A large portion of states have city planning regimes in place, some even requiring local laws to conform with local plans regarding land use, housing and open space. But why put such an emphasis on strategy? Simple. City planning is the crux of developing and sustaining a thriving metropolis. Having said that, I was quite alarmed when I read Jarrett Murphy’s article Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan. Why is New York City falling behind in its efforts to effectively plan the future of the metropolis we live in?

In addition to roughly 8.2 million residents, New York City is home to a rapidly growing population, rising seas, dwindling energy supplies and much more. These issues were only proliferated by the city effectively dodging the creation of a comprehensive plan back in the 20^th Century. Failing to plan accordingly in the past puts New York City in a tough position, but the failure to plan accordingly now is what will set us up for trouble ahead. NYC is in desperate need of a comprehensive plan but it does not seem to be doing anything about it.

A quasi-attempt to establish a city “plan” was made in 1916 with the passing of the first zoning resolution. It was since amended, time and time again, as 9,400 blocks were rezoned since 2002. While rezoning is a necessary task, it is not a cure-all. If implemented strategically (if dense neighborhoods are downzoned and more sparsely-populated areas were upzoned properly), it is a great starting point. However, it seems that New York City has used zoning as a crutch, neglecting other means of city planning.

It would be unfair to say that New York City has turned a blind eye to urban design all together. The truth is that numerous ideas were introduced, but each had shortcomings of their own. PlaNYC, for example, made the government a prominent player in city planning and encouraged unique thinking, but was not an actual plan that linked “noble sentiments and…zoning decisions.” As professor Vicki Been of NYU says, “…it’s been a very important contribution, but I don’t think it’s a substitute for the kind of comprehensive planning…” that New York City needs. Policies, namely environmental impact statements, require a painfully slow process. Community benefits agreements give way to conflicting interests and are not exactly legally enforceable. Unfortunately, the challenge of bridging the gap between planning communities and the legal system has been difficult to overcome.

So where does New York City stand right now? Failure to plan in the past is a sunken cost that we now have to deal with. Little is being done now because the real estate industry prefers a “freer hand,” ethnic and political diversity pose resistance, and the growth of New York City outpaces the planning process currently in place. A comprehensive plan is desperately needed, but that is much easier said than done. If the city does not effectively plan now, future difficulties will certainly not be ameliorated. As Elena Conte, organizer at the Pratt Center, said very well, “The absence of comprehensive planning will leave New York City without the foundation for sound future growth.”

First off I enjoyed this reading by Altshuler I thought it was really interesting that the city could be used like a business even though I knew that most politics involve businesses. Regarding the Introduction to the book, one of the only thing I could think of when he mentioned mega projects was Hydraulic Fracturing Also known as Fracking. Furthermore, I also liked the Format used in the Introduction.

Hydraulic Fracking is the process by which natural gas is taken from the ground by use of a water source. In order to do this, first one must drill through the ground and using a pressurized liquid break shale and then gas is released from this pressure. This gas leads to many economic advantages, such as decreased gas prices and a boost in the general economy. However, there is a detrimental effect which is the effect it has on the water supply of the residents in the area, sometimes the chemicals leak into the water and the water can become hazardous to drink and at times even have the ability to catch fire.

Fracking falls into both of the topics discussed in the introduction as a reason for wanting to study public investments. Regarding the first reason that says that the project often has effects on the political development of the area and Fracking definitely has an effect in this regard. In fact many people try and get the government to end Fracking in their neighborhoods, however many times their pleas fall on deaf ears since there are many benefits to Fracking that a lot of people aren’t willing to let it go so easily. The second reason discussed was that the city gives monetary or regulatory inducements to attract investors. Well in my opinion this qualification is also met because the government is not really doing much to hinder the fracking companies, they haven’t even enacted much laws to it’s prevention when it is hurting their citizens. Therefore, since there is mainly positive reinforcement for the natural gas companies, they will take advantage of this leeway and use the land for money while hurting the citizens.

