tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post5157140087757223907..comments2024-03-28T05:19:17.215-04:00Comments on Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report: Second thoughts from a former state official; could Times Square have been reclaimed without eminent domain?Norman Oderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07618087999719667586noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-16559980023228192772009-04-29T22:14:00.000-04:002009-04-29T22:14:00.000-04:00Norman, thanks for your extensive write-up on this...Norman, thanks for your extensive write-up on this issue and for bringing the revised version of the excellent Stern article to my attention. I haven't gotten a chance yet to carefully read your article, or the revised Stern article (the original of which I read years ago), or the Sagalyn book (which I skimmed a while back). However, as a long-time theater buff and New Yorker with a an interest in urbanism (and as someone who was attending planning school in Manhattan in the early 1980s), I have been closely following the fortunes and plans for this area since the mid-1960s (e.g., reasearching the area for walking tours in the mid-1970s, attending a conference at CUNY in the late-1970s, etc.). So I'd like to offer the following tentative comments.<br /><br />Basically, I'm inclined to agree with Stern (and with, I believe, Roberta Brandes Gratz who, if I remember correctly, says many of the same things somewhere in her second book), and to disagree, apparently, with Sagalyn and Vitullo-Martin. <br /><br />The really important thing in the redevelopment of 42nd St., so it seems to me (and so it seems to Stern), was the city government's restoration, in reality and perception, of a sense of public safety in the area. Crime was the overwhelming main roadblock that was preventing the area from redeveloping spontaneously and naturally from the interelated blows of post-WW II sunbelt development (e.g., Las Vegas), suburbanization (e.g., TV) and changing entertainment economics (e.g., multi-plexes). Before the Giuliani demonstrated that a sense of public safety could be restored, however, "no one" seemed to really think that urban crime could be sufficiently reduced, especially in a place like Times Sq., without first totally restructuring American society -- highly difficult and unlikely -- so as to get at the "root causes" of crime, etc. (In particular, I remember this as being the apparent, and disturbing, consensus among urbanists and crimonologists when I was in planning school.) So this being the perceived reality about Times Sq., it seemed necessary to use the power of eminent domain to break the strangle hold that adult uses and crime had on the area.<br /><br />But looking back (and as they say, looking back one has 20/20 vision), it can be seen that it was possible for crime to be significantly reduced, not only in Times Sq. but in the rest of the City too (and in other cities too). So, as it turns out, eminent domain wasn't necessary (and it seemed to have harmed both the process and the end result as well).<br /><br />Two other points that may not have been made elsewhere:<br /><br />1) Stern points out that zoning laws could have been just as effective as eminent domain in limiting the damages caused by adult uses. This is probably true -- although Giuliani's version was probably less effective for being overly "showy" (and thus less practical to enforce). But it should also be pointed out that with the growth of adult uses in the suburbs, in other parts of the country (including places like Atlanta) and, most importantly, on the internet, the economic usefulness of Times Sq. to adult uses would have greatly decreased, compared to say the mid-1970s, anyway.<br /><br />2) From a Jane Jacobs perspective, it's a shame that with all this government involvement (including the moving of a large intact theater building), no one seemed to think about breaking up the overly long blocks that exist between Seventh and Eighth Avenues, a la Rockefeller Plaza (I'm referring to the street of that name, not the actual sunken plaza). Not only would this have brought more light and air to the area, it would have brought livliness and vitality to both 41st St. (VERY dead), and 43rd St. (pretty dead), and relieved some of the area's pedestrian congestion. Plus, had the street been extended through the Ratner / New York Times building site, 40th St. would have benefited as well. Plus, maybe the pathway could have been indirectly extended via an arcade throught the old printing plant / loading docks of the old New York Times building -- and thence two blocks even further, via Shubert Alley and the Mariott Marquis building. That's a new six-block long pedestrian "street" in a very congested area that could have greatly benefited from more fluidity of use.<br /><br /># # #Benjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.com