4. East Harlem Outlook
4.1 East Harlem’s Exposure to Extreme Events
In this study flood risk is conceived of exposure and social
vulnerability. Exposure is referred to as the susceptibility of people,
properties and systems to being affected by environmental related
hazards (Kaźmierczak and Cavan, 2011). East Harlem offers an interesting
set of flood risk characteristics in that 92% of the housing units are
rentals and NYCHA owns the largest number of public housing apartments
in any of the City’s 59 community districts (DiNapoli and Bleiwas,
2017). According to the 2010 Census, 40,000 people lived within the
neighborhood’s 10-foot floodplain. East Harlem is made up of two zip
codes 10029 and 10035. Both zip codes rank second out of all Manhattan
zip codes for the number of homes that will be exposed to a
six-foot-flood, according to statistics extrapolated from
Climate Central’s
Surging Seas Risk
Finder platform (2019). Together the two zip codes total 637
buildings exposed to a six-foot-flood with a total property value of $
169 Million (Ibid). This includes also 89 public schools (66
the Manhattan media; U.S. 2010 Census Data), 139 NYCHA buildings (21 the
Manhattan median; U.S. 2010 Census Data) and 54 between hospital and
clinics (25 the Manhattan median; U.S. 2010 Census Data) (Ibid).
The entire East Harlem floodplain currently contains $2.14 billion in
physical assets (Ibid)., this is without considering the
expansion of the Second Avenue subway that will extend the Q line till
125th St, adding 16 new stations and approximately
300,000 daily riders (MTA, 2019). East Harlem’s elevation is also, on
average, the second lowest in Manhattan, with 17 feet (DCP, 2018).
4.2. East Harlem’s Sensitivity to Extreme Events
Social vulnerability explicitly focuses on those demographic and
socioeconomic factors that increase or attenuate the impacts of hazard
events on local populations (Cutter et al. , 2009). There are 147
people with medium social vulnerability and 862 people with high social
vulnerability in 10035 and 10029 respectively (Ibid), with
”high” and ”low” indicating the 20% most and least vulnerable in
coastal areas of each U.S. state. A recent study (Albetski et
al. , 2017) categorized East Harlem’s vulnerability in three dimensions:
socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority
status and language, housing and transportation access.
In terms of socioeconomic status, although the median household income
in East Harlem increased by 23% since the end of the recession in 2009
to $34,400 in 2016, it was the seventh-lowest among the 55
Census-defined neighborhoods in New York City and much lower than the
citywide median ($58,900) (DiNapoli and Bleiwas, 2017). In order to
afford current median market rents one would need to earn at least
$85,000 for a one person household and $100,000 for a three-person
household (NYC DHP&D, 2018). In 2016, 43% of area households devoted
30% or more of their income on rent and nearly 18% faced severe health
burden dedicating at least half of their income to rent (Ibid.).
From a household composition and disability standpoint, of all seniors,
40% are living alone of which 32% have difficulty with their mobility
(Mark-Viverito et al., 2016). Research show that people living in
poverty and who are socially marginalized have reduced capacity for
self-protection in terms of mitigating flood hazards or extreme heat at
home pre-event, evacuating in response to flooding, or returning home or
to employment in the aftermath of a flooding event, accessing social
protection such as flood insurance, hazard mitigation infrastructure,
emergency response information and assistance (Watts et al. ,
2015; Maldonado, Collins and Grineski, 2016).
Also, certain vulnerable age groups are rising faster in East Harlem.
For example, the population under the age of 18 grew by 21% between
2010 and 2016, which is 10 times faster than the citywide rate. The
population over the age of 55 rose twice as fast (27%) as the citywide
growth. Children and elderly have special needs in preparation for and
in response to a disaster. Education levels are on the rise, but largely
due to the educational attainment of new people arriving to the
neighborhood. Of the long-term residents who lived in the area for at
least 10 years, 18% earned a bachelor degree, whereas 56% of the
residents who had moved in within the past four years had earned at
least a bachelor’s degree (DiNapoli and Bleiwas, 2017).
In terms of minority and language status East Harlem’s ethnic make up
has always been eclectic and historically more culturally segregated
than it is today (Goldstein, 2017). Today this ethnic diversity
continues. According to recent statistics East Harlem is 44% Puerto
Rican, 30% African American, both populations have decreased over time,
while the white population increased by 172% to 21,300 residents,
representing 16% of the population. The Asian population grew sevenfold
to 11,100 residents, making up 8% of the total. Other types of
vulnerability include undocumented populations, non-English speaking
people and formerly incarcerated people, all of whom are frequently
excluded from political decision making, and hence also less control
over the distribution of resources after a disaster event (Green, Bates
and Smyth, 2007; Watkins, 2013).