Lastly, I liked the format of the introduction, where I found it entertaining how he said at the end you can skip Chapters 3 and Eight and not miss much. To me it seemed like he was really confident about his writing style, where he was sure that after getting that immersed in the book the reader would choose to read them out of his own free will. Well if he kept the writing style like that where it was almost entertaining to read and he adds this kind of humor I don’t see why the reader would choose to skip out on the chapters.

Altshuler, in my opinion wrote one of the greatest introductions to a book that I have read because it was humorous at points and structured really well. However, throughout the introduction he says that most of the mega-projects he will discuss are railways and bridges and it makes me wonder if he’s going to discuss some negative mega-projects such as Hydrofracking. All in all I was actually really interested in the reading and might dread the book a bit further because maybe he mentions Fracking somewhere, or maybe he mentions why it doesn’t count as a mega-project.

When the Atlantic Yards project was first announced, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the issue. On one hand, many believed that the development would lead to gentrification and the alteration of the neighborhood as a whole. They believed that new housing, as well as the Barclays Center, would lead to increased rents, the arrival of national tenants and the driving out of low and moderate income residents. However, there were also many who saw the Atlantic Yards mega-project as an opportunity to revive the area and neighborhood. It would provide more housing around the area and allow for the resurgence or rejuvenation of Downtown Brooklyn. It would also increase traffic to the area, and in turn allow local businesses to thrive and prosper. Although I believe that the development of Atlantic Yards would be great for the area, it must be implemented correctly, so that it doesn’t take away from the “character” of the neighborhood.

In the article, “Opposing Atlantic Yards: Fails to Accomplish a Delicate Balance,” Kent Barwick provides reasons for why he is against the Atlantic Yards development. The first issue that he states is that the city is offering incentives for developers to build affordable housing, stating that if they do they can build taller buildings. Although they are providing more affordable housing, they are increasing the density of the neighborhood as well, thereby “sacrificing neighborhood character.” Another problem with the project is that due to the fact that it is developer driven instead of city driven, they are proposing to take away many public places or streets. Instead, he argues that they should not only keep existing streets but add new ones as well, in order to improve the circulation around the area and provide for the free flow of traffic in the neighborhood.

When I first read Barwick’s article I was extremely surprised by his perspective on the Atlantic Yards project. When I first looked at it, I thought that by providing affordable housing for low and moderate income families, the area can avoid the issue of gentrification. However, Barwick saw it a different way. He believed that by providing affordable housing the developer receives incentives to build taller buildings and more units that are on the free market. This would then increase the density of the area and the proportion of the units that are free market, thereby altering the identity or makeup of the neighborhood. Another point that I found to be interesting was when he stated that in order for this project to become successful, the city and state must be able to “demonstrate they can listen to New Yorkers, and establish opportunities for them to shape the major projects that will affect their lives.” After all, this project is directly interfering with their lives and in order to make it work you must have the support of the people who actually live in and take part in the neighborhood. Without the backing of the community members, there is absolutely no way that this project can become a success.

To demonstrate the other side of the argument we read the article, “Supporting Atlantic Yards: Simply Not Enough Housing in Brooklyn,” by the executive director of NY ACORN, Bertha Lewis. She argues that over the next 25 years New York City’s population is expected to rise 16 percent and that there is simply not enough housing to accommodate for the needs of this increasing population. Besides for increasing the housing stock, the apartments must be affordable for low to moderate income families as well as senior citizens. As a result, they have made an agreement with Forest City Ratner, to allow 50 percent of their 4,500 rental units to provide for affordable housing for low to middle income families. Furthermore, these units will be scattered throughout their many buildings and within the free market units to allow for a diverse neighborhood.

