Talk:Mott Haven, Bronx

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

North New York, Bronx was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 April 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mott Haven, Bronx. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Up and Coming?!?!

"an up and coming neighborhood"?

Sounds like a real estate agent placed this. It may warrant deletion.

Are you smoking crack you bought in that neighborhood??!

I was thinking just that (about the real-estate agent)! Made a few changes to make it a bit more honest, though it could prob. even be cleaned up more to reflect the truth about the current state of the area. I'm from Manhattan, but taught just north of there - a school I helped found is actually right near there on 139 & Willis. Justjared 21:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has yet again been edited in a completely inaccurate fashion. I have lived in Mott Haven for six years, there is significant urban renewal in the neighborhood and someone keeps deleting this. I personally know of a large number of artists, designers, musicians, and other professionals --- hundreds --- who have moved into Mott Haven and Port Morris in the last six years. Yes, obviously the neighborhood still has a lot of problems but whoever keeps deleting these references has some sort of agenda. I LIVE in this neighborhood, I know quite a few people who have moved here, and it is not all drug addicts and crime. In fact, the crime rate is below the national average, just check the CompStat report from the Mott Haven precinct! It's ridiculous to keep deleting that. —Comment added by Syntheticzero (talk • contribs) 05:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crime stats are not below the national average they are well above, both per capita and per square mile. This neighborhood has seen a decline in crime but it is clear that crime is still a big issue. Mott Haven is a neighborhood seeing revitalization due to the citywide housing crisis for low income earners and necessity for an improvement in quality of life for an area where it is rated among the lowest in the city. Wealthy people are not moving into Mott Haven in significant numbers, low income people are. Anything else is real estate hype.

"Around the turn of the century the non-Hispanic White population, consisting primarily of high income earners, has been on the rise.." Based on my experience living in the neighborhood, it is wholly inaccurate -- and, imho, a bit smug-sounding -- to suppose that the white population in Mott Haven consists primarily of high income earners. I moved to Mott Haven -- into a conversion south of the Deegen (the white part of town) -- precisely because I am NOT a high income earner. I lived there because I could afford the rent. Same goes for my neighbors. I love the neighborhood. It has an unspoiled urban wasteland vibe; that gentrification largely failed in this nabe adds to its appeal. There are no doubt some white people in Mott Haven who earn a comfortable living. But the assertion The White People in Mott Haven consist "primarily of high income earners" is a categorical -- and perhaps deliberate -- misstatement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.127.188 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added, Cited, Organized

Added in descriptions of the real problems in this neighborhood and some photographs. Mott Haven is one of the poorest neighborhoods in America and deals a long list of social problems. Do not let the real estate agents turn a fact based article into an advertisement. The area is not gentrifying. I also wanted to add the comments and linked article about the clocktower and lofts does not apply to Mott Haven but a small section of Port Morris adjacent the Third Avenue Bridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong, Wikiwiki718. There ARE quite a few new residents in the neighborhood, I am one of them, I know of hundreds of others, including many who live on my block, down the street, all through Mott Haven and Port Morris. I am not a real estate agent, I live in the neighborhood. Feel free to write about the Mott Haven you know but please don't delete references to the Mott Haven I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticzero (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on St Ann's is gentrified. That's the heart of Mott Haven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.159.201 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Mott Haven is a neighborhood seeing revitalization due to the citywide housing crisis for low income earners and necessity for an improvement in quality of life for an area where it is rated among the lowest in the city. Wealthy people are not moving into Mott Haven in significant numbers, low income people are. Anything else is real estate hype.

This article is currently biased heavily in a negative direction

I've been living in Mott Haven for 5 years, near the southern end of the neighborhood adjacent to Port Morris. There have been a lot of claims here of "real estate agents" editing the page, but the fact is I was the one who added some of the edits to the page a while ago to reflect my own experiences living in the neighborhood. I am not a real estate agent. I am a resident, and I've seen for myself the transformation going on in the neighborhood. Yes, it is still a very poor neighborhood, but it's ridiculous to delete all references to the changes going on and call this a "balanced" article. The murder rate is down by 80% since 1990, robbery down by 79%, burglary by 82%, assault by 63%. Friends of mine moved to Mott Haven 8 years ago, they were one of the first to renovate a building in the neighborhood. I'm living in a renovated building myself, a loft conversion. On Alexander Avenue one block from me, a whole slew of formerly burnt-out brownstones have been renovated and I know graphic designers, artists, and musicians living in them now. And yes, these are all in Mott Haven, not just Port Morris.

