Exhibition Prologue: The cultural, economic, and architectural landscape of Brooklyn has continuously been marked by rapid change. The contemporary social concerns involving neighborhoods, segregation and integration, religion, race, ethnicity and class have been the continuing paramount issues of modern-era Brooklyn history. There has been an historical interplay between these social concerns and the ontology of design and planning in architecture and infrastructure. It is crucial to examine this interrelationship to understand how the development of a neighborhood can be molded in conjunction with the above considerations, whether by scale, aesthetic quality, or environmental sensitivity. The central objective of this exhibit is for the visitor to acquire or expand knowledge about Brooklyn’s unparalleled past, and to maintain this awareness when approaching the future and the current proposed alterations to our city. Hopefully an array of intuitive questions and general discourses will result from considering the presented material, resulting in varied critiques and hypotheses as to what large-scale development will bring.Since the 19th century, technology has played a key role in the physical and economic expansion of Brooklyn. Technology acted like a protective mother who raised Brooklyn during the 19th and early 20th centuries; this comparatively short 125-year time period witnessed the astounding development in architecture (e.g. the early skyscrapers, bridges, factories) and infrastructure (e.g. electricity, sophisticated sanitation and sewer systems, ships and ferries, elevated and underground railways, trolleys) that would in turn directly shape the geography. Brooklyn’s physical and population growth was unsurpassed by any other American city, in the relationship of growth versus time, and technology was directly aiding this boom. It is then ironic that by the mid-to-late 20th century, technology would betray Brooklyn and cause obliteration of some of the most inimitable destinations, enclaves, communities and historical integrity.By the 1950’s, the blessings that Brooklyn received from almighty technology were seemingly decreasing at a rapid velocity. The exclusively Brooklyn-style offerings of the Navy Yard and its fleet of ships, electric trolleys that graced the pavement, elegantly-designed theaters, libraries, parks and concert halls, were dwindling as could never have been anticipated. These miracles of the former era were surpassed by two existing inventions that were finally made easily accessible by the insurgent post-war 1950’s: the automobile and the television. The miraculous yet ill-fated contributions of the automobile and television resulted in several direct negative outcomes for Brooklyn. From the commencement of the Robert Moses era in the 1930’s, super-highways of disproportionate scale ripped through historic neighborhoods throughout the city, directly displacing people or negatively affecting their quality of life in other ways. Most significant, the suburbs and outer limits of the boroughs were now wholly accessible via auto, and thousands were lured into departing for the green meadows and modern living accommodations that urban life ostensibly was not providing. Many felt as if they had been betrayed by the city, as the highway was seen as a thoroughfare to connect point “A” to point “B,” not a place to coexist with and live beside; additionally, it seemed as if the automobile was taking priority over the human. It is equally important to recognize that with the rise of super highways along with high-speed trains and airplanes in America, businesses also were departing Brooklyn at a rapid rate to attain less expensive and newer facilities outside of the New York metro area, something Brooklyn would eternally never rebound from.The television also had a devastating outcome on Brooklyn’s cultural disposition and flavor. When TV became commonplace in virtually every middle-class household in the city, a considerable number of entertainment venues lost popularity and revenue. From the 1950’s to the 1970’s, these once particularly vital institutions were either in a state of disarray, bankruptcy, or abandonment, or actually demolished. The television was an unparalleled source of entertainment and information for the typical family without having to escape from the living room. Perhaps there is no story more telling than what the automobile and television combined to cause in the 1950’s: the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team. It is not hyperbole to deem the Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team the pride of Brooklyn. The Dodgers had long personified the Brooklynite as the underdog (in relationship to Manhattan) and the struggle of starting and maintaining a decent life in Brooklyn; the baseball team represented something far greater than simply the sport of baseball. Ebbets Field, embodying the cliché of a cathedral for baseball, did the same, producing a venue for the unification of different people, specifically in the 1940’s through the 1950’s both on and off the field in an unprecedented way. By the late 1960’s, Brooklyn was embarking upon its darkest hour. The masses of Brooklynites who were members of long-lived communities and residents for generations began to act as if an airborne plague had arrived. It is unfortunate that the mass exodus from the borough in all directions was blamed unjustly and simplistically on the mass of migrants of color who had arrived in great numbers from the 1920’s to the 1960’s. The decaying institutions, the demolition of Ebbets Field, dilapidated infrastructure, disappearance of major factories, the demise of the Navy Yard, the abandoned houses and shops, and even the death of the prominent Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper were blamed on those who were really not organizationally and institutionally powerful or influential. The general character of Brooklyn was changing at a staggering, negative