Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Observatory

About
Resources
Submissions
Contact


Featured Writers

Michael Bierut
William Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Paul Polak
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker


Departments

Advertisement
Audio
Books
Collections
Dear Bonnie
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
From Our Archive
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
New Ideas
Opinions
Partner News
Photos
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
The Academy
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video


Topics

Advertising
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water


Comments (3) Posted 11.16.11 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Alexandra Lange

Who Are We Competing For?



The site of "Zoning the City," the McGraw Hill Building, with its notoriously terrible post-1961 Zoning Resolution privately-owned public space (Ezra Stoller/ESTO)

Yesterday I awoke to a stream of Twitter messages about the early Tuesday raid of Occupy Wall Street. Mayor Bloomberg was set to address the press about the raid at 8 a.m. Mayor Bloomberg had been scheduled to kick off the "Zoning the City" conference I planned to attend at 8:30 a.m. I decided there was no rush to get to midtown: there was no way he was going to make both.

And the mayor's non-presence, like the encampment's nonexistence, recast the day for me. (I was sitting next to Architect's Newspaper's Tom Stoelker, live-blogging before my eyes.) There were awkward jokes from former Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff about how he and the mayor can't coordinate their remarks anymore, now that Doctoroff is out of the Bloomberg administration and an employee of Bloomberg L.P. British planning professor Matthew Carmona had a slide of an unpopulated Zuccotti Park in his PowerPoint with the parentheses "(before occupation)". New Yorker architecture critic Paul Goldberger, in an unillustrated talk on the physical city, mentioned that we all know the definition of POPS now. But mostly it felt like the invited didn't want to go there. After all, it was partly a first-term Bloomberg reunion, as Rohit Aggarwala, lately of PlaNYC, now of C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, pointed out. It would have been impolite to insult the absent host.

And yet, I found myself increasingly aggravated, as the day wore on, by the repetition of keywords that have defined Mayor Bloomberg's economic development strategies. (But not, in many cases, the work of conference organizer Amanda Burden's Department of City Planning.)


Proposed Cornell/Technion engineering and applied science campus, Roosevelt Island

The first of these is competition. "We are in a competition every day," Doctoroff said, showing the skylines of other, newer, glassier cities, showing the Stanford and Cornell proposals for a new NYC enginnering campus, and trumpeting the numbers of hotel rooms added during the early 2000s. "This is not meant to dis the other proposals," he said, "I hope we can find a way to do them all." Kairos Shen, Chief Planner for the Cityof Boston, discussed the creation of "innovation zoning" and an "Innovation District" in his city, designed to keep "young, smart people" in his city. Thom Mayne, in some late-day remarks, pointed out that New York was a third-tier city in the context of China's highly-populated urbs. But in what context? I found myself relieved when Robert A.M. Stern, with whom I am rarely in agreement about contemporary matters, pointed out that while New York might be smaller, it was certainly a much nicer place to live. Couldn't and shouldn't we focus on that for a while, lest we return to the 1970s?

Back when I was writing stories about the Doctoroff era for New York, I remember asking, "Why the focus on Class A office space? Don't we need Class B and C too?" And I remember wondering, "Why spend all this money on out-of-towners? What about the people already here?" Their strategic focus was so lofty, so much on the top maybe 15 percent, on skyscrapers, on new convention centers, on new waterfronts, that it seemed to leave no room for what was happening on the ground.

I never got an answer then, and these questions only seem more pressing now. City Planning and Related Companies alum Vishaan Chakrabarti, now at Columbia, cited Jane Jacobs' chapter on the need for aged buildings (Class C office space) as the best incubators for new ideas and new businesses. Can we grow biotech leadership in a petri dish on Roosevelt Island? If the "young, smart people" can't see why to stay in New York without incentives, are they really so smart? Doesn't that put us in another no-win cycle, paying the young people, like the banks, not to abandon us for New Jersey? Shouldn't we start with better housing for New Yorkers, before we worry about the convention-goers?

What also struck me in several post-administration presentations was a lack of adaptability, an inability to understand alternate perspectives on appropriate goals. Early in the day, a man stood up and asked how zoning could help the owner of a 25x100 lot with some extra FAR. At first there was no response, but later, someone suggested that the smallholders could get together, and use a version of the High Line's cap-and-trade zoning to build a tall building on the avenue and off their street. Fine, but as the owner of a 25x75 foot lot (that's a brownstone), what I and my neighbors might much rather do is band together and trade our FAR for a park. Why must all moves be monetary, and upward? Indeed, what about the public life legendary planning consultant Alex Garvin kept vaunting?


