The importance of mobility
Whether it is by foot, car, bike or public transportation, we are all everyday commuters. Morning commutes become a routine and second nature, so most of us don’t spend any time analyzing our commute. However, reading the article by Greenwald and the chapter by Montgomery really opened my eyes and reminded me of the issues affecting our mobility today.
Beginning with Greenwald’s article, I never put much thought into the reason as to why it is so difficult to get from Queens to Brooklyn. I simply assumed it was another fault of the MTA and their inability to solve some major transportation problems. Learning about this monopoly conspiracy was very interesting and something I have not heard of before. It’s a shame that the situation turned out this way because had we have had a trolley system today, it would have been really convenient and interesting to see how the connection would have remained today between the two boroughs. With the removal of the trolleys and the implementation of buses, everything went downhill. The buses today are not as good as they should be, are often unreliable, and sometimes very inconvenient. I agree with Greenwald and hope to see some form of reconnection via trains running between Queens and Brooklyn.
The next article by Montgomery, Mobilicities, was also a great read. Montgomery brought up a lot of interesting points. There is such a stark contrast between transportation in great metropolitan areas, versus suburbs. For most New Yorkers, public transportation is their mode of transportation, while majority of America uses private cars to get around. As New Yorkers living in the city, we have the opportunity to walk to a store, train, bus, etc. and that increases our overall health, and even happiness. While dragging groceries might be inconvenient, it’s so much better than driving miles to the nearest store. And recently, to improve and increase commuting options, we have seen this wave of biking throughout the city. Citibikes have taken over the streets and while it might be an occasional issue with pedestrians and/or vehicles, it’s overall really good for our residents. It promotes healthy habits and exercise. As we can see, lack of exercise is plaguing our country, and small things like walking and biking each day battles that.
Additionally, Montgomery brings up the issue of young adults not wanting to get their licenses. On average, fewer New Yorkers have licenses as compared to midwestern residents. Recently, there have been more people not getting their licenses as the reliance for public transportation increases. Many of my friends that live in the city don’t have their licenses and don’t see the point of getting one because NYC has one of highest insurance rates and then street parking becomes a nightmare. The ”cool’ thing as a teenager is usually to get your license and get a car, but I feel that in NYC it’s not a norm. It’s extremely easy to get to majority of the city via the MTA, and the popular places in the city are easily accessible without a car.
With it’s flaws aside, the MTA is one of the largest and better forms of public transportation around the world. Basically all of America lacks this huge network of trains and buses. In the heart of NYC, people can rely on it to get to wherever they may need to be. Unfortunately, the more suburban boroughs such as Staten Island and even parts of Queens lack this tight grid of trains, and it directly increases car reliance in those neighborhoods. Hopefully in the future, the MTA will expand it’s subway lines and better their bus services. Overall, I think New York has a handful of major factors for rejecting the reliance on cars due to the growing population, street congestion, and the accessibility to the MTA.
city planning, transportation, and health
I enjoyed Montgomery’s excerpt which discussed city planning, transportation, and health. It was relevant to the various lifestyles and transportation methods provided in NYC.
I especially enjoyed the first half of the excerpt which was just a psa for pro cycling. Montgomery mentioned that cycling provides more freedom and happiness than driving and public transit despite the increased physical effort of cycling. The story of Judge, the super-hooah eskimo cyclist, worked well to reveal that obscure transportation methods may have unique perks. I also took it as the message- ultimately, you choose whatever transportation method you like most, even if it isn’t the most effective one.
Speaking personally, I prefer taking public transport going into the city over driving. The reason for this, which Montgomery doesn’t talk about, is that parking in the city absolutely sucks. I remember times in freshman year when I was running late and decided to take the faster method of driving, but ended up spending literally one hour looking for parking around City College. However, in general, I think driving’s the best. You don’t ever have to be hot or cold, or stand while holding a heavy backpack. The best feeling is driving past someone walking through a thunderstorm with a broken dollar store umbrella and realizing you’re comfortable in your car. And in many situations, like Montgomery mentions, driving is simply really fun. Even after doing it so many times, ripping through the freeway, especially after being stuck in traffic, is exhilarating.
