February 25, 2025 • 35 mins
Steven Robinson joins us to unravel the captivating saga of how dedicated activists thwarted the massive 1990s Television City development on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Imagine the world's tallest building casting a shadow over a vibrant community, threatening its cultural and environmental essence. Our conversation with Robinson shines a spotlight on the resilience and ingenuity of local groups like West Pride and the Civics, who banded together to preserve their neighborhood's diverse character against a looming monolith of luxury towers and retail chaos.
Show Notes:
- To help support the show, pick up a copy of the book through our Amazon Affiliates page at https://amzn.to/4gHgBTF or even better, get a copy through your local bookstore!
- Further Reading:
To view the show transcripts, click on the episode at https://bookedonplanning.buzzsprout.com/
Follow us on social media for more content related to each episode:
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/booked-on-planning/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/BookedPlanning
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bookedonplanning
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bookedonplanning/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stephanie Rouse (00:00):
This episode is brought to you by Confluence.
Confluence is a professionalconsulting firm comprised of
landscape architects, urbandesigners and planners.
Their staff of 70 plus includes39 licensed landscape
architects and AICP certifiedplanners.
Confluence is comprised ofenergetic, creative and
passionate people who areinvolved in making our
communities better places tolive.
(00:20):
They assist clients on a widerange of public, educational,
institutional and private sectorprojects.
(00:40):
You're listening to the BookedOn Planning Podcast, a project
of the Nebraska chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.
In each episode we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
Well, welcome back, bookworms,to another episode of Booked on
(01:05):
Planning.
In this episode we talk withSteven Robinson about his book
Turf War how a band of activistssaved New York from Donald
Trump's masterpiece.
Turf War is Robinson'srecounting of the nearly
decade-long battle to stop amonolithic development plan that
would wall off the Upper WestSide neighborhood of New York
from the waterfront, jeopardizelocal businesses and create a
hostile environment for theexisting residents.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:28):
This story was a perfect combination of
determination and kismet.
The advocacy groups that wereable to come together had such
diverse backgrounds in protestsand advocating.
It's hard to see the groupbeing successful without each
unique voice.
Stephanie Rouse (01:42):
Yes, there were a number of organizations and
unique backgrounds that reallyhelped to ensure the development
was modified into one that metthe needs of the developer and
the residents in the surroundingneighborhood.
Without their vast skill setand connections they likely
wouldn't have been so successful.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:58):
It's a fascinating story about what it
takes to come together and beata major developer in a city
where development review is ahighly political activity.
So let's get into ourdiscussion with author Stephen
Robinson about his book Turf Warhow a band of activists saved
New York from Donald Trump'smasterpiece.
Stephanie Rouse (02:17):
Well, stephen, welcome to the Booked on
Planning podcast.
We're happy to have you on totalk about your book Turf War
how a Band of Activists SavedNew York from Donald Trump's
Masterpiece.
Your book profiles the nearlydecade-long journey of a group
of resident activists to defeata wildly inappropriate infill
development in New York City inthe late 80s and early 90s.
(02:38):
Can you start off by giving anoverview of where and what that
proposed development was, andthen what the threats were to
the neighborhood?
Steven Robinson (02:45):
It's worth noting at the beginning that
this occurred 40 years ago, and40 years ago the Upper West Side
of Manhattan was quitedifferent than it has become.
It was a mixed community thathad extraordinary rich diversity
of populations and businessesand cultural institutions and
(03:08):
really thrived on that level ofvitality.
And the proposal that was madefor Television City was
antithetical to that characterof the community, of the
(03:29):
community.
It was intended as a isolated,walled-off, luxurious
development on half a mile ofHudson River waterfront, at the
edge of this very diverse, mixedand interesting community.
More specifically, it was a18.5 million square foot project
which included a wall that roseup to 60 feet high, blocking
off the adjacent community fromthe Hudson River, and that wall
(03:54):
was the side of a platform.
And on the platform there wasthe world's tallest building at
150 stories.
There was seven residentialtowers, luxury residential
towers and a headquarters forNBC, which was proposed,
although not resolved, and therewas a private park on top of
(04:16):
this platform, at the level ofthe West Side Highway.
Below the platform there was a2 million square foot shopping
mall, which was the largestshopping mall east of the
Mississippi River, and a 9,000car garage, which was about the
capacity of Yankee Stadium.
All of this development wasright up against the shoreline
(04:40):
of the Hudson River.
There was a very narrow publicpromenade which was the only
public amenity on 62 acres ofproposed development.
You asked about the threats tothe neighborhood.
The first threat was thiscultural divide, basically
saying we're going to build thisluxury project on the banks of
(05:01):
the Hudson River and we're goingto separate ourselves from the
riffraff of the Upper West Side.
The second was environmental.
The environmental consequencesof having a two million square
foot shopping mall would havedevastated the local retail on
the Upper West Side and it wouldhave brought 22,000 cars a day
(05:24):
through the neighborhood, whichwas already suffering from
traffic congestion.
The air pollution from thosevehicles would have further
exceeded the federal standardsfor air quality in the community
and the shadows cast by theproject would have reached in
the morning all the way acrossthe Hudson River to New Jersey
(05:46):
and throughout the day wouldhave shaded Riverside Park, the
Upper West Side Central Park,all the way over to Third Avenue
on the east side.
There were environmental issuesalso with mass transit which
never would have been capable ofhandling this increased traffic
load, and there was awastewater problem.
(06:06):
The North River Treatment Plantwas already over capacity and
the design for Television Citywas to take all of its waste
products to the North RiverTreatment Plant.
So it was a devastatingcombination of social, cultural
and environmental threats to thecommunity.
Jennifer Hiatt (06:28):
And the book primarily focuses on the
advocacy efforts of the groupyou and others formed first as
West Pride and then eventuallypartnered with other advocacy
groups to become the Civics.
How did this group cometogether and decide, in your
words, to spend their time,money and emotional energy
fighting this development?
Steven Robinson (06:45):
side, in your words, to spend their time,
money and emotional energyfighting this development.
A number of us in theneighborhood had been to the
first public presentation ofTelevision City and were
appalled.
We also knew that thisdeveloper was well-connected in
the city and that, in fact, thecity might approve something
like this.
So we realized that we had abig uphill battle and in order
(07:06):
to fight it, about half a dozenof us got together and formed a
nonprofit called West Pride, andwe realized that we had to
raise money in order to hireengineers and land use lawyers
to begin to substantiallycriticize the project that was
being proposed to the city.
(07:27):
You know, west Pride reallygrew out of a cluster of
neighbors.
What was interesting was thatthese neighbors of mine were
experienced in advocacy.
They were people who had foughtagainst the Vietnam War.
