Well-designed “parks, playgrounds, and street-scapes” would help make urban areas “livable and attractive for residents and businesses” (Yaro and Hiss 1996, 14). “Abandoned and underutilized” waterfronts and leftover industrial sites and landfills–together accounting for fifty thousand acres of brownfield–would be redeveloped (15).

…”the reclamation of the region’s urban waterfronts offers opportunities to create extraordinary new public spaces”…

In time, Bloomberg would also embrace the use of parks and open spaces to enhance real estate values, drive development, and raise issues of environmental sustainability and projected population growth to assert the need for immediate and decisive action.

In 2007 the administration proposed spending an additional $3 billion over three years to develop eight regional parks and expand the city’s network of green spaces so that no New Yorker was more than a ten-minute walk from a park or patch of grass (Benepe 2007). Plans for proposed waterfront redevelopments in Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens featured additional public open space, ensuring city residents access to the water while at the same time providing developers with nearby public amenities sure to enhance the value of their projects (Burden 2007a).

Reading those sentences made me think of what is going on in the South Bronx and FreshDirect’s relocation. A section of the waterfront will be redeveloped and FreshDirect will operate from there. The relocation would bring jobs according to FreshDirect. However, residents wouldn’t be able to use FreshDirect since many live under the poverty line. From the reading, redevelopment of waterfronts can increase real estate values. If prices and rents increase, then residents may be displaced. Having FreshDirect in the South Bronx also isn’t beneficial for the residents’ health. There are high asthma rates and the addition of diesel trucks would add to the pollution.

Why can’t waterfronts be redeveloped into parks? Parks and green spaces would enhance the neighborhood and the waterfront view is attractive. The reading gives the impression that parks/green spaces and waterfronts are separate spaces. The government giving incentives, subsidies, and tax cuts would encourage development in waterfronts, which would in turn increase real estate values and lead to more development. The reading also mentions that having parks and green spaces can bring the same effect, too. Parks and green spaces can improve health, are good for the environment, and may not displace residents. So why not build a park instead and have more New Yorkers live within a 10 minute walk from a park? As it happens, some residents of the South Bronx would rather turn the waterfront into parks and green spaces than to have a FreshDirect facility.

Discussion: What does it mean to reclaim waterfronts? How should waterfronts be handled? Should they be redeveloped or should they be turned into parks?

In Chapters 5 and 6 of his Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind, Larson presents two examples of real life development – the Regional Plan Association’s Third Regional Plan and the Bloomberg administration’s development plan. These plans both exhibited qualities that are in accord with Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs’s ideologies, but they ended up producing results that would have disappointed Jacobs, such as gentrification and the elimination of minority communities and neighborhoods.

The RPA sought to improve New York by emphasizing Economy, Equity, and Environment in order to increase the quality of life in the metropolitan region. By making the proper investments and policies that focused on all three of those qualities, they reasoned that they could create some long term solutions to many social problems and environmental threats, which were both ignored in the past due to the sole focus on Economy. This all sounds fine on paper, but in practice it resulted in the gentrification of neighborhoods, which was presumably what the RPA was hoping for in the first place. By privatizing public space in order to finance the changes that the RPA wished for, poor residents were gradually pushed out from their neighborhoods and eager real estate developers took their places. They were given free rein to develop to their hearts content, attracting wealthier citizens to the neighborhoods, and property values predictably went up. So in the end, the quality of life did go up, but only for those with the money to afford it.

The Bloomberg administration followed a similar plan, where they relied on rezoning to attract developers to certain areas. Developers were practically given carte blanche to develop as they saw fit, with the hopes that they would build with the public good in mind, but that ultimately did not pan out. Affordable housing never materialized, but at least the economy was stimulated.

Discussion Question: Should universities – such as Columbia or NYU – have governmental support as they try to expand their campuses?

Larson’s comparison of planners and the tactics involved in selling their plans to the act of telling a narrative is a suitable one. This is because planners often attempt to secure support for their plans by making it seem as if they are doing this for the good of the city and its inhabitants; however, the underlying agenda for most of these city plans is economic profit. As mentioned throughout the chapter, the city plans never truly considered the opinions of the poor or lower classes but because they needed the support of the people, planners often resorted to deception. They sold their plans under the guise of improving the city and making it a better living space. In reality, they wanted to attract more skilled workers and and increase the value of land. They made it seem as if the success of the city was contingent on their redevelopment projects.

In talking about the third regional plan, Larson mentions the true goals of the plan. One of the main goals was, as aforementioned, increasing the value of the land. For instance, the preservation of green space was a decision made because they “significantly enhance rents, property value, and property taxes.” This decision may have inadvertently benefited the inhabitants but the issue is that the original motivation for these plans was not the well-being of the inhabitants. Even so, planners continue to consider themselves, as Larson cites, “moral guardians.”

