From the three pieces I read on the Bloomberg plan, they were looking to get rid of the Moses v. Jacobs issue and instead find the sweet spot of both. Amanda Burden stood out to me as an integral person to achieving the perfect combination of a master builder and community activist. However, despite the Bloomberg administration’s hope to have the best of both worlds and implement Moses’ style of getting things done with Jacobs’ awareness of the city and its people, in the end, there is always be a loser.
A majority of this blog post will list out the important and effective things Amanda Burden was able to apply in her time as planning commissioner of the Bloomberg Administration that made her stand out from Moses-like planners. But, I want to also point out who loses in the end, simply because she was a good representation of Moses’ and Jacobs’ ideas coming together, and yet still couldn’t escape criticism. Unfortunately, like professor Larson has stated, there is usually a party who does not benefit from changes made to improve the city’s future.
I watched Amanda Burden give a Ted talk on public spaces in cities and it was obvious that she was leaning more towards a Jacobs’ point of view when deciding what was best for the city. She started her speech, “When I think about cities, I think about people” which answered the question professor Larson asked about what is the city (Ted Talk, How Public Spaces Make Cities Work, 2014)? To each individual person it will be a different answer, but here, Burden directly associates the city with the people who live in it. That gives us a good idea of what she was basing her decisions on. Also, a fun fact, Burden told the crowd that she was an “animal behaviorist” and that is why she was so interested in the people and their connection with their environment (Ted Talk, How Public Spaces Make Cities Work, 2014). She often watched people as they spent time in public spaces and took notes of what worked and what didn’t.
She first studied Paley Park, which was built by her stepfather, in order to appreciate what made this public space successful and to learn from it. She mentions the “movable chairs” that allowed people to set up their own space and the fact that from her observation, people attracted more people were what gave the green space its appeal (Ted Talk, How Public Spaces Make Cities Work, 2014). I was struck by Burden’s awareness of how developers prefer infrastructure that has “nothing to water, nothing to maintain, and no undesirable people to worry about” (Ted Talk, How Public Spaces Make Cities Work, 2014). Burden is mindful of the fact that developers are more concerned with making their money in the easiest way possible and by pointing it out, gives the impression that she doesn’t want that to be her legacy. Later on in the post, the criticisms of some community members that contradict Burden’s consideration for people, will be pointed out and it begs the question if it is possible to build up the city without hurting some of the public.
When Bloomberg became mayor, there was a prediction that New York would add 1 million more people and Burden explains that the only way to account for them was to rezone and reshape the entire city (Ted Talk, How Public Spaces Make Cities Work, 2014). She put a considerable amount of work and time into “understanding the DNA of every neighborhood” in order to get the communities to trust her and agree to her changes (Ted Talk, How Public Spaces Make Cities Work, 2014). Burden and her team rezoned 124 neighborhoods and 40% of the city all in close vicinity to the subway system so that new people moving in would not need cars. She believed from the beginning that having more cars would only hurt the city and put Manhattan at a disadvantage.
Unfortunately, for seeming to be a planning commissioner for the people, she still experienced backlash for her rezoning. Burden’s influence landed her fifth on the “one hundred most powerful people in New York real estate” list in the New York Observer (Larson 2013, pg. 135). With that kind of power comes expectations and desires from different sides. In this case, having that much power over real estate can be a slippery slope and could easily put the area in a perfect position to be gentrified. Her critics believe that when Burden basks in the praises for “Ground Zero, the Atlantic Yards, and the High Line” she does not acknowledge the manufacturing jobs that were lost and the people who were being displaced (gothamist.com, 2007).
Ultimately, I don’t think that a city planner’s good intentions are enough to save them from judgment and nicknames like “Wicked Witch of the West” (gothamist.com, 2007). It’s impossible to please everyone but Burden received criticism from both developers and community activists which to me, sounds like she was walking the fine line of Moses and Jacobs (gothamist.com, 2007). Personally, I think her approach is just what the city needs.
Resources
Burden, Amanda. (2014). How Public Spaces Make Cities Work. (www.ted.com).Larson, Scott (2013) The Bloomberg Practice. In Larson,
Priluck, Jill. (2007). Amanda Burden: Good Witch or Bad Witch. (www.gothamist.com)
Satow, Julie. (2012). Amanda Burden Wants to Remake New York. She Has 19 Months Left. (www.newyorktimes.com)
Scott “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind:” Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
I think Cheyenne brings up an excellent point here about how Amanda Burden attempted to meld the ideologies of both Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs as head of City Planning. In fact, in an interview with the New York Times, Burden herself remarked “I like to say that our ambitions are as broad and far-reaching as those of Robert Moses, but we judge ourselves by Jane Jacobs’ standards” (NYT, 2012) with regard to the goals of City Planning in rezoning and restructuring the city. In many ways, the projects that were developed and executed under Burden were hugely successful in that they transformed the city’s landscape, and in some cases, such as the expansion of the 7 train and Javits Center, improved things that local communities supported; however, I think it is important to also acknowledge more in-depth the losers in Burden’s projects, and in projects that have followed since then.