They were people who had beenactive in the civil rights
movement, had been active in thewomen's liberation movement.
(07:49):
These were people who had goodcareers and were also very
advocacy minded.
So they became my mentors.
I was a young architect and wasappalled at what I saw, but had
no idea of how to go aboutfighting it.
And, as I say, they became mymentors and we got out in public
and we started raising moneyand created a very effective
(08:12):
opposition.
And we did that for five years,believing that once we made our
case to the city which we didrepeatedly, using largely
information gathered from theFreedom of Information Act we
would be able to convince thecity not to approve this.
And that was not to be the case.
The way in which the civic groupgot together was that there
(08:37):
were people in West Pride whowere members of the Municipal
Arts Society, the Regional PlanAssociation, the Parks Council,
so these people sort of kneweach other through their
advocacy experiences.
And while West Pride had filed alawsuit against the city for
changing the zoning resolutionin order to facilitate the
(08:57):
approval of the project, theseother groups were filing a
lawsuit against the city for notconsidering the relocation of
the West Side Highway, andjointly we designed this
alternative scheme on propertywhich somebody else owned.
So by the summer of 1990, thesesix groups, each in their own
(09:18):
way but sort of aware of eachother, were all fighting this
proposal.
And in the summer of 1990, itbecame apparent that we could be
much stronger if we joinedforces.
And it appeared at that timethat the project would be
certified by the city and onceit was certified, it would begin
the public review process, andwe wanted to have our coalition,
(09:40):
as a coordinated effort, tofight the project prior to
certification and then duringULURP, if it should occur.
Jennifer Hiatt (09:48):
I did really appreciate the almost like
kismet of having all of theseactivists in one spot at that
particular pivotal point.
It was very fortuitous for thisproject.
Steven Robinson (10:00):
It was extraordinary, and I'm not sure
that that kind of advocacyexists in New York now, but it
was.
You're absolutely right, it wasvery fortuitous at that time.
Stephanie Rouse (10:13):
So you were talking a little bit about some
of the review processes and thesteps that it takes to get a
development in New York Cityapproved, and in the book you
point out that there are anumber of flaws with the city's
development review process andhow it's really not set up for
timely community involvement.
This development benefitedbecause your groups were
fighting to be included and wereat the table, which seemed
(10:34):
unusual at the time.
Have you seen improvements tothe way the public's included in
this process since thisdevelopment went through?
Steven Robinson (10:41):
No, Well, I'm honestly not close to the real
estate development process inNew York now, but I can tell you
back at that time a number ofus had been active in the
community board, and communityboards in New York can be very
effective quasi-governmentalinstitutions.
(11:01):
The community board plays arole, although it's only
advisory, in the review of anydevelopment within its purview,
within its geographic area.
Because we had raised money andgotten this engineering and
legal information to fight theproject, we had shared that with
the community board so thatthey, as a legitimate arm of
(11:24):
city government, could bringthis information to the planning
commission.
We were considered roughnecks.
I mean, we were considered, youknow, just people outside the
system who were trying to causea problem.
But the community board had somelegitimacy.
So it was the community boardthat met with the city planning
staff once a week and they metwith them from two to four in
(11:47):
the afternoon, Wednesdays, whenthe Trump team was with the same
group of city planningofficials, from 10 to 12 in the
morning.
The community board had allthis real-time information and
it was the community board thatinvited West Pride to join those
meetings.
That's how we got a seat at thetable.
(12:08):
That's how we were able toprovide accurate information to
our supporters and strategizeour opposition.
I don't think that those kindsof dialogues are occurring in
the New York City review processnow.
Jennifer Hiatt (12:24):
That's unfortunate that they aren't,
because your guys' input wasvital to creating a better
development.
Steven Robinson (12:31):
In a curious way, our participation in those
meetings.
As you may remember, it was atone of those meetings that we
were told that the city wasplanning to change its zoning
resolution with an amendmentthat we eventually found out
through freedom of informationwould reduce the environmental
standards to which televisioncity would be held.
(12:52):
And we were able to get accessto those amendments.
And that's when we filed thelawsuit against the city for
changing the rules in the middleof the game and we won that
lawsuit.
What had happened was theTelevision City application was
being based on those reducedstandards, so the city had to
(13:12):
stop reviewing the project.
And all of a sudden TelevisionCity was dead in the water.
But it was not because we suedthe developer, it was not
because we prevailed in ourenvironmental arguments.
It was because the city screwedup and we were able to catch it
.
Stephanie Rouse (13:30):
Yeah, that seemed to be a real turning
point in the fight to stop thebad version of the developments
and kind of reinforce having thepublic involved in the process
early on.
Steven Robinson (13:42):
Yeah, what happened was that after this,
judge Gammerman ruled in ourfavor and Television City was or
at that point Trump City wasdead in the water.
That's when he, through anintermediary, approached us
saying shown around, and whatright did people who don't own a
piece of property have to godesigning a master plan on 62
(14:11):
acres of Hudson River waterfront?
But we did.
What he needed at that time wasbecause of his financial
difficulties.
He had a non-performing loanwith Chase Manhattan Bank from
the acquisition.
So he needed to show Chase thathe could get a plan, no matter
what.
It was approved by the city andwith our plan.
(14:34):
That was certainly somethingthat was rational.
It was appropriate for thecommunity.
It showed a park as acontinuation of Riverside Park.
It had no regional shoppingmall, no 9,000 car garage, all
the buildings were set back onthe street grid and it was a
contextual development thateverybody knew the city would
(14:54):
approve more or less?
So that's why he came to us toadopt what we call the civic
alternative as his plan to getapproved, so that he could get
out of financial trouble withhis lender and within a year of
the approval he sold theproperty.
He never intended to build,what we had proposed.
Jennifer Hiatt (15:16):
So, and as we're discussing regulations like the
Freedom of Information Act orpublic records requests, even
some of the environmental reviewprocess that you guys were able
to utilize, west Pride was oneof the early groups that
benefited from such legislation,as it was new kind of at the
time and I personally thoughtyou guys wielded them
masterfully.
But now the same tactics arebeing used by NIMBY groups
(15:39):
across the country.
So how would you draw the fineline between advocating against
bad development and inauthenticcity action and supporting your
community versus advocatingagainst any kind of development
altogether?
Steven Robinson (15:53):
I think that goes to the question of the
organic nature of cities andtowns and villages across the
country.
The ones that are growing havea choice.
They can either grow in wayswhich support the character of
the community and are healthyfor the community, both
(16:15):
culturally and environmentallyand there are real estate
developers around the countrywho do that or when a proposal
is made and residents who knowtheir community better than
anyone else get a sense thatthis could be damaging in some
way either damagingenvironmentally or damaging
(16:36):
culturally, or in scale orproportion, or in land use then
that is the trigger that Ibelieve can stimulate an
opposition to a proposal.
