Reading about the inequality of the post-Sandy response was shocking to me. I can’t believe Wall Street would stoop so low and take billions from people who literally lost everything they had. One of my teachers lost her home and most of her possessions–my sister’s ex-boyfriend had a tree fall on his house and nearly kill his parents. How could people really be so selfish as to take aid from these people who need it the most? And my town had a relatively wealthy middle-class population–multi-thousand dollar Sweet 16s were the norm in high school. I can’t imagine how much worse it must have been for areas with lower-income populations. It’s disgusting to see how the city puts profit over its people.

In terms of the readings compared to each other, I feel that Greenberg’s and Murphy’s works complemented each other well in that they addressed many of the same issues with different information and perspectives. Greenberg’s critique of the shortsightedness of the “profit”-seekers who insisted on developing New Orleans on the wetlands especially highlights the shortsighted and potentially disastrous nature of the SIRR’s waterfront development plan and its so-called “flexible-adaptation pathway”. Granted that was a completely different city with a completely different geography, and the environmental and sustainability issues involved with developing wetlands are certainly different to building in a flood-prone, beach area. Still, the concept is disturbingly similar: building in a potentially dangerous area with nonchalance and disregard for what the area’s future residents may have to face. The parallels Greensberg draws between the two cities makes Pinksy’s own remarks regarding the shortsightedness of the plan–“Let’s look for a way to buy time, and then our successors will address the next increment”–seem eerily reminiscent of the “I’ll Be Gone, You’ll Be Gone” sentiment prevalent in the finance industry.

The relation Greenberg made between New York’s post 9/11 policy and how it affected New Orleans’ policy also reminded me of how New York City often seems to set precedents for other cities around the world. It’s kind of scary that a city with such careless treatment of its middle and lower classes often sets the precedent for cities nationwide and worldwide. New York City’s Wall Street-focused response to 9/11 set the precedent for New Orleans; the gentrifying High Line inspired cities worldwide to build their own versions. While this may not have been intentional, I feel Greenberg’s paper highlights how dangerous it is for a city so riddled with inequality and political injustice to be held as ideal by other cities of the world.

On that note, I feel this article detailing how NYC become a “hub” for startups and “tech angels” and how other cities may emulate this success is relevant to our conversation. If other cities choose to emulate New York City’s wealth and “success” by implementing similar policies focused more on real estate and gentrification rather than treating its residents well, it could have far-reaching and horrifying implications for lower and middle-class people worldwide.

Florida, Richard. “Is New York City the New Model for Startup Cities?” CityLab, November 17 2014.