Urban planning is a vision of the future that proposes to be essential for creating the best quality of life for the public. Although at times the definition and method of achieving “quality of life” conflict, such as the contrasting views of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs in regards to urban development, there are some common threads in building a successful city. In 1996, a comprehensive long-term approach to planning for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan area was published by Robert Yaro and Tony Hiss for the Regional Plan Association with the mission to improve the quality of life and economic competiveness. “A Region at Risk drew heavily from both Jacobs and Moses in pushing for a new, postindustrial form of urbanism geared towards enhancing the region’s competitiveness…(Larson, 61).” A Region at Risk addressed the threat of a city in decline. “Traffic congestion, environmental degradation, sprawl, inadequate infrastructure, and under-investment in human capital all contributed to a growing inability to compete in the global economy (Larson, 61).” In an effort to improve the quality of life, emphasis was put on the “Three E’s” – economy, environment, and equity. The plan addressed the metropolitan region, not just New York City because of the inter-dependence between cities and the suburbs to create an economically stable and prosperous economy. Coming out of the recession from 1989-1992, this plan created optimism for the potential of the metropolitan area to compete with the global market. Some of the strategies for recovery include building new rail connections, revitalizing downtown and suburban centers, and reform outdated institutions and regulatory systems (Yaro & Hiss, 8). Emphasis on technology, arts and cultural institutions, universities and research institutions is necessary to attract the human resources for success. This plan requires the determination and efficiency of Robert Moses and the dedication to preserving neighborhood characteristics that make the region an attractive place to live.
“Beginning in the 1990s, gentrification emerged as a calculated component of the intentional and methodical production of urban environments amenable to global corporations and their highly compensated workers (Larson, 73). But while gentrification improves quality of life and makes urban areas more attractive, it displaces people who can no longer afford to live there. The article Is Manhattan for Everyone?, addressed the unsuccessful attempts by former Mayor Bloomberg to create affordable housing. Despite incentives such as tax breaks, subsidies, and density bonuses in exchange for including affordable units in their projects, developers did not always provide affordable housing because the agreements were optional. The current mayor, DeBlasio, wants to guarantee that affordable housing units are required in developments that take advantage of rezoning. There is some controversy about whether such restrictions would hinder the building boom that existed under Bloomberg’s administration. This is reminiscent of some of the criticism Jane Jacobs had of Robert Moses’ building developments for the middle class and wealthy in the 1950s. Maintaining affordable housing in New York City seems to be a constant dilemma as the city progresses.
In a speech former Mayor Bloomberg made September 12, 2013, he outlined New York City’s progress on economic recovery since 9/11 and it mirrors the sentiment of a Nation at Risk, especially with his quote, “The future is not preordained. It is ours to shape and to strengthen as best we can.” The ability for urban planners to address and shape the future of New York City is vital when reacting to problems such as extreme weather, terrorism, crime, or national recession. The challenge is to improve the economy, environment, and equity of New York City while still providing affordable housing for lower income families.
Works Cited
Bloomberg, Michael. 9/11 Memorial, New York. 12 Sept. 2013. Speech.
Larson, Scott. Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. Print.
Pomorski, Chris. “Is Manhattan for Everyone? The Pied-à-terre and the ‘poor Door'” Observer. N.p., 19 Feb. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2015. <http://observer.com/2014/02/is-manhattan-for-everyone-the-pied-a-terre-and-the-poor-door/>.
Yaro, Robert D. A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. Washington, D.C.: Island, 1996. Print.
Sarah,
I loved reading your post and the way you explain the issues laid out by urban planners in such a clear manner is amazing. What really stood out to me however is this idea of improving the three E’s while still providing affordable housing to residents of New York City. As you stated the efforts by our former mayor did not always work due to the option of affordable housing being optional. However I would like to add that even this idea of “affordable housing” could be an issue.
The article you shared, Is Manhattan for Everyone?, serves as a perfect eye opener to the idea of “affordable housing”. As the article states ” in 2013, AMI for a family of four was $85,900″. However what it doesn’t share is how the AMI is actually calculated for NYC. I think that for this discussion it is import to share HOW the AMI is calculated for New York. When you visit the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and look at the Income Limits Summary it shares that the area is comprised of “Bronx County, New York; Kings County, New York; New York County, New York; Putnam County, New York; Queens County, New York; Richmond County, New York; Rockland County**, New York; and Westchester County**, New York”. In other words this means that the income of wealthier areas – such as Westchester County – are factored into determining what should be “affordable” for a family in New York.
As you stated, maintaining affordable housing seems to be a constant dilemma over the years. While I agree that many attempts at increasing affordable housing failed, I would also like to add that in order to fully address the sustainability of New York, we must also address the definition of “affordable” that we currently have. Planning for the future is by no means an easy task, but instead of focusing on new policies and ideas perhaps we should focus on improving the methods we have now.