Not necessarily kill itcompletely, but get your voice
heard so that a inappropriatedevelopment can be either
(16:57):
rejected or modified so that itworks to the benefit of the
developer, who can still makemoney on it, and the residents
of the community who can feelthat it's a positive
contribution to the way in whichthey live in their city, their
neighborhood, their town.
Stephanie Rouse (17:15):
You know, I think one important distinction
too is a lot of times the fightis we don't want this at all.
Like this, developmentshouldn't happen, period, there
should be nothing here Versus.
In this instance, it wasn'tabout saying no altogether to
the development.
It was pulling the developmentscale back and ensuring that
uses that were put into thesebuildings were really what would
support the neighborhood andhelp it thrive, versus just
(17:37):
dropping in a massivedevelopment that was walled off
from the rest of the community.
It was really intending to makeit a better development for the
area.
Steven Robinson (17:45):
For us it was really about two primary
intentions One was land use andthe other was the city's process
.
In terms of land use, anydevelopment that would have
privatized a half a mile ofHudson River waterfront and
walled itself off from thecommunity was totally
(18:06):
unacceptable.
So, in terms of land use, thatproposal, we had to not modify
it.
But we had to eliminate itbecause we did not believe that
if it went through a city reviewprocess it would be
significantly modified, whichgets to the second point, which
is the city review process,which is very often controlled
(18:31):
by political elected officialswho are often dependent on
financial contributions fromlarge real estate developers.
So there's a link there andwhat we realized we had to do
was to somehow break that linkso that the decision making
(18:51):
process could be based on whatis best land use for the
developer, for the community andfor the environment.
Stephanie Rouse (19:02):
And the advocacy efforts evolved over
time with this developmentprocess and you mentioned
already how you ended up teamingup with the developer to help
with the building design in theend.
You mentioned in the book thatnewspapers were citing this as a
new approach to design, notnecessarily just in New York
City, but kind of in your workin general.
Have you seen the way thatadvocates work to fight bad
(19:24):
development change as a result?
Steven Robinson (19:26):
What I have seen occasionally is that a
developer primarily whoseinterests are highest and best
use will occasionally come to acommunity board or come to a
neighborhood association andmake a presentation, request
input and sometimes take thatadvice and modify a development
(19:50):
proposal.
That I think is a very healthyprocess.
Don't see it that often.
You asked you know about what'shappening in New York now or
recently, and when I look at thesuper tolls south of Central
Park and when I look at HudsonYards and I look at some of the
(20:10):
development, the towers that aregoing up in Brooklyn and Long
Island City, it's just obviousto me that there is no
conversation going on at all,that developers are just really
having their way with the landthat they own.
Jennifer Hiatt (20:26):
So you mentioned that your group did eventually
propose development, West Prideand eventually the civics
transitioned from purely anopposition group to trying to
protect the community fromTelevision City into a full
advocacy group.
Originally you were againstproposing or maybe not against
is the right word, but OK,against proposing your own form
(20:51):
of development.
So A?
How did your mindset shift andhow did that ultimately?
How did the transformation fromworking to try and kill a
project into proposing a newproject on, as you said, land
you don't own?
How did that transformationprocess occur?
Steven Robinson (21:15):
process occur.
I believed for years duringthis this was my pro bono life
and I believed during theseyears that the environmental and
contextual neighborhoodproblems impacts, negative
impacts that we were uncoveringand quantifying and presenting
to the city would require thecity to either reject or
drastically modify this proposal.
(21:36):
I thought we were on a winningtrack.
I didn't want to put up atarget, I didn't want to design
an alternative scheme for thesite that would detract
attention from the fight againstwhat the city was considering.
That was my perspective.
I was clearly wrong because thecivic alternative which,
(22:00):
interestingly enough, we hadhired an environmental
consultant, an engineer namedDan Gutman, and Dan was doing
research on the history of thepenyards AFT became abandoned,
was doing research on thehistory of the penyards AFT,
became abandoned and what hefound was that there had been a
proposal to take the West SideHighway and demolish it, because
it's an elevated highway thatgoes across the property from
(22:22):
north to south.
Demolish the elevated, put itunderground the way it was done
in Riverside Park just to thenorth, and then build a park
over it and then you could havea continuation of Riverside Park
along the Hudson and you couldmove development back toward
into the street grid.
And he discovered that this hadbeen a prior proposal, one, in
(22:45):
fact, which Trump had supportedin 1974.
So he said why not do this now?
Why not do this again?
And he came to us, and he wentto the Municipal Arts Society
and the Parks Council, theRegional Plan Association.
Everybody said this is a greatidea.
Let's generate some drawingsthat would indicate, that would
(23:05):
articulate, that wouldgraphically show what this
property could be Not onlygetting rid of the elevated
highway, but creating thispublic park and making it
accessible and reducing thescale of development.
So that was the birthing of thecivic alternative as a
competing design, if you will.
And when we showed it around tovarious city officials and
(23:28):
state officials, everyone to aperson said this is great, this
makes a lot of sense, but thecity is currently reviewing a
developer's proposal, so wecannot publicly support it.
The only one who publiclysupported it was Ruth Messinger,
who was borough president atthe time, who is a very
brilliant and gutsy woman.
(23:50):
Yeah, no, but it was out therein the public.
Half a page illustration wasshown in the New York Times with
a very supportive article byPaul Goldberger, who was the
architectural critic at thetimes.
So it was out there and Ibecame a convert.
You know I said this makes alot of sense.
Jennifer Hiatt (24:07):
Yeah, that was a really brave action to just
stick it out there withouttalking to anybody.
Who just got put in thenewspaper big area and you guys
were like here's a proposal.
Steven Robinson (24:17):
It was because it was consistent with their
agendas, it was consistent withtheir history, it was consistent
with their values.
You know whether it was theParks Council, municipal Arts
(24:37):
Society, the Natural ResourcesDefense Council, you know this
enormous, powerful, nationwideenvironmental group.
It was consistent with each oftheir intentions and concerns,
and so they said let's getbehind this, because this
represents who we are and whatwe do.
Stephanie Rouse (24:56):
With all that support, I was so surprised that
in the end, the bridge stayed,that the highway didn't get
relocated and brought down tograde which is so common
nowadays that projects are doingthat and it just didn't succeed
there.
Steven Robinson (25:10):
Yeah, it's happening all across the country
and it has been and it washappening 40 years ago across
the country.
Richard Kahn, who was thepresident of Riverside South
Planning Corporation, andmembers of the board were going
to Albany and Washington andfighting for the money to do
this, and they were gainingsupport Allocations were made to
move the highway and put itunderground.
