New Yorkers move at a rapid pace round the clock, the city is always buzzing with activity and yet, it is not a common perception that the city itself is changing at such a pace. New York is already so built-up and midtown Manhattan, at least does not see much construction apart from renovations and repairs. Jarrett Murphy’s article was really shocking because I would have never guessed that the basic fabric and infrastructure of New York city itself had been changed so massively in the past few years. According to the article Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan, Mayor Bloomberg has overseen the rezoning of 9400 city blocks. I think it is remarkable that a city this old and this well established still has the potential to undergo such massive change in such a short time.
That being said, change on this scale is bound to cause controversy. The controversy that is evident in most of these stories is regarding the level of community participation and influence in the development projects. A Columbia university professor is quoted in the article as saying that the recent projects in New York City are all based upon what developers think is right for a neighborhood. In other words, there are extensively planned, highly funded projects that are being built across the city with the support of the municipal government but, these projects are mostly designed with some kind of centralized urban-design vision that is in the mind of the people in-charge. Local communities are often not consulted or incorporated into these plans.
Even when it is the case that community organizations get to have a say in the planning of a project, there is still the problem of enforcement. Jarrett Murphy points out that in the Atlantic Yards project, for example, ACORN has managed to negotiate for a certain number of affordable housing. But as the project evolves, it is likely that the number of these units may be cut down. If not, the sizes of the units may not be as diverse as promised or perhaps “affordable” will have a different definition from the one originally intended. Mr. Murphy states that ACORN has no way to enforce it’s agreement with the Atlantic Yards developers.
Personally, I think that this line of criticism is not valid. I would argue that a community organization such as ACORN getting to negotiate and have some of its demands met is a democratic process and should be appreciated for what it’s worth. However, the idea proposed in this article is that, instead of having these fiercely negotiated and unenforceable agreements in some of the projects on an individual basis, the city could develop a comprehensive plan to make new project development more inclusive of community opinions. In much the same way that attention is paid to whether new projects are eco-friendly or not, there should be a common, comprehensive set of guidelines to ensure that urban development is democratic.
It is often very easy to get swept away by reports and presentations that explain how a project is going to be good for the climate or how it is going to accomodate the greatest possible density in the most comfortable way. But as Mr. Murphy cleverly points out, democracy has taken a back seat to these larger, theoretical ideas about what is ‘good’ for a sustainable city as determined by the city’s bureaucracy. It is great that the city is growing so rapidly and bringing in so much investment but it would be better if, in addition to eco-friendly and city-friendly ideas, we could also have people-friendly ideas.
