“New York, New Deal” examines what New York was like immediately following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I enjoyed reading the different proposals people had to rebuild the Downtown area, and I appreciate that the article addressed many issues, like reforming New York’s transportation infrastructure, its manufacturing industry, its shipping industry, etc. It showed me that an area of New York can grow back in several different ways; that rebuilding only the area that was attacked isn’t always effective. Like Wallace says, 9/11 was an opportunity in disguise to finally address several critical issues in New York’s structure that had been neglected for so long.
I agree with Yvette that we first must consider if using a “New New Deal” would have helped New York City. After all, as Yvette states, there was a substantial amount of argument against the New Deal that the mostly “busy-work” jobs it created did little to foster real economic growth. I do, however, feel that the New Deal was essential in rebuilding the American spirit. In the first New Deal, Americans banded together on so many of these projects, from building bridges to parks to everything in between. Perhaps a present-day New Deal would stir the same feelings of national pride, but economically speaking, I don’t know what kind of positive impact it would make. One would have to see what kind of projects would be involved in this New New Deal, and how the public would feel about them. I definitely like the idea, however, and I think it can safely be put to work in smaller cities and towns. This way, we can see the results and predict whether New York would fare well with it. Additionally, we are almost twelve years past 9/11 now, so it’s hard to envision, back in 2001, whether the American people would have responded to a New New Deal. In 2013, I’m not sure if something of that sort would be needed at all.
The second approach to revitalizing New York’s economy is outlined in Bloomberg’s New York, whose fourth chapter discusses the idea of “branding” New York City. At this point in the reading I was a little off-put and scared by this term; it reminds me of a book I read in elementary school that predicted a future where humans wear barcode tattoos. I like that branding a city emphasizes the city as a whole (which is important to me. I get offended when people do not believe the other boroughs, aside from Manhattan, are not technically “New York City”.), but calling it “branding” makes the city a “product”, essentially. Thus, the rest of the world becomes desensitized to the humans that are living in the city, the way that no one would care for the “feelings” and “emotion” behind a Sprite ad. Ever the humanist, I feel that the people come first. Before turning their home, New York City, into a tourist trap, perhaps explore other less exploitive ways to increase economic activity. It’s almost as if branding the city is saying “we’ve given up on the people- they can’t make things better, so we’re hoping that the mere fact that New York is an iconic city will make it better.”
And yet, I do find a certain charm in I <3 NY T-Shirts, jokes/praise of “New York Water”, and other qualities of the city that are “only in New York.” Try as Mayor Bloomberg might to turn New York City into a brand, but to this day I don’t think he was successful. He made the New York brand that only tourists know, but only those who live here and/or grew up here get to experience the real New York “brand.”
