Climate change continues to become a huge issue in the United States, particularly in coastal cities. New York City has already seen evidence of this through Hurricane Sandy and “the winter nor’easters that have always posed a more common threat than hurricanes to New York City” (Murphy), as all the readings point out. Thus, it has become of utmost importance that New York City and other coastal cities assess their preparedness and relief plans for such instances. Following disasters, with a spotlight on Hurricane Sandy, a lot of action has been going on in New York City; the problem, however, is that the main focus of this action has not necessarily been on the people in need following the disasters, but on more economic and real estate related ventures.

In Disaster Inside the Disaster: Hurricane Sandy and Post-crisis Redevelopment, author Miriam Greenberg calls attention to lack-luster recovery efforts following major disaster by referencing events in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and New York City following Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Greenberg emphasizes that, while recovery efforts were not ideal, some areas received greater relief than others, linking this observation to socioeconomic status. She claims that “At each stage, low-income, disproportionately non-white communities, workers, and small businesses, the primary victims of disaster, were further disadvantaged in receiving aid, while wealthy, disproportionately white neighborhoods and high-end industries were privileged” (46). This is troublesome because it seems as though the people who need the aid the most are brushed aside, while those who could afford to invest more in their restoration efforts are rewarded for having more in the bank. This is not to say that the wealthy do not deserve any sort of financial help following natural disasters, but this disproportionate allocation of relief funds more deeply wedges a gap between the wealthy and poor.

But why are higher income neighborhoods being granted more funds for repair than lower income neighborhoods? It seems like the answer to this lies, once again, in the focus on real estate. Wealthy neighborhoods are being rebuilt at a much faster rate than poorer neighborhoods because it will help the economic status of the area. Contrastingly, lower income neighborhoods, like New Dorp (listed as one of the lower income affected areas after Hurricane Sandy in the Associated Press- NORC Center for Public Affairs Research Sandy relief report) in Staten Island, as mentioned in Criticism Continues of New York City’s Management of Sandy Recovery by Mara Gay and Josh Dawsey. This Wall Street Journal article comments that victims of the devastation of Hurricane Sandy are still waiting to see any sort of relief funds three and a half years after the disaster. It is appalling that a blind eye is being turned to people who need help the most, despite the fact that “the fate of $51 bullion in post-Sandy recovery aid is undecided” (Greenberg 46).

It seems silly for a city to focus on trying to develop new projects following disasters, rather than help its citizens clean up. With that being said, I was surprised that I was not already aware of Mayor Bloomberg’s attempts to build a super Ferris wheel on Staten Island, rather than discuss the city’s repairs before reading Green is the New Brown: “Old School Toxics” and Environmental Gentrification on a New York City Waterfront. The topics brought up in this article were quite perplexing; how could a city try to masquerade a bunch of real estate developments as protection for the city? It seemed completely ridiculous, especially being that another disaster like Hurricane Sandy would result in a whole new set of damages to these new constructions that would need to be repaired. The whole situation seems a bit analogous to the water contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan. I just feel that the city should focus more on better protecting itself and its citizens and providing any aid possible to the citizens, rather than focusing on economic gain.

The entire disaster relief system is very confusing to me, and these readings really made me question whether or not the city’s government has the peoples’ best interests front and center.

 

Outside Sources:

Associated Press- NORC Center for Public Affairs Research Sandy relief report: http://www.apnorc.org/pdfs/sandy/sandy%20phase%202%20report_final.pdf

Criticism Continues of New York City’s Management of Sandy Recovery

http://www.wsj.com/articles/criticism-continues-of-new-york-citys-management-of-sandy-recovery-1436464778

 

And these are some interesting articles on the Flint Water Crisis, in case anyone was interested:

https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1XqND4uQnHT7o2u0URWuYQOeaUnsACVQnvxz8UlXvBGs&font=Georgia-Helvetica&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=650

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303003

All city planners bring their own personal style into their policies; Robert Moses mostly focused on an automobile centered future, while Jane Jacobs preached diversity. Amanda Burden, New York City’s chief planner under the Bloomberg administration, approached city planning from an aesthetic point of view. Although her policies were a mix-and-match collection of Moses’s and Jacobs’s theories, Burden’s policies were much more concerned with how things looked, rather than their impact. One must address whether or not these seemingly superficial values were actually worth the trouble it took to implement them.

To summarize Amanda Burden’s policies, “Burden brought to her position an aesthetic imperative, a distinctly high-brow sense of what constitutes good design merged with an appreciation for the Jacobsian notion of street vitality and a commitment to enhancing the vibrancy of New York City’s streets and open spaces” (Larson 134). Despite her “Jacobsian” approach, Burden seems to have adopted quite a heavy helping of Moses-esque qualities, mainly in the scale of her projects and whom they would actually benefit. I will touch on this a little bit later.

