It’s a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon, and it’s quite easy to spot joggers and visitors in Central Park, or other parks. Ice cream trucks lure children with their annoyingly familiar song blasting through the speakers, and one would easily be glad and appreciative of this vast, green, public space. But wait. What exactly does public space mean? According to UNESCO, “Public space refers to an area or place that is open and accessible to all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age or socio-economic level. These are public gathering spaces such as plazas, squares and parks” (“Inclusion Through Access to Public Space,” 2010). Yet, anyone knows that a location without any racism or privilege due to race doesn’t exist. Although Kevin Loughran states that the “issues of privilege, economic growth, and consumption are bound up in the neo-liberalization of public spaces,” (63) it’s also extremely necessary to dig deeply solely on the privilege derived from certain ethnicities.

The media portrays parks and public spaces to be safe locations for all types of ethnicities. But the media also broadcasts various crimes towards mostly non-white people. And this is where the confusion between two types of people, Group A and Group B, is born. Group A, are mostly white people who have rarely experienced racial threats. Thus, it’s difficult or even impossible for them to understand why public space can be an area of danger. After all, what could possibly happen during a simple workout? Now, Group B, are people whose histories begin with racism, making it hard for them to fully believe in “safety.” Even when they’re walking down the streets in broad daylight, they may have to deal with racist slurs and harassment. And they might wonder if they’ll ever feel fully protected. After all, no matter where they go, they won’t feel welcomed and treated with respect.

Brentin Mock explains this idea of Group B in his “For African Americans, Park Access Is About More Than Just Proximity,” because he was baffled at the idea of parks being predominantly white. He states, “The Cedar Hill State Park is an 1,826- acre park found just southwest of Dallas, and it is surrounded by communities where African Americans make up more than half the population. But black people make up only around 11 percent of the park’s visitors compared to 67 percent white visitors, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department” (2016). This is a surprisingly odd phenomenon, and a strong proof that parks are not equally used. The fact that Cedar Hill State Park is surrounded by African American communities only serves as a critical evidence against people who might claims, “Maybe non-white people just don’t go to parks, because it’s so far.” During the interview conducted to elucidate this issue, some of the residents claimed, “They don’t really say anything to encourage us to come. All we hear is that some groups went, if we hear that any people of color went there, nothing positive that they say about it, so we stay away from there. They make it sound as if it’s not for us. People talk about it, but they talk about it like it’s their (whites’) place that they go” (Mock, 2016). Why would anyone wish to go to park if he or she doesn’t feel welcomed? Brentn Mock continues to shed a light upon the ignored side of public space, giving another example of where African Americans held an extremely successful Juneteenth celebration, and the entire committee was expecting a reward or an honor. Luckily, the participants and staff were awarded a national award through the NRPA (National Recreation and Park Association). But “when it was the time to go and receive the award, not one African American was on the trip. Yeah, it was all White Americans. So, to the African Americans that was a slap in the face” (2016).

This idea is also evident in Kevin Loughran’s article, who states, “A dozen people, mostly white young adults, are in line at the espresso bar; others wait for gelato and tamarind-flavored popsicles” (60). Okay, some could claim that maybe only white people were extremely thirsty! But then he again claims, “Here there are a handful of wooden chaise lounges that are seemingly always occupied- often by white adults taking naps” (Loughran, 60). Now, this is not just a mere coincidence. The Chelsea Market passage, a public space, is predominantly white! But isn’t public space supposed to be a location that allows any group of ethnicities and genders to enjoy themselves? So where are Asians, African Americans, Latinos, and Indian American? Truth is, there’s no safe place for them. To them, public space doesn’t exist. It never has, and it might never will be.

Even though Kevin Loughran has done a solid job in explaining the value of neo-liberalization of public spaces and parks, it’s much more important to focus on the hidden, racist treatments that residents face every day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mock , Brentin. “A Legacy of Racism in America’s Parks.” CityLab, 3 June 2016, www.citylab.com/design/2016/06/for-african-americans-park-access-is-about-more-than-just-proximity/485321/.

 

Inclusion Through Access to Public Space | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/urban-development/migrants-inclusion-in-cities/good-practices/inclusion-through-access-to-public-space/.

