Here are readings for our discussion on Feb. 24 about the use of public space in New York. This matter will almost certainly extend into the following session with an examination of the use of public space for protest, a topic of present-day concern in light of the ferment we have seen in recent years over police shootings and movements like Occupy Wall Street.
As you know, I want you to view the William H. Whyte hour-long video on observing how New Yorkers use public space. I sent this to you a few weeks ago, and many of you may have already watched it. But just in case, here again is a link to it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FABVlKNnLDVVNFOXpySUhTa3M/view?ts=56a9198f
Now — Discussions of what New York should look like, how it should be developed, what the role of the automobile should be has often been boiled down to a clash between two views. One is represented by Robert Moses, an all-powerful state and city official in the middle of the 20th century, who spearheaded many of the highways and parks that we now have. The other is represented by Jane Jacobs, who lived in Greenwich Village and emphasized the importance of neighborhoods, mixed uses of public space and encouraging people to be out on the street, both for neighborhood liveliness and for safety.
To some degree, this squaring-off between the two, Moses vs. Jacobs, is a bit simplistic. Nonetheless, it is useful for our purposes. So here’s what I want you to read in this regard:
Here is the beginning of Robert Caro’s classic (and very long) book on Moses, “The Power Broker.” These 21 pages can give you a sense of Caro’s main thesis on this most important figure in the development of modern New York:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FABVlKNnLDc2NfMVc1WHB6ZDg/view?ts=56a930ce
There are also these to read:
http://nexus.umn.edu/Courses/Cases/CE5212/F2009/CS3/Moses.pdf (The historian Kenneth Jackson defending Robert Moses)
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/21/the_bible_of_the_modern_american_city_why_the_power_broker_is_still_one_of_our_most_important_books/ (A Salon.com piece on why “The Power Broker” remains important)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities (A quickie look at the seminal work by Jane Jacobs, long cast as Moses’ polar opposite)
http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities (This, too, gives you a sense of Jacobs’s points)
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/17/reviews/jacobs.html (A New York Times review of the Jacobs book in 1961)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/25/books/25cnd-jacobs.html?pagewanted=all (Jane Jacobs’s obituary in 2006)
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/30/obituaries/robert-moses-master-builder-is-dead-at-92.html (Robert Moses’s obituary in 1981)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/arts/design/28pogr.html?pagewanted=all (Rehabilitating Moses after many years when he was cast as a villain)
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/time-for-some-jane-jacobs-revisionism/ (Jane Jacobs revisionism after years of her being cast as practically a saint)
Can the city dictate what may be built and what must be preserved? And is there a conflict between those two goals? The issue comes together in the form of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, which, as the name suggests, designates landmarks and decides whether they must be protected — and how to do that. Inevitably, there are conflicts with developers: How much of the old do we keep? What should be knocked down and what should not? What is the proper role of landmarks preservation?
Here’s a Wikipedia look at the commission and its origins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Landmarks_Preservation_Commission
Even as we speak, there are serious questions about plans by the commission to possibly cut back on properties it is prepared to landmark:
For a year after my New York column ended, I did a series of interviews with New York figures called “Breaking Bread.” These were conducted over meals. the purpose being simply to have an easy conversation with an interesting person (and, while I was at it, briefly include what we ate). This one was with a man named Kent Barwick, a leading figure in the preservation movement, and how Jackie Kennedy Onassis helped save Grand Central Terminal:
Here are photos of the old Pennsylvania Station, a glorious building knocked down in 1963 and replaced by atrocity we now have. Take a look at once was:
An issue somewhat related to preservation is the degree to which neighborhoods should have control over what kind of commerce takes place in their midst. The proliferation of chain stores and bank branches throughout the city, especially in Manhattan, has troubled many New Yorkers. Here are two stories on how one neighborhood, the Upper West Side, has sought to handle this issue, with help from the city government:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/nyregion/zoning-proposal-on-upper-west-side-could-reshape-commerce.html (NYTimes piece on limiting commerce)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EFD7133AF93AA15755C0A9649D8B63 (The City Council votes on this issue)
Now, when does private space effectively become public space? This is an issue that arises more often than you might think.
Here are articles on a recent controversy (two years ago) in Flushing, Queens, over whether elderly Korean men could sit for hours on end at a local McDonalds. The third article is especially thoughtful.
Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan, the main area of the Occupy Wall Street protests a few years ago, is an interesting example as well — a space built with private funds but turned to public use.
You all are probably familiar with Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. Its interior is supposed to be public space. Instead, Mr. Trump sought to take it over for his own purposes:
And the city a couple of weeks ago said to him: No, you can’t do that:
One more thing, for now: Do our smartphones and similar devices affect how we use public space. An interesting piece in The New York Times Magazine examines whether technology drives us apart in public spaces. The author of this article thinks not. Read, too, the comments from readers accompanying the piece. Some are provocative in their own right):
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/magazine/technology-is-not-driving-us-apart-after-all.html?_r=0
