In class on Tuesday, a heated debate ensued between “Mighty Moses” and “Group A” over whether Robert Moses should be revered or condemned. In my opinion, the argument boiled down to one of progress over humanity. Do the ends justify the means? Is the progress made worth trampling all over certain people’s rights and livelihood?

“Mighty Moses” articulated several points that must be taken into consideration. First of all, he made New York City what it is today. He built playgrounds, parks, beaches (that were once virtually inaccessible to city residents), the Central Park Zoo, and Lincoln Center, just to name a few, and he rebuilt areas of the city, such as Randall’s Island to include well-known Icahn Stadium. He even “looked out for the common man” by adding bathroom stations in Central Park. This team argued that Moses was efficient, and that someone with his power and demeanor was necessary in order to make this much progress in such a small amount of time with such limited funds (since much of this occurred during the Great Depression, which gives him the added star of providing jobs to thousands). They stressed the need to focus on the benefits he brought to NYC in the long run for the majority. He got things done.

On the other hand, “Team A” argued that the means with which this progress came run contrary to the very values that the city stands for: democracy and equality. He completely disregarded the opinions of other, acting tyrannically. He did exactly what he wanted without considering the consequences or alternatives, focusing on the physical layout of the city while ignoring the social implications. As a quintessential example, the citizens of East Tremont demonstrated one community that was severely harmed by the actions of Moses. They were forced to relocate from their beloved apartments, although Moses did not provide them with any opportunities of equal standard housing, so that he could build a section of a highway. They provided an alternate route that would not only require the razing of no housing, but would save money. He pressed on with his plan, without reason, and they were removed. Even other great accomplishments of his are slightly tarnished. For instance, the rebuilding of Randall’s Island required the removal of a mental institution, displacing those people as well. He tore down a casino just to exact revenge on the owner. Though this team agreed that he got things done, they were skeptical that it was the only way possible; perhaps given time, the same things could have been accomplished in other ways.

I am inclined to agree with Group A. The example of East Tremont is only one of an unknown number of times Moses disregarded the well-being and the rights of NYC residents. Humanity and the livelihood of people should be valued over the construction of a piece of a highway or a zoo. Social consequences are just as important, if not more important, than the physical setup of a city. The ends did not justify the means.

Putnam, Arnstein, and Davidoff all discuss the essentials of neighborhood and community planning. Although there is a strong belief that there should be an increase in citizen participation when it concerns planning, the current trend has been a decline in social capital. Social capital, as defined by Putnam, refers to features of social organizations such as networks,norms, and social trust that facilitate  coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

Robert Putnam states that virtually all measures of social engagement seem to grow weaker every year. Causes include social and geographic mobility, the decreasing importance of families as women join the workforce, and the technological transformation of leisure. These forces have risen to the level of social crisis and must be fixed to strengthen the connections between people.

There is a great importance of a strong and active society to the consolidation of democracy. The United States has been long considered as a model to emulate, playing a central role in systematic studies of the links between democracy and civil society. However American civil society has declined over the past several decades.

Examples include decline in turnout in national elections, decrease in people going to PTA meetings, and decrease in government trust. Although religious groups are the most common association membership among Americans, numbers have decreased here too.  Countertrends are also apparent: more Americans are joining tertiary groups like the Sierra Club and AARP, which do not have considerable signs of membership, aside from the checks or dues that are paid every once in a while.

Why this is happening includes an increase in mobility (which disrupts root systems), fewer marriages and children, and technology, specifically television. Americans spend more time watching television than many other things.

It is imperative to consider how to reverse these trends and restore civic engagement and civic trust.

Sherry Arnstein uses the metaphor of a ladder to describe various levels of citizen participation. She defines citizen participation as citizen power, and a redistribution of power in order to allow “have-not” citizens  to be included in political and economic processes. A French poster included in Arnstein’s essay illustrates what happens when there is participation of citizens but no redistribution of power: the status quo is maintained and only the people currently in power are benefitted. The two lowest forms of participation include manipulation and therapy.  These forms of participation are more suitably termed “nonparticipation,” since the masses are controlled by powerholders and simply provide a distortion in the number of participants. Informing and consultation are not that much better. In informing, information usually is unidirectional; from the powerholders to the masses. In consultation, it is not certain that the views of the masses will be taken into consideration by the powerful.  In the end, only people in the “delegated power” and “citizen control” rungs of the citizen participation latter have any real control over planning.

