The Bushwick Initiative: Holistic Redevelopment or Urban Renewal Retrofit?

upfromflames: 9th Mar 2007 - 01:54 GMT

get the word from HPD:
www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/records/pdf/govpub/2748bushwick_initiative.pdf

upfromflames: 9th Mar 2007 - 11:49 GMT

1989
www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=186

jack: 9th Mar 2007 - 19:31 GMT

many of the buildings constructed in the late 1800's that was used as housing by poor hispanics, blacks, jews, polish, german, italians and irish are still standing today and in livable conditions and very expensive. no one came in to help them live confortable, no one came in to show them how to sweep their streets and put garbage in tin cans. no one gave them anything, yet they lived and prospered and many of their children went on to become important citizens. no taxes were used to help them. no redevelopment, no inititives, no cooperative incentives, nothing but people working hard. aqs a Christian i beleive in charity so i'm not against these projects but i do hope that the people become more educated and the teachers become more interested in their poor students and the parents watch over their children and know what their children are doing and take responsibility for their actions. and i'm talking about parents on drugs and sex and booze and raising children on the same path. you always hear about how granny took care of us but you never hear about mom and dad. this is a cycle of death and it's the poor that suffer. police the gangs, give more incentives to the children to go to college, and support the police department. years ago if a police officer on the beat saw a few kids getting roudy, he would smack them and break them up and sometimes talk to the parents, and then the kids were really in trouble. i would love to see those areas become decent areas, hooray for the city and the police.

jack: 9th Mar 2007 - 22:42 GMT

to you upfromflames my thanks for bringing this to our attention. this is what make citynoise so interesting and at times informative. you are an interesting person with a good eye for photos and an intelligent report on urban dwelling.

upfromflames: 9th Mar 2007 - 23:20 GMT

Thanks Jack. Try to make it to our show at the Brooklyn Historical Society from 5/23/07 to 8.28/07. I am hoping to bring a lot of these ideas and elements to the fore there, although I am just the curator.

Also, I really appreciate your voice in this posting. That is why I was so excited about getting it online.I knew that so many of the older post-ers on the Bushwick threads are from this area, and should see how its changing!

But the changes need to be recognized, and reported on. Except for El Diario (Spanish paper) no one has yet, so maybe now it will be open for debate. This seems like the right place for that!

meryl: 10th Mar 2007 - 01:33 GMT

I was surprised (but not shocked) to learn that Bushwick has the most rent stabilized apartments in all of the city.

The maps make sense and the photos are so graphic.

John Dereszewski: 10th Mar 2007 - 02:53 GMT

The Bushwick Initiative is really is an impressive development, probably the most creative initiative since the Bushwick Action Plan of the late 1970's.

Over the past month, I have visted Bushwick several times and traveled through the Bushwick Initiative target ares. I was struck by the solid state of the housing stock and did take note of more than a few ongoing rehabs. This was especially heartening since I was fearing the worst for this area, which contains the same sort of three-story six unit railroad apartments that fell victim to abandonment and arson in Bushwick's central core during the 1970's. So kudos to the City and Ridgewood-Bushwick for being so proactive and imaginative here.

I hope that this initiative will not undermine the rent stabilization protection of the affected apartments or result in the displacement of any current tenants. (If anything, I hope it enhances this protection.) If this is the case, the Bushwick Initiative will clearly provide an effective defense against the gentrification that is advancing here along the L train. But this issue needs to be carefully addressed.

Finally, the impact that this initiative will have upon the housing units containing less than six units - and thus not elegible for rent stabilization - shold be assessed.

But this is basically a terrific development!

upfromflames: 12th Mar 2007 - 10:35 GMT

Info From HPD:

The Bushwick Initiative
Year One: Results

• 51% of the buildings assessed in poor condition were improved and were rated fair by the end of the first year.
• With the cooperation of residential building owners in the area, HPD removed over 6,500 housing violations.
• Sixty-Four Buildings in the target area underwent $750,000 worth of lead abatement work, most of which was free to the owners and tenants, and supported by grants from DOHMH and HPD.

