Amanda Burden is known to value the aesthetics of the architecture within the city. She needs buildings and parks to look a certain way, and is apparently ready to spend more money and time simply to perfect that. Both Burden and Whyte believe that “what is good for business, is good for the city.” Following this idea, Burden goes on to build buildings designed by starchitects, believing that this will bring up the value of surrounding land and introduce new businesses into the area. The prime example of this is the Highline, where after the abandoned railroad was renovated, hotels and luxury apartments sprung up around it.
Her logic is correct. Renovating or building new, iconic buildings do raise the value of surrounding land and bring in businesses, which subsequently leads to job and a better economy., however, it is important to keep in mind what jobs she brought in. Yes beautiful buildings can attract people to move into New York, but the only people capable of living or working in those environment seems to be those white-collared workers who were well off to being with. With this in mind, I don’t believe that her plans correlates with the idea of “building like Moses with Jacobs in mind”. Jane Jacobs wanted a city for the people. Not just a segment of people in New York, but for all the people in New York, in all different kinds of city.
Perhaps it was because Burden came from a well connected and well to do family and circles, but she can’t seem to comprehend the life style and needs of those who lives lose to the poverty line. Although I don’t believe that she should be criticized by for her preference of artistically designed architecture, she should be criticized for not building with Jacobs in mind.
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/6005/index1.html
Leave a Reply