As I read “The ‘Patron Saint’ and the ‘Git’r Done Man,’” I noticed the reappearance of a theme that first interested me in the “Welcome to the Gilded City of New York.” In that article, the authors explained that Mayor Bloomberg believed that the most important thing a city needed to do was attract talented, creative people. He believed that talent would attract capital, and so would lead to a successful city. To achieve this, he built a city that would appeal to successful professionals by catering to their desires for personal freedom, diversity, and a rich cultural scene. As the article pointed out, he often achieved these priorities at the expense of other groups of New Yorkers.
Many of the victories of the Bloomberg administration—like bike lanes, tree planting, and increasing the presence of the tech industry in the city—disproportionately addressed the priorities of middle and upper class residents, while he frequently worked against the interests of working class people—by cutting social services, fighting against unions, and instituting stop-and-frisk policing practices. All of these things were consistent with his vision of who the city was supposed to be for; since his goal was to make a great place for upper-middle class people to live, all his decisions fell in line with that.
“The ‘Patron Saint’ and the ‘Git’r Done Man,’” explains the conflict between two other visions of the city. Robert Moses is praised for having expansive picture of what New York City could be, and working efficiently and forcefully realize his plans. His efforts resulted in the construction of many of the buildings-like the United Nations, Lincoln Center, and Shea Stadium-that turned New York into a cultural, financial, and commercial capital. His priority was to secure New York’s status on the world stage.
Jane Jacobs, on the other hand, often served as Moses’ antagonist, because of her radically different vision for the city. Her emphasis was on the neighborhood level, and she championed the diverse, livable community as the highest good of a city. From one perspective, the main issue between them was whether it’s more important for a city to play a central role in the world, or to be a good place to live for the people who live there.
Ideally, of course, we want a city that’s attractive to rich people and supportive of poor people; that’s a sustaining place to live and a world capital; that’s a fair place to be employed and a thriving place to be an employer; that’s safe and also fair; that welcomes immigrants but not at the expense of citizens; and many more things besides. But inevitably these goals come into conflict with each other, and decisions have to be made about what we value the most, and what our vision is of what the city should be.
Discussion Question: If you were designing a city from scratch, what are the top goals you would want your city to achieve? What would you be willing to sacrifice?