The Bushwick Initiative
Year Two: Results

• 50 buildings have been referred to Housing Litigation for comprehensive cases.
• 100 Voluntary Repair Agreements have been signed, and 26 have been brought into compliance.
• 114 buildings have been referred to Code for violation removal.
• Joint efforts of the NYPD and HPD’s Narcotics Control Unit have caused drug dealing to cease at 90% on 27 of the original 30 buildings where it had been verified within the area. Narcotics Investigations have been resumed at the three remaining buildings.

The Bushwick Initiative: Towards its Third Year

Discussions have been held about extending the Bushwick Initiative beyond the two-year pilot period. Potential ideas for continuation include:

• A design of an improved survey mechanism
• More extensive bed bug eradication efforts
• Establishment of stronger inter-agency partnerships in the target area.

BDweller: 13th Mar 2007 - 15:00 GMT

"The Bushwick Initiative...Who is this for?"

Boy, you are some busybody, upfromflames. Digging, poking, photographing and posting; then posing provocative questions.

I'll take your bait.

The city's official response to the steady influx of Latinos and blacks into neighborhoods like Bushwick in the '70s and '80s was "Planned Shrinkage". Now that there is Gentrification, the much-valued white influx, it's time for the very holistic "Bushwick Initiative"! (Everybody clap and cheer.)

It's hard to believe that they openly said what they were up to and gave it an honest title like "Planned Shrinkage". If they'd have called it "Kill the low-income Black and Latino Neighborhoods" it would have been just as accurate. Still devastating.

Back then, the biggest visible city project by far in Bushwick was housing demolition. Interestingly, that was also Bushwick's only large-scale venture that ever employed a preponderance of black males. Housing Destruction, contracted out by NYC Dept. of Housing and Preservation. There was always regulation scaffolding in front by the time the crews of Caribbean men showed up to tear things down. Often a shiny sign posted, ending in "Edward I. Koch, Mayor" or "Rudolph W. Giuliani..."

We'd never heard of HPD before then. Many times, we would be fooled by the wishful thinking HPD scaffolding could incite: "Oh, maybe they're going to fix up THIS great old building!" Sometimes it could be up to a year later before the crews of black men would show up, with a decrepit demo truck, speaking their island patois. Then your heart would sink.

To their credit, the demo men worked swiftly and efficiently, often times taking down four-story buildings basically by hand, without heavy machinery, in a few days. But it was hard to ever be happy for, or about them.

There were published stories about big-money politically-connected demolition contracts. So somebody was cashing in on our destruction...Duh!

The Demo workers sometimes wore only kerchiefs for protection while inhaling great amounts of toxic debris. Their English was often hard to understand, so it was easy to assume that many if not most of them were illegal aliens, affording their bosses better profits.

The official line about the massive Demolition was that it was for safety reasons. Even though so very many of those buildings had been left standing and vacant and partially destroyed for long years. You had to pass so many hulking ghosts. Idle ruins...I don't know how parents were able to convincingly teach their kids that "anything was possible" amidst that.

HPD Demolition rendered so many dead zones: Blocks with no buildings on either side for nearly the full length. The clearing bulldozers would often pulverize the sidewalk, leaving ditches that were never paved-over. One particular vision of humiliation was the lines of people hiking to school and work, having to walk long stretches in the precarious lanes between parked cars and moving vehicles, made even worse in snow or rain. It was easy to feel like you were outside the zone of a functioning, major city.

The City's Bushwick rebuilding process only got started late in Koch's third term, (about the time a politician starts working on legacy) and after East Brooklyn Congregations had put the city to shame by showing it could be done on a massive scale with the Nehemiah houses. http://www.city-journal.org/article02.php?aid=1500

When I take the long view, I it looks like Planned Shrinkage has worked as conceived for Bushwick. Vast numbers of the population were removed, including a high quantity that received public subsidies. In the process, great areas of land were cleared, opening the way for development and re-population by a more desired group. So the Bushwick Initiative looks like phase II of Planned Shrinkage -- part of a neat package.