As mentioned in Design as a Civic Virtue, the ninth chapter in Professor Scott Larson’s book, Building Like Moses With Jacobs In Mind, Burden seemed to go above and beyond her duties as chief planner. She “micromanaged” projects, “insist[ing] that benches be rearranged, specific types of paving stones be used, or that seat heights, depths, and widths conform to exacting measurements” (Larson 140). Her excessive attention to detail and insistence on “good design” not only delayed many projects, but they made the projects much more expensive than they needed to be as a result of these delays. She also appointed “starchitects” to design New York City’s projects, a decision that hiked up the cost of completing these projects. In this sense, I feel that Burden was extremely wasteful in her position as chief planner and unnecessarily cost the city money that could have been put into more meaningful projects, rather than choosing the perfect bench and positioning it at just the right angle. I could be a bit overly judgmental of Burden at this point, but it becomes hard to overlook her background as a rich white woman when she so carelessly tacks on extra costs to projects that seem so superficial.

In terms of Burden’s background and approach to money, it seems that Burden closely parallels Moses. To clarify, I mean that she seems to have chosen projects that would benefit the wealthy, much like Robert Moses did with the construction of highways. An example of this is with the High Line, a set of elevated freight tracks turned public park. Although it seems like Burden’s pitch for the repurposing of the tracks would be a good undertaking for all residents of the city, as it would provide a new public space in New York City, the project seems to have benefited the wealthy. Much like the creation of Central Park, the creation of the High Line as a public park raised property values and real estate costs greatly. This is supported in Patrick McGeehan’s New York Times article, entitled The High Line Isn’t Just a Sight to See; It’s Also an Economic Dynamo and a report by the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). McGeehan wrote that “Amanda Burden, the city’s planning director, emphasized the boost to property values, saying that in one building that abuts the lower section of the High Line, the price of apartments had doubled since the park opened, to about $2,000 a square foot,” and the NYCEDC reports that, as of 2011, the median market value within five minutes of the High Line has increased one hundred three percent since 2003. So while the High Line served as a boost to the real estate of New York City, this project also seems to further separate New York City’s wealthy from the poor, as now only the wealthy can afford to live near the once decrepit High Line.

(NYCEDC)

            Of course, one cannot criticize Burden without acknowledging the positive impacts some of her projects. To relate this back to the High Line, it must be recognized that High Line has created a great deal of revenue for the city in terms of tourism and investment in the area surrounding the park. Furthermore, Burden’s sitting space policies should not be overlooked. While, yes, it seems like people in today’s age seem to go to any lengths to avoid interacting with one another, some instances of seating in public spaces contest this. For example, one can consider the Red Steps in Times Square. The “glowing red glass amphitheater-style staircase” (Chung) “allows [visitors to the city to have] an amazing view of Times Square from the top of the steps—16-feet above street level—for free” (Chung). From every time I have visited Times Square, I always notice that the steps are overflowing with tourists and city residents alike, all of whom are interacting with one another, sharing stories and offering to snap pictures of one another. Even though I do not agree with a great deal of what Burden stood for, I can definitely see the value in her sitting space policies, as they make the city a more closely knit and hospitable place.

Overall, I think Amanda Burden was a greater burden to the city that an asset. Some of her projects seem to have been very superficial, and her attention to detail did not allow her to look at the big picture of the city as a whole. Furthermore, she cost the city a lot of money with her vision of “good design.”

 

Outside Sources:

(Chung) http://gothamist.com/2008/10/17/stepping_up_new_times_square_tkts_b.php#photo-1

(McGeehan) http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/nyregion/with-next-phase-ready-area-around-high-line-is-flourishing.html?referer&_r=1

(NYCEDC) http://www.nycedc.com/podcast/19-economic-impact-parks

Kirsten, you have once again written a very thought-provoking blog. After reading all the blogs for this week, yours stood out to me again. I really enjoyed the way you narrated the evolution of your thoughts as you analyzed each reading. You presented your thoughts really nicely and clearly.

I agree that it became very easy to follow long and agree with the considerations in “ A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area” by Robert D. Yaro and Tony Hiss; it seems as though everyone jumps behind a cause the moment someone mentions education for the children. I agree that the turmoil the city was in was clearly exaggerated at the time. I also agree that this realization did not occur during the “A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area” readings, but during Professor Larson’s “Planning and the Narrative of Threat” from Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City.

After reading “Planning and the Narrative of Threat,” I, like Kirsten, was able to realize that the “the sky is falling” style claims were purposely shaped that way to inspire fear in the city’s residents so that the plan could be approved. I will acknowledge the truth in Kirsten’s comment that the Third Regional Plan brought up some valid issues, “such as we need improved schools, better regulation of land, and an economy that can keep up with the rest of the world” (Baker), I can’t help but feel that the way the planners tried to sell the Third Regional Plan cheapened the points and diminished their integrity; I believe that people should be given accurate and complete information before they can support a plan. This is not to say, however, that I would not like to see some aspects of the plan succeed, I just wish a more honest approach was taken.

