The redevelopment of an abandoned railroad into the High Line created a new source of tourism and revenue for the city of New York, attracting foreigners while creating yet another undemocratic and exclusive public space (Reichl 2016) where the homeless are unwelcome (Loughran 2016). As discussed in class, we often talk about the homeless with pity while inadvertently viewing them as criminals under the law, bathing, sleeping and sitting in public areas where they are not wanted. In this week’s reading Kevin Loughran (2014) raises a very interesting comparison of what it is like for a “privileged individual” to sleep in a public space versus a “less privileged” one (p. 14). He writes:

“For privileged individuals visiting the High Line, sleeping in public space represents an enormous luxury; for less privileged individuals—such as homeless people, poor people, and people of color—sleeping in public space carries the stigma of poverty and potential danger.” (p.14)

Criminalizing the homeless through enforcing laws such as not being allowed to sit on a public sidewalk (National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) 2014: p. 16) makes it seem like the homeless are there with the intention of disturbing the public, which they themselves are a part of (being that the word “public” is defined as “of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state” (Mirriam Webster n.d.)) and are deliberately and selfishly taking up space so that other people cannot walk by. It makes it seem like they have a choice: to sit there and be a nuisance, or go off to some imaginary space where they will be comfortable and not bother anyone. Some might refer to the latter as a home.  In No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities (NLCHP 2014), which clearly explains the extent to which the homeless are criminalized as well as provides alternative ways to handle their presence, it is reported that 74% of homeless people do not know of a secure place to sleep at night where they will not be harassed by the police (p. 16). Rather than criminalizing the homeless for existing, more should be done to provide them with a place to stay. In Northwest, NC there is only room for 17% of the homeless population in the area’s shelters, and Los Angeles, CA doesn’t fall far behind with room in its shelters for only 22% of the homeless population (NLCHP 2014: p.15). There is thus, clearly an issue in this nation in regards to blaming the homeless for being in a public space—which, by definition of the term, they belong in—when we are not providing a place for them to actually go. The report released by NLCHP (2014) asserts that criminalizing the homeless creates an ineffective revolving door through which the homeless pass from the court system back onto the streets and that “housing, rather than jailing, homeless people is the much more successful and cost-effective option” (p.30). Instead of forcing the homeless to be a part of this vicious cycle more needs to be done on a political level to provide them with a place to stay where they will not be harassed.

The quote featured above (Loughran 2014) as well as the case of the homeless brings us back to the question of how public are public spaces? The two words “privileged” and “luxury” provide a clear answer to this question.  The High Line is a so-called public space that not only discourages the homeless from visiting and sleeping in it, but also a person of moderate income. Visiting the park 2 years ago it was obvious that it was more suited for high-end people; the apartments nearby were very fancy, designed using unique and modern architectural styles and the vendors situated along the park sold overpriced food and art. I personally felt unwelcome and out of place—it was almost embarrassing to have to ask a man selling ice cream how much it cost and then walk away because it was unaffordable ($7 for an ice cream cone is absolutely ridiculous). Also, the signs everywhere making it known that touching the plants is forbidden made me feel very on edge. The feeling of being watched and the possibility of getting in trouble for so much as touching a blade of grass in a place that was created for me (the public) just didn’t sit well with me.

How can a place designed for the public provide discomfort to so many?  When considering the development of a new urban public space planners need to ponder more deeply about who is included in the word public. If they create the space with the intention of attracting a specific social class, perhaps they should consider not deeming it a public space. Furthermore, lawmakers, the public service sector and those involved in the criminal justice system need to reevaluate how to deal with the homeless people in this country. Rather than treating the homeless in an uncivil manner by chastising them for their existence, more shelters should be constructed and new affordable housing units specifically intended for the homeless to move into should be created.

Link to Report by NLCHP (2014): https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place

 

References

Loughran K (2014) Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces. City & Community 13(1):49-68

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.) Definition of Public. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public (last accessed 16 April 2017)

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) (2014) No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/No_Safe_Place (last accessed 16 April 2017)

Reichl A. J. (2016) The High Line and the ideal of democratic public space. Urban Geography 37(6):904-925

From the beginning of our class discussions and readings on Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs the question of “whose plan was better for the future of New York City?” has been continuously brought up. The stark differences between the two of their visions have been engrained in our heads. While I always picked a side for the sake of just answering the question, I was always unsure of why I had to pick only one of the two and wondered what would happen if the best of both of their ideas were combined. I also ignorantly doubted that anyone or any plan/policy related to the planning of New York City took this possibility into consideration…that is until I read Chapter 5: Planning and the Narrative of Threat of “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind” (Larson 2013), which reflects on the background and logic behind RPA’s Third Regional Plan.

