
In 1980, nearly 43.4% of the households
paid more than 25% of their income for rent. [20]
20 "This Land Is Ours: A Strategy for the Preservation and
Development of Affordable Housing on the Lower East Side,"
working paper by the Lower East Side Joint Planning Council,
March, 1984, p. 13.
During this
period the
displacement in the LES
City did
and
showing support
address the issue
deteriorating
this silence
for the
of
attempts
from the
real estate
stop the
a way of
developments.
Thus, to
conditions,
neighborhood group, the
to
City as
gentrification,
housing
scheme, currently
no
plans to deter
The neighborhood residents and the
process of gentrification.
organizers regarded
made
not have
Joint
displacement,
and the
the
housing
Planning
referred to
as the
united
Council,
proposed a
Cross Subsidy Plan, to
the New York City in 1984.
JOINT PLANNING COUNCIL:
The Lower East
Side
Joint
group, that
housing advocate
for the last twenty years.
groups (see
Appendix 3).
organizations,
cultural
block
clubs.
"...coordinate and
their fight
plan for
the
The JPC
It
The
Council
(JPC)
is a
serving the community
represents thirty member
includes community development
settlement
organizations,
purpose
of
and
the
tenant
houses,
recreational,
organization
and
is to
support all of the member organizations in
for better
the Lower
Joint
has been
churches,
organizations,
Planning
housing and
East Side...
Planning
Council
a rational environmental
The member organizations of
will
establish
priorities..." [21] for the entire community.
21 "Principles and
Planning Council."
Structure
64
of
Lower
housing
The role of the
East
Side Joint
JPC for the past years has been to represent the community and
the local groups for the production of low and moderate income
housing in the LES.
the JPC prepared a plan for the neighborhood.
In 1984
plan
was
on
based
consultation with
(CSS)
and
the
Environmental
three-parts.
a
house
study
the Community
Pratt
had
conducted in
Service Society
Institute
Development
that
Center
(PICCED).
for
The
of New York
Community
&
The plan consisted of
It called for
1. the use of the vacant city-owned buildings
and moderate income housing.
for the low
2. a special community preservation district, that would
use zoning tools to protect and increase the stock of
affordable housing.
3. the formation of a Local Enforcement Unit to prevent
further deterioration of housing, protect tenant rights.
[221
In response
plan in 1984.
to the
JPC's plan,
then
Since
the
HPD
the City proposed another
and
the
JPC
working together to formulate a "desi reable" plan.
scheme has not been implemented yet.
disputes
between
been a major
cause
the
of
City
the
It has run
have been
Though the
into several
and the neighborhood, which have
delay.
The
following chapter
studies the plan in detail.
22 "This Land Is Ours: A Strategy for the Preservation and
Development of Affordable Housing on the Lower East Side,"
working paper by the Lower East Side Joint Planning Council,
March, 1984, p. 1.
CHAPTER IV
CROSS SUBSIDY PLAN
studies the
This chapter
Three-Step Plan
Cross Subsidy "80-20"
JPC and how it was transformed into the
the "50-50"
later into
plan and
proposed by the
The chapter mentions
plan.
the goals the JPC and the HPD will achieve by implementing the
plan.
Because of the difference of opinions and goals set by
neighborhood organizations,
and the
the City
delayed
the JPC
also, the reason why
City, inspite
the
why
reasons
possible
implemented.
being
in
them,
between
misunderstanding
City
approved
chapter
The
plan has been
analyzes the
ventured into this plan and
conjunction with the
worked in
fact that
of the
the
along with the
they are
on poor terms with
and
their constituents
each other.
THREE-STEP PLAN:
The JPC, its member
worked together
Ours: A
to come
Strategy
Affordable
Housing
The purpose of this
for
on
organizations
up with
the
the
document
the document
"This Land Is
and
Development of
Lower East Side,"
in March 1984.
provide
secure living
Preservation
was
to
conditions for the low and moderate income residents "who have
traditionally found a home here."
[1]
1 "This Land Is Ours: A Strategy for the Preservation and
Development of Affordable Housing on the Lower East Side,"
working paper by the JPC, March, 1984, p. 1.
66
FIGURE 4.1
THREE STEP PLAN
Proposed by the JPC
March 1984.
1. use of city-owned property
2. designate Special District
. establish monitoring process
. anti-displacement rule
. inclusionary housing rule
3. form Local Enforcement Unit
establish a community land trust
CROSS SUBSIDY PLAN
Approved by the City
July 1984.
use of city-owned land
80% market-rate units
20% low-moderate units
'V
NEW CROSS SUBSIDY PLAN
Approved by the Commissioner
September 1987.
1. use of city-owned property
50% market-rate unit
50% low-moderate unit
2. form Local Enforcement Unit
3. designate Special District
form Mutual Housing Association
The JPC
and its member organizations considered privately-
owned housing's increasing rent
from housing
and
their conversion
low-income people to higher income groups as the
most important problem in
along with
levels
the LES.
To
address this problem
the pressure of displacement due to gentrification
the JPC recommended a three-step plan.
1. use of city-owned property for
housing;
2. designating
district;
the
LES
They were:
low and
moderate income
a Special community preservation
3. forming a local enforcement unit.
STEP 1:
One of the objectives of using the City-Owned Properties in
the neighborhood,
i.e. the
the impact of higher
tenants.
the LES,
rent
To guarantee
the
affordable
strategy
low-cost
available resources,
on
the
low
a permanent
was
to
housing,
and
was to curb
moderate income
home for these people of
rehabilitate
using
and
build new
the city-owned, in-rem,
buildings and lands.
According to the 1980 figures, the New York
vacant buildings
in the LES.
(3,672 dwelling
The members
of
the
City owned 207
units) and 220 vacant plots
Council
and
the community
considered providing housing for the poor as one of the duties
of the city.
Therefore, all the in-rem
properties located in
the LES would be utilized appropriately by housing the low and
moderate income people of the LES.
68
Instead
of spending money
on providing
temporary housing
could be channeled towards
for the homeless, that amount
providing permanent
homes for the
poor.
STEP 2:
Another
step
proposed
the
JPC
was
Manhattan's Community Board #3, i.e.
the
LES,
Community
Preservation
designated as
the
by
District
the Neighborhood
city-owned
neighborhood
properties,
was
as
the
a Special
neighborhood was also
Strategic Area).
73%
privately
(the
declaring
Apart from
of the total housing in the
owned.
