Urban Design Discussion

The 2030 report noticed a comment I made regarding the process.  If they were serious they would disclose the process used to accomplish one of their basic goals. One suggested a park/recreation facility within walking distance of everyone. 

Challenge:  Identify those locations that do not meet this criterion, implement a strategy to accomplish the goal of walkable access, and then talk about how it was accomplished in a broad 2030 forum. 

The Viable Plan: I argued that illustrating the implementation of one component would signal progress.  A issue was identified, defined and resolved. Once demonstrated in this fashion the work of moving the entire plan forward with the people of New York might actually occur.

 

Running from the Bulls or Riding One
Anticipating PlaNYC.gov

Real and imagined unknowns are part of our embedded information society. Despite the call for transparency and a more open society, government officials, business leaders, and human rights advocates share the mantra of the bull rider that says, “don’t get killed the moment the gate opens“. The preference for advanced knowledge for planning includes knowing that the bull will throw you off regardless. How and why New York City keeps its planning secrets is the stuff of its greatness. Or is it?

There are many ways to look at the advancement of an idea; you can bring in advisors, experts, and consultants to test the bull for weaknesses.  Its most predictable moves that might suggest counterbalances.  A good example involves the members of the advisory council the Mayor’s office used for the 2030 PlaNYC.gov project.  A large group, but they were asked to hear it first, keep it quiet, and begin to prepare their respective constituencies with ideas about radically changing the city to solve problems, meet needs, or produce higher levels of confidence. Knowing or unknowingly these advisors entered New York’s version of a time honored practice known as the “run from the bulls”.  As advocates for community planning, housing or environmental activism, business or labor, everyone one of them has their own bull to ride. They also have some foreknowledge about successful placement within the arena, as part of the crowd or on a balcony above the fray. This is an OK thing. It is the burden of either leading or getting out of the way.Whether the 2030 Plan gets called the Olympic plan in a green dress, the World’s Greatest Bull ride, or the NYC version of the San Fermin Festival in Pamplona, every resident should be encouraged if one single truth is made clear from the onset.  This truth will hold all of the increments proposed for change and raise them up by accomplishing one tangible proof.  But, truth now seems too illusive for short term use.  Decision making, using the truth seems riskier than ever.

Face it, all ideas begin as the secret of a few before they are shared. This is the essence of all ideas. When they emerge in a public forum such as the 2030 Plan they arrive in a city that will argue its merits on a central principle expressed by this question.  “Will this help make a better life for all our residents regardless of household income?”  Is this the truth? In the work it takes to make it so, a great city like New York becomes one of beauty as well as greatness. 

New ideas must meet this first test, not whether it is preferable to remove dangerous foods and air from our lives or to bring all New Yorkers and the region into a synchronous transportation model.  Try this last thought out for a second.   All of us have experienced the shocking realizaton that the cost running the MTA is a financial responsibility that travels well beyond that paid by its riders.  But, how on the good green earth can this become a probable outcome?  It seems consensus cannot occur without crisis.

We cannot pretend that the burden of financing NYC’s glory in the American sense or its survival in a global sense is the exclusive responsibility of the Mayor, his team or our political representatives. It is every “Jack One” of us. The simple uncomplicated truth may therefore have nothing to do with the facts.  It is about our absolute responsibility to protect vulnerable families in a vulnerable city. 

How long will the simple measures of our accountability to be dismissed as truism. The real proof of our work and our time in the making and re-making of this city is to have a measure to value the change.  If this measure is not “people” what could it possibly be?

The hard questions about this responsibility are like secrets. The real test is upon us all to start talking about them.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS