With the Bloomberg administration came the reintroduction of Robert Moses-styled building and its societal consequences. Though recognized for being infused with Jane Jacob’s ideals, Jacobs herself criticized city planning under Bloomberg’s reign. (Larson) Privatized planning of public land with public funds became the new trend. And as we saw with the construction of Central Park – which set the tone for “public (re)development” in New York City– to the revitalization of Time’s Square, in order to accomplish what private investors deem to be advantageous to the city, the needs and benefits that it offers must be sacrificed by a select group of residents.
In the proposal for the completion of the Hudson Yards, Barclay’s center and Columbia University extension- to name a few, there was an evident conflict between private owner’s redevelopment ideas and that of the local community residents. How is it that the Harlem neighborhood’s (to be directly affected by the expansion) 16-year plan for development was denied, but Columbia was accepted? Money. In all these rezoning cases we see that large businesses/corporations with tons of money have the resources necessary to essentially bid over the ownership and control rights of private and public land that has large public interest.
Rezoning however, should be used to match the changing needs in districts, rather than to be constantly manipulated for political and economic gains. Don’t get me wrong, the city should be interested in making profits through tax revenues- but shouldn’t overestimate the profits of overzealous projects to justify the means of completing them. Bill Keller, the VP of Finance, attributed NYC’s fiscal crisis during the 1970s partly to “optimistic forecasts of tax revenues” that ultimately left the city responsible for its debt. Supporters of large-scaled building resulting from rezoning also cited the creation of jobs as a positive consequence. (Larson) In reality however, jobs in construction are only viable until the end of the building project and office positions would only cater to those with the required job skills- which includes non-city residents.
When rezoning, the consequences on residents needs to be one of the primary focusses. Ultimately zoning is a factor in determining the life chances of city residents. A person’s life chances as their opportunity to education, home ownership, and employment. (Dyer) In restricting who gets to live where, through downzoning particularly, there has been increased inequality through racial segregation and class disparities. (Dougherty) As previously mentioned, upscaling projects in low-income neighborhoods with the combination of redevelopment schemes has often-times cost the government more money than it made. However, Dougherty shines light on lost economic output seen in lack of development in downzoned neighborhoods. It’s interesting to see how much negative feedback development in downzoned areas receive despite its positive economic projections. Even more interesting is how in these neighborhoods comprised of mainly single family, detached homes have their wished respected- while in low-income neighborhoods with apartment filled streets, resident’s are forced to their stifle their concerns for the “city’s benefit.”
Sources
Larson S. (2013) “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press
Keller B (2017) “The NYC Fiscal Crisis: The Cost of Good Intensions.”
Presented at Queens College URBST 101 Lecture, Queens, USA, March
Dyer G (2017) “The New Urban Segregation.”
Presented at Queens College URBST 101 Lecture, Queens, USA, March
Additional Works:
Dougherty C (2016) How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality. The New York Times. 6 May
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html