Arnstein’s “Ladder theory” is well illustrated by Caro’s “One Mile” story. In the section of the Bronx known as East Tremont, hundreds of people were relocated due to a plan by Robert Moses to construct the Cross-Bronx Expressway. Moses believed that East Tremont was made up on tenements. The inhabitants of this location, many of which were of Eastern European and Jewish descent, and actually lived in tenements, disagreed. Although they tried to fight Moses in the construction of this area, they were ultimately overpowered. The fact that one man, one planner, had enough power to relocate people in fifty-four apartment buildings is just astounding.

Paul Davidoff (who once taught city planning students at Hunter!), makes an obvious argument: that different groups in society have different interests. This statement is on par with the one discussed in class last week, concerning the right of technocrats to make executive decisions in the planning of neighborhoods. It is clear that any decisions made by those technocrats will not impact them as much as the people that live in those specified areas. Davidoff argues that there should be planners that act as advocates for the poor and powerless, articulating their interests. Competing plans will ultimately be more effective, and well thought-out, than plans created by single planning agencies.  Planners may have a professional obligation to defend positions they oppose.  They may be well educated in certain functions of city government but not in others. Davidoff states that it may be hard to gain citizen participation in planning, especially since people usually react to agency programs rather than crate them. He suggests federal sponsorship of plural planning as a remedy to this potential problem.

Patricia Paredes (in the Southern hemisphere)

Hi, my name is Patricia Paredes and I am an English LLC major. I am mulling over several different career options such as advertising and editing but I definitely look forward to internships before deciding anything definitive. I love to travel! I just recently came back from Ecuador (but not the Galapagos like Shanna and Noa), actually somewhere in the Sierra (which is the mountainous region). However, I did travel to the Oriente (jungle region) and Costa (shoreline). Now, I just need to travel to the last region, which judging from Shanna’s posts, was amazing. I enjoy reading, and am developing my interests on the side–ie I was watching the Superbowl commercials and pinpointing some advertising strategies that they used. Sometimes, when I have free time, I like to create normal and bizarre commercials and short stories. Plus, I am soon going to buy an Instant Immersion in French software to prepare for my study abroad in France (hope I get in, first!). I’m hoping to incorporate foreign languages into the career I end up choosing-perhaps international advertising. We’ll see.

In Ernest W. Burgess’s most famous essay, “The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project,” he writes about the expansion process of a city. He starts off with defining what makes an area urban. He discusses many of the qualities we talked about in class, such as the skyscraper and subway. He includes the presence of a department store and a daily newspaper. What struck me most, though, was his inclusion of social work as a characteristic of urban life. I had never thought about this influence before, but after discussing the role of social reformers in the planning and reconstruction of cities I now appreciate this is as key element of an urban area. Burgess’ main idea was his construction of a model based on a series of concentric circles that divided Chicago into five zones. The center loop was the business district; then a transition area for business and light manufacture; then an area for workers to live; then a residential area of high-class apartment buildings; and finally the suburban areas. He wrote that there was a tendency for each inner zone to extend its area by the invasion of the next outer zone and for business to concentrate in the inner loop. We discussed in class that one of the flaws of this model is that there are often several business centers in a city. Still, Burgess’s model and terminology continue to be used today. On a side note, Burgess peppers his essay with vocabulary from the natural sciences. While this creates strong comparisons between the urban and natural worlds, for the reader unfamiliar with these specific terms, it can be jarring and confusing. Burgess’ exclusion of definitions prevents many readers from connecting to his arguments.

 David Harvey’s essay, “Contested Cities: Social Process and Spatial Form,” is a challenging read due to his theoretical and abstract arguments. He has several main ideas. One is that cities should be thought of as processes, not as things. This difference is vital to him since he argues that processes are shaped by time and place and as well as shaping time and place. Secondly, he talks about the creation and role of the community. Many writers have voiced concern about the lack of community in cities and the subsequent alienation that ensues. Harvey notes that racism, ethnic chauvinism and class devaluation can grow from the desire for community as it allows for a common identification as well as the exclusion of other groups. This observation fosters his arguments about community activism, which he feels cannot remain localized, but rather must spill over and become part of constructing a more universal set of values and changes. Finally, he discusses the relationship between the natural and built environment. He attacks the artificial distinction between these two realms, saying they cannot be separated. Additionally, he thinks they need to evolve together in forms such as green urbanism and ecological design movements, which are becoming increasingly popular. One of his most powerful message is, “Getting things economically right in our cities is the path towards economic change and economic development, even to economic growth” (p. 231). How important this is for today’s world!

