The recession of 1989-1992 caused planners to redefine what makes a good plan for the future of the city. In A Region at Risk, Yaro says that “narrowly focused, one-issue-at-a-time strategic planning” was very common at the time but that practice was dangerous and would lead to the government disregarding the needs of the poor and elderly. The drafters of the Third Regional Plan suggest an alternative approach, one that Yaro called the “three E’s”–economy, equity, and environment–as a way to act in the interests of what they consider an “undefinable ‘public interest’” (Yaro and Hiss, 1996). I, however, would like to question the true consequences of such an ideology, namely, gentrification.
The three E’s essentially stand as the basic foundations of what Yaro considers the “components of our quality of life.” In order to have a high quality of life, we must remember three things: the economies of our cities and suburbs are interconnected and if one fails, the other will fail with it; we do not live on this earth alone so our lives are inarguably connected with those of our family, neighbors, and peers; we all live in the same area and breathe the same air. As a result, it is important for us to understand why the three E’s must be equally considered and strengthened.
In theory, it all seems great and well-intended to not focus solely on money or power (although those are important in terms of the growth of a city). However, this idea of our “quality of life” that Yaro and the RPA mention is what causes me to question the validity of this approach in growth while maintaining equality among residents. In many instances in Chapter 5 of Larson’s Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind, he reiterates what makes a certain region’s quality of life appealing to “highly skilled workers,” “high-value industries,” and “white-collar potential workforces.” The RPA was intentionally trying to appeal to a certain crowd in order to make the city globally competitive (Larson 2013). As a result, with the RPA’s attempts to improve the quality of life and thus, with its attempts to attract more highly skilled white-collar workers, the proposed plan to implement the three E’s inadvertently contributed to the gentrification of the city. As more of these highly skilled workers came to these now “aesthetic” neighborhoods, the property value increased and the lower income, less skilled previous residents were displaced elsewhere.
An example of this concept can be seen in a review of a case study done in Chicago and Seattle for the gentrifying effects of a “green economy.” In “A tale of two cities: Equity, environment, and economic growth in urban areas,” Wu states that “while lower-income residents are appreciative of the green services, they are increasingly worried about the gentrifying effects of green growth that has occurred throughout the rest of the city.” Although planners claim that the efforts to improve the quality of life is inclusive for everyone, it is clear that the consequences of the green economy will disproportionately benefit one group over another. While assuring the people that environmentally friendly jobs will be created, in this case study it was shown that the city government approved plans for a cement plant and the expansion of an oil refinery, both of which would require skilled workers as well as not help the environment (Wu 2016).
While I understand the intentions of the RPA in its plans of reconnecting the three E’s in order to create what it considers a globally competitive region, I think it is important for us to consider the effects of such plans. If the goal is the achieve global competitiveness but the means involve displacing the people who make up the diversity that propels the success of the region, is it worth it?
Larson S. (2013) Planning and the Narrative of Threat. Larson S. “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City (pp 61-76). Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Wu A. (2016) a tale of two cities: equity, environment, and economic growth in urban areas. http://environment.yale.edu/yer/article/a-tale-of-two-cities-equity-environment-and-economic-growth-in-urban-areas#gsc.tab=0 (last accessed 24 March 2017)
Yaro R. D. and Hiss T. (1996) A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for The New York- New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area. Washington D.C.: Island Press
Hi Angela, I think that your choice to add gentrification to the three E’s was entirely reasonable. In fact, I think if gentrification did not have such a negative connotation Yaro would even agree with you based on his statement, “[Gentrification] is one of the constants, one of the results of the success of the city” (Larson 75). Therefore, it can be understood that Yaro considered gentrification to be a sign that the city was successful. Therefore, given that the displacement of people is a common consequence of gentrification, I doubt that Yaro was truly concerned over the displacement of minorities. Furthermore, although the Third Regional Plan is theoretically designed to surround economy, equity, and environment I think it has failed to do so. I think that it is still focused more heavily on the economic factors opposed to supporting equity and the environment. As you pointed out, these projects and investments attracted a specific group of people. This is because this notion has been created that environmentally friendly spaces make neighborhoods more attractive and increase real estate values. This exemplifying the commodification of healthy living spaces and shows how these areas are awarded to those who can afford it. The reinvestment of inner cities is meant to be enjoyed by those who can pay for such “luxuries”, therefore, with this mindset there is no room for equity and the environment. It is not equitable because once again the rich are being served while the poor are being underserved and displaced. It is not focused on the environment because although they are promoting green space it is not a natural space but rather a space that is commoditized and promotes consumerism. It is also only opening green space for a select few, small scale.
