As time passes, various growth factors in NYC could change and thus affect the approach to urban planning. Initially, planning for NYC was trying to adapt to the rapidly growing economy of the city, however that growth is not set to constantly grow at the same rate. Eventually some sort of plateau is reached where economic growth is not expected to come easily and the focus of development shifts to how to maintain growth.

Moses’ plans for NYC involved a lot of huge projects, economic centers would be based off of the spaces and highways that he developed. This approach gave a huge boost to the city’s economy, but it was also very general. Later on, an approach that resonated more with Jacob’s ideals started to have more prevalence. By focusing in on communities, breaking up the city into smaller pieces, those individual areas are able to pinpoint their efforts into achieving maximum economic potential in that area. If all of the small areas work to develop, the growth combined will be able to make a significant contribution to a city’s growth. I thought it was interesting how there was a small period where Jacob’s approach was taken but it later evolved into a more generalized formula for gentrification.

One last point that stood out to me in this reading was how 9/11 was linked to NYC’s development boom. It is pretty odd to see that it takes a tragic event to initiate a rebirth/redevelopment. It’s a pretty cold thought, but I wonder if when 9/11 happened, government figures would express concerns and sorrow about the event but at the same time also see it was an opportunity to rebuild the city.

Discussion Question: Would it have been possible for an approach following Jacob’s ideals to have been maintained without becoming this general formula for gentrification? Or in a city that grows so rapidly, is the maintenance for such an approach just not feasible?