As Cheyenne pointed out above, one of the major sources of backlash was the loss of manufacturing jobs and the increased vulnerability of neighborhoods to gentrification. For instance, the expansion of Columbia University necessitated the rezoning of the area between 135th and 125th streets from manufacturing to mixed use: “at the time,” Larson states, “home to a mix of self-storage warehouses, auto repair shops, out-of-the-way restaurants, a bus depot, and 132 residential units” (Larson 2013, 41). This type of rezoning also happened along the waterfronts, where more industrial and manufacturing areas existed. Turning them into mixed-use areas did allow for new construction, but also forced out the existing businesses and residents; for example, the Columbia expansion immediately pushed out 880 employees and 219 residents, with rising rent prices projected to push out an addition 1,318 residents by 2030. This kind of redevelopment paves the way for gentrification, and in particular with the Columbia expansion, the outcome was a removal of local businesses and residents to make way for the highly educated, high income students and the amenities the school brought with it (please refer to the NYT article linked below for income breakdowns of Columbia and other Ivy-level schools). Redevelopment projects, urban renewal, and gentrification like this has continued throughout the boroughs since Burden’s term- most visibly in Brooklyn over the last few years, with the Fulton Street mall area being a particularly notable example- and not always in the name of a “public good” like the expansion of a university, but often in the form of luxury buildings and high-end stores too expensive for the few remaining original residents.
References:
New York Times, 2012. “Amanda Burden, Planning Commissioner, is Remaking New York City”. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/nyregion/amanda-burden-planning-commissioner-is-remaking-new-york-city.html
Larson, Scott. “The Bloomberg Practice”, Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind. (2013). 41.
New York Times Interactive, Columbia University. 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/columbia-university
Although I do agree that Amanda Burden embodies certain qualities of both Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, I do not think that the combination of qualities of Moses and Jacobs Burden embodies is ideal. She failed to capture the good qualities of Moses and Jacobs, perhaps because their good qualities are too closely tied to their bad ones or because she was working in an entirely different context, and instead embodied Moses’ bossiness while neglecting Jacobs community-oriented vision. Her failure to capture only the positive qualities of Moses and Jacobs resulted in critiques of Burden from both sides of the spectrum.
While Burden did have the city’s people in mind, her projects drew criticism from not only those people whom she displaced, but also from the private real estate developers she controlled. As New York Times writer Diane Cardwell points out, “many developers…complain that [Burden] is imperious and arbitrary, using her seat in government to dictate the angles at which their buildings sit in the skyline or to mandate the use of overpriced architects” (Cardwell 2007). People have even criticized the Bloomberg administration for having “little interest in genuine community planning” and Burden specifically for “[focusing] too intently on the microfibers of a plan and [ignoring] larger threads in the urban fabric like transportation, schools or sewer capacity” (Cardwell 2007). Thus, although she could be domineering like Moses, she failed to see the larger scope of New York City that Moses did and nitpicked the smaller, less significant details of projects. Moreover, Burden claims to have acted in the interests of the people of New York City, as Jacobs would have, but some of her work hurt people. For example, her rezoning of Greenpoint-Williamsburg displaced its residents and dispelled manufacturing jobs (Cardwell 2007). Therefore, assuming that there could be a perfect mix of Moses and Jacobs consisting of only their good qualities, namely Moses’ ceaseless building and Jacobs understanding of the people who make up the city, Burden surely falls short.
Sources:
Cardwell D (2007) Once at Cotillions, Now Reshaping the Cityscape. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/nyregion/15amanda.html
Larson S (2013) Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philidelphia: Temple University Press.
Although I do agree that Amanda Burden embodies certain qualities of both Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, I do not think that the combination of qualities of Moses and Jacobs Burden embodies is ideal. She failed to capture the good qualities of Moses and Jacobs, perhaps because their good qualities are too closely tied to their bad ones or because she was working in an entirely different context, and instead embodied Moses’ bossiness while neglecting Jacobs community-oriented vision. Her failure to capture only the positive qualities of Moses and Jacobs resulted in critiques of Burden from both sides of the spectrum.
While Burden did have the city’s people in mind, her projects drew criticism from not only those people whom she displaced, but also from the private real estate developers she controlled. As New York Times writer Diane Cardwell points out, “many developers…complain that [Burden] is imperious and arbitrary, using her seat in government to dictate the angles at which their buildings sit in the skyline or to mandate the use of overpriced architects” (Cardwell 2007). People have even criticized the Bloomberg administration for having “little interest in genuine community planning” and Burden specifically for “[focusing] too intently on the microfibers of a plan and [ignoring] larger threads in the urban fabric like transportation, schools or sewer capacity” (Cardwell 2007). Thus, although she could be domineering like Moses, she failed to see the larger scope of New York City that Moses did and nitpicked the smaller, less significant details of projects. Moreover, Burden claims to have acted in the interests of the people of New York City, as Jacobs would have, but some of her work hurt people. For example, her rezoning of Greenpoint-Williamsburg displaced its residents and dispelled manufacturing jobs (Cardwell 2007). Therefore, assuming that there could be a perfect mix of Moses and Jacobs consisting of only their good qualities, namely Moses’ ceaseless building and Jacobs understanding of the people who make up the city, Burden surely falls short.
Sources:
Cardwell D (2007) Once at Cotillions, Now Reshaping the Cityscape. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/nyregion/15amanda.html
Larson S (2013) Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philidelphia: Temple University Press.