(25:30):
Support allocations were madeto move the highway and put it
underground.
The reason that it didn'thappen was that there at the
time, and still CongressmanJerry Nadler of the Upper West
Side he had a personal animositytoward Donald Trump and Trump
had an animosity toward him, andthe two of them made it a
public argument with these twopersonalities.
(25:51):
And there was a bill inCongress to support the
relocation of the highway.
And what Nadler thought wasthat with the highway in place,
with that elevated highway, anyreal estate development that was
east of it would have much moredifficult time selling the
apartments because there was ahighway in front of it, and so
(26:13):
what he thought was to spite.
Trump opposed the bill inCongress and the congressional
committee felt that they couldnot approve this allocation.
With the antagonism of thelocal representative, nadler
killed the bill.
The highway remained in place.
It didn't have any impact onthe success of the eventual
(26:36):
development.
All it did was prevent thepeople of New York from getting
a world-class park.
Because although the riverfrontpart of the park is wonderful
and heavily used, you knowthere's still a highway going
over it, spewing air pollutionand noise and shade on the park.
There is a partial tunnel builtunder the eastern edge of the
(26:58):
park and someday it is possiblethat when it comes time to do a
structural rehabilitation ofthat elevated highway, which
will probably happen in the next10, 15 years, maybe someone
will remember that it's possibleto relocate it at the same cost
.
Stephanie Rouse (27:15):
So we've talked about one of the keys to this
process was having a seat at thetable with the city while
discussions were making place.
How was this made possible, andhow can other residents or
advocacy groups replicate thisin their own communities?
Steven Robinson (27:29):
Well, as I mentioned, it was our historic
dialogue with Community Board 7that enabled us at that time to
get the seat at the table,because CB7 was a
quasi-governmental agency thathad regular meetings with the
city on this project because itwas in their jurisdiction and
they were the ones who invitedus to join.
So I think, in terms ofreplicating the opportunity to
(27:53):
get a seat at the table, itrequires advocates to go to the
city government and, in whateverway possible, to convince the
city government that residentsneed a seat at the table when a
real estate development is beingconsidered by city staff.
I think a lot of people arereluctant to deal with elected
(28:16):
officials and city staff.
It's always, you know,considered a burden when you
have to go to city hall to dealwith your local government, but
I think that's the only way,because it is the city
government that has theauthority to make decisions
about real estate development.
Jennifer Hiatt (28:34):
Stephanie and I both work for the city of
Lincoln, Nebraska.
We are city government people.
We are aware that everyonethinks it's a burden to come
talk to us Right?
Steven Robinson (28:44):
We're deeply aware of that Maybe it's
incumbent upon city governmentsto be proactive and make an
opportunity available forresidents to participate in real
estate reviews.
The developers will hate it,but I think that that's the only
way I know of, because foradvocates to feel opposition to
(29:06):
a proposal and just throwingrocks from the outside doesn't
usually work.
Jennifer Hiatt (29:12):
No, and it elongates the process too,
because we're just we have justhave people throwing rocks at
something and that just delaysthe process where if we could
maybe move public input up tothe start and have input along
the way, then we could build abetter project at the end in
less time than having someoneshow up at a city council
(29:33):
hearing and being like we hatethis and then city council
asking the developer to startall over again.
Steven Robinson (29:38):
That's exactly right, Well put.
I think that the developersneed to be educated so that the
advantages that you justmentioned having a shorter
review time, having a projectthat is healthy for the
community, which is embraced bythe residents or, if not
(29:59):
embraced, at least accepted, youknow, as something reasonable
the inherent opposition betweena lot of developers and a lot of
residents would be greatlyreduced.
Stephanie Rouse (30:13):
So what recommendations would you give
to cities who are reconsideringtheir review processes?
What would have been helpful asa Westside advocate for the
community when you were goingthrough this process.
Steven Robinson (30:24):
Well, I think the process that Jennifer just
described would be ideal, havethe process be participatory for
residents from the verybeginning and throughout, and it
would mean that cities wouldhave to re-examine their
development review process withan eye toward generating
(30:46):
healthier projects for theircommunity with public input and
developer participation.
I think that all of thisconversation and activism and
advocacy is rooted in thedistinction between short-term
benefit and long-term benefit.
It is in the nature of thegrowth of cities for real estate
(31:11):
development to see theshort-term benefit of financial
gain.
It is in the interests of thecommunity at large, as an
organic entity, to look atlong-term benefits to the
community and to the environment.
Jennifer Hiatt (31:27):
So always our last question, as this is Booked
on Planning what books wouldyou recommend readers check out?
Because of course, we recommendour readers check out your book
, but what books would you givethem?
Steven Robinson (31:53):
people often misunderstand Jane Jacobs.
She was not advocating, as youknow, that every place have the
characteristics of her GreenwichVillage neighborhood.
She was advocating for peopleto pay attention to the
characteristics of what makestheir communities pleasant and
livable and healthy and fightfor those, wherever you are.
The second is a book by RobertaBrandes-Gratz.
(32:14):
It's called the Living City andRoberta was and is continues to
be.
She was obviously part of WestPride and a neighbor and
colleague of mine, but Robertais a protege of Jane Jacobs and
was a dear friend.
The Living City is a terrificbook.
The next one is a book calledthe Well-Tempered City by
(32:36):
Jonathan FP Rose, and Jonathanis a friend and he is probably
the most active real estatedeveloper in the country in
building green developer in thecountry in building green,
affordable housing and he's doneit in many cities and he sees
all of the social andenvironmental advantages of
(32:59):
building sustainable, affordableresidential units with lots of
social services often included,such as daycare centers.
So his book, the Well-TemperedCity, I would recommend.
You may remember the Westwayproposal along the Hudson River
in Manhattan.
It would have rebuilt the WestSide Highway from the Battery up
(33:21):
to 59th Street and it wouldhave created some park and open
space along the river.
It would have also created anenormous amount of development
opportunity.
And there's a book calledFighting Westway by William
Busby.
It's just an excellent taleabout how, for 14 years,
community and environmentalactivists fought the city, the
(33:43):
state, the federal governmentand prevailed.
And then there's a book calledChanging Places by Richard Moe
and Carter Wilkie that Irecommend.
Those are the ones that came tomind pretty quickly.
Stephanie Rouse (33:57):
All sound like great books to check out for not
only me but also our listeners.
There's a few in there that Ithink I'm adding to my list as
well, but, Devin, it's been agreat conversation.
Really appreciate you joiningus today to talk about Turf War,
how a Band of Activists SavedNew York from Donald Trump's
Masterpiece.
Steven Robinson (34:15):
Thank you.
