BITING THE BIG APPLE 🍎

The USDA recommends that individuals spend at
least 280.95 a month on average to afford
economic, healthy meals. Per USDA statistics,
10% of a household’s salary should be
invested in order to purchase these meals
comfortably, estimating that an income of
33,714 USD is necessary.

In the context of New York City's 196 neighborhoods,
82 of them make an average median income less
than this threshold. In these neighborhoods,
more than 225,000 people are dependent on some
kind of food assistance program in order to
comfortably afford meals. Though this encompasses
only 2.5% of people in the city, the number is
still fairly large– greater than the populations
of cities such as Yonkers and Richmond. Food
insecurity makes individuals more prone to
malnutrition, resulting in increased risks of
high blood pressure, diabetes and other diet-related
health problems.

Admittedly, this only scratches the surface–
there are far more variables that encompass
what makes a neighborhood food insecure.
Biting the Big Apple will go through a
comprehensive deep dive of New York City’s food
insecurity, elaborating what food insecurity is
in the context of NYC, where food insecurity is
most prevalent, why it is important to address
food insecurity, what does food insecurity look
like, and how food insecurity can be tackled
throughout the city.

In order to get a comprehensive understanding
where food insecurity is most prevalent, it is
essential to take in data from various sources.
In these investigations, various infrastructural
datasets (i.e. supermarket counts, vehicle prevalence)
are correlated with various economic parameters
(i.e. Average median income, food stamp prevalence)
to identify conditions of what makes a place
food insecure.

Based on these results, three different neighborhoods
will be chosen: one food oasis, swamp and desert. These
areas will be investigated further in a qualitative
manner, completing the definition of food insecurity
that the numbers in these quantitative presentations
cannot articulate.

When it comes to the food infrastructure of Starrett
City, there are only two supermarkets in the entire
neighborhood. Outside of these supermarkets, the food
options mostly involve fast food, dominated by chain
establishments (i.e. Dunkin, Sarku Japan, etc.) that
take up Starrett City's retail spaces. With 52% of
the neighborhood having food stamps, it is also evident
that healthier options are more difficult to obtain

Starrett City's infrastructure is mostly apartment
complexes, with two strip malls. The strip malls also have
vast amounts of parking space too, which is ironic
considering the general lack of automobile vehicle usage
in comparison to other neighborhoods.

CH-N differentiates itself from the food desert
example by having denser infrastructure-- especially
with a greater amount of supermarkets overall, unlike
Starrett City which only has two. However, the
presence of fast-food options is similar to its food
desert counterpart is prevalent-- bodegas and fast food
choices still outnumber supermarket infrastructure.
With around 45% of their populace also using food stamps,
it is clear that financial assistance is needed to
access healthier options.

CH-N has much more variety when it comes to
infrastructure, unlike Starrett City which is mainly
composed of High Rise buildings, strip malls and asphalt
lots. The density of their infrastructure also makes
the lack of vehicles not as much of a problem, as this
offset by plentiful access to the MTA Subway and Bus
lines.

Sunset Park differentiates itself from its food
insecure counterparts by offering a dense supermarket
network, with almost every block having a food vendor.
Unlike supermarkets in Starrett City or Central Harlem-
North, Sunset Park proudly displays their produce
outside of their premises, and even allot smaller venues
to have fresh produce, which would've otherwise read as
fast food restaurants or cornerstores in the food-insecure
neighborhoods.

With only 28% of residents using food stamps, and having
median incomes similar to Central Harlem-North, along with
similar building typologies, Sunset Park sets a good example
of how lower-income neighborhoods can still have ample
access to healthier options at an affordable price. Ultimately,
Sunset Park minimizes the presence of fast food restaurants,
in favor of local vendors.

There are various incumbent practices that tackle
food insecurity throughout the City, such as
In God's Love We Deliver, which deliver
groceries to those over the age of 65 and have
difficulty accessing healtlhy infrastructure.
There are also other Public food insecurity
sources, such as the NYC food distribution
program, wherethose with children attending
school can have their families benefit by getting
adequeate meals a day. Other practices can also be
local to specific neighborhoods, such as church
food distributions and local cart vendors.

However, all of these solutions have limitations--
in order to be sustainable, they must keep their
audiences small. Practices with too universal of an
audience would be too expensive, and would either cut
corners or quickly fizzle out. Each neighborhood is
also different in terms of their infrastructure,
populace, and history. In order to create a proper
solution, it is essential to simulate how these
incumbent solutions impact their neighborhoods, and
which ones would work best together and vice versa.

As a food desert, it is evident that the addition of
supermarkets in tracts that currently do not have one will
help at least 20% of Ocean Hill’s population. With the
abundance of religious infrastructure in Ocean Hill,
bolstering more funds for these institutions to give out
meals would help at least 22% of the population. However,
the options of increased funding for School meals, Senior
Citizen services and storefront conversion seem to cover
more individuals, as each option covers >30% of Ocean
Hill’s population.

Geographically, each option has more density in other
regions, which gives speculation to how these programs can
combine together to optimally serve populations. In the case
of Ocean Hill, any program that seems to add physical
infrastructure (i.e. Supermarket additions, filling vacant
storefronts) would work best in food deserts.

Unlike the Ocean Hill case study, where a senior
citizen program would be more beneficial for the
community, converting vacant storefronts into food
banks would be more advantageous for the Central
Harlem-North (CH-N) community. Strategies like
increasing the number of supermarkets in the area
would not be as effective since a relatively accessible
supermarket infrastructure already exists.

Although creating food banks from converted vacant
storefronts is a similar strategy to meal assistance
from religious organizations, the latter can only
reliably feed up to 100 people per location. Converted
vacant spaces would be able to adequately feed up
to 200 people. Furthermore, the population of CH-N
is comparatively less religious, so it can be why
option 3 would be less effective.

Food insecurity affects many neighborhoods
in New York in different ways, whether it’s
through lack of healthy infrastructure, or
the inability to afford healthy options.
Though there are many incumbent programs
managing the food insecurity issue in the city,
most of them reach out to a smaller clientele
in order to maintain the quality of their
outreach. Trying to create a one-size-fits-all
solution that could encompass the whole city
would not only be extremely expensive, but
would also be unsustainable to properly feed a
food-insecure population of over 200,000
individuals.

Within these neighborhood-scale studies, it
is essential to note that their respective
infrastructures and populace are different.
There can be cases where food insecurity
takes the form of an area with an abundance of
fast-food establishments and a lack of supermarket
access. There can also be cases where food
insecurity comes from a sparsely populated area
with a majority senior-citizen demographic that
have a harder time taking the trip to their local
vendors. The simulations above show how it is
important not to look at just one solution, but
rather to mix and match different solutions
that tailor the demographics and resources
these neighborhoods have.

Ultimately, Biting the Big Apple is
a stern message to NYC’s government: it has the
responsibility of allocating these programs
depending on what makes the most sense for these
particular neighborhoods. This process is only a
start, as it uses existing infrastructure– long
term, the City has to implement permanent foundations
in order to maintain the healing process these
introductory interventions offer.