 

 

 

The conclusion of Kevin Loughran’s article “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces” states that no one can truly characterize the High Line as one type of park; it is neither entirely public nor entirely private. I agree with these ideas entirely. The park’s relationship to the private and public sectors are nuanced relationships that cannot be easily analyzed or generalized. However, I believe the pros of the High Line outweigh the cons in the fact that it is a free area of leisure. Though it is primarily used by white people according to Loughran’s ethnographic studies, I still think the park provides opportunities to view beauty and relax for all people (Loughran 53).

While white, privileged people do tend to be able to enjoy the park more liberally, I do not think it is an example of gentrification as Loughran alluded to on multiple occasions (Loughran 63). The High Line is, as he stated, a nuanced staple in New York City. It does act uniquely in its expensive private components, but it is nonetheless an aesthetically pleasing location that is open for all to enjoy. It has recently been made even more accessible by the newest stop on the 7 train line, which connects minority neighborhoods in Queens to Manhattan (Fitzsimmons 2015). This train stop could be an indication of the park being open to people besides the rich and privileged elite of New York City.

Though I do believe that the High Line has the ability to benefit most people in New York City, I am particularly interested in how the “public” portion of the park actually contrasts with the people’s needs. One segment of Loughran’s piece particularly intrigued me. Bottle collectors are frowned upon in the “public” park, yet the park is supposed to be for the public good (Loughran 62). For people who make a living through the bottles from the public, wouldn’t the park be for people making money from the park?

The issue concerning bottle collectors speaks to the larger issue of the city as a growth machine. Though the city needs money to function, it seems as if every aspect of New York City is being taken from the public and given to the private sector. From parks to the workers who collect garbage, it seems as if countless city operations are subcontracted or in relation to private companies (Feldman 2018). The city and its public spaces do not truly care about the public good. They care about money and how they can make it.

I’ve seen a similar situation occur in my home neighborhood of College Point, Queens. The Frank Golden Park has been subjected to privatization efforts after a deal was made between the local government and an Irish sports team (Toure 2015). The deal states that the Shannon Gaels sports team can use a brand new field during allocated times- most of these times being weekends and after school hours. This “public” park has had its resources allocated to external parties and this has resulted in the field being largely inaccessible to children who want to play in the park during their free time. This situation has outraged many in College Point, but it is different from the High Line in the fact that the High Line was a deserted “blight” in New York City. While it was cherished by certain tag artists and other trespassers, it was not a utilized area of New York City.

 

While I understand that there is controversy surrounding the High Line, it is ultimately a public park that favors the demographics of the people in its immediate neighborhood. However, could this not be said for most parks? The park shown on the New York City’s Department of Parks website proves that park revitalization efforts are not only occurring in wealthy neighborhoods (Community Parks Initiative Targeted Improvements). Parks are being revitalized in underserved neighborhoods. However, these efforts could very well make the neighborhood more appealing to outsiders and may thus make other people go to the park. New York City will continue to cater to the wealthy because it needs money to continue to grow. The city is stuck in a paradox in which it is surviving to gain money and gaining money to survive. Unless the city proves that it is not merely a growth machine, I believe more public spaces will be used to attract more people.

 

References:

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

Feldman, K. (2018, January 04). Trashed: Inside the Deadly World of Private Garbage Collection. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/trashed-inside-the-deadly-world-of-private-garbage-collection

Fitzsimmons, E. G. (2015, September 13). Subway Station for 7 Line Opens on Far West Side. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/nyregion/no-7-subway-station-far-west-side-manhattan.html

“Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines, and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces,” Loughran, Kevin. 2014. City & Community, 13(1): 49-65

Toure, M. (2015, December 15). First phase of Frank Golden Park renovation begins. Retrieved from https://www.timesledger.com/stories/2015/50/shannongaels_2015_12_11_q.html

 

