Mention one new detail that you learned from the documentary segment that none of your classmates have commented on previously.
17 thoughts on “Crisis and Resurgence”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
IDC 1001H
IDC 1001H
Mention one new detail that you learned from the documentary segment that none of your classmates have commented on previously.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Watching this segment, I remembered Moses’ plan for a cross-Manhattan expressway and growing up near the FDR drive and walking the streets of Greenwich Village almost daily for a summer, I remembered my dislike of the man. Yet I didn’t want to dwell on what could have been and rather focused on what is. I took pride in learning that such a wonderful and eloquent woman like Jane Jacobs fought for our neighborhoods.
What I noticed on my walks, the way that paths danced a strange dance moving and giving way to one another, the sheer number and variety of people that hurried by, and the weathered decals of twin townhouses shouting some sort of uniqueness, all of them, she loved as well. She saw culture not poverty in the huddled masses in the Village. She refuted the common assumption that “human beings are charming in small numbers and noxious in large numbers…” In fact, small numbers homogenizes and as she puts it there is “a great and exuberant richness of differences and possibilities, many of these differences unique and unpredictable and all the more valuable because they are.” It amazes me that she had the courage and the foresight to protect the things they held dear: the foresight to see the damage it would cause and the courage to protest what she knew would be the downfall of New York.
I found it fascinating how New York is distinct from other places in that one does not need a car to get around. The documentary states that New York is one of the few places where one can live his or her who life without a car. From Jane Jacob’s influential book and rallies, New Yorkers see that interacting on the street is something valuable that New York offers. I also found it interesting how New York is different in that there is no single expressway that goes throughout the entire city. It was Robert Moses’s plan to build one, but Jacobs’s lasting impact caused Moses to lose support. I’m so surprised at how one person, Jane Jacobs, could defeat a rich, wealthy modern activist, Robert Moses. She battled against Moses’s dream plan for urban renewal and won against him when communities started uproars against his projects. It shows that the modern lifestyle is not necessarily better. Jane Jacobs built a legacy within New York, making it forever cherished by its residents.
The connection drawn between New York City and the original Dutch colonies was over-reaching. New York City in that late 1970’s and the original Dutch establishment had different problems they had to overcome. New York City was dealing with a lack of funds caused by suburbanization. Also, crime rose drastically in areas of robbery, prostitution, and illegal drug use. On the other hand, the Dutch colony had to worry about food supplies and Indian attacks. The problems stray in that New York City was experiencing internal issues while the Dutch colony faced external issues.
One of the speakers relates the heterogeneous and accepting atmospheres of New York City and the Dutch colonies. The comparison was not entirely true, for in the early stages of the Dutch colony many groups were not welcomed including the Jews. He also mentions the entrepreneur spirt in aiding the advancement of both. However, New York City was mainly saved by the federal loan given to the City by President Ford. The money allowed for social relief, a balanced budget, and payment of outstanding loans. Was it really the entrepreneur spirit that lifted New York City as it did with the Dutch settlement? I view the comparison of the problems and solutions as completely separate regarding New York City in the time period and the original Dutch settlement.
In this final segment, I learned of the financial crisis New York City was facing in the Post War. In the 1960s and 1970s, expenses in NYC soared as tax revenue dropped and Mayor Lindsay refused to make cuts in public programs. To make up for this deficit, the City took on massive amounts of debt just to keep its lights on. By 1975, 2 billion dollars every year were going towards the 11 billion dollar debt, which was increasing very rapidly.
In October of 1975, a very shocking turn of events happened. The consortium of banks that had been generously lending to New York City suddenly cut borrowing privileges until the city got itself back together. The city turned to the Federal government, which looked the other way. I had no idea that New York, the impressive city that is was and still is, virtually failed in the 1970s, and no one was willing to help it as it had helped others in the past. “Drop Dead.” While those weren’t the exact words of Gerald Ford, they seem to capture the essence of his message, as well as the thoughts of the rest of the nation had towards New York City.
One thing that I learned from watching this documentary is that Penn Station underwent a massive overhaul before taking its final form that we see today. When it was initially built in 1910, it was considered to be groundbreaking because of its modern architecture. It became a symbol for modern style and form; Penn Station inspired many other buildings of its time. However, in 1963, the original structure had to be demolished due to high operating costs. A new structure was drafted in its place, with expanded concourses and a renovated interior. While the new building was bigger and better, the originality of the first Penn Station had been lost. The push for its demolition did not take the historical value of the station. Perhaps there would have been a cost-efficient way to renovate the structure, to preserve its historical significance.
