MAS NYC Presents: Ideas for New York's New Leadership

8/12/2019 MAS NYC Presents: Ideas for New York's New Leadership

1/66


2/66

About MAS

For 120 years the Municipal Art Society has made New York a more

livable city by advocating for excellence in urban planning and design, a

commitment to historic preservation and the arts, and the empowerment

of local communities to effect change in their neighborhoods. From

saving Grand Central Terminal and the lights of Times Square, to

establishing groundbreaking land-use and preservation laws that have

become national models, MAS has been at the forefront of New Yorks

most important campaigns to promote our citys economic vitality,

cultural vibrancy, environmental sustainability, and social diversity.

For more information, visit mas.org.


3/66

March 2014

About the Project:

Ideas for New Yorks New Leadership draws on the diversity of interests and

expertise that shape the city: planners, designers, artists, elected officials, academics,

entrepreneurs, corporate business and community activists. To enrich the discussion

about the next set of policy ideas for New York City, The Municipal Art Society

(MAS) invited a cross-section of New Yorkers with knowledge in various urban

policy areas to offer their guidance to the new leadership. Each contributor discusses

a key issue, opportunity or priority for action within a specific domain. The ideas that

follow do not necessarily reflect the views of MAS, but are presented to stimulate a

diverse and inclusive discourse to inform decision making and priority setting.


4/66


5/66

Table of Contents

Innovating Jobs19Adam FriedmanDirector // The Pratt Center for Community Development

Contributors Biographies61

Is New York City a Just City?28Toni L. GriffinDirector // J. Max Bond Center, Spitzer School of Architecture, City College, CUNY

Renaissance Plan for New York Citys Public Housing33Roy StricklandProfessor of Architecture // University of Michigan

Introduction8The Municipal Art Society of New York

Foreword6 Tony Hiss

Many Birds with One Stone:Adaptation and Economic Development50Jesse M. Keenan

Research Director // Center for Urban Real Estate (CURE.), Columbia University

A Tale of Two Parks31Steve HindyCofounder & Chairman // Brooklyn Brewery

Creative Individuals Equal a Creative City45Michael RoyceExecutive Director // New York Foundation for the Arts

Jobs and Housing Make Stable Communities24

Molly Rose KaufmanProvost // University of Orange

Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MDResearch Psychiatrist // New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University

Acknowledgments64

The Arts and New York Are One42Lane HarwellExecutive Director // Dance/NYC

Toward Real Change40Sandra A. Garca BetancourtExecutive Director & CEO // Northern Manhattan Arts Alliance

Venice on the Hudson22Richard OlcottArchitect // Ennead Architects

Stefan KnustDirector of Sustainability // Ennead Architects

Mobility and Equity in the Tale of Two Cities15Joan ByronDirector of Policy // The Pratt Center for Community Development

Scaling Up Energy in Low-Income Housing54Peter LehnerExecutive Director // Natural Resources Defense Council

All Hands on Deck: Building a Resilience Constituency56Mary W. RoweDirector, Urban Resilience and Livability // The Municipal Art Society

Andrew YanSenior Urban Planner // BTAworks

Making the Case for Civic Assets36Ronda WistVice President, Preservation & Government Relations // The Municipal Art Society

Sophia KovenFounder // Gambit Consulting

Integrated Planning Strategies for the City

Supporting Diversity Through Arts and Culture

Building a More Resilient City

Neighborhood Assets: Investments for the 21st Century

Alison CarnduffPresident // Barrett & Company and Spring 2013 Fellow, The Municipal Art Society


6/66

There are moments in New York

when our vast, rushing city seemsto pause, when people throughout

our more than 325 neighborhoods arepoised and ready to listen to one another,

to reassess where we are as a city andwhere were going. Now is one of thosemoments, when we find ourselves eager

to think again about the essentials of amodern city, and how it can stay true to

its highest purposes by cherishing thedignity and worth of everyone here, all

eight-and-a-third million of us. Its wellknown that cities create efficiencies: by

concentrating people, making it easierto stay in touch, move around, make aliving, create undreamt-of experiences

and opportunities. But less well knownis that when cities are in tune with

themselves, they have an extra dimensionaccelerating human understanding,constructing an environment where,

when people are working together andlooking after one another, each successive

generation can meet ever largerchallenges.

This short but remarkable book presents14 ready-to-go ideassome big andbold, some small but perhaps even

bolderabout bringing New Yorks extradimension back into focus. Here arethoughts and plans and visions directed,

as Joan Byron says in her essay, towardrewriting our tale of two cities. How

would the future story of one city read?Eendraght maeckt maghtis the old Dutch

motto on the Brooklyn borough flag, aphrase usually translated as In unity

there is strength. But it derives froman even older, if slightly longer, Romanconcept, the insight that Concord will

make small things flourish, discordwill destroy great things. Practically

speaking, one city simply works betterthan two.

Oneness is more than an undercurrentin this book: it is its wellspring. Writing,

for instance, about the strength ofneighborhoods, Mindy Thompson

Fullilove and Molly Rose Kaufman

say, there are no undesirable people,

only undesirable conditions. When itcomes to the citys 334 housing projects,

which house 400,000 New Yorkers, RoyStrickland celebrates them as an asset,

not a liability, whose residents areassets and whose homes can becomecenters of vital neighborhoods

without demolition or displacement.

Then again, wells can eventually rundry and, like many watchwords, onenesscould become a buzzword and lose

its strength, a phrase evoked but not

implemented. These essays demonstratespecific transformations that are possiblewhen you look afresh at a city through

sense-of-we lenses:

Everyday objects can have hidden value.

An express bus, for instance, as Joan Byronpoints out, if given its own right-of-way,

can be a lifeline, a springboard, a launchpad for people who cant afford cars butwho, to make ends meet, have had to move

into neighborhoods built for car ownersand now spend two hours a day getting

to and from work. (These fast-bus routescost less than 1% of a new subway line.)

And what if a MetroCard could get you outon the water? Thats the question Richard

Olcott and Stefan Knust raise, arguing for alarge fleet of small ferries that extend masstransit across the Hudson, the East River,

and the harbor, and create memorabledestinations for generations to come. It

all builds on one of the best initiativesof the Bloomberg administrationthe

realization that a street can have more usesthan just driving and parking. Its a great

public space, too, a place to move throughbut also one to be savored and sharedby motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians

alike. Here is where the eight-and-a thirdmillion mingle.

The built environment isnt just somethingaround us, because its also building

something within. The physical and socialenvironments are inextricably linked.

Every structure and every public spaceis festooned with wordless messages we

can innately and instantly read, such as

Welcome orMove along; Youre safe hereorWatch out; There are people here youll

like orNot your kind; This takes me backorNot this again.

Toni Griffins Just City IndicatorProject gets to the heart of this link,

augmenting the PlaNYC sustainabilityindicators, which measure how clean

the air and water are by incorporatingqualitative dimensions of what makesthe built environment conducive to

greater inclusion, diversity, equality

and democracy. Its a scale that wouldlet us assess whether, for instance, thedesign of new places and spaces aid in

encouraging a young African Americanteenagers sense of belonging in a publicpark in Midtown Manhattan. Imagine

more public spaces that encouragerather than discourage a greater diversity

of young New Yorkersthe ultimatewellspring of the city.

There are many other bright ideasbubbling up in these few pagesabout

parks, artists, landmarks, affordablehousing, and replenishing nature along

our river edges. In a memorable phrase,Adam Friedman tells us its time to

capture the next ripple, meaningthat were clever at coming up withoriginal products but then we let the

manufacturing of them and all thosegood jobs slip away. Design/Production

Innovation Districts can fix this bygiving equal value to inner innovation

cores and outer production rings. Likeso much in this book, the idea encourages

us to expand on what New York hasbeen and still is, to keep the city rushingforward, but with care so we dont

stumble or lose our way.