pace. Rather than critically examining such considerations as government involvement and subsidies, public policies on a federal and state level, industrial decentralization that all but destroyed Brooklyn’s economic significance, the harsh abandonment of communities that had been present for well over a century in some cases, and the topsy-turvy results of post-war technology, people turned to blaming a scapegoat rather than attempting to comprehend issues of social significance on a grander level. One must remember that Brooklyn had been predominantly Caucasian since the first European migrations until World War I and even until World War II. Although the population, primarily of European ancestry, was homogeneous as far as color was concerned, a melting pot of peoples and religious groups developed; and these groups apparently coexisted in relative harmony. Brooklyn has continuously witnessed large of groups of immigrants introduced in cycles, and had dealt with it in orderly fashion, with the formation of enclaves and new networks within the city. It was then remarkable in the worst sense when immigrants of color (predominantly African-Americans from Southern States and Puerto Ricans who were granted citizenship in 1917) were treated as second-class citizens upon their arrival in the period 1915 through the 1960’s. One of the main exceptions, or safe havens, from the brutal reality of Brooklyn stratification, was Ebbets Field; as a result, the departure of the baseball team in 1957 left a gaping hole not only physically on Sullivan Place in Flatbush, but symbolically for the promotion of integration and humane community values throughout Brooklyn. When critiquing urban blight, such as the decaying theaters and demolished ballpark, one has to be conscious of the underlying components of the decline. Parallel to the drastic and overwhelming technological alterations already discussed and the population redistribution from the central city to the suburbs, and demographic shifts of race and class within the borough, was the government’s hand in making historical alterations that would ultimately transform the streetscapes all across Brooklyn. Most prevalent was the then all-new housing crisis solution, in the names of public housing, urban renewal, slum clearance and Title I housing. In the sort of conventional argument of Jane Jacobs versus Robert Moses, one can clearly gather that the “renewal” of slum clearance and downtown revitalization has ironically produced an even less aesthetic form of urban blight, with certain unexpectedly more negative conditions than existed in the preceding situations it was intended to improve upon. The public housing and slum clearance projects have been catalysts for destabilization of communities; for instance, the promotion of displacement, segregation, and pollution. While the new public housing projects certainly provided residents with the standard modern amenities of living, still the planners seemed to lack sensitivity to the idea of building coherent communities where people could relate to each other in more intimate settings encouraging social interaction. Because the planners thought almost exclusively of basic comforts, they ignored needs of interpersonal activity so that in terms of community building, the projects were doomed to relative failure. Particularly pertinent in this regard are the observations of Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, where she argued that urban renewal was essentially deceptive, producing new types of slums, with the old replaced by unsuccessful innovations: “At best, it merely shifts the slums from here to there, adding its own tincture of extra hardship and disruption. At worst, it destroys neighborhoods where constructive and improving communities exist and where the situation calls for encouragement rather than destruction.” When looking at the Clinton Hill renewal area or Fort Greene housing projects, for instance, it is the reality that these slab towers distance the inhabitants from the surrounding neighborhood literally and figuratively. The buildings are set back far from the street, soar higher than the surrounding structures, and suggest an overly institutionalized appearance and atmosphere, thereby negating the sense of traditional community. The lack of customization in structures tends to mirror the resulting lack of personal identification on the part of the residents. These buildings are also easily identifiable as “projects,” and help label those who dwell in them. As a result, the inhabitants who did remain along with the newcomers were growing extremely resentful, and tension in the city was elevated. The most tangible evidence of discord in Brooklyn was seen during the blackout in the summer of 1977, with looting, rioting and arson resulting in massive destruction of already impoverished neighborhoods.What is most telling and inspiring is the resurgence and resiliency of Brooklyn that was in full throttle by the late 1980’s. As seen numerous times when deciphering Brooklyn history, when Brooklyn is down, it certainly is not out. Today the renaissance of Brooklyn can be seen through widespread preservation, in addition to the vast high-profile developments scattered in various areas in the borough. Yet the future is uncertain. Brooklyn will continue to attract varying waves of new immigrants from all over the globe, and large-scale projects will likely range from highly successful to disastrous. The question then is: how can we observe, learn and enlighten ourselves to be wiser to make constructive decisions for OUR future? It is hoped that this exhibit will present meaningful suggestions for creation of more aesthetic and community-oriented structures that will help resolve the social problems of alienation and segregation discussed in this prologue. It is further the hope that the exhibit will present a sense of past and present achievements in social and architectural planning, on which Brooklyn can build in the future.