Million Dollar Blocks (more here)

Even Rosanne Haggerty, president of Community Solutions, seemed to feel obligated to couch her work to find solutions for homelessness in economic terms. She offered three reasons we need to have a more equitable city, though the third one was, to my mind, the only one necessary: "It's the right thing to do." She then showed Laura Kurgan and Sarah Williams's Million Dollar Blocks project, which maps "places the concentration is so dense that states are spending in excess of a million dollars a year to incarcerate the residents of single city blocks." She asked, If cities and states can spend this much responding to social distress, taking 1.6 million people out of the economy, why can't they spend a fraction of that on early childhood education, better housing options, skills training, and so on?

After her presentation, anytime someone talked about keeping the young, smart, innovators in town, I thought "What if they are already here?" Or here just long enough to get frustrated, commit a crime, and get sent upstate? In response to a similar question from moderator Erroll Louis, Doctoroff said his  "virtuous cycle" of investment and economic opportunity was supposed to trickle down, eventually, to investments in the exisiting short, Class C city. Old people don't make as much money as new people. But what I heard Haggerty saying was, we don't need more money, we just need it spent differently.

And there wasn't enough differently at "Zoning the City". Or what was different felt contained. Here we will talk about San Francisco, where composting is mandatory and pets outnumber children. Here we will talk about Newark, where maintenance and improvement are priorities. Here we will talk about skills, schools, libraries. But at the end of the day, there we were with Mayne and Stern and REBNY's Mary Ann Tighe. For two of the three, their vision of the future was bigger, newer, faster. And that felt wrong yesterday, when it was so clear that so many felt left out of such planning.
Share This Story

RELATED POSTS


Beyond Zuccotti Park: Making the Public


Saskatchewan


Resilience in Red Hook


Housing and Hope


Approaching Calcutta



RSS Subscribe to Comment Feed

Comments (3)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT >>

Thank you- you could also ground this argument in history of cities. And yet it is a lesson city planners and civic leader seem to ignore in the competition to be most innovative- I suppose taking care of current residents seems so traditional, and yet- might we do it in an innovative manner? And quite frankly is NYC really competing with Chinese cities? for what?
TWay
11.17.11 at 08:29

There is an alliance of big business, finance, developers and Starchitects who scratch each others' backs to promote Class A glass towers everywhere Goldman Sachs wants to land its jets. They want new airports with private jet service, towers with giant floorplates and at least one hotel as good as a Four Seasons.

The same words you heard from Dan Doctoroff and Vishaan Chakrabarti (the most visible New York promoter of Hong Kong on Hudson), you can hear from others in London, Paris, Shanghai and Dubai. Chakabarti's old boss, Amanda Burden, articulated the argument very well at the (MAS?) conference not long ago in Rose Hall at Jazz at Lincoln Center.

After World War II, engineers went around the world telling cities that they would fall behind in the 20th century if they didn't build highways and modern arterials. Today it is bankers and developers who go to Paris and say if they don't modernize like New York and Hong Kong the 21st century will pass them by.

In London, where Lord Rogers convinced the Socialist Mayor Red Ken that London needed these towers, locals will point out to you that the Masters of the Universe never live or work in these towers themselves.
john massengale
11.17.11 at 06:33

BTW, in case there's any doubt, I agree with Alexandra Lange.

Do we agree on this? - No matter how many times Rem Koolhaas and Frank Gehry use the word "progressive," they are building for the 1%.
john massengale
11.17.11 at 06:36



LOG IN TO POST A COMMENT
Don't have an account? Create an account. Forgot your password? Click here.

Email


Password




|
Share This Story



Alexandra Lange is an architecture and design critic, and author of Writing about Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2012). Her work has appeared in The Architect's Newspaper, Architectural Record, Dwell, Metropolis, Print, New York Magazine and The New York Times.
More >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS









BOOKS BY Alexandra Lange

Writing About Architecture: Mastering the Language of Buildings and Cities
Princeton Architectural Press, 2012

Design Research
Chronicle Books, 2010

More books by contributors >>