Kevin Loughran introduces his article by arguing that “contemporary parks and public spaces are best analyzed on a continuum of privilege” (Loughran 49). He concludes it by saying “the High Line illustrates how issues of privilege, economic growth, and consumption are bound up in the neoliberalization of public spaces” (Loughran 64). While it is important to acknowledge the ways in which public space become commodified due to neoliberalism (an ideology that emphasizes the value of free market), I believe we need to address how public space has always been a resource that is less accessible to and accommodating of certain demographics over others; this extends to a multitude of different factors including gender, race, body type, and etc. “…members of privileged groups experience a level of comfort when navigating daily life. Those with privilege are able to perform mundane routines with ease, something those without privilege cannot necessarily assume” (Kwan 145). However, like Loughran said, there is a continuum – therefore, while certain people may be privileged in certain ways, they can still be oppressed or made uncomfortable due to other characteristics. In Samantha Kwan’s study on body privilege, she observes that women experience body consciousness and perform body management more so than men. She concludes that “avoiding greater social sanction in public for their bodies and experiencing a higher level of comfort in daily interactions…must be situated in Western culture’s construction of normative masculinity” (Kwan 155). Women are often made to feel more uncomfortable in public spaces although they tend to occupy the majority of those spaces. In addition to just gender, you must consider the possible presence of additional identity-based features that they may be affected by – such as their race or the sexuality they portray. Therefore, while a white woman may experience sexism, she will not understand the discrimination a queer black woman will experience in addition to that. Likewise, though a male person of color experiences racism, he will not understand the sexism that a white woman will undergo and vice versa.

When Loughran speaks of the High Line and those that end up using that facility, he says that “everyone is white; the park’s Latino construction workers are the only people of color in view” (Loughran 57). In addition to this, he says that “the Friends of the High Line uses institutionalized social control to regulate the socio-spatial practices of park users” (Loughran 62). He goes on to speak of people sleeping in the park. There is a clear dichotomy presented when looking at those who sleep in a public space: either they are extremely privileged by having “a profound trust in [their] socio-spatial environment” or they are less privileged and have a “dire lack of other options” (Loughran 62). Though these two groups of people are performing the same action in the same place, one can sleep in public without the fear of being stigmatized or endangered while the other cannot (Loughran 62). It is not only in parks that people have different experiences with the same spaces and objects meant for general use – an average-sized individual assumes that chairs, desks, and public bathrooms will be tailored to them and that they have a right to do so, but others “experience these objects as triggers to body consciousness and as a form of patrolling…Physical structures built for thinner individuals become stressors that must be managed, emotionally and physically” (Kwan 151). So, while these public spaces are said to be built for the community at large, it is clear that they favor some people over others. Even when looking at a park, something a community can take for granted, one can see that “privilege enables its holder to “escape fear, anxiety, insult, injury, or a sense of not being welcome, not being real” (35)” (Kwan 150) within that space.

 

References:

Kwan S (2010) Navigating public spaces: gender, race, and body privilege in everyday life. Feminist Formations, The Politics and Rhetorics of Embodiment 22(2):144-166

 

 

One really cool resource I found while researching this topic was an online tour of how Michael Bloomberg “reshaped” New York City while he was mayor. The tour consisted of a series of three-dimensional maps and “before” and “after” photos. For visual learners (like me), this kind of format and resource is perfect. 🙂

I also discovered an article comparing Michael Bloomberg’s rezoning tendencies to Bill de Blasio that cited this three-dimensional tour. The article (published on March 3, 2017) made a very interesting claim: the reason why de Blasio isn’t rezoning (specifically why de Blasio isn’t downzoning) as much as Bloomberg was is because de Blasio either isn’t interested or he is not able to do so (“Here’s How de Blasio Stacks Up Against Bloomberg on Rezoning”, The Real Deal: New York Real Estate News). Because de Blasio is constantly advocating for rezoning (according to the article), it seems that the answer can be found in the second option.

Over the course of 12 years, Bloomberg rezoned 37% of New York City. Rather than upzoned (increasing the density of certain areas), many of the rezoned areas managed by the Bloomberg Administration were downzoned (decreasing the density of these areas). The article came to the conclusion that downzoning on such a large scale is simply not feasible under de Blasio due to the lack of space throughout the city. This deduction made me wonder: if de Blasio can’t rezone on as grand of a scale as Bloomberg, is there any hope for another mayor to be as successful in rezoning as Bloomberg and his administration?

Bloomberg was hailed by many as the next Robert Moses due to his work ethic. In some ways, however, Bloomberg was even more prosperous than Moses in that he recognized Moses’ flaws and was able to adopt Moses’ efficiency and avoid his bad habits. When Bloomberg first came to power, most of the populace admired Moses’ work but preferred Moses’ rival, Jane Jacobs’, ability to interact with the public and give the people a voice. The reason why (in some ways) it seems that Bloomberg is more successful than Moses is because Bloomberg inherited Moses’ productivity but embraced Jacobs’ mindset in that he understood how important it was to talk to locals and take their opinion into account.