 Fredrick Law Olmsted, famous for designing New York City’s Central Park, presented the essay, “Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns,” at a conference in 1870. I found this essay to be the most accessible to a novice of Urban Studies. While the editors label his writing as containing “somewhat convoluted Victorianisms” (p. 307), I found his prose clear and outright beautiful at times. (As an avid reader of Dickens, I very much enjoyed the Victorianisms.) Olmsted’s goal was to provide guidelines for parks and parkways and to offer ways to secure public funding for them. He makes his argument in three compelling parts. First, he argues that tress would combat air and water pollution, which would lead to an increase in public health; secondly, that parks would help fight vice and social degeneration, common among the poor; and, thirdly, that parks available to all would be democratic. He backs his arguments with emotional examples and persuasive language. I particularly liked the sentimental tone when he writes, “Is it doubtful that it does men good to come together in this way in pure air and under the light of heaven, or that it must have an influence directly counteractive to that of the ordinary hard, hustling working hours of town life?”

 Chapter Nine and Twenty in Robert A. Caro’s The Power Broker were a delight to read. I lost track of the number of wry comments he makes about Long Island’s richest, all of which made me laugh out loud. Both of these chapters focused on Robert Moses’s creation and/or revitalization of parks in New York. Chapter Nine focused on the lack of accessible public space for recreational activities available for people living in the five boroughs. Moses turned his eye to Long Island and circumvented the fat cats and robber barons of the area who were determined to keep the poor out by any means. Moses meticulously tracked down available land that could contain hiking trails, sports areas, and swimming. One of my favorite anecdotes is when Moses went to survey Fire Island with a map and, noting a discrepancy, discovered six hundred acres no one had known about! Jones Beach, a popular destination for my own family, was created at this time, as well as the state park system. Chapter Twenty discusses Moses’ revamping of New York City parks, the building of the Central Park Zoo and the Triborough Bridge, as well as the plan to transform Randall’s and Ward’s Islands into parks. Moses’s ingenuity in terms of project organization and his vast knowledge of obscure law and city holdings is applauded by Caro. However, Caro does note that Moses’s desire to beautify Randall’s and Ward’s Island led to the eviction of inmates residing in the Hospital for the Feeble-Minded, resulting in their being crammed into overcrowded institutions. This offers a glimpse to the more ruthless component of Moses’s single-minded vision.

My boyfriend and I

Hey there! My name is Kate Lynn Sioson. I am a biochemistry major, and I am on the pre-med track. I am one of the few Macaulay “non-dorming” students at Hunter. I can’t fail to mention that I have two beautiful cats, whose names are Callixto and Precious. My favorite book is The Picture of Dorian Gray. In this book, the cynical Sir Henry Wotton is my favorite character. In addition, I enjoy watching the Discovery Channel and National Geographic shows. I want to be a world traveler someday, and visit some of the exotic places and cultures I see in these shows.

City planning has proven to be a vital part of the efficiency of urban spaces. Many individuals, including architects, professors, and historians, have explored how a city should be organized. Following the widespread acceptance of automobiles and telecommunications, influential minds, such as Lewis Mumford, Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright and Kevin Lynch, all expressed their ideas of how the modern city should evolve. Within the selected texts, each author asserts a definition of city with a desire to guide their future shape.

In “What is a City?’ by Lewis Mumford (1895-1990), Mumford defines cities through an analogy to the performance arts: “the city is above all else a theater of social action.” He describes the need for planning to effectively account for a city’s relationship to the national environment and to the spiritual values of the communities within it, more so than the physical designs and economic functions. He spoke to the ever-changing, multi-dimensional personality of urban residents and how they have transcended “traditional” displays of societal norms. Planners need to recognize the social nucleus of cities as the inter-relationship of schools, theaters, community centers and the like, because those are what lay the outlines of an integrated city. Mumford suggested limitations on population, density and urban growth to promote efficiency; he championed Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City ideal with his work on poly-nucleated cities.

Le Corbusier, born Chales-Eduouard Jeanneret (1887-1965) in a small Swiss town known for its watch making. He became an architect and brought his revolutionary ideas to Paris, where his spare cubist minimalism and focus on efficiency shaped the modernist movement, eventually earning his own distinct architectural style, the International Style. Corbusier promoted elitist values, in favor of a rigid class structure, and even went as far to present destroying Paris to rebuild it. He describes cities as having separate regions for varying purposes, with “lungs” of open green space surrounding each. He felt that cities should grow vertically and that there should be complex roadways separated from pedestrian traffic to promote efficient transport between the regions.