I look forward to being part of a city that

opens its arms to the flourishing of smallthings and great things alike.n

FOREWORD

by Tony Hiss


7/66


8/66

As New York City welcomesMayor de Blasio and new

leadership across the fiveboroughs, we at the Municipal Art

Society (MAS) are hopeful that todaysleaders will build on the successesof the last administration while also

developing innovative approaches toconfront the persistent challenges of

building a more livable and resilientNew York.

We are not alone in our anticipation.

According to the 2013 MAS Survey onLivability, supported by the Rockefeller

Foundation, 76% of New Yorkers feeloptimistic about a new administration.

Through this lens of collectiveoptimism, we look forward to taking

a fresh look at the challenges andopportunities that lie ahead.

Throughout our 120-year history, MAShas been at the forefront of New York

Citys most significant city buildingcampaigns, including saving Grand

Central Terminal and the lights of TimesSquare, imagining a new park in Fresh

Kills and establishing groundbreakingland-use and preservation laws thathave become national models. MAS has

helped ensure that the pieces of NewYorks physical and cultural heritage

so crucial to neighborhood diversity

are valued and protected. And, as wehave for over fifty years, we continue

to increase urban literacy by offeringdynamic walking tours and organizing

thought-provoking public conversationsthrough events like our annualMASSummit for New York City.

Drawing on the remarkable energy of

the MAS Board of Directors, volunteers,and staff, we will continue to lead a

strong coalition of non-profits, planningand design professionals, civic leaders,and neighborhood activists to confront

and develop solutions to the challengesNew York City faces today. From

building an alliance for a new Penn

INTRODUCTION

MAS Presents: Ideas for New Yorks New Leadership


9/66

Station to advocating for much-

needed affordable housing, MASlooks forward to working hand-

in-hand with our new leadershipto address the citys most pressing

issues.

Integrated Planning Strategies

for the City

New York City needs acomprehensive approach to betterplan for the futureone that more

equitably distributes developmentthroughout the five boroughs and

employs the best planning practices:from preserving our historic assets

and investing in infrastructureand public space, to encouragingcommunity engagement. We know

with global competition, economicuncertainty, and new challenges like

climate change, New York City must

constantly re-think and re-inventitself. But to ensure success, we need tothink holistically and creatively aboutthe elements that make a city resilient,

economically vibrant, and livable. In2013 MAS re-engaged in a discussion on

the future of Grand Central Terminalwhen the last administration proposed

to rezone 73 blocks of East Midtown inorder to incentivize the developmentof new large Class A office buildings.

Our work over the course of the last year

helped to define what a 21st century

Midtown might look like. This year wehope to realize this vision in a new plan

by working collaboratively with a broadarray of stakeholders concerned about

East Midtowns future.

Investing in a new Penn Station is one of

the central infrastructure projectsof our time. More than half a million

people travel through Penn Stationevery day, experiencing a sub-standard

facility that compromises safety and

efficiency, and continues to impedethe revitalization of what could be a

dynamic and sought-after commercialand residential neighborhood. It is the

busiest station in the US. And, there isperhaps no other single place in the citythat impacts the daily lives of so many.

Investing in a new station is criticallyneeded, not only to accommodate a

growing ridership, but also to ensure thecitys, regions and countrys economic


10/66

health. In 2013 MAS, in partnership with

the Regional Plan Association, convincedthe City Council to limit MadisonSquare Gardens permit to operate above

Penn Station to ten more years withthe support of then-public advocate de

Blasio. This administration now has anunprecedented opportunity to engage

in a process to relocate the Gardena

vital step in turning Penn Station into thedynamic, high functioning catalyst New

York needs. Solutions to this problemwill require extraordinary leadership

and coordination, but it is this kind ofinvestment that is necessary to keep New

York secure well into the next century.

MAS is also firmly committed to

working with our new leaders todevelop solutions to build and preserve

affordable housing while simultaneouslybuilding stronger neighborhoods. An

extraordinary amount of work is aheadof us to meet the Mayors ambitiousgoals and support institutions like

NYCHAan essential part of NewYorks affordable housing landscape

which are in urgent need of investment.

Neighborhood Assets:Investments for the 21st Century

Today, New York Citys ability to beglobally competitive is largely due to

public investments made long ago. Our

public housing, community centers,libraries, parks, and numerous othercivic assets continue to provide essential

services. As economic concerns drivedecisions and real estate values rise andfall, we need new investment strategies

to support these assets.The most resilient neighborhoods

are those that nurture strong socialnetworks, which are often formed and

cultivated through our shared places.We need to find a way to help developinnovative, financially sustainable

approaches and effective partnerships tohelp strengthen the local places where

communal bonds are forged, creativityis nurtured, learning enhanced, and

culture exchanged. As MAS has pointedout recently in our work on real estatedevelopment around Central Park, it

is critical that as New York grows weprotect and support the key assets

which continue to define the urbanexperience and New York.

Supporting Diversity Through

Arts and Culture

Arts and culturein all formsplay a

central role in shaping the character ofour citys neighborhoods. Going back to

our founding, MAS has a long history inpromoting the fundamental role of thearts in stimulating pride of place, quality

of life, and cultural connections. Ourwork in the arts today touches nearly

every area of MASwhether it be theinclusion of the arts in community-

based planning, conversations about theinclusion of places for the arts in new

development, how to retain our cityscreative workforce, or discussions aboutequity. We know from the 2013 MAS

Survey on Livability that many non-Manhattan-based residents dont see

their neighborhoods as good places toexperience arts and culture. MAS sees

this as an opportunity for the de Blasioadministration to create new incentivesand opportunities across its many

agencies, including the Department ofCultural Affairs, to invest equitably in

the arts in all neighborhoods.

Building a More Resilient City

To develop truly resilient communities

and a stronger New York, economic,social, and environmental vulnerabilitiesneed to be addressed equally. As we

saw with the aftermath of SuperstormSandy, solutions to these challenges

often originate in proactive, locallydriven community planning and

grassroots innovation. Strengthening thecapacity of communities to participate

in the planning process is critical toensure that proposed plans reflect localneeds and priorities, and that citywide

partnerships develop networks able torespond quickly to future disruptions.

Mobilizing existing resources andenlisting professionals with a broad

range of expertise in environmental,planning, and community engagement

can help to create strategies that bothimprove resiliency and livability. We

encourage our new leaders to engagedirectly with entrepreneurs in thedesign and tech communities to develop

ways to better share information andanticipate and respond to challenges.

We advocate for an integrated approach

to making soft and hard infrastructureinvestments by coordinating acrossfederal, state, and city agencies.

Ultimately, we hope to see Cityleadership mobilize New Yorkers across

all five boroughsacross class, race andethnicity, and neighborhoodsto step

up to the challenge of making resilience

a part of our daily lives.n


11/66


12/66


13/66

Innovating JobsAdam FriedmanDirector // The Pratt Center for Community Development

Jobs and Housing Make Stable Communities

Molly Rose KaufmanProvost // University of Orange

Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MDResearch Psychiatrist // New York State PsychiatricInstitute at Columbia University

Venice on the HudsonRichard OlcottPartner // Ennead Architects

Stefan KnustDirector of Sustainability // Ennead Architects

Mobility and Equity in the Tale of Two CitiesJoan ByronDirector of Policy // The Pratt Center for Community Development


14/66


15/66

Mobility and Equity in the Tale of Two Cities

by Joan Byron

Lay a subway map over a census

map of household incomes, and

youll see evidence that the cost

of housing in walkable, transit-rich

neighborhoods is pushing poor and

working-class families out to what

used to be called two-fare zones.

Though the MetroCard has eliminated

the extra charge for transferring from

bus to subway, living out of reach of

the subway still exacts a heavy price

from individual commuters, from their

families and from their neighborhoods.

758,000 New Yorkers travel more

than an hour each way to workand

two-thirds of them are commuting to

jobs paying less than $35,000 per year.