That being said, it seems that Moses had more space and freedom to bring his vision to life than Bloomberg. Over time, however, with less and less open space being available for building, it seems that visionaries such as Moses and Bloomberg that produce significant, tangible results will become a thing of the past. Nonetheless, it’s undeniable that both Moses and Bloomberg are remarkable people who have made an extraordinary mark on New York City and whose work will never be forgotten.

 

Works Cited

Fahim, Kareem. “N.Y.U. Study Examines Rezoning Under Bloomberg.” The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/nyregion/22zoning.html.

Larson, Scott. Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Temple University Press, 2013.

“Reshaping New York.” The New York Times, 18 Aug. 2013, www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/08/18/reshaping-new-york/index.html.

St. Clair, Ben. “Here’s How De Blasio Stacks up against Bloomberg on Rezoning.” The Real Deal New York: New York Real Estate Deals, 16 Jan. 2018, therealdeal.com/2017/03/03/heres-how-de-blasio-stacks-up-against-bloomberg-on-rezoning/.

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.

 

 

 

 

In this post, the success of the Bloomberg administration will be measured in terms of how people of color and the working class have (not) benefited from his policies and projects. It will use some of the points discussed in New York Times article, “12 Years of Mayor Bloomberg” to assess this. One of the first offenses I accused Robert Moses of was his focus over the expensive, middle-to-upper class orientated automobile over public transportation, which is more accessible and working-class friendly. Fortunately, under the Bloomberg administration, New York City was able to extend the 7 subway line to Hudson Yards (Larson 36; Jaffe). While the original plan for the extension had been to create an area for the 2012 Olympics (a bid New York lost), New Yorkers still get to benefit from more access to the city via public transportation. Furthermore, it is clear that Bloomberg did not overlook the MTA when pursuing his Moses-esque scale of redevelopment for New York City. This is the not first time Bloomberg had proposed new stations, but it is one of the few times they were actually developed. One of the other (failed) attempts to extend MTA subway lines was the 1 line to accompany the successful Columbia University expansion (Larson). A less noble and successful development from the Columbia University expansion is the required rezoning of 123 residential units, which was “blighted” (Larson 42). The Supreme Court justified eminent domain since the University counted as a public good (that you usually need to pay thousands for). The prioritization of a public good over the private needs of the working class immediately reminds me of Moses’ own tendency to do the same via slum clearance. Moreover, Larson discusses that the local community was not only concerned about the expansion; it was also concerned with the catalyzation of gentrification in nearby neighborhoods, which would increase the number of lower-income people displaced.

Another Moses-leaning policy of the Bloomberg administration’s is the stop-and-frisk policy. Though New York Times briefly tsks Bloomberg’s unconstitutional policy, it is not treated as a large enough factor when concluding their overall positive perception of Mayor Bloomberg. However, as a woman of color, this significantly impacts my perception of Bloomberg’s success. The stop-and-frisk policy allowed the NYPD to search, question, and temporarily detain people if they were believed to be suspicious. Vague, right? That was also part of the policy–its vagueness. The police were not required to articulate exactly why the person being frisked was suspicious, or the crime they were believed to have been committing, and do not require a warrant (“Stop and Frisk Data”). In 2013, 88% of frisked New Yorkers were innocent; 56% of frisked New Yorkers were black, while 29% were Latino (“Stop and Frisk Data”). In short, this policy was ineffective, criminalized people of color and allowed the NYPD to exploit New Yorkers due to its vague nature.

