From the readings, it is clear that idealism and the manipulative dogmas of political and economic leaders prevail over reality and genuine necessity when it comes to city planning and rehabilitation. As Jane Jacobs notes countless number of times in her critique, city planners are indifferent to the “hows” and “whys” of urban success and fail to recognize the harsh consequences of their endeavors. And in the case of New York City, the problem is more pronounced. Jacobs uses East Harlem as a prime example, where projects that vaguely reflect “redevelopment” and “New York’s position as a global capital” are rather deleterious and problematic for the lower class. As one resident in her critique says, “Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place [the rectangular lawn in the projects]. They threw our houses down and pushed us here and pushed our friends somewhere else. . . Nobody cared what we need.” On the other hand, communities in New York and elsewhere that have low mortality rates, clean streets, vibrant small-businesses and tightly-knit societies are viewed by city planners as “failures”.  These texts therefore stress how necessary a (revised) realistic approach to city planning is in order to resolve the numerous problems in the city today. And considering how enormous the problem of homelessness in New York City has become, city planners and previous political leaders have concerted their efforts through the narrow lens of the elite class, with little heed to genuine problems plaguing the city at large. Putting the previous readings into context, diversity, both at the social and economic level, is key for a prosperous city.

Discussion Question: Hypothetically, how would the city handle the problems caused by “bulldozing” towns down and rebuilding them from scratch?