sign in sign up
<<
Home , Manhattantown, Robert Moses, Thomas Adams (architect)

AND CITY PLAIINING

JOEL SCHWARTZ

Ioel Schwartz died before he could complete his essay for this volume. We include Ihis unfinished draft, however, as a tribute to his scholarsh ip on Robert Moses and in grateful recognition of the generous spirit of this kind and decent man. KJ

R..hert Moses was not fond of city planning. This judgment rests largely on opportrrity that had corne and gone. Merchants along Fifth, Sixth, alld MOl;eS'ti relentless attacks on "the long-haired planners" and his ridicule of Seventl avenues launchedthe idea of zoning 10 protect the Ladies' Mile Iro.u 111(~ir collectivist vision. It also stems from three episodes that evidenced obnoxinis garment workers. And Dual Subway Contracts put into permanent MClSI~S'H intolerance of what planning meant. First, he dismissed RexfOl'd form th commercial and business concentration in us well as Jill Tugwell's cherished "greenbelts" in the late 1930s, which forced the New ear citiis strung [JIang transit routes in the outer boroughs and surrounding n(~alor to withdraw as chairman of the city planning commission. Second, countie, l3etweenthese two developments, major planning questions within IIII~ aggrandizement of the Federal Title I program, a kingdom over public New Yo·khad heen put tu rest. works after World War II, was unprecedented in the city's history. And third

W/IS the dustup with Jane Iucobs over megaliths and an expressway that PLANUNG IN THE 19205 threutened . Never mind that Tugwell once called Moses tlw "s(,(,ond or third best thing that. ever happened" In ; that other III the lecade after World War I, city planning was tom between mundane ('il ics,like , Cleveland, and Detroit, suffered greater depredations to pretene and ambitious endeavors in master planning. The creation of V1lSI Ilwir IH!ighborhoods from Title I clearance; or that Ms. Jacobs's wrath was rail ant transit grids trumped major planning issues. The holistic approach lillln) justly aimed at anti-urbanists, like Le Corhusier, The condemnation is had los ground to narrow specialties Iike traffic control, sewerage, or teno- .'lli~cblin stone: Robert Moses's hubris, his hijacking of city planning into ment eform, when it was not ensnared by zoning and subdivisions.

It v(·hil,!«·!1'01' personal power, destroyed whatever contribution the discipline Hundnds of communities took up zoning; ill most this amounted 1:0 a 1'e<1()-

Il1il~"! luivc ruar]e to the public good and led to, according to , the tionaryzeal 10 "protect" home grounds against the "invasions" of gas S111- plllllil II' (nil or N«!w York. tions, cl tanks, and apartments. I~1~~lII,i 'rh,) pt'nbl(\1\1.with this judgment is that it takes city planning as a tangi- Thee was, or course, the sustained effort by the Regional Plan .f:nII'11 wi 1 I.],· [d"IIi, wllell il was more often a receding goal, unreachable in most Associ.tion of New York and lis Environs (RPNY), sponsored by the Russell /1'1'1,111'11'1 .\ 1IIl'ri"I

'Iii ':.' 1'l'Ii.1 i,\\:·H.' !dIn, 1('( i'IAIIHII"I';

