[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
oastal zone r Information Center P IC RTICI I N IN GIO-A.. L ANNING, I t-L 0)=AL 0 L HT 167 S36 t PA PAT 0 RE NA PL 1967 Ul ter. [email protected] Dutchess sullivan- @j @71 "i 'E Orange p @b_ utnaml 0 -N Haven ew Fairfield U slchester Sussex Rockla id -P > assaic -Ilk V, i Bergen _Aj .3 -4v War Morris I Suffolk Es sex IV, ueens 11 oq Q- '@4 Nassau NEWAYORK. crry Union Kings., Hunterdon R [email protected] Somerset Alidd rese.:x Afercer Monmouth Ocean 0 VH Nas,, Regional Plan Association is a nonprofit citizen or- ganization which has been working since 1929 for the efficient and attractive development of the Metro- politan Region surrounding the Port of New York and for expanding opportunities for all its residents. The Study Area, shown at the left, is the geographic context of the Association's current work on a Sec- ond Regional Plan, a successor to the pioneering Plan of New York and its Environs of the 1920's. The Study Area is deliberately drawn larger than would be required to accommodate the most extensive of several development patterns being evaluated for the year 2000, the time horizon of the new plan. The area includes 31 counties in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut with a population in 1965 of 19 million and a land area of 12,748 square miles. ic ic A u-tO A REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTA,' @,EpmCES CENTER 2234 SC)uIti @,(jESON AVENUE g- C-1-T CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413 IF This report was written by S William B. Shore and edited 1 22 by John P. Keith. A REPORT OF THE SECOND REGIONAL PLAN OCTOBER, 1967 r z ff t PAR'i' IPAT 0 11v -D IT -%T 1 14 -tAXj L P1 ANiN I Property of CSC LibraZT Regional Plan Association BOARD OF DIRECTORS STAFF Chairman President *MAX ABRAMOVITZ C. McKIM NORTON President Executive Vice President *C. McKIM NORTON JOHN P. KEITH Treasurer Associate Director *JOHN W. LARSEN HEMAN B. AVERILL H. Mat Adams Area Director ERNEST ERBER *Malcolm Andresen Information Director Cowles Andrus WILLIAM B. SHORE Robert A. Baker Deputy Information Director SHELDON POLLACK Proctor H. Barnett Executive Assistant *Walter D. Binger PEARL H. HACK Charles F. Bound Planning Staff James Felt Planning Director Paul H. Folwell STANLEY B. TANKEL Economic Consultant William C. Greenough DICK NETZER Mason W. Gross Chief Planner *Luther Gulick BORIS PUSHKAREV Chief Economist *Willard G. Hampton EMANUEL TOBIER Edward A. Jesser, Jr. Urban Design Consultant William Kirk RAI Y. OKAMOTO Robert D. Lilley Clifford L. Lord Regina B. Armstrong, Senior Economist @Otto W. Manz, Jr. Robert H. Jones, Senior Economist Albert W. Merck Susan S. Stevens, Economics Assistant *Harold S. Osborne Arthur Letter, Planning Assistant Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr. Shirley Sherak, Planning Assistant Donald C. Platten Ronald Greenwald, Senior Planner Alfred Rheinstein David A. Johnson, Senior Planner George A. Roeder, Jr. William G. Andersen, Jr., Planner Elmo Roper Richard T. Anderson, Planner Philip Israel, Planner *Wallace S. Sayre Louis B. Schlivek, Field Consultant Orville H. Schell, Jr. Gustavo M. Porta, Cartographer *James S. Schoff Edward C. Chase, Planning Assistant William G. Sharwell Richard F. Schasberger, Planning Assistant Perry Coke Smith Janice M. Stewart, Librarian Harry Van Arsdale, Jr. F. Carlisle Towery, Urban Designer Milford A. Vieser Frank E. Williams, Urban Designer Thomas R. Wilcox Barbara Towery, Senior Graphic Designer John Wilkie Caroline Jewett, Graphic Designer Library of Congress Catalog Number A38358 Howard H. Williams, III Paul Windels, Jr. Production for this publication Bulletin 106 David L. Yunich Design: Barbara Towery Copyright C) Regional Plan Association, Inc. 230 West 41st Street *,member of Executive Committee Maps: Gustavo Portal New York, New York 10036 1967 4 FOREWORD The spark which ignited the public consultation year 2000; it will be a basis for judging the long-term process described in this report was a suggestion by validity of current decisions. a distinguished advisory committee to the Harvard The Plan will include proposed locations for major economic studies (described below) at its final meeting regional activities (e.g., factory and office jobs, higher on June 30, 1959. education, major shopping, the arts), a network of The Committee recommended that Regional Plan regional transportation, standards of public services take all its findings to a broader public than the Asso- (e.g., education and welfare) particularly for the older ciation had ever before reached, including use of edu- cities, principles of urban design and amenity, and cational television. ways of preventing the pollution and waste of the This concept was pressed forward by Amory H. Brad- Region's natural resources. ford, then Chairman of Regional Plan, and John P. The first Regional Plan. Regional Plan of New York Keith, Executive Vice President. The ensuing "Goals