Unfortunately, many thousands of souls and bodies and families were crushed and destroyed in the process, along with the housing.

John Dereszewski: 14th Mar 2007 - 11:52 GMT

It is hard to imagine how anyone can misinterpret the last 30 years of Bushwick's history more than BDweller did in his comment. To believe him, Bushwick endured decades of neglectful Planned Shrinkage followed by a few years of galloping gentrification that is pushing the poor out of the community. The Bushwick Initiative, in this virw, is simply another component of this "get the poor out" strategy. The facts, however, are drastically different.

1. In response to the devastating blackout and fire that engulfed Bushwick in July 1977 and vividly brought its long neglected plight to public attention, the City - particularly the Koch administration - made a commitment to bring the community back along lines developed by the local HPD office in close collaboration with local Community Board 4. Among the main early components of this plan was the construction of approximately 1,000 units of low income NYCHA housing, most of which were located in Bushwick's devastated central core. These buildings all opened during the early to mid 1980's. Now, if the City was really pursuing a Planned Shrinkage policy, it would have let the central core rot and certainly would not have constructed housing for Bushwick's poorest residents. But it did not do this.

2. The mass demolition that did occur in the late 1970's fulfilled the necessary purpose of eliminating dangerous - and utterly unsalvagable - abandoned hulks so that the resulting vacant land could then host the low income and Partnership housing that was subsequently constructed there. The community overwhelmingly supported this action. BDweller's assertions to the contrary are pure fantasy.

3. Beyond low income housing, the past 30 years has witnessed the construction of hundreds of units of affordable Partnership Housing in nearly every corner of Bushwick. Among other things, this has enabled working Bushwickites to remain here. The construction of this housing began in the early 1980's and has continued ever since. A City committed to Planned Shrinkage would never have done this.

4. For the most part, the new housing construction maintained Bushwick's existing low density building scale and was constructed as infill housing on vacant land. This meant that existing residents were not displaced to make way for it and that the new housing further stabilized the blocks on which they were built. This was, in short, a prime example of community preservation, not planned shrinkage.

5. The impact of the City's early intervention on Bushwick's behalf is strongly underlined by the fact that the community's population, which had declined to 92,000 during the calamatous 70's, rose by 10,000 to 102,000 in the 1990 census. This is not the result that a policy of planned shrinkage would cause.

6. Finally, the Bushwick Initiative is, by all accounts, attempting to continue these community preservation efforts in a low income neighborhood possessing an aged and vulnerable housing stock and a host of other problems. It should be encouraged, not derided.

Certanly Bushwick continues to face many serious problems, not the least of which is gentrification. But to dismiss or condemn the positive accomplishments made by the City and the community during the past 30 years does a terrible deservice to both these efforts - and the truth.

upfromflames: 15th Mar 2007 - 03:06 GMT

BD:

I truly appreciate your response. Maybe that is why I posted it. Thanks for taking the bait!

Your perspective is clearly rich in experience, and me, well, I am a non-NYer who has just done some research. So, it’s a needed balance.

Memory, I find, is the trustiest counterbalance to history. The long view is indeed important, but with memory involved, the perspective tends to look very elongated, and not very detailed.

Some details:

As for HPD, yes it did come out of nowhere. Prior to 1976, it was called HDA, the Housing Development Administration. Under the leadership of Roger Starr, there was no need for the P, since he was not into preserving much. It was under Starr that planned shrinkage was implemented as a tacit policy. But it was under Starr that it ended. Part of the pressures that led to his resignation was the accusations of racism in the public release of his policy in ’76. After Starr, and After Beame, the direction of things changed profoundly.

