During Monday’s class we discussed two of the most legendary shapers of NYC, Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs.  We started by situating them and the texts we read within the historical timeline that we charted last week and then reviewed their different approaches to shaping the city.  Drawing from Scott Larson’s text, we traced their legacies to policy and planning practices today (esp. under Bloomberg), which try to take the best of both approaches, but still fail to address growing inequality and injustice.

Being an architecture major, we are made familiar to the dynamic duo of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs from the start. These two titanic forces in New York City’s history of urban planning portray opposite opinions on the development of cities. Moses is notorious for his rapid modernization of NYC throughout his thirty four year long rein as an urban planner through various positions.  His vision was far more advanced than what the citizens envisioned. Moses was well aware that modernization and auto-mobilizing the city would be key to its success against the suburban menace. By implementing countless infrastructural reforms he was able to advance New York City into the next tier of global cultural centers. However, he did so inhumanely. Moses relentlessly dislocated hundreds of thousands of lower class new yorkers in order to build his various highways, housing projects, and park system. His redevelopment of New York led to many neighborhoods’ extinction and destruction of their local vibe. Although these projects were integral for the city’s advance, many people wondered if this unforgiving redevelopment could have occurred without disturbing so many citizens. Moses’ greatest opponent was found in the form of a Greenwich Village native named Jane Jacobs. She recognized the adverse effects of Moses’ revitalization and publicly spoke out against his projects. Jacobs made it her goal to preserve the people, culture, and feel of neighborhoods. Personally, I find Moses’ reformation to be a necessary evil, it is quite difficult to imagine a New York City without the countless projects he made happen. And Jacobs’ position on Moses’ projects i find to be the necessary response to the revitalization process. Urban revitalization is a two-way street, and a city must develop new infrastructure in order to fix its issues, coincidentally it brings about new social issues. When considering New York today we have to keep in mind the many positions on revitalization and gentrification.

Question: How do you implant new, necessary, infrastructure without disturbing the people? How can we develop housing projects that will reduce social stigma against them and better the lives of the lower class? A major issue with affordable housing is that many residents must maintain an annual income of a certain regulation in order to stay in the housing project. This prevents residents from growing out of poverty and easing their way into a higher socioeconomic class. How can we avoid this? What are some methods for residents of affordable housing projects to comfortably work their way up the class ladder?

In the introduction of “Death and Life of Great American Cities,” Jane Jacobs emphasizes how cities in North America have been creating a mirage through investment when the areas that need money, such as the projects, are underfunded. She makes a great point here because instead of building another skyscraper in the city for a wealthy businessman, city planning should be focused on getting the elevators to run in the projects. Jacobs also believes that that “urban renewal theory” is fueling decay within the city. I agree with this as well because surrounding public housing with lavish parks, restaurants, and other establishments does not make it any easier to live with an income below the poverty line. This is an issue that definitely shapes the future of New York City since urban renewal can be an amazing plan if it includes the lower class more. Instead of hiding those who live in poverty, they should be integrated into the city. This also relates to the project of providing permanent housing to the homeless instead of building more shelters. If the homeless were placed into permanent homes rather than shelters, they could learn more skills and the positive environment may even influence them to strive for better. Therefore, they could enter the workforce and help build the city since it seems as if the city is always growing and expanding. However, this growth fosters more competition in the job market, and once a person earns a large sum of money, he or she can afford to live in a neighborhood that separates itself from the poorer neighborhoods.

In addition, it was very interesting that Jacobs interviewed people about North End, which was deemed as a slum. From the outside, North End appeared to be an extravagant place to live, but the inhabitants painted a different picture. Furthermore, bankers selectively choose which areas to invest in by taking the income of the people into account. Since the bankers and investors theoretically have the most say in urban planning due to the money they put forward, they will always shape the city because they decide which parks and theaters get to be built where. I personally feel that it is strange that large theaters are often built in poor neighborhoods because the people who live next to the theater cannot afford to buy a ticket to see a show there. It is as if the theater is there to mock them and remind them of what they cannot experience even though they live in the city.