Exhibition Prologue:
ReplyDeleteThe cultural, economic, and architectural landscape of Brooklyn has continuously been marked by rapid change. The contemporary social concerns involving neighborhoods, segregation and integration, religion, race, ethnicity and class have been the continuing paramount issues of modern-era Brooklyn history. There has been an historical interplay between these social concerns and the ontology of design and planning in architecture and infrastructure. It is crucial to examine this interrelationship to understand how the development of a neighborhood can be molded in conjunction with the above considerations, whether by scale, aesthetic quality, or environmental sensitivity.
The central objective of this exhibit is for the visitor to acquire or expand knowledge about Brooklyn’s unparalleled past, and to maintain this awareness when approaching the future and the current proposed alterations to our city. Hopefully an array of intuitive questions and general discourses will result from considering the presented material, resulting in varied critiques and hypotheses as to what large-scale development will bring.
Since the 19th century, technology has played a key role in the physical and economic expansion of Brooklyn. Technology acted like a protective mother who raised Brooklyn during the 19th and early 20th centuries; this comparatively short 125-year time period witnessed the astounding development in architecture (e.g. the early skyscrapers, bridges, factories) and infrastructure (e.g. electricity, sophisticated sanitation and sewer systems, ships and ferries, elevated and underground railways, trolleys) that would in turn directly shape the geography. Brooklyn’s physical and population growth was unsurpassed by any other American city, in the relationship of growth versus time, and technology was directly aiding this boom. It is then ironic that by the mid-to-late 20th century, technology would betray Brooklyn and cause obliteration of some of the most inimitable destinations, enclaves, communities and historical integrity.
By the 1950’s, the blessings that Brooklyn received from almighty technology were seemingly decreasing at a rapid velocity. The exclusively Brooklyn-style offerings of the Navy Yard and its fleet of ships, electric trolleys that graced the pavement, elegantly-designed theaters, libraries, parks and concert halls, were dwindling as could never have been anticipated. These miracles of the former era were surpassed by two existing inventions that were finally made easily accessible by the insurgent post-war 1950’s: the automobile and the television. The miraculous yet ill-fated contributions of the automobile and television resulted in several direct negative outcomes for Brooklyn. From the commencement of the Robert Moses era in the 1930’s, super-highways of disproportionate scale ripped through historic neighborhoods throughout the city, directly displacing people or negatively affecting their quality of life in other ways.
Most significant, the suburbs and outer limits of the boroughs were now wholly accessible via auto, and thousands were lured into departing for the green meadows and modern living accommodations that urban life ostensibly was not providing. Many felt as if they had been betrayed by the city, as the highway was seen as a thoroughfare to connect point “A” to point “B,” not a place to coexist with and live beside; additionally, it seemed as if the automobile was taking priority over the human. It is equally important to recognize that with the rise of super highways along with high-speed trains and airplanes in America, businesses also were departing Brooklyn at a rapid rate to attain less expensive and newer facilities outside of the New York metro area, something Brooklyn would eternally never rebound from.
The television also had a devastating outcome on Brooklyn’s cultural disposition and flavor. When TV became commonplace in virtually every middle-class household in the city, a considerable number of entertainment venues lost popularity and revenue. From the 1950’s to the 1970’s, these once particularly vital institutions were either in a state of disarray, bankruptcy, or abandonment, or actually demolished. The television was an unparalleled source of entertainment and information for the typical family without having to escape from the living room. Perhaps there is no story more telling than what the automobile and television combined to cause in the 1950’s: the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team. It is not hyperbole to deem the Brooklyn Dodgers baseball team the pride of Brooklyn. The Dodgers had long personified the Brooklynite as the underdog (in relationship to Manhattan) and the struggle of starting and maintaining a decent life in Brooklyn; the baseball team represented something far greater than simply the sport of baseball. Ebbets Field, embodying the cliché of a cathedral for baseball, did the same, producing a venue for the unification of different people, specifically in the 1940’s through the 1950’s both on and off the field in an unprecedented way.
By the late 1960’s, Brooklyn was embarking upon its darkest hour. The masses of Brooklynites who were members of long-lived communities and residents for generations began to act as if an airborne plague had arrived. It is unfortunate that the mass exodus from the borough in all directions was blamed unjustly and simplistically on the mass of migrants of color who had arrived in great numbers from the 1920’s to the 1960’s. The decaying institutions, the demolition of Ebbets Field, dilapidated infrastructure, disappearance of major factories, the demise of the Navy Yard, the abandoned houses and shops, and even the death of the prominent Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper were blamed on those who were really not organizationally and institutionally powerful or influential. The general character of Brooklyn was changing at a staggering, negative pace. Rather than critically examining such considerations as government involvement and subsidies, public policies on a federal and state level, industrial decentralization that all but destroyed Brooklyn’s economic significance, the harsh abandonment of communities that had been present for well over a century in some cases, and the topsy-turvy results of post-war technology, people turned to blaming a scapegoat rather than attempting to comprehend issues of social significance on a grander level.
