DOCSLIB.ORG

Learning from New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Learning from New York 418 Learning From New York America’s Alternative High-Rise Public Housing Model Nicholas Dagen Bloom Problem, research strategy, and ew York City’s comparative success of maintaining a large working- fi ndings: High-rise public housing has been entirely discredited in the United class high-rise public housing system over a 75-year period States as a legitimate affordable housing N(1934–present) could point the way to a more equitable and sustain- planning strategy because of notorious able urban future. In spite of the fact that the New York City Housing Author- failures in large cities such as St. Louis and ity (NYCHA) is the country’s largest public housing authority (accounting for Chicago. Missing from the planning more than 10% of all American public housing), its unconventional history literature is the long-term achievement and unusual urban context has sidelined its story in major public and afford- record of America’s largest operator of high-rise public housing, the New York City able housing policy debates. The absence of New York from these debates is Housing Authority (NYCHA), which still one of the factors leading to the oversimplifi cation of public housing history operates 2,600 buildings primarily in and policy. modernist tower-in-the-park superblocks for Contextual factors, often used to exclude New York from the national 403,995 authorized tenants. This article story, complicate the comparability of New York City’s public housing condi- assembles and analyzes historical and tions. New York City, in spite of fl irting with bankruptcy in the 1970s, main- contemporary materials to create a portrait of functioning American tower-block public tained its fi nancial and residential base much better than cities, such as Balti- housing. The article discusses both contex- more, who were battered from a toxic combination of deindustrialization and tual factors (New York’s transit network, White fl ight. This comparative economic and demographic health enabled density, and diversity) and successful New York City public housing administrators, for instance, to maintain long-term management in three areas (daily greater tenant selectivity and even pay for extra project security in public operations, tenant selection, and lobbying) as key to the NYCHA’s preservation of housing. New York, as the nation’s leading immigrant destination, also main- public housing. tained more ethnic diversity that, in turn, infl ected public housing with Takeaway for practice: In operations, greater social diversity and potential tenants. New York City’s extensive, low- NYCHA has maintained large front-line cost subway system (boasting 660 miles of track and 468 stations) further staffi ng on project grounds that play a reduced the isolation of housing projects, connected residents to decent jobs, critical role both in maintenance and social and kept many housing projects desirable even as social disorder grew. Finally, order. In tenant selection, administrators for New York City’s urban landscape includes many subsidized high-rise housing decades have maintained greater social mixture and better fi nances by recruiting projects for a range of income levels. There may be less stigma living in a and retaining working families and, at the public high-rise project in New York City than other cities because New York same time, enforcing social control through heavy policing. In politics, NYCHA has successfully lobbied for additional federal Keywords: City of New York, public author of Public Housing That Worked: New and city support. Long-term challenges to housing, affordable housing, high-rise towers, York in the Twentieth Century (University of project preservation and current challenges housing management, tenant selection Pennsylvania, 2008). in New York are also discussed. The fi ndings raise the possibility of high-density urban Research support: None. Journal of the American Planning Association, towers for low-income residents in strong About the author: Vol. 78, No. 4, Autumn 2012 market cities, provided that suffi cient Nicholas Dagen Bloom (nbloom@nyit. DOI 10.1080/01944363.2012.737981 attention is paid to design, tenancy, fi nanc- edu) is associate professor of social science at © American Planning Association, Chicago, IL. ing, and social control. the New York Institute of Technology and RJPA_A_737981.indd 418 11/24/12 2:09:23 PM Bloom: Learning From New York 419 City public housing projects are similar in appearance to American counterparts (never dipping below 7,000,000 many middle-income housing projects. residents in the postwar period), but that does not mean In spite of these advantages and differences, it was the city as a whole could not, over different points in the entirely possible to envision a different outcome for public past 75 years, count millions of people in severe poverty housing in New York. Between 1934 and 1965, NYCHA and long-term unemployment. Nor does it mean that the built 69 projects (of 154 total constructed during the period city did not experience a staggering welfare caseload, of greatest growth) with at least 1,000 apartments each, in extensive arson and housing abandonment (often adjacent high-rise modernist tower-in-the-park formations that have to housing projects), municipal fi nancial crisis, and desta- proved so problematic elsewhere (Figure 1). Even smaller