I think your blog post was very well written Sophia, and didn’t just sum up the readings; it was very helpful and informative! Although I myself am not convinced that the sea levels will rise drastically, but I do think we should be prepared in case they do and also for any future major storms. Like you, I also originally thought it was fine to put structures near the water, but after the readings I realized that it is not such a good thing. The city is compromising safety for business, and the lower income neighborhoods are being neglected, with respect to environmental safety. You summed it up well when you wrote “No one is going to come to these areas and provide these technological barriers without some form of income. If they can grab land and transform it to a new real estate market then the technology will certainly follow. However, this just ends up being a loop where the poor are pushed out and once again at the mercy of violent storms.”. I agree that it is not feasible to draw people back from the waterline, so that left me thinking about possible alternatives. The flexible adaptation pathway mentioned by Jarrett Murphy in “The Flood Next Time” seems to be a good idea. The many protective measures is a good idea, since it’s not likely the people will leave. It was interesting to hear about the different ideas proposed in the article you posted. I hadn’t heard about these ideas before, nor about the different measures the city was taking. However, like you mentioned, I’m thinking that the poor will fall through the cracks in all of these efforts, and that mainly the wealthy will benefit. The Big U does seem like a cool idea, but like you said, it would probably cater to the wealthy. Also, it doesn’t address the current problems such as toxins. However, it could be a step in the right direction for protecting the city from future storms. Your post was very thought-provoking!

It was really interesting to read your blog post and the Vanity Fair article you posted Miriam! I understand your point when you wrote “Obviously it never hurt anyone to live in an aesthetically pleasing environment, but the city government is supposed to help it’s citizens; wouldn’t money spent on these starchitects have been put to much better use funding, say, schools or other public services?”, and I think it is a valid point. I think she was a little too fixated on the way things looked, especially when it got to the point where benches had to be a certain size and be at certain angles. At the same time, I do appreciate the fact that she wanted the city to look nice. When I was reading about the little plaza areas and her ideas regarding their design, it reminded me of a plaza near W 52 St, I believe. It’s small, but I think it’s a nice little place to sit and eat halal food, for example. Like Burden wanted, it has benches that face each other, trees and plants, and is an open place. But I digress.

Even though I agree with your point that I quoted above Miriam, I disagree with your claim that she “is little more than the female, modern-day version of Robert Moses”. The impression that I got from the reading is that she believed in using both Moses’ and Jacobs’ ideas. “She talked of building like Moses with Jacobs in mind” (Larson p 136) and argued that “Great architecture keeps the city young, vibrant, and competitive” (Larson p 134). I think she did care about the people. I’m sure she had her own agenda and hidden motivations, but I still think she focused so much on aesthetics because she believed it would make the city better and more vibrant, as Jacobs recommended. I think I even tend to agree with her point of view, although I do think she went too far in her fixation with starchitects and regulations. While I realize it is possible for someone to say one thing (such as she supports Jacobs’ ideas) and act in another way, I think she genuinely cared about the city and making it healthier. Professor Larson notes that although Burden “trumpeted Jacobs’ influence on contemporary planners and urban form…instead, her inspiration stemmed from…William ‘Holly’ Whyte” (Larson p 137). Jacobs’ ideas and Whyte’s ideas don’t seem all that different, but regardless of which of those two she leaned towards, I don’t think she leaned more towards Moses’ ideas.

This was an interesting read because as I read “A Region at Risk”, it was easy to get caught up in the argument and narrative they were pushing. First of all, I had to keep reminding myself that this was written in 1996, and not more recently, and that they were writing in response to problems they saw back then. But, it was easy to get swept along by what they were saying about how “the economy faced new pressures from technology and global competition” and how the “communities were threatened by sweeping economic and demographic changes” (A Region at Risk, p 4). They even had me further nodding my head along with what they were saying when thy discussed the declining income and employment opportunities, since in another class we’ve been discussing the relationship between poverty and education, and how poverty is a major barrier for kids getting a good education. When they mentioned how our economy was threatened by technological developments and other factors, it made me think of the scene in “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” where Charlie’s father was laid off from the toothpaste factory because he was replaced by machines. I was even worried when they described how the region’s quality of life is in decline (p 5).

It wasn’t until I read Professor Larson’s book that I realized I had fallen into the trap of believing everything I read and accepting what they asserted as fact. In his book, Professor Larson wrote “a challenge for promoters of any particular plan is to convince the greater public, by producing superior narratives, that theirs is the preferred vision for the future” (Larson p 59). They put together the narrative that the city was being threatened, and the success and future of the city depended on the city implementing their solutions. Just as how court trials are a competition between lawyers to put forth the most convincing narrative/story of what happened, so also do planners work to put forth the most convincing argument for why we need their plans to save the city. While I think the Third Regional Plan has valid points, such as we need improved schools, better regulation of land, and an economy that can keep up with the rest of the world, I do think they played on people’s fears and tried to manipulate them. I understand that they were still experiencing some effects of the 1989-1992 recession, and were worried about the future of the city, but I do not think the city was in as dire a situation as they claimed.