The
pressure
of
gentrification had already been affecting the affordability of
these dwellings.
As mentioned earlier, some of
the landlords
had sold their properties to the private developers for profit
and others
had displaced
income tenants.
laws was
the low-income
Therefore,
suggested
to
tenants for higher-
the implementation of the zoning
prevent
displacement
of
the poorer
tenants and to
... preserve
the
unique
character
of
the
LES
as
a
neighborhood where low and moderate income people will
always have a place and to guarantee that a reasonable
share of all new apartments rehabilitated or constructed
be affordable to our low and moderate-income people. [21
The first
objective of
the Special Community Preservation
District was to ensure that no residents of the LES would be
2 Ibid., p. 5.
69
rate unit, then the owner would
on the
that unit
a
If
changes.
private owner
a low and moderate income to a market-
unit from
converted a
the
and
housing activities
monitoring
keep account of the
that would
be established
process would
A
buildings.
their
from
displaced
illegally
of it.
600 feet
or within
same site
for replacing
be responsible
The
owner would be also responsible for finding relocation for the
and
tenants
paying
if
cost
relocation
the
he decided to
renovate the property or build new housing.
Community Preservation
The second objective of the Special
future affordable low and moderate
to guarantee
District was
income housing in all new development, especially market-rate,
in the
construction or
Any new
LES.
would require 20% of
the units
JPC because there were large number
the
neighborhood
control.
would not
over
the
which
Therefore, to
overlook the
ensure that
recommended by
low and
of private
city
or
properties in
the
JPC had no
these private properties
low and moderate income people's need
the implementation
for housing,
for the
be reserved
This strategy was proposed by the
residents.
moderate income
renovation of housing
of the
Special District was
This strategy was referred to as
the Council.
the anti-displacement rule.
The third objective of the Special District was to increase
the
affordable
low
and
moderate
neighborhood by offering extra
This bonus
income
floor area
dwellings
in the
to the developers.
would be permitted only if the developers provided
70
higher proportion of low and moderate income units
buildings.
This was
in the new
referred to as the inclusionary housing
rule.
STEP 3:
For the supervision of the existing and the
moderate
income
properties
in
the LES the JPC proposed the
formation of the Local Enforcement Unit (LEU).
guide,
monitor
strategy,
goals.
and
enforce
the
anti-displacement
the
future low and
neighborhood
and
The LEU would
preservation
inclusionary
housing
The JPC principles describes the functions of the LEU
as follows:
1. The LEU will have the police powers to enforce the
the Special District. All necessary
provisions of
approvals of development plans and commitments for low
and moderate-income units, awards of specific density
bonuses, replacement housing
location, relocation
plans, and rent levels must be obtained through LEU.
2. In addition to monitoring developer's commitments and
practices in projects which require LEU approval under
the Special District, it will also enforce tenant
protection regulations regarding evictions, displacement
and- harassment, rent control and stabilization, all
housing
related
code
compliance
and
housing
discrimination throughout the community.
3. The LEU will help to facilitate developer's proposal
which have met the requirements of the Special District.
As an incentive, fast tracking methods will be used to
reduce processing times at the Community Board, City
Planning Commission, and the Board of Estimate. [3]
3 Ibid. p.
1F
71
the city-owned
a formation of a Community Land
JPC proposed
Under the CLT all the city-owned properties, and
Trust (CLT).
the
using
through
created
be
housing that will
properties, the
continued affordability of the
ensure the
Furthermore, to
city-owned
future
CLT
The
registered.
in
properties
be
would
a
the
would
LES
of
federation
be
the
The function of this CLT would
cooperatively owned buildings.
be similar to the RAIN, as mentioned in
the previous chapter.
The principles of CLT would be empowering; the residents would
be
controlling
homeless,
the
the
and
housing
working
families
to
land,
and
integrate
families
on
the
public
assistance and, to assure permanent affordability of housing.
was
The three-step plan
phases.
The
JPC
cooperative housing.
$35,000 per
unit.
be
to
proposed
that
implemented
in
Phase I, 200 units of
The estimated cost would be
The financial
in different
$7 million,
breakdown given by the JPC
proposal for the phase I was as follows:
[4]
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban
Development Grant
$ 2,000,000
City and State Matching Grant
$ 2,000,000
Private Consortium Loan and
Grants
$ 3,000,000
TOTAL
4 Ibid.,
p.
27.
$ 7,000,000
In Phase II,
1,000 units
submitted in
The plan
financed by
subsequent phases,
and the
The cost would be $37
1984 by
properties
city-owned
the
rehabilitate
rehabilitated
model would be applied.
home ownership
million.
be
would
the funds
wanted to
the JPC,
LES in the
the
in
Following
raised.
of a phase the CLT would acquire the buildings
the completion
be required to
The tenants would
and the land from the City.
pay a monthly sum of $269. [5]
Therefore, to
protect the LES's historical,
safeguard and
cultural and social character as
income
moderate
people;
community
for
the
to give stability thorough economic
integration; to enhance the housing opportunities
its member
organizations approached
These three-steps
#3.
1984.
For
the
were approved
the JPC and
its Community Board (CB)
by the
CB #3
in June
of the plan the JPC needed the
enforcement
The JPC has been represented
approval of the City.
low and
by the CB
#3 in its dealing with the City.
CROSS SUBSIDY PLAN:
In July 1984 Mayor Koch and Andrew Stein, Manhattan Borough
a
Officer, officially announced
market
rate
constructed.
units
in
the
plan
where
for
every four
LES one low-income unit would be
This was referred to as the Cross Subsidy Plan
5 Estimated $269/month assumed debt service of $111/month,
maintenance cost of $35/room/month and a J-51 real estate tax
exemption. Ibid, p. 28.
73
(XSP) and also as the 80-20 plan. [6] The plan
would select
80-20, XSP the City
would develop
both 80%
income units.
The
return for the property,
vacant city-owned
households.
land
to build
of cost,
developers, free
the
20% low and moderate
given
be
would
to the
market-rate housing.
would
developers
In
renovate the
the low
and moderate income
would benefit
from tax subsidies.
buildings for
The developer
developers who
the private
market-rate and
city-owned
According to the
part plan.
JPC's three
to the
in response
was formulated
sale of market-rate units other city-owned apartment
From the
be rehabilitated
buildings in the LES would also
"low-cost"
to
the
low
moderate
and
and sold at
people in the
income
neighborhood.
