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.

I attended the Jane’s Walk NYC by the Municipal Art Society on Saturday, May 4^th. The walk I went to was called “On and Off the Bowery with MAS Docents” and it took place on Bowery, between Grand Street and East Houston Street. The walk lasted about 45 minutes and the two guides didn’t take us very far but they gave a lot of history about the Bowery in lower Manhattan and the historical buildings.

One of the guides began with a history of the entire street. He mentioned how historic the Bowery is since Washington marched down the street at one point and Lincoln signed some laws on the northern part of the street. The Bowery used to be an Indian trail which the Dutch later transformed into a street. Apparently the Bowery was names as such because in Dutch the word was similar to farm and there used to be many farmlands and natural landscapes located on the Bowery. It is hard to imagine the city street as a farmland but it has changed a lot over the years. Eventually as the city grew a lot of slaughterhouses were built to supply to city with meat. A large elevated railway was eventually also built above the Bowery, probably similar to the Highline. Since there is no trace of it now, it was completely removed.

The Bowery later became run down with crime. The guide pointed out many houses still standing that served as “flop houses” where people would rent a cramped space to live in. There were a lot of bars in the area and drunks would remain in the streets. Some bars even started renting out space for a few hours for patrons to sleep. There was a presence of the mafia and gangs for some time in the neighborhood. The guide pointed out a Chinese food store which used to be a historic meeting place of the mafia.

Some of the buildings in the area were designated as historic landmarks and cannot be destroyed but many were completely renovated or demolished. After a while the neighborhood became more gentrified and prices on rent rose. The guide discussed a famous restaurant which had historical patrons but had to eventually move since the rent became too high. Finally the guide talked briefly about the New Museum. It displays art from the current decade no more than 20 years old and was built to make sure the most current art has a place to be displayed. The architecture was designed by a couple of Japanese architects who won a design competition.

The tour seemed very short because we did not walk very far but it was packed with a lot of information. I never thought the Bowery was such a fascinating street and it never occurred to me that so much history took place there. The guide was very knowledgeable and would occasionally show us old pictures of what the street used to look like. I would like to learn more about how the Bowery transformed into the neighborhood it is today and how the crime was able to decrease over the years.

The tour guide showing us an old picture of the Bowery

The guide said this entire building was purchased by one person-an artist who still lives there today.

A historical landmark designated building

A historic restaurant was once located here but had to move due to rising rent prices

The New Museum

The use of eminent domain as a government tool has a controversial history, and often evokes strong feeling those who its effected. In the City of New York, a place of used to change and large government development projects its makes a great deal that its densely populated populace would at one point collide with the use of eminent domain. Nicole Gelinas cites one example of the use of eminent domain in her article “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” specifically targeting the abuses undergone in the development of the Atlantic Yards project.

The Atlantic Yard Project consists of a series of development currently around being constructed in the Prospect Heights area of Brooklyn. The project includes a number of high-rise apartment complexes, and even some unit earmarked for “affordable housing.” At the center of the project as many well know is the new Brooklyn Nets stadium. Ms. Gelinas documents the origins of the project in here article. The project was spearheaded by real estate developer Bruce Ratner who through a number of not quite ethical political maneuverings secured the Atlantic Yards project with the power of eminent domain. Subsequently, private property owners could be forced off their land in order to make way for the development.

I found it very interesting how Ms. Gelinas outlined the evolution of eminent domain, and what situations constituted a a legal of it. The constitution defines the valid use of eminent domain as long as the said property is for public use. Yet over time, this definition morphed into the much more ambiguous “public purpose.” The definition for eminent domain became even more fluid when the supreme court decided it could be used in situations for economic development. The increasingly dexterity of the use of eminent domain eventually led the way for projects such as the Atlantic Yards to come about.

In New York, the defining element for eminent domain became whether the said property was considered “blighted.” Yet this definition was also open to interpretation. Instead of the traditional definition which generally invokes images of clearly unsanitary dilapidated parcels of property, the city imagined other uses of the word. In their eyes, property which was not being utilized towards its potential could fall under this category. Simply exhibiting some wear and tear such as cracked sidewalks, graffiti, ect. could be grounds for eminent domain.

As a child I remember my father explaining to me the idea of eminent domain.I thought it crazy how the government could simply tell you to leave your home on a whim. While the act of eminent domain is more complicated than that, I still have deep reservations about the concept. While it may be generally on the side of progress, Ms. Gelinas’s article points to the many way in which it can be abused, and the catastrophic damage it may cause.