Finally, the Bloomberg administration is praised by many for the 165,000 units of affordable housing developed during Mayor Bloomberg’s atypical three terms in office (“12 Years of Mayor Bloomberg”). However, when I hear “affordable housing,” I hear more housing for the middle class rather than those with lower-income. This suspicion is not eased when taking into account that the units were geared towards those who would have to contribute 30% of their income to rent, which does not fit the criteria for lower-income tenants (Larson 42). Moreover, given that the homelessness population had increased by a third, I cannot help but believe there is a correlation (“12 Years of Mayor Bloomberg”). In 2005, the Bloomberg administration cut off homeless families from priority access to public housing apartments and Section 8 vouchers which would have helped homeless families transition from shelters to permanent housing resources. Instead, they were offered “short-term subsidies that became a revolving door back to homelessness for thousands of families” (Markee). Furthermore, around 500,000 units of affordable housing were lost due to vacancy destabilization in 2011. To give Mayor Bloomberg credit where it’s due, he did attempt to incentivize the private developers by providing Lower Income Housing Tax Credits. However, as Larson mentions, relying on the private market for affordable housing itself is problematic. Another flaw to Bloomberg’s New Housing Marketplace Plan is its limited time-span. The ideal would have been permanent affordability, but instead, most of the affordable housing units were affordable a limited time before the market could then proceed to rent at a market-rate while the incomes of tenants would not increase accordingly. Overall, the New Housing Marketplace Plan could have been improved upon to provide lower-income tenants with (permanent) housing, but the intent to provide housing does not go unrecognized.

When I had first discovered that the Bloomberg administration had supposedly combined Jacobsian values with a Moses-esque efficiency during the readings, I had high hopes. Unfortunately, once again several lower-income homeowners and tenants were displaced. People of color were criminalized. The middle class is prioritized over the homeless and working class. The ratio of the influence of Moses to Jacobs in the Bloomberg administration matters little to me overall; it led to little success in my eyes.

---

References

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

“12 Years of Mayor Bloomberg.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Dec. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/opinion/sunday/12-years-of-mayor-bloomberg.html.

Jaffe, Eric, and CityLab. “Fun Facts About the New York Subway’s New 7 Train Extension.”CityLab, 11 Sept. 2015, www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/09/7-fun-facts-about-the-new-york-subways-new-7-train-extension/404800/.

“Stop-and-Frisk Data.” NYCLU, New York Civil Liberties Union, 29 July 2017, www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-Frisk-data.

Markee, Patrick. “Bloomberg on NYC Homelessness: A Total Lack of Accountability.”Coalition For The Homeless, 13 Dec. 2013, www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/bloomberg-on-nyc-homelessness-a-total-lack-of-accountability/.

The 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang, South Korea concluded a little over a month ago, and to be honest, I was pretty sad it was ending. During previous years, I was never into watching the games, but I was surprisingly more invested in them this year. During the eighteen days of competition, I had done some research and learned that New York City proposed a bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics, so it was interesting to learn more about what the bid included and what it meant for the city as explained in this week’s readings. The NYC2012 bid demonstrated rezoning and altered the city, even though the Olympics ended up not being held in the city.

To put it simply, rezoning is altering the use of a specific area in the city. In NYC2012’s case, the Far West Side, was to be transformed from an industrial area to a tourist magnet. There was a goal already to redevelop this area anyway, so the Olympics seemed like the perfect way to do so, right? The Olympic Stadium would be built on the Far West Side, along with an extension of the 7 train and other new buildings. A plan was also mapped out on how these buildings would be used for local sports teams, affordable housing and other businesses after the games were over. The bid seemed to touch upon all possible holes and flaws, while knocking out two birds with one stone as it covered redevelopment and becoming the host of a prestigious event among the sports world. Except, one thing was missing. The local community.

A modern-day Robert Moses appeared, Daniel Doctoroff, who was determined to make NYC2012 happen and led the creation of the bid. Him and Mayor Bloomberg developed this bid which seemed to “run counter to the local community’s own desires with very little public oversight or input.” (Brash 2006, Larson 2013, 35) However, Larson also states that many New Yorkers were “indifferent to the idea” of the games being held in their city. If New Yorkers didn’t care, then it can be argued that Doctoroff and Bloomberg were justified in dictating how the Olympics were to be planned out and where money went. However, contrary to Larson’s statement about New Yorkers being “indifferent”, I did find a poll issued by Quinnipiac University in 2004 which displayed New York City voters support of hosting the 2012 Olympics, but disapproval of a new stadium (because of taxes). Different political parties, races, genders and boroughs are represented in the data, and all seem to support and oppose the same things. The data can be found here: https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=553. Most New Yorkers supported the expansion of the Javits Center and the 7 train line, and supported rezoning areas to allow for new apartments.

