On the NYC Parks site we were privileged to view before-and–after photos of the parks in all boroughs. The after photos seem so much more colorful, bright and vibrant to show the ‘hard work’ and ‘careful’ attention the city gave to the ‘poor, unfortunate town’. It says that since Fall 2014 The Community Park Initiative had the goal of repainting, repairing, and beautifying the parks and courts of the city in the most “underserved neighborhoods”. It was mentioned in class however how the city rarely give substantial assistance to these areas and prefers to plant some trees to say they helped. Indeed, the new monkey bars and colorful slide look amazing for the kids but how is their education system? Are there enough teachers or funding for the district? Often times these projects are only ways for the city to show their effort and intervention and to add to their resume, rather than resolve real issues or the concerns of the citizens. To tie back to what Jacobs found up in North Boston, a resident of a public housing complex said, “They put a patch of grass to say that we have green but they never asked us what we really wanted in the neighborhood?”. Then there is also the question of, is the city really doing this for its residents or to make it beautiful for its visitors?
It seems to be a trend for New York City to prioritize its tourists over its residents. I can understand wanting to improve the look of course but when the focus is income brought in from visitors and the appearance instead of function or use, then it is an issue. The City has failed to fix what doesn’t work but believes a paint job would at least cover the blemishes. If its not for the tourists, it for the wealthy. Kevin Loughran recognized that in neoliberal urbanism, the spread of resources is imbalanced favoring “privatized public spaces in wealthier neighborhoods to neglected parks in poorer neighborhoods”. I know we were told to be weary of the ‘greater good’ idea but there is no way they can argue that the projects in the city are catering to that (imaginary) group. In there eyes the ‘greater good’ must be the huge number of thousands if not millions of visitors they get at a time. Areas like the High Line were designed as a tourist attraction solely for the enjoyment by those not native to NYC. The Friends of the High Line gives their mission statement, “Through excellence in operations, stewardship, innovative programming, and world-class design, we seek to engage the vibrant and diverse community on and around the High Line, and to raise the essential private funding to help complete the High Line’s construction and create an endowment for its future operations.” It actually quite comical that they use the term “diverse” when it seems that that’s the main thing they don’t allow (along with a very long list of other things). Everything is restricted from the food, to activities that would be deemed normal for a park, and even lounging is barely an option. The High Line was designed as a conveyer belt, just to move the subjects along a narrow path to look side to side as art or grass then keep walking. I remember my experience first time going to the high line with a friend, we went to the sugar factory before and I got the most expensive drink and plate of a single waffle that I ever had in my life. And after that day I realized how crazy I was to spend thirty dollars on one (but massive) drink, which I clearly won’t do again. It was March so it was also cold that day and I remember seeing a few performers but not like the ones that you see in the subway station that I visualize when I think of NYC. But yeah I remember only really being able to take pictures and walk this path. It was pretty boring in my opinion since the park gives no opportunity to interact with it. When I think of a real park, there are families having barbeques or picnics, children are playing in a playground or swings, there’s maybe a basketball courts for teens to play, fields to play tag in or a water sprinkler park. On the High Line I saw no families and no children, it was mostly white, middle-aged couples there. I highly doubt it was just the day I went and that this form of ‘entertainment’ clearly caters to a specific group.
Compare the High Line to what we said in class about Central Park and how its underlying purpose of assimilating people into society and controlling their behavior. “No ball-playing”, “no access to the grass”, no bikes”, and more were all used to give the rights and pleasures of the park to a specific class- the wealthy or visitors. The same is being applied here. If a kid wanted to play ball or a teen wanted to walk their dog, that is not possible on the High Line. Doesn’t seem so ‘diverse’ now. I can’t help but think and compare this park to the boardwalk in Coney Island, Brooklyn. Still a part of NYC, it caters to all groups and kinds. There’s the NY Aquarium with affordable rates of free for children and $12 for adults (but have reduced pricing now due to the ongoing construction), Nathans’ famous hot dogs, the beach and Luna Park with rides of all types. The boardwalk is also just so much for open and accommodating so you’re always hearing loud music, seeing couples or families walking and kids on their skateboards or mom playing with kids in the sand. Its all about if a park or area is serving its needs to the community. The New York City government was established to serve New Yorkers.

http://www.thehighline.org/about
https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/the-high-line
http://nyaquarium.com/

“About the High Line | Friends of the High Line.” The High Line, www.thehighline.org/about.

