The disaster that befell many American cities in the post-World War II era is drearily familiar. We know that the building of interstate highways, combined with the Federal Housing Authority's red-lining of inner-city neighborhoods, encouraged the flight of the urban middle class to the suburbs. We also know that the federal government then ensured the ruin of much of what was left by pursuing "urban renewal"--that is, by demolishing working-class neighborhoods, destroying the traditional street grid and gouging the classic urban fabric with fortress-like public-housing projects.

In "Manhattan Projects," Samuel Zipp offers a fresh perspective on this dispiriting tale. Unlike many of his scholarly predecessors, who regarded the anti-urban agenda of policy makers as a given (why else would they have so destroyed our cities?), Mr. Zipp tells his story from the point of view of policy makers who loved cities--and who thought they were making a "benevolent intervention."

New York is in a growth mode, but are New Yorkers prepared to accommodate that growth? Clearly, increased density has to be embraced, both as an economic goal and a social good, but are New Yorkers ready to accept more people? Does the city have the infrastructure in place--transit, roads, water, schools, power--to handle the projected one-million-people increase in population? Where and how are they to be housed? What proportion of housing should be market-rate and what proportion subsidized? If subsidized, what level of government will be providing the funds? And how many governmentally imposed barriers to building will impede development? What options do the suburbs offer for supplementing the housing stock--and helping the region compete for talent with other world metropolises?

The city has for decades suffered from a shortage of affordable housing that has barely been eased by the tens of thousands of new units built since 2001. What are the ideas that will help shape solutions for New York's seemingly permanent housing crisis? The Radical Housing panel was designed to break through the clichés and familiar discussions to discuss some new solutions. Ironically, some of the best solutions may prove to be illegal--forbidden by building codes, wage regulations, housing standards, environmental restrictions etc.

Moderator: Julia Vitullo-Martin, Director, Center for Urban Innovation, Regional Plan Association

Jerilyn Perine's Radical Housing presentation, Executive Director, Citizens Housing and Planning Council
Michael Kelly's Radical Housing presentation, General Manager, New York City Housing Authority
Rosanne Haggerty's Radical Housing presentation, President, Common Ground
Jonathan Rose's Radical Housing presentation, Principal, Jonathan Rose Companies

IF we had it to do over again, probably no one would recommend setting up public housing as it is today -- isolating low-income families in densely populated, usually high-rise, projects centrally with an often overbearing federal regulatory apparatus in Washington, DC. But that's the system we have -- including some 2,700 residential buildings distributed throughout the five boroughs. Now the question is: Can the Bloomberg administration do more to integrate the projects socially and economically into city life?

New York could learn a thing or two from Britain's low-income housing reform.

Despite its aura of constant change and dynamism, New York City has one aspect of its landscape that is seemingly permanent--public housing. As the owner of one out of every 12 rental units in New York, the New York City Housing Authority is the city's biggest landlord, housing over 6% of New Yorkers. Nearly 145,000 families are on its waiting list. Its annual budget is just over $3.4 billion.

How is it that diversity of all kinds--economic, racial, intellectual--is promoted as an ideal in New York except when the debate turns to public housing? The moment a proposal is put forward to reform or remake public housing in any significant way, many housing activists abandon arguments for the virtues of diversity in favor of arguments for economic segregation. No one calls it that, of course. It's called protecting low-income households from gentrification or preserving the low-income housing stock. Maintaining public housing as exclusively lower-income becomes the rallying cry. Witness the T-shirts worn by public housing residents at a recent City Council hearing: "Keep public housing 100% affordable" (affordable being the new euphemism for subsidized). Nonetheless, the New York City Housing Authority--the largest landlord of low-income housing in the country--has this week triumphantly shepherded through the city's land-use review process a mixed-income new development that will include market-rate apartments.

Helpful as a market-rate component will be in strengthening NYCHA's fragile finances, its true importance lies in its promise to repair the fabric of New York neighborhoods, rent by decades of urban renewal, demolition, clearance, and massive projects.