Neighborhoods that were once car-

dependent, quasi-suburban enclaves are

now the homes of families with multiple

wage earners who cant afford to drive;

teenage mega-commuters who leave

their homes before dawn for school;

and seniors cut off from health care and

other needed services.

Businesses off the subway grid suffer

too. Since 2000, the boroughs have

steadily gained both absolute numbers

and share of employment; but jobs in

health care, education, retail, logistics,

and manufacturing are clustered in

locations far from the subway. Slow

and unreliable buses make it hard for

employers to attract and retain skilled

workers. And local retailers struggle

to compete with big-box chains on

commercial strips made chaotic by auto-

centric 1960s planning rules.

There is no fiscally or physically

imaginable scenario in which outer-

borough transit deficits can be

addressed by rail. The MTA will be hard

pressed to complete the rail projects


16/66

more than-

100 residents

- 99 to 100 residents

101 to 300 residents

301 to 500 residents

more than 501 residents

Population change

Select Bus Service routes(proposed and in progress)

Subway routes

0 52.5 MilesData at census tract level, Census 2010Source: US Census 1990, 2010

Population Change 1990 to 2010

by census tract


17/66

now under way, much less begin

Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway.

Completing Phase 1all one and a half

miles and three stations worthwill

have cost more than $4.5 billion by the

time it opens in 2016.

Claims that existing freight rail lines can

be cheaply converted to transit service

are dubious. The Triboro Rx idea only

works if were willing to give up the only

option for diverting any of our ever-

growing volume of freight from trucks

to rail. And an MTA study of Staten

Islands North Shore line found that

using the right-of-way for full-featured

Bus Rapid Transit would provide almost

as fast a trip as light rail (23 minutes vs.

21 minutes from West Shore Plaza to St.

George Ferry Terminal) at about 60% of

the total capital and operating cost.1

Full-featured Bus Rapid Transit

is what New Yorks transit-starved

neighborhoods need. The features

that make BRT fast are achievable on

many of the corridors, where speed,

comfort, and reliability matter the

most. Multi-lane streets with medians

can accommodate the protected lanes

and real stations that enable BRT to

perform like rail, at a fraction of the

price. Clevelands Health Line, the most

advanced BRT corridor in the US, was

completed for less than $30 million per

milecompare that to the $3 billion per

mile cost of the Second Avenue Subway.

BRT doesnt cost much moneybut

it does require agency bandwidth,

and political commitment. MTA

and the New York City Department

of Transportation were able to

introduce Select Bus Service because

staff at the two agencies learned to

work togetherand with affected

communities. Reallocating street space

can be fraughtbut the agencies have

brought communities into the planning

of each route early on. Engagement

from route selection through lane and

station placement helps to surface local

concerns, like keeping curbs available

for parking and loading. This kind

of fine-grained planning solves real

problems, and dispels misperceptions

that can block change. But its labor-

intensive. Accelerating the deployment

of Select Bus Service, and bringing real

Bus Rapid Transit to the corridors that

need it most, will require an expanded

commitment of agency staffing, well

beyond the small and dedicated teams

now assigned to the program.

Leadership from City Hall will determine

whether BRT will get the modest

amounts of funding and the high priority

in agency mission that it will need to get

rolling. Bringing fast, efficient transit

to residents and workers in New Yorks

transit-starved neighborhoods will be

an important step toward rewriting ourtale of two cities.n

References

1. Mobility and Equity for New Yorks Transit-

Starved Neighborhoods: The Case for Full-

Featured Bus Rapid Transit. (2013) report by

the Pratt Center for Community Development

and the Rockefeller Foundation, http://

prattcenter.net/research/mobility-and-equity-

new-york%E2%80%99s-transit-starved-

neighborhoods-case-full-featured-bus-rapid

Full-featured Bus RapidTransit is what NewYorks transit-starvedneighborhoods need. Thefeatures that make BRTfast are achievable onmany of the corridors,

where speed, comfort,

and reliability matter themost.


18/66


19/66

by Adam Friedman

Innovating Jobs

The City should capitalize on

New Yorks extraordinary

wealth of design and other

creative resources to stimulate productdevelopment, business formation, and

job growth through the creation of

Design/Production Innovation Districts

containing a vibrant mix of space and

uses.

The growth in income disparity has

become a defining characteristic

of New York Citys economy, and

addressing it must be one of the highest

priorities of the new administration.

Critical to addressing the growth in

income disparity is building a broader

economic base, with sectors that

offer living-wage jobs for New Yorksresidents, who have an incredible

diversity of skills, talents, and interests.

The Bloomberg administration

recognized the need for greater

economic diversity, and late in its

tenure began to recognize the design

and engineering sectors as potential

engines of economic growth. Initiatives

to create a high-tech, applied sciences

campus on Roosevelt Island, launch

Design Week, and any number of

business incubators and business plan

competitions sought to ramp up the

economic impact of our citys creativ

sectors.

While these are great initiatives

that will help to diversify the citys

economic base, they will not lead to

the type of broad-based economic

recovery needed to generate the new

jobs to address todays widespread

unemployment and under-employmen

Achieving a more robust recovery will

require that the City create not only

jobs in the innovation economy, that


20/66

we not only make the prototypes, but

that we also capture the next ripple of

jobs as companies move past the initial

innovation phase of their products life

cycles and into broader production for

consumer markets. Similarly, we must

nurture not only high-tech but high-

touch industries that derive value from

design and responsiveness to consumer

preferences.

The City should lay the foundation for

such a broad-based recovery through

the creation of Design/Production

Innovation Districts. An Innovation

District would contain a diversity

of spaces for both the high-tech and

creative sectors that stimulate product

development and commercialization,

as well as space for larger-scale

production to capture the full job

creation potential. The challenge

for planners is how to achieve a mix

of uses, some of which can afford

relatively higher land use costs (such as

the engineering and design firms, the

restaurants and local retailers) while

others can afford relatively lower land

costs (such as the manufacturers and

arts organizations.) The picture is even

more complicated by the aesthetics of

the industrial space and appeal of walk-

to-work communities, which combine

to prime the market for residential

conversions that could price out all of

the above. The attractiveness of such

mixed-use districts are inherently

unstable if property owners can easily

convert from low-rent to high-rent

uses, and while property owners may

oppose the restrictions that balance

uses, such restrictions are essential

to both the overall public and private

value of the district.

How can the City create an area

with both the eclectic high-energy

mix that stimulates creativity and

entrepreneurship, but also stable low-

cost space for the arts and production?

The answer is for the City to create

Innovation Districts with at least two

types of land use patterns that might be

conceived as an Innovation Core and

a Production Ring.1The Innovation

Core is diverse and where the

creatives are clustered with space for

designers, engineers, entrepreneurs,

artists, incubators, educational

institutions and micro manufacturers

including coworking spaces such as

those provided by Fab Lab, Tech Shop

and Third Ward, where equipment and

ideas, can be shared. The proximity

of start-ups, art and design firms and

other innovative businesses creates a

synergistic web of ideas that inspires

new products and businesses.

The Production Ring is more

homogenous, and home to the uses

that can afford lower land costs. This

would require zoning that permits only

a narrow range of uses.

The development of new types of

public interventions is necessary to

create and maintain the diversity of

uses essential to Innovation Districts.

Some of these new interventions are

reminiscent of the strategies that

have been developed in cities across

the country to build and maintain

affordable housing. Others are

similar to efforts to preserve historic

neighborhoods or unique districts

such as the Theatre District in New

York. Still others are brand-new

and capitalize on changes in both

technology and cultural preferences

that permit a new mix of uses which

were previously unheard of. For

example:

Any new construction should

include space for manufacturing. This

requirement could be satisfied on-site

or it could be achieved by paying other

property owners to dedicate space

elsewhere in the district.

Existing manufacturing space could

only be converted if an equal amount o

space is dedicated for manufacturingon-site or elsewhere in the district.