The JPC and its
plan.
member organizations
welcome the
Their principal disagreement was with housing one lowfour market
income household for every
80-20
did not
plan.
The
aim
of
rate units,
i.e. the
the JPC's three-part plan was to
increase the affordable low and moderate income housing stock.
But the
split.
Council did
On the
not see that happening through the 80-20
contrary,
they
argued
plan
encouraged more
market-rate housing for the higher income groups.
The Council
6 The City proposed the 80-20 Cross Subsidy Plan for a
neighborhood in Brooklyn in 1984. This neighborhood had two
different ethnic group, the Puerto Ricans and the Hasidic
Jews, both demanding housing. The city proposed 80% marketrate housing for the Hasidic Jews, who were financially well
off and only 20% subsidized low-income housing for the Puerto
Ricans. The construction of the low-income housing has still
not begun but the market-rate housing is near completion.
74
also skeptical about the construction of 20% low
members were
Their contention
and moderate income units by the developers.
was that since the developers would be involved in the program
more for the profit, they would not abide by their legal binds
and hence, not complete the 20% low and moderate income units.
The JPC had also proposed the CLT, where by the affordable low
and
income
moderate
would be protected from
stock
housing
three-part plan,
According to the
speculation in the future.
they had called for all city-owned land to be reserved for the
giving most
the
But
housing.
low and moderate income
XSP recommended
of the city-owned land to the developers for free
the poor.
and allotting a few for housing
Therefore, the JPC
felt that the City did not address the key issue, i.e. housing
for the poor in the XSP.
of the LES,
The dispute between the City and the community
regarding the 80-20 split, remained unresolved for a period of
office
did
HPD
negotiation
representing
resumed
the
JPC,
community of the LES.
teams reach
an
between
its
new
the
Under
place.
took
the Mayor's
and
to respond
to the
January 1987 a change in the Commissioner of
On
HPD's plan.
the
not want
Thus, the JPC did
requirements.
HPD
their plan to meet JPC's
alter
to
attempt
not
the
period,
During this
three years.
the
member
City
Commissioner
the
CB
#3,
and
the
and
the
organizations
The Commissioner insisted that both the
agreement
within
six
months,
or
he would
dispose the city-owned property in the LES without the consent
land in the LES from being used for
the city-owned
freeze on
City declared a
At the request of the CB #3, the
of the JPC.
other programs.
THE NEW CROSS SUBSIDY PLAN:
50% of
The new XSP proposed a 50-50 split, i.e.
for market-rate and 50% for low and moderate
owned properties
The plan consisted of: utilization of the city-
income units.
owned property
for low and moderate income housing;
These three-parts
were similar
plans of the JPC.
The new XSP
the CB
formation
mutual
housing association.
in some
ways to the original
a
of
of the LEU; establishment
HPD and
the city-
approval of
met the
both the
#3, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
was approved by the HPD Commissioner in September 30, 1987.
According to the MOU the developers would bid
land
owned
for
200
then
would
be
used
moderate income
units
in
the
the
Both
land
the
groups
to
agreed
to
rehabilitate 200 low and
of all
the phases.
to the money generated from
renovation cost
for the
use of the city-owned
vacant buildings.
city-owned
maximize
the number of low and
moderate income units and the goal was set
the end
the sale of
proceeds from
The
highest bidder would qualify.
in Phase I, and the
units
market-rate
on the city-
at 1,000
units by
The HPD added $5 million subsidy
the
low and
property
sale
of
the
land
for the
moderate income units.
for
housing
both
the high-
income and low-income was one of the parts of the new XSP.
76
The
To promote
economic, ethnic
and racial integration in the
community the developed market-rate and low-income units would
be distributed
evenly throughout
low and moderate income
housing would
where the
western portion
units would be promoted
and moderate
the LES.
market was
in the
For example: more
be constructed
in the
active and market-rate
regions where
there were low
income units and the market was not strong. (see
map 4.1) Since the
organizations
funding resources
considered
it
were limited,
more
cost
both the
effective
to
rehabilitate units than to construct new units for the low and
moderate income
people.
a unit was less
than the
The
ensure
CB
#3
to
The construction cost for renovating
construction cost
that
for a
new unit.
the construction of the low and
moderate income units would not be hampered due to low bidding
for the land, welcomed the $5 million from the HPD.
The three-part
plan of the JPC had requested the formation
of the LEU and designating the LES a
the 80-20
XSP was
When
designed by the Mayor in 1984, neither the
LEU nor the Special District were
negotiation was
Special District.
resumed with
in the
agenda.
After the
the HPD in 1987 the JPC started
pushing the LEU and the Special District. To designate the LES
as a
Special District the CB #3, representing the JPC, needed
to negotiate
with
Since
the
then
the
CB
Department
#3's
zoning
negotiating with the DCP.
78
of
City
Study
Planning (DCP).
group
have
been
The LEU
upon in
1988.
from the
the MOU,
three-part plan
and would
of
function
Initially the
JPC, was agreed
operation from January 1,
LEU
the
not clearly
was
It only mentioned that the LEU would be
the MOU.
defined in
be in
of the
operating for the first
from the
eighteen months
money from
the sale of the city-owned properties and the balance would be
put into the cross
income units.
financed
subsidy
through
the
low
and moderate
the
City's
general
revenue.
the agreement on the LEU, the HPD received
Subsequently after
for the LEU from the CB #3.
According
consisting
for
Following the eighteen months, the LEU would be
annually
a detailed
fund
to
of
the
two
proposal
the
LEU
was
a
component
and related concerns
"fundamental
serve the community most effectively."
...
to
[7] They were:
1. enforcement of existing housing laws and building codes.
2. the provision of organizing legal
to low and moderate income tenants.
The function
of the LEU would need a different orientation to
To
the city agency.
require
services
or advocacy services
access
the
to
LEU
codes
enforce
government;
need
to
the
organization would
however, to provide advocacy
work
independently
from
the
government.