Jennifer Hiatt (34:17):
We hope you enjoyed this conversation with
Steven Robinson about his bookTurf War how a Band of Activists
Saved New York from DonaldTrump's Masterpiece.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher or click
the link in the show notes totake you directly to our
affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts and please rate, reviewand share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(34:37):
Booked on Planning.
Thank you.
This episode is brought to you by Confluence.
Confluence is a professionalconsulting firm comprised of
landscape architects, urbandesigners and planners.
Their staff of 70 plus includes39 licensed landscape
architects and AICP certifiedplanners.
Confluence is comprised ofenergetic, creative and
passionate people who areinvolved in making our
communities better places tolive.
(00:20):
They assist clients on a widerange of public, educational,
institutional and private sectorprojects.
(00:40):
You're listening to the BookedOn Planning Podcast, a project
of the Nebraska chapter of theAmerican Planning Association.
In each episode we dive intohow cities function by talking
with authors on housing,transportation and everything in
between.
Join us as we get Booked onPlanning.
Well, welcome back, bookworms,to another episode of Booked on
(01:05):
Planning.
In this episode we talk withSteven Robinson about his book
Turf War how a band of activistssaved New York from Donald
Trump's masterpiece.
Turf War is Robinson'srecounting of the nearly
decade-long battle to stop amonolithic development plan that
would wall off the Upper WestSide neighborhood of New York
from the waterfront, jeopardizelocal businesses and create a
hostile environment for theexisting residents.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:28):
This story was a perfect combination of
determination and kismet.
The advocacy groups that wereable to come together had such
diverse backgrounds in protestsand advocating.
It's hard to see the groupbeing successful without each
unique voice.
Stephanie Rouse (01:42):
Yes, there were a number of organizations and
unique backgrounds that reallyhelped to ensure the development
was modified into one that metthe needs of the developer and
the residents in the surroundingneighborhood.
Without their vast skill setand connections they likely
wouldn't have been so successful.
Jennifer Hiatt (01:58):
It's a fascinating story about what it
takes to come together and beata major developer in a city
where development review is ahighly political activity.
So let's get into ourdiscussion with author Stephen
Robinson about his book Turf Warhow a band of activists saved
New York from Donald Trump'smasterpiece.
Stephanie Rouse (02:17):
Well, stephen, welcome to the Booked on
Planning podcast.
We're happy to have you on totalk about your book Turf War
how a Band of Activists SavedNew York from Donald Trump's
Masterpiece.
Your book profiles the nearlydecade-long journey of a group
of resident activists to defeata wildly inappropriate infill
development in New York City inthe late 80s and early 90s.
(02:38):
Can you start off by giving anoverview of where and what that
proposed development was, andthen what the threats were to
the neighborhood?
Steven Robinson (02:45):
It's worth noting at the beginning that
this occurred 40 years ago, and40 years ago the Upper West Side
of Manhattan was quitedifferent than it has become.
It was a mixed community thathad extraordinary rich diversity
of populations and businessesand cultural institutions and
(03:08):
really thrived on that level ofvitality.
And the proposal that was madefor Television City was
antithetical to that characterof the community, of the
(03:29):
community.
It was intended as a isolated,walled-off, luxurious
development on half a mile ofHudson River waterfront, at the
edge of this very diverse, mixedand interesting community.
More specifically, it was a18.5 million square foot project
which included a wall that roseup to 60 feet high, blocking
off the adjacent community fromthe Hudson River, and that wall
(03:54):
was the side of a platform.
And on the platform there wasthe world's tallest building at
150 stories.
There was seven residentialtowers, luxury residential
towers and a headquarters forNBC, which was proposed,
although not resolved, and therewas a private park on top of
(04:16):
this platform, at the level ofthe West Side Highway.
Below the platform there was a2 million square foot shopping
mall, which was the largestshopping mall east of the
Mississippi River, and a 9,000car garage, which was about the
capacity of Yankee Stadium.
All of this development wasright up against the shoreline
(04:40):
of the Hudson River.
There was a very narrow publicpromenade which was the only
public amenity on 62 acres ofproposed development.
You asked about the threats tothe neighborhood.
The first threat was thiscultural divide, basically
saying we're going to build thisluxury project on the banks of
(05:01):
the Hudson River and we're goingto separate ourselves from the
riffraff of the Upper West Side.
The second was environmental.
The environmental consequencesof having a two million square
foot shopping mall would havedevastated the local retail on
the Upper West Side and it wouldhave brought 22,000 cars a day
(05:24):
through the neighborhood, whichwas already suffering from
traffic congestion.
The air pollution from thosevehicles would have further
exceeded the federal standardsfor air quality in the community
and the shadows cast by theproject would have reached in
the morning all the way acrossthe Hudson River to New Jersey
(05:46):
and throughout the day wouldhave shaded Riverside Park, the
Upper West Side Central Park,all the way over to Third Avenue
on the east side.
There were environmental issuesalso with mass transit which
never would have been capable ofhandling this increased traffic
load, and there was awastewater problem.
(06:06):
The North River Treatment Plantwas already over capacity and
the design for Television Citywas to take all of its waste
products to the North RiverTreatment Plant.
So it was a devastatingcombination of social, cultural
and environmental threats to thecommunity.
Jennifer Hiatt (06:28):
And the book primarily focuses on the
advocacy efforts of the groupyou and others formed first as
West Pride and then eventuallypartnered with other advocacy
groups to become the Civics.
How did this group cometogether and decide, in your
words, to spend their time,money and emotional energy
fighting this development?
Steven Robinson (06:45):
side, in your words, to spend their time,
money and emotional energyfighting this development.
A number of us in theneighborhood had been to the
first public presentation ofTelevision City and were
appalled.
We also knew that thisdeveloper was well-connected in
the city and that, in fact, thecity might approve something
like this.
So we realized that we had abig uphill battle and in order
(07:06):
to fight it, about half a dozenof us got together and formed a
nonprofit called West Pride, andwe realized that we had to
raise money in order to hireengineers and land use lawyers
to begin to substantiallycriticize the project that was
being proposed to the city.
(07:27):
You know, west Pride reallygrew out of a cluster of
neighbors.
What was interesting was thatthese neighbors of mine were
experienced in advocacy.
They were people who had foughtagainst the Vietnam War.
They were people who had beenactive in the civil rights
movement, had been active in thewomen's liberation movement.
(07:49):
These were people who had goodcareers and were also very
advocacy minded.
So they became my mentors.
I was a young architect and wasappalled at what I saw, but had
no idea of how to go aboutfighting it.
And, as I say, they became mymentors and we got out in public
and we started raising moneyand created a very effective
(08:12):
opposition.