bilizing street crime and drug dealing. Nor has New York NYCHA projects from this time included high-rise super- been entirely immune from federal rules and declining blocks with hundreds of units per project (Figure 2). These subsidies that has cut its staff and hobbled management in red brick monoliths, while scattered across every borough, many cities. were concentrated in some of the city’s poorest, low-income Yet, New York in 2012, unique among American neighborhoods such as Brownsville and East Harlem, which cities, maintains its 2,600 public housing buildings with experienced major social disorder as a result of deindustriali- over 400,000 mostly poor residents (average family income zation, White fl ight, and disinvestment. The concentration is approximately $23,000) in 178,882 apartments that rent of poverty in NYCHA projects beginning in the 1970s gave for an average of $434 per month. These residents defy rise to many familiar public housing social problems such as expectation with only 11% on welfare, 47% working crime and vandalism (NYCHA, 1965). families (at least one member employed), and the remain- This massive system could have collapsed in a similar der (41.4%) subsisting on social security, disability, vet- fashion to failed projects in Chicago or St. Louis. New eran’s benefi ts, or pensions. NYCHA apartments constitute York as a whole has been a healthier city than many of its about 8.5% of the city’s rental apartments and are over- seen, even after years of cuts, by 11,686 employees. The vacancy rate is only 0.6% and the waiting lists for conven- tional public housing encompasses over 160,000 families. Crime in public housing remains signifi cantly higher than the city as a whole, but NYHCA projects have experienced crime reduction since the 1990s and are part of neighborhoods that have experienced even more dramatic drops in crime, even with thousands of traditional public housing apartments and big projects still in place (NYCHA, 2012). This success, when discussed at all, has been chalked up to either entirely external or contextual causes having no connection to, or even in spite of, actions taken by NYCHA, or as a kind of fl uke that does not merit further study because NYCHA appears to be as exceptional as New York’s subway system. Finally, some don’t see success at all, and count every news report of crime, poverty, or mainte- nance problems in the vast, complex, and aging public housing system as further proof of public housing’s essen- tial impracticality. In this article, drawn from my book, Public Housing that Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century (Bloom, 2008), recent scholarship, and recent data, I will summa- rize the most important internal operational factors that have allowed NYCHA to prosper. These internal factors, such as tenant selectivity and vigorous daily management, parallel many of today’s best practices in affordable housing Figure 1. Citywide Map of Developments. development and management. New York, however, Source: Department of City Planning Newsletter, February 1961, Box applied these best practices as early as the 1930s and 89A5, Folder 5, La Guardia Wagner Archive. RJPA_A_737981.indd 419 11/24/12 2:09:24 PM 420 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2012, Vol. 78, No. 4 Figure 2. Wise Towers (1965), on the Upper West Side, includes 399 units originally funded by the State of New York. Source: Nicholas Dagen Bloom. (Color fi gure available online.) RJPA_A_737981.indd 420 11/24/12 2:09:25 PM Bloom: Learning From New York 421 maintained them for decades on a systematic basis. It is my housing projects, such as Harlem River Houses (1937, fi nding, based upon review of detailed NYCHA records with 577 units), and the more barracks-like projects (and related work by sociologists, journalists, external brought forth by the Housing Act of 1937, such as auditors, and others) that management decisions, often Queensbridge Houses (1940, with 3,149 apartments). By unpopular at the time, combined well with contextual the late 1930s, NYCHA had begun experiments in stack- advantages to realize New York’s comparative success. ing tenants higher, in 8- and 11-story elevator towers at What can planners learn from New York? Best-practice East River Houses (1941, with 1,170 units; see Figure 3), thinking in affordable housing today favors not only tight in order to maximize subsidies. The experiment was eco- management and income mixture of the type New York nomically successful and set the model for the postwar maintained, but a strong bias in favor of lower-density, boom (Plunz, 1990; Radford, 1997).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Day in the Life of Cooperative America
    A DAY IN THE LIFE OF COOPERATIVE AMERICA A Project of the National Co-op Month Committee COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES Cooperatives follow seven internationally recognized principles as adopted in 1995 by the International Cooperative Alliance. The National Cooperative Business Association lists these as: 1. Voluntary and Open Membership Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. 2. Democratic Member Control Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives, members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are organized in a democratic manner. 3. Member Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. They usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing the cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. 4. Autonomy and Independence Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan CD 4 the Chelsea Plan 197-A Plan
