 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Reflections
continued Many of these tendencies pre-existed the World Trade Center attack; where they did, they will be substantially augmented. And "security" will become the justification for measures that can threaten the core of social and political life, even though one con-clusion that might be drawn from what has happened is that physi-cal measures can never provide real security in the presence of deep social, including international, differences. Despite that, surveillance will increase and the uses of public space will be more tightly controlled (Mayor Guiliani has pio-neered this with his restrictions on assemblies near City Hall, and attempts to limit the use of streets for parades, in the name of secu-rity). And we may expect the almost unlimited funding that the FBI and CIA are likely to receive to result in massive invasions of privacy. Senator Trent Lott has already called publicly for a reduc-tion in the weight given civil liberties in the interests of security; the White House press secretary says "people should watch what they say." "Public space" will become less public; free access and free use will be severely limited. By contrast, controlled spaces, such as malls, will increase their attraction. It doesn’t look good. At least one consequence, however, may be well on the posi-tive side. The role of government is clearly central in combating terrorism, and the acceptance of the legitimacy and importance of government generally is increasing. What, after all, is the basis of the near-unanimous "coalition" that the United States has forged around anti-terrorism but the common interest of all government leaders to strengthen the positions of their governments vis-à-vis a challenge to all of them from a non-governmental source. The myth of the powerless state, unable to control international flows of capital across borders, is hard to sustain when governments are shown, when they really want to, to be able to freeze accounts in banks around the world at their discretion. Even Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who blocked an earlier attempt to control capital flows in the interests of the rights of privacy of business firms, backs off today. Federal handling of airport security may be the first major example of de-privatization of a public service in our day. Greater respect for firemen and policemen spills over to other public employees; teachers in New York expect to benefit from it. Thus the potential for affirmative government action, in derogation of neo-liberal ideology, is strong. Mayors are in good repute at the moment, and city government could well lead in positive direc-tions. What then should be done, as far as the future of cities is concerned? Planning Principles 1. Disaster planning experience in other contexts can offer some help, but this disaster has particular implications absent in others. It is similar in the devastation created, the need for relief, the necessity for re-planning. It’s unique causes however involve different planning considerations from other cases. In bombed cities in Europe after the war, replanning could be done without concern for a revisit of bombing attacks. Where the disaster was a hurricane, an earthquake, or a fire, replanning involved (although often inappropriately) primarily physical measures dealing with the standards for construction to resist future such disasters. This dis-aster differs from all of these in its causes and likely consequences. |
|
2. Openness, participation, democracy, must remain central
principles of planning. Clearly the move to recover and rebuild
must be expedited, and the solidarity, good will, and enthusiasm of
the response to the disaster should be harnessed. That does not
mean that normal standards of good planning should be aban-doned,
or that czars or commissions should be given extraordinary
planning or decision-making powers (as opposed to powers of
implementation). We should move with all deliberate speed, but
not in haste, and not at the expense of long-range planning.
3. Long range planning is particularly important in the after-math of this particular disaster, because it is likely to have long range consequences. It will affect the demand for office space in the Financial District, in Manhattan, and in the region; it will affect the desirability of various residential locations; it will affect the level and distribution of land values; it will affect commuting and other transportation patterns; it will affect the desirability, in eco-nomic development terms, of support for global vs. local, services vs. manufacturing, productive vs. financial, cultural vs. business, tourist-oriented vs. domestic-oriented, activities. 4. Security needs to be a greater concern, but it cannot be pro-vided simply by physical means. Concern for security has costs and must remain only one among many concerns in planning, and perfect security can never be guaranteed—indeed, security is not what attracts people to cities. The level of security provided is not a matter for engineering decision, not solely a matter for those in charge of security. 5. Civil liberties issues now being debated in legislative halls have their urban planning ramifications. Public spaces must remain accessible and free for diverse uses, streets must remain open for multiple activities, controls on entry to public buildings must not be off-putting, racial or ethnic profiling practices cannot be built into provisions for security, surveillance must be balanced against the requirements of freedom and privacy. 6. Every decision dealing with rebuilding has distributional implications. Subsidies can go to firms or to employees; to major multi-national corporations, or to small local businesses, to central business areas or to outlying districts, to the insured or to those without coverage, to low-income renters or high-income condo-minium owners. Distributional equity must be a continuing consid-eration in every planning decision. 7. Hesitancies about the role of government can be reconsid-ered. The recent events leave no doubt as to the critical importance of government, and no one is likely to argue that the market should be allowed to determine what happens at the sites of destruction, nor that those suffering from the disaster be left to their own devices. Developers must be important participants in the decision-making process, but not the decisive ones. Planning and the institu-tions and organizations of planning can afford to, and should, take, a strong public leadership role in what happens next. What Can Be done at the City Level for New York City? 1. We do not need a "reconstruction czar;" we need a democ-ratic, thoughtful, participatory, open, effective planning process. We need expedited action in certain areas, but not another Robert Moses or Baron Haussmann. What makes New York City great is not its efficiency, but its vibrant, often conflictual, but open and imaginative and innovative, life. Reflections continued from page 2 continued on page 4 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||||
|
ADPSRNY |
|
||||