Reading about the inequality of the post-Sandy response was shocking to me. I can’t believe Wall Street would stoop so low and take billions from people who literally lost everything they had. One of my teachers lost her home and most of her possessions–my sister’s ex-boyfriend had a tree fall on his house and nearly kill his parents. How could people really be so selfish as to take aid from these people who need it the most? And my town had a relatively wealthy middle-class population–multi-thousand dollar Sweet 16s were the norm in high school. I can’t imagine how much worse it must have been for areas with lower-income populations. It’s disgusting to see how the city puts profit over its people.

In terms of the readings compared to each other, I feel that Greenberg’s and Murphy’s works complemented each other well in that they addressed many of the same issues with different information and perspectives. Greenberg’s critique of the shortsightedness of the “profit”-seekers who insisted on developing New Orleans on the wetlands especially highlights the shortsighted and potentially disastrous nature of the SIRR’s waterfront development plan and its so-called “flexible-adaptation pathway”. Granted that was a completely different city with a completely different geography, and the environmental and sustainability issues involved with developing wetlands are certainly different to building in a flood-prone, beach area. Still, the concept is disturbingly similar: building in a potentially dangerous area with nonchalance and disregard for what the area’s future residents may have to face. The parallels Greensberg draws between the two cities makes Pinksy’s own remarks regarding the shortsightedness of the plan–“Let’s look for a way to buy time, and then our successors will address the next increment”–seem eerily reminiscent of the “I’ll Be Gone, You’ll Be Gone” sentiment prevalent in the finance industry.

The relation Greenberg made between New York’s post 9/11 policy and how it affected New Orleans’ policy also reminded me of how New York City often seems to set precedents for other cities around the world. It’s kind of scary that a city with such careless treatment of its middle and lower classes often sets the precedent for cities nationwide and worldwide. New York City’s Wall Street-focused response to 9/11 set the precedent for New Orleans; the gentrifying High Line inspired cities worldwide to build their own versions. While this may not have been intentional, I feel Greenberg’s paper highlights how dangerous it is for a city so riddled with inequality and political injustice to be held as ideal by other cities of the world.

On that note, I feel this article detailing how NYC become a “hub” for startups and “tech angels” and how other cities may emulate this success is relevant to our conversation. If other cities choose to emulate New York City’s wealth and “success” by implementing similar policies focused more on real estate and gentrification rather than treating its residents well, it could have far-reaching and horrifying implications for lower and middle-class people worldwide.

Florida, Richard. “Is New York City the New Model for Startup Cities?” CityLab, November 17 2014.

I agree with many of your arguments about the burden Ms. Burden was on the city. Your analysis on the parallels between her and Moses are spot on; the scale of her projects were enormous and mostly only served the “public” that shared her elitist tastes. Her micromanaging of projects was ridiculous, and her perfectionism was futile and completely wasteful.

There are some points you make, however, that I have to disagree with, namely with your assertion that she overlooked projects’ impacts and placed “much more” concern on “how things looked”. On the contrary, I believe she was very aware of how her actions would impact the city, as evidenced by how she handled the rezoning of Harlem’s 125th Street.

Considering her remark of how there was literally “nowhere” to eat, I agree that her shallowness was definitely a significant factor in her approach. However, considering the way she argued that the rezoning would be for the benefit of Harlem and the they’ll-have-affordable-housing speak and the “charming” grin she gave when questioned about it would affect the Harlem residents, I’m sure she was aware of what impact the rezoning would really have.

Still, overall I think you nailed it with your analysis of Burden’s impact on the city.

I feel Loughran does a good job of highlighting some of the hypocrisies present in upper middle class society: how the people who visit the High Line devour anything “artisan”, when the High Line’s 5-artist limit is actually damaging to artists; how many of the High Line visitors value food that is “local” and “organic”, when the High Line was built with wood from rainforests; how sleeping is regarded as a luxury when perpetuated in the elite High Line atmosphere, but regarded as a danger and eyesore when done anywhere else by those who have no choice; how people come to experience the “wild” nature of the High Line with carefully manipulated foliage and the erasure of “assaults” on “quality of life”.

In terms of it being a “public space”, I certainly have to agree with Loughran when he says that it’s not. I went to the High Line with a friend for an assignment during my first semester; initially we were laughing and being silly, but we kept bumping into people and running out of space and kind of had to resign to just calmly walking. Because it’s true–the only three things you can really do on the High Line are walk, buy, and rest. Anyone who wants to do anything else is totally out of the park’s intended audience, and pretty much completely out of luck.

Actually, the impression Loughran gives of the High Line (i.e., large groups of white / similar people doing the same, leisurely things) to me seems eerily similar Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society. Everyone is encouraged to do the same leisurely activities under constant government surveillance, with the government encouraging mindlessness to the point where people are forbidden to read and encouraged to consume relaxants / mood enhancers regularly, especially if the alternative is confrontation or being unhappy (supported by the moral mantra “it’s better to give a gram than a damn”). Obviously the High Line’s conditions aren’t that extreme, but it does give off the same sort of feeling of groupthink and general societally encouraged, organized mindlessness.

Following that, reading about the Community Parks Initiative made me hopeful and nervous at the same time. Yes, parks that many low-income children rely on for stimulation are being revamped–but is it possible this part of some other grand scheme to bring money into New York “for the good of the city”, that these parks are being fixed for someone other than the people who actually rely on them? Amanda Burden, for example, touted how the High Line would be “the greatest public space in the world” not too long after she approved a universally “beneficial” plan to gut Harlem of its historically significant commerce and community.

There is an article from The Observer that acts as a source of optimism, though. It details how Bloomberg’s team fought against the accusation that, compared to de Blasio’s parks initiative, Bloomberg’s park renewals were concerned only with bringing in wealthy visitors. Considering how the Bloomberg administration opposed this idea–notably by arguing how Bloomberg did not focus solely on “tourist destinations” by arguing that one of the places he revamped was Coney Island–this news could be critical to turning public awareness and opinion on development projects in New York.

Barkan, Ross. “Bloomberg Defends Legacy as de Blasio Touts New Parks Initiative.” The Observer. October 2014.

I find it interesting that you and Jalissa both cited paternalism–in your case, how Moses was part of a “class and generation that was not about helping one’s fellow man” and how Jacobs’ motivation is different than Moses’ due to her not being a “rich white man”. I have to disagree on this point somewhat. Although that may have been true during his early life, Caro describes how Moses idealistically and stubbornly fought for projects that would better the people before the Depression made him a jobless husband with three mouths to feed (Wait Until Evening)–if anything, I would say his need for money–i.e., his not not being a rich white man–may ultimately be what led him to shift away from for-the-people politics to become the unrelenting authoritarian he ultimately became known for.

I do agree, however, that the policies he acted upon were more in the interesting of efficiency and self-satisfaction than care for the actual people of the city. I also agree that the Cold War may have played a part in his more “selfish” policies; the fact that he became public enemies with FDR, who is remembered for his “socialist” New Deal policies, certainly suggests some aversion to socialist policy, or at least a preference for its opposite (Wait Until Evening).

I also agree that Jacob’s more community-driven policies would be more “acceptable” in today’s world than Moses’ (at least by the general public–those who made millions off of policies likes Moses’ would probably disagree). As Jalissa pointed out, efforts at establishing participatory budget policies in New York City have proven citizens’ interest in being involved with their communities; people who were previously inactive regarding voting and politics taking more of an interest in their community (Sangha, “Putting in Their 2 Cents”). Indeed, although they may not have been initially, Moses’ motivations for changing the city as he did were largely self-serving.