The first reading, “A Region at Risk”, discussed the Third Regional Plan. Unlike the first and second regional plans, this third plan, according to authors Yarro and Hiss, was markedly different. One of the biggest differences noted was that the third regional plan addressed the interconnectedness of urban cities and suburban sprawl. In the overview of the Third Regional Plan, the authors asserted that “more than ever, the economies, societies and environments of all the communities in the Tri-State Metropolitan Region are intertwined, transcending arbitrary political divisions” (6). According to the authors, redevelopment plans had to include both localities because the success of one depended on the success of the other, and the two “share a common destiny” (6).
Even though the plan was developed in 1996, some of the key themes in the Third Regional Plan are particularly important to understanding contemporary urban planning.
For one, as Larson notes in Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind the “narrative of threat” is ever-present. in the Third Regional Plan. Like Moses and even Jacobs, the authors spend a lot of time talking about how without the specific instruments listed in the plan, the city would ultimately fall into a cycle of stagnant growth. In this regard, the plan is not different from previous planning agendas such as Moses’ because it relies on threat and perceived morality to garner public support. The “narrative of threat” evident in the plan makes it largely based on morality and ideology. One example of this the focus on the three E’s — economy, environment and equity. In describing the three E’s, the authors focus on philosophical/moral arguments. In describing how each of the three E’s unite us, they write that “we all inhabit the same landscape, breath the same air” and go on to stress that “when our cities and suburbs are interdependent, they succeed or fail as one” (6). They wrap their explanation by stating that “our lives are embedded in far-reaching networks… that stretch across all social, racial, economic, physical and political boundaries” (6). While similarly employing a paternalistic attitude (reminiscent of Moses) towards large scale projects to aid “a region at risk,” it simultaneously focuses the justifications for these plans on the individual, arguing that everyone within the region has responsibility to save the region, presumably by supporting the plan. The authors go on to assert that the current dillema facing the city was due to “global changes coinciding with our own failure to change — of 25 years of economic transformation unfolding worldwide during a generation of underinvestment” (7). While the lack of planning making our cities more vulnerable may have indeed been the case, hindsight is 20/20, and using fear as a method of change may not be the correct approach. Examining the past and attributing current societal ills to failure to act may be a convenient method to garner support to a redevelopment plan, but again shows the tendency of the Third Regional Plan to use ideology and moralistic arguments for proposing these changes.
While the Third Regional Plan does present a similar narrative of threat at most planning initiatives, one of it’s greatest strengths the incorporation of both Moses’ and Jacobs’ ideas for the city. On the one hand, the plan broadens it’s scope to the tri-state region, and focuses heavily on economic development for the city (although simultaneously stressing the importance of focusing equally on the three E’s). In redeveloping the tri-state area to acclimate to a global economy, grandiose projects like those Moses initiated for the city can serve as an enthusiastic model towards the major overhaul of planning that “A Region at Risk” proposes.
On the other hand, it also stressed the importance of citizen involvement and Jacobs’ ideals of natural, organic cities with growth that is conscious of the existing atmosphere of neighborhoods. Remembering that Jacobs’ The Death and Life was a response to the Moses era of urban planning, it makes sense to incorporate some of her ideas towards community building. With such large-scale projects, small neighborhoods within the tri-state region could easily be disregarded or overlooked, as was the case of the South Bronx during the Moses era.
Perhaps one of the most glaring challenges that the plan deemphasizes is the difficulty of implementing the three R’s given such a broad scale redevelopment of the tri-state area — which would include both urban and suburban areas.
One of the best examples of this difficulty is in regards to the environment and sustainability mentioned within the Third Regional Plan. The focus on sustainability as protecting or introducing nature into otherwise industrial environments isn’t a great sustainable model. Sustainable cities mean more than just throwing green-space around, adding parks, and planting trees. Sustainable development must also include a decrease in fossil fuel consumption — most notably in a drastic reduction in dependence on cars. Redesigning suburban sprawl to include walkability and “pedestrian connectivity,” as explained in “Evaluating Pedestrian Connectivity for Suburban Sustainability,” is a unique, region-specific planning issue within itself. Regional transit, as well as more walkable destinations, requires the “retrofitting” of suburban sprawl. In practice, implementing these changes would take a great deal of compliance and coordination with local ordinances across the tri-state area.
In “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?” Scott Campbell highlights that sustainable development and planning within the urban environment is already facing challenges. He argues that in planning sustainable cities, we tend to “romanticize our sustainable past” and propose plans that are “too vaguely holistic” (1). The planner must therefore contend with the “planners triangle” — with the environment, economy, and social equity at each of the three corners. Unsurprisingly, he argues that that there is a tension between these three points, and with sustainability being in the center. Going back to the three E’s, the authors’ insistence that all three E’s must be given equal consideration, or else the system fails, is overly optimistic.
Additional Sources:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdcamp/Ecoeco/Greencities.html
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2001)127:1(1)
