In the chapter, I found it a surprise how New York City’s ratings in the 1970s were so poor. One of the reasons stated by Harries Brenton was because the city had “bad publicity…because of crime, strike, and welfare, etc.” Although this may be true, I find the comment arguable. A city would statistically have more crime and welfare because there are more people. In addition, a city would have more strikes because there are more jobs. I find this particular reason made by Brenton for the low rating of New York more of a correlation than causation.
What also shocked me was the fact that the highways did the opposite of what was thought to happen. Instead of bringing commuters to the city to work, the companies left the city to set up in the suburbs. I was a bit unclear why this would happen, besides the fact that taxes are lower. Perhaps it is because from what I see now, there are more businesses in the city than in the suburbs (specifically the location of large companies). I always thought being in the city would be ideal because it is connected closer to other businesses, and if people from other countries want to work with a company, being in the city is easier and more convenient. I would rather go to London than Purbeck (a small, not well-known city in England).
In addition, it is interesting that once these businesses leave, the city declines. This reminds me of the phrase “Corporate America” and how business really affects and influences life. Are we the only country that has cities that are only sustainable if there are businesses? I can think of examples of Detroit and Philadelphia where they used to have a lot of business because of the manufacturing industry; however, once society moved towards service industry, these places lost work and now the cities have low standard of living. There must be a solution to this problem.
I enjoyed how this reading has a marketing-style view on how New York City was “rebranded.” The ABNY used the “power breakfast” which at first was not too successful and cost a lot of money. However, by using important people to talk, it is like an endorsement/sponsorship. People listen and pay attention to famous, important, high-up people. Furthermore, I finally know how the phrase ” The Big Apple” came about. It is creative and smart how ABNY was able to reimage the city. I was shocked that they spent money on policing, when all this time I thought it was the mayor. Also, how ABNY pushed the image of the apple as New York is incredible because it is still seen today. Although there was a lot of money put into all of this, ABNY truly was successful. It is inspiring to see how marketing can play a role to change/”revamp” the city. I used to think marketing was for business, but now I see it can also be to market a city to fit a certain image.
However, one thing that amazed me was the fact ABNY tried to censor television. This reminds me of how China censors everything that goes against their own country. I was just surprised ABNY was kind of able to get away with it, because isn’t this hindering the first amendment of freedom of speech? Yes, by not talking about mugging in Central Park you prevent the public from hearing and knowing anything bad happening. Yet, on the other hand, you are misleading them and possibly making them naive to the dangers that can happen.