From a housing perspective, East Harlem is a community of renters, with
rent-regulated apartments totaling 17,450 units, or 40% of all rental
units. The East Harlem Rezoning Plan approved by the New York City
Council in 2017, is expected to result in a net increase of
approximately 3,500 dwelling units, a substantial proportion of which
are expected to be affordable. The Community Board 11, initially voted
against the rezoning, and since has been negotiating that between 20%
of the housing remain available for households making less than $25,770
for a family of three and 30% for families making between $25,770 and
$103,080 (The New York Times, 2019). But there is reason to believe
that the East Harlem Rezoning may hand over more of the affordable
housing stock into the hands of property developers, reframing what
affordability means by potentially increasing the density of market rate
housing or changing the ways in which local people can afford the
amenities in their neighborhood. This is troubling for, over the past
decade or so, New York city housing has been shifting in favor of more
middle and high priced rentals, in a glaring erosion to the inventory of
rent regulated housing (Stringer, 2018). This situation compounds future
climate-related crisis in that, when housing is destroyed or damaged
people in neighborhoods with high percentages of poverty and rent
burden, it is financially very difficult to recover, especially if they
have to relocate. One of the interviewees also pointed out something
that may be quite well known to organizations working on the ground in
East Harlem but not so much to city officials:
“[..] Those folks cannot go to their summer house or friends’
apartments or go across town and rent a hotel. Similarly to seniors,
there are some who would live with a fire, they would deal with the
smoke. If you’re lower income where do you go? The evacuation center is
your only shot. You also need to have the confidence to leave your
place, you may ask yourself whether someone is going to break into your
place while you’re gone. you have to protect your stuff, that’s the
other thing people won’t budge. people are going to weigh it. I know I
can replace my record collection if I lose it, right, I don’t know if I
can replace it and identify so strongly with that, I’m not budging.
Because I know once I leave (my apartment) then knucklehead over here
will start breaking down doors and taking stuff. It’s not something that
people in other areas have at the front of their mind. if you don’t have
you identify with what you have. ” (Interviewee, 1)
Following from this argument, is not only that people do not have
anywhere else to go to in case of an emergency, they may not want to
leave all together because of the fear of loathing and attachment to the
little that is possessed. This can be the source of potential conflict
and put people more at risk in the context of evacuations but it also
means that issues of recognition, such as long-term institutional
abandonment and disenfranchisement are easy to be tied with the
differential vulnerability experienced by some sections of the East
Harlem population in aftermath of climate disasters (more on this in par
5.3).
4.3 Community Group’s Understandings of Coastal and Inland
Flooding Exposure and Vulnerability
The perceptions of the current saliency of coastal flooding among those
interviewed and from the discussions at public meetings ranges from very
important to not so important, for several reasons: 1) the time since
Sandy makes respondents perceive flooding as an issue of secondary
importance today; 2) citizens may not necessarily complain about
flooding events with the organizations I spoke to; 3) only one of the
three organizations I spoke to was more directly involved in resilience
advocacy or planning; 4) EJ groups were busy campaigning on other
issues, such as heat; and 4) there are many more important issues that
NGOs, housing associations and EJ groups deal with on a day to day basis
in a neighborhood like East Harlem. I will briefly expand upon these
reasons below but will also refer to the perceptions of flooding that
did arise during the interviews and meetings.
Firstly, Sandy was a 1 in a 100-year event that happened six years ago,
but since then coastal flooding events of even lesser magnitude have
seemingly not occurred. For the Community Board (CB) the issue is not a
priority topic at the moment nor it was in the past years, but, as it
typically happens, it was much more talked about in the aftermath of
Sandy. But prior to Sandy, resilience or climate change were also not
topics of discussion at the CB. Since the storm conversations about the
climate and flooding “came to us” the interviewee said, and by that he
referred to the engagement that the Parks Department and the Mayor’s
Office of Resilience had with the East Harlem’s CB and other local
groups in the making of the East Harlem Resiliency Study, due out this
Spring.