'1 ::'dty-efficient): the land near was too valuable for the tenements ning." 1 ';;;,'\hat sat on it; the Lower Easi Side deserved clearance and ; and Buffalo, :the working class needed to be shifted to the outer boroughs, To reclaim the and, JUS! l'i/evacuated portions of the Lower , Clarence A. PelTY called for the (Inthisi " rebuilding of the evacuated portions of into svelte pieds-a- pelago.:c terre built as "neighborhood units," Harland Bartholomew saw six-lane and its-s " boulevards as the means to smooth commercial traffic, promote abutting real the "td,~ '",estate, and cordon neighborhoods into natural zones, Local b'oosters, encour- Peekski] aged by the RPNY, pushed for city-busting highways. One can almost hear Palisade their refrain, "We need to destroy the in order to save it." In:hE Far more grandiose were the plans of a small, clamorous group,'the Regional the nec~ Planning Association of America, led by Clarence Stein, Benton MacKaye, and Forest'l' , which came to represent comprehensive planning's shining that spIe image, They admired British reformer Ebenezer Howard's idea for "garden commerr cities," tightly controlled places of thirty thousand people surrounded by agri- contini!i:~ cultural greenbelts, Guided by technocrats who understood mankind's "domin- both tH,~, ion of tbe earth," the RPAA wanted government to transform "sterile villages" brouglitil in the Hudson and Mohawk valleys into a series of urban diadems linked by coordj~ii "townless highways" and "giant power," energy of the 51. Lawrence, Niagara, also J:e~r~ and Black rivers to drive light-metals plants or Ford Molor-type assembly-line Gerritse! facilities, From this distance, the RPAA's vision seems typical of the hubris that , took hold between the wars, the faith in big research by governmenL, universi- resent~d< ants along Fifth, Sixth, and ties, and foundations that spawned high-brow committees to comment on recent , protect the Ladies' Mile from social trends, national resources, even Professor Alfred Kinsey's collection of .:\;/ 'Contracts put into permanent HOUSil!1 twenty thousand sexual histories. These all aimed at achieving the totalist view '011 in Manhattan as well as lin- of American life as an objectified, quantified mechanism. Within that perspec- One co'ifl ter boroughs and surrounding tive, Moses was a creature of his time. city plart jor planning questions within Moses started out a sterling candidate for the planning cause. At Oxford, turf fr01~ he studied public administration, admired the steeliness of the English civil H, La ~Q service, and came under the sway of British socialists like Graham Wallas, he maq(f}. who coined the term "Great Society" to capture the hopes for a purposeful prehelis~1 public sphere, Moses returned to America enamored of this viewpoint and York w$.$ g was lorn between mundane worked for the good-government crowd in . Through family Givic1e~i arming. The creation of vast connections, Moses gained notice of Alfred E. Smith, then New York State ifig strate issues. The holistic approach Assembly leader, who admired the bright, young Columbia Ph.D" made him th~ mOJ~1 c control, sewerage, or tene- secretary of his Reconstruction Commission, a position that meant working !ButitB zoning and subdivisions. with the executive budget, the gubernatorial cabinet, the New York Port hensiY~::;1 iost this amounted to a reac- Authority, state power development, and public housing. Nearly all these for slUl'riit . t the "invasions" of gas sta- plans were swept away by the Warren Harding presidential landslide ill a social s 1920; but when Smith again became governor in 1922, he brought Moses it, they 1 ort by the Regional Plan back with a renewed agenda. Moses became the architect of the state's COl11- blocks.ih Y), sponsored by the Russell prehensive ipark system, the coordinator of regional highways, and chief This.si s forecasts of continued cen- advocate of the state power authority. hIe thatj~il . 111 out their manufacturing Giving Moses the parks portfolio, Governor Smith expected his protege to mer oft};Q the periphery, RPNY's rail draw together the development of parks across the state. In a series of ed appr~~ cian, Thomas Adams, called reports, Moses gave him that much and more, He called upon Albany in York Stat. "reconcentration" of urban 1924 to lake a "unified and comprehensive" approach (which became his gram fort ,;aye the intellectual irnpri- ! mantra), enact a state council on parks, and provide for an executive secre- ing ons (the latest version of the tary (assuredly him) "LO insure the continuance of unified state park plan-