The latter half of Montgomery’s excerpt was about how city designs force certain transportation methods on commuters, which may lead to certain health trends. His observation was that spread out and homogenous systems promoted driving while cluttered and integrated systems promoted walking, and that this exercise difference contributed to health. This kind of made sense, but also seems oversimplified. I think that the small variation in walking doesn’t really matter. The person’s availability to affordable, healthy food seems more important. After all, an active person who enjoys exercise will do so no matter if the nearest stores are within walking distance or not. Nonetheless, his points were things I never thought about. They really highlighted the vast effects city planning can have on residents’ behaviors.
______________________________________________________________________________
Greenwald’s article was a nice short-and-informative read. It’s something that I realized on only some instances when going home after staying at my friend’s house in Brooklyn- the commute is really tiring and inefficient. I really wished there were more direct routes from Brooklyn to the Flushing area.
The most interesting part of the article was Greenwald’s statement that a lot of people only use the bus to get themselves to the train station. This ties in with Montgomery’s excerpt. I agree with Montgomery that buses are the most frustrating way to travel. They’re much slower and less reliable than subways. Nonetheless, buses serve a purpose in more suburban areas. Buses are basically the only transportation source for students and poor families, who don’t have access to cars, to get around within Queens. They’re cheap and fast enough to beat walking and cycling.
Our fear of the unknown, and how it’s killing us
In Idov’s “Clash of the Bearded Ones,” Kurutz’s “Caught in the Hipster Trap” and Harris’s “Brooklyn’s Williamsburg becomes new front line of the gentrification battle”, all three authors introduce a frightening potential; the potential of change, and the unknown. In Williamsburg, there is a Duane Reade that is becoming the center of much contention for the hipster inhabitants of the town. Kurutz is dismayed with the hipster culture infiltrating every style, and Idov notes that the Hasidic Jews are unhappy with the bearded bikers creating a bike lane. All three of these articles, although expressing different views and issues, all create the argument that change in cities is inevitable, but is often welcomed with unhappiness by current inhabitants.
“Gentrification by anyone is at best a mixed blessing for the working class and immigrants whose neighborhood it was” This well-spoken comment by Joshua Freeman in Harris’ article captures the truth that gentrification is something of a complex issue. Far from the duality presented by those who passionately argue for one side above another, the argument that gentrification is something of a paradox is not inaccurate. Of course, society is dictated by customs and ours is dictated by capitalism. Starbucks and Duane Reade have every right to build where they desire. Under what possible explanation could we feasibly condemn and abhor these companies, granting special restrictions purely for their successes? Yet, it is undeniable that there is a great loss where gentrification is concerned. It is not ignorable that the potential for great businesses, great connections, and great sense of community can be lost by the eternal advances of the forerunners of business. Is this sense of loss not cause for great alarm? Is it not understandable to even become spiteful over the loss over many years of happiness in one’s own home? However, it is easy to get caught in the issues emotionally and not see the broader picture. For example in Idov’s article, it is evident that the Hasids and Satmars continue to hate one another despite not necessarily being so different in the long run. Is it fair to say that because another group adheres to a different set of standards, has a different set of hobbies, that we may take them to be different, even lesser than we? To what end does this endless cycle of hate and fury truly serve? Does our community become more ‘safe’ through teaching our children that different is wrong and to be inherently distrustful of others purely because they prefer to bike rather than walk? Further, in the case of Isaac Abraham, just because one careless bicyclist knocked down his wife, can it be totally and accurately extrapolated that all bikers are as careless as that one? We are all humans, and in the case of the Hasids and Satmars, does their community not bind them together? Are they not living in the same place under the same conditions, largely for the same reasons?
In Kurutz’s article, he complains that what once was his easy, comfortable style, is now regarded as “hipster.” He states that, “hipsterification is a fast-moving, all-encompassing beast that goes far beyond urban fashion.” He claims that the hipster infiltration is seeping into all aspects of life including technology and past-times. Is this not another case of extrapolation gone awry? Is this not another archetype that we as humans arrange and construct as a safety blanket for ourselves to feel comfortable, as though we have a powerful defense against the scary unknown? Do we fear change and the uncharted future so greatly as to suffer ourselves for it? Do we fear these things so greatly as to make others, and even our children suffer for it?