    I I CB 4 Chel ea 197-a Plan: A Contextual Zoning ropo al 0 Create Housing Opportuniti Community Board 4 I Borough of Manhattan New York City The Chelsea Plan Community Board 4 Chelsea 197 -a Plan: A Contextual Zoning Proposal to Create Housing Opportunities City of New York Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mayor Department of City Planning Joseph B. Rose, Director Summer 1996 NYC DCP 96·17 INTRODUCTION Under Section 197 -a of the New York City Charter, community boards may propose plans for the development, growth and improvement of land within their districts. Pursuant to the Charter, the City Planning Commission developed and adopted standards and rules of procedure for 197-a plans. Once approved by the Commission and adopted by the City Council, 197 -a plans are intended to serve as policy guides for subsequent actions by city agencies. Community Board 4 Chelsea 197-a Plan: A Contextual Zoning Proposal to Create Housing Opportunities, as modified by the City Planning Commission, is the second community board 197-a plan to be adopted by the city. This report provides information for those interested in the plan's policies and recommendations. It may also be of interest to other community boards considering the 197-a process. This report contains three sections: 1. The City Council resolution, dated May 22, 1996, adopting the plan as modified by the City Planning Commission. 2. The City Planning Commission report, including its consideration and resolution, dated April 10, 1996, approving and modifying the 197-a plan. 3. The proposed Community Board 4 Chelsea J97-a Plan: A Contextual Zoning Proposal to Create Housing Opportunities, as originally submitted by Manhattan Community Board 4 on April 28, 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Community Board Input Regarding Intersections in Need of Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Measures (Updated February 13, 2014)
    T HE CITY OF NE W Y ORK OFFICE OF THE P RESIDENT BOROUGH OF M ANHATTAN Gale A. Brewer BOROUGH PRESIDENT Manhattan Community Board Input Regarding Intersections in Need of Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Calming Measures (Updated February 13, 2014) The list of preliminary locations was identified by the Community Boards for discussion at the Manhattan Borough Service Cabinet level and submitted to the Mayor’s Vision Zero Task Force on January 30, 2014 for further attention and analysis. Because each Community Board used its own criteria to develop its list, this cumulative list of intersections may contain areas where there are objective reasons for concerns and/or subjective reasons for concern. Some reasons given by Community Boards for inclusion of certain locations on their lists include, but are not limited to: site of pedestrian fatality or injury, speeding, signal timing issues, enforcement, crossing times and vehicle turns. This list is not meant to be exhaustive or definitive, and was not voted on by the Borough Board, but represents community input to help inform the Task Force work ahead. Community Board 1 1. South End Avenue at Liberty, Rector, and West Thames Street 2. Battery Place and First Place (the area in front of PS 276) 3. North End Avenue between Chambers and Vesey Street and Warren Street between North End Avenue and West Street (between PS 89 and Ball Fields) 4. South End Avenue in Front of Gateway Plaza (crossing problems at turn off Liberty Street onto South End Avenue up to the turn into the Gateway complex) 5.
    [Show full text]
  • CITIZENS COMMITTEE for NEW YORK CITY 2020 Annual Report
    CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR NEW YORK CITY 2020 Annual Report CitizensNYC We are ALL IN for New York City #Allin4NYC 30 East 125th Street, #189 | 212 989 0909 | citizensnyc.org New York, NY 10035 A LETTER FROM OUR CEO On March 16, 2020 I had the profound privilege of 0 taking on the role of CEO at CitizensNYC. In a year like no other I’ve seen how the citizens of this city continue to fill in the gaps, often where federal and state institutions fall short. We are a village of small business owners, activists, artists, and community gatekeepers improving New York City neighborhoods, and in this moment of crisis we believe we as a city must trust grassroots leaders, support them, and give them the right platforms to thrive. 2 Think about what access to food and water— necessities that many of us take for granted, even in a pandemic—looks like in a community that was already struggling before COVID-19 invaded our neighborhoods. In response, CitizensNYC quickly mobilized its resources to focus on the immediate needs of struggling New Yorkers. We established two unrestricted grant programs focusing on the city’s hardest-hit communities, with an emphasis on keeping 0 struggling businesses afloat, and meeting urgent community needs such as access to food, water, and financial resources. As one of the nation’s oldest micro-funding organizations, CitizensNYC provides support to community leaders on the front lines of change in their own neighborhoods. But we’re so much more than grantmakers. Most importantly, we are a communications platform for those whose voices are 2 often drowned out—or who never got a chance to speak at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Alms for the Upper Middle Class: Subsidized Apartments Aim at $200K Earners | Observer
