Hi Noelia, thank you for an insightful and stimulating post. Your analysis of Loughran’s view on public parks was concise yet thorough. I found the architectural examples you brought interesting as well, since they provided a different perspective on “the growing inequality of public spaces in contemporary cities” discussed by Loughran.

After reading your blog entirely, I began to think more deeply about the purpose of parks. As you wrote, “it’s important to question what City officials or we really want out of public areas”. That said, I think there are some ideas relevant to this discussion that Loughran doesn’t focus on. You point out that many social controls and regulations “decrease the actual public-ness of the supposed public space”, however I think many of those controls and regulations are justified and even essential to the purpose of parks.

To begin, I researched various interpretations of parks and their purpose. Many organizations and groups express different perspectives, but two stood out to me. The first, BREC, outlines several goals all public park seeks to deliver. Amongst them are “creating safer neighborhoods, promoting public health, stimulating tourism and overall economic development”. An organization that operates public park and recreation facilities in Louisiana, BREC provides in depth research on each goal listed. For example, it is the objective of parks to promote public health through “physical activity and contact with nature”. In order for people to experience emotional or physical benefit from parks they must be encouraged to go outdoors and actually utilize the facilities. Allowing homeless people to inhabit the park can literally affect cleanliness if not public perception of how clean the park is. This, in turn, can discourage city inhabitants from using the park and indirectly infringe on the goal of public parks to promote public health. Similarly, public perception of a park that tolerates homeless people may dissuade tourists from visiting that park and disrupt the effort of “stimulating overall economic development”.

The second source I found that articulately describes the purpose of public parks is a report published by The Trust for Public Land. This nonprofit organization that facilitates and funds the creation of parks released a comprehensive study that outlines many of the functions a park has. Amongst them are “public health benefits and economic growth from increased property values”. With regards to public health, the report provides studies on the link between parks and increased physical activity, reduced anxiety, and lower stress levels. The driving forces behind these trends are usage of outdoor facilities, exposure to nature, and aesthetic greenery. If people don’t access parks then, by definition, parks are not delivering “public health benefits” as best possible. Therefore, it seems that any act which would increase the likelihood that people use parks should be implemented. I think this is a valid argument for those who say the homeless should not be allowed to sleep in public parks since it can actually affect aesthetics, cleanliness, and public perception which would discourage public use of the park.

Much of the above is predicated on the idea that a homeless presence in parks strongly correlates with reduced usage of those parks. I found this premise to be true based on an article published on the National Recreation and Park Association’s website. Written by Danielle Taylor, the article recounts her experience at a conference concentrated on homelessness and its affect on parks. She describes the overall sentiment held by attendees who feared the homeless will make a camp out of the public spaces city workers spend considerable time maintaining. In one specific example, Danielle shares the case of a park near California that was so consumed by homeless individuals it effectively became “an unintended campground where others were afraid to go.”

I agree with you that homelessness is a widespread problem, and one that requires further attention. However, I do think there’s legitimacy in forbidding the homeless from consuming parks as it can affect the degree to which others utilize them and indirectly hinder the goals of “promoting public health” and “economic development”. On a similar note, I recognize your view on what the true impact of “a fresh coat of paint and new set of swings” is but think there are certainly benefits. Improving the aesthetics of underserved parks in this manner can influence public perception and encourage greater usage of parks, indirectly promoting public health and economic growth, two of the main goals of public parks.

 

SOURCES:

• http://www.brec.org/index.cfm/page/1808/n/153
• http://www.eastshorepark.org/benefits_of_parks%20tpl.pdf
• http://www.nrpa.org/blog/taboo-topic–homeless-in-the-park/

I really enjoyed reading your blog post Mikki! The way you contrasted Bloomberg’s views on rezoning with those of de Blasio offered a sense of relevancy. I was able to relate to the readings much more than before, given the articles and sources you quoted.

As you discussed, Larson emphasizes the need for New York to plan for future growth. Per your post, finding a balance between sustaining growth and preserving fair standards of living posed a challenge then as well as today. While I do agree with you that a lot of Bloomberg’s actions seemed to be motivated by political interest, I’m not sure it was exclusively so. Larson mentions the strategic tactics employed by developers in circumventing regulation and building where they wanted to. I also think that much of Bloomber-era zoning policy was predicated on economic growth and foresight of what a future city should look like.