And we did that for five years,believing that once we made our
case to the city which we didrepeatedly, using largely
information gathered from theFreedom of Information Act we
would be able to convince thecity not to approve this.
And that was not to be the case.
The way in which the civic groupgot together was that there
(08:37):
were people in West Pride whowere members of the Municipal
Arts Society, the Regional PlanAssociation, the Parks Council,
so these people sort of kneweach other through their
advocacy experiences.
And while West Pride had filed alawsuit against the city for
changing the zoning resolutionin order to facilitate the
(08:57):
approval of the project, theseother groups were filing a
lawsuit against the city for notconsidering the relocation of
the West Side Highway, andjointly we designed this
alternative scheme on propertywhich somebody else owned.
So by the summer of 1990, thesesix groups, each in their own
(09:18):
way but sort of aware of eachother, were all fighting this
proposal.
And in the summer of 1990, itbecame apparent that we could be
much stronger if we joinedforces.
And it appeared at that timethat the project would be
certified by the city and onceit was certified, it would begin
the public review process, andwe wanted to have our coalition,
(09:40):
as a coordinated effort, tofight the project prior to
certification and then duringULURP, if it should occur.
Jennifer Hiatt (09:48):
I did really appreciate the almost like
kismet of having all of theseactivists in one spot at that
particular pivotal point.
It was very fortuitous for thisproject.
Steven Robinson (10:00):
It was extraordinary, and I'm not sure
that that kind of advocacyexists in New York now, but it
was.
You're absolutely right, it wasvery fortuitous at that time.
Stephanie Rouse (10:13):
So you were talking a little bit about some
of the review processes and thesteps that it takes to get a
development in New York Cityapproved, and in the book you
point out that there are anumber of flaws with the city's
development review process andhow it's really not set up for
timely community involvement.
This development benefitedbecause your groups were
fighting to be included and wereat the table, which seemed
(10:34):
unusual at the time.
Have you seen improvements tothe way the public's included in
this process since thisdevelopment went through?
Steven Robinson (10:41):
No, Well, I'm honestly not close to the real
estate development process inNew York now, but I can tell you
back at that time a number ofus had been active in the
community board, and communityboards in New York can be very
effective quasi-governmentalinstitutions.
(11:01):
The community board plays arole, although it's only
advisory, in the review of anydevelopment within its purview,
within its geographic area.
Because we had raised money andgotten this engineering and
legal information to fight theproject, we had shared that with
the community board so thatthey, as a legitimate arm of
(11:24):
city government, could bringthis information to the planning
commission.
We were considered roughnecks.
I mean, we were considered, youknow, just people outside the
system who were trying to causea problem.
But the community board had somelegitimacy.
So it was the community boardthat met with the city planning
staff once a week and they metwith them from two to four in
(11:47):
the afternoon, Wednesdays, whenthe Trump team was with the same
group of city planningofficials, from 10 to 12 in the
morning.
The community board had allthis real-time information and
it was the community board thatinvited West Pride to join those
meetings.
That's how we got a seat at thetable.
(12:08):
That's how we were able toprovide accurate information to
our supporters and strategizeour opposition.
I don't think that those kindsof dialogues are occurring in
the New York City review processnow.
Jennifer Hiatt (12:24):
That's unfortunate that they aren't,
because your guys' input wasvital to creating a better
development.
Steven Robinson (12:31):
In a curious way, our participation in those
meetings.
As you may remember, it was atone of those meetings that we
were told that the city wasplanning to change its zoning
resolution with an amendmentthat we eventually found out
through freedom of informationwould reduce the environmental
standards to which televisioncity would be held.
(12:52):
And we were able to get accessto those amendments.
And that's when we filed thelawsuit against the city for
changing the rules in the middleof the game and we won that
lawsuit.
What had happened was theTelevision City application was
being based on those reducedstandards, so the city had to
(13:12):
stop reviewing the project.
And all of a sudden TelevisionCity was dead in the water.
But it was not because we suedthe developer, it was not
because we prevailed in ourenvironmental arguments.
It was because the city screwedup and we were able to catch it
.
Stephanie Rouse (13:30):
Yeah, that seemed to be a real turning
point in the fight to stop thebad version of the developments
and kind of reinforce having thepublic involved in the process
early on.
Steven Robinson (13:42):
Yeah, what happened was that after this,
judge Gammerman ruled in ourfavor and Television City was or
at that point Trump City wasdead in the water.
That's when he, through anintermediary, approached us
saying shown around, and whatright did people who don't own a
piece of property have to godesigning a master plan on 62
(14:11):
acres of Hudson River waterfront?
But we did.
What he needed at that time wasbecause of his financial
difficulties.
He had a non-performing loanwith Chase Manhattan Bank from
the acquisition.
So he needed to show Chase thathe could get a plan, no matter
what.
It was approved by the city andwith our plan.
(14:34):
That was certainly somethingthat was rational.
It was appropriate for thecommunity.
It showed a park as acontinuation of Riverside Park.
It had no regional shoppingmall, no 9,000 car garage, all
the buildings were set back onthe street grid and it was a
contextual development thateverybody knew the city would
(14:54):
approve more or less?
So that's why he came to us toadopt what we call the civic
alternative as his plan to getapproved, so that he could get
out of financial trouble withhis lender and within a year of
the approval he sold theproperty.
He never intended to build,what we had proposed.
Jennifer Hiatt (15:16):
So, and as we're discussing regulations like the
Freedom of Information Act orpublic records requests, even
some of the environmental reviewprocess that you guys were able
to utilize, west Pride was oneof the early groups that
benefited from such legislation,as it was new kind of at the
time and I personally thoughtyou guys wielded them
masterfully.
But now the same tactics arebeing used by NIMBY groups
(15:39):
across the country.
So how would you draw the fineline between advocating against
bad development and inauthenticcity action and supporting your
community versus advocatingagainst any kind of development
altogether?
Steven Robinson (15:53):
I think that goes to the question of the
organic nature of cities andtowns and villages across the
country.
The ones that are growing havea choice.
They can either grow in wayswhich support the character of
the community and are healthyfor the community, both
(16:15):
culturally and environmentallyand there are real estate
developers around the countrywho do that or when a proposal
is made and residents who knowtheir community better than
anyone else get a sense thatthis could be damaging in some
way either damagingenvironmentally or damaging
(16:36):
culturally, or in scale orproportion, or in land use then
that is the trigger that Ibelieve can stimulate an
opposition to a proposal.
Not necessarily kill itcompletely, but get your voice
heard so that a inappropriatedevelopment can be either
(16:57):
rejected or modified so that itworks to the benefit of the
developer, who can still makemoney on it, and the residents
of the community who can feelthat it's a positive
contribution to the way in whichthey live in their city, their
neighborhood, their town.