Enforcement of use restrictions has

been very difficult in the past. One

way to solve the enforcement issue

would be to give incentives or density

bonuses for transfers of ownership or

management of the restricted space to

a third-party nonprofit organization;

and

Clearly brand the district to ensurethat anyone living, working or

visiting the district knows that it is

a mix of uses, expect that the mix

creates some conflict such as noise

from early morning trucking and

machinery or smells of coffee roasting

and bread baking and be prepared

to tolerate it. Such branding might

include everything from signage and

murals to public programming with

factory tours, mini trade shows, and

networking events that would bothfoster appreciation of the mix as well

as the synergy between the uses that is

at the heart of the district.n

Notes:

1. The Innovation Core and the Production Ring

are not literal descriptions but meant to illustrate

two connected, mutually dependent but distinct

land use patterns.

Critical to addressingthe growth in incomedisparity is building abroader economic base,

with sectors that offerliving-wage jobs for NewYorks residents, who havean incredible diversityof skills, talents andinterests.


21/66


22/66

Venice on the Hudsonby Richard Olcott and Stefan Knust

The worlds greatest cities are

celebrated for the vibrant

public spaces that emerge

along their transportation nodes:

materials, ideas, and knowledge

are exchanged in the marketplaces

through which people choose to

move. And a rich density and diversity

of travelers defines the ebb and

flow that is life blood to a thriving

metropolis. When transportation

systems become stressed or

interrupted, new or expanded systems

are necessary to provide options,

security, and relief. Each new or

improved network provides the socio-

economic connections that make

possible prosperity and resiliency for

communities old and new. Robust

transportation systems are essential

for New York City to continue to be a

gateway to opportunity.

The greatest untapped strength of our

metropolitan region is our waterways.

Our waterwaysNew York Harbor,

the Hudson River, the East River,

Jamaica Bay, Long Island Bay, and

our coastal shoresare typically

seen as an edge condition. For many,

they are a destination for sightseeing

and recreation. For most, they are a

boundary that is both alluring, for

development, and changing, in light of

climate change. Yet our waterways are

also our greatest untapped strength at

a time when transportation systems

are reaching capacity and at a time

when our city is becoming increasingly

vulnerable to what have now become

the expected unexpected events, both

natural and man-made. The manner

in which cities have incorporated


23/66

their waterways into their historic

trajectoriesin particular, the ways in

which their waters connect rather than

isolatehas been key to their health

and continued growth.

We need a better, faster and more

comprehensive ferry system.

One hundred years ago, before the

construction of the bridges and

tunnels that we now take for granted,

there were hundreds of ferries that

stitched together the rapidly growing

communities on both sides of the

Hudson and the East Rivers. Our

waters enabled the expansive growth

of New York City and served to unite

the increasingly interdependent

communities of commerce andhabitation. We are poised to benefit

from this blue highway again. An

expanded network of no-frills

passenger-only ferries, accessible by

MetroCard, could have a similar impact

today, not only opening new service

corridors into the heart of Midtown

and Wall Street, but also reestablishing

links across the rivers, connecting

emerging neighborhoods, commercial

centers, retail and recreation. For

example, a ferry connection between125th Street, near the newly expanding

Columbia University campus

in Manhattan, and the Mitsuwa

marketplace within the Edgewater

community across the Hudson River,

would connect two large ridership-

sheds that are currently linked only

by bus or car. At the regional scale,

new intermodal centers could connect

ferries to airports, trains, and buses,

as well as to greenways and bike lanes,

increasing options for leisure andcommerce at short, medium, and long

distances, all without traffic.

All that is needed is a vision for the

future.

Our hope is that the new

administration will continue to build

upon the planning and implementation

efforts already initiated by its

predecessorsthe Comprehensive

Waterfront Plan, Vision 2020, PlaNYC

2030, and A Stronger, More Resilient

New Yorkall of which address the

increasing importance of an accessible

and active waterfront for a more

sustainable future. The City needs to

reduce vulnerability to floods, decrease

its carbon footprint, and find new and

more ways to transport people more

efficiently: all while creating new

nodes for economic development.

Ferries are an ideal vehicle to achieve

these goals. Each administration seeks

to leave its mark on the city; with acommitment to the renewed use of

our fabulous waterways, this next one

could build on New York Citys natural

and historical legacy and move the city

toward a future where ecological and

economic goals continue to converge

and enhance one another. By building

public and private partnerships in

which robust and flexible terminals

provide a range of ferry options,

commuters, residents and tourists will

continue to shape what is the NewYork experience: growing and thriving

neighborhoods and a flourishing

economy, filled with memorable

destinations for generations to come.n

Our waterways . . . areour greatest untappedstrength at a time whentransportation systemsare reaching capacity andat a time when our cityis becoming increasingly

vulnerable to what havenow become the expected

unexpected events, bothnatural and man-made.


24/66

by Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MD, and Molly Rose Kaufman

It is a tenet of public health that

stable communities, equipped

with equitable access to

resources, are the true foundationof health. Communities are the

social resource for inventing culture

and economy, solving problems,

negotiating acceptable behavior, and

making meaning. When communities

are destabilized, the frayed social

functioning creates stress and

augments rates of disease. The effects

of destabilization are not limited to

the affected community, but catch

everyone up in the problems that

radiate from the injured part.

During the Bloomberg era, the rich

got richer, and the poor got poorer.

Housing prices shot up, and jobs for

the unskilled collapsed. Many poor

families found themselves stringing

together dead-end, low-paying, part-

time jobs, while the rent pressures

were escalating and educational

opportunities narrowing. These

processes are unsettling many of the

citys neighborhoods. The decline

in the African-American population,

from 25% of the citys population in

2000 to 23% in 2010, is the sentinel

indicator of trouble. This is a festering

wound in the city, and the sooner it isacknowledged and healed, the better it

will be for the city and the surrounding

region.

To reverse this process, a new

commitment to neighborhood

stability is urgently needed. Between

1949 and now, New York City

neighborhoods have suffered from

urban renewal, highway construction,

deindustrialization, planned shrinkage

Jobs and Housing Make Stable Communities


25/66

mismanaged epidemics, gentrification,

and foreclosures. Taken together,

these policies and processes have

disrupted the lives of millions. They

have destroyed cultural, social, and

economic resources; fed epidemics;

and impeded social response to

trouble. Instead of this injurious and

repeated upheaval, New York City

needs a commitment to long-term

community stability and rebuilding.

Making such a commitment would put

New York City on a path to a new kind

of economic vitality and health. While

the Bloomberg years have supported

the economic vitality of those at the top

of the economic ladder, a community

stability initiative could unleash a

creative search for the economy of

the future, benefiting all residents and

lifting the entire metropolitan region.

At the heart of such a commitment is a

new approach to growth. The current

approach seeks to replace problem

people with desirable people. It is a

continuation of policies articulated in

1937, when the US governments Home

Owners Loan Corporation made the

infamous redlining maps. Those

maps documented the neighborhoods

where surveyors found undesirable

racial elements, meaning African-

Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Italians,

Jews, and the foreign-born, among

others. This replacement approach has

resulted in serial displacement, and it

is not a way to build long-term health

in the city.1

If we reject the idea of undesirable

people, we can approach all

neighborhoods with a new attitude,

respecting the people who live there

and helping them plan to stay.2 We

have called this urban restoration,

because it addresses the health of

the whole urban ecosystem.3 One

example of urban restoration is the

Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland,

Ohio, worker-owned, for-profit green

businesses that are building wealth in

the University Circle neighborhood.

Another example is the Almono

Project, which is rebuilding the last

major brownfield site in Pittsburgh in

cooperation with all the surrounding

neighborhoods, as well as affected and

interested communities.

Adoption of urban restoration as a

principle unleashes the creativity and

problem-solving ability that exist in

communities of all kinds. Human

beings can look at the world and

see solutions, and it is this inherent

ability that is optimized in good cities,

becoming the engine for civilization

and economy.