The people who brought Bushwick back, the staff of the Neighborhood Preservation Office, were not proponents of planned shrinkage. They were young punks who were out to do some good, and were working hard in Bushwick during the worst years of the firestorm that made all those vacant lots. They were frustrated at the seeming abandonment of Bushwick, but they did all they could. That amounted to demolishing houses, because that it was many community leaders desperately wanted. Yes, for safety, as it would take away the fuel for the fires. And if you look at the numbers, the fires did stop in Bushwick—though for other reasons as well.
www.citynoise.org/article/6304/by/upfromflames

Additionally, taking down houses seemed a solitary choice in the late 1970’s, when nothing had been built in Bushwick since the 1920’s. And so the buildings came down—though even that was not so easy, with some voices on the community who wanted not one structure torn down. As voices go, they were the closest to slumlords.

The lots in Bushwick, as attested to in Once was a Wasteland www.citynoise.org/article/6362/by/upfromflames, were indeed a scar on Bushwick. But that was a matter of time. Now those spaces they are filled with the lovely houses put together by NYHP and Ridgewood-Bushwick.

Yes, it took time. To elect leaders, to advocated, to legislate, to fund. Its indeed easy to look back at the timeline of events that lead to today’s gleaming reality.

Harder to live through it. I know, as someone who educates the children of Bushwick, some of whom grew up under parents cheated by that wasteland and its inbred disappointment. And it seems to me that they have been cheated, too.

The crime may be seem to be that those who make the most of the new Bushwick and the Bushwick initiative are the gentrifiers, but just the same, they are the new immigrants from Mexico, Ecuador, DR, and elsewhere, whose families now populate these rotting blocks.

But this is just one more voice. We are waiting for others…

Peter: 18th Mar 2007 - 22:23 GMT

I happened to be in Bushwick yesterday, and look what I happened across:

expect to see more bushwick shots from me in the future... this was my first visit to that neighborhood (you have catalyzed my interest, for sure, upfromflames)...

Peter: 18th Mar 2007 - 22:27 GMT

sorry for the lo-fi cameraphone shots, but ive no digicam at the moment...

upfromflames: 19th Mar 2007 - 00:10 GMT

a few more images of buildings in the zone, that I wanted to get in before Peter!

The locked buildings are part of the abandoned housing transfer system. The decayed house front is a reno job recovery from a fire. All in the Bushwick Initiative Zone. Interviewing a rep from HPD this week...update soon.

Jamie: 20th Mar 2007 - 22:12 GMT

bushwick sure does have a 'wild west' frontier town feel to it

upfromflames: 20th Mar 2007 - 22:58 GMT

but hey, its getting better. Though with lingering spelling issues.

upfromflames: 25th Mar 2007 - 14:24 GMT

Clarifications:

I’ve found out a lot more about the Bushwick Initiative this week, after talking to Annie Marie Mirez, who helped to develop the program and currently helps to oversee it for HPD.

The first thing I should clarify is that HPD has nothing to do with any of the gut renos above, no matter how photogenic they may be. They have no jurisdiction over any of these building owners that choose to empty their buildings, some of which were empty already before the rehab—but some of which were not. (as to whether these buildings remain in rent stabilization, I could not find out. Still checking)

That is really not the focus of the Bushwick Initiative, which is about occupied improving units, and life for the people who live in them.

The Initiative started in this area because for some time, the largest concentration of serious housing violations in Brooklyn were coming from this area. This was only from reported violations, so there must have been more.

They were found by a door to door, block by block, survey of housing conditions, carried out by bilingual building evaluators. They were able to see first hand what the problem was. This helped to solve over 6,500 housing violations.

This was made possible by innovative agreements with building owner, that went beyond the punitive to the curative; to build positive relationships that would reward both the building owner and the tenants.

But the question is always who pays, and this is where HPD came in. For example, they paid out over $1.2 million for 85 lead abatement jobs. On a more general basis, they entered into 104 voluntary repair agreements with owners, rather than fining for their violations. 71% of these agreements were successful. For the rest, they now realize the lax enforcement of building codes has ended in this area.

For tenants of these buildings, the Initiative is working to improve conditions. As concerns their dwellings, this means health inspections that led to free installations of over 200 fire alarms, and making sure that their complaints were being remedied. This ranges from bedbug exterminations to rat-proofing trash cans.