And it's not just in my neighborhood near Port Morris -- it's also in the entire neighborhood. The Hub, at 149th and 3rd Avenue, has seen a flourishing of new businesses. Bank branches have opened there. It's a bustling commercial district.

The edits to the article have eliminated all references to the very real transformation going on here. This article needs to have some balance restored.

Syntheticzero (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think this gives the full story and why on earth do they list every housing project -- they don't do that for Manhattan neighborhoods. Every new york neighborhood has a lot of projects. Shall we remove that section, and just mention that there are X many projects as a single sentence? This could also use more information on the arts. futurebird (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not many New York neighborhoods have such a high percentage of residents living in public housing. Almost half for Mott Haven.

You need proper citations and please do not ruin the formatting on the page

Starturtle73, your citation is based off an article from the real estate section of the NY Times and is written like an advertisement. You also should not delete cited paragraphs based on statistical data from government sources. I added "Mott Haven Historical Districts" to the "Land Use" category to keep the article organized. The original paragraph that described landmarked districts in Mott Haven was primarily a discussion on the Port Morris section of the Bronx and deleted. The landmarked details were never replaced. Now they are, with proper citations from the nyc.gov website. The small historic districts do not need to be mentioned outside that section of the article. They account for a very small area of the overall neighborhood, roughly 5 city blocks total. An even smaller percentage of the residential units in the area. When citing you need to include factual citations, not a sales pitch from a real estate add. Despite what you may read in the Times the neighborhood is not being gentrified. The dominant form of newly constructed housing in the area is low income. Subsidized townhouses, apartment buildings, and rehabilitations. Most of the new residents are low income and Hispanic. It is a very poor neighborhood with many social problems. Many issues not even mentioned in this article and I have slowly been adding details as I find reliable citations. These are the much more important issues that need discussed in the article. Trying to play it off as an up and coming area is not realistic. Port Morris just south of Mott Haven is seeing some gentrification adjacent the Third Avenue Bridge but it has been stagnant in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki718 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwiki718, Your edits are clearly biased towards focusing on your perceptions of social problems to the exclusion of anything else that is NORMALLY included in a encyclopedia article. I suggest you look at other Wikipedia articles on New York City neighborhoods, even historically blighted ones such as Bed-Stuy, to see what proper formatting and neutral content are. If you compare my edits, you will see that I always strive to include the contributions of other users, you, however, just treat others in this community with contempt. Making ad hominem attacks (where you attack the person rather than his ideas) doesn't justify your edits and is intellectually reprehensible. For example, I am not a real estate agent. Even if I were, that would not mean that my edits were automatically invalid. Also: do you really think that describing historic districts by what housing projects they are near is NEUTRAL??? Neutral would be stating the blocks they are located between. Where are your references for your claims about SROs? And using the New York Times or the NY Daily News as citations is perfectly valid, even if in your PERSONAL opinion they are not good papers. I did not quote any real estate ads, as you falsely claimed. Furthermore you have not properly cited demographic statistics--for example where did you get the total population of Mott Haven statistic? You referenced the Community Board 1 website, however they only give population statistics that include Port Morris as well. I am not sure what you have against accurately listing the subways that serve the area (look at the MTA map that I provided a link to if you have any doubt) or describing the actual boundaries of the neighborhood (again look at a map: the southern boundary of Mott Haven is not the Major Deegan--which is an elevated highway--it is the body of water called the Bronx Kill--it runs between Mott Haven and Randall's Island.) It really seems like you have some kind of agenda. Why don't you prove me wrong by editing your personal biases out of the page? Starturtle73 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bed-stuy article is not a model of neutrality. That article needs a major rewrite. You can not even tell Bed-stuy is a poor blighted African American community. There are three paragraphs in that article discussing gentrification and not one discussing the areas social problems. It is not balanced. It should tip towards describing the social problems in the community, land use, demographics and general information, then a brief discussion on the recent gentrification and effects on the community.