Typically, we associate ruins with ancient civilizations. We only imagine raging fires taking place in dry climates on the other side of the country. In the 1970s, however, New York City became infamous for its modern ruins and fiery landscape. From watching this documentary, I have learned that New York, particularly the Bronx, was ailing due to urban decay and relentless fires. Throughout the early 1970s, the economic and social climate within the city were in a poor state. There was a financial crisis in New York City due to the fact that it had borrowed too much money, more than was needed or could be paid back. The social climate took a turn for the worst as schools failed and the crime rate skyrocketed. Much of the south Bronx was burnt down as a result of arson. The burning became commonplace for New Yorkers, but shocked outsiders.
Why was this happening? According to the documentary, landlords had discovered that they could earn more in insurance than they could collect in rent in old buildings that were in constant need of refinancing and repair. The Bronx was redlined: no one could take out loans or insurance in the area due to the fact that it would be a huge financial risk. Unable to get back money by fixing buildings, landlords had to destroy them in order to get a profit. By 1973, more than 2,000 city blocks had been burned down and more than 43,000 apartments were destroyed. People were losing their homes and sometimes their lives. Filled with the ruins of destroyed and abandoned buildings, the south Bronx became notorious worldwide for its severe urban decay. The problem did not stop in the Bronx; soon, landlord arson began to occur on the Lower East Side, as tenants could not be found. Many feared that fires would eventually raze the entire city. Overall, I am shocked and intrigued by this detail. Looking at the city today, I could have never guessed that so much of it was burned and destroyed. Additionally, it is hard for me to imagine so few people wanting to live in New York City. Right now, the demand for housing in the city is very high. It appears that in spite of these difficult times, New York has remained resilient, climbing its way back up to the top.
An interesting detail from this documentary was the importance of not only Jane Jacobs but also her book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” Jacob’s novel, which is published in 1961 during a time of great change in the layout of New York City due to Robert Moses’ actions, critiqued the urban planning policies that were occurring. Jacobs believed that urban cities and neighborhoods were deteriorating and the suburban culture was on the rise. Even though her book was brilliantly written described as pithy, down to Earth, enjoyable and mind-capturing, it provided a counter-argument for the prevailing notion at the time. She did not want people to leave cities and move into suburbs; rather, Jacobs was fond of having small buildings in the streets. Jacob’s was fond of seeing people staying out of their apartments and looking at the streets all day. Her book and her actions thought that through the new urban policy changes communities in New York City were shattered, renewed and destroyed. She advocated for changes and ultimately delivered them.
Watching this documentary, I thought the Greenwich Village protests were interesting. The video mentioned that Greenwich Village was the center “for political dissent in the city since the triangle shirtwaist factory fire” and, because of this experience, they were able to create a very strong opposition to Moses’s Expressway. They knew how to organize coalitions and foster successful and noteworthy protests. I thought it was fascinating how such a large, diverse and usually clashing group was able to unite under the opposition to the expressway. The documentary described that many groups that either were indifferent to each other or even hated each other were able to put their differences aside and work towards a common goal, “to kill the expressway.” The skill to unite under a common goal is very important, and sometimes I think people forget how to do it and are far too absorbed in their own personal opinions to see the bigger picture. Because this group was able to unite, they were able “to generate a power that by themselves they could not have even imagined.” The protesters had to find new locations for meetings because so many people showed up. This group truly mastered the idea of “strength in numbers.”
One thing that I found interesting in this documentary was that in the midst of New York City’s crisis, there was a light at the end of the tunnel and this light was graffiti and rap music. Graffiti wasn’t seen as vandalism, but as a hopeful form of art where you can see a “rainbow” as a subway passed by a bleak and dreary neighborhood. The graffiti were colorful mottos and reliefs that became a part of New York City as many films would show a gray neighborhood and have a similar colorful train pass by the screen. Rap music also began to take form and today is a significant part of the music industry. These are just two parables of New York City. From the worst and most burnt out districts of New York City, art and creativity was born as it always seemed to have in the past. This was one of the last remaining humane qualities the city had left to offer in its current state during the 70s and it was proof that the city would rise again to the great city we know and live in today.
What I found most interesting from the segment of the documentary is actually a quote from writer Anna Quindlen. She said. “The experiment is: how close can rich and poor live before the fabric complete falls apart? How close and you put ethnic groups that don’t like one another much? How much can you promise people about a rich and privileged future and then not be able to deliver before they rise up and say enough?” I thought that this quote is actually very insightful about the history of New York. Because of the overwhelming diversity not only in terms of race, but wealth as well that New York possesses, there has been many instances throughout all of New York’s history when these differences become major dividing points that almost seem like it’s destroying the city. It’s like the civil war that tore up the nation, but in the end, like the civil war, New York remains one whole piece. Anna Quindien best summarized this phenomenon by ending her statement with, “And the answer here over and over and over and over again is that the fabric becomes tattered and even becomes torn, but the fabric survives.“
I found it very interesting that despite all of the projects Robert Moses undertook in New York City, he always considered himself a failure because he could not “communicate his vision to people.” When his idea to build an expressway through the center of Manhattan was fought against by Jane Jacobs and other protestors, and ultimately overturned, this represented his one large failure. Due to the strong sense of community from New Yorkers who wanted to remain in their run down homes and neighborhoods, Moses was unable to build the highway that would change the landscape of New York City. As a result, New Yorkers are able to travel around the entirety of the city without a car, a system that is only seen in a few other cities across America. In addition, the documentary states that “it may be the only American city without an expressway going through the center.” This showed me how New York is unique in even more ways than I was aware of, and this is largely due to the efforts of such people as Jane Jacobs. Robert Moses’ was mortified by his inability to change the minds of New Yorkers and have the expressway built, despite his immense success in building highways around the entire outside of Manhattan. This was extremely surprising to me as we use his projects often in our daily lives and are thankful for their presence to this day, yet he did not see them as having made his career successful.
