http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/03/nyregion/city-is-backing-makeover-for-decaying-brooklyn-waterfront.html

 

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/development/2767-zoning-instead-of-planning-in-williamsburg-and-greenpoint

 

Whether or not rezoning is a bad thing, the answer is not a simply yes or no. Whenever you are presented with some piece of information, you always need to be critical and consider whether the information you are receiving is valid or not. There are always two sides to a story and it is very important to be aware of both arguments. When it comes to rezoning and redevelopment, especially in regards to Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs, and Mike Bloomberg, you will have people on both ends, those who enthusiastically support it and those who strongly oppose it.

From the surface, redevelopment projects that Mayor Bloomberg’s administration proposed and completed seem legitimate and revolutionary, as seen in 2003 The New York Times article, “City is Backing Makeover for Decaying Brooklyn Waterfront” by Diane Cardwell who describes the Greenpoint/ Williamsburg waterfront project as “ambitious” and providing an “extreme transformation.” She focuses on the positive aspects of the project; the various promises made and benefits claimed by the Bloomberg administration ranging from more affordable housing and an increased number of jobs to a large park area. She gives the general impression that this Greenpoint/ Williamsburg project is a good thing happening to the neighborhood. But good for whom?

Cardwell only focuses on the positives, completely disregarding the potential negatives. Tom Angotti, in his Gotham Gazette article, “Zoning Instead of Planning in Williamsburg and Greenpoint,” points out all the detrimental effects that this project will have on the neighborhood in the future. Writing in 2005, Angotti is clearly able to see behind Bloomberg’s façade, and give his audience a realistic view of the effects that the real people in the neighborhood will be faced with. Explaining how the jobs produced from this project are short-term and how the number of affordable housing created “depends entirely on whether or not developers will take advantage of the zoning incentives to build,” Angotti makes people realize that this will have devastating effects on the people who currently live in the neighborhood. Real estate values will skyrocket, pushing local residents out while drawing in a group of wealthy people who are ready to transform the neighborhood to what they want it to be. But are there no benefits at all? Do the negatives truly outweigh the positives to the point where the whole project is regarded as a catastrophe?

More than not we are faced with these one-sided evaluations of policies, projects, events, etc. Rarely, do we see an acknowledgement of both sides of the story. In this situation, it is important to understand both the positives and negatives of redevelopment projects like the Greenpoint/ Williamsburg waterfront in order to critically analyze whether projects like this should be implemented in the future.

Having first-hand experience with gentrification, as I have lived in Greenpoint my whole life, I have witnessed the gradual changes that have been occurring for the past couple of years, as well as heard stories from my parents who have lived here for roughly 30 years. The neighborhood has changed drastically, in some ways for the better, and in some ways for the worse. If you ask me if rezoning and gentrification are good things I will most likely say “depends”. It has driven out many family members, friends, and acquaintances who shared common interests and a common culture with my family. It has increased our rent dramatically. It has attracted a crowd of elite who further bring in new businesses that drive out local, community restaurants, shops, and stores. However, if you ask my parents if they prefer Greenpoint the way it is now or the way it used to be, they will hands down prefer the current way of life. Many parts of the neighborhood were extremely dangerous, making the neighborhood less appealing. The community is safer now, with better schools and more activities for kids. Even as an adult, the new park provides a nice view where diverse crowds of people, young and old, gather to relax or play.

Personally, I have mixed views of the impact the redevelopment plan has had on my neighborhood. But I believe it is simply ignorant to praise or criticize something without full knowledge of all the facts. And these two articles, from two completely different sources, being two years apart, show the drastic differing views that people have, and both of them are equally important to analyze. Nothing in life is black and white, everything is just a different shade of grey. To be able to truly understand a controversial topic, the most crucial thing to do is listen to and understand both sides because they are equally essential.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20161030/POLITICS/161029839/does-new-york-city-need-another-power-broker-like-robert-moses-the-urban-planner-has-pushed-through-needed-infrastructure-such-as-the-triboro-bridge-and-could-have-allowed-megaprojects-like-penn-station-to-move-through

 

We are posed with the question of Robert Moses’ legacy: master builder or evil genius. But, I’d like to pose an additional one: “Does New York need a new Robert Moses?”

It is undeniable that Robert Moses has had an immense amount of influence on New York’s, particularly New York City’s, physical layout. He is often referred to as the “Master Builder” for his exceptional public works projects throughout his years in power. His accomplishments range from parks, beaches, and swimming pools, to bridges, parkways, and expressways. His projects benefited thousands of people while at the same time negatively affecting thousands of others as well as destroying neighborhoods (Ballon and Jackson 2007).

However, his influence is still felt today, in a positive aspect. His infrastructures and facilities are still largely intact and operating, contributing to the need and desire of public space as well as democratization in that aspect. However, the city government’s interest in public projects in the past couple of decades has declined and it is crucial to consider whether we are in need of a new master builder (Ballon and Jackson 2007: 83).

Marc J. Dunkelman explores this idea in his article “Does New York need another Robert Moses?”: “Rather than proactively building for the future, New York has contented itself with ‘building back’ in response to crises. In the absence of Moses’ cudgel, the pipeline of major projects has slowed to a trickle. To this day, with the possible exception of the forthcoming water tunnel for Brooklyn and Queens, no major project has reached completion since the Verrazano Bridge opened in 1964. And it’s not because New York has been bereft of leaders with grand visions. In fact, the city’s failure to keep up with the demands of a growing population is a direct result of the well-meaning protections erected to preclude the rise of another Moses.”

Moses abused his power and people are wary of having another Robert Moses controlling some of the city’s largest decisions. But how else can New York City fix all of its problems and move forward another step towards modernity if someone doesn’t take action?

So many safeguards are now put in place to ensure that no one single person wields as much power as Robert Moses did. After all, we live in a democratic rather than authoritarian government, right? But these precautions have acted as barriers and obstacles to the point that even projects that have almost universal support and approval get bulldozed because of the slightest opposition. Is this system of safeguards and protections against tyranny benefiting New York City or contributing to its downfall? (Dunkelman 2016).

Dunkelman concludes by claiming, “A system that makes progress possible again will get some projects wrong. But the status quo—a system in which nothing gets done absent a crisis—imperils too much of what New York does well.” Ideally, the best system would be one that benefits all, if possible. It would be proactive but not over productive. It would use the power it has but not abuse it.

There is no doubt that Robert Moses has made enormous improvements to the city which benefited thousands of people. Similarly, there is no doubt that he abused his power and negatively impacted thousands of other peoples lives. His contradictory legacy makes it difficult to decide whether he should be praised or scorned. Which in turn makes it difficult to decide whether New York City needs another master builder in its future. But these two dilemmas go hand in hand. Is it best to continue with the democratic yet unproductive system we currently have in place or would it be more beneficial to go back to the prime time of Robert Moses where there was corruption but implementation of numerous public projects that benefited all in the long run? It is a difficult question to answer, but one that needs to be discussed and debated as the future of the most marvelous city in the world rests in our hands.

 

By: Izabela Konopko

 

Works Cited:

Ballon H and Jackson K (2007) Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York. New York: W.W. Norton

Dunkelman M (2016) “Does New York need another Robert Moses?”  (Last accessed 25 February 2017)