The reason I added the housing projects to the locations of the historical districts is becuase they are the most significant landmarks in the area. It also proves the point that the vast majority of the brownstones in the area were razed to build housing projects. Proximity.

As for Port Morris and Mott Haven. Two different neighborhoods. Port Morris is industrial, Mott Haven is residential. That is the easiest way to tell the two apart. The Major Deegan Expressway became a major boundary after it's construction. the Same goes for the Bruckner Expressway to the east.

Subway lines, I have no problem with listing subway lines since I was the one who added it to the opening paragraph... The area is served by the 6 line which operates along East 138th Street as I stated. The 4 train could added but then both should be added to a new section labeled transportation. I tried to keep the opening paragraph "general information". The 6 line is the primary line in the area and the 4 line station at East 138th Street and Grand Concourse sees little use in comparison.

BTW, I never called you a real estate agent, I said your citation was based off a real estate add. Feeling a little guilty?

Sorry but my edits are not biased. They are factual and I back them with statistical data, not real estate advertisements. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwiki718, No, I am not feeling guilty. As I said, none of my information came from a real estate ad--I haven't even seen one for Mott Haven. I am feeling frustrated, however, because you think an encyclopedia article should fulfill your social agenda. That's not what encylopedia articles are for: they are there to inform. Not to "make your point". If you have an axe to grind, go blog about it, but stop wasting the public's time. Find me one other article on a New York City neighborhood (not edited by you) that mentions which police precinct patrols the neighborhood in the opening paragraph!!! And you claim to be NEUTRAL???

Also, you did not really respond to most of my points about YOUR LACK OF REFERENCES. As for significant landmarks, no one actually living in Mott Haven refers to the landmarked districts by referring to the public housing projects. Their location is decribed using block numbers and avenues. Or local landmarks like supermarkets, restaurants, florist shops, the police station, the art gallery. Port Morris and Mott Haven are indeed different neighborhoods: Port Morris is the industrial area to the east of Mott Haven. However the distinctions are being blurred with the changes in zoning and socio-economic composition. This often happens in NYC--see the changing border of Chinatown in lower Manhattan. The area south of the elevated expressway is part of Mott Haven, hence the southern border is the Bronx Kill.

In sum: Your opinions do not count as fact nor as statistics. Rather than just being defensive and territorial, why not work towards a more neutral article as determined by everyone in the community, not just you. You obviously like to think of yourself as having a social conscience, you ought to understand these principles. Starturtle73 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I call the New York Times article you posted a real estate advertisement is becuase it is directly from the real estate section of the New York Times. Just read it yourself and you will see what I mean. It attempts to generate hype. Some of the information is out of date. Some of it opinions.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/realestate/23livi.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26vendorQ3DGABRIELSQ26partnerQ3DGABRIELSQ26exQ3D1191556800Q26enQ3Def85e58b9a6fa342Q26eiQ3D5103&OP=35df37b0Q2FQ2A5Q3AbQ2AWgN9Q23ggc6Q2A6DDKQ2ADQ7DQ2A6UQ2AQ23Q3ARyQ3A9cRcQ3AQ2A6UyPQ25PQ22ZcQ26y

How did I get the population data? I added the population in the census tracts within the confines of the area. That community board website posted as a citation in the demographics section offers data on income, race, nationality, population, ect. Every type of demographic data you could possibly need including maps and tables. I cited every paragraph I added except education which I will in time and urban renewal which is more common knowledge then anything. I have citations offering statistical data. Data directly from the US census interpreted by the community board, the NYCHA, the 40th precinct, charts based on statistical data on incarceration rates and drop outs, even a Bronx census data analysis. Read and you will see the references. There is a section towards the bottom labeled references if you did not notice.

The article is very neutral as I now edited it, replacing low income with "SoBro" is not neutral. Removing the area's public housing projects and social concerns is not neutral. Mott Haven is a high crime neighborhood with many social problems. Half the population lives in the projects. So how are you going to tell me removing that data makes it neutral, replacing it with "gentrification" and "SoBro"? When something is neutral, that means it contains factual data. The fact is, Mott Haven is a poor, inner city community, predominantly Puerto Rican and most people live in projects. That is neutral becuase it is fact. Removing that makes it bias by trying to make the area look better then it is.

