The gentrification of modern neighbourhoods close to large city centers has become a prevalent topic in the modern world. As people continue to move into metropolises, the desire to change certain neighbourhoods into areas that represent “the city-as-stage” (Hall 387) concept changes the urban planning agenda. Gentrification within city planning has become important in the neighbourhood of East Harlem in New York to boost the real estate economy. East Harlem is right next door to Manhattan which boasts having one of the most expensive and highly sought after real estate markets in North America. This is exemplified by the “One Museum Mile” which is a newer area in Manhattan that sold a three bedroom apartment for 3.5 Million dollars (Goodman 22).

East Harlem has harboured a reputation in New York for being a lower end community that has had high crime rates in the past. Though the crime rates have diminished substantially in recent years, this neighbourhood is still portrayed as a sore spot for the New York Municipal government.  Alternatively, many East Harlem residents are steadfastly dedicated to remaining in the neighbourhood regardless of the crime rates because there is a substantial amount of culture in the area that is celebrated. The importance of East Harlem culture is reflected in the artworks that are plastered along the buildings in this area, from paintings that depict painful American memories such as slavery to graffiti depicting the modern day struggle of trying to find work in a diminishing industrial world (Goodman 53).

Interestingly, East Harlem’s housing originally arose from “old-law tenements” that were built with no government regulation in the late 1800’s (Morales par.8). The need for government regulated housing became essential in this neighbourhood when the housing in the area became flooded with immigrants and was extremely overpopulated. Thus, the creation of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was an important asset for the area. The first government regulated apartment building was created in 1941 and was known as”East River Houses” (Morales par.10). Though this housing initially helped many families in need, it was isolated from the community due to large park spaces surrounding the area and didn’t promote a sense of unity in the community. The most significant issue of the NYCHA housing in East Harlem however, was the lack of funding available to adequately take care of the area and it fell into disrepair without delay.

One of 143 vacant lots in East Harlem (Goodman 47)

This resulted in the modern day situation in East Harlem where many subsidized housing areas are abandoned due to lack of government funding to keep the buildings from becoming derelict. This has led to new incentives to recuperate these areas and use the valuable real estate space that is in such close proximity to Manhattan. The newest solution of the NYCHA is to sell developments to private entrepreneurs for reduced prices and in return, the investors must allocate 20% of the development to subsidized housing (Goodman 10). Though this idea is a possible solution in theory, many citizens of East Harlem are concerned that the new developments will destroy the culture and community of this neighbourhood as the city attempts to gentrify the area for profit. East Harlem is an example of many areas close to integral Real estate areas of large cities that is forcibly gentrified in order for the city government to profit from the land value. The unfortunate result of this urban planning scheme is that it tends to ignore the population living in these areas and destroys the well-developed sense of culture that many neighbourhoods take pride in. It remains to be seen whether East Harlem will become completely gentrified or if it will retain its sense of identity within new subsidized housing. If NYCHA hopes to respect the desires of the East Harlem dwellers, they must tread carefully and make sure to respect important cultural spaces in order to preserve an imperative area within the fascinating history of New York City.

Works Cited:

Hall, Peter. “The City of Enterprise”.

Morales, David. “East Harlem: A History of Housing Developments in New York City”. Not the Hudson: A Comprehensive Study of the East River. New York: Fordham University, 2011. http://www.eastriverhistory.webs.com/manhattan/eastharlem.htm

Goodman photo journal aon Gentrification of East Harlem: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-yorks-east-harlem-gentrification-photos-2013-9?op=1#ixzz2lpnxApHG

NYHCA Proposal to preserve cultural integrity of important areas in New York (interesting read): http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/plannycha.shtml

Initially when the modernist architecture movement began to gain momentum, many of the Utopian thinkers under the modernist umbrella came under fire for being careless about the historical architecture already in place. Many urban dwellers feared absolute destruction of cities in order to create a new and industrialized plan that coincided with the growing technology of the 20th century. Many of these fears of Modernism requiring complete discontinuity from the past were misconstrued as many modernist architects were actually dedicated to preserving some historical buildings in their new and modern city concepts. The Athens Charter created from the modernist group CIAM demonstrates this dedication as the manifesto describes that, ““whenever this measure [building anew] is attended by the destruction of genuine architectural, historical or spiritual assets, then it is unquestionably better to seek another solution”*. The historical portion of the Athens Charter reflects the necessity of saving historical buildings while trying to build. Therefore, modernism does not typically utilize the building styles of the past but does attempt to salvage as many monuments and buildings as they can.Interestingly today, an issue arises concerning saving the modernist creations of these once considered coming-of-age thinkers. Who is trying to save modernist buildings in today’s world? Many modernist buildings are being torn down to make way for newer buildings that have more contemporary styles associated with them. This process is exemplified by Riverview School in Sarasota, Florida. Riverview School was torn down in 2009. The school was built in 1958 by Paul Rudolph, the leading architect of the Sarasota School of Architecture**.

Though the school was an important piece of modernist architecture, it was destroyed to make way for a newer and more contemporary building.
Riverview School is one of many examples of modernist buildings that are being destroyed because there are not deemed worthy of saving. This could be because modernist structures tend to have a “lack of ornamentation makes people say it’s factory-like”*** or were also poorly built in many cases.

Alternatively, there are many groups that do desire to salvage modernist projects for their historical emphasis despite their somewhat ugly appearance. World Monuments Fund contributes to saving some modernist projects in danger of being destroyed and also hosts seminars to raise awareness of modernist architecture’s historical integrity. This fund was responsible for documenting the case of Riverview School and comparing it to a similar German modernist project that was in jeopardy. The seminar that arose from this comparison was called “Modern Solutions for Saving Modern Landmarks”**** and is a fascinating photo-journal about these two modernist buildings. Overall, Riverview School was still destroyed yet the German project, an engineering school, was saved from being torn down due to “its heightened cultural significance”.

Overall, it is shown that saving Modernist landmarks is not a central goal in most communities. The buildings are still relatively recent designs which perhaps devalues their sense of history in the common eye. The modernist viewpoint that emphasized that progress did demand destruction to an extent could ease the pain of tearing down old modernist buildings also. The Athens Charter stated, “Death which spares no living creature also overtakes the works of men”*****. The attitude of building destruction as applied to the lack of caring given to many destroyed modernist buildings could be because of the ideologies behind the necessitated destruction within the modernist movement itself. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether modernist structures gain more prevalent importance in the community as time passes or simply disappear altogether.

Footnotes:

*Athens Charter, pp. 88.

**Stockbridge-Pratt. “Sarasota School of Architecture”, pp.1.

***Bubil, Harold. “Preserving Our Father’s Architecture”, pp.1.

**** Very Interesting Website about the two modernist projects. http://www.dcp.ufl.edu/galleries/modernism-at-risk

*****Athens Charter, pp.86.

World Monuments Fund Website: http://www.wmf.org/dig-deeper/wmf-articles?page=4