project » Architect PhD Oleg Viktorovich

Загрузка. Пожалуйста, подождите... [/] Phone Email: +38 (067) 830-3765 +38 (066) 747-5874 oleprok@yahoo.com Home Home RU RU Navigation The lawyer in Kiev The lawyer in Kiev The lawyer in Kiev ShortList Projects In social net Facebook Twitter Channel Youtube Contacts Partners Architect Phd for European Union, design, investment project, architecture, urban architecture USA, NYC, Manhattan Ph.d, architectural design of buildings. New York architecture images, central park, lower manhattan, manhattan, lower east side, SOHO, GREENWICH VILLAGE, CHELSEA, Gramercy Park, MIDTOWN, UPPER EAST SIDE, UPPER WEST SIDE, HARLEM, bedford-stuyvesant, skyscraper, bridge, Art Deco, International style, Modernism, PostModernism, Romanesque Revival, Stick and/or Shingle Style, Queen Anne, Second Empire Baroque, Neoclassicism, Federalist, High Victorian Gothic, walking tours. Architect UK, architects UK, London architects, anglo greek architects, new build designers, new build architects, new build architecture, new build London, residential architects, residential designers, social housing architects, domestic design, domestic architects, green architects, green architecture, architectural masterplanners, masterplanners UK, masterplanners London, office architects, office architects London, office architects UK, office designers uk, fit-out architects, fit-out architects London, fit-out architects UK, environmental architects, ecological design, ecological designers, ecological architects, regeneration design, regeneration designers, regeneration architects, green build consultants, green build architects, urban design, aurban architects, town square design, town square architects, Spa Designers, space planners UK, interior designers, interior designers London, bar designers UK, urban regeneration, urban regeneration designers, urban regeneration architects, leisure design architects, restaurant designers, office designers, architects and designers, restaurant designers London, residential architects UK, residential architects London, hotel architects, hotel architects London, hotel architects UK, villa architects, villa architects Greece, sustainability, architects, sustainability architects UK, sustainable architecture, sustainable design, leisure architects, leisure architects UK, public realm architects, public realm designers, public realm design, energy saving architects, energy saving design architectural services, conservation architects, listed building architectsplanning permission architects, project manager architects. Navigation The lawyer in Kiev Architectural news Architect Phd, architecture Conception, architectural d ... Shooting victim had been targeted before Travers killing a tragic mistake Freedom House opens office in Vilnius What Belarusian Grove murmurs, what Raganyte remembers? ... Young select required military training for professiona ... Grybauskaite; Cooperation with Nordic States is our key ... Ministry of Culture to try to export Lithuanian culture ... 26 LTL (Euro 7.53) for Lithuanian strawberries Smoking to Be Banned for Minors in the Capital’s Publ ... Sponsors: Google Architectural design of buildings Architect PhD real estate in Europe » project 0 02 2011 03 On Approval of the Decision of the President Author: Oleg | Section: project | Views: On Approval of the Decision of the President of on Admitting Subdivisions of the Armed Forces of Other Countries to the Territory of in for the Purpose of Their Participation in Multi-National Military Exercises Date of entry into force: May 16, The present Law shall approve the Decision of the President of on admitting subdivisions of the Armed Forces of other countries to the territory of in for the purpose of their participation in the Ukrainian-Russian exercise of on-duty forces in anti-aircraft defense of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of and of the Air Forces of the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian-Belgian tactical exercise, the Ukrainian-Moldovan tactical exercise Pivden , the Ukrainian-Belarusian tactical exercise, the Ukrainian-American tactical exercise Sea Breeze and Combined Effort , the Ukrainian-American command and staff exercise Rapid Trident , the Ukrainian-Slovak tactical exercise The Slavs for Peace , the Ukrainian-Romanian tactical exercise, the multi-national exercise SOFEX , and the Ukrainian-Polish-Canadian-Lithuanian tactical exercise Maple Arch (hereinafter referred to as the Decision). The present Decision was approved by the Decree of the President of No. 306/ On Admitting Subdivisions of the Armed Forces of Other Countries to the Territory of in for the Purpose of Their Participation in Multi-National Military Exercises of April 7, . The present Decision of the President of shall stipulate to admit the following subdivisions of the Armed Forces of foreign countries to the territory of in for the purpose of their participation in joint military exercises with subdivisions of the Armed Forces of within the framework of military cooperation: subdivisions of the Russian Federation (up to four combat airplane) for the period of up to five days in April within the framework of the bilateral Ukrainian-Russian exercise of on-duty forces in anti-aircraft defense of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of