Scott Larson discusses the threat that New York City faces because they are slipping when it comes to dominance in the global economy and because of its need to improve sustainability because of increasing population. To ward this off, the Bloomberg administration introduced the agenda of building big and fast like Robert Moses, while still taking into consideration all the diversity and community that Jane Jacobs stood for. The idea seems very idealistic and convoluted. Although the city talks big, it is actually private developers that control the redevelopment of New York City. What they can do is provide the framework for development through zoning. The city created incentive zoning initiatives that led to developers creating public amenities so that they could build higher buildings. Often, these amenities were inadequate and were created simply for the purpose of keeping up pretenses. In the end, it comes down to business. These policies that were supposedly geared toward community and the public good were gilded.

Larson mentions that Seymour Mandelbaum argues that a way of bringing together the opposing perspectives of Jacobs and Moses is by combining select aspects of them into a story that vaguely makes sense. There is a theme of misinformation throughout the reading that is evident in Samuel Stein’s article as well. When he explains how inclusionary zoning would actually destroy more affordable housing than it creates, he laments that it would still be considered an achievement. This is because new housing is easily visible, whereas those that are displaced are not. This leads me to question: How much harm did the inclusionary zoning under Bloomberg’s administration cause?

Stein’s stance against inclusionary housing and his explanation of how it does more harm than good are clear, but I would like clarification as to how the loopholes in the city’s rent laws can be closed as easily as they were made. He states that the city does know how to create affordable housing, but they simply do not have the political will to. On the other hand, Amanda Burden from the Larson text states that all they can do is provide the framework for development and wait for developers to shape the city.

Discussion Question: Does the city have the means to implement all the public housing and rent laws that Stein speaks of? How greatly would this affect the city politically and economically? Is the city’s unwillingness reasonable?