Often people desire housing near a shore because most people find the view pleasant and it offers much different activities that what can be done purely on land. Originally, I felt that putting structures near the waterfront was completely fine. The people who buy it ought to assume that a storm (no matter how likely or unlikely it is to occur) would put them at risk. However, this constant push towards adding more real estate to these shores are creating a much bigger problem. Turning to Melissa Checker’s, Green is the New Brown first – she highlights several instances where the building of pleasing structures took precedent over toxic chemicals. For example, in New Orleans “Research  conducted  in  the aftermath  of  Hurricane  Katrina  demonstrates  that floodwaters  dislodged  and distributed heavy metals,” and “that storm surges have breached retaining walls and other barriers meant to seal in toxic contaminants” (Checker 171). Despite this, no plans were made to cap the contamination despite comments from the public urging for this action. Private companies get away with not cleaning up toxic waste due to the exemptions that they get. Checker notes, “To  attract  the  business  of  private developers,  these firms  tend  to  emphasize  cost-saving  measures  that  provide the  minimum  necessary  environmental  solutions” (171).

This becomes even more relevant in light of the devastating storm Hurricane Sandy. Greenberg’s The Disaster Inside the Disaster writes, “Most immediately, the devastation Sandy caused in Lower Manhattan was partly a result of shortsighted, market-oriented, post-9/11 redevelopment” (49). This statement was made because a large amount of federal money was used to make luxury residential and commercial towers near low lying water fronts to boost real estate. The claim was that through technology (which would be built along with the residential and commercial towers) the city would be able to make flood areas less dangerous. Greenberg argues “a technological fix will not build real resilience, as it will not address the broader social and environmental inequalities that increase vulnerability and lay the ground for future crisis” (50). While wealthy areas might be spared from storms, it doesn’t help the low income areas who have been suffering from nature’s fury for years. 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.

So what about the people who already live by the water? It seems from the testimony of Mundy from Murphy’s The Flood Next Time – most people even with the knowledge of the incoming floods would choose to remain where they were. Since the danger is not imminent, but perhaps a few years down the road, they don’t seem to care. It is a fact that water levels will continue to rise in the coming of years. I happen to agree that receding from the shore lines would be much too costly and difficult to pull off. However, that doesn’t mean that we should continue to build MORE structures near the water just because it can make a profit. This is a set up for a huge disaster. If we can’t move people away, we certainly should not be moving more people in. Murphy notes that some places like Chicago manage to lift itself two feet to change the course of its river (16). So using technology and not giving in to nature is very much possible for a place like New York. Yet at the same time there is still the possibility that we will not outsmart the future storms.
I did some research to look at the potential plans of remedying the rising level of water (since nobody seems to want to move away from the water’s edge residents and developers alike) and found an article on the NYTimes. Alan Feuer’s Building For the Next Big Storm seems to have some interesting ideas. There was a mixture of proposals from planting oyster beds to creating levees to protect the island. The most ambitious one that has caught the eyes of many people was and idea proposed called the Big U would defend the coastline of Manhattan and disguise itself as waterfront parks. The idea was for it to fit in with upscale look of New York and be aesthetically pleasing, but also protect Manhattan. I have to admit, it looks cool, but I have to think about what Greenberg said about how this doesn’t address social and environmental inequalities. Such a massive construction would cater to the wealthy who would be able to afford real estate near it. On one hand, I think if technology provides us a way to protect ourselves we should definitely use it. Yet, if it’s not available for everyone, and people become more focused on making pleasing structures rather than getting rid of environmental toxins what’s the point? It seems that there is a trend of saying plans will help an environmental issues when in actuality, it is a real estate, profit making project.

 

Extra source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/nyregion/after-hurricane-sandy-new-york-rebuilds-for-the-future.html?_r=0

I have to agree with most of your points about Amanda Burden. She constantly talks as if she is for the people of the community, but all of her actions points to the opposite. To answer your question, “Did the woman we saw chairing those zoning meetings seem like the sort of person who was trying to help people or an economy,” I would have to say absolutely not. The way she demanded removal of those brave enough to speak their minds proves that she’s not interested in the opinions of the residents.

