by Jenna Peet and Hifza Mahmood
Upper East Side Residents Protest Proposed Subway Entrances
The Tube, the Métro, U- and S-Bahns, and the Tunnelbana. Elevated trains, trams, streetcars, trolleys, buses, you name it – they exist for people to get from one place to another. Public transportation is truly at the heart of urban planning; without its regular pulsing of service to all limbs of the city, people would be stranded, asphyxiated, by their immediate environments. We New Yorkers have our MTA subway, which, despite the common bashing it gets for every minor delay or fare hike, is a pretty remarkable system. With an extensive number of subway lines, connections to other rail systems, and rapid travel time, the NYC subway maps out the city into identifiable neighborhoods and landmarks to make the urban environment incredibly accessible.
But the MTA is not immune to NIMBY – or “Not In My Back-Yard” – opposition. As this article describes, residents on East 69th Street by Lexington Avenue are staunchly against the relocation – and potential expansion – of the entrance to the 68th Street/Hunter College stop to their block. The construction on the station is necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing elevator access to the station; the MTA’s choice for the exit at 69th Street is justified by the fact that the existing subway platforms extend towards this street, and that any other location for the exit would require an additional (and unnecessary) amount of construction. The permanence of the exit is likely, as it will probably reduce the crowdedness of the station that comes from Hunter College students. Owners and residents of the homes on this block stand united against this development, which could reduce the value of their property, bring unwanted pollution, and overall tarnish the architectural aesthetics of their block.
This conflict demonstrates an important and inevitable clashing between urban planners and city-dwellers: how do efficiency and aesthetics combine in civil works projects, and what effects do the construction and implementation of the project have on urban populations? If we look at the policy analysis model of planning, it should be obvious that the MTA would value the quantitative benefits of the locations of its stations over the qualitative ideals of the neighborhoods these exits are placed in. However, it may be possible to bridge the gap between the agendas of both parties. The MTA could take advantage of these architectural ideals and design their exits and stations in ways that reflect and please local residents, instead of conforming to a uniform plan. This urban planning approach could significantly reduce NIMBY issues in public works projects by investing in local artists, creating diversity in architecture, and adding a pleasurable aspect to everyday experiences.
Photo Source: Hunter College Graduate Admissions site
#1 by Joseph Langer on February 29, 2012 - 10:42 pm
I’m not sure I agree with Jenna. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that the residents around the 69th and Lex station will never be happy with the subway construction even with “diversity in architecture” or other ideas that can improve the aesthetics of the station. As in most cases of NIMBY opposition, trying to compromise with the protesters often doesn’t get you anywhere. If you find a good compromise they will just think of another reason why they don’t want the project to go through. Additionally, the compromise proposed by Jenna ignores the first two arguments by the residents against the project.
Personally, I believe in a much tougher approach to dealing with NIMBY opposition. This idea was proposed by a Canadian politician last year. He vowed to never stop a project, that was for the greater good, due to NIMBY opposition, unless there was a legitimate health risk involved. While this might be a harsh approach I truly think it is the most efficient way to overcome NIMBY opposition.
#2 by Oleksandr Dudnyk on February 29, 2012 - 10:52 pm
NIMBY involves opposition to the common good, which seems rather selfish. It is frustrating that people would oppose a construction that would benefit people with disabilities. NIMBY negatively affected the construction of other projects such as wind mills, sanitation garages and marine transfer stations in New York. The construction of the 69th street exit would reduce crowdedness, which would be beneficial to the residents that oppose this construction. Yet, they seem to be too concerned about decreased property values to consider the benefit of this construction. This reminds me of the NIMBY phenomena involving the Hudson Square Sanitation Garage. The community had opposed the construction of the Manhattan garage for the same reason, they simply did not want their property values to decrease. Their NIMBY effort was unsuccessful because the Department of Sanitation proved that the garage would not have an adverse impact on the community and would benefit the region as a whole. I think that MTA must inform people about the benefits of this construction and decisively prove that it is worthwhile to carry out its plans.
#3 by shdienstag on March 1, 2012 - 11:35 am
Although not in the same league, the conflict reminds me of eminent domain policy which awards the government to take private property for public use. Arguments that this repossession is for “the greater good” or “the good of the many” means little to the person who is forced to leave his memory-filled house. While this subway access construction leaves no one homeless–though neither does eminent domain since the government much purchase the home from the owner–it does change the fabric of the neighborhood the residents chose for their dwelling place. To simply dismiss them as selfish and unreasonable then, is unfair and simplistic.