For their neighborhood, agreements with the NYPD mean safer streets with more police enforcement and less drug dealing. And importantly, from DOT, more street lighting.

And in the long run, it means educations programs: job training, predatory loans, programs for youth, family fitness programs, and more.

Yes, this is a different kind of program. But then HPD is a different organization than it once was. And the Bushwick Initiative, as a pilot program, is a sign of the new direction.

Consider that 20 years ago, HPD had 12 property management offices to oversee city owned properties. Today, there is only 1 for the whole city. HPD is no longer the city’s biggest slumlord. A decade after Giuliani got the city out of the landlord business, HPD is now working out its new mission: to improve conditions in private residences across the city.

There is more to do to make this mission a success, like subsidizing the owners of 6-8 unit buildings to make sure they can afford to keep rent stabilized tenants. But the Bushwick Initiative is a positive start in a positive direction.

upfromflames: 29th Mar 2007 - 23:10 GMT

Further clarification on gut renos:

OK, now this is making a lot more sense to me. No, HPD does not handle the gut renos shown above directly. But the people who once lived here are not left out in the cold. Rather, these buildings are being renovated by a partner in the Bushwick Initiative, Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Care Council.

They are doing it under the third party transfer system that replaced the old HPD "In Rem" system.

So, the folks that once lived in these rotting edifices have been moved out for a year, or however long it will take them to finish the job. I know becuase I spoke to the real estate agent who handles many of their cases. Their higher rents are subsidized by Ridgewood Bushwick, as well.

Good to know these folks can go back to their new homes, thanks to the Bushwick Initiative.

Hey, the NY Times this ain't. Thanks for your patience!

upfromflames: 9th Apr 2007 - 15:53 GMT

Old Skins

New Skins

And all empty Inside...but not for long

Bushwick does not stand still

Armstrong: 20th Apr 2007 - 14:47 GMT

Hey UPFROMFLAMES: I have such respect after reading many of your thoughtful and researched posts on Bushwick. Are you a Bushwicker?
QUESTION: I just got a stabilized apartment within the Bushwick Initiative area. There are definitely problems in my apartment and building. Can you give me any information about who to contact in regards to setting up a liason between my landlord or neighbors in my building and someone working with the initiative? Do you have contact information? Thanks. Post here when you have time or feel free to email me: allanarmstrong70@hotmail.com

upfromflames: 14th Jun 2007 - 15:42 GMT

Armstrong: sorry for the delay. The answer to your question is an interesting one, since you (as a better off new--white--face the hood) represent one of the forces creating change in this area. Gentrification is the prime reason that Bushwick is now one of the top areas in the city for homeless shelter admission. Poorer Bushwickers are losing their home so someone could rent them to newer, richer ones. The weapons their landlord use include lack of services and repairs, so tenants get frustrated and move out, and they can raise the unit to market rate, or sell it to renovate.

But we all know its not that simple. You don't have lots of money, thats why you are here, in a rent stabilized unit, driven by a the same real estate forces that are driving others out. And whatever, economic, ethnic, or whatever background, you have a right to have a secure roof over your head, and get what you pay for from your landlord.

That said, you should go first to HPD, and lodge a complaint. If they don't help enough, contact a local group like Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Care Council or Make the Road by Walking. If they are here to defend the people of Bushwick, let them defend all the people.

good luck, Armstrong!

Armstrong: 7th Aug 2007 - 03:32 GMT

No, I am definitely not a trustfunder, LOL. I realize as a white person-no matter my economic status-I am seen as a gentrifier. Actually, I am a student in a nursing program at a city college and a recipient of foodstamps. OK?

Things have gotten better in my building. Turns out my landlord is approachable and I am working as best I can as a liason between some of the long-time tenants and the landlord. I am happy to be in this role. I do not believe my landlord is one of those that forced out tenants with bad living conditions, etc.

Despite your comments, I think Bushwick could use a little gentrification actually. I am hoping that with the amount of stabilized housing and current programs and laws, that that gentrification will not overwhelm the neighborhood, but will improve it for everyone.