All three articles all center around the issue of change. Although Harris’s article stated: “Cities and neighborhoods change all the time. You can’t freeze them,” many of the subjects in the articles are dismayed with the changes occurring in their towns. Change is inevitable, but not always welcome; a fact that is proven throughout these three articles. Although we stereotype and typecast, the truth is that all of these issues are more interrelated than we realize. By fearing the unknown, we fear our communities and ourselves. Imagine how fulfilling our lives could be if we could learn to rely and depend upon one another in times of need and otherwise. Imagine the perspective our children would have if we could simply be the bigger people and lay down our hate in favor of peace. Imagine how much suffering and hatred and spite we could avoid if we could learn to accept change, and rather than mourn the loss of the past, look ahead to the future and new possibilities! This concept may be more difficult to adapt than to theorize, but perhaps it is the next step in order to find our own happiness. Perhaps our task is not to bend and break our environment into becoming something that suits us. Perhaps our task is to find ways to appreciate the changes, whether those changes are our neighbors, our stores, or even our homes. If we could simply learn to find happiness in all things, would we not find succeed in our pursuit of happiness? There is only one way to find out.
Culture War, Gentrification, and More
Michael Idov’s analysis of the culture war between the Hasidic community of Williamsburg and the relatively recent hipster influx points to the argument over bike lanes as an ancillary problem stemming from a deep rooted clash of cultures. The title, “The Clash of the Bearded Ones,” is humorous, and the article somehow manages to reach a certain lightheartedness in spite of the serious discord between the group. In the culture war Idov describes, the Hasidic complaints to the bike lanes involved “my wife was hit by a bike,” and “the women cycling through the neighborhood are an affront” to modest sensibilities.The first reason given applies personal anecdotes in lieu of real arguments- understandable, but irrelevant to the discussion. The second reason really stems from the type of community Hasidic Jewry designed and upheld when they came to America. Idov describes somewhat the roots of the Williamsburg community- this is true, but there is more to the picture.
European Jewry saw America as the “traifeh medina,” the land that was wholly unkosher. Waves of Jewish immigration had come only to lose connection to their religious roots and traditions. This kind of assimilation was seen as so dangerous and pervasive that to many religious Jewish leaders in Europe, it was better to remain with the physical threats from the European antisemitism of the 19th and 20th century than the spiritual dangers of America. These leaders, with the knowledge of a long history of discrimination, pogroms and almost a boom-and-bust cycle of violence and vitriolic hatred against Jews, could not have foreseen the overwhelming magnitude of the Holocaust that occurred. There is also a long history of animosity between Hasidic and mainstream Jewry, especially in the context of the enlightenment of the 19th century: the two groups had fundamentally different approaches of how to deal with the overwhelming assimilation of their constituents. Many European (non-Hasidic) Jews were influenced by the writings of Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch, who espoused the marriage of modernity and tradition- “Torah im Derech Eretz,” or literally “Torah with the way of the land.” He believed that Judaism and its practitioners were strong enough to withstand the pressures of the outside world and promoted a harmonious relationship with non-Jews while still holding true to tradition. On the other hand, Hasidic Jewry saw enlightenment as a call to focus inwardly: to isolate themselves against the world as a bulwark against the non-Kosher aspects of the modern world. One way this is accomplished is by their distinctive dress, another is language (Yiddish). Thus the Hasidic enclaves formed in America were designed to be as self-sufficient and isolated as possible from the outside world. Williamsburg is one such example; New Square is another. In Hasidic neighborhoods, the education is almost completely religious studies; for boys, they learn Jewish texts nearly all day, from 8 to 3 or 4, and only then start learning secular subjects like english and math. Girls have a more equitable breakup of learning, with about half the day dedicated to each. Most Hasidic Jews simply do not have the skill set needed to enter the professional world; that’s why they tend to be businesspeople or entrepreneurs dealing with primarily real estate. The community is increasingly insular, and the more encroachment the community feels, like the addition of immodestly dressed women biking throughout the streets, the stronger the push for stricter halachic stringencies and the greater they push back.
The most dangerous cultural significance of the hipster encroachment is those Hasids who now identify as hipster- all they need to do is wear a knit, maybe a newsboy hat and a flannel shirt and BAM! They are hipsters. But they have a deeper draw for disillusioned Hasidim, as they appropriate their past into something that is cool–it is original, and untainted by the masses– a hipster fantasy. In the past, many who left Hasidic Judaism would hide their past. Today, there is no need. The internet has made so much information accessible- social media and blogs give voices to those who otherwise would be marginalized and ostracized from their communities. Anyone who is part of a highly insular community fears being ostracized not only for themselves (they would suddenly be bereft of the community’s support) but also the effect it would have on their entire extended family. That girl discussed in Idov’s article who left religion and got a tattoo? If she had siblings they’ll probably have a harder time getting married. That kind of guilt follows those who leave. And the underworld Idov hinted at (the facebook alter egos)– it definitely exists.