One must remember that Brooklyn had been predominantly Caucasian since the first European migrations until World War I and even until World War II. Although the population, primarily of European ancestry, was homogeneous as far as color was concerned, a melting pot of peoples and religious groups developed; and these groups apparently coexisted in relative harmony. Brooklyn has continuously witnessed large of groups of immigrants introduced in cycles, and had dealt with it in orderly fashion, with the formation of enclaves and new networks within the city. It was then remarkable in the worst sense when immigrants of color (predominantly African-Americans from Southern States and Puerto Ricans who were granted citizenship in 1917) were treated as second-class citizens upon their arrival in the period 1915 through the 1960’s. One of the main exceptions, or safe havens, from the brutal reality of Brooklyn stratification, was Ebbets Field; as a result, the departure of the baseball team in 1957 left a gaping hole not only physically on Sullivan Place in Flatbush, but symbolically for the promotion of integration and humane community values throughout Brooklyn.
When critiquing urban blight, such as the decaying theaters and demolished ballpark, one has to be conscious of the underlying components of the decline. Parallel to the drastic and overwhelming technological alterations already discussed and the population redistribution from the central city to the suburbs, and demographic shifts of race and class within the borough, was the government’s hand in making historical alterations that would ultimately transform the streetscapes all across Brooklyn. Most prevalent was the then all-new housing crisis solution, in the names of public housing, urban renewal, slum clearance and Title I housing. In the sort of conventional argument of Jane Jacobs versus Robert Moses, one can clearly gather that the “renewal” of slum clearance and downtown revitalization has ironically produced an even less aesthetic form of urban blight, with certain unexpectedly more negative conditions than existed in the preceding situations it was intended to improve upon.
The public housing and slum clearance projects have been catalysts for destabilization of communities; for instance, the promotion of displacement, segregation, and pollution. While the new public housing projects certainly provided residents with the standard modern amenities of living, still the planners seemed to lack sensitivity to the idea of building coherent communities where people could relate to each other in more intimate settings encouraging social interaction. Because the planners thought almost exclusively of basic comforts, they ignored needs of interpersonal activity so that in terms of community building, the projects were doomed to relative failure.
Particularly pertinent in this regard are the observations of Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, where she argued that urban renewal was essentially deceptive, producing new types of slums, with the old replaced by unsuccessful innovations: “At best, it merely shifts the slums from here to there, adding its own tincture of extra hardship and disruption. At worst, it destroys neighborhoods where constructive and improving communities exist and where the situation calls for encouragement rather than destruction.”
When looking at the Clinton Hill renewal area or Fort Greene housing projects, for instance, it is the reality that these slab towers distance the inhabitants from the surrounding neighborhood literally and figuratively. The buildings are set back far from the street, soar higher than the surrounding structures, and suggest an overly institutionalized appearance and atmosphere, thereby negating the sense of traditional community. The lack of customization in structures tends to mirror the resulting lack of personal identification on the part of the residents. These buildings are also easily identifiable as “projects,” and help label those who dwell in them. As a result, the inhabitants who did remain along with the newcomers were growing extremely resentful, and tension in the city was elevated. The most tangible evidence of discord in Brooklyn was seen during the blackout in the summer of 1977, with looting, rioting and arson resulting in massive destruction of already impoverished neighborhoods.
What is most telling and inspiring is the resurgence and resiliency of Brooklyn that was in full throttle by the late 1980’s. As seen numerous times when deciphering Brooklyn history, when Brooklyn is down, it certainly is not out. Today the renaissance of Brooklyn can be seen through widespread preservation, in addition to the vast high-profile developments scattered in various areas in the borough. Yet the future is uncertain. Brooklyn will continue to attract varying waves of new immigrants from all over the globe, and large-scale projects will likely range from highly successful to disastrous. The question then is: how can we observe, learn and enlighten ourselves to be wiser to make constructive decisions for OUR future?
It is hoped that this exhibit will present meaningful suggestions for creation of more aesthetic and community-oriented structures that will help resolve the social problems of alienation and segregation discussed in this prologue. It is further the hope that the exhibit will present a sense of past and present achievements in social and architectural planning, on which Brooklyn can build in the future.