In reviewing
the proposal
the HPD found some similarities
between the proposed LEU services and the services some of the
7 Manhattan Community Board #3 memo, May 9, 1988.
MAP 4.2
Community Consultant Contracts
80
were
organizations
community
of
Some
offering.
these
organizations as mentioned by the HPD were: Asian American for
Inc.,
Time,
Pueblo Nuevo, It's
Council.
existing
map
(see
Inc.,
Therefore,
4.2)
services
their
through the LEU.
thus,
and
not
did
the
efforts of these
the
HPD
as a duplication
regarded the maintenance and law enforcement
of
regarded
HPD
the
Furthermore,
organizations.
community
Unite Jewish
the
and
of the
as duplication
the LEU
function of
Coalition for Housing Development,
East Side
Equality, Lower
need to be operated
of the LEU
The HPD also regarded the access
organizers to their computerized data as unnecessary since the
kind of
HPD performed the similar
grounds the
existing
market
place
because it
The City
did not
the city to demand
The JPC and the CB #3 contended that
organizations
were "...overtaxed and could not
now, much
handle the case load
the
proposed LEU
neighborhoods in
encourage other
such exclusive services.
the
Based on these
the CB #3's LEU proposal.
HPD rejected
did not want to support the
want to
function.
less the
creating..."
was
increasing pressure
[81 The battle over the
functions of the LEU has still not been resolved.
DEVELOPM4ENT OF THE UNITS:
A
study
conducted
by
the
Pratt
Institute
Center
for
Community & Environmental Development (PICCED) suggested that
8 People's Press, vol. 2, no. 1, February, 1989, p. 1. sale
market rate
units of
would generate $49 million
housing and
The study also verified
approximately, i.e. $49,000 per unit.
producing 200 low and moderate income
of the
the feasibility
develop 1,000
enough to
of land from all the phases would be
units and 200 market rate units
(assuming that rehabilitation
cost per unit is $70,000) as follows:
from market rate:
a) $49,000/unit x 200 units = $ 9,800,000
= $ 5,000,000
+ HPD cash subsidy
$14,800,000
for low and moderate:
b) $70,000/unit x 200 units = $14,800,000
According
the
to
carried
housing would be
(RFP) and
the proceeds
The RFP
explained."
number of units to
through
out
for Proposal
Request
"In each RFP and
Qualification (RFQ).
Request for
RFQ the use of
sale of land for market rate
the
MOU,
sale(s) should
of the
be fully
and RFQ should also include the minimum
be constructed
on each
site.
This plan
encouraged the involvement of the developers in the production
of the low and moderate income units.
The definition
of
the
low
and
moderate
income housing
according to the MOU was a household earning less than $15,000
per year and family earning less than $23,000 per year (dollar
limits
to
be
adjusted
annually).
These low and moderate
income units would remain permanently for this group and would
be maintained
as non-profit housing.
be sufficient to cover
the operating
82
The rents charged would
costs of
the buildings
and no
cross subsidy
rents.
The development of the
would be
if for
funds would
low and
carried out through RFQ.
any
contractual
"reason
within
relationship
the
with
immediate
measures
Since then the HPD and the
to
moderate income units
The MOU also suggests that
HPD's
the
moderate income units experience
take
be allocated to subsidized
control
developer"
delay,
then
through its
the
the
low and
HPD would
put the units back on schedule.
CB #3
have been
working toward a
final version of the RFP and RFQ.
FORMATION OF MUTUAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION:
The Mutual Housing Association (MHA) is a recommendation by
the JPC and the CB #3 in the new XSP.
It
...will develop, own and operate the
low and moderate
income units as a non-profit, democratically governed
corporation with board membership including a majority of
seats to be held by residents and future residents. [9]
The MHA
will be responsible for selecting the contractors for
the renovation of the low and moderate income
contractors have submitted the RFQs.
responsible for
selecting the
It will be also
tenants for
MHA will select the qualified tenants
the
city's
median
income
units after the
($13,905),
these units.
whose income
who
the JPC
and CB
are below
are the original
residents of the neighborhood or were displaced from
According to
The
the LES.
#3's suggestion the MHA will be
financed by the HPD and will be established before the RFQs
9 Ibid.
83
to fund it,
is a must to carry out the RFQ
the MHA
formation of
but the
has declined
the HPD
As of now,
are finalized.
for the low and moderate income units.
PROS & CONS OF THE XSP:
moderate
Unlike the earlier version, the
investing much federal funds.
80-20
split,
this
plan encourages more economic integration
The City also did not
and this has been welcomed by the City.
want
be divide into ethnic ghettos and
to
neighborhood
the
low and
people of the LES without
the
for
housing
income
construct
to
way
a
as
XSP
The City sees this
hence, the City considers
50-50 split,
this XSP,
as a worth
while plan.
However, the City has been worried that the vacant lands in
the LES may not
build
be valuable
market-rate
that
there
is
selected areas of the LES.
attract developers to
the
City and the JPC have
Both
units.
of the
conducted an in-house study
concludes
enough to
strong
a
The City
The JPC's study
market.
real
market in
estate
from its
study declares
that the strength of the market in the LES is not known and is
probably not as strong as the JPC claims it to
in order
to attract
the developers
wanted
lands from the city, the City
price.
Since the
JPC believes
be. Therefore,
in purchasing the vacant
to
the value
set
a
low bidding
of the land to be
high in the LES, it considers setting low-price, as a
the City
way for
to underplay the possible success and also to dampen
84
the expectation from the plan.
in
developers
the
of
involvement
construction the low and
HPD
The
removed.
been
moderate income units has
However the
split.
50-50
a
as
Today the plan remains
will be
responsible for overseeing the market rate development and the
hold each other
the JPC
Both the city and
finalize the RFP.
The HPD contends that the members of the JPC are
responsible.
JPC
Where as, the
too demanding.
ensure
to
wants
that no
unethical developer will get the opportunity to bid
"bad" and
"too
application
RFP
the
JPC wants
Therefore, the
for the market rate units.
made
has taken more than one year to
It
not.
has
RFQ
will be
The RFP has been finalized where
units, the MHA and the RFQs.
the
JPC
the
and
#3
of the low and moderate income
the operation
responsible for
as
CB
the
The LES community,
RFPs.
for
rigid"
and has
any interested
developer to take part in the bidding, according to the HPD.
yet been
The RFQ has not
complaints among
delaying
the
for the bid.
Therefore, by
final
developers.
RFQ.
i.e.
This process
the time
and moderate income
formed by
The
the JPC members is that the HPD is purposely
declared,
officially
CB#3.
the JPC,
drafted by
then, the
For the
The
RFP
has
application
been
the developers can start applying
may
take
more
than
six months.
the HPD finalizes the RFQ for the low
units,
assuming
that
the
MHA
has ben
RFP will be received from the interested
time being
quiet over the issue of the RFQ.