Reading Altshuler’s introduction to his piece to the running theme of mega projects, it is interesting to note there perspective in which he examines the rise of large scale public work’s in America cities. In doing so, he also denotes the difference between American cities and international ones. Moreover, he touches on ground which explains the nature of purely American attitude towards the role of government and the private sector.

America has for some time been titularly the poster boy for capitalistic laizze faire economies. Our Capitalist culture is inherent in not just our economic system, but has manifested itself in socio-cultural theaters as well. Thus the issues of financing public works, and developing expanding cities has very much fit well within this context. Altshula chronicles the history of public financing taking particular notice in the change of attitudes and forms of financing cities undertook. He notes how cities  traditionally utilized private for-profit funds to serve their needs. But, he also contrasts this with the rise of mega projects and the way in which they transformed government spending. Mega projects are inherently more difficult to provide financing. Being the large undertakings in which they are, businesses generally shy away from them. WIth the emergence of projects of such a scale in the later twentieth century, government would have to expand its role in financing and taking responsibility for these public works.

Altshuler pinpoints the 1960s and 1970s as a time where government stepped up its public works project and began to undertake the self described “mega projects.” Yet, after the failure and disappointment of many, he also notes the backlash which these mega projects engendered. In addition, he recalls the great harm and catastrophic effects many of these projects had. One of of the projects he must undoubtedly been have been indirectly referring may be the cross-Bronx expressway. The cross-Bronx as many may know, was constructed through several neighborhoods in the south Bronx. Many of these neighborhoods were devastated both cultural and economically due to the large highway’s unattractive presence in the already economically depressed area.

In response to the number of highly disruptive mega projects such as the cross-Bronx expressway,  Altshuler notes the backlash these works received. In the 1960s and 1970s large grass roots civil movements began to oppose the monolithic projects. Resistance began to serious hamper several mega projects, and resulted in a shift in tactics by public officials. More attention was paid to limit the resistance that these projects would generate within the public populace. Of course this does not necessarily mean producing projects with  a less damaging footprint but rather win the political support and and attempt to lessen their overall visibility with the general public.

As cities grow and prosper, it is almost a certainly they will require some sort of mega project described by Altshuler. Many of these projects afford multitudes of people services, otherwise not available to them. Altshuler takes a specific look of the financing of these projects and the ways in which they come about. In addition, he seems to take a particular notice at the political forces which are at play during the development of these so called mega projects.

Honestly I was confused on why cities would like to avoid public investments. It made more sense to me when the author stated the reasons. Public investments in huge projects will reveal people who play a big part in these projects that don’t want to be known. Projects just may need public assistance as much anymore. I can understand this but I am pretty sure there are other projects that would like the money.

The author states that certain forms of large-scale public investment are very expensive, time consuming, and politically difficult after 1970. I understand for the public government why the cost would deter them from investing and how a time consuming project can negatively affect both the residents and the government. Although it is money being handed out by the government, there can be underlying reasons on why the project is being funded. Also, as a citizen who lives around the area I probably wouldn’t want to live around a mega project.

It is interesting they are mentioning mega project since the area I am doing for my project deals with two mega projects, the Javits Center and the construction of the 7 train station stop. As mentioned in the last paragraph, citizens who live around the area probably do not want to live around a mega project. I know from previous experience how citizens feel about megaprojects. The citizens in the area were complaining on how their standard of living is decreasing.

When the TSA was mentioned, I was reminded of the controversy they had a couple of with the full body scanners as a new mode of airport security. I actually did not know it was created as a reaction to 9/11 though it does make sense when I think about it now. It is funny to me how in the book, the author states that the TSA would need 6.8 billion dollars to by the end of 2002 and it has become one of the government associations people complained about the most. I am not too sure how people still feel about air travel though. I feel like people are definitely less afraid about terrorist attacks since Osama bin Laden is dead now. Last time I went to an airport, there seemed to a lot of traffic. One question I would have is what are the revenues of air transportation in relation to the years after 9/11. Have they decrease, increase, or remain the same level after 9/11?

Although projects like the Javits Center, the Cultural Shed, and the MTA railroad construction are less disruptive on the national level, how citizens feel should still be a major part to be considered. Our era of mega projects is definitely small scale compared to the past where highways would be put in place of old building and slums. In the city, I don’t think more buildings are necessary anymore. Like in Hudson Yards, redevelopment on old neighborhoods would be better than putting a new convention center next to another one.