Hipsters take something original and appropriate it into trends. In Steven Kurutz’s article “Caught in the Hipster Trap,” he describes how increasingly difficult NOT being identified as a hipster has gotten. This does not only apply to clothing styles- hipsters have appropriated everything handmade, everything “artisan,” and anything sourced locally (which is a good thing! repeat– a GOOD thing). But the word ‘hipster’ itself has gotten so trendy it is almost an insult- you want to be ahead of the masses, not one of them.
Rise of the Creative Class and the Issues Facing Times Square
In Florida’s article “The Rise of the Creative Class” she takes great strides to galvanize her argument that the increased necessity for creative minds is beginning to take over corporate attitudes. Now is the time for companies to utilize the “creative class” as she calls it to come up with new and innovative solutions to problems, create new products and generally contribute much more than just intelligence or technical skills. She even links this new trend to the gradual stagnation of once great cities such as Pittsburgh that, in her opinion, can trace economic downturn to it’s refusal to change with the times and create an atmosphere that makes new companies and college graduates with a unique perspective want to stay in the city. She makes examples of cities such as Boston and Austin that have drawn in a large amount of people belonging to the creative class and credits their revitalization and economic growth to the new abundance of individuals brimming with fresh ideas. Florida then continues on to describe the various qualities a city must possess in order to attract this kind of individual, namely placing value on diversity and outdoor amenities.
On the whole I agree with the points Florida has made in this article, there really cant be any innovation if people who could provide such innovation have no creative outlet or are lacking an environment that allows them to express themselves in new and unique ways. People like places that remind them of values they themselves hold. My generation (or perhaps the one preceding mine, this article was written in 2002 and I’m not sure where the line in drawn) places great emphasis on diversity, tolerance of others, a connection to the outdoors, and the ability to express oneself. It seems only natural that the places that exhibit these qualities will be better able to attract members of the creative class.
Moving right along to Grynbaum and Flegenheimer’s article “Mayor de Blasio Raises Prospect of Removing Times Square Pedestrian Plazas”. With the stated aim of doing away with the topless women parading around Times Square and alleviating congestion in the infamously clogged urban arteries of midtown Manhattan de Blasio is grappling with the idea of removing the picnic tables and islands specifically meant for pedestrian traffic. This idea is being met with resistance from various urban leaders such as Tim Tompkins, who stated that tearing up public spaces because they are difficult to control is tantamount to surrender.
Truthfully, I don’t really have a stance on this issue. I’ve actually only been to Times Square a handful of times and I’m not particularly eager to go back. There is one thing that I can give credit Times Square credit for, the fact that it keeps a sizable chunk of tourists away from the rest of Manhattan. I’m not sure why de Blasio is so keen to remove all that pedestrian space and turn Times Square into the rest of Midtown, which is to say horribly clogged with cars and not fun to inhabit in the least. Yeah, Times Square is hard to control and there might be topless women parading about. If you don’t want to deal with Times Square (if you actually spend any appreciable amount of time in Manhattan you already know that you don’t) then just don’t go there. As for the car traffic, perhaps de Blasio should be more concerned about how to reduce automobile congestion in a way that doesn’t directly come at the detriment of pedestrians.
Who Are the Creative Class?
Throughout Professor Florida’s article on the creative class, a particular question was hanging over my head. Am I a member of the creative class? What sort of people represent the focus groups used in the research spoken about in the article? How did Prof. Florida identify them?
The Creative Class is presumably represented by young, “hip” college grads, mostly single and highly educated, but this didn’t help me make connections to any particular people in my life. I couldn’t produce a singular person who I knew that I would label as part of this major economic driving force. Of course, there were people who sort of fit the bill, but none were perfect matches. I would’ve thought in a place as liberal as New York City, I could’ve come up with a few concrete examples.
What did come to mind weren’t particular people, but places; places that had a feel of innovation that went beyond anything part of the design. The small Sugar Hill cafe dug beneath the side-walk on 145th street came to mind. So did Brooklyn Bridge Park and the 59th street subway platform. Places that sounded like small talk and had the smell of coffee, where ideas sharpen by conversation and disagreement. These coincidentally are the kinds of places I expect to find the demographic Florida keeps talking about, but again, faces were always blurred and unimportant.