 

The Third Regional Plan, drawn out in A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for The New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area (Yaro and Hiss 1996), introduces the concept of the three E’s: economy, equity and environment and asserts that they direct the region’s concerns and that they are “the components of our quality of life” (Yaro and Hiss 1996: 6).  It was focused around the concern that the city’s prosperity and global standing were no longer guaranteed (Yaro and Hiss 1996) and contained a regional transit plan modeled after the ideas of Robert Moses combined with a city planning and community design modeled after the ideas of Jane Jacobs (Larson 2013). According to the RPA, the economy of the city would continue to decline unless both equity and environmental quality were increased (Yaro and Hiss 1996). In my opinion, the only way to achieve this is by drawing from the ideas set forth my Moses and Jacobs and having a combination of both of their ideas of an ideal city realized.  This way, equity could be achieved by Jacobs’ concepts of diversity contributing to prosperity, while environmental quality could be preserved through the parks built and envisioned by Moses. Just as I would have predicted it would be, the plan has been successful so far in influencing how NYC’s government has begun to rebuild itself.

 

PlaNYC 2030 – A Greener Greater New York (Georgetown Climate Center 2011) for example, released in 2007 under the Bloomberg administration, exemplifies how his administration carried out the environmental quality aspect of the Third Regional Plan.  It “brought together over 25 City agencies to work toward the vision of a greener, greater New York” (Georgetown Climate Center 2011: 1). It created 10 goals to achieve a sustainable future for the city and focused on land, water, transportation, energy, and air quality as well as climate change. It was also created to “prepare the city for one million more residents, strengthen the economy, combat climate change, and enhance the quality of life for all New Yorkers” (Georgetown Climate Center 2011: 1). Its environmental and transportation facets represent both the ideas set forth by Jacobs and Moses as mentioned earlier in reference to Larson’s writing, as well as the formula of the three E’s presented in A Region at Risk, proving that combining 2 different approaches can work.

 

While I believe these two plans are successful in combining the views of Moses and Jacobs and are steps in the right direction towards a prosperous city, we are still far from achieving their goals and should evaluate the extent to which certain ideas should be taken. For example, the Third Regional Plan calls for equity, but how equal should things be and in what aspects? Social, economic, etc.? How far can we go towards equality before we lean towards socialist patterns, a concept that many Americans cringe at the thought of owing to their political views.  Equality is not only a matter of the extent to which it should be taken but of the possibility of it being reached at all. In terms of environmental quality, for instance, many people ignore the idea of environmental racism— “racial discrimination in the development and implementation of environmental policy, especially as manifested in the concentration of hazardous waste disposal sites in or near areas with a relatively large ethnic minority population” (Oxford Dictionaries 2017). Again, as always, there is the question of who wins and who loses? Cases such as that of Flint, Michigan, where a community of poor and mainly minority residents were ignored when they reported brown water coming from their faucets and are still to this day not provided with clean drinking and bathing water, have shown that despite the enforcement of environmental health and protection policies, poor minority populations are still left to fend for themselves. Thus, the plans may seek to have everyone win, but is that really the case? In this example, representing many other situations, the answer is no.  It is more than a matter of imposing laws, but of a change in mindset and long held historical patterns. As of now, the affect of creating a plan that embodies both Moses’ and Jacob’s views has seemed to be successful in influencing policy. However, the only way to determine if the Third Regional Policy and PlaNYC 2030 will be achieve their goals in the long run is through the close watch of its effects on populations of every race and class over time. In the meantime, the questions just posed should be considered in order to improve how these plans are implemented as well as and how their core goals of an improved economy, equity, and better environmental quality can affectively be achieved.

 

http://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/planyc-2030-a-greener-greater-new-york.html

 

Sources

Larson S. (2013) “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Larson S. (2013) Planning and the Narrative of Threat. Larson S. (1) “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City (pp 61-76). Philadelphia: Temple University Press

Georgetown Climate Center (2011) PlaNYC 2030 – A Greener Greater New York.       http://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/planyc-2030-a-greener-greater-new-      york.html (last accessed 24 March 2017)

Oxford Dictionaries (2017) environmental racism.         https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/environmental_racism (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