“The High Line.” The High Line : NYC Parks, www.nycgovparks.org/parks/the-high-line.

“Saving Wildlife and Wild Places.” New York Aquarium, nyaquarium.com/.

Loughran, Kevin. “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces.” City and Community, Northwestern University, Mar. 2014.

“Community Parks Initiative Targeted Improvements.” Community Parks Initiative Targeted Improvements : NYC Parks, NYC Parks, www.nycgovparks.org/about/framework-for-an-equitable-future/community-parks-initiative/caring.

In Jane Jacobs’ The Life and Death of Great American Cities, she presents her purpose early in the text that it is to attack and critically analyze city planning and how its been taught to be used. Unlike the goal of planners and city constructors, her focus is on the social needs of the community rather than the infrastructure and physical complexes. She found the “need of cities for an intricate diversity of uses that give support economically and socially”. Recognition that “components of this diversity must supplement each other” creates a network and value between what the city is and what it has. The people, their relationships, the economy and wellbeing of the city, all depend on each other to work and use the city in different ways.

One important concept Jacobs’ discussed was the failures of using the function of the city to the citizens in planning its structure. She recognized that the failures of urban planning could not be resolved by the ideal notion that a larger proposal of money/grants will bring more opportunity. “Rebuilding can promote social and economic vitality in cities” however she argues that the accomplishments often time preceded a degradation to a state worse than before. Jacobs in 1961 would be horrified with the philosophy of city planning now. It is agreeable that the concerns and need of the citizens must be prioritized to the suggestions by private corporations or state/federal governments. Citizens of a community should be given a budget to decide which issue requires immediate attention, be it education, roads construction, infrastructure, entertainment centers, etc. However it id wrong to deem an inner-city area illegible for assistance because of the existence of a park or field. “People don’t care if it works but have a quick and easy impression.” The method to find how a city “ought to look” would ignore the issues the citizens find in their slum or community. There comes an issue then on criteria, Morningside Heights has a park so it was considered a “good neighborhood” that is until it was becoming a slum in the 1950s which then identified it as a city of need since its state was harming the appearance and business of the institutions it held. How would we decide the threshold to label a city as “in need”? Is there a number or level of economic activity, wellness or other factor that would distinguish these neighborhoods? Is it right to leave it in the hands of the residents or can they not be trusted to make a right decision on the behalf of their population? A tenet in East Harlem felt her community embodied the quote, “all that glitters is not gold.” She said that the ignorance and incompetence to see their need was worse than the state her town was before it was covered by trees and building complexes.

About 30 years after Jacobs announced these claims, in 1994 Nicholas Lemann confirmed that America’s major problem is the inner-cities and slums. It seems Lemann found that programs geared to clean slums were introduced after the citizens presented their disgust of city conditions and rioted, like it worked in Los Angeles. In this way citizens are taking the initiative to familiarize the government with their issues. The Empowerment Zones program would pick 6 large cities to receive tax breaks, aid and benefits, however the problem arises again “who is to select and measure the need of a city?”. Would it truly benefit the citizens with the label “greater good”? The representative of New York Charles B. Rangel showed favor towards this program but came to terms that “it may not work for the rest of the nation”. Handing the responsibility to individual populations in various cities may ensure that each area is catered to its needs and not provided with a “one size fits all” plan which often proves to be the downfall of proposals of construction. “Social uplift”, defined as education counseling, improvement of housing stock and crime control, was perceived as demeaning to those of lower income and as too expensive to the wealthy. What the city needs should be decided by that city and those who would have to deal with the consequences or rejoice in its success.

Lemann Nicholas (1994) The Myth of Community Development. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/09/magazine/the-myth-of-community-development.html?pagewanted=1 (last accessed 1 March 2017)

Jacobs Jane (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.