\ sl '-Jar the tenements ning." There was no time to be lost. Burgeoning cities, from New York to ['gentrification; and Buffalo, needed protected watersheds for their aqueducts and hydropower; g~s.To reclaim the and, just as important, recreation grounds for families, children, and seniors. [?erry called for the (In this respect, Moses shared the reformers' concept of the city as an archi- into svelte picds-a- pelago of settlement areas, each with its own youth program.) For Gotham imew saw six-lane and its , Moses sketched a "Grand Circuit" drive, the equivalent of ornote abutting real the "town less ," from River reaching past n boosters, encour- Peekskill and circling Bear Mountain State Park, then back again via the ne can almost hear Palisades Interstate Parkway. l,;orde1'to save it." In his first report of the State Council in 192.5, Moses embellished upon ,group, the Hegional the necessity of state-wide planning. Recreation grounds. like the Catskills enton MacK aye, and Forest Preserve and Allegany State Park, flanked the zone of urban growth ).planning's shining that spread along the Hudson and Mohawk valleys. Further concentration of I's' idea for "garden commerce, industry, and people within this corridor, accompanied by the surrounded by agri- continued emptying of the agricultural countryside, gave the State Council l'inankind's "dornin- both the opportunity and duty to acquire acreage for recreation. Moses even nrr "sterile villages" brought the State Council to the verge of city planning, when it called for the r;;;diadems linked by coordination of park and parkway plans between city and state officials. It ,lj~awrellce, Niagara, also recommended that New York City purchase the Brooklyn waterfront at :-'-typeassembly-line Gerritsen Basin and Dyke!' Beach, and "the remaining wooded areas of pitl of the hu bris that Queens and Richmond"-greenbelts by another name. These proposals rep- rverrunent, universi- resented a toe placed into the waters of city planning, but a telling one.

ocornment 011 recent ~f/'l,sey'scollection of HOUSING AND RECREATION ¥i'hgthe totalist view Within that perspec- One common theme of the Moses story is that he muscled his way to control city planning by the late 1930s. But planning New York+style was Moses's ig.cause. At Oxford, turf from the start. The city had no planning apparatus until Mayor Fiorello ;pf the English civil H. La Guardia appointed an advisory committee in 1934, the same year that ~keGraham Wallas, he made Moses parks commissioner with a five-borough ("unified and com- pes for a purposeful prehensive") authority. In the minds of La Guardia and civic leaders, New f.this viewpoint and York was potentially a galaxy of recreation areas; and this goal, so vital to Hi),. Through family civic leaders, gave the parks commissioner a mandate to create a far-reach- hen New York State ing strategy for parks, parkland, and parkways, which enabled him to retain ~iflPh.D., made him the moral high ground. .that meant working But the many parks and parklands that dominated the process of compre- the New York Port hensive planning more accurately undermined it. At the NYCHA, policies ~~. Nearly all these for slum clearance hinged on the fact that the site had a long relationship with d~ntial landslide in a social settlement-and adequate recreation space. As one site-picker put \; he brought Moses it, they featured "self-contained" stands of slum housing preferably ten etof the state's com- blocks in length, "with suitable provision for social life and recreation." righways, and chief 'Fhis site opportunism, in the midst of the , made it proba- ble that any Moses plan, any plan, would captivate civic leaders. In the sum- aected his protege to mer of 1938, Moses made no secret of his dismay at the dilatory, uncoordinat- tate. In a series of ed approach of the NYCHA toward creating a programmatic message for New led upon Albany in York State voters on the Housing Amendment-and a coherent housing pro- ,;'(which became his gram for the city. He urged Mayor La Guardia to revamp the NYCHA by plac- .an executive secre- ing it in the hands of seasoned housing administrators or, as he clearly pre- 'ied state park plan- ferred, a single housing czar. Soon after the passage of the Housing

