tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post695303032759635811..comments2024-03-28T05:19:17.215-04:00Comments on Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park Report: "When the Big Get Bigger": the unresolved challenge of balancing town and gownNorman Oderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07618087999719667586noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-48062316803789660542007-11-09T00:33:00.000-05:002007-11-09T00:33:00.000-05:00###P.S. -- I'm surprised that no one seems to be m...###<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>P.S. -- I'm surprised that no one seems to be mentioning the greatest ironies regarding Columbia University, the surrounding community and Jane Jacobs: In 1961, in "Death and Life of Great American Cities," Jane Jacobs actually commends Columbia University for planning to build the gym in Morningside Park that eventually caused such community (and student) opposition in 1968!<BR/><BR/>"Columbia Univesrity in New York is taking a constructive step by planning sports facilities -- for both the univesrrity and the neighborhood -- in Morningside Park, which has been shunned and feared for decades. Adding a few other activities too, like music or shows, could convert a dreadful neighborhood liabiltiy into an outstanding neighbohood asseet.<BR/><BR/>-- page 143, "Death and Life of Great American Cities" (Modern Library Edition)<BR/><BR/>But then again, I'm not surprised. It seems to me that people really don't READ Jane Jacobs anymore -- they just talk about what other people have said about her!<BR/><BR/><BR/>-- Benjamin HemricBenjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20743459.post-43688583640001442822007-11-08T23:58:00.000-05:002007-11-08T23:58:00.000-05:00Norman,Thanks for this excellent summary of the ev...Norman,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thanks for this excellent summary of the event!<BR/><BR/>THE EVENT<BR/><BR/>Although I mentioned to you directly after the event that I found it very disappointing, upon reflection I realize that there was more diversity of opinion than I originally thought, so it wasn’t that bad. (Kent Barwick is, indeed, “given to diplomatic criticism”!) However, I still think the event would have benefited from 1) a greater diversity of opinion and 2) a stronger focus upon the ideas that Jane Jacobs herself actually expressed about “universities and their neighborhoods” rather than upon the shibboleths about Jacobs that seem to be a staple of these panels. (For instance, I think a number of James Traub’s comments about Jacobs were way off base.)<BR/><BR/>In terms of diversity of opinion and understanding of Jane Jacobs, I think it was a mistake to invite Hillary Ballon to this event, as she really doesn’t seem to be knowledgeable about the work of Jane Jacobs (despite all the research that she’s done for her Moses exhibit), and her viewpoint on the relationship of universities and their neighborhoods seems to be very similar to that of Columbia University’s president, Lee Bollinger (and she was, indeed, on the faculty of Columbia University until her recent appointment to the faculty at NYU).<BR/><BR/>I think journalist and Landmark Preservation Commission member, Roberta Gratz, (who asked a good question from the audience), would have been an interesting addition to this panel, instead. Although she’s not really an academic, she is certainly familiar with the work of Jane Jacobs, and it just so happens that she and her family were “kicked out” of their apartment building when it was torn down by NYU (for what would eventually become the of the controversial Bobst Library). So she is certainly familiar with the history of NYU and the surrounding community, and also would have been able to offer a community, as opposed to university, perspective on the issues.<BR/><BR/>Since Gratz was already scheduled for a different panel discussion in this series, though, perhaps the Ballon slot might have been better occupied by someone else from NYU other than Ballon – someone more familiar, for example, with NYU’s recent expansion efforts (as opposed to its Moses-era expansion efforts). Or better yet, perhaps they could have gotten a representative from a college or university that has been able to successfully expand without resorting to the Moses template: e.g., New School University, Yeshiva University, the New York Institute of Technology, School of Visual Arts, Pratt Institute (in Manhattan), St. John’s University (in Manhattan), etc.<BR/><BR/>LEE BOLLINGER’S COMMENTS<BR/><BR/>Despite the fact that I disagree with him strongly, I think it was great that Bollinger was there, as he is a perfect representative of one particular point of view.<BR/><BR/>However, I wish someone on the panel would have pointed out just how much his point of view is diametrically opposed to the Jane Jacobs point of view. Bollinger, for instance, expressed the opinion that in order for Columbia University to create a lively new campus it had to be in control of the entire site – while the Jacobs position is just the reverse, that such uniformity in ownership (and building types) leads to less liveliness, not more, and that genuine diversity doesn’t detract from liveliness but adds to it.<BR/><BR/>I also wish someone on the panel would have challenged him on his statements about the viability of the light industrial buildings in the area. As I understand it, the commercial buildings that he is trying to gain control of – by eminent domain, if necessary – are NOT derelict commercial buildings, but buildings that are actually doing quite well.<BR/><BR/>HILLARY BALLON’S COMMENTS<BR/><BR/>I think someone on the panel should also have challenged Hillary Ballon on her comment that Morningside Gardens was an example of a university playing a positive “moderating role” in the surrounding community. I think that’s like saying that the Atlantic Yards development is an example of a public agency, the Empires State Development Corporation (correct name?), playing a positive “moderating role” in the development of Prospect Heights!!! (By the way, there was quite a bit of community opposition to the redevelopment of Morningside Heights. See Joel Schwartz’s book mentioned further below.)<BR/><BR/>What exactly is supposed to be so positive about Morningside Gardens?! Here is what Ballon says about Morningside Gardens in her book related to her Moses exhibit (pp. 260-261):<BR/><BR/>Morningside Gardens was Moses’s gold standard of how to do a Title I project. [1] It had responsible leadership, [2] proceeded without delays, [3] handled relocation responsibly, and [4] embraced integration. [5] It met the goal of providing middle-class housing [6] while coordinating with low-income public housing and [7] other community improvements. [8] What distinguishes the project above all is the role of the sponsor, Morningside Heights, Inc., and its young president, David Rockefeller. His impressive debut in urban renewal work on Morningside Heights was the prelude to a still more ambitious initiative launched in the mid-1950s to redevelop lower Manhattan, as discussed in the entry on Battery Park Title I. (The numbering is mine – Benjamin Hemric.)<BR/><BR/>Basically what she is saying here is that (a) this development was not as bad as so many other Title I developments (e.g., it was scandal free; the relocation practices were relatively humane; it was “only” economically – but not racially – segregated; etc.) and (b) that it was pretty successful in meeting the urban renewal goals that were part of the Robert Moses template – which was precisely what Jane Jacobs was criticizing (e.g., the deification of sterile open space, the income-sorting of populations, the immuring of slums, etc.)<BR/><BR/>Even the claim that Morningside Gardens helped racially integrate the area is suspect as 1) the area was already somewhat integrated before the construction of Morningside Gardens and 2) the construction of Morningside Gardens and the adjacent public housing project (General Grant?) created in some ways a new neighborhood that was now PERMANENTLY income-tagged and racially sorted. (Also some critics looking at the history of this redevelopment claim that it was constructed as a bulwark, so to speak, to prevent black Harlem from creeping closer to Columbia University.)<BR/><BR/>For more information about the history of Morningside Gardens see Joel Schwartz’s book, “New York Approach,” pp. 64-66, 151-159, 185-189, 195-197, 200, 338n29, 342n30, and 343n31.<BR/><BR/>Ballon is apparently a great admirer of this book. She praises it in the Notes to her essay on Title I projects in her Moses catalog:<BR/><BR/>. . . . The most important book on Title I is Joel Schwartz’s ‘New York Approach’ . . which established the deep bed of support for Moses’ renewal agenda. I am in awe of the book’s archival depth, which allowed Schwartz to track decision making with astounding texture . . . . ” Note 1 on pg. 114.<BR/><BR/>So it’s not that Ballon (and Schwartz, who is also a Moses fan) are unaware of the facts. (Schwartz has, indeed, done an amazing amount of research on Moses.) But it just goes to show how different their ideology is from someone like Jane Jacobs. And it also seems to demonstrate just how little they understand Jacobs’ criticisms of the Moses approach. It’s not so much that they understand Jacobs criticisms, but just don’t agree with them; rather, it seems to me that they actually don’t understand her criticisms in the first place, and as a result they never really address many of them directly. (They mainly address shibboleths and straw men – or straw women – instead.)<BR/><BR/>-- Benjamin HemricBenjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.com