New York City, like many US cities, is

facing major challenges, among them

adjustment to sea level rise and climate

change. While all cities are touting

their resilience, in fact the ability

to recover depends fundamentally

on social connection and cohesion.

Yet what New York City has, at the

moment, are the opposite: growing

economic inequality along with the

social instability that inequity fosters.

Its time for a new path, one that

unleashes the power to face serious

threats and solve lingering puzzles.

That new path is community stability,

which we can achieve through policies

derived from the principle of urban

restoration.n

References

1. Fullilove, Mindy, and Wallace, Rodrick (2011).

Serial forced displacement in American cities:

1916-2010,Journal of Urban Health, 10.1007/

s11524-011-9585-2.

2. Morrish, William R., and Brown, Catherine

R. (1994).Planning to Stay: Learning to See

the Physical Features of Your Neighborhood,

Milkweed Editions, Minneapolis.

3. Fullilove, Mindy (2013). Urban Alchemy:

Restoring Joy in Americas Sorted-Out Cities, Ne

Village Press, New York.

If we reject the idea ofundesirable people,

we can approach allneighborhoods with a newattitude, respecting thepeople who live there andhelping them plan to stay.


26/66


27/66

Is New York City a Just City?Toni L. GriffinDirector // J. Max Bond Center, SpitzerSchool of Architecture, City College, CUNY

Renaissance Plan for New York Citys PublicHousing: Creating Vital Centers for a ThrivingNew York Without Demolition and Displacement

Roy StricklandProfessor of Architecture // University of Michigan

A Tale of Two ParksSteve HindyCofounder & Chairman // Brooklyn Brewery

Making the Case for Civic AssetsRonda WistVice President, Preservation & Government

Relations // The Municipal Art SocietySophia Koven

Founder // Gambit ConsultingAlison Carnduff

President // Barret & Company, 2013 Fellow,The Municipal Art Society


28/66

by Toni L. Griffin

Is New York City a Just City?

In The Spirit Level: Why Greater

Equality Makes Societies Stronger,

Dr. Richard Wilkinson and Kate

Pickett present a compelling set of data

illustrating that material inequality has

a profound influence on populationstratification, status insecurity and

competition, and the prevalence of all

the urban problems associated with

chronic health and social conditions,

as well as the strength of community

life (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009).

The book presents comparable data,

both internationally and for the fifty

US states, on several health and social

problems and their relationship to

income inequality. Specifically, the

data looks at life expectancy, mental

health, levels of violence, teenage

birth rates, imprisonment, obesity

rates, levels of trust, the educational

performance of school children, and

social mobility. The data reveals thatthe US ranks the worst among other

countries with the highest income

inequality and the worst index of

health and social problems.1 Within

the US, New York State has the highest

income inequality, but among the top

ten states with the highest income

inequality, it does better than 7 out

of the 10 states on health and social

indicators.2

It is quite easy in a vibrant city like

New York for some segments of the

local population, as well as visitors

from outside the city, to overlook

the effects of its income disparities.

Effective public policies and economicdevelopment strategies have eradicated

a large share of the historically seedy

areas of Manhattan, only to push

many of these conditions into other

parts of the city and region, including

lower-cost housing, homelessness, and

undesirable land uses, to name a few.

While New York may be performing

better than some in the areas of human

health and quality of life, inequality

is still on the rise and contributing to


29/66

the realities of a geographically and

socially divided city. The city has

always had wealthy neighborhoods,

but the boundaries of this wealth

are expanding within and beyond

Manhattan, often pushing workers

further from their jobs within the city s

core employment districts. This trend

should cause us to question whether

our city, often held up as a global

standard for economic and cultural

vibrancy, is truly a Just City.

In the book, The Just City,Professor

Susan Fainstein describes the principle

components of urban justice as equity,

diversity and democracy.3 Certainly the

health and social conditions Wilkinson

and Pickett examine provide cause

to be concerned about the macro-

level state of urban justice. But in thespace of urban planning and design,

one might argue that New York

City has launched some progressive

initiatives over the last twelve years

that begin to promote urban justice in

the public realm. The Citys Design &

Construction Excellence Program and

Great Streets Initiative can be lifted

up as positive examples of providing

more equitable access to quality

design of public facilities and public

street improvements that prioritize

pedestrian safety and comfort. For

those of us who work to improve

the built environment, the ambition

of achieving urban justice is often

a goal embedded in modern design

problems, including the redevelopment

of distressed public housing sites; the

reuse of chronically vacant land; the

revitalization of aging commercial

main streets; and the creation of

safe routes to school, just to name a

few. Public process procedures that

create, regulate and monitor land

development and design also claim to

promote justice by giving citizens voice

in the development process.

But when we examine the presence

of urban justice in housing, trans-

portation, commercial development

and infrastructure, it might be fair

to question whether New York City

has more to do in promoting a more

Just City, where the functions of

city planning and design can go even

further in playing an active role in this

pursuit.

Imagine if we identified specific

metrics for evaluating the performanceof New York Citys public spaces,

housing developments, commercial

districts, or transportation modes

for their ability to create more

urban justice? For instance, in

addition to assessing whether these

interventions advanced increased

quantities, and economic value or

minimized environmental harm, we

also determined how these places and

spaces facilitated greater economic

and social inclusion for its users andcommunity access, connectivity, and

diversity.

We could measure the presence of this

inclusion at the scale of the city, the

neighborhood, the block, and the site.

For example, imagine if we created

metrics that assessed how the design

of these places and spaces aided inencouraging a young African American

teenagers sense of belonging in a

public park in Midtown Manhattan or

the adaptability of an apartment unit

for a new immigrant family.

PlaNYC, launched in 2007, establishes

a set of twenty-nine sustainability

indicators, largely seeking to measure

environmental systems, such as air

quality, waste supply and waterways,

energy, solid water, and climate change

Spatial systems metrics focused on

quantitative indicators, measuring

increases and decreases in volume,

distribution, rank, or usage. But to

determine if the city is just, we also

need to incorporate the qualitative

dimensions of what makes the built

environment conducive to greater

inclusion, diversity, equality and

democracy.

The J. Max Bond Center on Design

for the Just City (JMBC) at The City

College of New York Spitzer School

of Architecture believes that design

can assist in setting the context for

urban justice in New York City. By

taking on the proposition that design

can have an impact on the social andeconomic equity, inclusion, and access

of cities, the JMBC aims to examine

these unresolved issues in urban

communities. In 2013, we launched

The Just City Indicator Project, a new

research initiative that seeks to create

a clear definition of the Just City and

to develop a set of evaluation metrics

that assess the effectiveness of design

tactics on facilitating urban justice.

Our preliminary proposition suggests

that achieving the Just City is rooted in

a distributive paradigm of where social

justice is defined as the morally proper

distribution of social benefits and

burdens among the society.4 Within

this paradigm, we believe striving

toward the intentional existence of

access and inclusion is a key ingredient

of the Just City.

We strongly encourage the de Blasio

administration to consider howNew York Citys inequalities might

be further dissolved if we were

to measure the presence of urban

justice in design and development

policy, capital improvements, and

development, including the public

realm, infrastructure and housing.

Imagine if we identifiedspecific metricsfor evaluating theperformance of NewYork Citys public spaces,housing developments,commercial districts, ortransportation modes fortheir impact of creatingmore urban justice?


30/66

In the sidebar on the right, we provide

an example of how the 2007 PlaNYC

Sustainability Indicators might be

expanded upon to include Just City

indicators that begin to measure the

qualitative impacts of our investments

towards the reduction of economic and

social inequalities.n

References

1. Wilkinson, Richard, and Pickett, Kate (2009).

The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes

Societies Stronger. Bloomsbury Press.

2. Ibid.

3. Fainstein, Susan S. (2010). The Just City. Cornell

University Press.

4. Young, Iris Marion (1990). Justice and the

Politics of Difference.Princeton University Press.

