5/4/2009 3:18:25 PM

Your NYT reviewer says "the changes needed may seem extravagant, but they are not impossible" and then cites the New Deal .... Why are so many folks so in love with the new deal?

It accomplished exactly NONE of the "rethinking American cities" that the author calls for.

Parks? Yes. Roads and Bridges? Absolutely.

Remaking the American city? Not even a little.

NYC still has no alleys (so the trash piles up). Even today, Sarkozy's "Greater Paris" plan has no room for anything but minor adjustments and new development.... I'd say wholesale destruction is the only way we've gotten the types of revolutionary changes in cities that Ouroussoff suggests (e.g. - Chicago circa 1871).

The real opportunity for this type of wholesale destruction lies in cities like Detroit (where entire neighborhoods are reverting back to nature and the city is literally crumbling). NO CHANCE of making much progress in cities that are still functioning.

BigTime

7/9/2009 3:02:53 PM

Progress is what every locality is aiming for. And cityhood is a general proof that a particular area has progressed a lot. But this set-up will always be the basis of every area of how their community evolves. Knowing the demand of a city, tremendous effort should be done by the administration to still control the unstoppable growth of everything like (violence, pollution, traffic etc…). Look at the pros and cons before the action and let the public know...

Receptionist