Product and process
New York’s Model Cities vest-pocket housing and rehabilitation programme
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21500242 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Susanne Schindler (0000-0001-7787-7642, ETH Zurich, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 31-57 |
| Publication date | 2024-01-02 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Planning Perspectives (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0266-5433 • E-ISSN: 1466-4518 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02665433.2023.2293600 |
| PMID | 38698933 |
| OpenAlex | W4390586509 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
In January 1966, US President Lyndon Johnson proposed the Model Cities programme to 'improve the quality of urban life' in the nation's poorest areas through comprehensive action and citizen participation. That same month, John Lindsay became mayor of New York with a platform to create a more equitable city. Toward this end, Lindsay's administration rejected earlier urban renewal approaches, prioritizing infill construction on vacant sites and reusing existing buildings, all while including local communities in the planning process. Eugenia Flatow spearheaded this 'vest-pocket and rehabilitation programme' as a 'head start' to future Model Cities funding. As she commissioned Raymond & May, Walter Thabit, Jonas Vizbaras, and Fisher/Jackson with housing plans for Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Harlem, she was acutely aware of the resulting tension between a desired democratic process and the timely delivery of the product. A close reading of archival materials reveals how these planners responded in very different ways to the prompt. The governmental programme had created a space of possibility for rethinking the relationship of product and process in planning through the specificity of housing design. The plans also highlighted the paradox in attempting to effect socio-economic change through housing supply, one that still resonates today
Adaptive Reuse · Architectural engineering · Civil engineering · Democracy · Economics · Infill · Management · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Engineering · Law · Public Administration · Urbanization and City Planning
| Highly cited | No |
|---|