The morning was reserved for the "authors" of the plan, who gave Power Point presentations on the goals of PlaNYC, its various elements (parks, transportation, water, housing), and some inspirations for moving forward with the plan. What came across as the strongest point to me was that the plan is predicated on growth, specifically the addition of one million more people by 2030. While this point has been apparent since day one, a questioning of that growth -- and the basing of a sustainable plan around growth, as opposed to sustainability for its own sake and for quality of life -- was what I took from the discussion. Given the short time left in the current administration, and the longterm nature of PlaNYC, one must wonder what will be its future if it is seen that the population does not grow by one million, or in fact shrinks over that same projected time?
The explicit statement that all the elements of the plan follow from the growth premise is equally unsettling, as if to say that parks and housing cannot follow from anything but growth and that current residents aren't considerations. To think that approximately 85% of the context for the plan currently exists, what happens to this physical and social context is not clear. It's as if adding parks and housing will solve the problem, which the mayor is defining as dealing with an influx of one million people, a population yet to be defined in any way.
The afternoon session was a response to the morning presentation, comprised of academics and leaders of community organizations. The short talks were primarily critical of the plan, from its ignorance of the city's typical democratic, decision-making process to its lack of creativity, and learning from other cities, in dealing with transportation issues. The only non-New Yorker of the bunch, sociologist Richard Sennett, questioned the ability of a sustainable plan towards problems of social inequality and isolation, two traits he finds in global cities today.
Unfortunately members of the audience did not follow Michael Sorkin's plea for succinct questions directed at particular members of the panel; instead individuals used the opportunity as a platform for their own ramblings on issues sometimes only marginally related to the topic at hand, or even to hurl insults. It was unfortunate, as the preceding presentations -- both by city officials and "rebukers" -- were informative and varied in their points of view, enabling those in audience to come away with not only a new way of thinking about things, but a sense of how to deal with what the future brings as the plan is adopted and implemented.