In the Region at Risk article, we are given a slew of proposed ideas by the RPA to fix the Metropolitan area. Through their idea of the 3 E’s (Equity, Environment and Economy), we can focus on several aspects to improve the area and reverse the downward turn of previous years.
Let’s note that their first regional plan centered around getting federal money to build highways, parks and bridges and was helmed by Rockefeller, Austin Tobin, and …. Robert Moses. Their second plan in 1968 was created to deal with the suburban sprawl and urban decline caused by the metropolitan area’s focus on automobiles – wait! Automobiles… Moses… sound familiar? It should.
So, the same commission that had Robert Moses achieve its goals later went back and had to fix the problems caused by the automobile. Okay, so they’ve at least got a plan: by focusing on our strengths technology, arts and culture, and our jobs in the cities. Woah, déjà vu – that sounds like Moses again.
They say, if we had more attractive communities, invested more in schools, rail systems, community design and natural resources, our transition to the post-Cold War era would have been easier and run its course – supposedly. Yeah, that’s nice but people couldn’t have been planning for the post-Cold War in the Cold War when they thought they were going to get nuked. We’re told we need to make the city more attractive for the “creative people who drive the economy” (i.e. upper-class white people).
In the article, we are told we have “two alternatives”. Two. Who has the right to say we only have two options? I reject that. Professor Larson says in his book, pg. 61, “One particularly persistent tactic for attempting…. To overcome opposition in recent New York City planning history has been the assertion that the city’s literal future depends on the successful implementation of specific projects or plans.” So, yes, New York City (or, in this case, the greater metropolitan area) has its issues – that doesn’t mean we’re going to die if we don’t follow the RPA.
In Chapter 5 of Professor Larson’s book, he peruses over the idea of “the narrative of threat”. Plans to improve the metropolitan area are given by the RPA, whose board members are made up of CEOS in real estate, energy firms, media outlets, etc. People who stand to gain from these initiatives, whom Larson refers to as “this elite group of globally oriented, predominantly white-collar industry leaders”.
So, maybe we need to question what the RPA’s definition of the “greater good” is?
I agree with that we should be skeptical of the third regional plan. There can be more than two alternatives. The quote that you used for Professor Larson’s book explains how people think that the future of the city depends on the successfully implement a specific plan is the most important part, when the future rarely ever goes as planned.
The fact that the plan is to make the city more attractive for the “creative people who drive the economy” and that the board members of the RPA are made up of CEOs is interesting. This shows that even though these plans have tried to bring in more equality, the people behind them are all from an elite group who decide what is the best course of action for people who are not involved in the planning process.
One point you made was how Robert Moses’ influences affected the first and second regional plans, and the reason for that is that he was the great ‘visionary’ of the time, and even though they were trying to fix the problems that the first regional plan caused, they still brought in Moses’ ideas.
One thing you could have done is brought in some outside sources to back up your argument and show how the third regional plan might not go as planned.
Hey John, great post, I really liked your point about investigating the members of the RPA and questioning their motives. When anyone sets forth an agenda for the future of a city, the more scrutiny it undergoes the better, although the positives of the proposals shouldn’t be forgotten either. Their specific focus on the 3 E’s may or may not be a good idea for the future of New York, but I feel that their general approach to being cognizant of New York’s issues when going forward with a new project or proposal is a change for the better. That being said, I think there has to be a balance so that this cognizance of things such as the environmental impact won’t be so constricting so as to critically impair ANY future projects for fear of “stepping on someone’s toes” so to speak.
Also, you didn’t seem to explicitly say this but I think you imply that the 3 E’s system wouldn’t have been helpful as a solution to what we faced with the changing face of the market post-Cold War, to which I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t think anyone could have planned to know the impact that new technologies such as the internet would have on the world markets, and a focus on economy, environment, and equity would have been too abstract a notion to help prepare for the changing reality.