85
the JPC
has remained fairly
MISUNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE JPC AND THE HPD:
community and the City, regarding
between the
The dispute
Since the City and the community have
the plan, still exists.
been on poor terms with each other for over twenty years, each
blames
side
executed.
The HPD
with the JPC.
as
the
other
the
JPC
for
not
plan
to be
has expressed its difficulties in working
It claims that the
and
the
allowing
the
other
According to them, the
neighborhood is
not united
organizations present it to be.
LES has
too many
different community
groups, ethnic groups, who are in conflict with each other and
each group emphasizing its own program.
According to the HPD,
tried
to
involve
the
when the
XSP was
proposed, the JPC
various organizations it represented.
The HPD considered involvement of different groups in
as a
hinderance.
achieve too many
It also
goals
in
felt that
one
the JPC
program.
the XSP
was trying to
Even
though the
Council's aims were to preserve the community and increase the
housing stock for the
the plan
MHA.
low-income people,
by enforcing
Hence, in
the
the LEU,
City's
eyes
the JPC complicated
the Special District and the
it
was
the
JPC
who was
responsible for slowing the negotiation process.
Moreover,
divided over
supportive of
this ethnic
helping
the
the
HPD
the XSP.
feels
The
that the neighborhood is itself
Jewish residents
the plan and of the JPC.
group feels
poor
and
that the
hence,
86
According to the HPD,
JPC is
in
have been less
only interested in
creating
a
low-income
neighborhood
that
the
to
lead
not
will
neighborhood's
economic development, which the Jewish residents want.
the
However,
Council
members
that
feel
programs.
are
They contend
representing the community and its needs fairly.
that the
they
XSP was designed to preserve the LES and its various
They also
them, considers
believe that
the community,
along with
the need for low-income housing in the LES as
its top
priority.
housing
needs,
they
Therefore,
can
issues like job, health,
they
feel
simultaneously
family,
that
by solving
solve other social
education,
etc. concerning
the residents.
Apart from the City, the JPC was assisted by the PICCED and
the Community Service Society of New
the
three-part
support the JPC.
proposal.
Both
York (CSS)
independent
in preparing
organizations
They feel that the three-part plan
is a way
to meet the housing needs for the low-income people of the LES
and also a way
The
two
to mitigate
organizations,
the pressures
unlike
the
HPD,
of gentrification.
sees the LES as a
"strong" and "united" community, that is willing to
City
for
their
needs.
They
also
consider
fight the
the JPC as a
representative of the community and its needs. [101
10 Conversation with i) Victor Bach, Director of CSS
1988 and ii) Frank DeGiovanni, Faculty member of
November 29,
Pratt Institute March, 1989.
87
VESTED INTEREST OF THE GROUPS:
Given
or genuine.
as benevolent
the HPD
One may consider the involvement of
City has had bad reputation for
that the
not taking interest in the city's
did it
poor why
decide to
get involved in the XSP?
As mentioned
not extensively helped
City had
earlier the
the neighborhoods facing abandonment and gentrification.
When
the HPD was first approached by the JPC and the CB #3 with the
proposal,
organizers
it
accepted
claimed
was not taken seriously.
plan
the
that
the community
though
proposal,
the
for a period
Because of this the proposal was left unattended
of three
years by
The HPD had also underestimated
the HPD.
the community's commitment towards the program and their fight
against the pressure of gentrification.
Another possible
reason for the HPD to get involved in the
designing and the implementation of the
to
direct the real estate market.
plan, was
(this is assuming that the
City was aware of the strength of the real estate
Since the
neighborhood was
becoming attractive
income groups, chiefly the young urban
also considered
urban blight.
-the City
the XSP
as a
way to
of the
have a solution and when a
save the
problems of
plan such
to the upper
LES from the
of the doubt-
the LES but did not
as XSP
the City genuinely wanted the plan to work.
88
in the LES)
professionals, the HPD
But to give the City the benefit
was aware
to be able
came into being
despised
is
government
For
City.
the
with
conjunction
why the JPC wanted to work in
clear
not
is
it
However,
the
by
past
decade
the
City
the
LES.
The
of
people
community has fought with the city on several
Homesteaders
The
Hispanic
Humanities,
LESCAC,
the
like
in chapter
Habitat
defeated
Coalition
Housing
The
community fought was
Then the issue was AHOP (mentioned
Consolidation.
3).
the
which
over
1970's
the
in
issue
occasions.
for the
the HPD's
AHOP.
years.
LES filed a lawsuit against
The issue was the Seward Park Urban Renewal area in
the city.
the LES.
of the
the community
In 1988
This site has been a controversial site for twenty
The conflict was raised when "racist tactics were used
income
to force out low
minority
and
residents"
the land to a "mega-developer" Sam LeFrak to
and
income
middle
from
In February 1988, the Mayor sold
their residents by the city.
condominiums
[11]
rental
construct luxury
apartments.
(see
appendix 4 for the breakdown of the units according to income)
community
The
launched
marched to the City
a
protest
held a
Hall and
against
the project and
press conference there.
Meanwhile, the community
...
promises
to
keep
up
a vigorous fight throughout this
process. We will defeat this ill-conceived and racist
to build unneeded luxury housing and exclude
proposal
working-class families from their historic home. [12]
11 People's Press, vol. 2, no. 1, February, 1989, p. 2.
12 Ibid.
89
from the
remained through
feeling has
City
the
and
landlords, the developers
out the
expect less
fight against the
has to
that it
It feels
City.
to
come
has
years,
The community, over the
to
This
survive.
negotiation of the XSP
between the HPD and the JPC and the CB #3.
The JPC has not allowed the HPD to dictate the housing laws
When the City had proposed the 80-20 split of the
in the LES.
the
land,
city-owned
JPC
did
not
the
allow
to be
plan
The JPC considered the original three-part plan
implemented.
housing problems
as a way to address the
in the
LES for the
low and moderate income people.
to
ensure
special zoning district and the LEU
consisted of
The plan
the
neighborhood.
of
future
Therefore, for
housing
affordable
the
in
the plan to be enforced for it
to have an impact on the LES, the
JPC may
have considered it
imperative to work with the city and its various agencies.
"allowing" the City to work in
the
conjunction with
By
the JPC, the
JPC considered it as a chance for the City to redeem itself of
its past misdeeds and
people of
the LES.
and by funding a plan
show
This
of
its
support
for
the low-income
was possible by approving the plan
this
magnitude.