In contrast to Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959) was the architectural embodiment of the American spirit and democracy. According to many, for more than half a century he was the only choice for the greatest American architect of all time. Wright built in a way that expressed the “nature of the materials” and was the spokesman for “organic architecture” seen in the wondrous Guggenheim Museum. His Broadacre City vision had ties to Emersonian and Jeffersonian virtues, and called for a radical transformation of America. He wished to give every US citizen at least 1 acre of land so that the family homestead would become the basis of civilization. In this way the Federal Government would be no more than an architect of land allotment and for the construction of public facilities. Wright felt this would end class struggle and would help society become more self-sufficient. He felt this was of the utmost importance as he predicted that the automobile and the telephone would soon kill the modern cities.

Kevin Lynch (1918-1994) was a professor of urban studies and design at MIT. His work The Image of the City, made use of many principles of the social sciences, such as psychology, as well as the work of his former teacher, Frank Lloyd Wright. Lynch realized that certain areas of cities were more “legible” than others and were thus more useful. He sought to understand and explain the basis of cities and what attributes to their recognition, so that he could find the best way to plan for urban inhabitants. After interviewing and studying in cities across the US, such as Boston, L.A. and Jersey City, Lynch was able to identify five elements that all cities need into order to be useful and efficient, elements that should be planned into all cities. Those elements were: paths, edges, nodes, landmarks and districts. While each of the elements can take different shapes and forms, he maintained that attractive cities were not just orderly and well-organized, they must also be vivid and varied with texture and unique visual stimuli.

Hi! I’m Noa Krawczyk, I am a biology major and a history minor. My parents are Argentinean but I spent most of my life moving between Israel and New York. I study a lot but I mostly enjoy dancing and spending time with my friends. Though I love biology and would like to pursue a career in it, I am also very interested in anthropology, history, and other social sciences. I really love traveling and would like to visit as many places as I can. I especially love cities, and am a BIG fan of New York City which is why I really love Hunter College. Having gone through high school in a very small suburb, I truly believe that cities are the greatest places to see modernization, social action, diversity, and tolerance between people, and am definitely looking forward to exploring this class about the nature and structure of NYC!

“What is a city?” by Lewis Mumford, “A Contemporary City” by Le Corbusier, “Broadacre City: A New Community Plan” by Frank Lloyd Wright, and “The City Image and its Elements” by Kevin Lynch all had a futuristic feel to the writing. While the first selection strived to put a city into meaningful words, the next two readings explored what a city could or should be – presenting specific visions, and the last one offered technicalities of a city.  

Usually when one thinks of a city, a cluster of buildings comes to mind but Mumford expels this misconception and presents a unique description, “a city is a geographic plexus, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theatre of social action, and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity.” This definition covers the city on many levels such as geographic, economic, and social. Another characteristic that comes to mind when thinking of a city is overpopulation. To deal with this problem, Le Corbusier presents his seemingly contradictory but logical vision which is to augment the density of people yet have open spaces. Although I am not sure how this is possible, I did like his idea of separating traffic since “a city made for speed is made for success.” 

Author Kevin Lynch made an interesting point about making sense of a city through its landmarks. Come to think of it, so many times when we decide to meet up with a friend, we specify the location in relation to a landmark. “Let’s meet up by the clock in Union Square!” might be one of the many phrases you used or have heard of before. In general, these four readings gave a nice overview and set the tone of future material!

Hi Everybody!!

I’m Mariya, currently a Psychology major with a concentration in Behavioral Neuroscience. I’m excited to explore this field that chooses to explain psychology from a biological perspective, very different from Freud’s theories! I’m currently attempting to incorporate myself into a lab or an internship pertaining to my major, meanwhile I’m working in retail to keep myself busy. My other academic passion is Italian which I might double major in. This summer I’m going to Russia and next summer I hope to go to Italy and finally experience real, native, homemade Italian culture. I’ve always wondered what urban planning encompasses so this class will finally fill me in with the secrets and provide some new stimulation from a topic I know nothing about.

Hello. My name is Ignacio Contreras. I am majoring in History although I am pre-med and aspiring to be a doctor someday. I was born in Brooklyn, though i was raised in Elmhurst, Queens. I have a passion for reading wikipedia articles, watching the History Channel, NatGeo, and Sportscenter. I also love playing and watching soccer and baseball. I enjoy reading about cities, people, countries (all on wikipedia of course) and relish in the idea that New York is able to bring all of that into one city.

I also love napoleons