The concept of public use, while initially a great concept, has deteriorated to bureaucratic debacles. Progressive thought, especially from the 1920s has inadvertently provided governments (local, state and federal) with powers that can be manipulated for the good or the detriment of the people these laws were written to help. It is dependent upon the outlook, interpretation, and ideology of those enforcing or citing these laws. The initial concept of the laws were good, while the unseen consequences have been mixed. While trying to maintain an order and preservation of historic sites, sometimes the bigger picture is completely overlooked.
Tag: Urban Planning
-
Gentrification
Revitalization is positive and progressive practice that brings new life and vitality to rundown and depressed areas. Of the many benefits that come from revitalization efforts, increased economic activity, new employment opportunities, safer streets, and new activities and amenities are at the top. Unfortunately, as with anything there is a balancing part of this equation; these positive benefits are met with negative aspects such as higher rental rates and increased property values. Although there are considered benefits to those leading the revitalization efforts, it greatly affects local residents, businesses and property owners within the area, as they become a risk of being “priced out of the market and forced to move.”[1] This is gentrification.
Solutions to gentrification have been long proposed throughout the years, as it has been nearly unavoidable and a constant occurrence of revitalization efforts. Rent control ordinances have been implemented as a way to help local residents and owners remain in their communities by maintaining their rental rates. Rent subsidies have also been used as a solution to gentrification, covering the cost difference of the increased rental rates. Also, some developers have had to meet certain quotas of providing affordable, subsidized living options in their developments. These solutions are unfortunately not that effective in the long run as governments just do not have the funding capacity to maintain these sorts of endeavors long-term. Also, these solutions do not solve these problems, they are just temporarily remedied and eventually the problems will resurface and chances are the problems will be worse as the solutions will no longer apply as they did initially.
In the readings this week, Lance Freeman, a professor of the Urban Planning at Columbia University, reported on his findings of a study on gentrification that revealed “gentrification results in the displacement of relatively fewer lower-income occupants of an area when compared to displacements in areas that are not gentrifying.”[2] This finding is a bit perplexing as it somewhat changes what has been typically regarded of gentrification to date. Freeman continues to say that the incentives provided through the revitalization and gentrification efforts actually reassure many of the current residents to want to stay. So are the negative aspects of gentrification improving? How are residents and owners making this transition?
To provide more insight to these questions the example of ongoing efforts to combat the gentrification issues in Chinatown (NYC) is brought into investigation. Projected development to this neighborhood has caused community members to join together and become involved with all of the aspects of the planning and revitalization efforts taking place, as a way to combat a possible downfall to gentrification. The Coalition to Protect Chinatown and the Lower East Side opted to create their own renditions of a development plan, focusing less on the developer’s interests and more on those interests and desires of local residents. Three points in particular that were highlighted in their proposal were (1) the regulation of new construction in the arts, (2) protection and preservation of existing residences, and (3) protection of local, culturally diverse businesses found throughout the area.[3] One proposed solution that seemed viable from this example, was a possible incentive program called the ‘Good Landlord, Good Neighbor’ program. It basically provides affordable housing options by offering incentives to owners of small buildings that comply in renting units at below-market rates.[4] Is this long lasting? Maybe not, but it may be a good transitional option.
This example of Chinatown shows that with the right community involvement and participation from the beginning, gentrification threats can be mitigated (that is, if city officials are in compliance with citizen’s concerns and needs). Perhaps Freeman is right. Maybe the problems with past revitalization efforts is that gentrifiers have been too gung-ho to decorate and fix the place before actually settling in and getting a feel for it. Is this the end of gentrification? No. This issue is too big to simply fix overnight and no real, long-term solutions have proven successful to date, but there is hope that local residents can be more pro-active in vocalizing their interests and desires. And with that pro-active involvement, perhaps better outcomes can be discovered for all interested parties.
[1] Gunther, Justing. “Unit 9: Practicalities of Revitalization.” Class Notes, SCAD, Savannah, GA, August 20, 2014.
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Solutions to Gentrification.” Neighborhood Projects. http://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/beemanneighborhoods/solutions/ (accessed August 21, 2014).
[4] Ibid. -
Public Use Versus Eminent Domain
The concept of public use, while initially a great concept, has deteriorated to bureaucratic debacles. Progressive thought, especially from the 1920s has inadvertently provided governments (local, state and federal) with powers that can be manipulated for the good or the detriment of the people these laws were written to help. It is dependent upon the outlook, interpretation, and ideology of those enforcing or citing these laws. The initial concept of the laws were good, while the unseen consequences have been mixed. While trying to maintain an order and preservation of historic sites, sometimes the bigger picture is completely overlooked.
The concept of eminent domain has been abused by politicians and developers alike. The designation of certain properties and sites as historic resources has also come into question due to the underlying ideology and motive of those involved in fighting for or against such designations. What constitutes a historic designation? Does the fact that the building is over a certain age deem it historic alone? Should there not be some significant event tied to the property or the site if it 50 years or older before it can be deemed appropriate?
The federal government was forced to step in and set up standards to preserve certain areas, sites and buildings to keep them from being destroyed. They also helped organize funding to aid in defraying expenses incurred in restoring and preserving these historic monuments. This was done through standards set forth and encouraged to be adopted by state and local governments to preserve these sites. Most individuals were not able financially to preserve or rehabilitate historic site, nor did they have the knowledge of what they had to do and avoid. Through the laws of 1906 through present day, the federal government has been able to help state and municipal governments understand and direct restoration, preservation and conservation of these various sites.
While some states were ahead of the federal government, in their pursuit to maintain historic sites, most were not and had to be guided by standards to which everyone could adhere. Tax laws have been implemented to encourage preservation initiatives, which has helped many individuals wanting to preserve the past.
The concept of public use has changed drastically through its inception to present day. In many instances this has been for the good, but as with a blanket coverage, instances can be cited to show this can be abusive, as was the case of Kelo versus the City of New London (Connecticut). It was ruled appropriate for the government to use eminent domain to seize land from a private owner for the sale to a private developer, as the government claimed this would increase the tax base of the town. The proof in this particular instance has not yet born out and a family’s property was inappropriately seized – not for the sake of the community, but for the sake of the developer.
Other instances have arisen, such as St. Bartholomew’s Church in New York City, whose congregation applied to construct a high-rise office tower on property they owned, in order to provide an income to handle expenses of the church. The ruling of the New York City Landmark’s Preservation Commission was to deny such a building permit because of its inappropriate scale. The church, designated a historic landmark in 1967, wanted to build a 57-story office complex with a reflective glass façade to provide an income that would fund various church projects including the restoration and maintenance of the church. While it is agreed that this 57-story building would be inappropriate for such a site, there was no alternative offered by either side. The public use concept was appropriately incorporated in the denial of this permit.
The concept of public use has changed greatly throughout the years and though there have been some major hiccups along the way, for the most part the laws and organizations formed have helped historic preservation move forward. There is no absolute ruling with regards to preservation, it is a case-by-case situation, and every case must be explored and reviewed before any headway is given. The good thing about having previous cases, laws and ruled of enforcement is that we can learn and draw from them as preservation advances and learn how to work with them or challenge them when necessary.