Therefore, even
though the JPC would have preferred not working with the City,
it needed to utilize
government funds
and receive government
backing, to enforce the plan successfully.
90
CONCLUSION
presented
has
thesis
This
strength
neighborhood
has
examined the
against the City in order
to fight
community's determination
It
LES.
the
in
a study on the development of
to preserve its neighborhood from the pressures of abandonment
and gentrification as well as the residents' efforts to obtain
and improve low-income housing in the LES.
with
neighborhood
caused by gentrification.
to
The JPC proposed a
(mentioned
gentrification
address
pressure
increased
the
preserving the
involved in
JPC became
Groups such as the
of
displacement
three-part plan
in Chapter 4),
and to
solve the problem of housing shortage for low-income residents
in the
JPC and the HPD differed in their
However, the
LES.
objectives and the means of attaining them.
between
the
Both
optimistic about the plan.
Council members
made
has
This
groups.
two
strained
has
process
negotiation
The
HPD
the
II.
for
the
both sides less
and
some
of the
of Phase
construction
sees the possibility
members are even doubtful about
Other council
the implementation
RFQs
relationship
of the JPC feel that the program will only be
carried out till Phase I, though the HPD
of Phase
the
I, because
of
the
of the
delay in the
low and moderate income
units.
Based on the literature
believe that
even if
and
the
interviews
conducted, I
the community is not united, as claimed
for housing
by the HPD, it certainly considers the need
as a
But it is difficult to verify how supportive the
key problem.
the Council
community is of the JPC and how united
is even more difficult for a non resident
It
housing issue.
though the council
Even
the truth.
find out
of the LES to
is on the
member and other community organizers present the community as
reflection of
a
is
statement
this
a united group, to what
their personal opinions is questionable.
felt
the JPC and its plan,
though supportive of
organizers, even
the community
some of
neighborhood residents
the
that
the
the interviews conducted,
Based on
neighborhood not united.
considered
HPD
the
4,
chapter
in
mentioned
As
were too involved in the problems of housing.
This was partly
housing
advocate groups
even
though
was a
outside, it
the
hearings, suing the
residents were
that the
to provide housing for them.
the JPC
that
A few felt
other
holding public
issue by
popularized the
city, etc.
and
JPC
the
due to the way
neighborhood
disjointed set
depending on
Some like the HPD, felt
appeared
united
from
of various individuals and
interest groups.
It
is
community
my
feeling
organizers
that
have
the
over
JPC and
the
Because
about the success of the XSP.
supported the
Council
its plan
members
and other
years become skeptical
of
which
those who
initially, feel other social
issues like job, health, family, etc. were overlooked.
community
organizers
feel
that
the
These
social issues are also
character
socioeconomic
the
solving
in
important
of
the
neighborhood.
A reason for the delay in the implementation of the XSP can
solving their
outside the LES in
their resentment towards
no need to involve people
than Pratt
problems (other
have assisted them by providing market
CSS who
Institute and
feel
organizers
The
residents and
Many
city.
have expressed
community organizers
outsiders.
the
of
rest
the
from
itself
to isolate
tried
has
community
the
way
be because of the
studies and in gathering information).
They wish
to be self-
This strikes me as one of the major drawbacks in
sufficient.
the need
their approach to addressing
for housing.
Council
City,
and are
Even though it is difficult to assess, I feel that
all the
Members
distrust
the
especially
outsiders,
hostile towards them.
three-parts, i.e.
the plan
down of
led to a slow
between
the LEU, the Special District, the MHA, has
Council
the
increased conflicts
and has
This is because the Council
members.
members were working in specific groups
addressing the three-
parts.
A
examination
close
indicates
that
implementation
program.
the
the
XSP
been
has
JPC
process,
the
of
agenda,
proposed
rigid
too
and
in
the LES,
in
the
the layout of the
While I feel that Phase I will be implemented, I see
little chance
of Phase II succeeding.
statement is that the
plan
has
been
The reason behind this
delayed
and
both the
groups have become wary of the plan.
If the
to move on the Phase II, then it should
JPC wishes
try to give less emphasis to the secondary issues such
as the
LEU, the Special District, the MHA, which the JPC considers as
an integral part of the XSP.
These
are addressed
200
units
for
the
of
rehabilitation
the rehabilitation
and the
the low and moderate
JPC should
have implemented
construction of
low and moderate
believe the
I
income families.
along with
income and market-rate units first, since housing is the prime
need in
the LES.
negotiation with
These issues
and
Following this, the JPC should have resumed
the
City
regarding
the
secondary issues.
concern themselves with permanent affordable low
moderate
community would
income
housing
for
the
future.
Thus, the
be better served by separating the issues and
by implementing the issues at a later phase.
94
APPENDIX 1
Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics
of the Lower East Side
Popul at i on
Census
Tracts
2.01
2.02
6
8
*10.01
10 . 02
*12
*14.01
14.02
*16
*18
20
22. 0 1
22.02
24
25
26.01
*26.02
27
1980
% Change
1970-80
No.
of Househol d
1980
% Change
1970-80
Av.
Household
1980
% Change
19(7-I r
3,357
8,019
10,638
9,220
1.721
1,721
3,468
3,475
2,620
8,085
6,961
6,568
6,487
1,284
6,242
6,369
2,721
1,876
1,410
5,402
3,752
260
8,369
71.3
-13.9
27.8
-4.1
-14.1
-- 1.7
-14.3
-18.2
-4.8
27.2
-0 . 3
-7.5
-20. 9
-58.4
-7.6
15.1
-65.1
-- 73.6
-13.5
--34.9
-36.0
-22.4
-14.8
*34
965
3,392
3,448
3, 452
902
2,492
1,511
1,682
1,062
2,574
2,432
1,910
2,339
550
1,781
1,842
1,051
892
638
2,315
1,564
1,516
4,590
6,588
22.8
-4.58
29.62
-5.40
6.49
8. 16
17.31
-4.8
4.32
25.19
-9.62
2.30
-18.38
-57.9
0.0
27.39
-62.5
-68.95
-7.67
-31.24
-28.65
-4.23
-9.63
-29.4
*36.01
*36.02
*38
*40
42
3,445
2, 544
3,437
8,665
7,144
2,114
-21.52
-29.0
0.0
-17.1
-10.2
57.9
1.92
766
1,034
5,165
4,067
-94
-33.27
-7.67
-3.57
1.57
2.58
1.84
1.66
1.72
1.59
-5.1
-9.4
-12.2
-10,9
-11.2
2,788,530
1.70
2.49
-8.8
706.015
2.73
1.96
-9.7
01
30.02
--
N.Y.C.