Mitchell L. Moss, the Director of the Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at NYU, describes how New York “won the Olympics” even though the city lost the bid. The Far West Side was still redeveloped, with new buildings and the expansion of the Javits Center and the 7 train was also still extended. The Olympic Village that was proposed for Hunter’s Point was made into affordable housing. (Chiwaya; Levy 2016) Many other parts of certain boroughs that were part of NYC2012 still ended up being redeveloped. Moss concluded that “NYC 2012 was more than the Olympics; it was a development plan based on initiative that had been the subject of previous study but little action.” From his words, the Olympic bid is what jump-started the city’s plans and “provided the framework to shape the future of the city.” (Moss 2011)

Let’s be honest, if NYC2012 actually happened, the city might have been in complete chaos and congestion during the weeks of the games; more than we see today. With thousands of athletes from all around the world and also additional tourists, it would have made the daily life of New Yorkers even more difficult. My dad commented on the idea of it saying, “Even the athletes would be late to their own games!” Without the games, New Yorkers still got an extended 7 train, expanded Javits Center and new buildings on the West Side. So maybe it was good that New York City didn’t win the bid to host the event – you don’t always need the gold to be a winner.

 

References:

Chiwaya, Nigel and Levy, Nicole (2016) How NYC ‘s Failed 2012 Olympic Bid Shaped the City we Live in Today. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160816/midtown/how-nycs-failed-2012-olympic-bid-shaped-city-we-live-today (last accessed 23 March 2018)

Larson, Scott (2013) The Bloomberg Practice. In Larson, Scott “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind:” Contemporary Planning in New York City. (pp 33-37) Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Moss, Mitchell L. (2011) How New York City Won the Olympics. https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/publications/Olympics_in_NYC_2012_REPORT_110711.pdf (last accessed 22 March 2018)

Quinnipiac University. (2004) New Yorkers Back 2012 Olympic Bid 2 – 1, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Back Javits, But Oppose Stadium. https://poll.qu.edu/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=553 (last accessed 23 March 2018)

I didn’t even know Mayor Bloomberg’s first name. To me, it was simply Mayor, that was his title, but more importantly, that’s what I saw him as. I also said it with pride. A lot of politicians say they will enact change, but like doubting Thomas, if I don’t see it, I don’t believe it (in politics, at least.) But I was a kid growing up in New York wanting to see the world grow up with me, too. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to naysayers or anyone against him; I was very one-sided. Learning about Moses and Jacobs helped put into perspective where a lot of people fall on the spectrum from who tries to serve the 99% and who serves the 1%. Seeing the numerous parallels between Moses and Bloomberg gave me the preconceived notion that he fell closer to the elites. But when I read that he hired “Amanda Burden, the socialite and civic-activist-turned-planner” as city commissioner, I realized that I had to second guess my judgement (Larson, 133).

I want to look ahead, just as any good planner does, and see if I can determine if New York was a successful city under Bloomberg’s administration. I know I have not learned the rest of the course material to do so, but I have enlisted David Leonhardt’s help from the NYT. He wrote an article entitled “A History of Bloomberg’s Successes and Failures” and I’m interested to see how he, an Op-Ed columnist who focuses on analytics, measures what is considered successful and compare it to what we will learn in future classes. Is a city successful because it helps the greater good as we often debate defining in class, or is it successful because it supports the elite who support projects that New Yorkers use?

Before I proceed to do so, Larson argues that Bloomberg’s administration built like Moses with Jacobs in mind, and I want to map out things Bloomberg did that was pro-Jacobs and what was pro-Moses.

Pro-Jacobs

–       Hired Jacob’s mentor, William “Holly” Whyte, to help with city planning (Larson, 137)

–       Hired Amanda Burden, a lover of Jacobs (Larson, 133)

–       Revitalized the High Line instead of building in its place

–       Made parks more accessible to a larger number of people

–       Implemented the Calorie Rule to make citizens more aware (Leonhardt)

–       Rewrote archaic zoning laws

–       Regulated smoking (environmental and health awareness)

Pro-Moses

–       Gave himself an extra term in office (from 2 to 3)

–       Restructured the offices to fit his liking by getting rid of most offices in City Hall for open cubicles (Leonhardt)

–       Inequality between the rich and poor wasn’t a main concern

–       Was a Billionaire and depended on his personal wealth for support from voters and elite

–       Schooling reforms were unpopular, not well thought-out and not pursued with conviction