A New York Times article published a few years ago explores some of Bloomberg’s considerations in suggesting various zoning laws. For instance, the push for rezoning in Midtown to allow higher towers was a topic that underwent a lot of controversy. The article emphasizes, however, that global hotspots like Hong Kong and Tokyo continue to construct rising skyscrapers and attract corporate tenants. Surely a city like New York must continue to grow at a speed similar, if not faster than, other world leaders? That said, I recognize and agree there must be a balance between matching the growth displayed by other cities across the world while accommodating residents too. Aside from the economic considerations, the article discusses growth in the number of workers. With a larger workforce comes concern for transportation, sanitation, and public safety. The administration is quoted as supporting the allowance for rezoning and increasing skyscraper heights in order to meet these potential concerns.

I think you did a great job of applying the readings to today, and showing how applicable rezoning is. A continuous focus in class is what we think a future city should be like, and how we can plan today to realize that future vision. For me, your post revitalized the question we considered in seminar a few weeks ago- how can New York accommodate future growth while sustaining living conditions of its inhabitants? I thought about this question a bit differently than I did beforehand, when our attention was turned toward Jacobs’ and Moses’ beliefs. I’m not sure I’ve figured out what exactly I think, but considering this big-picture question in different contexts has certainly helped clarify a lot!

 

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/nyregion/mayor-bloomberg-pushes-a-plan-to-let-midtown-soar.html?_r=0

I find it incredible how an area like Times Square can be so radically different today than it was a century ago. Todays Times Square stands in stark contrast to the poverty-stricken, crime-ridden, prostitute-filled area that was called by the same name not that long ago. Reconstructing Times Square brought to light many of the issues facing an earlier Times Square, a good deal of which are arguably still present. Reichl challenged me to think about the methodology employed by public officials in rebranding Times Square, but left me ultimately convinced that the area indeed tells a story of rebirth.

Although there were various events in the early and mid nineteenth century that demonstrated a change from residential area to commercial, business hotspot, I think the true transformation came later on. Nearly twenty years ago, Times Square underwent a change that is today termed ‘disneyfication’. In nineteen ninety-three, Disney expressed interest in opening a theatre on forty-second street and entered talks with the forty-second street development project. Public officials and city leaders conveyed the belief that, “Disney’s presence alone would symbolize the conquest of Forty-second street by the forces of good over evil” (158). Statements like these made me realize that the entire Disney project was predicated on sending a message and creating an image. Times Square should cease being this dangerous, unenjoyable location in the minds of New Yorkers. The potential for new, exciting attractions were plentiful and Disney was seen as the catalyst for bringing about those attractions.

In all honesty, at first I considered the possibility that Disney was chosen over other entertainment companies because of financial influence. While economic forces were certainly at play in the decision behind development of a Disney theatre, the goal of the project was nevertheless one of rebranding. After all, “With Disney in place, the new image of West Forty-second street as an area of popular entertainment was sealed” (158). In addition, statements by public officials and leaders of the development project placed a strong emphasis on the company’s “symbolic presence”. Disney’s strong arm tactics and firm negotiation methods shouldn’t detract from the projects motivation to reshape public perception of the area by introducing a company with positive presence. Moreover, the deal with Disney brought about a stream of deals for new entertainment attractions, restaurants, bars, and cafes. The introduction of Disney essentially transformed Times Square into a place of live entertainment, exciting merchandise, and revamped tourism.

What truly categorizes the Disnyefication of Times Square as a rebirth, in my mind, is the fact that its effects have continued unto today.  Disney not simply boost the economy and jumpstart commercial activity on a temporary basis, it effectively changed the downward trajectory of crime and poverty facing the area. A recent article published by Janos Marton illustrates the transformation of Times Square as facilitated by the Disneyfication of the late nineteenth century. He emphasizes the “exodus of porn shops, peep shows, and other vice” as well as the marking of Times Square as “one of the biggest tourism hotspots in the world”. A New York Times article published a few years ago quantifies many of the benefits brought about by a transformed Times Square. In the article After 30 Years, Times Square Rebirth Is Complete, Charles Bagli focuses on various economic and cultural measures of the locations success. He shares how, “The number of tourists is up about 74 percent since 1993, and attendance at Broadway shows has soared to nearly 12 million”. He goes on to discuss rent paid by large corporations, the downfall of crime figures, and other measures. In many ways, this article demonstrates how the effects of a late nineteenth century deal with Disney were far from temporary. On the contrary, Disney brought about growth and development that has continued to this day.

