Hey Mariyanthie! Great post, I completely agree with you that the City should have responded differently after Hurricane Sandy completely whipped out and completely destroyed parts of the city. Instead of focusing on developing new real estate, the city should have catered to the low-income families in poorer areas. Many of these families lost their homes, personal belonging, and memories after the hurricane hit and rushed through their neighborhoods. And instead of the City investing money to rebuild these areas, they allocated their resources to the wealthier people even though there were people who were desperate need to that money and resources.

There is one thing however, that you wrote about that I do not necessary agree with. In you’re blog, you wrote that there could have been another Hurricane like Hurricane Sandy that would have completely destroyed this new construction, and therefore it didn’t necessarily make sense to build it in the first place. The only thing is though, in reality, one could say the same thing about investing this money into these poorer areas and rebuilding those neighborhoods. So one could make argue that the City shouldn’t rebuilt after a catastrophe hits because another one can always strike again. However, it that were the case, the City’s infrastructure would crumble and the city would crumble with it. I think the reason that Greenberg mentions “the fate of $51 billion in post-Sandy recovery aid [was] undecided,” is to reiterate that fact how poorly the City allocated its resources (46). On an economic level the city responded properly, those who can pay more get the resource. It was easier to make the easy fixes, and more those areas attractable again. However, on a human level the City once again put their profit before the people, and focused on economic gain.

Obviously, economic development is important in every city, but it is vital that the city take care of its inhabitants even more so. With caring for its inhabitants, the city loses its heart and soul and is merely left with the foundation and structure. And it seems as though the City, time and time again, has turned its back on its inhabitants and focuses on to real estate development and making a profit. The only justification that I can think of is that the city is under the impression that the trickle-down effect with kick into place (even though this phenomenon has been proven time and time again to be faulty). The City needs to realize that its composition is quite complex and there is value in everything, not just money.

In the ninth chapter of “Building Like Moses with Jacob in Mind,” Scott Larson writes about Amanda Burden and who work under the Bloomberg Administration. She was the director of the New York City Department of City Planning and Chair of Planning Commission. Burden believed that design is a critical element in city planning. It was the element that she stressed the most and one that is quite prevalent in all of Bloomberg’s larger redevelopment narrative (140).

Like Jacobs, Burden believed that one “can measure the health of the city in the vitality of the street life” (135). Therefore she prioritized public spaces and the availability of seating arrangements within these spaces. In 2007, seating standards were adopted into the set of design guidelines for privately owned public spaces. The guidelines specified that there must be a “minimum of one linear foot of seating for each 30 square feet of public plaza areas,” they must be “placed in close proximity and at angles to one another or in facing configurations that facilitate social interaction,” and they must provide at least two type of seating, which means wither moveable seating, fixed individual seats, fixed benches, seat walls or steps (139-140).

Now knowing that Burden spearheaded “the revitalization of the “dilapidated High Line elevated rail line,” and that she is known to micro-manage every project she is involved in, the design of the Highline doesn’t surprise me at all (135). Burden ensured that the Highline would include at least two types of seating arrangements. And one will take notice as he walks the Highline the countless of spots along the way where he can stop and to sit. Whether it is the benches, the moving reclining chairs, or the stairs on which there is a window overlooking the city, there will always be a spot for him to sit and interact with others.

The interesting thing, however, in recent years many articles have been published criticizing the city for its lack of “public spaces.” Buildings that once had benches for people to sit an enjoy the city are disappearing. In an article by the New York Times that was published this past September emphasizes that the amount of spaces throughout Manhattan where there is a public element has either diminished or it has completely vanished. Additionally, many of these public passageways, like the Knaves café, have banned all outside food and make you order something from their menu in order to sit down in what is supposed to be a public space. These public spaces are only allowing those who can afford to sit and order an eight-dollar latte into their public space, which makes one rethink just how public this public space actually is (Chaban, “Unwelcome Mat is Outside at Some of New York’s Privately Owned Public Spaces”).

Although Burden’s entire focus was on creating public spaces for the inhabitants of the city, it seems to be that although she may have created new areas for people to sit and enjoy the city, the amount of actual free and public spaces is rapidly declining within the city. Because the reality is that once these areas become privatized, these public spaces begin to remain less public until they are no longer public at all.

Outside Work: Chaban, Mattt A.V. “Unwelcome Mat is Outside at Some of New York’s Privately Owned Public Spaces.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Sept. 2015. Web. Apr. 2016

Hey Kirsten! Great blog post, I really enjoyed reading your what you had to say about the RPA Third Regional Plan and it really got be thinking about things that I didn’t think about when I first read it. I found it very interesting the way you compared the city planners to lawyers and how like lawyers have to make the convincing narrative, so too do city planners. And I agree with you that the city planners probably played off the fears of the people and over-exaggerated the situation that the city was actually in.