I realized that the Creative Class was not really a class because people were only tangentially involved. Creativity arises from people in certain places during specific times when the social environment is correct. People play a role in creating an environment conducive to creativity but certain places lend themselves better to such an environment then others.
More then that however, creativity is something that exists in the atmosphere; spread out over a field instead of tied to any one particular thing. In other words, the people spoken of in this article are hypotheticals that embody something larger that is part of human nature; something that can’t be tied down to a class, which implies exclusivity. Anyone can be creative given the right environment.
Waze and the Politics of Public Spaces and New York Has Solved the Problem of Public Art. But at What Cost?
In his article, Waze and the Politics of Public Spaces, Wells recalls an incident that happened where a socially driven GPS app, Waze, navigated him the wrong way in reaching a destination. Throughout his piece, he expresses his bewilderment on both the functioning of the app and the motives that drove the inhabitants of the neighborhood to block his route to entering Saw Mill Parkway.
Waze discusses algorithms and artificial intelligence in his piece. This is the part I found most interesting. I have read about and been exposed to the same sorts of problems in healthcare where artificial intelligence is also being heavily use. In a day where IBM Watson machines are used in order to encode data for Electronic medical records (EMR’s), hospitals are relying on complex algorithms and codes to create medical reports and transfer them to different hospitals for the benefit of the patient. Although, the rest of the world marvels at this feat, the reliance in artificial intelligence is a problem. When hospital administrations blindly relies on the Watson machines without applying reasoning, medical complications occur which inadvertently hurt the patient. Wells’ stance on artificial intelligence further corroborates the idea that reasoning is needed with algorithms and data in creating efficient apps.
Ironically, Wells also mentions that part of the problem with Waze was that it relied on too much on societal feedback. He drives home the message that there has to be a way where social feedback could be properly utilized while also keeping it in check.
I found it amazing how technology may bring people together and at the same time the people near Saw Mill Parkway used their inputs in technology to limit the traffic in Saw Mill Parkway. In order to find a compromise Waze may need to address these concerns with the residents near Saw Mill Parkway. Above all, this article highlights the importance of the voice of people especially when it represents their communities.
In Saltz’ New York Has Solved the Problem of Public Art. But at What Cost, he addresses a notion of the current state of public art. He mentions that over the years, the problems with public art shifted from affording spaces for public art to the public’s level of engagement with the art.
Saltz calls modern public space projects “soulless” while at the same time desires “noise” from the public spaces. He mentions how the highline is an example of people just walking without really engaging with the art. My only concern with this is the way he measured the level of engagement from the public. Furthermore, he views the noisiness of a public place to directly relate with the level of engagement the public has with a public space. This may or may not be true. Moreover, public spaces can offer moments of contemplation and introspection to people as they engage silently as well.
Additionally, Saltz was critical about the innovation that pier 55 would undergo. Moreover, pier 55 is set to be built on top of water, supported by pillars, to create a “floating” effect. By calling the plan a “nightmare”, Saltz denotes his feeling that public spaces should be kept simple. However, others may feel that public spaces should be influenced by innovation. The proposal to create a floating pier 55, reminded me of Dubai’s proposed plans to create Palm Islands, a set of artificially made islands that connected to each other, resembling countries. Initially, critics were not fond of the idea because of the major costs that Dubai would incur. However, Dubai proceeded with the project. Today, Dubai is seen as innovative and advanced to the rest of the world because of constructing cultural attractions like Palm Islands and the world’s tallest building, Burj Al-Arab.
Saltz had a very myopic point of view towards the innovation and quietness of public spaces today. Although I may not agree with him, Saltz’ perspective addresses the idea that sometimes people may want public spaces to be kept simple so that residents can engage with them more similar to playgrounds or parks.