and Its Environs, was financed by Russell Sage for the Region" project was developed by Regional Foundation in 1922 and published by Regional Plan Plan's staff and Telic, Inc., under the leadership of Association in two volumes (1929 and 1931) after the William B. Shore, RPA Information Director, with completion of ten research reports. It was the first Louis B. Schlivek, author of Man in Metropolis. It metropolitan plan in the world. This civic effort was broadened the program from just dissemination of a landmark in its advancement of the art and science findings to include consultation with organized groups of urban planning and in the beneficial impact it was of television viewers and other publics. to have on the development of the New York Region. This report describes the pioneering public partici- Regional Plan Association, an unofficial citizens pation process which is playing an important role in group organized in 1929 to foster and develop the first shaping the Second Regional Plan. Regional Plan, has continued to pursue the goal of im- Preparation of the Second Regional Plan began with proving the lives of the people of the tri-state Region basic projections of the Region's future prepared for surrounding the Port of New York. the Association by the Harvard Graduate School of Most of the broad development policies of the first Public Administration (published in ten volumes be- Regional Plan, such as the expressway and river cross- tween 1959 and 1961). The Association staff added an ing system, most of the local planning standards and analysis of prospective land use and its implications in many specific regional park and other projects, have Spread City (1962). been carried out. All of these projections were translated into a sketch Second Plan research is being financed by the of what living conditions might be like if present Avalon, Ford, Old Dominion, Rockefeller Brothers and policies and trends continued. This was discussed with Taconic foundations. Other stages of Association work many groups, as described in this report, including leading to the Plan were also financed by these founda- some 5,600 persons in the Goals for the Region Project tions and the Merrill, New York, Twentieth Century (1963). The public response programs demonstrated and Victoria foundations. serious citizen dissatisfaction with the prospects which In the decade 1957-67 during which this work was the uncoordinated decisions of thousands of individuals conducted, the Association was led by Harold S. Os- and organizations appeared to be bringing. borne, Amory H. Bradford, James S. Schoff and Max The Second Regional Plan is a response to the Abramovitz. Each has contributed significantly to the problems identified in these earlier projections. The making of the Second Regional Plan. Plan will propose directions toward which development This publication has been reviewed and accepted by should be guided and will set out a strategy for chang- Regional Plan's Executive Committee for transmittal ing the unplanned trends toward patterns better suited to the Committee on the Second Regional Plan and the to the Region. It will not be a rigid blueprint for the public. C. McKim Norton President 5 Grammatical note: This publication does not follow the American style of making collective nouns singular. It is clumsy and too often sounds wrong. The frequent use of such collective nouns as the majority, one-third, 35 percent would make the clumsiness intolerable. So, in what follows, the majority are -not is. CONTENTS FOREWORD 5 Part 1. THE PUBLIC'S ROLE IN REGIONAL PLANNING 1. The Search for Planning Goals 11 2. The Place of Public Participation in Planning 12 Finding out what people want The decisions to be considered Evaluating responses 3. The Publics to be Consulted 17 Civic leaders (volunteers) Non-volunteer middle class The poor Representatives of major institutions Experts in planning-related fields 4. Conclusions 19 Part II. CONSULTING THE PUBLIC ON THE SECOND REGIONAL PLAN 5. The Goals Project Process and -Participants 23 The process The participants The information presented 6. What We Learned from the Goals Project 29 General concern about current trends Centers and public transportation Desegregating the poor Residential density Open space Quality of the environment Brief conclusion 7. Detailed Replies of Goals Project Participants 33 Location of jobs and regional activities Transportation Older cities and the Region Housing space Types of multi-family housing What do these preferences imply? Other neighborhood characteristics Other environmental characteristics Open space and outdoor recreation General appearance and amenity Relations with local governments Shifts in public powers The Hunts Point Project S. Failures and Hopes 64 Committee on the Second Regional Plan Further public consultation APPENDIX 1. Organizations invited to participate in the Goals for the Region Project 65 2. Committee on The Second Regional Plan 69 LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS 72 ... The future environment offers many big choices for public decision that will affect our whole way of life. But it is not the kind of choice available in a supermarket: selecting this or that item from among many independent products, according to personal taste at the moment. Our environment comes in enormous and expensive packages today, with the contents prede- termined and very difficult to exchange for something one might like better. The only way to affect it is by influencing the big decisions that produce the package. To do that it is necessary not only to know what we want but also to understand the possibilities and limitations of the production process, and how the various elements in the package fit together. Fortunately it is not the citizen-consumer's responsibility to acquire and apply this knowledge entirely on his own. Politicians, experts, critics, civic leaders, the press, all have important roles in translating the complexities of the physical environment into understandable terms and choices, a role which they have been fulfilling more and more in recent years. And iiplanning" in a democratic society is primarily a means of propos4ng and explaining possible future packages for public acceptance, rejection or modification. Mrs. Catherine Bauer Wurster, "Framework for an Urban Society" in Goals for Americans, The Report of the President's Commission on National Goals, November 16, 1960 THE PUBLICS ROLE IN REGIONAL PLANNING THE SEARCH FOR PLANNING GOALS Footloose describes our era. -the degree of sociability and sense of community The factory is freed from its sources of raw materials, (and therefore social restraint) we shall have; from rivers and railroads. The worker need not be -the political and social friction likely; within walking distance of his job as a century ago nor -the variety in types of people, topography and struc- even within walking distance of subway, railroad or tures with which we shall have contact; street railway as sixty years ago. Recreation areas for -the over-all appearance and feel of our environment. day-long trips can be anywhere in the metropolitan We might, perhaps, agree on a few "objective" goals: region-and most will be crowded on nice days wher- for example, a sense of community for most residents; ever they are. a physically and mentally healthy environment; a place Fast-changing also describes our era. that offers wide opportunities and choice, where some The bulldozer can turn a slum into a desert in a few can find backwaters while others are stimulated; an days. Landscapists can turn it into a park shortly arrangement whereby man can live in concert with after-or construction workers into houses or offices. nature, not in conflict. But we will find that such goals, Nor does it take long for residents to turn a nice even if unanimously approved, offer little guidance neighborhood into a slum. when decisions are to be made. All too frequently they Fantastically productive also describes it. are incompatible, and someone must choose among Our economy now produces three times as much as them. in the booming years of the '20's (measured by the same Nor do the standard books on "a good metropolis" dollar), and production of goods and services per capita off er dependable guidance. How could the planner leaps by about one-fourth each decade. choose among them? Is Frank Lloyd Wright's Broad- The planner, accordingly, is increasingly freer of acre City better than Jane Jacobs' Greenwich Village economic and transportation limitations. Many loca- or Corbusier's Ville Radieuse or F. J. Osborn's garden tions are about equally efficient for production and city or Lewis Munford's good metropolis? None gives distribution of goods and services-and with our in- a rationale on which to base a choice among them. ___ Then where should a planner find guidance? In-) creasing wealth, other values more often than before I challenge efficient production and distribution as im- creasingly, he is learning to use the values people ex- I portant criteria. press in their [email protected][email protected]@@ and mathematical m6-d-els, for example, the choices With basic economic necessities of diminishing im- people make today of transportation mode, type of portance in regional planning, issues more related to housing, willingness to pay to save travel time, and personal taste come to the fore, and planners have other conditions can be translated into predictions of become sensitive to the possibility that the choices what people would choose in alternative situations in they would make for a metropolitan area may not be the future. Present behavior seems a more certain the same as others would make. indication of future choice about some conditions than These planning decisions are important. How we response to direct hypothetical questions. build a community and a metropolitan area will shape But a plan which simply projects today's choices into the way we live in it: the future will miss the opportunity to offer far better -the degree of choice of jobs, goods, services, educa- choices. A truly imaginative regional plan requires tion, entertainment, mode of travel, friends and something more than present behavior as a guide to culture; what people will want. -the amount of time we can spend on each and the The search for that additional guidance is the sub- amount of time we probably will spend on each; ject of this report. 