I liked that Kirsten brought up the U.S. Business Bureau of Labor Statistics information. It helped put the considerations from the reading into perspective for today, especially being that she wrote about her struggle to keep in mind that the “A Region at Risk” readings were from 1996. I found it particularly relevant, being that my economics class covers weekly updates about jobs and unemployment rates in the United States. From what I understand, the unemployment rates have decreased since the beginning of the semester and last year, so perhaps that supports what Kirsten was arguing about hope for New York City’s future.

When reading assigned articles, it so often and so easily becomes a robotic action that students just automatically perform. They frequently do not even process the material and simply accept the given information as fact. In reading Introduction and The Generators of Diversity from Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities and David Halle’s Who Wears Jane Jacobs’s Mantle in Today’s New York City, I went on an autopilot of sorts. I welcomed Jacobs’s person and relationship centered ideals in contrast to Moses’s “I will do whatever is best for this city, provided that the city only consists of white men who own automobiles” approach. I did not, however, question the mechanisms by which Jacobs’s would actualize her ideals. I really enjoyed reading all of the blogs because they provided me with some extra insight; in particular, though, I thoroughly appreciated Kristen’s blog because of her well phrased and appropriately raised criticisms of Jacobs.

The first issue raised concerned Jacobs’s central belief in creating a prosperous city: diversity. Kristen very appropriately brought up the fact that, while Jacobs constantly called for diversity in cities, she never proposed a means of implementing such diversity. I agree with Kristen’s observation that this, however optimistic, does not seem feasible. After reading this blog, I found myself struggling with this idea of diversity; what kind of diversity is Jacobs calling for? The diversity of people? The diversity of businesses? It became clear through Halle’s article that Jacobs was an advocate for the diversity of buildings, meaning that she supported a healthy mix of tall and short and old and new buildings, but Jacobs, herself, wrote in Introduction that this kind of diversification is a difficult undertaking due to the lack of funding available. Furthermore, I agree with Kristen in her comment that one cannot just force entire cities to diversify. Would city planners force members of one community to transplant to another or coerce business owners to move their sources of income to uncharted territory for their industry? Had I not come across Kristen’s blog, I most likely would not have thought to question the likelihood of Jacobs’s vision being actualized. While I still believe that Jacobs’s diversity-centered vision is more reasonable that Moses’s transportation-centered vision, I can see now that it does carry its own cons.

Kristen also called attention to Jacobs’s generalization that “urban life was really better and the maximum number of people possible deserved to live it” (Halle 240) in comparison to suburban and rural life. Kristen maintained that she believes that suburban and rural life is superior to urban life due to their less dense populations and ample “green areas.” It is impossible to pass a clear judgment on which setting is better because it is a matter of personal preference, as Kristen admits, but I disagree with Kristen’s claim. While her opinion is completely valid, I can understand Jacobs’s point of view; I think it goes back to the idea of diversity. I feel, although I may have misunderstood, that Jacobs so heavily favored diversity in cities because it allowed the residents to experience so many different aspects of life in a spatially convenient way. This is definitely true in New York City, as it is in most cities. Take Queens for example: while this is a pretty broad area to contemplate, one can visit a movie theater, a shopping mall, a botanical garden, a small corner store, a museum, and endless other venues all within the matter of a few minutes’ commute, whereas in a suburban area like Southold in Long Island, New York, one can visit a supermarket in town, but must travel a few towns away to see a movie, and a few more towns away to reach an outlet mall. The inconvenience of this spatial barrier can easily discourage residents of Southold to experience out-of-town activities. I personally believe that limiting one’s daily life in this way lessens the quality of that life. At the same time, I can completely see Kristen’s point because the fast-paced New York City life can be extremely stressful compared to the relatively relaxed atmosphere of a small suburban setting. In this case, though, I believe that accessibility outweighs a serene environment.

In terms of the population density issue in cities, I may be mistaken, but Jacobs was in favor of building up rather than initiating new constructions. To my understanding, Jane Jacobs was in favor of population density in cities, but allowing this great population to exist without the erasure of green space to accommodate the population.

I also found it interesting that the self-proclaimed Jane Jacobs disciples severely misinterpret her values for their own personal gain. They manipulate her for-the-people type of ideology to further their own agendas. I enjoyed reading the supplemental article Kristen posted. It was exactly as ridiculous as I expected it to be from my impression of it from the Halle publications, even if it did make a good point about Jacobs’s unrealistic views of diversity.

Thank you, Kristen, for a thought provoking blog. It was a pleasure to read and easy to respond to. I think you had a good understanding of the material and posed perfectly valid questions.