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.