and of the Air Forces of the Russian Federation; subdivisions of the Kingdom of Belgium (up to 300 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period of up to 20 days in May-July within the framework of the Ukrainian-Belgian tactical exercise; subdivisions of the Republic of Moldova (up to 30 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in May-August within the framework of the Ukrainian-Moldovan tactical exercise Pivden ; subdivisions of the Republic of Belarus (up to 50 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in May-August within the framework of the Ukrainian-Belarusian tactical exercise; subdivisions of the United States of America and other countries (up to 1,000 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to 40 units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to 15 vessels, up to two submarines, up to four transport aircraft and aircraft of basic patrol aviation, and up to four helicopters) for the period of up to 25 days in July within the framework of the Ukrainian-American tactical exercise Sea Breeze ; subdivisions of the United States of America (up to 100 servicemen, up to ten units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to four transport aircraft and up to two transport helicopters) for the period of up to 14 days in July-September within the framework of the Ukrainian-American tactical exercise Combined Effort ; subdivisions of the United States of America and other countries (up to 750 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to ten units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to two transport aircraft and up to two helicopters) for the period of up to 15 days in August-September within the framework of the Ukrainian-American command and staff exercise Rapid Trident ; subdivisions of the Slovak Republic (up to 30 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in August-September within the framework of the Ukrainian-Slovak tactical exercise The Slavs for Peace ; subdivisions of Romania (up to 30 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in August-October within the framework of the Ukrainian-Romanian tactical exercise; subdivisions of the United States of America and other countries (up to 300 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to two transport aircraft and up to four helicopters) for the period of up to 15 days in September within the framework of the multi-national exercise SOFEX ; subdivisions of the Republic of Poland, Canada and the Republic of Lithuania (up to 350 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to 15 units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to two transport aircraft, and up to two helicopters) for the period of up to 25 days in September-November within the framework of the Ukrainian-Polish-Canadian-Lithuanian tactical exercise Maple Arch . On Approval of the Decision of the President of on Admitting Subdivisions of the Armed Forces of Other Countries to the Territory of in for the Purpose of Their Participation in Multi-National Military Exercises Date of entry into force: May 16, The present Law shall approve the Decision of the President of on admitting subdivisions of the Armed Forces of other countries to the territory of in for the purpose of their participation in the Ukrainian-Russian exercise of on-duty forces in anti-aircraft defense of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of and of the Air Forces of the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian-Belgian tactical exercise, the Ukrainian-Moldovan tactical exercise Pivden , the Ukrainian-Belarusian tactical exercise, the Ukrainian-American tactical exercise Sea Breeze and Combined Effort , the Ukrainian-American command and staff exercise Rapid Trident , the Ukrainian-Slovak tactical exercise The Slavs for Peace , the Ukrainian-Romanian tactical exercise, the multi-national exercise SOFEX , and the Ukrainian-Polish-Canadian-Lithuanian tactical exercise Maple Arch (hereinafter referred to as the Decision). The present Decision was approved by the Decree of the President of No. 306/ On Admitting Subdivisions of the Armed Forces of Other Countries to the Territory of in for the Purpose of Their Participation in Multi-National Military Exercises of April 7, . The present Decision of the President of shall stipulate to admit the following subdivisions of the Armed Forces of foreign countries to the territory of in for the purpose of their participation in joint military exercises with subdivisions of the Armed Forces of within the framework of military cooperation: subdivisions of the Russian Federation (up to four combat airplane) for the period of up to five days in April within the framework of the bilateral Ukrainian-Russian exercise of on-duty forces in anti-aircraft defense of the Air Forces of the Armed Forces of and of the Air Forces of the Russian Federation; subdivisions of the Kingdom of Belgium (up to 300 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period of up to 20 days in May-July within the framework of the Ukrainian-Belgian tactical exercise; subdivisions of the Republic of Moldova (up to 30 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in May-August within the framework of the Ukrainian-Moldovan tactical exercise Pivden ; subdivisions of the Republic of Belarus (up to 50 