Amanda Burden clearly is not the only one guilty of not caring about residents. In every project outlined in chapter three of Scott Larson’s book residents vehemently protested them. The residents lost every single time. While some projects were halted – let’s examine the reason why. The first time Hudson Yard’s redevelopment was halted was because, “a local cable television provider viewed a new stadium as competition for Madison Square Garden, the sports and event venue it owned” (p 35-36). The stadium plan was vetoed and “in spite of the administration’s efforts to unite members of the city’s elite, redevelopment of Hudson Yards was shelved” (36). In other words, this project was only shelved because private companies could not get together. This halting had nothing to do with the protests of the people. Of course work didn’t stop there. The development was slowed down this time by financial difficulties. Additionally “aside form the slowing economy, the project was plagued by the collapse of slow progress of the three projects that had been expected to “kick-start” further West side development” (p 37). Again – the reasons for delay has nothing to do with the people actually living in the area.

This trend continues with the Atlantic Yards and Colombia University. The local community protested and sited that these developments would raise the cost of rent to high and force them out. Those who tried to hold out against this gentrification in the case of the expansion of the Colombia University were constantly met with the imposing eminent domain.

So it boils down to this – if we’re not listening to the people who live in the area, the people who have the most to lose then who are we listening to? Clearly, we’re listening to corporations and developers with large financial interests in these “blighted” areas. Of course blighted gets assigned by those who are already backing these developers. In the end, how can any of these people claim to be building “with Jacobs in mind” when she advocated community above all else? These building methods where bureaucrats influence what kinds of development can happen through zoning and funding completely disregards any existing culture and familiarity built by the community itself.

I found it very interesting that you mentioned that the three E’s ultimately transformed into a philosophical/moral argument supporting certain types of building projects. Originally, the three terms made me think facts and statistics. However, the “narrative of threat” definitely shows how the three E’s definitely can fall into a moralistic argument. Fear mongering often can garner support very quickly, especially is the narrative can place blame on something that happened in the past. Moses “featured liberal use of creative assumptions, delivered as facts,” according to Ballon (Larson 60).  Yet I feel that Jacobs also preyed on emotions and morality. Her narrative of “eyes on the street,” and diversity creates a very Utopian seeming society where everyone takes care of one another. She felt that city planning should involve “knowing” and understanding what each city need. In theory, this idea sounds great, but in practice this type of planning still leaves out the underprivileged who slowly get pushed out of their homes anyways. You also wrote about how planning for future sustainable cities often “romanticizes our sustainable past” which led to an overly vague holistic plan. This romanticizing of “the good old days,” or however it gets phrased is another way of preying on emotions.

Areas that are deemed “blighted” are the areas that are renovated. If we disregard any moral and/or philosophical argument then we should not care about previous residents there. Blighted areas are often repurposed by private companies to make a better profit that what already exists in the area. It would become “more amenable to tourists, to a new class of worked, and to corporate and speculative real estate interests” (Larson 71). The alternative is leaving the area as in which might mean leaving certain people in a very low standard at living. Yet at the same time, they can stay where they are and keep their homes.

In summation, I wonder what factors should considered when doing city planning. If we focus on just the moral aspects, we fall into the trap where the most convincing narrative shapes the city. Facts, even incorrect ones can be skewed to support certain agendas. Should our morals favor lower income people, or should our morals lean towards harming a few for the “greater good”? In other words, should we care about people living in poor income areas, or should we just see the area as an opportunity to make more money for the city and also jobs? Alternatively, if we just focus on facts and numbers, the city might be planned to bring in the highest income possible while disregarding poorer residents. Either way it seems that the city is constantly being shifted to please tourist and higher income classes, or in shorter terms a “‘retaking’ of cities by the upper and middle classes” (Larson 74).

In Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs reveals her position and aim immediately in her introduction. She states bluntly, “This book is an attack on current city planning and rebuilding” (3). Throughout the chapter, Jacobs criticizes nearly all modern day styles of city planning. In fact, she mentions that city planning taught in schools in modern days ought to be called a pseudoscience. In other words, what is being taught in universities is fundamentally wrong, and only helps to solidify incorrect methods with each new generations of city planners (9). She proceeds to compare modern day city planning methods to the archaic medical practice of bloodletting, which for some time was considered medically sound. In fact, it was also a topic of study taught to many aspiring physicians. Those who disagreed with bloodletting were simply considered wrong (12-13).

So, considering that Jacobs is quite strongly opposing modern day city planning, what does she suggest? Jacobs offers a different approach to how modern urban areas ought to be created. There is not particularly a “right” or “wrong” way, rather Jacobs advocated that one must understand both the social and economic needs of the residents in the city. She believed one cannot plan a city if they do not intimately know it, as well as the culture of its inhabitants.

I happen to agree with Jacobs. To build a city preemptively on the premise that all humans want, or need the same thing mostly likely will lead to disaster. Jacobs provides several examples where the generalizing cities based on statistics and prior belief becomes a problem. Jacobs’s first example comes from her visit in the North End of Boston. This area was labeled as a slum based on the quantity of dwelling units to the net acre (10). However, examining more statistics showed that the North End also had low infant mortality rates, delinquency, rent, and more – yet North End was still labeled a slum (10). This led Jacobs to the conclusion that theories on what made a good city ultimately are useless. Her second example, which I found the most powerful, came from interviews in East Harlem. A large rectangular lawn was put in place, however, all the tenants came to hate it. One of the tenants said, “ ‘Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place…But the big men come and look at the grass and say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything!’ ” (15).

The story of the East Harlem residents resonated with me. If planners are putting in place features that the residents don’t want that is a true waste of space. Looking at a map and deciding an area needs more greenspace might not actually be a good idea considering the area couldn’t care less about such a feature. A city is not a mathematical equation where an algorithm can create a perfect fit each time. With varying neighborhoods comes different needs. Some people would interpret Jacobs’s work as opposition to all modern buildings and a cry to free the city in time. However I believe, David Halle’s Who Wears Jane Jacobs’s Mantle in Today’s New York City? offers a better view. Halle writes, “She believes that urban neighborhoods should have a good number of such buildings (referring to modern day buildings), along with a mixture of other types (e.g., older, smaller, and less expensive structures)” (2). This sentiment refers to Jacobs’s strong belief that cities should have diversity. In chapter 7 of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs writes of how the vast amount of skills pooled into a city is what makes it flourish. The high density of different people creates not only a variety of small stores, but also a huge pool of people that can support the small businesses. The diversity in culture, professions, and personalities intermingling was Jacob’s idea of a great city. Safety would come from what she called “eyes on the street” (Turner). To Jacob’s governmental agencies should not impose what they believed was a good city onto an area, but rather let the inhabitants shape where they lived.

Overall, I believe Jane Jacobs to be a magnificent activist. She did not have any formal education in city planning and made conclusions through her observations. One of Jacobs’s most famous actions was her fight against Robert Moses. Jacobs and protestors were able to rip Washington Square Park out of Moses’s grasps when he attempted to extend Fifth Avenue through the square. Jane Jacobs pressed for a sense of community in cities and hoped for cities that would be busy at all times of days. She did not want planners to impose what they believed the “ideal” structure of city onto the large urban areas. While I love Jacobs’s ideas, I continue to wonder if it’s really possible to “know” a city. Jacobs often talked about how diversity between the “old” and the “new” helps foster a successful environment. In a world where technology rapidly changes, thus making a community’s needs different, is there a way to reconcile the past and the future?

Additional Source:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/sep/12/jane-jacobs-new-york-history