Stephanie Rouse (17:15):
You know, I think one important distinction
too is a lot of times the fightis we don't want this at all.
Like this, developmentshouldn't happen, period, there
should be nothing here Versus.
In this instance, it wasn'tabout saying no altogether to
the development.
It was pulling the developmentscale back and ensuring that
uses that were put into thesebuildings were really what would
support the neighborhood andhelp it thrive, versus just
(17:37):
dropping in a massivedevelopment that was walled off
from the rest of the community.
It was really intending to makeit a better development for the
area.
Steven Robinson (17:45):
For us it was really about two primary
intentions One was land use andthe other was the city's process
.
In terms of land use, anydevelopment that would have
privatized a half a mile ofHudson River waterfront and
walled itself off from thecommunity was totally
(18:06):
unacceptable.
So, in terms of land use, thatproposal, we had to not modify
it.
But we had to eliminate itbecause we did not believe that
if it went through a city reviewprocess it would be
significantly modified, whichgets to the second point, which
is the city review process,which is very often controlled
(18:31):
by political elected officialswho are often dependent on
financial contributions fromlarge real estate developers.
So there's a link there andwhat we realized we had to do
was to somehow break that linkso that the decision making
(18:51):
process could be based on whatis best land use for the
developer, for the community andfor the environment.
Stephanie Rouse (19:02):
And the advocacy efforts evolved over
time with this developmentprocess and you mentioned
already how you ended up teamingup with the developer to help
with the building design in theend.
You mentioned in the book thatnewspapers were citing this as a
new approach to design, notnecessarily just in New York
City, but kind of in your workin general.
Have you seen the way thatadvocates work to fight bad
(19:24):
development change as a result?
Steven Robinson (19:26):
What I have seen occasionally is that a
developer primarily whoseinterests are highest and best
use will occasionally come to acommunity board or come to a
neighborhood association andmake a presentation, request
input and sometimes take thatadvice and modify a development
(19:50):
proposal.
That I think is a very healthyprocess.
Don't see it that often.
You asked you know about what'shappening in New York now or
recently, and when I look at thesuper tolls south of Central
Park and when I look at HudsonYards and I look at some of the
(20:10):
development, the towers that aregoing up in Brooklyn and Long
Island City, it's just obviousto me that there is no
conversation going on at all,that developers are just really
having their way with the landthat they own.
Jennifer Hiatt (20:26):
So you mentioned that your group did eventually
propose development, West Prideand eventually the civics
transitioned from purely anopposition group to trying to
protect the community fromTelevision City into a full
advocacy group.
Originally you were againstproposing or maybe not against
is the right word, but OK,against proposing your own form
(20:51):
of development.
So A?
How did your mindset shift andhow did that ultimately?
How did the transformation fromworking to try and kill a
project into proposing a newproject on, as you said, land
you don't own?
How did that transformationprocess occur?
Steven Robinson (21:15):
process occur.
I believed for years duringthis this was my pro bono life
and I believed during theseyears that the environmental and
contextual neighborhoodproblems impacts, negative
impacts that we were uncoveringand quantifying and presenting
to the city would require thecity to either reject or
drastically modify this proposal.
(21:36):
I thought we were on a winningtrack.
I didn't want to put up atarget, I didn't want to design
an alternative scheme for thesite that would detract
attention from the fight againstwhat the city was considering.
That was my perspective.
I was clearly wrong because thecivic alternative which,
(22:00):
interestingly enough, we hadhired an environmental
consultant, an engineer namedDan Gutman, and Dan was doing
research on the history of thepenyards AFT became abandoned,
was doing research on thehistory of the penyards AFT,
became abandoned and what hefound was that there had been a
proposal to take the West SideHighway and demolish it, because
it's an elevated highway thatgoes across the property from
(22:22):
north to south.
Demolish the elevated, put itunderground the way it was done
in Riverside Park just to thenorth, and then build a park
over it and then you could havea continuation of Riverside Park
along the Hudson and you couldmove development back toward
into the street grid.
And he discovered that this hadbeen a prior proposal, one, in
(22:45):
fact, which Trump had supportedin 1974.
So he said why not do this now?
Why not do this again?
And he came to us, and he wentto the Municipal Arts Society
and the Parks Council, theRegional Plan Association.
Everybody said this is a greatidea.
Let's generate some drawingsthat would indicate, that would
(23:05):
articulate, that wouldgraphically show what this
property could be Not onlygetting rid of the elevated
highway, but creating thispublic park and making it
accessible and reducing thescale of development.
So that was the birthing of thecivic alternative as a
competing design, if you will.
And when we showed it around tovarious city officials and
(23:28):
state officials, everyone to aperson said this is great, this
makes a lot of sense, but thecity is currently reviewing a
developer's proposal, so wecannot publicly support it.
The only one who publiclysupported it was Ruth Messinger,
who was borough president atthe time, who is a very
brilliant and gutsy woman.
(23:50):
Yeah, no, but it was out therein the public.
Half a page illustration wasshown in the New York Times with
a very supportive article byPaul Goldberger, who was the
architectural critic at thetimes.
So it was out there and Ibecame a convert.
You know I said this makes alot of sense.
Jennifer Hiatt (24:07):
Yeah, that was a really brave action to just
stick it out there withouttalking to anybody.
Who just got put in thenewspaper big area and you guys
were like here's a proposal.
Steven Robinson (24:17):
It was because it was consistent with their
agendas, it was consistent withtheir history, it was consistent
with their values.
You know whether it was theParks Council, municipal Arts
(24:37):
Society, the Natural ResourcesDefense Council, you know this
enormous, powerful, nationwideenvironmental group.
It was consistent with each oftheir intentions and concerns,
and so they said let's getbehind this, because this
represents who we are and whatwe do.
Stephanie Rouse (24:56):
With all that support, I was so surprised that
in the end, the bridge stayed,that the highway didn't get
relocated and brought down tograde which is so common
nowadays that projects are doingthat and it just didn't succeed
there.
Steven Robinson (25:10):
Yeah, it's happening all across the country
and it has been and it washappening 40 years ago across
the country.
Richard Kahn, who was thepresident of Riverside South
Planning Corporation, andmembers of the board were going
to Albany and Washington andfighting for the money to do
this, and they were gainingsupport Allocations were made to
move the highway and put itunderground.
(25:30):
Support allocations were madeto move the highway and put it
underground.
The reason that it didn'thappen was that there at the
time, and still CongressmanJerry Nadler of the Upper West
Side he had a personal animositytoward Donald Trump and Trump
had an animosity toward him, andthe two of them made it a
public argument with these twopersonalities.
(25:51):
And there was a bill inCongress to support the
relocation of the highway.
