Bloomberg's Buildings

Jane Jacobs, in “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” famously identified the vital signs of a healthy city. One of her simple ideas with profound consequences is the following:

Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.

Jacobs' observation was that, in a vibrant city, city blocks “must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones.” Jacobs points out that the types of companies that can afford newly constructed spaces are invariably chain stores, banks and chain restaurants, because they can afford the high capital costs associated with new construction. But startup companies, the companies that will produce future growth of the city, these must make do with older spaces. If you eliminate all the older spaces, you also eliminate the potential for future growth.

What is remarkable about Jacobs’ book is that it presents an economic argument for tempering the speed of development. She doesn’t argue that cities should pace construction for nostalgic reasons, e.g. to preserve some idea of the city of the past. Instead, she makes point after point of sound economic sense why cities must avoid the temptation to raze and build.

There are numerous ways to achieve a healthy balance of development in a city. A comprehensive review process is one. Leveraging a tax on developers who buy and flip a building in less than five years is another. The goal is to dissuade developers looking for a fast buck, while encouraging developers who think in longer terms about investing in a community.

Politicians, however, rarely argue for this model of development. Major Bloomberg, well known for his developer-friendly stance, took the opposite tack. During his tenure, Bloomberg doubled the size of the Department of Buildings, which grants building permits. At the same time, he reduced the budget to the city community boards, which review building permit applications. The result was a huge increase in the volume of building permits, with less oversight from the communities that were being developed.

By eliminating barriers to development, Bloomberg achieved his goal of massively expanding construction in the city. For a while, it seemed that every block in Manhattan had at least one building project underway. Many developers saw this as their chance to get rich: buy a building, fast-track a permit, do a demo or gut reno, flip it in eighteen months as luxury condos, and make a huge profit.

The results of this recipe for quick money are now clear. While we have had an unprecedented level of construction of new buildings since Bloomberg came to office, they are not the buildings the city needs. In the economic downturn, we now face a massive glut of unsold luxury condos, unrented newly built storefronts, and stalled building projects that may never reach completion. Meanwhile the city needs affordable apartments, low-rent commercial spaces suitable for new business growth, and hospitals and schools - in short, incentives to keep New York's middle class in the city, something the city is failing to do, according the a report by the Center for an Urban Future published in February.

Jane Jacobs’ book easily predicted the current situation. In what must be economics lesson 101, she argues throughout the book that cities must above all preserve diversity. Diversity is what gives the city its strength in times of crises and rapid change.

Bloomberg argues that he is running for a third term as major because this gives New Yorkers more choice in the election, and it gives us the choice of electing a financially knowledgeable manager.

The New York Times reports today that political opponents are dropping out of the race left and right, because they view Bloomberg’s $80 million campaign war chest as unbeatable. Just as he reduced the diversity of the city’s stock of buildings, Bloomberg is now doing the same for the pool of candidates running for mayoral office. For a man who claims to have economic wisdom, Bloomberg is surprisingly forgetful of his Economics 101.

I hold Bloomberg largely responsible for the city’s unfettered development of buildings for the ultra-rich, and the consequent housing bubble. He will not receive my vote.

Under Pressure

I've been reading the book Under Pressure - Pictures, Subjects, and the New Spirit of Capitalism. Its my favorite kind of book because it is small enough to tuck in a pocket, good for reading on the subway. It has four essays, together with responses, which is not too daunting. Oh, and when I dropped it in the bathtub the other day (my secret is out!), it dried out nicely...

The longest essay is by Boltanski, who, with Eve Chiapello, wrote The New Spirit of Capitalism in 1999. I've read parts of their earlier book, so I was curious to see where Boltanski would go next. I haven't finished the essay yet. The first section is a good recap of ideas from the 1999 book.

A major part of the analysis concerns three shifts in capitalism, what Boltanski and Chiapello call the "three spirits of capitalism," which took place in the 1930's, 1960's and 1990's. Here is a paragraph by Boltanski discussing the shift in the 1960s:

The years 1965-1976 are marked by a very sharp rise in the level of critique against capitalism, culminating in 1968 and the following years. These critiques threaten capitalism with a significant crisis. They are far from being merely verbal and are accompanied by strikes and violence and result in a disorganization of production that lowers the quality of industrial produce and, according to some estimates, doubles salary costs. These critiques are targeted at almost all established tests upon which the legitimacy of the social order was based. The objects of critique are, (a) the tests upon which the relationship between salaries and profits and the distribution of added value are dependent; (b) the tests legitimating asymmetries in terms of power and hierarchical relations (at work, but also in the family); and (c) the tests upon which the social selection is based: in education, professional recruitment, career advancement, etc. The critique unveils that which, in these tests, transgresses justice. This unveiling consists particularly in revealing the hidden forces that feed off these tests and in unmasking the undeserved advantages benefited from by certain actors. This high level of critique alarms those responsible for the institutions of capitalism and, first and foremost, the bosses, acutely concerned with the "crisis of authority" and the "refusal to work in firms," in particular amongst the youth.