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in May-August within the framework of the Ukrainian-Belarusian tactical exercise; subdivisions of the United States of America and other countries (up to 1,000 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to 40 units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to 15 vessels, up to two submarines, up to four transport aircraft and aircraft of basic patrol aviation, and up to four helicopters) for the period of up to 25 days in July within the framework of the Ukrainian-American tactical exercise Sea Breeze ; subdivisions of the United States of America (up to 100 servicemen, up to ten units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to four transport aircraft and up to two transport helicopters) for the period of up to 14 days in July-September within the framework of the Ukrainian-American tactical exercise Combined Effort ; subdivisions of the United States of America and other countries (up to 750 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to ten units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to two transport aircraft and up to two helicopters) for the period of up to 15 days in August-September within the framework of the Ukrainian-American command and staff exercise Rapid Trident ; subdivisions of the Slovak Republic (up to 30 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in August-September within the framework of the Ukrainian-Slovak tactical exercise The Slavs for Peace ; subdivisions of Romania (up to 30 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery) for the period up to seven days in August-October within the framework of the Ukrainian-Romanian tactical exercise; subdivisions of the United States of America and other countries (up to 300 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to two transport aircraft and up to four helicopters) for the period of up to 15 days in September within the framework of the multi-national exercise SOFEX ; subdivisions of the Republic of Poland, Canada and the Republic of Lithuania (up to 350 servicemen along with standard equipment and armaments, as well as military equipment and machinery up to 15 units of light wheeled machinery and equipment, up to two transport aircraft, and up to two helicopters) for the period of up to 25 days in September-November within the framework of the Ukrainian-Polish-Canadian-Lithuanian tactical exercise Maple Arch . More 0 02 2011 03 The Fall of the American Intelligentsia Author: Oleg | Section: project | Views: BRAIN DRAIN The Fall of the American Intelligentsia By Sam Smith Intelligentsia: A class of well-educated persons constituting a distinct, recognized, and self-conscious stratum within a nation and claiming or assuming for itself the guiding role of an intellectual, social or political vanguard -- Webster's Third New International Dictionary Cultural phenomena don't usually sign surrender terms so it's a bit hard to pinpoint when the American intelligentsia collapsed, but the day that 400 historians joined the Clinton defense team will probably do as well as any. In a statement replete with bad history, lousy law, and childish politics the 400 academics provided intellectual succor to the nation's leading suckee, that felonious fraud in the White House. Ex cathedra, ex cathedra, ex cathedra onward; into the valley of fin-de-siecle decadence rode the 400. . . It was an act so obsequious in cause and transparent in purpose that only the similarly sycophantic Eleanor Clift could keep a straight face when the matter was discussed on the McLaughlin show. The ad was the handiwork of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who has been flailing about for the past few decades seeking a president who will treat him as kindly as did John F. Kennedy. It was not the first time that Schlesinger has served as prop man for presidential mischief. Back when JFK was getting ready to invade Cuba, the New Republic got wind of the CIA's training of Cuban exiles. Schlesinger was shown an advance copy of the article, which he promptly passed to Kennedy, who in turn asked (successfully) that TNR not print it. The New York Times also withheld a story on the pending invasion, which Schlesinger would later praise as a patriotic act although he admitted wondering whether if the press had behaved irresponsibly, it would not have spared the country a disaster. Schlesinger was a prototype for that modern phenomenon, the meddlesome Harvard prof seeking manly vigor by helping presidents ravage this country or that -- including sometimes our own. Henry Kissinger and McGeorge Bundy would soon follow. Later, the staff and management of the Harvard Business School would assist at the collapse of the Russian economy even as their colleagues at the Kennedy School were teaching scores of American politicians how to repeal 60 years of social progress. Of course, gratuitous abuse by the intelligentsia began well before the Bay of Pigs. Compared to those men of the mind involved in the Inquisition, for example, Schlesinger amp; Co. look pretty respectable. And it certainly hasn't all been Harvard's fault; as LBJ once told an aide, the CIA was filled with boys from Princeton and Yale whose daddies wouldn't let them into the brokerage firm. The American intelligentsia has repeatedly let the country down. Consider