The argument that Time Square has tremendous room for improvement when it comes to crime, danger, and commercial domination is a valid one. Many of the issues faced a century ago have not been completely resolved and surely warrant attention by todays public figures. That said, it is incredibly difficult to discuss the rise in tourism, cultural activity, and economic prosperity without using the word ‘rebirth’. At the end of the day, Times Square transformed into a place people are excited by and enjoy visiting, a stark change from the dangerous, dirty area it once was.

 

Sources

• http://untappedcities.com/2015/02/11/today-in-nyc-history-times-square-turns-the-corner-in-1981/

• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/nyregion/04square.html

 

New York is home to an incredible amount of parks, highways, pools, and other public facilities. The man to whom credit is often granted, Robert Moses, undoubtedly played a fundamental role in the development of much of New York’s infrastructure. Take the Whitestone and Verrazano bridges, for example, which have served New Yorkers for over fifty years. Without Moses’ vision or creative approach, New York would surely be a different place economically, socially, and culturally. Yet in spite of this recognition, he is often questioned for employing unequal or even undemocratic practices. As we’ve discussed in class many times, it is crucial to assess any situation within its context; “who won, who lost, and what historical factors impacted the outcome?”. I believe Marta Gutman, in her essay Equipping The Public Realm, describes numerous factors that impacted the decisions made by Moses. That in mind, it seems difficult to brand him as somewhat of a self-absorbed, unconcerned, undemocratic visionary. On the contrary, Robert Moses was a man faced with difficult circumstances who acted in line with those circumstances while striving to always better New York.

Preceding Moses’s role as commissioner, the country was recovering from the most severe economic collapse in its history. The aftermath of the Great Depression left unemployment as a major issue, urging Moses to consider how many jobs would be created from a given project. In many ways, there was a sense of urgency in contributing to economic recovery, surely impacting the projects and methods Moses ultimately chose.

Also pressing during his time was the recent Prohibition repeal, which created challenges of social control. Crime was on the rise and adults who drank regularly were left with few alternatives to release stress. The construction of recreational facilities had to now consider this “challenge of the new leisure” (74). In other words, it’s possible that Moses asked himself- ‘to what extent will different neighborhoods benefit from the implementation of this alternative source of leisure?’. Towns with large numbers of saloons could certainly have been given priority for a new pool, for example, in the hopes that men would choose a positive outlet to let off steam, such as swimming.

Another factor that influenced Moses’ decision making process was the conditions he entered into. “When Moses arrived at the Department of Parks, the city’s parks, pools, and beaches were in deplorable condition, having been sullied for decades by poor maintenance and corrupt management” (74). I found it interesting that Moses did not face a ‘blank canvas’ before constructing any facility or building. On the contrary, he was presented with hazardous conditions that grew even worse with the increasing concern for public health. With this in mind, it’s quite conceivable to see how Moses faced the daunting task of not only modernizing and improving the City, but keeping it clean, safe, and within regulation.

One example offered by Gutman which illustrates the contextual challenges Moses faced is the construction of aquatic recreational facilities project. Many question why Moses built pools on existing sites, invariably placing homes and established buildings in jeopardy. As expressed by Gutman, historians propose that the site and location decisions were based on “economy and expediency” (77). With regards to the pool project as a whole, Moses and his team faced obstacles such as scarce land, high acquisition costs, and a tight construction schedule.

While many of Moses’s projects could have serviced Americans in a more equal, even, or democrat fashion, it’s important to be cognizant of the context surrounding his decisions. Robert Moses faced historical, social and economic circumstances that made his initial task of improving New York’s infrastructure that much more difficult. There is surely more to be said on this topic, but from the reading it seems incredibly difficult to brand Moses an “Evil Mastermind”, simply given the frame of reference.