JUST CITY INDICATORS 2014SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS 2007

Number of citizen-led design efforts in thecommunity

Level of community participation duringdesign and implementation process

Existence of a current comprehensiveneighborhood plan

Evidence of community activism and socialnetworking within the community

Presence of inaccessible barriers

Presence of amenities that support a diversityof cultural users and their recreationalpractices

Evidence of user adaptation

Presence of places to post public information

Diversity of users within a public space

Presence of adequate lighting levels to promotepublic safety

Ease of regulations to host events andgatherings in public space

Ensure all New Yorkers live within a 10 minutewalk of a park

Percent of New Yorkers that live within aquarter of a mile of a park

Create homes for almost a million more NewYorkers while making housing andneighborhoods more affordable andsustainable

Increase in new housing units from 2007

Total units of housing in NYC

Percent of housing affordable tomedian-income NYC households

Vacancy rate of least expensive rentalapartments

Percent of new units within a half of a mile oftransit

Diversity of housing unit design to accomodatechanging demographics of urban households

Equitable distribution of affordable housing inall New York City boroughs and neighborhoods(Percent per neighborhood)

Equitable distribution of neighborhoodamenities in all New York City boroughs andneighborhoods, including libraries, healthyfoods, health care and public transit

Integration of local cultural aesthetic intopublic space design standards, includingstreetscapes and public plazas

HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS

PARKS AND PUBLIC SPACE

CIVIC CAPACITY


31/66

A Tale of Two Parks

by Steve Hindy

About 20 years ago, Prospect

Park Administrator Tupper

Thomas enlisted me to serve

on the board of the Prospect Park

Alliance, the not-for-profit organization

that she started along with Terry

Christensen, a prominent attorney

living in Park Slope. The Alliance

raises private money from individuals,

corporations, and foundations to fund

improvements in the 500-acre park

that architect Frederick Law Olmsted

built in the 1860s. The Alliance also

solicits discretionary funds, pork-barrel

money, from elected officials.

The Alliances first project was the

restoration of the parks Carousel. The

second was a restoration of man-made

forest in the center of the park, an

area that was suffering from erosion.

Because of my business experience (I

am a cofounder of Brooklyn Brewery),

I was asked to serve as chairman of

the Alliances Operations Committee,

overseeing day-to-day maintenance

of the park. I thus was privy to the

impact of city budget cuts on the

park. Just about every year, it seemed

the city would cut the operating

budget of the Parks Department.

The Alliance began to pick up some of

the maintenance tasks, like mowing the

grass and trimming the trees.

Somewhere around the year 2000, our

committee realized that the Alliance

was doing more and more basic

maintenance of the park. We worked

with the Parks Department to figure

out how much of the maintenance

budget was being funded by the City,

and how much by the Alliance. We

determined that the City was paying

60% and the Alliance 40%. My

committee proposed that we draw the


32/66

line at 60/40 and refuse to put any

more money into daily maintenance.

The Board of Directors rejected the

idea. Today, I think the Alliance funds

well over 60% and the City less than

40%.

There was a similar dynamic under

way at Central Park, also an Olmstedgem. The Central Park Conservancy

eventually took over 100%

responsibility for the maintenance of

Central Parkan idea that the Prospect

Park Alliance has considered. The City

still contributes to the Central Park

budget.

Thanks to the Alliance and the

Conservancy, these two parks have

flourished over the past two decades.

They are probably in the best

condition in their long histories. Both

organizations have raised big money

from wealthy individuals. Central Park

got a $100 million donation from hedge

fund manager John A. Paulson in 2012,

and Prospect Park got two $10 million

donations for its $75 million Lakeside

project, which includes two ice skating

rinks.

There are now more than 50 similar

organizations raising private and

public money for parks in New York

City. Most of these parks are now

dependent on private funding for their

maintenance.

The problem with this picture is that

most of these not-for-profits have been

started by relatively wealthy, entitled

people to improve parks near their

neighborhoods. Hundreds of smallerparks in low-income neighborhoods

have deteriorated as parks funding has

been cut. The cuts really began after

the 1977 fiscal crisis in New York City.

Only Mayor Bloomberg managed to

increase the parks budget during his

tenure. The current budget of $380

million is the largest ever. But the

mayor also added $10 billion in new

parks during his years in office. The

maintenance budget does not keep up

with that expansion. Today, much of

the day-to-day work in the parks is

performed by temporary workers on

six-month contracts through social

service and prison release programs.

Mayor deBlasio thus faces a taleof two parks, the parks with

conservancies and the parks without.

State Sen. Daniel Squadron has

proposed that the wealthy parks

share their funding with other

parks. I think that is a bad idea,

because these conservancies have

spent years cultivating a culture of

giving among their supporters. They

and their supporters will resent thecity taxing them in this way. Also,

Central Park and Prospect Park are the

jewels in the crown of Manhattan

and Brooklyn. They are used by all

residents and visitors to the city. They

are not private parks. If Squadrons

idea were adopted, I have no doubt

contributions would plummet.

There are ways to approach the

problem of inequity.

Together with a group of concerned

citizens, I started the Open Space

Alliance for North Brooklyn with

a mission of raising money for the

125 parks in Brooklyns Community

District 1. The City gave us $50

million to renovate the Depression-

era McCarren Park Pool, which had

been closed for 30 years. Former

councilperson Diana Reyna gave us

$2.5 million to improve Cooper Park.

We have raised money for other parks

in the district too. It seems to me

that this model, which focuses our

efforts on parks in all North Brooklyn

neighborhoods, is more equitable than

the single park model.

Ideally, the City should begin to restore

funding to the Parks Department so it

can do an equitable job of maintaining

all parks. Short of that, the City needs

to vigorously promote the creation

of conservancies and alliances for all

the citys parks. Perhaps the existing

conservancies and alliances could help

cultivate these organizations.n

There are now more than50 similar organizationsraising private and publicmoney for parks in NewYork City. Most of theseparks are now dependenton private funding fortheir maintenance.


33/66

Renaissance Plan for NYCs Public Housing:Creating Vital Centers for a Thriving New YorkWithout Demolition and Displacement

by Roy Strickland

One of the new mayoral

administrations major legacies

will be its success in addressing

public housings crisesoperating

deficits, deteriorating buildings,

unsafe living conditions. This proposal

outlines a renaissance plan for public

housing whose benefits will be

apparent in two years. The proposal

advocates a strategic plan for all public

housing capitalizing on its social,

physical, and locational assets for the

benefit of public housing residents and

a sustainable, economically dynamic,

equitable and unified New York.

I. Public Housings Challenges and

Opportunities

The challenges:

Federal cutbacks resulting in a $60

million annual operating deficit.

Backlog of repairs creating unsafe

living conditions for many residents.

Waiting list of 160,000 families.

The opportunities:

The human capital of 400,000

NYCHA residents.

334 developments in all ve

boroughs.

2,500 acres of land.

Developments often located near

drivers of New Yorks 21st-century

economy including technology, arts,

health care, and higher education,

enhancing their potential value to

residents and the city as a whole.


34/66

II. The Renaissance Plans Two

Assumptions

1. Public housing is an asset for New

York. As the major provider of housing

for low- and moderate-income families,

public housing deserves preservation

and enhancement, not demolition and

displacement.

2. Public housing residents are assets

for New York. As people who work

in many of the citys services and

industries, as families raising children

who will be the next generation of

New Yorkers, and as retirees whove

contributed their energy to New Yorks

vitality, public housing residents

deserve respect and should be active

shapers in planning the future.

III. Renaissance Plan: Steps

Look at public housing as a whole

and develop the Renaissance Plan that

will help sustain and enhance it for

decades to come, as well as provide

additional low-and moderate-income

housing.

Establish a Renaissance Plan

Corporation (RPC) with power ofgrants and loans.

Enact enabling legislation promoting

coordination of New York City

agencies in delivery of capital projects

and services as part of the Renaissance

Plan.