Essentially, these “inevitable” events can be associated with foundation of this country and city which is capitalism. In regards to your closing question, in capitalism it is apparently worth it. Essentially the success of some and the failure of others is an inevitably result of capitalism. However, I feel as though we have reached a point where the gap is far to large to just accept this as fate. I believe that capitalism is efficient in a world with an even, fair playing field in which all peoples can compete, which we inherently have not achieved. The structural impediment which bound minorities into a cycle of poverty prevent the true successes of capitalism from occurring. I think Urban Planners so far have had a narrow minded view on success and if we created an environment in which the success gap between rich and poor was smaller we would be an even more successful and globally competitive city.
Larson S. (2013) Planning and the Narrative of Threat. Larson S. “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City (pp 61-76). Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Hi Angela,
I really liked your post, especially the way in which you summarized and integrated the main ideas from both articles. Also, I think that your tittle for this post is very clever in that it perfectly captures and summarizes the main points addressed in both readings.
I would like to say that I agree with you in questioning the equality of this so called “quality of life” idea proposed by the RPA through their three E’s ideology. Similarly, to what you argued, and what was proposed in “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City, I believe that the RPA’s plan only did seek to benefit a particular group in the city, one which it thought was good to have in order to best prepare the city for competition in a globalized economy. However, I would just like to expand on what you have already stated and emphasize parts of the article which I was reminded of as I read your post. In Yaro’s and Hiss’ (1996) work it was emphasized that the “RPA’s third regional plan attempts to deal with issues that face most North American metropolitan regions…” (4). However, the plan only seeks to address those issues, which when fixed, would attract highly skilled workers to the city. The plan however, fails to address those other issues encountered by low by skill workers, who after the shift to a more globalized economy, were harshly affected and placed at a disadvantage. As stated in Yaro’s and Hiss’ work “the burden of these changes [to a more globalized/corporate economy] is greatest for low skill workers” (Yaro, Hiss, 1996, p. 3). Yet the plan does not seek to aid low skill workers but the opposite, it wants to push them away. This leads me to believe that the ideology presented by RPA only seeks to create a city in which highly skilled workers are preferred. A similar point is made in Larson’s article where he writes, that the plan “represented nothing less than the “retaking” of cities by the upper and middle classes… You preserve the character and preserve the quality of life and people with money buy in, and people without are pushed out” (Larson 2013, p. 74, 75). The point of favoring and wanting to attract more skilled workers is made more explicit when he writes “Virtually all of the RPA’s proposals… were geared toward enhancing real estate values and attracting, highly compensated workers needed to keep New York City’s information-based, globally oriented economy humming. (Larson 2013, p. 71). Overall, I can agree that bringing in high skilled workers is good for the city but this can also have negative consequences when done in a way which affects low skilled workers and puts them at a disadvantage.
Hi Angela,
I enjoy reading your post and especially like the title, which includes both the main problems in the city and the consequence of resolving these problems. After reading your post, I see how different variables in the city can cause a plan with good intention to have negative impacts on the city. Although Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs and the PRA each has a different view on the what is the best for the city, they shared the same goal, which is for the betterment of the city. Despite their different approaches in helping the city and its residents, the city would eventually go through the same process – gentrification, displacing certain groups of people and benefiting the rich.
The question you asked “is it worth it” to stay globally competitive if the consequence is gentrification makes me to wonder if it is even possible for a city to grow without going through the process of gentrification. First of all, the city might undergo the process of gentrification without trying to keep up with global competition. I think different levels of gentrification can take place in any city that is developing economically. Once the region established its reputation in business, it would automatically attract more people to move in. As the population grows, demand for various products will also increase, which would lead to increase in price of local products and real estate. All these changes can be treated as both positive and negative. In a positive view, this is a sign that the region is developing. On the other hand, it can also viewed as a nightmare for poor people who have been living in the region for years and suddenly cannot afford the housing. In “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind,” the author stated, “[Gentrification] is one of the constants, one of the results of the success of the city” (Larson 75). It appears to be that gentrification is an unavoidable procedure through the development of a successful city. At the end, I think instead of focusing on whether or not the PRA’s plan would lead to gentrification, we should focus on how to reduce the impacts of gentrification on local people.