Blog Post #7

When reading chapters six and seven of reconstructing time’s square, we analyzed the subtle changes in New York that gradually occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, and the effects of these changes. The changes began around the time of the housing act of 1949, which set up an urban renewal plan to “remake” cities, while protecting historical landmarks. While advocates of this pan claimed that this would “clean up” Manhattan for the sake of tourism bringing in revenue and making Times Square “safe”, citizens did not see this as the case. A lot of citizens saw this as urban renewal plan as “Negro Removal” in the 1960s, meaning the city was essentially forcing lower income African Americans out of their neighborhoods in midtown Manhattan, for the sake of turning a profit for property owners in times square. This was seen as a controversial take when the urban renewal and “clean up” was in effect, because it left poor minority citizens who once lived in Manhattan without homes, despite the economic growth that businesses saw after the gentrification had occurred. Personally, I think the citizens that were against this project were absolutely right. While Manhattan might’ve seen growth after the project, lower income families were essentially forced out of their neighborhoods, and the crime that comes with low income neighborhoods didn’t necessarily just disappear. Boroughs such as the Bronx and Brooklyn saw increases in crime. I think this speaks as a lesson to other cities. Gentrification doesn’t clean up crime, or “help” the residents living there originally. No businesses with jobs to offer the original residents were brought in. Gentrification just pushes the crime that comes with lower income neighborhoods elsewhere, for the sake of the property owners, and to the dismay of the original residents, who are forced out of their own neighborhoods.