Larson’s comparison of planners and the tactics involved in selling their plans to the act of telling a narrative is a suitable one. This is because planners often attempt to secure support for their plans by making it seem as if they are doing this for the good of the city and its inhabitants; however, the underlying agenda for most of these city plans is economic profit. As mentioned throughout the chapter, the city plans never truly considered the opinions of the poor or lower classes but because they needed the support of the people, planners often resorted to deception. They sold their plans under the guise of improving the city and making it a better living space. In reality, they wanted to attract more skilled workers and and increase the value of land. They made it seem as if the success of the city was contingent on their redevelopment projects.

In talking about the third regional plan, Larson mentions the true goals of the plan. One of the main goals was, as aforementioned, increasing the value of the land. For instance, the preservation of green space was a decision made because they “significantly enhance rents, property value, and property taxes.” This decision may have inadvertently benefited the inhabitants but the issue is that the original motivation for these plans was not the well-being of the inhabitants. Even so, planners continue to consider themselves, as Larson cites, “moral guardians.”

The third regional plan dates back to the 20th century; yet, the underlying problems still persist. Economic driven redevelopment projects like the third regional plan were the beginnings of gentrification and relate to many of the project issues explored in class.  One such example is the plans for the rezoning of Flushing West, which involves the redevelopment of the water front area. This is a problem because this would not be the first instance of gentrification occurring in the area. Flushing has experienced many redevelopment projects and while this would bring in revenue, these projects do not bode well for those living in the area. In reading Larson’s chapter, one can better understand the roots of gentrification.

Discussion Question: Larson mentions that gentrification benefits the middle and upper classes. Because land values increase, the poor are forced out but aside from that what are the other effects of gentrification? Can people perhaps benefit from gentrification?