    6/19/13 Alms for the Upper Middle Class: Subsidized Apartments Aim at $200K Earners | Observer BETABEAT POLITICKER GALLERISTNY COMMERCIAL VSL POLITICKERNJ SEARCH OBSERVER Like 18k Follow HOUSING FOR ALL Alms for the Upper Middle Class: SAD Michael Hastings Dies In Subsidized Apartments Aim at Car Accident $200K Earners By Stephen Jacob Smith 6/18 7:39pm Location: Twitter 23 Facebook 41 Reddit Google +1 Email Print Enter a neighborhood or street Price Range Standing outside a shiny new red and tan Any to Any brick building at 401 West 25th Street, Type Bed (#) Bath (#) indistinguishable from any other late- Any Any Any 2000s new construction throughout the West Side, you can catch a glimpse of the SEARCH LISTINGS future of housing if New York City’s Democratic mayoral candidates get their way. A young woman who works in finance and Inside an Elliott-Chelsea apartment. moved into this building from a “real shithole” in the West Village, a computer programmer from South Carolina, a lifelong New Yorker who moved in from the projects a few blocks south, and a gay couple—one a playwright, the other a social worker—with a son, who moved from 14th Street and Seventh Avenue. They all found places in a 22-story middle-income affordable housing development in an increasingly unaffordable Chelsea. The Elliott-Chelsea, developed by Artimus Construction, rose on New York City Housing Authority property with the help of an alphabet soup of government agencies. Some of the 168 units in the building are typical low-income units, reserved for families earning under $40,000 a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Community Board 4 Community Needs Assessment March 2020 Introduction in January 2020, Manhattan Community Board 4 (MCB
    Manhattan Community Board 4 Community Needs Assessment March 2020 Introduction In January 2020, Manhattan Community Board 4 (MCB4) set out to determine the district’s most vulnerable populations to inform its policy and funding recommendations. Manhattan Community District 4 (MCD4) is home to 120,000 residents across the neighborhoods of Chelsea and Clinton/Hell's Kitchen. MCD4 is bounded by 14th Street in the south, west 59th Street in the north, Sixth Avenue south of West 26th Street and Eighth Avenue north of 26th Street as its eastern border, and the Hudson River to the west.1 MCD4 borders Greenwich Village, the Flatiron District, the Upper West Side, and the Midtown central business district. MCD4 is diverse in every way possible, from race and ethnicity to income to prevalent industries in the community, with the Garment District, Flower District, Theater District, and other neighborhoods represented here. With this immense diversity comes challenges to identifying and assessing community needs. For example, average household income in MCD4 is approximately $100,000, but this number masks over 14,000 families with average incomes under $35,000.2 To build a deep understanding of the community’s needs, this assessment includes a wide range of data and posits additional areas of exploration to build a nuanced understanding of MCD4. Research Questions and Methodology This needs assessment is rooted in three key questions: ● What vulnerable populations are there in MCD4? ● What gaps in service do stakeholders perceive in the district?
    [Show full text]
  • THE GATEWAY PROGRAM Critical Capacity Expansion to the Northeast Corridor
    THE GATEWAY PROGRAM Critical Capacity Expansion to the Northeast Corridor OVERVIEW PROGRAM SUMMARY The Gateway Program is a comprehensive program of strategic rail in- Timeline Target Completi on: 2030 frastructure improvements designed to improve current services and create new capacity that will allow the doubling of passenger trains Funding Amtrak has directed more than $300 million, into Manhatt an. The program will increase track, tunnel, bridge, and mostly from federal sources, to the Gateway stati on capacity, eventually creati ng four mainline tracks between Program since 2012. This includes approximate- Newark, New Jersey, and Penn Stati on, New York, including a new Hud- ly $74 million for planning and pre-constructi on work and $235 million to the Hudson Yards con- son River tunnel. The program will also strengthen system resiliency crete casing from federal Sandy Resiliency fund- with the modernizati on of existi ng infrastructure, and updates to the ing under the Disaster Relief Appropriati ons Act electrical system that supplies power to the roughly 450 daily trains of 2013. using this segment of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. Partners Amtrak is seeking to collaborate with all po- tenti al users of the future capacity provided by WHY IS THE GATEWAY PROGRAM NEEDED? Gateway, and will engage with local, regional, nati onal, and private partners as the program The Northeast Corridor (NEC), connecti ng Washington, DC and Boston, develops. MA, is at or near capacity at many locati ons, but nowhere is the de- Status Constructi on is underway to preserve the fu- mand on the existi ng rail system greater than in Penn Stati on, New ture potenti al pathway of the Gateway tunnel York and its associated infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • New York County