While reading that, it reminded me of the book, Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Economics I Learned from Online Dating, by Paul Oyer, which I had to read for my microeconomics class two semesters ago. In the second chapter of the book, Oyer discusses whether or not one should lie, or stretch the truth, on his online profile. Although Oyer recognizes that lying is bad, he concludes that if one would be at a disadvantage if he did not lie on his profile. Since most people are known to lie, by not lying he is only making himself less desirable. Since lying is such a common occurrence, people will probably assume that he is lying even if he were telling the truth.

Now you’re probably wondering what this has to do with Economics or the RPA Third Regional Plan, so let me explain… Trying to find a match online is similar to selling a product—it must be marketed properly. The most important thing of course is to know that talk is cheap. Therefore, one must be a smart shopper and even smarter salesman. And when you think about it although they aren’t selling a physical product, city planners need to market their “product” properly in order for it to sell. Businesses have to lie just enough to sell their product, but they cannot over-do-it or else they’ll loose their customers for good. (And getting back to the online profile… well he probably won’t be getting a second date if he over exaggerates or lies too much).

At the end of the day, everyone who is trying to sell something whether it is a physical product or a type of service, lying (even if it’s just a little white lie) will always be intertwines as being apart of the equation. So it doesn’t surprise me that the city planners composed this narrative that the city was being threatened, and its success and future solely on the city implementing their solutions. I’m not commenting on whether or not this is right or wrong, I’m just saying that I can’t blame the city planners for exaggerating or lying. Because I’m sure the other city planners who were trying to get their plans approved were doing the exact same thing.

Although many criticize Jacobs for not having a college degree and being self-taught, it was for this exact reason that she was able to accomplish as much as she did. Instead of learning “the ‘value’ of top-down planning and modernist mega-projects” in University, she learned by observing the city and the people that called that city home. Jacobs understood that the only way to better a city is to take into account both the social and economic needs of all its residents. Jane Jacobs believed that “big cities are natural generators of diversity and prolific incubators of new enterprises and ideas of all kind” (Jacob, 145). The intermingling of different people, professions, cultures, and cuisine is what allows a city to achieve its greatness.

It was this belief that led to her to advocate against the urban renewal programs and the works of Robert Moses. In the introduction to her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she criticizes urban developers of her time for focusing on fixing the issue automobile traffic, explaining that cities have more economic and social concerns that traffic, and if one is unable to recognize that than he will never be able to understand how the city itself works. Jacob continues to explain that city planning and the art of city design is a “pseudoscience” and those who abide by it “have yet to embark upon the adventure of probing the real world” (9). In other words, those that bulldoze the slums of the city and the dilapidated building are completely misunderstanding the complexity and greatness of a city. It isn’t enough for the inhabitants of a city to be diverse, but the buildings and infrastructure need to reflect that as well.

Jacobs believed that cities should “foster a mosaic of architectural styles and heights,” while allowing people from different ethnic, income, and racial backgrounds to live in close proximity. The streets should be filled with mix-sized buildings, little corner stores, and pocket parks for people to meet casually, rather than high-rise development, big commercial projects, and highways carved through neighborhoods. This is why Jacobs was among the most “articulate voices against ‘slum clearance.’”

On page nine, of her introduction to The Death and Life of Great American Cities, writes about the neighborhood of North End. Although, North End was in fact a great place with statistics confirming it was a safe and healthy place to live, it was still deemed as a slum. If one were to visit North End, one would be amazed by all of the buildings that had been rehabilitated and the life that was pouring from the buildings onto the streets. North End was revived, by the continuous retouches like neatly repointed brickwork, new blinds, freshly painted building, and a burst of music as a door was opened. And remarkably no bulldozer was necessary. Not only were the people who lived there happy, but also there were businesses such as upholstery making, metalworking, carpentry, and food processing. North End serves as an example to show the type of contribution that a neighborhood that is deemed to be a ‘slum’ can actually bring to a city.

It was through observation and mindfulness of the people and buildings that surrounded her that made Jane Jacob the influential urban developer and activist that she is known to be. Although she may have gone to jail a few times for protesting Moses and other like-minded urban planners, her efforts weren’t for nothing. It was because of her work that helped catalyze grassroots movement against urban renewal planning, in New York and around the entire country. Her belief that residential neighborhoods should be both lively and diversity filled allowed for cities to look the way they do to date. There is a current revival of many areas of American cities that were once deemed slums. These cities are filled with old buildings with a modern twist. Lofts are being converted into new residential areas, historic districts are being restored, and there is an overall residential real-estate boom in many cities around America.

 

Additional Works Used:

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/146/janejacobslegacy.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/obit/2006/04/home_remedies.html