Although I believe that the Atlantic Yards development project would provide for a resurgence of the area, there are certain steps that must be followed in order to ensure that it doesn’t take away from the neighborhood’s identity. Firstly, a proportion of the housing must be set aside for low to moderate income families, providing for affordable housing. By doing so, it will allow the development to continue the “character” or demographics of the area. It also must provide for proper public spaces, as was one of Barwick’s suggestions. I believe that with the proper supervision and community participation the Atlantic Yards project can prove to be a success.

Both Bartha Lewis and Kent Barwick, in their respective pieces for City Limits, agree that New York City and the borough of Brooklyn in particular, are in dire need of affordable housing. Median incomes have fallend while rent prices have risen over the last few years as Brooklyn is experiencing a population boom. Affordable housing is at the forefront of discussion over new housing developments. However, they disagree on whether the currently proposed Atlantic Yards project effectively addresses this important need. 

Kent Barwick believes that the city’s current policies for affordable housing are not taking the right approach . Atlantic Yards was designed with the idea that developers should be incentivized with permission to build larger high-density buildings. According to Mr. Barwick, New York City should follow the example of Bostona and San Diego and institute a city-wide rule for all new developers to incorporate affordable units as part of their construction, as opposed to individually negotiating over each new project. He also suggests that the city could consider adding new streets or finding new ways to connect different parts of the city in order to create public spaces, instead of having projects like the Atlantic Yards. However, it appears as though Mr. Barwick is criticizing Atlantic Yards not because it’s bad but because it’s not good enough. Although the ideas he talks about are creative and approach the affordable housing problem on a grander scale than what is being done at Atlantic Yards, it doesn’t seem feasible to put new housing projects on hold while these bigger ideas are being developed.

Secondly, Kent Barwick states that the Atlantic Yards project was not developed with a truly democratic process. He believes that the community did not have enough input in the planning. This is quite contrary to what Bartha Lewis writes in her article where she passionately argues that the private developers of Atlantic Yards worked closely with a neighborhood organization, ACORN to come up with their final plan for how to provide affordable housing. Ms. Lewis is of the opinion that Forest City Ratner was open to suggestions and responsive to needs. To prove this, she gives examples of how Atlantic Yards will make mixed income living a reality in Brooklyn. From the two articles, Ms. Lewis certainly has the better argued position.

However, Ms. Lewis’ argument about the “real world” and pragmatism is a little hard to accept. Atlantic Yards seems to be a reasonably well thought out project, and it has the potential to ease the burden on the housing market in Brooklyn. These are good arguments for why the project should receive the support of the residents. But to argue that Atlantic Yards is a good idea because it is the best that Brooklyn can hope for and that the residents should be realistic about how much progress they can make on this issue, seems counter-intuitive to Ms. Lewis’ point. Affordable housing should be the priority in new developments not secondary to firms’ desire to make profits. Residents should  be able to ask for and get well planned projects in their communities, not be forced to accept compromises.

That being said, in my opinion, the Atlantic Yards project has many advantages. It is exactly the kind of project that is going to add fuel to the boom in Brooklyn. Additionally, the specific details mentioned by Ms. Lewis show that the affordable housing issue was a major consideration during the planning process and some good solutions have come out of the negotiations. Residents of all income ranges will be distributed throughout the buildings and there will be no indication made to show that adjoining units are differently priced. Affordably priced units will also be offered for all sizes. I’m not sure if it is indeed feasible to make income a non-issue among neighbors in an apartment complex, but this is a step in the right direction.

In “Opposing Atlantic Yards: Fails to Accomplish a Delicate Balance,” Kent Barwick discusses issues with megaprojects such as Atlantic Yards. Bertha Lewis explains the benefits of these projects in “Supporting Atlantic Yards: Simply Not Enough Housing in Brooklyn.” In “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” Nicole Gelinas criticizes the city’s use of eminent domain for developments.