    Line 112-CI-19 NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION – 2019 (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) POLL SITE LIST NEW YORK COUNTY 65th Assembly District 66th Assembly District 67th Assembly District 68th Assembly District 69th Assembly District 70th Assembly District ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS 001 UASBYW ................................................ 81 NEW STREET 001 PS 89................................................201 WARREN STREET 001 RIVER PLACE 1 ............................... 650 WEST 42 STREET 001 STANLEY ISAACS CTR .................... 415 EAST 93 STREET 001 FRANK MCCOURT HS ..................... 151 WEST 84 STREET 001 PS 185/PS 208 .................................. 20 WEST 111 STREET 002 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING .....................45 WALL STREET 002 PS 89................................................201 WARREN STREET 002 ELIAS HOWE PRIMARY SCH 51 MANHATTAN ....525 W 44 ST 002 STANLEY ISAACS CTR .................... 415 EAST 93 STREET 002 FRANK MCCOURT HS ..................... 151 WEST 84 STREET 002 CHARLES HILL TOWER ............................2050 8 AVENUE 003 ST MARGARET’S HOUSE ................. 49 FULTON STREET 003 PS 234 (INDEPENDENCE) ........292 GREENWICH STREET 003 RIVER PLACE 1 ............................... 650 WEST 42 STREET 003 SCHOOL OF CO-OP EDUCATION .... 321 EAST 96 STREET 003 FRANK MCCOURT HS ..................... 151 WEST 84 STREET 003 CHARLES HILL TOWER ............................2050 8 AVENUE 004 UASBYW
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming the High Line Is a Project of the Design Trust for Public Space, with Friends of the High Line
    Reclaiming the High Line is a project of the Design Trust for Public Space, with Friends of the High Line. Design Trust Fellow: Casey Jones Writer: Joshua David Editor: Karen Hock Book design: Pentagram Design Trust for Public Space: 212-695-2432 www.designtrust.org Friends of the High Line: 212-606-3720 www.thehighline.org The Design Trust project was supported in part by a grant from the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency. Printed by Ivy Hill Corporation, Warner Music Group, an AOL Time Warner Company. Cover photograph: “An Evening in July 2000” by Joel Sternfeld Title page photograph by Michael Syracuse Copyright 2002 by the Design Trust for Public Space, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechan- ical means without written permission from the Design Trust for Public Space, Inc. ISBN: 0-9716942-5-7 RECLAIMING THE HIGH LINE A PROJECT OF THE DESIGN TRUST FOR PUBLIC SPACE WITH FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE 1 1 . Rendering of the High Line 2 C ONTENTS FOREWORD 4 by New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg HIGH LINE MAP AND FACT SHEET 6 INTRODUCTION 8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC REUSE 17 Why Save the High Line? Recommendations for a Preserved, Reused High Line HISTORY OF THE HIGH LINE 44 Early Rail Transit West Side Improvement Decline of Rail Commerce The Call for Trail Reuse EXISTING CONDITIONS 56 Current Use Maintenance/Structural Integrity PHYSICAL CONTEXT 58 Zoning Surrounding Land Use Upcoming Development COMPETING OWNERSHIP PLANS 70 Demolition Efforts by Chelsea Property Owners Reuse Efforts by Friends of the High Line Political Climate EVALUATION OF REUSE OPTIONS 74 Demolition/Redevelopment Transit Reuse Commercial Reuse Open Space Reuse Moving Forward THE HIGH LINE AND THE CITY AS PALIMPSEST 82 by Elizabeth Barlow Rogers BIBLIOGRAPHY 84 PROJECT PARTICIPANTS 86 3 New York City would be unlivable without its parks, trees, and open spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • CB4 FY19 CB4 Statement District Needs and Budget Requests
    INTRODUCTION The annual Statements of Community District Needs (CD Needs Statements) and Community Board Budget Requests (Budget Requests) are Charter mandates that form an integral part of the City's budget process. Together, they are intended to support communities in their ongoing consultations with city agencies, elected officials and other key stakeholders and influence more informed decision making on a broad range of local planning and budget priorities. This report also provides a valuable public resource for neighborhood planning and research purposes, and may be used by a variety of audiences seeking information about New York City's diverse communities. HOW TO USE THIS REPORT This report represents Manhattan Community Board 4’s Statement of Community District Needs and Community Board Budget Requests for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. This report contains the formatted but otherwise unedited content provided by the community board, collected through an online form available to community boards from June to November 2017. Community boards may provide substantive supplemental information together with their Statements and Budget Requests. This supporting material can be accessed by clicking on the links provided in the document or by copying and pasting them into a web browser, such as Chrome, Safari or Firefox. If you have questions about this report or suggestions for changes please contact: [email protected] This report is broadly structured as follows: a) Overarching Community District Needs Sections 1 – 4 provide an overview of the community district and the top three pressing issues affecting this district overall as identified by the community board. Any narrative provided by the board supporting their selection of their top three pressing issues is included.