that exemplar for generations of law school students: Oliver Wendell Holmes. Prospective litigants have all learned Holmes' immortal warning that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. Fewer, I suspect, have also learned that these words were uttered in defense of the contemptible Espionage Act and that Holmes himself was among those upholding Eugene Debs' sentence of ten years in prison for saying such things as the master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. And as early as the turn of the century, Julian Benda noted in the 1920s, there had been a shift among intellectuals from being a check on the realism of the people to acting as stimulators of political passions. He described these new intellectuals as being most interested in the possession of concrete advantages and material values, while holding up to scorn the pursuit of the spiritual, the non-practical or the disinterested. Thus there is no argument here that the capitulation of many intellectuals in the matter of Clinton is novel. What is the unique, however, is the absence of its alternative. There is, for example, nothing even remotely close to the sort of intellectual division that occurred during the Vietnam War in which the Kissingers and Bundys were matched by others -- including those the New York Times in 1970 headlined as 1000 'ESTABLISHMENT' LAWYERS JOIN WAR PROTEST. In The Twentieth Century: A People's History, Howard Zinn describes a response by some of the intelligentsia stunningly at odds with what we are currently observing: The poet Robert Lowell, invited to a White House function, refused to come. Arthur Miller, also invited, sent a telegram to the White House: When the guns boom, the arts die. Singer Ertha Kitt was invited to a luncheon on the White House lawn and shocked all those present by speaking out, in the presence of the President's wife, against the war. .... In Hollywood, local artists erected a 60-foot Tower of Protest on Sunset Boulevard. At the National Book Award ceremonies in New York, fifty authors and publishers walked out on a speech by Vice President Humphrey in a display of anger at his role in the war. These, remember, were protests against a far more liberal, far more Democratic president than we have today -- a man who had already shepherded through Congress the most progressive social changes since the New Deal. Further, the demon waiting in the wings was not a bland George Bush virtually indistinguishable from the incumbent but Richard Nixon. Those, however, were different days. Now we have Toni Morrison exculpating Clinton because of his blackness and Schlesinger exculpating him because Reagan lied as well. Today, on the flimsiest and most sophistic of grounds, the intelligentsia has lined up behind the slimiest president in American history. It's just lucky we didn't have to rely upon this craven crowd when we were fighting George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Carmine DeSapio and Richard Daley. They probably would have lectured us all about party unity. The Kool-Aid Clintonistas Nowhere is the problem more visible than among the media intelligentsia. As the impeachment hearings neared, the Kool-Aid Clintonista media dropped all pretense of objectivity and instead loyally chugalugged cups of White House spin at their moral Jonestown. Not since the days when hundreds of their colleagues shilled for the CIA have so many media members betrayed their own craft with such mindless loyalty to terminally corrupted power. The charge was led by upper class outlets. There was Vogue, which gave Hillary Clinton a free make-over just in time for the House hearings. There was NPR, which still considered Linda Tripp's deception of Monica Lewinsky a greater affair of state than Clinton's deception of his wife, daughter, cabinet members, media, law enforcement officials, Congress, and the grand jury. And there was the New Yorker, which saw its primary function as translating the philosophy of James Carville into Larchmont lockjaw. The techniques were varied. For Vogue, the retouched photo; for NPR a pseudo-literary deconstruction of the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes; for Newsweek, the neatly destructive headline: An implausibly optimistic Starr grinds on: The Last True Believer. And for the New Yorker, the convenient pocket quote: Virtually nothing that Starr may say about Whitewater can matter anymore. The New Yorker was, on average, the worst of the lot. So shameless was its coverage that its letters column became the only place one could expect to find common sense on Washington affairs. Inside the book, you had Morrison claiming that the president is being stolen from us and Jane Smiley virtually applauding the president for demonstrating in his relationship with Monica a desire to make a connection with another person .... something I trust. Joe Klein was so reckless in his support of the Washington establishment that he not only savaged independent counsels but even departmental inspectors general. Klein and his colleagues proved not only extraordinarily soft on crime; they seemed almost to consider it a perk of office or at least a personal lifestyle choice not to be trifled with by mere minions of the law. This deterioration in the mind of the minds was not just a domestic problem either, as witnessed