In contrast to Jane Jacobs, who was called the “patron saint,” Robert Moses was the “master builder.” He expanded the cities infrastructure by laying down more roads, bridges, tunnels, parks, and urban renewal projects. Moses represents industrialization and how society was changing rapidly to include larger industries, which meant that the city was generating more money. He also used federal policy in order to shape the market through planning. Therefore, in his view, businesses and how quickly they could grow would shape the future of the city. I agree that economics and businesses play a role in a city’s development, but the issue in North American cities is that as businesses grow, the gap between the rich and poor also grow. Therefore, economics cannot shape the future of a city without having a dramatic influence on the people who live and work in the city. We need a happy medium between the two extremes that Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses propose for urban planning. If we focus too much on the less wealthy individuals, then the city’s growth could be stunted. However, if there is too much emphasis on big business without considering the people who reside in the city, the wealthy may decide to move to suburbs to get away from the hustle and bustle, but the middle class and lower class would not have that option.

Discussion questions: Why would city planners rather hide poverty in the city rather than use a portion of their funds to eliminate that poverty? Can a higher class exist without the middle and lower classes? Is there an urban renewal project or city plan that could serve as the mediator between Jane Jacobs’ and Robert Moses’ view on urban planning?

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?

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?

The “Death and Life of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs centers around the problems of city planning and the strategies that planners followed throughout most of the twentieth century. The current expenditures based on these current strategies for rebuilding for the most part have been unsuccessful and have led to the decay of the cities.They have not accomplished anything in eliminating slums or stopping the decay of city neighborhoods. I agree with Jacobs in that I think that city planning should not just involve tearing down and simply rebuilding, the proper way is to analyze neighborhoods and see what is it that makes a city successful and what is it that makes it unsuccessful. Planners should encourage factors that promote success and discourage those that do not. If we continue with the current city planning of only looking into a quick, easy outer impression that cities give, there is probably little hope for such cities. However, sometimes planning based on theory might work for the expansion of a city as Robert Moses had planned out for an efficient city. The building of bridges and highways did make the city accessible to many, however, it led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of residents in New York City, destroying traditional neighborhoods by building expressways through them. So, what exactly is the point of building or expanding a city in a way that largely leaves the residents of the city dissatisfied and displaced.City planning should not just be based on sole theory it needs to account for what exactly people that inhabit them want.

Discussion Question: Why do we continue with such urban renewal policies if they largely lead to destroyed communities and isolated urban spaces? Are we looking for an efficient, isolated city that is based on theory or a vibrant urban city community that is based on the needs of most city-dwellers?

It seems like the authors have a negative point of view on city planning. While planning is important in order to effectively use the available space,it does not always work the way the planners want it to. The most planned areas tend to fall apart the fastest. The reasons for this remain unknown. However, one major reason is that city planning does not always take the communities’ wishes into perspective. Planning is solely based on theory, not on people’s emotions. This is one downside to city planning. Any neighborhood will become a slum if people do not want to live there. If city planners do not take into account what the people of the neighborhood want, then they will leave. The only people left will be those who cannot afford to leave. This is why slums form, no matter how much more planning goes into the area. Jane Jacobs cared what the people wanted, and planed accordingly. However, Robert Moses planned for the most efficient city possible. He used mostly theory in his planning, and used his influence in order to get his wishes to come true.He was more of a modernist and wanted to make the city more available for cars. He built massive highways and bridges in order to connect the city and make it more accessible. Most of his plans worked, however many were turned down due to their projected effect on the city. While his projects were useful in the longterm, at the time they displaced many people. This form of city planning is not good for the city overall, because it can lead to an increase in slums where the citizens are unhappy.

Discussion question: If city planning is considered a pseudoscience that often does not work and leads to the creation of slums, why continue to attempt to plan out a perfect city?