Make public housing residentsfrom

kids to elderspart of planning. Hold

regular community workshops for the

exchange of ideas between neighborsand RPC representatives and planners.

Locate Renaissance Plan meeting

space in every public housing project.

Also make the Renaissance Plan

process part of nearby public schools

curriculum so that local kids can be

introduced to architecture, planning,

development, and construction careers.

Quantify undeveloped air rights for

all public housing developments and

put them in an RPC bank that will

enable them to be transferred across

all NYCHA developments and their

environs according to principles of

appropriate land use and densities.

Enter into public/private and

public/institutional partnerships

that through RPC will negotiate withNYCHA residents the use of banked

air rights toward projects that provide

a) revenue streams for NYCHA

developments upkeep and repair,

and b) turnkey facilities such as new

low- and moderate-income housing,

schools, libraries, recreation centers

and employment places for NYCHA

developments and their surrounding

communities.

IV. Renaissance Plan Schedule

Year I:

Initiate community participation and

private and institutional outreach;

establish RPC; enact enabling

legislation; quantify bankable air rights;

develop outline of Renaissance Plan.

Year II:

Refine Renaissance Plan; identify Plan

first projects at representative locations

around city; negotiate public/private

and public/institutional relationships

for first projects; announce projects

and begin implementation

Year III:

Complete first projects; identify next

series of projects.

Year IV:

Based on completion of representative

Plan projects, continue Plan at other

sites around the city.

V. Renaissance Plans Potential

As the following illustrations show,

NYCHA developments can becomecenters of vital neighborhoods as

part of a thriving New Yorkwithout

demolition and displacement.n

As people who work inmany of the citys servicesand industries, as familiesraising children who willbe the next generationof New Yorkers, andas retirees whovecontributed their energyto New Yorks vitality,public housing residentsdeserve respect andshould be active shapersin planning the future.


35/66


36/66

by Ronda Wist, Sophia Koven, and Alison Carnduff

Making the Case for Civic Assets

When New York Cityssignature buildings havebeen threatened, the

preservation movement has saved them.

Perhaps the most well-known campaign,appealing to all New Yorkers, was theeffort to save Grand Central Terminal.

One hundred years after its opening, itserves its original transit hub purpose aswell as a variety of others, and is one of

our most beloved public buildings.A century ago, many local and treasured

civic assets were built thanks to thecollaboration of philanthropists and

local government. These resultingneighborhood hospitals, parks, libraries,

and schools sustained generations of

New Yorkers. The brick and limestonebuildings have always been recognizedfor their critical role in the streetscape,

as well as in many ways reflecting the

soul of the community. Grand facadessuch as Morris High School, Asser LevyBaths, and the New York Public Library

main branch elevated the learning,reading and gatherings within. Thesethoughtfully sited works of inspiring

architecture are essential parts of oururban fabric. Andrew Carnegie said:

A library outranks any other onething a community can do to benefitits people. It is a never failing spring in

the desert.

Although todays New Yorkers may

remain committed to the early20th century civic values that ledto the creation of these places, New

York Citys real estate burdens and

operational concerns often exertintense redevelopment pressures. NewYorks demography and economy has

changed, but the essential needs ofour neighborhoods remain the same.Neighborhoods require certain sets of

conditions and services to be livable,desirable, and resilient. When these

public places are converted to privateuses, our neighborhood experience

and community strength graduallyerode. Any New Yorker who has met

a neighbor while pushing a child on


37/66

a playground swing, volunteering at a

hospital, sitting in a school auditoriumat a political meeting, attending aneighborhood concert, or checking out

a library book knows the importantroles these places play in fostering

community resilience.

For decades, city governments have

shed their public assets in exchange forquick, short-term dollars. Constrained

budgets and costly operating liabilitiesmake selling off valuable real estate

enticing. Rationales for propertydisposition include programmatic

improvement and consolidation orelimination of operations thoughtto be financial drains on larger

systems. Monetizing real estateto address shortfalls in operating

funding, soaring required expenses,or deferred maintenance is often

considered the most plausible solutionto financial problems. These lossescan greatly impact the citys residents

as the public realm is permanentlydiminished with the sale of public art

or the privatization of public landsand buildings. Yet within the last

year or so, many plans have emergedto privatize public spaces, including

the proposed sale of Long IslandCollege Hospital, library facilities inBrooklyn and Midtown Manhattan,

major privatization efforts such as the

proposed white-tablecloth restaurantin Union Square, and the proposedsoccer stadium in Flushing Meadows

Corona Park.

Often the disposition process is

distressingly opaque. New Yorkersdeserve an ongoing transparent

planning process that clearly revealsthe long-term benefits and detriments

of selling off public assets. The publicthe true stakeholdersshould havethe opportunity to weigh in on these

proposed dispositions and help decidetheir fate. These resources have always

been critically important to thoseNew Yorkers least able to advocate on

their own behalf: recent immigrants,children, and senior citizens. We mustfocus attention away from the short-

term monetary value to the longer termimportance of serving New Yorkers.

The preservation of these assets isparticularly critical in the face of New

Yorks projected growth.

Instead of fighting piecemeal battles

about individual losses, we encouragethe City to take a holistic view of civicassets. These assets are not simply

buildings, but convening spaces forthe community that provide services

whose effects, unlike real estateproperty taxes, are sometimes difficult

to measure. Over time the use of

these buildings has changed and willcontinue to evolve. For all buildings

considered for disposition, criteriashould be created to determine the

value that each building and its servicesrepresent to the community. These

include, the number of visits, types ofusers, and necessity and convenience.Projections about demographic changes

should also be taken into consideration.As the explosive growth of Brooklyn

has so clearly demonstrated in the pastfew years, demand for civic assets, such

as schools, parks, and libraries, canshift dramatically in short periods oftime.

Landmark designation is a part ofthe solution. Old buildings must be

respected and not disdained as obsoletewhen for example interior layouts can

be adapted. The private and publicsectors must join together to ensure

that worthy historic buildings continueto serve as useful assets for the future.Can development rights be transferred

more flexibly from civic assets sincethey serve the entire neighborhood?

Could useful operational, staffing, orphysical modifications be made to

underperforming or underutilizedschools or libraries? Are there ways tocollocate disparate uses to help support

beloved buildings?

Public ownership should obligate

the City to be transparent to boththe community where a building islocated, and to the taxpayers who have

supported its use for decades. Nowis the time to revisit deaccessioning

choices and ensure that futuregenerations are able to use these

critical resources. By putting forth its

long-term goals for these propertieson a citywide or borough-wide basis,

the new administration can clearlypresent any operational, maintenance,

and renovation issues to New Yorkers.Using a set of publicly-agreed-

upon principles for alternatives todisposition, the City may determinethat in some cases sale and demolition

is appropriate. This should helpthe public understand an individual

facilitys complete inadequacy as wellas what the sale proceeds will fund.

And the Citys architectural responseshould enhance each community.

Everyone can agree that aneighborhood without usable public

space isnt much of a neighborhoodat all. Preservations power should be

harnessed to work with communitiesto maintain and enhance the publicly-

owned real estate that forms theinfrastructure of our civil society. n

New Yorkers deservean ongoing transparentplanning process thatclearly reveals thelong-term benefits and

detriments of selling offpublic assets.


38/66


39/66

Creative Individuals Equal a Creative CityMichael RoyceExecutive Director // New York Foundation for the Arts

The Arts and New York Are OneLane HarwellExecutive Director // Dance/NYC

Toward Real ChangeSandra A. Garca BetancourtExecutive Director & CEO // Northern Manhattan Arts Alliance


40/66

by Sandra A. Garca Betancourt

Toward Real Change

Community-based organizations

throughout New York City

have always been agents of

change and community development.

Their work and commitment to the

improvement and advancement of

the citys diverse communities have

not only had a significant impact in

the population they serve, but in all

sectors of our society. For example,

throughout the last decade, much

has been said about the need to work

toward community building, social

change, social transformation, and

justice and community development.

