Social Change in the City (1950’s – 2000’s)
1950's- Growth of the Suburbs
By 1950, inner New York City looked very similar to what we see today. The street structure was set, the subways were open, the bridges were either under construction or finished, and zoning and building ordinances were being enforced. While Robert Moses was creating projects inside the New York City limits, the transportation systems were facilitating movement out into the larger metropolitan area. Suburbanization spread across the New York City area. Post WWII architects started favoring a more modern style of building and created “logically structured” single family neighborhoods (Bennett 2003, p.4). Following Le Corbusier’s pure geometric model, William J. Levitt created Levittown, a planned mass produced suburban development outside NYC in Nassau County NY (Bennett 2003). This neighborhood was very structured with square straight lined houses all similar in appearance with white picket fences and large yards. Today the hamlet has a population just over 50,000 people (City-data 2013). While suburbanization resulted in some flight of the upper classes from the city, New York still held strong as it was a mecca for jobs and culture. The entire New York metropolitan region is a sea of suburbs that stretch from New Jersey, to southern New York State, to the southwest corner of Connecticut.
March 13, 1964 – Kitty Genovese is stabbed 82 times in Queens by Winston Moseley.
The murder of Kitty Genovese showed the world what can happen when no one wants to get involved. After the murder, psychologists created something called the bystander effect- the more people who witness a crime; the less likely someone will intervene/call for help. Ms Genovese was brutally attacked outside an apartment building and left to die. Many residents in the building heard commotion and none came to her aid assuming another person would jump in. This event is important when discussing the social changes of New York City in the sense that the population is constantly growing. “Eyes on the street” is not always as safe as we think it is.
The Disappearance of Harlem
New York City already had its shape by the 1950’s; therefore the structural changes seen in the post WWII era reflect social and cultural identification within the landscape. Harlem is a good example of the structural changes of a NYC neighborhood overtime, and the current problems the city is facing.
Historically, Harlem was seen as the center of Jazz and African-American culture. The 1920’s image of the Cotton Club gave Harlem its popularity. Harlem was a place for black expression through music, dance, art, and poetry. From the stock market crash, to the Harlem Renaissance, to the Civil Rights movement, Harlem held strong in being a cultural symbol for the people in the neighborhood. The YouTube video gives a picture of what Harlem used to be and what it still means to the people today.
Historically, Harlem was seen as the center of Jazz and African-American culture. The 1920’s image of the Cotton Club gave Harlem its popularity. Harlem was a place for black expression through music, dance, art, and poetry. From the stock market crash, to the Harlem Renaissance, to the Civil Rights movement, Harlem held strong in being a cultural symbol for the people in the neighborhood. The YouTube video gives a picture of what Harlem used to be and what it still means to the people today.
Over the past 30 years, Harlem has been losing their cultural identity due to the changing face of the neighborhood residents. Neighborhoods naturally progress but, due to gentrification, the original Harlem founders are being forced out because of rising property costs. This is a similar situation of what is happening in neighborhoods of Brooklyn.
Author Robin Kelly calls Harlem a “Negro Mecca”, an important place for blacks all around the world (Kelly 2007 p. 63). Unfortunately the neighborhood is changing ownership. Since the 1920’s the blacks in the neighborhood were unable to own the property and acted as lifelong renters. Today others (corporations and real estate investors) are coming into the neighborhood to buy up the dilapidated housing stock and turn it into upscale New York brownstones (Kelly 2007). The New York Times, the Village Voice and the New York Magazine have all called Harlem the “hottest real estate market in the city” which also contributed to the rise in property valued (Kelly 2007 pg. 64). Throughout the 1950’s -80’s Harlem slowly changed face. By the 21st century the neighborhood was is what was called the “Second Harlem Renaissance” (Kelly 2007, p. 65). People making over $75,000 a year increased by 80%, but the median family income remained $18,000. This started the battle between classes. Apartments changed from $500 a month to $1,500. At this time there was no strategy to create low income housing units to protect the current residents of Harlem, so they were forced out (Kelly 2007). Protesters on the streets hold signs saying “Harlem is not for sale”, they picket outside big corporate developments. Residents claim that this is their neighborhood, a place where their previous generations struggled to make something of themselves, and now it is being taken away (Kelly 2007). The question now is- will Harlem stay a place of the working class and maintain its identity, or will it surrender to the pressures of redevelopment?