131 Amendment, Article XVIII of the State Constitution, in November, 1938, Moses reallocation of the city's populat unveiled his own plan, calling for a combined, massive housing program of ten RPNY. The declining industrial $; low-rent projects and five subsidized limited-dividends with a price tag of $200 ding as a residential area. Thea million. As far as he was concerned, he was the only one who understood what "make it possible to drive speedil Article XVIII heralded: the power of eminent domain to create superblocks and on continuous modern highwaysf appurtenances for nearby parks. He shrewdly located clearance projects near The Master Plan on Land Use, parks, taking advantage of his control over recreation in the city. Moses made dubh\d as "greenbelts" and captu clear to civic leaders that housing without recreation, streets, and related of Robert Moses. One of his team; improvements would be a joke. He accused the NYCHA chairman Alfred is 98% ivory tower." The plan ptp Rheinstein of shopping around for cheap land without having a definite pro- of land use as it gradually gavew gram. Moses recommended instead that the NYCHA concentrate on a few plots stage in 1990. Acreage set asid~:j where something could be accomplished for the entire neighborhood in 1938 to 91,000 fifty years latef Of course, Moses also shopped around for park sites and for locations for would increase from 18,000 to 30;1 public housing. His criteria for the latter typically were: a large enough would occur in the outer boroughs, acreage, close to parkland or playground (or better yet, defined by it) and would be collapsed to little more- close to industrial properties but not compromised by them (or ruled out parks, large "open institutionsv". altogether as not slum clearance), not crossed by a major thoroughfare that 29,000 to over 76,000 acres-e9 would endanger the project's coherence, the right kind of low-assessed val- Planning Commission never spell:l uations, and convenience to mass transit. Along with all this, Moses wanted expansive greenbelts; nor for th,afi ,··,·,s to segregate the races. All his criteria were neighborhood-specific; they had ing class in the projects near the t! virtually nothing to do with city-wide or regional concerns, other than to all, was the meaning of greenbel maintain racial boundaries. forests and agricultural land-in-:) Moses's attitude toward picking housing sites was summed up in a memo The Planning Commissionll~'~ written on October 2,1942. "I have been looking at Astoria for many years- be realized, through eminent dorn' knew it when it was still quite a flourishing place with fine big houses fac- tions rather than circumscribed':p~ ing Hell Gate and the . Then smaller houses and apartments of delinquency might be encouraged various kinds were built. Then came our , the folding up Moses warned Mayor La Guardia\( ""/ of the ferry and the decay of the community. Today there is an opportunity to for parkways and land use was"W acquire a large tract at low cost, to build a bulkhead out into the river with these projects were on the map;"l~ a park and esplanade along the waterfront, to wipe out some pretty poor cial intent. The impact on value buildings, a few fairly good ones, and to build on native land. There can be were all thrown into the bargain;A a really first-rate housing plan here with small ground coven;~geand three- pounced on the specter of tax dell or at the most four-story buildings. If there is such a thing as drawing peo- Tugwell was unsuccessful agaj ple out of certain poor neighborhoods to better ones, it can be done here." not an infighter and did not havei This opportunistic approach to projects put Moses on a col- He preferred the greenbelt app~;Q lision course with the City Planning Commission. During 1939 and 1940, trend and did not raise the Ch~ under the chairmanship of Rexford G. Tugwell, the Planning Commission Greenbelts would involve lessei revealed a series of initiatives for slum clearance sites, schools, highways, property involved in indicative pI parkland, and open space in New York's master plan. But many of the key the differential taxation of uneaI1ri features seemed less than masterful. The January 3, 1940, map adhered to the simplest criteria, which amounted to proximity to recreation space, TITLE I transportation, and industrial employment. With the Queensbridge Houses in mind, the commission saw an opportunity for more people to live closer to The Title I program involved th~ their work, especially the very poor, who needed to save on carfare; and cost of slum clearance. Moses ne: "'.'1 given that their work was generally harder and less rewarding, they needed the redevelopment would t . leisure lime and a place for recreation. In effect, the Planning Commission Windels that at least one,t saw the city as static, with neighborhoods that needed refurbishment for a included in each large proj stable population. There would be no grand shift of population; working- Smith, who told Governor class New York would remain where it was, with no forecast of any major East Side should, .of