These evocative expressions have

been embraced as bywords by elected

officials, as well as philanthropists

and financiers, and have embodied

the missions and aspirations of

many community leaders, residents,

artists and activists concerned with

uneven economic growth. The

concern extends to the lack of

visibility of communities around

the city, particularly those with high

populations of new immigrants and

people of color. The narratives that

have described the calling of many

community organizations for many

years has, at last, been understood

and incorporated as key to building a

stronger and more equitable city at a

time when new efforts to readdress

the need to make our communities

viable and strong have become urgent

due to the current, profound social,

and economic disparities.

The lack of importance or prominence

assigned to these communities, and

the inadequate access to opportunities

have historically prompted the

creation of local institutions that


41/66

often strive to provide culturally

appropriate, competent, and mindful

programming to their residents. The

arts and culture sector, for example,

has had a significant impact. Artists

and arts organizations have helped,

organized, and partnered with other

community institutions, to provide

programming that has enhanced the

quality of life and has ignited the

vibrancy of neighborhoods around

the city, as well as having encouraged

tourism, social investment, and

economic development.

Notwithstanding, many of these

organizations, some more mature than

emerging ones, others developing,

are at risk of disappearing for lack of

the resources that would ensure their

sustainability. The new leadership of

New York City must be prepared to

take the appropriate steps to validate

and support those vital community

organizations that are, continuously,

effecting change and transforming our

city into an exciting and better place to

live and progress.

To address social change, trans-

formation, equality, and economic

development, our elected officials,

philanthropies, businesses and

communities must work together. In

that spirit, these are some suggestions

to begin to tackle these issues and

the sustainability of arts and culture

organizations in our communities:

evaluate and amend the guidelines

and practices of providing public

support to community organizations,

so they reflect a more equitable

distribution of funds and resources;

include community arts and

culture organizations that are not

located in the mainstream cultural

corridors of NYC in the city guides,

tourism brochures, and maps so our

communities become destinations for

visitors from other neighborhoods and

abroad;

and invest in eforts to create and

sustain innovative arts spaces in

disadvantaged communities.n

The new leadershipof New York City mustbe prepared to take theappropriate steps to

validate and supportthose vital communityorganizations that are,continuously, effectingchange and transformingour city into an excitingand better place to liveand progress.


42/66

Envision a future where New

York and arts and culture are

more meaningfully one.

Mayor de Blasios vision and

framework for addressing equity, One

New York, Rising Together, opens

up new possibilities for realizing

this goal. He has committed to

universalizing arts education, and he

creates infinite entry points for arts

and culture by proposing government

reform to engage New Yorkers more

greatly in setting priorities. Needs

in the arts are certainly bound up in

the challenges he has identified for

all New Yorkers: perhaps above all,

affordability. Arts and culture can be

included in solutions to the issues

on his docket: for instance, jobs and

economic development, equality for

all, safety, sustainability, and resilience.The sectors role in healing spirits and

the economy after Sandy is a powerful

example of how.

New possibilities are also unlocked

by the momentum our City Council is

gaining to include a comprehensive

cultural plan in the New York City

Charter, a charge that 21 newly elected

Council members may consider.

I embrace the promise that, to be

comprehensive, such a plan will not

view arts and culture in isolation but,

rather, as being linked reciprocally

with society.

As we look to all levels of City

government to advance a future where

New York and arts and culture are

more meaningfully one, there are

opportunities beyond dollars through

the Department of Cultural Affairs

(which, yes, could increase so the

agency might include new groups in it

funding portfolio, and help

by Lane Harwell

The Arts and New York Are One


43/66

currently funded groups to scale up

their delivery of public value). There

are opportunities for accelerating and

incentivizing interagency strategy,

as we have seen evolve nationally

through recent leadership (from New

York) of the National Endowment for

the Arts, and at the state level with a

new commitment to the arts through

the Regional Economic Development

Councils. Our new leaders could

consider in-kind offeringsfrom

space to marketing, building on

past successes, and new ideals. And

they could catalyze public/private

partnerships and harness the creative

potential of our citys artists to lift up

neglected, established, and start-up

industries, including the booming tech

sector.

Many of these directions are

encouraged by One New York, Rising

Together. Consider, for instance,

Mayor de Blasios description of

economic development hubs in every

neighborhood. He offers an equitable,

asset-based framework for engaging

community stakeholders (I read,

artists) to map and create hubs

that may advance the movement of

naturally occurring cultural districts

and foster creative placemaking. I see

opportunity for expanded arts and

culture activity, increased collaboration

and economic and technical support

especially in non-Manhattan

geographieswhere increased

attention by our sector, and all New

Yorkers, is needed.

The proposed universalization of

arts education invites a revisiting

and strengthening of the relationshipbetween the Departments of Education

and Cultural Affairs. Our new mayor

reminds us that creative lives exist

on a continuum, inviting government

to take seriously arts training, arts

careers, institutional advancement,

and, concomitantly, audience and

constituent engagement. Yes, arts

education and the arts are one.

Now, I am not advocating top-down

strategy or canonizationuseful

concerns expressed in the testimony

I have heard on the City Councils

proposal for a cultural plan. Nor,

certainly, do I wish to reduce arts and

culture work to any particular social

issue or outcome. Rather, I mean to

leverage the reality that artists and

cultural groups are always already

affecting social change through the

work they create and engagement with

audiences, their fellow citizens and

tourists, to encourage more and new

directions. Creative sector workers

can be includedand given agencyin

shaping the vision for our Cityand,

ideally, an adaptive vision, and one

that embraces risk (and risk capital),

prerequisites for a healthy city and the

continual flow of ideas and inspiration.

Ultimately, I am writing for our citys

artists, cultural groups and supporters,

and encouraging participation in

unifying and moving our New York and

its people forward.

I offer, as a challenge, that while artists

and organizations create value through

their individuality, we too need to

work better as one. I speak from the

vantage point of advocate, something

I share with Mayor de Blasio, when

I say we have an opportunity to lead

by modeling inclusivity and access,

and by surfacing and breaking down

categories that divide us: from

geography to creative form, corporate

structure, and budget size.

I share the optimism of my fellow New

Yorkers in welcoming new leadership.

As the arts and culture are prioritiesfor New Yorkers, I am confident they

will also be priorities in the future of

our great cityOne New York. n

Our new leaderscould consider in-kindofferingsfrom space tomarketing, building onpast successes and newideals. And they couldcatalyze public/privatepartnerships and harness

the creative potential ofour citys artists to lift upneglected, established,and start-up industries,including the boomingtech sector.


44/66


45/66

Creative Individuals Equal a Creative Cityby Michael Royce

Through its unique blend

of history, geography, and

energy, New York City is a

leader in many fields. The world

watches Wall Street, output from

our research institutions shape

national and international policy,

and our artists create works in all

disciplines that are both cutting

edge and beloved by millions. This

is a symbiotic relationshipthese

industries also generate valuable tax

and tourist revenues for the City.

The arts especially shape a culture

that helps New York City businesses

attract the top talent to work and

live here. Unfortunately, the high

cost of living and intense business

climate make it difficult for artists to

sustain themselves in the city, and

prohibits many others from moving

here. The City needs to support these

artists through housing subsidies and

business training in order to realize

the economic and cultural benefits that

they bring.

Reliable data on artists incomes is

notoriously difficult to obtainmany

artists work unrelated jobs to support

themselves, or subsist off unreported

cash tips. But the numbers we do have

paint a grim picture in terms of an

artists ability to survive in New York

City. A 2009 National Endowment

for the Arts (NEA) study put artists

median income at $43,000, almost 15%

less than the New York City median

income of $49,461. To put this into the

context of housing, the average rent

for an NYC apartment recently topped

$3,000/month (or more than $36,000

annually). Once taxes ar

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-municipal-art-society-of-new-york
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

MAS NYC Presents: Ideas for New York's New Leadership

Documents