by a multinational manifesto issued by the likes of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Desmond Tutu, William Styron, Lauren Becall, Jacques Derrida, Sophia Loren, Carlos Fuentes, Vanessa Redgrave and the ever-faithful Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Nat Hentoff wrote: You might think they would be calling for an end to the ethnic cleansing Kosovo or for the immediate relief to the hundreds of thousands of black Christians and animists in the south of Sudan. . . No, these stars are engaged in a much more vital crusade. . . They instruct us that 'a statesman is answerable to public opinion or to the law only for his public acts.' This infantile and disingenuous recomposition of the law was furthered by Renata Adler in Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair had theretofore distinguished itself in these matters by turning down a blockbuster story with the explanation that it wasn't interested in substance. Adler wrote what was probably the worst major piece about the Clinton scandals, a tower of twaddle based entirely on an uninformed reading of the Starr report which she called utterly preposterous . . . inaccurate, mindless, biased, disorganized, unprofessional and corrupt. Adler also tossed off incorrect constitutional legal opinions with such aplomb you would never guess she was only a novelist -- that is until you got to strange sentences like if Ms. Lewinsky had had a constitutional lawyer the case against her would have been thrown out. It's hard to throw out a case when no one has been charged. Adler drew vast conclusions from tertiary data with the speed of a tenured member of the John Birch Society, complained about the small type of the Starr Report, and found evil lurking in the fact that the Tripp tapes were not listed in proper numerical order. It must be said in VF's defense, however, that it also ran a contrary piece by Christopher Hitchens. Like Adler, Hitchens was disinclined to enlighten his readers beyond the matter of sex. Still he did score some good points. For example, concerning those who said, Let's get on with the agenda, Hitchens wrote, Excuse me -- what fucking agenda? Clinton hasn't had a press conference, except when hiding behind embarrassed foreign statesmen, since April, hasn't been to anything much but fund-raisers on the domestic front, and on the international scene has sleepwalked through several major crises. Still in the end, Hitchens -- like Adler and most other commentators -- was so obsessed with the very prurient interest so frequently ascribed to Starr, that he, too, missed the story. Which is that the Clinton scandals have truly not been about sex. The Lewinsky saga is but a metaphor, a window out of which one can look upon toxic brown fields of crime and corruption. It has come to the fore in no small part precisely because Clinton and his capos were so effective at the very things of which he is accused -- lying and obstruction of justice -- that the prosecutor was repeatedly blocked in his search for the truth. Starr, to be sure, has fallen down badly. He has turned his back on evidence of massive drug-dealing in Arkansas, taken a high dive in the Foster death, and mangled the prosecution of Webster Hubbell, the matter of the FBI files, and Travelgate. But neither these nor any personal failings of Linda Tripp alter one iota of the tale's true essence. The Clinton story is actually about the unprecedented criminal corruption of an administration. It is about a mobbed-up president whose close allies have included over two-score individuals and firms convicted of such crimes as drug trafficking, racketeering, extortion, bribery, tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, fraud, conspiracy, fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice. It is about many more members of his political machine who have taken the Fifth or fled the country. It is about criminals including drug dealers having direct access to the White House. It is about a criminal, Webster Hubbell, being appointed to the number 3 spot at the Justice Department. It is about the President's lifelong association with the Dixie Mafia, including members active in the drug trade. It is about the abuse of 1,000 FBI files. It is about the false prosecution of a White House official whose only real crime was occupying a position wanted by a friend of Bill. It is about illegal foreign campaign contributions and possibly related espionage. It is about the extraordinary number of people around Clinton who have died under mysterious circumstances. It is about the repeated abuse of women with whom Clinton has had relations, women who have often been multiple victims: first as abused sexual partners and then as terrorized, bribed, or publicly trashed former partners. It is about campaign contributors paying de facto bribes of $100,000 in order to ride in a taxpayer-funded plane and get government help in swinging private deals. It is about Bill Clinton saying I don't recall or its equivalent 140 times before the grand jury. It is about a president who has consistently used the power of his office to prevent law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties and, when that hasn't worked, has conducted a propaganda jihad against them and anyone else who dared to challenge him. It is about a leader who