7,071,639
-10.4
Manhattan
1,428,285
-7.2
SOURCE: "Displacement Pressures in
(CSS Work-ing Papers,
1987),
p. 10.
NO.E:
:3.54
2.31
2.99
2.70
2.05
3.18
2.30
1. 93
2.60
2.96
2.73
3.8
2.79
2.32
3.52
3.26
2.64
2.12
2.23
2.36
2. 37
1.73
1.76
25.1
-10.8
-4.2
2.7
-15.6
-- 97
1.
-16.1
--. 7
6.5
1.1
--1.8
3.1
.7
B-13
0
-'
-8
-4
-11
-18. o
-9'2
the Lower East Side,"
Census Tract with an asterisk
indicate gentrification
(*)
APPENDIX 1 (continued)
a
'
% ColeI
e
GM
25 Years and <
Census
T r acts
2. C'1
2.02
6
8
C1
10.02
*12
*10.
*14.
01
14.02
*16
* 18
20
1980.
6.8
11.9
5.7
6.2
20.5
2. 3
14.5
19.4
6.2
12.8
8.8
1.6
9.2
8.7
1.5
2.3
8.0
C
19.6
Median
% Change
19-70-80
423. 1
32.2
96.5
82.3
64.0
283. 3
-1.4
92.1
416.7
220. 0
100.0
1980
'7,31 1
6, 106
8,233
10,936
15,000
5,917
11,501
12,957
6,411
10, 194
8 ,093
6,677
10,025
5,370
7,548
7,111
4,876
4,455
14,527
*36.01
*36.02
*38
*40
42
34.6
58.5
77.8
-20.0
141.7
-25.0
53'.3
100.0
145. C)
33.7
78.6
157.6
50.5
82.4
88.5
375.0
8.7
117.9
90. 1
69.6
N.Y. C.
17.3
63.2
13,354
60.3
13,904
22.01
22.,02
24
25
26.01
*26. 02
27
*28
*30. 01
30. 02
*32
*34
Manhattan
21. B
17.5
8.5
16.1
24.8
19.6
11.4
15.0
35.3
33. 18
No.
Household
Income
8
,
080
6,992
6,064
8,759
7,167
7,790
9,694
9,621
10,806
96
of Dwelling
Units
% Change.
1970-80
55. 6
28.
6
28.6
58.4
75.9
83.3
16.6
84.6
73.8
57.3
142.5
97.5
989
3,444
3,569
3,513
843
2, 537
1,565
1,755
1,062
2,874
2,783'.
1 ,860
2,456
672
1,777
1.95'7
1,429
23.7
61.8
66.
.
51.1
35.1
23.3
5.
19chang'e
4
1 , 09
70.9
95.9
102.4
24.2
62.5
78.7
116.8
.232.7
-O. 1
1 9
C. 7
0.0
1. '5
-5.1 C.' *9
.
337
C'
1
-30 . f0
-03.
8. 4
-16.6
-1 9
3,78-3
9.36
1, 154
I
-4
6
5,326
1.6
4,287
80.4
2, 940, 805
0. 8
~
106.9
5
31
)
629
2, 531
1,823
11568
4, 758
78.8
85.8
24. :..
106.
75--l. , 7!'.
756
75
3
a
APPENDIX 2
Organization of the Department of Housing Preservation
& Development of New York City
Office of the Housing Preservation & Development
Commissioner, appointed by the Mayor
Administration
Rent &
Housing
Maintenance
Development
Office of
Property
Management
. in-rem
. tenant co-op
. emergency repair
program
. landlord complaints
. housing litigation
. inspection
Financial
Services
Planning
97
Auction
Sales
APPENDIX 3
Members of the Joint Planning Council
Action for Progress
*
Adopt-a-Building
Asian American for Equality
Boys Club of New York
BRC Human Services Corporation
Chinese Progressive Association
Chinese Staff & Workers Association
* Coalition Housing Development
Community Outreach Services
* Cooper Square Community Development Committee
Friends of Tompkins Square Park
53 Stanton Tenant Association
Grand Street Settlement
Hamilton-Madison House
It's Time
* Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference
Met Council/ East Side Branch
New York Hispanic Housing Coalition
Outstanding Renewal Enterprises
* Pueblo Nuevo Housing and Development Association
* Quality of Life Magazine
* R.A.I.N. Homesteader's Coalition
Roosevelt Park Community Coalition
St. Marks Church on the Bowery
St. Teresa's Church
Sixth Street Community Center
Solidaridad Humana
Third Avenue Tenants
Two-Bridges Neighborhood Council
University Settlement House
Organizations with asterisk (*) are referred to in the text.
98
APPENDIX 4
Seward Park Development
Breakdown of the housing units
1200 Apartments, Total
* 400 Luxury Condominiums.
* 640 Rentals; Annual Income from
$32,000 to $58,000 required.
. 160 Rentals; Annual Income from
$15,000 to $32,000 required.
LeFrak pays the City
* $20 million
* $1/year rent
LeFrak gets from the City
* $20 million
* below market-rate construction loan
(approx. $96 million)
* tax break
* all sewer and street work done by
the City
* 8% guaranteed profit
* right to convert rentals to co-ops
in 20 years
SOURCE: "People's Press," vol. 2, no. 1, February, 1989, p. 2.
99
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS:
Bellush, J. and M Hausknecht, eds., The Urban Renewal: People,
politics, and planning (Doubleday, 1976).
Berkowitz, William R., Community Dreams: ideas for enriching
neighborhood and community life (Impact Publishers, 1984).
Berman, Marshall, "A Struggle to the Death in which Both Sides
are Right," The Village Voice, July 12, 1983, p. 10.
Critical
eds.,
Meyerson,
&
Hartman
Bratt, Rachel G.,
1986).
Press,
University
Perspectives on Housing (Temple
Cheuvront, Beverly,
p. 8.
Clay, Phillip
1979).
L.,
"LeFrak Flack,"
Neighborhood
City Limits, April 1988,
(Lexington
Renewal
Books,
Lower East Side,"
Coddington, Joan, "Nine Nightmares on the
Neighborhood, Spring 1983, pp. 16-24.