To put the above information into perspective, Bloomberg had Moses’ motivation, but only for what he really wanted. While that may cause people to roll their eyes, Leonhardt argues that “While Bloomberg didn’t solve the great stagnation of living standards that afflicts the American middle class and poor, it’s hard to think of a contemporary mayor or governor who made more progress.” Does this mean that he was simply the best of the worst – and who judges what the “worst” is? Different mayors have different goals when they get elected into office. Our current one, Bill de Blasio, focuses more on what Leonhardt is saying is lacking. However, all that time and energy is going into building discussion, but not actually building. “The problem of inequality may well be too big for only a technocratic approach to government. It will probably also require muscular federal action on areas like taxes, antitrust, and workers’ bargaining power.” Here he begs the question of who do we blame for inequality – should it be the mayor’s priority, or does there need to be a major overhaul on the current political structure, starting from the central government?

Michael Bloomberg ran New York on data and analysis, in fact, that’s how he once became New York’s richest man. He figured out a way to give stock market traders better information about the bond market, believing that more numbers and facts would help them make more informed decisions (Leonhardt). Traders would pay heftily in return. Bloomberg learned that this tactic not only benefitted him, but the traders. There was extreme value in using facts and data. That is how he chose to ran NYC, and to Leonhardt, that’s what made most of his policies and decisions successful. He tried to “’build a culture of evidence’” (Leonhardt).

Chris McNickle, author of BLOOMBERG A Billionaire’s Ambition, stated “He succeeded in large part because of his faith in the power of facts. He sought detailed, reliable information about life in the city. He asked his aides to focus on big questions and charged them with improving New Yorkers’ lives.”

What I believe made Bloomberg a successful mayor, and New York a successful city under his rule, was that he was aware of his biases and flaws. He could’ve done what Trump did and choose nepotism (i.e. loyal supporters) to smooth out speed bumps in his mayoral road, but instead he purposefully enlisted those who offered another side and another voice. Michael Bloomberg was probably born a Robert Moses, but through experience he learned to become more like Jacobs. And that’s what makes any person truly successful: When they can analyze themselves and change.

References:

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

Leonhardt, David (2017) “A History of Bloomberg’s Successes and Failures.” NYT.

McNickle, Chris (2017) BLOOMBERG A Billionaire’s Ambition. Skyhorse.

For all its history, today, Times Square is disregarded as a site only visited by tourists as Vesey writes, “somehow, over time, being a “real” New Yorker” cam to mean ignoring Times Square.” (Vesey 2016) Vesey, in her article entitled Urban Legend: Why Times Square (Still) Matters argues for the importance of Times Square despite its loss of grittiness and tranquility found in locations such as Brooklyn as Vesey puts it, “Manhattan is corporate and conformist, Brooklyn is real and, if not exactly gritty, then at least charming..”  (Vesey 2016)

 

I found it interesting to see the different perspectives of Times Square’s importance to each time period as Kim Vesey argues that Times Square is a hub of culture, entertainment, and unity in New York City. Whereas in the excerpt of his novel entitled Times Square Red, Times Square Blue Samuel R. Delany argues for Times Square’s importance in preserving and promoting unity and stabilizing the communities of “a highly diversified neighborhood with working-class residences and small human services.” (Delany 1999) As Vesey argues that the alleged Disneyfied Times Square is still a crucial symbol of New York, Delany argues that the same developing Times Square would ruin not only the aesthetic grittiness that Vesey claims “real New Yorkers” seek but go as far as “…the violent suppression of urban social structures, economic, social…” (Delany 1999)

 

In my opinion, Kim Vesey offers a bit of a romantic perspective of Times Square describing it in terms of New York’s dreams manifested and “… of less interest to those already living in its reality.” (Vesey 2016) Although I understand that Times Square truly does embody a history of New York, but that history is lost in the transformed bright and flashing lights of corporate and capitalistic America. If at least a single authentic part of Times Square had been preserved perhaps New Yorkers would have been able to accept Times Square as a crucial part of our history but it is a site easy to forget, yet so frustratingly inescapable, due to its function as one of the city’s transport hubs. Perhaps if we had a part of Delany’s Times Square we would be reminded of the transformative nature of the area, however, many are even unaware of Times Square’s risqué past despite having grown up in New York City their entire lives.