According to this model, in the 1960's, social injustices led to a rise in a critique against capitalism, which eventually produced a crisis, with workers and intellectuals going on strike and rioting. Eventually, capitalism responded to this critique, giving rise to a new spirit of capitalism which remedied issues or at least mollified critics.

Today we live the credit card dream. In America there have been relatively few recent riots or strikes. Yet in the absence of a strong external critique, capitalism is now undergoing a drastic shift, we are entering a new "spirit of capitalism". The change is not in response to a rise in a social or artistic critique, but rather it has come from within, from the mortgage and finance crisis. The media blames the current crisis on "toxic" debt, invoking a metaphor of capitalism as a body that has ingested a poison, and whose immune system is responding to internal attack.

If capitalism is capable of enormous change from within, what does this say about Boltanksi's suggestion that it responds to external critique? At first glance, we could argue that the new spirit in capitalism follows a different model from the 1960's. However, let's imagine for a moment that the economy continues a downwards spiral. We can expect civil unrest and strikes will follow, aimed at "unmasking the undeserved advantages benefited from by certain actors." Would these future actions be critique to which capitalism responds, or simply the side effect of ingested toxins? The problem is that neither answer reveals the full picture.

In fairness to Boltanski, he recognizes that capitalism and critique are mutually imbricated, that their relationship is complex. At the same time, I suspect that many who read Boltanski and Chiapelle will take their notions of social and artistic critique literally, as a kind of cause-and-effect explanation of the relationship between capitalism and critique. This narrative is appealing precisely because it suggests critique can have a direct effect.

For my part, I don't believe critique and outcome ever have an easy relationship. I look forward to seeing how Boltanski and Eve Chiapelle theorize the forth spirit of capitalism.

Critical thinking in education

Over the new year I went to a party and met Andrew, a distinguished intellectual and teacher. Our conversation turned to education.

I casually remarked that schools are good at teaching facts and figures. But, in this test-score driven system, they do a poor job teaching critical thinking.

Poppycock, responded Andrew. Critical thinking is overrated. Everyone in education says critical thinking is important. Its so easy to say, nobody would disagree with you. But it is a platitude. What does it really mean to teach critical thinking.

I took the bait. Critical thinking means knowing what an argument is, being able to break an argument into its constituent claims, then being able to analyze those claims. It means recognizing the difference between reason and rhetoric. This is what is not taught. For example, Obama in his speech in Berlin said "because of these aspirations all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin." That was a powerful moment because it clearly connected to Kennedy, and his "I am a Berliner" statement. Obama was updating that concept, broadening the idea. Rather than declaring his own unity with Berlin, he was saying, we are, all of us, Berliners. The historical linkage to Kennedy is what gave his statement rhetorical force. But the statement is actually assimilationist, it erases difference. And of course it isn't true. If I turned up in Berlin and said "because of my aspirations I am a Berliner" they wouldn't hand over citizenship papers. We are so easily persuaded by things that aren't true - recognizing this requires critical thinking.

Yes. But the voters of this country didn't need classes in critical thinking to know to vote for Obama. They figured it out on their own. Thinking, yes, we need thinking. But don't applying your elitist ideals to everyone.

So what would you suggest instead. If we agree that teaching just facts and figures is not enough, what is needed?

Me? I'm just a curious bystander. I watch the world go by. I write articles. I don't need to prescribe anything.

...

Of course, afterwards I wanted to point out that Andrew was, himself, using the tools of critical thinking to construct an argument.

But something in his words stuck. As Obama prepares to make his inaugural address, I'm still pondering whether critical thinking is overrated.

Problems with Freelancers Union Healthcare

I signed up with Freelancers Union for healthcare in October, after several days comparing plans and filling out forms, so I was dismayed when they announced in November that they were changing all of their health plans come January to a new health provider. That meant more research.

Who is this new health provider? Freelancers Insurance Company, a new independent company setup by, you guessed it, Freelancers Union. As the website explains:

Freelancers Insurance Company (FIC) is a for-profit insurance company that provides health insurance solely to the eligible New York-based members of Freelancers Union, a nonprofit membership organization, and to those members’ dependents.

The new plans offered by FIC not only cost more than the old plans, they also cover less in return. And in all of the hubristic email from FU about the change, nowhere did CEO Sara Horowitz explain how a non-profit union operating its own for-profit health insurance company can be anything other than a conflict of interests. How can the CEO of a health insurance company also in good faith be the head of the non-profit organization that is its sole source of clients?

As if to demonstrate this, in its first act in this new relationship, FU created a transition system which penalized members who did not switch to the new plans promptly - by requiring payment of an additional two months in advance. This move benefitted FIC but cannot have helped members already stressed by the transition.

If the new plans had started out no more expensive than the old plans, and if members had been given a choice to stay with their old plan for a longer grace period, this would have demonstrated that FU still put its members ahead of profits - and I would have made the transition to the new plans. Instead, I felt FU was strong-arming its members to make a choice that many didn't want. The only option was to leave.