Secondly, even when asked about inland flooding, it’s clear that
citizens make use of the CB for issues that are not related to flooding
because they probably believe that fire department may be a more
appropriate call. That citizens are not resorting to the CB makes sense,
after all its primary objectives are different. CBs were set up by the
New York City Charter in 1963 as advisory boards to the city planning
commission. In 1976 the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was
adopted, mandating that community boards review and vote on all land use
applications affecting the community (Sze et al. , 2009), but
later CBs began to play a role also in the municipal budgeting process
and be responsible for service delivery in the district. CBs oversee how
agencies are addressing the needs of constituents and how requests
submitted by constituents are being addressed by agencies. CBs, for
instance, approve motions to extend or grant new liquor licenses,
changes in property ownership of commercial establishments and changes
to opening and closing hours. ULURP, however, is only an advisory
process, so the city can ignore the board’s vote.
Thirdly, only one of the three organizations that I was able to
interview in this pilot study is directly connected to climate
resilience and flooding prevention agendas. CIVITAS, a small NGO
initiated by citizens fighting to preserve the character of Carnegie
Hill from oversized developments, is largely dedicated to space
improvements such as “new developments that are degrading the
quality of spaces, the proportion, the character of the streets[…] we care for how the neighborhood is going to change
and how it is going to retain previous generations .” (Interviewee 2).
But their remit has enlarged from neighborhood presentations and land
use planning to the advocating for resilient designs, such as living
shorelines on the waterfront’s edge. “We were the ones that
created the master plan that was the implemented alone the East River
Esplanade. At least portions of it. While FERE are often focused on the
maintenance, we plan, do community participation, we put together
ideas/solutions but we don’t usually implement them. That’s private
money of the parks department. we’re usually the ones that study it
first and find out what can be done ” (Interviewee 2).
Fourthly, the timing of my interview or observations at meetings may
have also played a role. As the summer is approaching, WeAct, for
instance, has been campaigning all month long on issues related to heat
and heat related impacts in their focus neighborhoods. Flooding is not a
top priority in East Harlem at the moment, yet the meeting I attended at
the WeAct headquarters was called upon by the Department of City
Planning (DCP), currently working on the new Comprehensive Waterfront
Development Plan, issued every 10 years. The plan is required by
legislation (by a 2008 Law concerned with the loss of the Maritime
Industry, especially in Brooklyn districts like Red Hook, Greenpoint,
Sunset Park) but does not hold legal weight in and of itself. It was in
the last plan issued in 2011 (called Vision 2020), the DCP officer
explained, that climate change and resilience concerns along the
waterfront became an important consideration along with existing
concerns, such as the need for waterfront properties to provide
waterfront public access as part of their developments. Although
the plan has no legal weight it, Vision 2020 had a strong influence on
the strategies for recovery and resiliency after Hurricane Sandy. During this meeting attendees raised a host of problems throughout
waterfront areas of Manhattan, one of the most important ones was
related to how the development of waterfront amenities, which may
include green infrastructure, can lead to further gentrification.
Finally, with the community outlook I detailed in 5.1 and 5.2, coastal
flooding in East Harlem is perceived as one issue among many, some of
which are much more persistent in the lives of, especially, its poor and
poorest inhabitants (those living below income levels of $30,000 per
year). In the words of the director of the NGO: “We have a hard
time talking to people in a lot of these neighborhoods about flooding,
about the environment, about even health and wellbeing, transit and bike
lanes. They don’t even have heating in their apartments or have led
paint that’s peeling on the walls, or mice running around the counter
tops. how can we be worried about a park or a flood, we don’t even own
the house, we are living day to day…so they’re living a life of
survival, not a life of quality ” (Interviewee 2). These issues will be
expanded upon in 5.3.
Nevertheless, it was possible to discern perceptions of exposure and
sensitivity to coastal flooding by what interviewees recalled about
Hurricane Sandy. Some referred to the extent of the flooding as a
monitor of exposure “flooding came all the way back to the
viaduct at Park Avenue. You are not talking about only a block or
two ”. (Interviewee 2). Civitas also recognized the biophysical
exposure that specific areas right below 110th St.
have, due to the natural ecosystem and topography of Central Park and
the rivers that used to flow out to the East River. This becomes obvious
when one compares a map of Northern Manhattan in 1600 Century, with FEMA
2015 flood projections (Figure 1), where the flooding extent in the FEMA
map follows a similar inland path as the one of the river just below
where 110th St is today on the 1600 map.