11 2. THE PLACE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING The political scientist and confirmed democrat in- cumferential arteries (around the center) because these stinctively probes a decision-making process to see trips are difficult to serve by public transportation. whether, how and where the people who are affected Regional Plan has applied this long-range view in a can influence the decisions. The policies that shape a recent debate to support priority for the proposed metropolitan area usually are subject to the ordinary Cross-Brooklyn Expressway (circumferential) over a democratic process. Either the public official at one proposed Bushwick Expressway (radial). level of government or another makes the decision, The 1960 Regional Plan Association park and open- subject to the existing machinery of public responsi- space report bility; or a corporation executive makes it, subject to *set standards for local and county park acquisi- the discipline of competition, public regulation, or the tion, perpetual threat of public regulation should his be- 9identified places particularly valuable for state havior require it. At this stage, then-when highways and federal parks, are approved, office buildings sited, university cam- *proposed new legal techniques that would allow puses constructed, urban renewal funds voted, etc.-at builders to be more respectful of natural features least theoretically, the public has its say. and conservation, and But there are two parts to regional planning: con- *set out a broad principle that all remaining open structing a long-range comprehensive plan and trans- oceanfront should be publicly owned and the lating it into specific projects or advice on projects. Appalachians should remain a green backdrop And there is no formal public participation in the for the Eastern Seaboard. first stage, as the long-range plan evolves. This might Specific projects based on the long-range plan have not matter, since nothing tangible happens until the been second stage, when projects are actually initiated with- *the acquisition of Breezy Point beach in Queens, in the democratic process. But the long-range plan is Sandy Hook in New Jersey, Fire Island National rapidly increasing its influence in the debate on the Seashore, Delaware Water Gap National Recrea- projects themselves, and seldom are the premises of tion Area, and several New Jersey State parks, the plan questioned then. ofive large state bond issues for state and local The relationship of the conceptions in a long-range parks, regional plan to the shaping of a metropolitan area can *several county programs to meet Regional be illustrated with (1) the first Regional Plan of New Plan's [email protected] standards for that area, and York and Its Environs, (2) some ideas taking shape othe organization of the Open Space Action Com- for the Second Regional Plan, and (3) a 1960 park and mittee to encourage conservation and keep open open space plan. key tracts in the face of swift development. The first Regional Plan proposed a system of radial Regional plans are gaining influence perhaps be- and circumferential highways. cause the increased dissatisfaction with an unplanned On the basis of this over-all conception, the location region has created a presumption of wisdom in a re- of the George Washington Bridge, originally proposed gional plan. More important, the federal government to be at 57th Street, was changed to 179th Street. Most now requires a regional planning process before of the other pieces of the network have, one by one, grants-in-aid are made for highway construction, pub- been placed in relation to each other. lic transportation, parks and other urban facilities. One of the ideas taking shape for the Second Re- This seems likely to invest the regional plan with the gional Plan is that the anticipated growth in radial power of giving or withholding federal grants. But movements toward the center of the Region should be whether the plan carries the power of federal funds or handled by public transportation; on the other hand, merely of public receptivity of regional planning, rec- many sectors of the Region should have improved cir- ommendations based on a regional plan are felt to be 12 authoritative, yet the plan has not filtered through any moving out of older cities. Why? Poor schools, fear democratic process. Therefore, public participation at of physical harm or theft, social status, air pollution, that stage seems