has manifestly failed to faithfully execute the laws of the land and has become America's most corrupt president. And, finally, it is about a intelligentsia that created the Clinton myth and now, like their icon, refuses to admit its error and the terrible damage it has done. More 0 02 2011 03 Harlem is a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Manhattan Author: Oleg | Section: project | Views: Harlem is a neighborhood in the New York City borough of Manhattan, long known as a major African-American residential, cultural, and business center. Originally a Dutch village, formally organized in 1658,[1] and remained independent of the City of New York until 1873. It is named after the city of Haarlem in the Netherlands. Harlem has been defined by a series of boom-and-bust cycles, with significant ethnic shifts accompanying each cycle. Black residents began to arrive en masse in 1904, with numbers fed by the Great Migration. In the 1920s and 1930s, the neighborhood was the locus of the Harlem Renaissance, an outpouring of artistic and professional works without precedent in the American black community. However, starting with the job losses of the Great Depression and especially after World War II with deindustrialization in New York, rates of crime and poverty increased significantly. New York's revival in the late 20th century has led to renewal in Harlem as well. By 1995, Harlem was experiencing social and economic gentrification. Though the percentage of residents who are black peaked in 1950, the area remains predominantly black. Location and boundaries The boundaries of modern Harlem; some landmarks are noted. Harlem stretches from the East River west to the Hudson River between 155th Street; where it meets Washington Heightsto a ragged border along the south. Central Harlem begins at 110th Street, at the northern boundary of Central Park; Spanish Harlem extends east Harlem's boundaries south to 96th Street, while in the west it begins north of Upper West Side, which gives an irregular border west of Morningside Avenue. Harlem's boundaries have changed over the years; as Ralph Ellison observed: Wherever Negroes live uptown is considered Harlem.[citation needed] The neighborhood contains a number of smaller, cohesive districts. The following are some examples: West Harlem (west of St. Nicholas Avenue and north of 123rd Street) Hamilton Heights, around the Hamilton Grange Sugar Hill[2] Manhattanville, north of Morningside Heights Central Harlem Mount Morris, extending west from Marcus Garvey Park Strivers' Row, centered on 139th Street Astor Row, centered on 130th Street Spanish Harlem, also known as East Harlem or El Barrio (east of Fifth Avenue) The New York City Police Department patrols five precincts located within Harlem. The areas of West Harlem are served by the 30th Precinct,[3] the areas of Central Harlem are served by the 28th[4] and 32nd Precincts,[5] and the areas of East Harlem are served by the 23rd[6] and 25th Precincts.[7] Harlem is represented by New York's 15th congressional district, the New York State Senate's 30th district, the New York State Assembly's 68th and 70th districts, and the New York City Council's 7th, 8th, and 9th districts. Arrival of black people Marcus Garvey Park Masjid Aqsa Small groups of black people lived in Harlem as early as 1880, especially in the area around 125th Street and Negro tenements on West 130th Street. The mass migration of blacks into the area began in 1904, due to another real estate crash, the worsening of conditions for blacks elsewhere in the city, and the leadership of a black real estate entrepreneur named Phillip Payton, Jr. After the collapse of the 1890s, new speculation and construction started up again in 1903 and the resulting glut of housing led to a crash in values in 1904 and 1905 that eclipsed the late-19th century slowdown.[15] Landlords could not find white renters for their properties, so Philip Payton stepped in to bring blacks. His company, the Afro-American Realty Company, was almost single-handedly responsible for migration of blacks from their previous neighborhoods,[17] the Tenderloin, San Juan Hill (now the site of Lincoln Center), and Hell's Kitchen in the west 40s and 50s.[18][19] The move to northern Manhattan was driven in part by fears that anti-black riots such as those that had occurred in the Tenderloin in 1900[20] and in San Juan Hill in 1905[12] might recur. In addition, a number of tenements that had been occupied by blacks in the west 30s were destroyed at this time to make way for the construction of the original Penn Station. In 1907, black churches began to move uptown. St. Philip's Episcopal Church, for one, purchased a block of buildings on West 135th Street to rent to members of its congregation.[21] The early 20th-century Great Migration of blacks to northern industrial cities was fueled by their desire to leave behind the Jim Crow South, seek better jobs and education for their children, and escape a culture of lynching violence. During World War I, expanding industries recruited black laborers to fill new jobs, thinly staffed after the draft began to take young men.[17] So many blacks came that it threaten[ed] the very existence of some of the leading industries of Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama.[22] Many settled in Harlem. By 1920, central Harlem was 32.43 black. The 1930 census revealed that 70.18 of Central Harlem's residents were black and lived as far south as Central Park, at 110th Street.[23] The expansion was fueled primarily by an influx of blacks from the southern U.S. states, especially Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, who took trains up the East Coast. There were also numerous immigrants from the West Indies. As blacks moved in, white residents between 1920 and 1930, 118,792 white people left the neighborhood and 87,417 blacks arrived. Between 1907 and 1915,[24] some white residents of Harlem resisted the neighborhood's change, especially once the swelling black population pressed west of Lenox Avenue, which served as an informal color line until the early 1920s.[17] Some made pacts not to sell to or rent to blacks.[25] Others tried to buy property and evict black tenants, but the Afro-American Realty Company retaliated by buying other property and evicting whites. They also attempted to convince banks to deny mortgages to black buyers, but soon gave up.[26] These buildings on West 135 Street were among the first in Harlem to be occupied entirely by blacks; in 1921, 135 became home to Young's Book Exchange, the first Afrocentric bookstore in Harlem.[21] Little investment in private homes or businesses took place in the neighborhood between 1911 and the 1990s. However, the unwillingness of landlords elsewhere in the city to rent to black tenants, together with a significant increase in the black population of New York, meant that rents in Harlem were for many years higher than rents elsewhere in the city, even as the housing stock decayed. In 1920, one-room apartments in central Harlem rented for $40 to whites or $100$125 to blacks.[27] In the late 1920s, a typical white working-class family in New York paid $6.67 per month per room, while blacks in Harlem paid $9.50 for the same space.[28] The worse the accommodations and more desperate the renter, the higher the rents would be.[29] This pattern persisted through the 1960s; in 1965, CERGE reported that a one-room apartment in Harlem rented for $50$74, while comparable apartments rented for $30$49 in white slums.[30] The high rents encouraged some property speculators to engage in block busting, a practice whereby they would acquire a single property on a block and sell or rent it to blacks with great publicity. Other landowners would panic, and the speculators would then buy additional houses relatively cheaply.[31] These houses could then be rented profitably to blacks.[32] One of the few ruined buildings remaining in Harlem, photographed on May 14, 2005. The building has since been demolished. The high cost of space forced people to live in close quarters, and the population density of Harlem in these years was stunningover 215,000 per square mile in the 1920s. By comparison, in 2000, Manhattan as a whole had a population density under 70,000 per square mile.[33] The same forces that allowed landlords to charge more for Harlem space also enabled them to maintain it less, and many of the residential buildings in Harlem fell into disrepair. The 1960 census showed only 51 of housing in Harlem to be sound, as opposed to 85 elsewhere in New York City.[34] In 1968, the New York City Buildings Department received 500 complaints daily of rats in Harlem buildings, falling plaster, lack of heat, and unsanitary plumbing.[12] Tenants were sometimes to blame; some would strip wiring and fixtures from their buildings to sell, throw garbage in hallways and airshafts, or otherwise damage the properties which they lived in or visited.[35] Harlem has many townhouses, such as these in the Mount Morris Historic District. Inadequate housing contributed to racial unrest and health problems. However, the lack of development also preserved buildings from the 18701910 building boom, and Harlem as a result has many of the finest original townhouses in New York. This includes work by many significant architects of the day, including McKim, Mead, and White; James Renwick; William Tuthill; Charles Buek; and Francis Kimball. As the building stock decayed, landlords converted many buildings into single room occupancies, or SROs, essentially private homeless shelters. In many cases, the income from these buildings could not support the fines and city taxes charged to their owners, or the houses suffered damage that would have been expensive to fix, and the buildings were abandoned. In the 1970s, this process accelerated to the point that Harlem, for the first time since before WWI, had a lower population density than the rest of Manhattan. Between 1970 and 1980, for example, Frederick Douglass Boulevard between 110th Street and 125th Street in central Harlem lost 42 of its population and 23 of its remaining housing stock.[36] By 1987, 65 of the buildings in Harlem were owned by the City of New York,[37][38] and many had become empty shells, convenient centers for drug dealing and other antisocial activity. The lack of habitable buildings and falling population reduced tax rolls and made the neighborhood even less attractive to residential and retail investment. More Back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 423 Further © 2012 - Architectural design project buildings and structures. Navigation Home Contacts RSS Sitemap Bookmarks Counters