One of Barwick’s main complaints was that the high rises of Atlantic Yards would ruin the neighborhood’s character. At first, I agreed with the idea that maybe such tall buildings should only be built in the neighborhoods where they belong. As I started thinking about it though, I started wondering if keeping such a neighborhood’s character was even feasible considering the demand for housing in New York City. The city has a large and growing population but limited land to house such a population. Lewis’ article explains that New York City has a huge need for affordable housing and compromises must be made because there is no perfect solution to the problem.

The article by Gelinas made me think about how unfairly areas were selected for eminent domain. Gelinas pointed out that almost all neighborhoods exhibit the criteria for a blighted neighborhood. When thinking about the city’s use of eminent domain as a class issue, I was surprised to realize that this process is very similar to one that occurred much earlier to wealthier residents of the city and has simply expanded. I believe the real issue is simply that New York City’s population and economy have been outgrowing the city itself. Changes must be made for the city to support its population. I believe this process began in the early 1900s when the mansions of New York City’s wealthy families on Fifth Avenue were replaced with high-rise apartment buildings. Development in New York City had expanded to its borders and, as land became scarce, it became more valuable. This, among other changes to New York’s society and culture made the idea of a family owning such a large home on such a large piece of land seem ridiculous. From there, the city continued this trend. What is occurring in Brooklyn with Atlantic Yards follows the same idea. There is not enough room in the city for housing, especially low-income housing. Therefore, the buildings with fewer floors that aren’t making the most of the land are being replaced with buildings that do.

One thing about this process that has changed is the use of eminent domain as a mechanism of acquiring the land that is to be redeveloped. While I do understand the issues that some people have with the methods the government used to make this land available to developers, I wonder how much of a difference it really makes. I would think that, as the city grows and demands more space, land values will increase and owners of properties that don’t use the land efficiently will end up paying more for taxes and possibly expenses. At this point, the residents would probably be priced out of their homes and they would be just as angry as they are about the use of eminent domain. Even if this did not happen and the residents were able to keep their keep their homes, I think there would be far more unhappy people struggling to find housing that they can afford in New York City.

I think megaprojects such as Atlantic Yards are a necessary part of New York City’s natural growth. I understand that there are going to be issues related to these developments and think as much should be done as possible to minimize issues but, in most cases, I think the good outweighs the bad.

In the introduction of the book Mega-Projects: The Changing Politics of Urban Public Investment, Altshuler gives an overview of how American government works. The unique relationship between cities and higher-level government creates a system that allows private investment opportunities. The higher-level government was encouraging local governments to find ways to develop their cities. Therefore, Local governments are constantly working hard to make themselves a more attractive candidate for become a partner with private investors.

A lot of mega-projects were taken place in part of city where occupied by poor people. Those mega-projects usually have a large influence on people as well as the whole city. However, it became harder to build a mega-project today because now there are many government programs that protect these poor. Another reason that explains why there are less mega-projects today is that many criticized that mega-projects destroyed homes of poor people.

Altshhuler mentioned three mega-projects types, which are highways, airports, and rail transit systems. These are the three major projects around the time, which cost a lot of money to build but hard to get any profits from them. I think that it is not a good idea to have public mega-project because when government needs funds for their public projects, one way of raising money is to increase the tax, but they weren’t making anything back.

One interesting point that Altshuler made in his introduction is that “political scientists concerned with urban politics have recently been preoccupied with business influence and economic development policy.” I agree with him that tax money and federal funds were definitely not enough for a city to grow, and to implement its entire project. Therefore local governments were “marketing” themselves, and try to make themselves to be more attractive to the private investor, so that private sectors will help to start projects that will benefits both the city and the private investors.

I think that when government and private investors work together, we will solve the problem with funding. Those private investors will make the funding possible; however, they may slow down the process and may reduce the government’s power in decision-making. This is what Altshuler mentioned in his book, in which our cities were highly depended on private sectors for decision-making. If the local politicians only focused on how to attract investors, not seek help from higher-level government, then I feel like our central government had lost part of its purpose.