advisable. more indoor space for the money, or more private out- We can illustrate the value of public participation in door space? long-range planning with two examples: By asking those moving onto large lots and those Had a complete expressway plan for the San Fran- leaving the cities, we can increase our understanding cisco area been projected and widely considered, it is somewhat, but we would then only know their cons- conceivable that the Embarcadero Freeway, which has cious reasons for their current choice, not what they been halted halfway by public protest, would never would have chosen had they known all the alternatives have been begun or would have been designed to be that could have been available. acceptable. One could try to convey some alternatives in word, Had the early conception of urban renewal been set film or photograph, but many people would find it hard out more comprehensively and discussed with the to imagine the effect on them. Furthermore, people whole gamut of social and economic groups, we might vary considerably in their ability to imagine what they have recognized that there were other values of im- have not experienced or seen, so that a polling tech- portance in addition to and often superior to a clean nique applied to all in the same way would not produce apartment with a bathroom of its own. As it was, we comparable replies from different types of people. did not hear the grumbling of those assumed to benefit Furthermore, a great deal of information must be until several years had passed, many neighborhoods included in presenting alternatives to assure that the had been tossed aside and a few hundred thousand full implications of each choice are considered. For persons were housed less well than they might have example, one question might ask whether the respon- been. dent prefers a house on a large lot. The obvious attrac- All of this, we think, explains the role of public re- tiveness of this choice could be conveyed in pictures. sponse machinery in regional (metropolitan) planning. But it would take words-and a fairly large number It doesn't substitute for the usual democratic process of them-to get across all the effects on living con- when decisions on actual projects are made. It raises ditions of even a single neighborhood of houses on for conscious attention the basic values to be consid- large lots and more words and pictures to convey the ered when the long-range plan is evolved because the effects of uniform large lots covering an area for miles plan will carry special weight when projects are around. Even then, the issue is only partly laid out. considered. In addition to convenience, "feel" and aesthetics, there are costs to be considered. And in addition to costs, Finding out what people want cost allocations. For example, if the highway and road F_ To find out what people want in a regional plan, we network needed to serve housing on one-acre lots can ask them, we can infer it from their behavior as would be more expensive than that needed to serve the noted, and we can extrapolate from psychological tests. same number of families on smaller lots, who should None of these ways is very satisfactory by itself. pay the extra costs? For example: Many of the questions, in fact, relate more to public Because average lot size of new subdivisions has policy than to private preference, and one's preference been increasing swiftly, we might infer that people for a particular pattern of development usually will prefer large lots to small. But the cause could have be affected by the public policies needed to attain been the fiscal pressures on municipalities, which local that pattern. For example, we might determine by sur- governments tried to thwart through large-lot zoning, vey that families are reluctantly moving from the older rather than a considered choice by the home buyer. cities because of the concentration of poor people White middle-income families with children are there, with the attendant difficulties of schools in 13 coping with children from the poverty subculture. 1. The future of the Region was projected, assuming But whether people will want this condition changed that present policies and trends would continue-in will depend on what public policies are needed to other words, the Region we would have without a re- changethem. gional plan. Then the problems that seemed likely to That personal choices are not simply a matter of result were identified. (Spread City, 1962.) readily discernible tastes but are a conglomerate of 2. This projection and set of possible problems were public decisions and private preferences is illustrated presented to as wide a public as possible. Is this the in this observation by a French geographer very con- kind of regional environment they would want? Are versant with American planning: the problems worth worrying about? Are they bad Young couples in the middle-income brack- enough to warrant strong effort to turn present pros- ets