Davis, Martha, Cooperative Housing; A Development
(National Cooperative Business Association, 1988).
Primer
DeGiovanni, Frank F., Displacement Pressures in the Lower East
Side (CSS Working Papers, 1987).
An Historical and Analytical
Tenant Management:
Diaz, W.,
Overview (Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., March, 1979).
Finder, Alan, "Lower East Side Housing:
The New York Times, May 14, 1988, p. 33.
Plans and Conflict,"
Foderaro, Lisa W., "Will it be Loisaida or Alphabet City?" The
New York Times, May 17, 1987, p. 1.
Gibson, Michael S.,
(Hutchinson, 1982).
An
Introduction
to
Urban
"one Hundred Years of Exploitation:
Glynn, Thomas,
1983, pp. 3-15.
Spring,
Neighborhood,
Renewal
Loisaida,"
Gottlieb, Martin, "Space Invaders; Land Grab on the Lower East
The Village Voice, vol XXVII, no. 50, December 14,
Side,"
1982.
100
How
Displacement:
Hartman, Chester N.,
Services Anti-Displacement Project).
to
it (Legal
Fight
"There Goes the Neighborhood," New York
Herskovits, David,
Sunday News, October 23, 1983, pp. 10-13.
Holin, M.J., "Co-ops for Neighborhoods: A Report on the New
Urban Systems Research and
York City 510 Demonstration,"
Engineering, October, 1982.
Keyes, Langley C., The Rehabilitation Planning Game: A Study
in the Diversity of Neighborhood (MIT Press, 1969).
Struggle
King, Mel, Chain of Change:
1981)
Press,
End
Development (South
Logan, John R. &
Political Economy
1986).
for Black Community
Harvey L. Molotch, Urban Fortunes; The
of Place (University of California Press,
Mann, E. & J.J. Salvo, Characteristics of New Hispanic
Immigrants to New York City: A Comparison Puerto Rican and
non-Puerto Rican Hispanic (New York: Dept. Of City Planning,
1984).
Marcuse, Peter, "Gentrification, Abandonment and Displacement:
Connections, Causes and Policy Responses in New York City,"
Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, vol. XXVIII, 1985, pp.
195-240.
Meier, Barry, "POMP and
1989, p. 6.
Circumstances," Newsday,
January 24,
Mills, Edwin S., Urban Economics (Scott, Foresman and Company,
1984).
"Not-So-Gentle
Moreno, Saylvia,
January 23, 1989, p. 7.
Gentrification,"
Morris, David J. & Karl Hess, Neighborhood Power:
Localism (Beacon Press, 1975).
Newsday,
the New
Needleman, Martin L. & Carolyn E. Needleman, Guerrillas in the
Bureaucracy (Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1974).
Riis, Jacob
1970).
A.,
How
the
Other
Half Lives (Garrett Press,
Rossi, Peter H. & Robert A. Dentler, The Politics of Urban
Renewal (Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961).
101
Housing America's Poor (University of
Salins, Peter D., ed.,
North Carolina Press, 1987).
the
Schwartz, Harry, Planning for
Publishers, 1973).
Lower
East
Side (Praeger
Smith, Neil & Peter Williams, eds., Gentrification of the City
(Allen & Unwin, 1986).
Housing the Urban Poor; A Critical
Solomon, Arthur P.,
Evaluation of Federal Housing Policy (MIT Press, 1984).
Housing
Stegman, Michael L.,
City, 1987 (New York: Dept.
Development, 1988).
and Vacancy Report, New York
of Housing preservation and
East Side: There
Lower
"The
Craig,
Unger,
Neighborhood," New York, May 28, 1984, pp. 32-41.
Yates,
Douglas,
Neighborhood
Democracy
Goes
(Lexington
the
Books,
1973).
Yates, Douglas, The Ungovernable City (MIT Press, 1984).
Housing Database;
Public &
publicly Aided
Housing, vol: New
York City (New York: Dept. of City Planning, 1983).
Lower East Side Housing Database (New
Preservation and Development, 1987).
York: Dept.
of Housing
Second National Conference of Community Land Trust, Conference
booklet, Sponsored by Institute for Community Economics,
December 8, 1989.
The In-Rem Housing Program, Fifth Annual Report (New York:
Dept. Housing Preservation and Development, 1983).
LOCAL NEWSPAPER & MAGAZINES:
People's Press, vol. II; no. 1; February 1982.
The Quality Of Life in LOISAIDA,
vol. II; no. 2, Summer 1987.
vol. II; no. 3, September 1979.
vol. II; no. 4, December 1979.
vol. IV; no. 4, September-October 1981.
vol. VI; no. 2, March-April 1983.
vol. VII; no. 2, March-April 1984.
vol. IX; no. 3, May-June 1986.
vol.. X, no. 1, January-February 1987.
102
OTHER INFORMATION:
"This Land
Development
IS
of
Ours;
A
on the Lower East Side,"
Housing
Affordable
proposal submitted by
Council, March 1984.
Joint Planning
Side
East
Lower
the
Preservation and
the
for
Strategy
Lower East Side Catholic Area Conference
Sample Deeds for Declaration of Covenants; Housing Development
Fund Corporation; Land Trust Summary; July 22, 1988.
Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development
Urban
Program,
Div. of Alternative Management
Program guidelines.
Lower
Development,
of
Office
Cross
Side
East
Homestead
Subsidy
Memorandum of Understanding, September 1987.
INTERVIEWS & TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS:
Bach, Victor, Director of
York. November 1988.
Service
Community
Brandstein, Howard, Director of LESCAC.
Society
of New
March 1989.
Carrigan, Eloise, Deputy Director of DAMP, Dept of Housing
Preservation and Development. April 1989.
DeGiovanni,
Technology.
Faculty
Frank F.,
February 1989.
Pratt
of
Kaplan, Lisa, Board Member of the JPC.
Institute
of
December 1988, January
1989.
MaCarthy,
Mary,
Editor
of
the
Quality
of
Life Magazine.
February 1989.
Momber, Marlis, resident, photographer.
February 1989.
Pagan, Antonio, Director of Coalition for Housing Development.
February 1989.
Roberts, Walter M., Project Manager of the Cross Subsidy Plan,
Office of Development, New York: Dept. of Housing Preservation
and Development. January 1989.
Siskind, Esther, graduate Student at MIT.
Watson, Carol, Staff of the LESCAC.
103
December 1988.
March 1989.