Professor Larson noted that “this elite group of globally oriented, predominately white-collar industry leaders recommended plan prescriptions and strategies that prioritized their needs” (p 67). I believe that the planners genuinely wanted to help the city and had good intentions, but I also think that they manipulated facts and policies to benefit themselves and/or their allies. I know it’s impossible to come up with a plan that would help everyone, but it seems even harder when all of the people researching the problem and proposing solutions are of the same demographics. At the same time though, I understand what they were trying to do and why. I agree with their assessment that not just one issue can be addressed individually at a time. I agree with their assessment that we must “rebuild the three “E’s” through investments and policies that integrate and build on our advantages, rather than focusing on just one of the “E’s” to the detriment of others” (A Region at Risk, p 6).

The RPA had a grim vision of what New York would look like, and I don’t think New York ended up as badly as they predicted. According to the U.S. Business Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment rates in 2015 decreased from what the were in 2014. Also, the hourly wages for certain jobs are higher in the New York area than the average wages for the United States. Although this is only looking at one year, out of the 20 years that have passed since the RPA published their third regional plan, I still like to think that this shows hope for the New York City area and that New York is more resilient than they thought. According to YIMBY, the fastest growing real estate trade publication in New York, New York City is growing much faster than anticipated, although the RPA expected NY to decline. I know that an increase in population doesn’t necessarily mean a city is flourishing, but I think it is a sign that the city is doing well, since people keep coming. The authors of YIMBY write “The greater New York region gained 526,443 people between 2010 and 2014” and that the city is “undergoing an urban renaissance”. One of the problems, though, is that the housing demand cannot keep up with the growth. I think the authors make a good point when they write “Continued growth is a good thing, but with over 20 million people now living in the New York metropolitan region, the city cannot keep moving forward without a comprehensive regional planning policy that covers infrastructure and housing in both New York and New Jersey.” I do not have any solutions to offer though.

 

http://www.bls.gov/regions/new-york-new-jersey/summary/blssummary_newyorkcity.pdf

http://newyorkyimby.com/2015/04/the-new-york-metropolitan-area-now-has-over-20-million-people.html

 

While Jane Jacobs seems to have had good ideas that I agree with partially, I have a few critiques/comments regarding them.

She lists the problems that the current attitude toward city planning resulted in, such as the decay of cities, and she says what she thinks one of the solutions is, which is diversity, but she doesn’t necessarily say how to implement this solution and get to that point. Yes, she lists four conditions that she thinks will lead to diversity, but these conditions don’t seem entirely feasible. She claims that diversity will improve cities economically and socially, and that diversity can be created with shorter blocks, diverse buildings, districts that serve more than one purpose, and dense concentrations of people, but how can this really be implemented? I do think she is on the right track here, and that these qualities would definitely improve neighborhoods, but I don’t see how this can be done in poorer, monotonous neighborhoods, as she puts it. I suppose one can imitate Robert Moses and replace the old, worn down buildings with different ones, but it doesn’t seem like a good idea. It would require money and work, and the government and local banks don’t seem too interested in Jacobs’ ideas. It just seems like it would require a lot of upheaval, with the uprooting of many people. Also, certain neighborhoods already have certain stigmas attached to them, and i’m not sure that improving the neighborhood in these ways would remove the stigma, so other people would want to go there. Maybe I’m just cynical, but I don’t think her ideas would work in these types of neighborhoods, despite it having worked in the North End. It just seems easier said than done. It seems hard to make areas diverse, that aren’t already diverse. But, when I think of certain successful districts, they do meet her requirements.

I also have another issue. Though this may seem minor, I did not agree with her assessment that cities are better than sub-urban and rural areas, and that “urban life was really better and the maximum number of people possible deserved to live it” (Halle, p 240). I think this is actually subjective, and is different for everyone, yet it seems as if she is trying to pass it off as fact. She argued that cities should be made available for more people to love there, and that cities should be more densely populated while sub-urban areas should be less densely populated.I read the article mentioned by Halle written by Nicolai Ouroussoff. I understand that he was a critic of Jacobs, and that he misunderstood and misrepresented much of what she wrote, yet I think he raised a valid point when he wrote “Nor did Ms. Jacobs really offer an adequate long-term solution for the boom in urban population, which cannot be solved simply through incremental growth in existing neighborhoods.” Personally, I would rather live in a sub-urban or rural area. But personal opinion aside, I am wondering how cities would keep up if large numbers of people were to abandon the sub-urbs/country for cities. Cities already seem overcrowded, so where would everyone be put? I would hate for the city to lose green areas so new apartments & etc. could be put up, but the only other solution seem to be to build upwards even more.

I find it interesting that much of her main ideas are misrepresented by various groups, and her ideas are taken out of context and twisted, such as the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation did. Although I didn’t understand everything she wrote, I did get the main ideas. Although I question a few of her ideas, I do think she had the right idea when she focused on what makes cities effective, and when she advocated for “planning that recognizes and respects local and market-based characteristics of neighborhoods.” (Halle, 240). I respect that she wanted to preserve the sense of community, and to work with communities. Maybe I was too critical in this post, and it’s quite possible I misunderstood what she was saying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/weekinreview/30jacobs.html?_r=0