132 ROBERT MOSES AND CITY PLANNING . November, 1938, Moses reallocation of the city's population beyond the old observations of; sive housing program of ten RPNY. The declining industrial sector north of Canal Street deserved ds with a price tag of $200 cling as a residential area. The map of highways and expressways ';one who understood what "make it possible to drive speedily from any section of the city to any' 'to create superblocks and on continuous modern highways free of traffic lights." . clearance projects near The Master Plan on Land Use, revealed in fall 1940, featured wha in the city. Moses made dubbed as "greenbelts" and captured the imagination of the city and.t "'on, streets, and related of Robert Moses. One of his team, George Spargo, quickly concluded, CRA chairman Alfred is 98% ivory tower." The plan purported to envision the city's 1938 having a definite pro- of land use as it gradually gave way to a first stage in 1965 and a centrate on a few plots stage in 1990. Acreage set aside for residences would shrink from eighborhood in 1938 to 91,000 fifty years later. Land needed for commerce and and for locations for would increase from 18,000 to 30,000. But the most dramatic transf ere: a large enough would occur in the outer boroughs, where some 51,000 acres of vaca t, defined by it) and would be collapsed to little more than a thousand; and the area de them {or ruled out parks, large "open institutions," and cemeteries would nearly trii 'or thoroughfare that 29,000 to over 76,000 acres-equivalent to sixty-five Central p~:' :,Qflow-assessed val- Planning Commission never spelled out its expectations for the us~' .this, Moses wanted expansive greenbelts; nor for that matter what their relation was to ". -specific; they had ing class in the projects near the industries along the East River. 'ems, other than to all, was the meaning of greenbelts-which Ebenezer Howard-de forests and agricultural land-in New York City, other than parkla] ·..m. ed up in a memo The Planning Commission never described how these greenbel ~i~for many years- be realized, through eminent domain (enlarged to encompass whd~: .e big houses fac- tions rather than circumscribed park sites) or through zoning. Or: d apartments of delinquency might be encouraged or even taxation of unearned': e, the foldi ng up Moses warned Mayor La Guardia on December 4,1940, that the -. :'an opportunity to for parkways and land use was "more than an innocent diversion Ato the river with these projects were on the map, property owners would know.th some pretty poor cial intent. The impact on values, assessments, and likely 1m. Ad. There can be were all thrown into the bargain. At the December 11, 1940, he~; r~ge ancl three- pounced on the specter of tax delinquency and municipal ban .as drawing peo- Tugwell was unsuccessful against Moses's large projects hi' e done here." not an infighter and did not have much allegiance to a revitali' oses on a col- He preferred the greenbelt approach because it meshed with 939 and 1940, trend and did not raise the challenge of dealing with centra' 'g Commission Greenbelts would involve less eminent domain than the p~'~~cn ols, highways, property involved in indicative planning of a powerful kind,:n6t\t' any of the key the differential taxation of unearned increments. up adhered to reation space, TITLE I !!i)'idge Houses ()'live closer to The Title I program involved the use offederal subsidiest?,,~iilt carfare; and cost of slum clearance. Moses never spelled out any visiofl~~"y.s'l :, they needed the redevelopment would transform New York. In 1942;; . . Commission Windels that at least one substantial park or pjaygro~h(l\', included in each large project. This veritable cliche was Smith, who told Governor Herbert Lehman that the projecli East Side should, of course, include recreation space, wid' he old observations of the "everything else that goes with proper slum clearance." In late 1942, Moses delights at