 

Delany Samuel R. (1999) …Three, Two, One: Times Square Red. Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. (pp 145- 169) New York University Press

Vesey Kim. (2016) Urban Legend: Why Times Square (Still) Matters http://observer.com/2016/02/times-square-at-a-crossroads/ (last accessed 16 March 2018)

 

The Times Square of 1992, looked very different from the Times Square of 1995, in the sense that in 1995, there was a lot of construction being done to benefit the developers of these new buildings, but this was done under the guise of benefiting the community. Of course, in order to build these new buildings, old ones had to be destroyed, which as we’ve learned from Jane Jacobs’ theory of city planning, wouldn’t be conducive to the diversity of the city. That is if, most of the old buildings are being torn down instead of being kept and reused by others who wouldn’t be able to afford using other, newer buildings. These new buildings, the ones that are being built to transform Times Square, were supposedly meant to help reduce the amount of drug deals and prostitution occurring in NYC at the time.

 

Delany explains that new buildings are being built with the assumption that new buildings will automatically bring more money into the city, however, the process entails something else. He goes on to say that what really happens is a large corporation wants to construct a building because they know they’ll be earning money off of simply having it built, even if the building doesn’t get rented out. This is because they are getting paid by the smaller corporation to have the building built, and the construction company since it takes part in the stocks the larger corporation has control over. So, these buildings are being built with no regard as to whether they will actually be beneficial for the city or even used by the city. A side effect of these buildings being built is the displacement of several older buildings already established in the city, which actually served a purpose for the inhabitants of the city.

 

In the 1980s, these buildings and its streets were often where men could find other men who wanted to engage with other men, either in a sexual way or simply to socialize with them, or perhaps both. Theaters were a popular location for homosexual activities, since as explained by Delaney, they would show sex movies which would entice several theater-goers. Of course, street corners and hustler bars were also popular hangouts for gay men to meet and to participate in carnal desires. What was often troubling is that younger and younger several male prostitutes started appearing in the city, even as young as 15, trying to earn money doing whatever was asked of them. In a NYTimes article, focusing on the dynamic of “Hawks and Chickens,” which are older men, “Hawks” preying on younger boys, “Chickens,” there were even mentions of boys entering prostitution from the ages of 10-15. The article goes into how easy it is for these children to fall into this business, when they’re often minorities who come from low-income families, and end up finding a father figure in these older men. This is especially tragic when compounded with the knowledge that they were most probably pushed into doing this because of the drug that spread through the city like a disease, namely crack. These children could have been earning the money to purchase the drugs for their parents who could have become addicted by then, or even worse, for themselves. With the context provided, one could suggest that children wouldn’t be subjecting themselves to this abuse, had it not been for the drugs and poverty of the time, and that it did not have much to do with the hustler bars that proliferated old Times Square. In fact, several of these boys met their “Hawks” at the arcade and not at homosexually-coded areas.

However, with more people keeping watch of the neighborhood perhaps this wouldn’t have become such a prevalent problem, or at least it could have been stabilized. As Jane Jacobs has discussed before, it is important to have eyes on the street, and it is important to whom those eyes belong to. By having people own local businesses in Times Square, it causes them to care about what goes on in the neighborhood seeing as it can affect their business in the future. She claims it is important to have wide sidewalks and commercial diversity in order to encourage pedestrians to walk on city streets (Gopnik 2016). What shouldn’t be done, which is what happened in 1995, is the reduction of the commercial diversity within the city, like having 4 businesses to 1 theater on a street, when earlier there had been 3 businesses and 3 theaters on the same street (Delaney 1999). Although there were problems in the 1980s concerning the buildings in Times Square, that doesn’t mean we should decontextualize the events that were occurring at the time. The buildings that were built for the transformation of Times Square were not created for the safety of the people as developers promise, instead they may have even compromised the quality of life for several of the city’s dwellers in that age.

---

References

Delany S R (1999) Three, two, one, contact: Times Square red. In Times Square Red, Times Square Blue (pp 145-169). New York: NYU Press

https://www.dropbox.com/s/guhxrvp324gnbe1/Delany%2C%20Times%20Square%20Red%20Times%20Square%20Blue.pdf?dl=0&preview=Delany%2C+Times+Square+Red+Times+Square+Blue.pdf

Gopnik A (2016) Jane Jacobs’s street smarts. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/26/jane-jacobs-street-smarts (last accessed 16 March 2018)

New York Times (1977) ‘Chicken‐Hawk’ Trade Found Attracting More Young Boys to Times Square Area. (last accessed 16 March 2018)