One detail I found interesting was the initial experimentation of austere fiscal policies in New York follow the the difficult and riotous sixties and seventies in hopes to repair the mess ultimately made by the New Deal and excessive liberalism. These fiscal policies not only helped restore New York economically but were also adopted across the country in the eighties and resulted in economic renewal everywhere.
I though this interesting particularly because these policies were made to counteract the New Deal, and the New Deal policies similarly were initially tested out in New York by Franklin D. Roosevelt before being adopted on a federal scale as we learned in a previous segment of the documentary. New York, it seems, is where everything happens first. In this segment it is also implied that the riots of the sixties and seventies began with New York and spread to cities across the nation. Again the rest of the country followed New York City.
Something that I learned from this final segment of the documentary was that during the 1970’s New York was far from the idea of promise and prosperity that was once attached to the city. During the seventies, tax revenues fell and the soaring expenses forced Mayor John Lindsay to use money from long term capital goods projects to fund short term costs. Eventually, this lead to large amounts of debt that increased adversely each year. The city found itself borrowing large sums of money and taking out money planned for the future, to meet current bills. However, despite its weak financial standing at the time, the city still kept values of the New Deal at a priority by continuing to work on public programs. By 1975, New York’s debt had accumulated to 11 billion dollars.
Something that I took out of this documentary was despite the changes that New York went since its creation as a Dutch colony it made a full circle back to its origins by the end of the 20th century. By the 1990s, the fiscal crisis began to end, and people began to find the same sense of hope, new beginnings, and opportunities that the first New Yorkers had felt. By 1990s people began moving back into the cities as the manufacturing jobs that were lost began to be replaced by different kinds of entrepreneurial jobs and New York began to adapt itself to the new changes with new ideas and businesses. Immigrants began to pour back into the city seeking opportunities like the first immigrants to New York City and started creating a new diverse face of New York. In fact, by 1990s it was estimated that about 43 percent of New Yorkers were immigrants. This explosion of immigrants to New York City reminds me that despite pacing economic hardships, social changes, and natural disasters New York will always be a place of new beginnings and hope for people from all over the world.
The most surprising and interesting thing I learned from the documentary wasn’t the idea that Robert Moses wanted to create a highway through the heart of Manhattan, but the fact that he wanted to create one despite knowing all the things that had to be destroyed and displaced in order to construct his vision. Robert Moses had said “Cities are created by and for traffic… a city without traffic is a ghost town.” Even though Moses had good intentions in wanting to create this expressway through the city to make New York City even better, I still felt that he was selfish in his pursuit of this goal. Many people would have to be displaced from their homes as well as having to destroy many structures in the way in order to construct the highway that Moses sought after. If it weren’t for Jane Jacob’s championing her beliefs in urban planning, New York City would’ve been structurally and socially very different today. If the highway was built, I think that New York City would’ve been divided and it would’ve destroyed the sense of community and charm that our city embodies today. I think that Jane Jacobs foresaw the division that the highway would’ve created and fought for what she thought was best for the city.
One of the most interesting things in this segment of the documentary is the influence of the people on their society and government. People gathered to the point that the organizers of city meetings had to move to different halls. This level of civil participation in government was foreign to our society until recently. Yes, there was much civil participation in government during much of the 20th century, but after around the 1980s there was a calm in society in politics. Recently, there has been a surge of participation in influencing our government, which is reminiscent of this era. That’s what made that aspect of the documentary very interesting to me: how it relates to the condition of our society today.
One segment of the documentary that I found particularly interesting was how New York City has this self healing property. According to the documentary, by the end of the 20th century, the City had yet again reinvented itself. Some of the problems which were prevalent in the first half of the 20th century included failing schools, crumbing infrastructure, and immense disparities among income and race. Furthermore, the documentary asserts that there is a very thin line that exists between wealthy and poor in New York City. Although this line, this “wall,” allows different social classes to live so close to one another, sometimes it is damaged. However, as seen throughout New York City’s history it is never damaged to an irreparable point. This shows that the City is a survivor against any odds.