Canal Street deserved recy- wrote to Frederick H. Ecker, the Metropolitan Life chief who was scanning class caJ€.:;,' 'ys and expressways would the city for another insurance-company housing project. A member of the and resia.~, tion of the city to any other City Planning Commission and constituting its subcommittee-of-one on fee bars/dl Is." housing, Moses had been studying Queens. He alerted Ecker to the possible did not b,¥~ 1940, featured what was use of two racetrack sites for a Met Life development related to incidental they sust~iJ tion of the city and the ire streets, recreational and other improvements. Although there were two like- Consl~~ , quickly concluded, "This ly sites in southern Queens and a third on the Queens-Nassau border, Ecker improverne: ion the city's 1938 pattern focused on the Lower East Side, which he considered having the additional plistic cm!),] ge in 1965 and a second value of anchoring population in Manhattan. the han~ri.f.~ ould shrink from 100,000 Hardly a community failed to thrust ideas on Moses, the construction economy;#XI or commerce and industry coordinator. The list included Chelsea, the Lower East Side, Cooper Square, manufactb~ . t dramatic transformation Delancey Street, Washington Square, Bloomingdale, and Morningside collar joH~!:~ ;000 acres of vacant space Heights. All featured standard, American Institute of Architects-approved cantilisi,~~ d; and the area devoted to plans with bulldozer clearance on a superblock scale, a high-rise apartment ism. At th~:; would nearly triple from on a large plaza, and an underground garage or interior parking lot. All industrial~, y-five Central Parks. The assumed widespread tenant dislocations to squatter camps in New Jersey (in city's larg~?t: stations for the use of such the case of Washington Square), makeshift rooming houses (), trict contf9f~ ir relation was to the work- or public housing sites under construction or in blueprint (Morningside for NIMB¥!$ Jhe East River. What, after Heights). The final version of Delancey Street, sponsored by a local settle- ezer Howard deemed as ment, called for leveling an enormous superblock near a cross-Manhattan What has:~~ ther than parkland? expressway. Redevelopments proposed by the city's planners, in fact, includ- of a city~~g \v these greenbelts would ed cross-Manhattan expressways at 125th Street, 97th Street, , have beel1,~~ encompass whole reserva- 34th Street, and Houston Street, none of which ever materialized. process, w'd'ili gh zoning. Or perhaps tax Opportunism rather than grand commercial visions drove Moses's Title I lanx of puBHi , of unearned increments. projects. And he refused to go along with many gargantuan ideas, either that the C:IK¥?; 940, that the Master Plan because plans went far beyond the city's overall needs or because they were ing reviews~ too taxing on the . Moses rejected both the Columbia But did the;,g:\ " ould know the city's offi- University plan for the redevelopment and clearance of nearly all of tral Manhll.!~~ nd likely improvements Morningside Heights to 125th Street and the NYU-Bellevue plan for a sim- NIMBYisrri'tl 1,1940, hearings, Moses ilar reach along First Avenue. And famously, Moses denied Walter Hell's Kitch~ inicipal bankruptcy. O'Malley's plans for a new domed stadium for the Brooklyn Dodgers on anticipate vas eprojects because he was Flatbush Avenue. Moses concluded that the borough needed housing more district or re~; ;io a revitalized New York. than it needed a modern replacement for . city's third c~ heshed with the suburban human vitalit with central city slums. ,Cornrnissiori'a ST. JANE AND THE DRAGON an the proscriptions on ered in the~\ti ":~>. ful kind, not to mention Was a heroine or did she merely give an eloquent voice to New York inJB ()., }':. Greenwich Village chauvinism, bolstered by reform Democratic politics, New Yo~:~);~ which combined into a selfish NIMBYism? Although Jacobs attacked the of the'plan~l~ RPAA-Clarence Perry ethos and its contempt for urban dwellers and ordi- Probably, inJh nary contact, her real concern was the preservation of politically functional connected with tricts and th~';i lbsidies to write down the districts and their reform Democratic dubs. She favored increased popula- <:, y visionary sense of how tion density-beyond the planner's orthodoxy of twelve people per acre-to leges. This se~: In 1942, he told Paul promote diversity. Her preference was at least 100 persons per acre-the tral planninga yground area should be Village had 125 to 200 per acre, but arranged in a variety of building styles behind it, all~* che was grasped by Al and heights. Her interest in diversity, her allowance of factories and plants, front toward 'it~' project for the Lower for instance, was not tied to any economic or jobs strategy but to foster a var- could compr~%i pace, wide streets, and ied "arnbience"-a carnival atmosphere in the , an array of New York? /~- \33 clearance." In late 1942, Moses delights and attractions for the flaneur, the casual observer, and the middle- an Life chief who was scanning class cafe idler. Note that she applauded changes from factories to services Ising.project. A member of the and residences, never the reverse. She could abide woodwork factories, cof- ng its subcommittee-of-one on fee bars, and offices, all compatible with residential streets, as long as they He alerted Ecker to the possible did not overwhelm them in scale. She supported blue-collar jobs only when velopment related to incidental they sustained the ambience of middle-class residential neighborhoods, 5'. Although there were two like- Considering Jacobs's blithe comments about "unslumming," the bootstrap ItrQueens,-Nassau border, Ecker improvement of incomes without an incomes policy, she was naive and sim- onsidered having the additional plistic compared to Moses, who recognized that municipal policies must be the handmaiden to economic development, particularly in a post industrial eas on Moses, the construction economy. Moses had a responsibility to the entire city, the city of work and .ower East Side, Cooper Square, manufacturing. He was complicil in Title I's ravaging of thousands of blue- oomingdale, and Morningside collar jobs across lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. But he was more of a mer- nstitute of Architects-approved cantilist, whose economic policies were suffused with a kind of crony capital- iick scale, a high-rise apartment ism, At the very least, Moses was a handmaiden for the emergence of post- ~ge or interior parking lot. All industrial New York, whose economy would see health ancl hospitals as the ,~uatter camps in New'Jersey (in city's largest generator of wealth. In the end, Jacobs's recommendation for dis- ioming houses (Manhattantown), trict control of planning and redevelopment (with soft mortgages) was a recipe

n, OT in blueprint (Morningside for NIMBYism, for dog-in-the-manger Villagers and Upper West Siders. eet, sponsored by a local settle- ~tblock near a cross-Manhattan What has been comprehensive planning's impact: on New York'? What kind ,'~':pity'splanners, in fact, includ- of a city might it have been had Moses stuck to narrow interests? Would it Street, 97th Street, 47th Street, have been appreciably different? If Moses had not intruded on the planning schever materialized. process, would the New York City Housing Authority have not built the pha- il,i:lvisions drove Moses's Title I lanx of public housing that shadows the Lower East Side? One could argue I!I}.-,"- i!ilhanygargantuan ideas either that the City Planning Commission has done little more than engage in zon- :}(!/r ,b , lIi;illneeds or because they were ing reviews and, far more important, track the city's changing demography. >)-~iected both the Columbia But did the commission's zoning reviews appreciably alter the reality of cen- hd·clearance of nearly all of tral Manhattan's shift of office towers west of Sixth Avenue? Or overcome the !(! ..,/,,- ~f~YU-Bellevue plan for a sim- NIMBYism that prevented gentrified towers from impinging on Chelsea, [!1,ously,Moses denied Walter Hell's Kitchen, or even the svelte East Side'? Did the Planning Commission

!I for the Brooklyn Dodgers on anticipate vast changes that would foreclose 011 the Seventh Avenue garment ~;borough needed housing more district or recognize the social transformation of Flushing, Queens, into the ;.bets Field. city's third commercial hub, a cacophony of immigrants, languages, and human vitality that rejuvenated New York in spite of the Planning Commission's indifference to borough government? Was it planning that ush- ered in the prodigious growth of the city since 1980 and once again made srely give an eloquent voice to New York into the storied town of eight million? by reform Democratic politics, New York has been transformed by global forces quite beyond the reach ?.'Although Jacobs attacked the of the planning commissioners' ability to understand, let alone anticipate. riptfor urban dwellers and ordi- Probably, in this respect, the most important planning activities have been ervation of politically functiqnal connected with the Board of Education and the laying out of schools and dis- . She favored increased popula- tricts and the construction of CUNY's impressive system of community col- xy of twelve people per acre-to leges. This seems a reminder of Friedrich Hayek's judgment of British cen- east 100 persons per acre-the tral planning after World War II: to have a plan meant that all must get eel in a variety of building styles behind it, allow no dissidence or doubt as to its validity, maintain a totalist llowance of factories and plants, front toward its implementation, lest the whole scheme unravel. Exactly how :jobs strategy but to foster a var- could comprehensive planning be made an object for pluralist, cacophonous n the West Village, an array of New York?

133