The third regional plan dates back to the 20th century; yet, the underlying problems still persist. Economic driven redevelopment projects like the third regional plan were the beginnings of gentrification and relate to many of the project issues explored in class.  One such example is the plans for the rezoning of Flushing West, which involves the redevelopment of the water front area. This is a problem because this would not be the first instance of gentrification occurring in the area. Flushing has experienced many redevelopment projects and while this would bring in revenue, these projects do not bode well for those living in the area. In reading Larson’s chapter, one can better understand the roots of gentrification.

Discussion Question: Larson mentions that gentrification benefits the middle and upper classes. Because land values increase, the poor are forced out but aside from that what are the other effects of gentrification? Can people perhaps benefit from gentrification?

After the recession in the early 1990s, the Regional Plan Association (RPA) looked for a plan to improve the future of New York City. Their solution was to increase the quality of life in the region thereby increasing investment into the region. This would be accomplished by building around the three E’s: economy, equity, and environment. Previous projects had only focused on one E, usually economy, and it came at the cost of the other aspects. We now call these improvements gentrification. To cover the cost of gentrifying public space, it was privatized, and eventually used according to the needs of those with money. If the neighborhood was relatively poor, the people with money pushed out the people without money.

Bloomberg’s redevelopment agenda for the city used some of the ideas that the RPA proposed to improve its future. He rezoned many areas to make previously underdeveloped areas attractive to developers. Many of the projects depended on the financing of the private sector. Unfortunately, the private sector took advantage of the freedom that the Bloomberg administration offered them, but they made the minimum effort to meet the public use requirements. His “inclusionary zoning” was meant to incentivize major developments while requiring them to build affordable housing, but the private sector was unwilling to cooperate in these efforts.

This city’s dependence on private financing for development and lack of regulation has led developers to ignore public interests. Bloomberg’s agenda for rapid rezoning seemed to be a plan for the future that has been enforced uncontrollably. Bringing in money does not inherently improve the quality of life in the city. The open microphone session for the rezoning of the Clinton/Hell’s Kitchen showed how it could have the opposite effect in a neighborhood.

Discussion question: In the text the city is referred as a “reactive.” How can we become more proactive in development? How can the city enforce affordable housing requirements to meet the demands of the city? Is upzoning low income neighborhoods the right approach to improving their quality of life?

Chapter 5 of the weekend’s reading discussed some of the strategies used by Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs in their discussions over the highway project. Moses attempted to appeal to the general public by deeming the highway “absolutely essential. In his eyes, this project would speed up the development of the communities. However, he failed to acknowledge the fact that this proposed project would displace the members of the communities to other boroughs. This is why Jane Jacobs decided to step in. Her goal was to stand up for the people of the communities that felt threatened by the proposed projects of development.

As I looked at the plans for rezoning in Flushing, I thought about the ideologies that Moses and Jacobs carried out. In my eyes, Moses was more concerned for himself and he wouldn’t care about displacing community members that have resided in certain areas for years. Jacobs’ appreciation for the communities needed to be applied to Moses ideologies in an effort to keep community interests. To a certain extent, this is being attempted nowadays. However, there are cases where the community goals and beliefs are ignored. In the case of flushing and the current rezoning project, its city council member does not seem to be able to properly communicate with its members. This means that the voices of the community members are not heard. Even though the proposed plans would be beneficial, it will have a negative impact in terms of the cost of living. In the community hearing our group attended, we listened to enraged community members express their frustration towards the city council member. It was evident that even though there was an attempt to implement both Moses’ and Jacobs’ ideas, there were still issues with the way certain community problems were addressed.

Near the beginning of the semester, when we were first exposed to Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, many of us expressed thoughts about combining their two opposing ideologies to help improve the way urban planning fits the needs of both the people and major corporations. Chapters 5 and 6 of Scott Larson’s Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind introduce two real-life models, the Regional Plan Association’s Third Regional Plan and Mayor Bloomberg’s planning and redevelopment agenda, that try to do just that. Yet even though these plans aimed to incorporate both Moses’ and Jacobs’ ideologies into urban planning, they’ve ultimately exacerbated New York City’s affordable housing crisis and encouraged gentrification and the displacement of poor, minority communities.

So what happened? A lot of the problem has to do with something we’ve seen come up over and over again in our discussions of NYC development: whoever has the money and the power controls the direction with which urban planning is conducted. The merging of Mosaic and Jacobsian ideals in urban development is indeed a powerful method that can both encourage city growth and preserve neighborhoods and small communities (if executed in the right way). Yet for planners and developers involved with the Third Regional Plan and the Bloomberg administration’s redevelopment agenda, the underlying motive frequently seems to be solely economic development. Larson repeatedly mentions the influence that real estate and the wealthy have on urban development; such projects are almost always geared towards “enhancing real estate values and attracting the sophisticated, highly compensated workers needed to keep New York City’s information-based, globally oriented economy humming.”