Public Art
In the public arts article, Saltz analyzes and criticizes modern public art in New York City. Although Saltz fancies himself as an art connoisseur, he finds modern public art in New York City to be superficial and distasteful. Contrary to the public art of an older generation, the art from the current generation always seems to be too much, as if it’s trying too hard. He criticizes the lavish spending of such projects as Pier 55 and it’s “intricate picturesque landscape” when money could be much better spent sprucing up the crumbling public infrastructure. In addition to his blasting of Pier 55, Saltz heavily denounces the forthcoming Culture Shed currently being designed near the north end of the High Line. This, Saltz believes, is simply the result of the general public’s modern taste in the unnecessarily complex with it’s futuristically flashy design and it’s ridiculously advertised “interpretable transparencies,” which in reality are just windows. Basically, Saltz believes that all of these modernly designed public spaces, including the High Line, overlook the effect that successful works of the past were able to produce; the ability to make the onlooker feel something. Whether these works reminded you of your past or just assured you that the future isn’t as bleak as it may seem, they do so simply by being there and making you think, not by flashily captivating your interest for a brief moment. Saltz would agree that the only way to gauge the successfulness of a great public work is by it’s ability to connect with the onlooker on a deeper level.
Saltz identifies the root of the problem as the misguided sources of funding from politicians, architects, and directors. He additionally condemns the idea of allowing the general public to decide on its own what public structures should look like as evidently occurred with the construction of the High Line. After all, would you want government to be run entirely by the general public? Of course not. We need to hire public officials who are experts in their fields to make some of the most important decisions. That’s not to say that the general public should not have a say in the matter, but that at the end of the day we must allow the experts to put their plans into the action, unrestricted in their visions from an outside party. Take for instance the sculptures outside of a Bronx police station designed by sculptor John Ahearn. Ahearn was tasked to design something “colorful” and that “work[ed] with the community.” The resulting sculptures led to Ahearn being branded as a racist simply because his vision was restricted by the instructions he was forced to comply with. At the end of the day, Saltz’s satirical tone underlines the inevitable dumbing down of public art that he feels we will continue to see pop up around the city. While I myself will continue to adore the masterpiece that I see as the High Line, this article has opened my eyes to the simplicity of my taste in public art. However, I also believe that it has granted me the opportunity to deepen my understanding and appreciation of more sophisticated public art; art that has the power to evoke emotions, good or bad.
A City for the People
A recurring thought throughout both articles is the designation that the city is for the people. This stems from the fact that the city is the people, and as such, the mosaic of venues it offers must provide for and interest the vast diversity of its people. Jacobs, whom heavily influenced public planning towards this new perspective of urban life, was simply a self-taught urbanite, whose knowledge came from extensive personal experience and interest in the city she was a part of. Generally, college is supposed to expand one’s own perspective by exposing individuals to others that may have stark contrasts in upbringings, experiences and values. It seems, however, that these educational facilities failed to do this in the sphere of public planning as it pushed along the dogma that many now hate Robert Moses for. Jacobs’ lack of a degree and her social and political activism allowed her to make city planners rethink standardized practices.
Jacobs relied heavily on the people of her community to challenge the “growth machine” that would level homes for failed attempts to “revitalize downtown.” These articles show how powerful people can be when they aggregate around a cause. Jacobs inspired a new age of community organizing, ushering in “hundreds of community development corporations.” In a democratic nation, where power should be in the hands of the people, it is reassuring to read and hear the stories of communities being able to protect their interests. It should be “the citizens [that] decide what end results they want” and city governments should do everything in their power to acknowledge this truth.
Can we really vs RoMo and JJ?
There are different ways of directing a play, and two of the well known methods offer completely different approaches. One is that the director would design a tableau, a gallery of sculptures made of living people, and assign the movements to the actors, requesting a mental justification for the gestures. The other is that the director let the actors roam and explore the world created by the play and move into the position that is correct according to the character and the situation. Such is the point of disagreement I spot between Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs.
It is not the best analogy, but it shows that Moses and Jacobs should not be compared as if they are the polar opposites. The two struggled to make their city better, and the slight difference in the definition of “better” caused the disagreements. If Robert Moses designed this Macaulay blog, he would not have put the picture in the welcoming page, but have well organized links and tabs which would divide the blog posts by date, author and topic. Jacobs, on the other hand, would focus on what is friendly for the users, such as easier access to dashboard or thumbnails to go with recent posts. This is not to say that one is better than the other, but to say that the two are doing the same thing, in different ways.
Important point: Designing a city is not directing a play and it is not designing a blog post. The consequence of the difference is that we do not have much resource to experiment with the lives of actual humans living in a real city. In theory, we need little bit of both Moses and Jacobs. There must be times when we must fulfill the physical needs, such as renewing the infrastructures. Yet, a city designer is not the owner of the city and must keep in mind the intentions behind each renovation. I throw a question at the syllabus: Can we really debate about RoMo vs JJ?