    [Show full text]
  • The People's Guide to The
    A C D ST H ST 73RD ST 76TH ST W 57TH ST E 68TH ST FDR DR 212-391-8151 www.chashama.org 212-677-6309 www.cinemaclassics.com 212-633-7108 www.tepeyac.org 212-966-4227 www.projectreachnyc.org 5th Ave @ 56th St W 60TH ST E 75TH ST 34 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819E 72ND ST CHEROKEE P 900 715. Chisholm Gallery (I7) 739. S.O.B.'s (M5) 805. Communist Party 817. Restaurant Opportunities The St Regis Hotel (C12) 674 853 56 W 22 St, 2nd flr 204 Varick St Headquarters (H7) Center (P4) 2 E 55th St @ 5th Ave 218 367 E 71ST ST 212-243-8834 www.vintagepostersnyc.com 212-243-4940 www.sobs.com 235 W 23rd St 99 Hudson St Barnes & Noble (D13) W 55TH ST SANCTUARIES CENTRAL PARK Tu-F 11a-6p, Sa 12p-5p 740. Shakespeare in the 212-989-4994 www.cpusa.org 212-343-1771 www.rocny.org 160 E 54th St b/w Lexington & 3rd Ave CENTRAL PARK DEWITT CLINTON PARK 118 WEST Theres too much work to do. 716. Cinema Village (K7) Parking Lot (O9) Reference Center for Marxist Studies 819. United For Peace and Citigroup Center Atrium (D13) E 70TH ST A These venues will open their doors for Boredom is always W 54TH ST Columbus Circle 408 -Dorothy Day 22 E 12th St 85 Ludlow St (CPUSA library) www.marxistlibrary.org Justice (E8) b/w 53rd & 54th St/Lexington & 3rd Ave counter-revolutionary. NINTH AV extended periods during RNC to shelter Always.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW YORK COUNTY Or Call (866) 868-3692
    Line 112-CI-20 NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION – 2020 (SUBJECT TO CHANGE) For latest updates POLL SITE LIST please visit nyc.pollsitelocator.com NEW YORK COUNTY or call (866) 868-3692 65th Assembly District 66th Assembly District 67th Assembly District 68th Assembly District 69th Assembly District 70th Assembly District ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS ED SITE NAME SITE ADDRESS 001 UASBYW ................................................ 81 NEW STREET 001 PS 89 .............................................. 201 WARREN STREET 001 RIVER PLACE 1 ..............................650 WEST 42 STREET 001 STANLEY ISAACS CTR .................... 415 EAST 93 STREET 001 FRANK MCCOURT HS ....................151 WEST 84 STREET 001 PS 185/PS 208 ..................................20 WEST 111 STREET 002 UASBYW ................................................ 81 NEW STREET 002 PS 89 .............................................. 201 WARREN STREET 002 ELIAS HOWE PRIMARY SCH 51 MANHATTAN ....525 W 44 ST 002 STANLEY ISAACS CTR .................... 415 EAST 93 STREET 002 FRANK MCCOURT HS ....................151 WEST 84 STREET 002 CHARLES HILL TOWER ........................... 2050 8 AVENUE 003 ST MARGARET’S HOUSE ................. 49 FULTON STREET 003 PS 234 (INDEPENDENCE) ....... 292 GREENWICH STREET 003 RIVER PLACE 1 ..............................650 WEST 42 STREET 003 SCHOOL OF CO-OP EDUCATION .... 321 EAST 96 STREET 003 FRANK MCCOURT HS ....................151 WEST 84 STREET 003 CHARLES HILL TOWER ........................... 2050 8 AVENUE 004 UASBYW ................................................ 81 NEW STREET 004 HS FOR LEADERSHIP ........................ 90 TRINITY PLACE 004 PARK WEST HIGH SCHOOL ............525 WEST 50 STREET 004 PS 198 ...................................................... 1700 3 AVENUE 004 FRANK MCCOURT HS ....................151 WEST 84 STREET 004 WADLEIGH HIGH SCHOOL ...........215 WEST 114 STREET 005 ST MARGARET’S HOUSE ................
    [Show full text]