Larson presents zoning as a clear example of this phenomenon. Through the regulation and separation of land uses, zoning regulations often aim to raise the value of the land to encourage redevelopment and economic growth. Such regulations also boost real estate prices and generate numerous economic opportunities for the real estate industry, which profits tremendously from these development projects. As a result of increased land values, housing prices and rents continue to rise, thus making housing even more unaffordable for many New Yorkers. Even inclusionary zoning, which tries to increase the number of affordable housing units available to the public, is subject to the discretion of developers and appears to favor wealthier, upper-class families, who quickly occupy these “affordable housing” units and contribute to increased gentrification in developing neighborhoods. Hence, the New York affordable housing crisis, gentrification, and the displacement of poor families who cannot afford housing can be interpreted as an adverse effect of the real estate industry’s influence on modern urban planning. Even though urban planning tries to incorporate both Moses’ and Jacobs’ ideals (in fact, zoning actually seems to contradict Jacobs’ principles of mixed land use and neighborhood preservation), its methodologies and executions are becoming increasingly more predisposed to fit the preferences of the real estate industry and upper-class, wealthy communities.

Discussion: How can the government, city organizations, and individuals weaken the real estate industry and the wealthy’s influence on urban planning? How can urban planning be changed to fit the needs of the hundreds, thousands of people who cannot afford housing because of inflated real estate prices?

As time passes, various growth factors in NYC could change and thus affect the approach to urban planning. Initially, planning for NYC was trying to adapt to the rapidly growing economy of the city, however that growth is not set to constantly grow at the same rate. Eventually some sort of plateau is reached where economic growth is not expected to come easily and the focus of development shifts to how to maintain growth.

Moses’ plans for NYC involved a lot of huge projects, economic centers would be based off of the spaces and highways that he developed. This approach gave a huge boost to the city’s economy, but it was also very general. Later on, an approach that resonated more with Jacob’s ideals started to have more prevalence. By focusing in on communities, breaking up the city into smaller pieces, those individual areas are able to pinpoint their efforts into achieving maximum economic potential in that area. If all of the small areas work to develop, the growth combined will be able to make a significant contribution to a city’s growth. I thought it was interesting how there was a small period where Jacob’s approach was taken but it later evolved into a more generalized formula for gentrification.

One last point that stood out to me in this reading was how 9/11 was linked to NYC’s development boom. It is pretty odd to see that it takes a tragic event to initiate a rebirth/redevelopment. It’s a pretty cold thought, but I wonder if when 9/11 happened, government figures would express concerns and sorrow about the event but at the same time also see it was an opportunity to rebuild the city.

Discussion Question: Would it have been possible for an approach following Jacob’s ideals to have been maintained without becoming this general formula for gentrification? Or in a city that grows so rapidly, is the maintenance for such an approach just not feasible?

In previous classes, we’ve discussed how the growth machine is responsible for much of the city’s urban planning. Scott Larson describes the mechanisms responsible for this in chapters 5 and 6 of Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind. We’ve already discussed the dangers of the interactions and intersections of business, politics, and development, which seem quite obvious. The communities aren’t anywhere in the equation, which can be problematic.

Larson’s discussion of the Regional Plan Association’s “Third Regional Plan” highlights the fact that despite their best attempts, bridging the “nuanced” Jacobs school of urban planning with the “bold strokes” of Moses school had some positive benefits to communities, but many of these benefits were unintended consequences of a larger plan that ultimately benefited industries.

The RPA, a conglomerate of pharmaceutical companies, real estate interests, banks, media outlets, and other large organizations, sought to “improve the quality of life” and “economic competitiveness” of New York City and the surrounding region, which appears to be a noble goal on the surface level. Regional preserves, urban parks, greenways, and new harborfront parks were planned and “inward growth” was supported to give existing employment and residential centers a boost. These improvements in turn increased property values and rents, which would allow these new improvements to pay for themselves. However, this is the essence of gentrification. Scott Larson points out a fatal flaw in the image of pioneering gentrifiers seeking to “turn around” low-income neighborhoods—the first new tenants of gentrified neighborhoods are real estate companies.

Larson points out that from the 1990s forward, gentrification was no longer the “block-by-block form of neighborhood rehabilitation that Jacobs celebrated”. Gentrification had been methodical and capitalized, with real estate interests and planning associations coordinating it. This phenomenon was precisely what the Regional Plan Association advocated: inward growth to improve economic competitiveness, raise property values, and rents.

Discussion question: According to Larson, the public was irrelevant to Robert Moses. He hired experts and specialists who shared his modernist ideals and only attempted to convince business leaders and politicians of the efficacy of his planning. Because the RPA was a conglomerate of corporations and powerful interests, is it simply a perpetuation of the Moses school?