The historical districts have now been added, I thought I had added it before but that has been corrected. If it makes you feel better I have no problem removing the public housing projects that surround the historic districts. I do not see how that is such a big problem becuase they are there either way.

As for the opening paragraph, I added general area information. Zip code, boundaries, local precinct, community board. Again I do not see the problem. How is that bias?

I also previously added the education section and urban renewal so before you jump the gun, you might want to read first. Wikiwiki718 (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

Made Edits Toward Greater Factual Accuracy and More Neutral Tone

In the first paragraph more data on the transportation serving the neighborhood was added. Corrected the southern boundary to the Bronx Kill waterway. This part of the Bronx is part of Mott Haven, not Port Morris. Jim Henderson appears to have edited both this article and the Port Morris article to include this error. If he has a citation to support his assertion, please show it. The Community Board 1 map illustrated Port Morris as lying to the east of the Bruckner as I said. They go so far as to print the name Port Morris vertically so that it is very clear the neighborhood lies to the east of Mott Haven. Please look at the map. While New York City neighborhood boundaries are fluid, residents of this area consider themselves part of Mott Haven. Port Marris starts east of the Bruckner Expressway. It is not a majority residential area, it is an industrial one.

Land use section expanded to include all types of buildings and land in use. Data from the most recent local community board map.

Demographics edited for accuracy and tone. The most recent statistics available are from Community Board 1. When the 2010 Census results come out, modifications may be in order. The previous paragraph contained normative statements about the population and unsupported statistics. I searched the cited document for any data supporting the assertions and could find none. For example that "over half the population lived in poverty"--in fact the Community Board Report cited as a link says only 39% of the population lives below the poverty line. The community board statistics are complicated by the fact that they mix Mott Haven data with Melrose data. If there is a published source for the assertions made by the previous editor, please cite the source.

Housing Projects Housing Projects in New York City have their own Wikipedia article. Each individual project has at least a Wikipedia stub. That is the appropriate place to put details such as the name, height of building, or the year of construction. This is excessive and tedious detail for the average user just looking to learn about the neighborhood. Imagine how boring it would be if the name, height and type of every building in Mott Haven were listed? The quantity and concentration of housing projects in Mott Haven is significant compared to other NYC neighborhoods, but the fact that it has it's own section and that there are 17 housing projects mentioned adequately conveys that fact. It is important to remember that the housing projects are not the sum total of the neighborhood experience. Neither are they used as directional landmarks by residents.

Removed Jonathan Kozol book reference from within the article. That's great that someone read this guy's book a 15 years ago, but that doesn't mean it merits inclusion in the article text. It could be used as a cited source (although not for current statistics because it is too old.)

Generally--the Social Problems section seems like a good candidate for deletion unless it is rewritten to be less vague. Statements like "the incarceration rate is high" or "a high proportion" are vague. What is the percentage of the population that is currently incarcerated or formerly incarcerated? Other wise "high rates" begs the question "compared to what?" Is the rate higher than Melrose's? Brooklyn's? Texas's? Equally vague are statements about being "poor" or that the cause of social problems is young pregnancy. "Poor" is a relative concept so it is important to give factual data wherever possible. I included the percentage of the households living below the poverty line--an objective measurement--for this very reason. Although social problems are important, I question whether they really ought to be included in an article about a neighborhood. Are we going to have subsections called "Drug Addiction", "Police Conduct", "Mental Illness", "Handicapped Access", "Stray Animals", "Rodent Control", etc. All of these are problems affecting Mott Haven and other neighborhoods but they do not necessarily merit inclusion in this Wikipedia article.

The History Section could use expansion to include more recent events. Mott Haven and the South Bronx in general played a significant role in the development of rap and hip hop and that seems worthy of mention.

Tourism has started in the area too, with the Bronx Culture Trolley visiting local art galleries and a hotel under construction. Perhaps that could be worked into the existing urban renewal section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starturtle73 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a phishing site

I have removed the URL hxxp://www.hdc.org/motthaven.htm, whose domain is a known phishing site per http://www.phishtank.com/phish_detail.php?phish_id=3477047. epic genius (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mott Haven, Bronx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]