And what Nadler thought wasthat with the highway in place,
with that elevated highway, anyreal estate development that was
east of it would have much moredifficult time selling the
apartments because there was ahighway in front of it, and so
(26:13):
what he thought was to spite.
Trump opposed the bill inCongress and the congressional
committee felt that they couldnot approve this allocation.
With the antagonism of thelocal representative, nadler
killed the bill.
The highway remained in place.
It didn't have any impact onthe success of the eventual
(26:36):
development.
All it did was prevent thepeople of New York from getting
a world-class park.
Because although the riverfrontpart of the park is wonderful
and heavily used, you knowthere's still a highway going
over it, spewing air pollutionand noise and shade on the park.
There is a partial tunnel builtunder the eastern edge of the
(26:58):
park and someday it is possiblethat when it comes time to do a
structural rehabilitation ofthat elevated highway, which
will probably happen in the next10, 15 years, maybe someone
will remember that it's possibleto relocate it at the same cost
.
Stephanie Rouse (27:15):
So we've talked about one of the keys to this
process was having a seat at thetable with the city while
discussions were making place.
How was this made possible, andhow can other residents or
advocacy groups replicate thisin their own communities?
Steven Robinson (27:29):
Well, as I mentioned, it was our historic
dialogue with Community Board 7that enabled us at that time to
get the seat at the table,because CB7 was a
quasi-governmental agency thathad regular meetings with the
city on this project because itwas in their jurisdiction and
they were the ones who invitedus to join.
So I think, in terms ofreplicating the opportunity to
(27:53):
get a seat at the table, itrequires advocates to go to the
city government and, in whateverway possible, to convince the
city government that residentsneed a seat at the table when a
real estate development is beingconsidered by city staff.
I think a lot of people arereluctant to deal with elected
(28:16):
officials and city staff.
It's always, you know,considered a burden when you
have to go to city hall to dealwith your local government, but
I think that's the only way,because it is the city
government that has theauthority to make decisions
about real estate development.
Jennifer Hiatt (28:34):
Stephanie and I both work for the city of
Lincoln, Nebraska.
We are city government people.
We are aware that everyonethinks it's a burden to come
talk to us Right?
Steven Robinson (28:44):
We're deeply aware of that Maybe it's
incumbent upon city governmentsto be proactive and make an
opportunity available forresidents to participate in real
estate reviews.
The developers will hate it,but I think that that's the only
way I know of, because foradvocates to feel opposition to
(29:06):
a proposal and just throwingrocks from the outside doesn't
usually work.
Jennifer Hiatt (29:12):
No, and it elongates the process too,
because we're just we have justhave people throwing rocks at
something and that just delaysthe process where if we could
maybe move public input up tothe start and have input along
the way, then we could build abetter project at the end in
less time than having someoneshow up at a city council
(29:33):
hearing and being like we hatethis and then city council
asking the developer to startall over again.
Steven Robinson (29:38):
That's exactly right, Well put.
I think that the developersneed to be educated so that the
advantages that you justmentioned having a shorter
review time, having a projectthat is healthy for the
community, which is embraced bythe residents or, if not
(29:59):
embraced, at least accepted, youknow, as something reasonable
the inherent opposition betweena lot of developers and a lot of
residents would be greatlyreduced.
Stephanie Rouse (30:13):
So what recommendations would you give
to cities who are reconsideringtheir review processes?
What would have been helpful asa Westside advocate for the
community when you were goingthrough this process.
Steven Robinson (30:24):
Well, I think the process that Jennifer just
described would be ideal, havethe process be participatory for
residents from the verybeginning and throughout, and it
would mean that cities wouldhave to re-examine their
development review process withan eye toward generating
(30:46):
healthier projects for theircommunity with public input and
developer participation.
I think that all of thisconversation and activism and
advocacy is rooted in thedistinction between short-term
benefit and long-term benefit.
It is in the nature of thegrowth of cities for real estate
(31:11):
development to see theshort-term benefit of financial
gain.
It is in the interests of thecommunity at large, as an
organic entity, to look atlong-term benefits to the
community and to the environment.
Jennifer Hiatt (31:27):
So always our last question, as this is Booked
on Planning what books wouldyou recommend readers check out?
Because of course, we recommendour readers check out your book
, but what books would you givethem?
Steven Robinson (31:53):
people often misunderstand Jane Jacobs.
She was not advocating, as youknow, that every place have the
characteristics of her GreenwichVillage neighborhood.
She was advocating for peopleto pay attention to the
characteristics of what makestheir communities pleasant and
livable and healthy and fightfor those, wherever you are.
The second is a book by RobertaBrandes-Gratz.
(32:14):
It's called the Living City andRoberta was and is continues to
be.
She was obviously part of WestPride and a neighbor and
colleague of mine, but Robertais a protege of Jane Jacobs and
was a dear friend.
The Living City is a terrificbook.
The next one is a book calledthe Well-Tempered City by
(32:36):
Jonathan FP Rose, and Jonathanis a friend and he is probably
the most active real estatedeveloper in the country in
building green developer in thecountry in building green,
affordable housing and he's doneit in many cities and he sees
all of the social andenvironmental advantages of
(32:59):
building sustainable, affordableresidential units with lots of
social services often included,such as daycare centers.
So his book, the Well-TemperedCity, I would recommend.
You may remember the Westwayproposal along the Hudson River
in Manhattan.
It would have rebuilt the WestSide Highway from the Battery up
(33:21):
to 59th Street and it wouldhave created some park and open
space along the river.
It would have also created anenormous amount of development
opportunity.
And there's a book calledFighting Westway by William
Busby.
It's just an excellent taleabout how, for 14 years,
community and environmentalactivists fought the city, the
(33:43):
state, the federal governmentand prevailed.
And then there's a book calledChanging Places by Richard Moe
and Carter Wilkie that Irecommend.
Those are the ones that came tomind pretty quickly.
Stephanie Rouse (33:57):
All sound like great books to check out for not
only me but also our listeners.
There's a few in there that Ithink I'm adding to my list as
well, but, Devin, it's been agreat conversation.
Really appreciate you joiningus today to talk about Turf War,
how a Band of Activists SavedNew York from Donald Trump's
Masterpiece.
Steven Robinson (34:15):
Thank you.
Jennifer Hiatt (34:17):
We hope you enjoyed this conversation with
Steven Robinson about his bookTurf War how a Band of Activists
Saved New York from DonaldTrump's Masterpiece.
You can get your own copythrough the publisher or click
the link in the show notes totake you directly to our
affiliate page.
Remember to subscribe to theshow wherever you listen to
podcasts and please rate, reviewand share the show.
Thank you for listening andwe'll talk to you next time on
(34:37):
Booked on Planning.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.