That said, what’s to do when the MTA is strapped for cash and disabled citizens need access? I very much liked the compromise suggested by Jenna and Hifza. Will either side be satisfied? Most likely not, as the MTA will be forced to expend more capital on this access site then intended and residents would like none at all. But isn’t the definition of a good compromise one that leaves all parties unhappy? Compromises serve the long-run picture after flared tempers have cooled and wounded egos have healed and both parties can recognize the relative fairness of the solution.
#4 by Brian Ghezelaiagh on March 1, 2012 - 2:24 pm
NIMBY politics is one thing but it should come as no surprise that, in general, people like to have it their way, to complain; what they don’t like is forfeiting ground, least of all for something like accommodations for the disabled. If it wasn’t for the American’s with Disabilities act of 1990, the disabled would be outright overlooked in every way – certainly in the planning of public infrastructure. The achievement of rue accessibility, that is, the kind granted to everyone, including the disabled, is requisite of humanitarian understanding and a willingness to take one for the better good. Do New Yorkers have this quality? I wouldn’t know.
#5 by Helen Yee on March 1, 2012 - 3:14 pm
I agree with the compromise proposal that Jenna and Hifza mentioned above where “the MTA could take advantage of these architectural ideals and design their exits and stations in ways that reflect and please local residents.” I think this compromise would address and somewhat resolve one of the opposition that residents have against the building of the subway station. Although the value of the residents’ properties would go down and there would be more pollution, isn’t that a sacrifice that they can make for the construction of an elevator that is good for a large group of people, the disabled and others such as the elderly. It’ll also help to provide an alternate exit for the busy subway station. Therefore, I felt that the reasons that the MTA gave are legitimate, and not without further considerations, though I’m sure that money played a huge role in their decision. As mentioned in the article, “architectural and historical preservation experts, for their part, said that while the authority could lessen the aesthetic impact on East 69th Street by building better-looking entrances, mass transit was an intrinsic part of urban life.” Thus, I think if the MTA involved the residents in the design of the subway station like suggested by the compromise, maybe in time both sides would be somewhat happy with the construction of the new subway station. I think it’ll be nice if there’s a balance of the arts and the necessity of an urban city like public transportation in NYC.
#6 by Tahmina on March 1, 2012 - 3:26 pm
Conforming to the demands of the residents at 68 and lex gives such upscale neighborhoods an unfair advantage over middle and lower class neighborhoods as they would be having fancier and better quality stations where there are many other stations in dire need of repair. Nothing will be done if urban planning has to bend at every whim of each neighborhood. If the MTA allow the changing of plans this way, other neighborhoods will start to do the same and cause future conflicts in urban planning. The MTA has to be particularly firm on this issue, especially since it is to be constructed for people with disabilities. It is rather a necessity that should not be opposed. If the resident are worried about the integrity and property value of the neighborhood they can set up a volunteer clean up brigade so they can ensure of cleanliness of that area.
#7 by Rahima Nayeem on March 1, 2012 - 3:36 pm
I agree that there should be a compromise. If the MTA must construct a new site at East 69th street, then the residents there should have a say in how it should look. After all, this is the place where they live. It wouldn’t be fair to them if someone just came and completely changed the environment that they live in. It’s not about the residents being selfish. I’m sure they do care about the other people and the elevators for the elderly and disabled. I also understand that the MTA needs a new entrance. The 68th street entrance is overcrowded, and another station would be better for most people. Therefore, there should be a compromise so that most people can benefit.
This reminds me of what happened at my train station. My train station had two entrances, but one closed down for repair many years ago. This did not affect me as much because the entrance I used did not close. However, it did become a little more crowded than before. Just a couple months ago, the other train station reopened, and my entrance to the station closed down. It is annoying that I have to walk an extra three blocks to the other entrance, but I think about what the other people had to go through. If I want my train station to become better, I can’t complain about this. After both entrances are fully completed, my station will be better for everyone.
#8 by Deborah on March 4, 2012 - 7:07 pm
While a compromise seems ideal, there is no telling how long it would take to come into effect, if ever. If the residents of 68th and Lexington truly want an aesthetically pleasing and less noisy station, they should be willing to pay for it. If they aren’t, the only thing left to do is build the station anyway, as planned, in spite of their protests, because the MTA can only bend so much before endangering the rights of others, which should be protected; in this case, the rights of the disabled.