I now get my healthcare from Fractured Atlas, a non-profit group aimed towards artists that has no pretensions of being a health insurance carrier.

The NYTimes article glosses these issues as the "grumblings" of a few members. Reading the members-only Forums at Freelancers, it is clear that the frustrations at Freelancers Union are much deeper. I will not return to Freelancers Union unless it offers health plans besides those carried at FIC.

New School in Exile

I am impressed by this student movement - raising awareness through direct action. link

Government 2.0

Every street in Manhattan is watched by a dozen computerized surveillance cameras. Meanwhile, in a city not so far away, the president works in an office devoid of laptops, Blackberry's and iPhones. He relies on printed documents and verbal communications. The president has the power to avoid surveillance. But to do so he must also give up using Internet toys.

The abstinence of technology in the oval office may be about to change. Obama is reported to be quite fond of his Blackberry, and may look for ways to introduce a laptop to the Oval office.

The topic was recently raised on Slashdot, which asked its readers how to build a web 2.0 government?

InKubus gave one insightful response:

I would like to see some good version control. If you look at the congressional record, it's full of crap like "Strike out the sixth sentence of chapter 12, paragraph 348, replacing with: 'b. except where already addressed under USC 90.01.23'"

WTF? I would like something like Trac where you can click on ANY statement in the US Code and see instantly:

• What changes have been made, over time
• Who sponsored the changes
• Who voted for, against, present
• Links to related code, as needed
• Public opinion related to the law
• Press releases by public offices/personel about the law

All with a nice Google timeline kindof interface.

Version control is one of the secret sauces of the software industry. It tracks every change to a codebase, and lets programmers see who made which changes, and to easily compare different versions of a document.

So far, very few people outside the code world have heard of tools like SVN, a powerful version control application. I agree with InKubus that adopting such a tool in congress would be a major shift in governance, and one I would welcome. Obama, you said you would bring change. How about tools to track those changes too?

Change.gov

A few days back I found myself wishing Obama would apply the grassroots techniques he adopted so successfully in his campaign to the office of the Whitehouse.

Now, with the release of Change.gov, Obama has made it clear he intends to do this. That is exciting.

I was struck by how Change.gov has a notice at the bottom indicating it is a "501C(4) Organization." The office of President Elect is a non-profit? In that case, shouldn't that be "Change.org"? How can a branch of the government declare itself tax exempt? Aren't they the folks that collect the taxes?

It reminded me of something I saw earlier this summer:

Why do the Marines use a ".com" suffix? They get the ".gov" suffix, but the office of the president elect could?

Obama Shnitte

Street vendor sign from July 24, 2008, Berlin.

I'm riveted by the election.

This article on the culture wars is a really good summary of the ideological differences between the two parties.

It is looking more and more likely that Obama will win. Which is a good thing for artists. McCain has shown very little interest in continuing arts funding.

New York City term limits

Regarding Bloomberg's push to overturn term limits for elected officials: I'm in favor of abolishing term limits, but only if Bloomberg also forgoes using his private wealth to run his election campaign. Any legislation to remove term limits should also mandate that officials seeking a third term must use the city's public finance system for their campaign. That would ensure officials stay in office because of their record, not the size of their wallet.

Arts funding

Arts organizations are struggling to stay in NYC. Many arts organizations and artists speak of a "crisis in the arts", with artists leaving New York to move to more affordable cities. I know of artists who have moved to Berlin and to Philadelphia because they can no longer afford NYC.

Yet, according to Borough President Scott Stringer, tourists say art and cultural institutions are the number one reason why they come to NY. Tourism generated $28 billion in revenue for NYC last year (here, page 8). In the UK, the Tate Modern is the second most visited attraction in the country. Like sports and entertainment, the arts generate huge secondary and tertiary revenue streams.

People want to visit cities that have a vital and diverse cultural scene. New York was once such a city. But with the brain-drain of artists leaving the city, it looks more and more likely that New York (and especially Manhattan) will become a place where art is seen, but not made.

Meanwhile, New York City gave 9.6 million dollars of public ICIP subsidies to chain retail stores like The Gap, and $350,000 to fast food restaurants like McDonalds. Not one tourist came to New York because of McDonalds or The Gap. Yet we subsidize these large corporations to the tune of millions of dollars. At the same time, the US consistently sits at the bottom of the charts in terms of public funding of the arts.

I believe the case for government support of the arts here has never been stronger. We must invest in the arts if we want to keep NY as a cultural capital.

However, such funding must also reach the broadest range of art forms. All too often, any government of the arts is linked to a social agenda. Arts are expected to be able to show a direct impact. This kind of approach to arts funding is fundamentally wrong. It is flawed reasoning to argue that the arts must show some kind of direct economic, educational or social benefits. Secondary and tertiary revenue streams already justify investment in the arts.

I believe we need to increase government funding of the arts in New York. In addition, arts funding organizations should drop social agendas, and instead rely on peer review by a diverse group of art experts to identify what arts should be funded.