Community-based Planning Graffiti in Community District Two, Queens, New York: Private expression in the public realm by Thomas Paino Presentation by Emily Leavitt

Background information on graffiti in NYC Graffiti is a widespread daily phenomenon in New York City, especially in the boroughs outside Manhattan. It has been estimated that $750 million is spent annually to get rid of graffiti. Because some people create graffiti and others try to get rid of it, there is a wide range of opinion about the purposes and appropriateness of graffiti. Graffiti occurs both legally and illegally. Sometimes “property- owners invite well-known local graffiti artists and artists from abroad to express themselves on the walls of their buildings” (Maantay 415), but when graffiti is done illegally, it can be an eyesore and there are many groups advocating against it.

The area chosen to analyze incidents of graffiti Community Board 2, a five square mile district in Queens, was chosen because it “includes a wide range of land uses, from heavy industrial to high-rise commercial to low-density housing” which allowed for “a broad range of possibilities for linking land use to the presence of graffiti” (Maantay 416).

Further details on Community Board 2 & ways that police combat graffiti The 108th Police Precinct patrols Community Board 2, which “has the second highest arrest rate for graffiti infractions in Queens” (Maantay 417). To combat graffiti, police use different techniques like “mounting specialized patrols, cooperating with community groups…and providing anti-graffiti technical assistance to property owners…such as razor-ribbon fencing and paint applications which make graffiti removal easier. But the district is also home to at least four property owners who encourage graffiti” (Maantay 417).

Types of graffiti in Community Board 2 The styles to the right are the most prevalent types of graffiti in Community Board 2. The mural type is usually “colorful and meaningful to the immediate community and accomplished through cooperation with a building owner” (Maantay 418) but the other types are usually done by taggers.

Potential factors and software used for determining patterns of graffiti Potential factors included: location; land use; building type, age, and surface; and public exposure. Since potential factors were numerous and detailed, the software LotInfo was used because “its smallest denominator is the individual property lot keyed into the database by a unique identifier derived from the New York City tax lot and block number” (Maantay 417). In regular non-computer English, this basically means that LotInfo took information that already existed about the properties in Community Board 2 (like land use and building type, for example) and linked it to surveyed incidents of graffiti, in order to see to what what extent different factors about a property might lead to an occurrence of graffiti.

Pilot Study Area Since Community Board 2 consists of five neighborhoods and 3 main land-use types, in order to determine the extent to which types of neighborhood and land use affect the occurrence of graffiti, 4 potential survey areas were developed: Residential/Commercial, Residential/Industrial, Large-Scale Industrial, and Mid- Size Industrial.

Interesting Results A total of 494 street-facing properties were surveyed on 65 blocks, which is about 7% of the total area of Community Board 2. Factors like zoning, land use, building type, and building owner all appeared to be related to the incidence of graffiti. Lots facing railroad properties seemed especially vulnerable to graffiti. Industrial buildings appear more likely to have graffiti than other building types. One of the most important factors seemed to be public exposure, meaning that “buildings with an object such as a fence, plant, or ornaments placed between the building façade and the sidewalk were hit less frequently” (Maantay 419).

The End