with children prefer to move out to pective trends toward a more satisfactory metropolitan suburbia and even exurbia in the United pattern? States; they prefer to stick to the center of 3. When the responses from random groups indicated large cities in France; they prefer peripheral that the problems seemed serious to nearly all respon- locations in England.... As one studies the dents, a basic alternative pattern was sketched which differences in modes of suburban transporta- seemed likely to meet most of the problems. Some tion, in credit for and taxation on housing, rough ideas of steps that would be needed to achieve and the availability of it, in Greater London the alternative also were suggested. Then, in a Goals and Greater Paris, one realizes that the for the Region project, described in Part II, the Asso- "fashions" of suburbanization in the former ciation tried to test all of this more systematically on a and clinging to the central nucleus in the wider audience. At each stage, the discussion with latter are essentially dictated by sordid eco- various groups resulted in the modification of some of nomics and very little the result of "patterns the ideas. I--- of culture."I National policies of credit and tax- 4. Finally, a long-range plan is being developed, con- C _1 , ation on one hand, the organization of the met- stantly checked by various groups and adjusted to 1ropolitan transportation network on the other, their comments. In other words, the public is asked to respond to a are essential controls anywhere of the existing pattern of land use and housing distribution.* whole planning package, not simply to market research questions dealing with segments of issues which really So, merely asking people why they made the choices cannot be segmented (though a few questions of here- they did and what they might have done if they had and-now preferences and satisfactions were included had certain described alternatives is only a beginning. in the Goals project and proved useful). We need only recall the thought process through In choosing the questions themselves, we try to make which a couple chooses a house to see the way our the classic, distinction between technical questions, on minds must simplify complex issues for handling. which planners are expert, and value questions, on Aesthetics, transportation, social life, play area, chil- which everyone is equally expert and which never can dren's playmates, school quality, adequate living be settled with certainty. space, and many more are thrown together-not indi- vidually evaluated-in the comparison. How much more so must we try to simplify the elements both of The decisions to be considered what we want and what it will cost in money, time and In this process of planning and public consultation, human disruption when the choice is a regional pattern. the planner essentially asks the public: Does this make In regional planning, then, the kind of guidance from sense? But the public must be helped to see beneath public opinion that seemed to make sense to Regional the planner's analysis and recommendations. The key Plan Association was continuous response to the plan- to finding the right questions with which to challenge ners' research as it went along. In preparing a new the planner's recommendations seems to be the word plan for the New York metropolitan area, Regional "assumptions." Preceding any analysis and underlying Plan Association has followed this process: any proposal are a number of assumptions which nor- mally are not brought out and may not even be in the *Jean Gottmann, Economics, Esthetics, and Ethics in Modern Urbanization, New York: The planner's consciousness. The four planning steps Twentieth Century Fund, 1962. 14 which Regional Plan follows help to dig out the as- commuter rail service certainly will ease traffic jams sumptions behind the evolving plan: we make clear and probably prevent some deterioration in the func- what we assume to be problems or inadequacies like - tioning of the central business district, on which the to follow from pres we make whole regional economy rests. But another goal may be [email protected]_tdeveloDment chanzes we assume w6-uld- defeated by better rail service-encouraging those who !3ie_tfe_rsatFsjy_ _t [email protected] ic _wh_ _;_we_make_ work in the city to live in the city and take respon- thk, [email protected]@ IL __p111LL_and y @_fe_a_ri0i_af-p_ olicy changes w-ill be required to- achieve sibility for it. This kind of goal conflict should be faced th6_`d7evO176f3rfie_i Ct-cE @[email protected];[email protected],[email protected] consciously. t at ffi_es'[email protected]_would be acceptabl 'e'. Finally, the public should safeguard the planners V Vhen the plan deals with concrete proposals, the against inadvertently hurting or neglecting a particu word "assumptions" is an even more important tool. lar segment of the population. In one case, for example, a metropolitan freeway net- For example: work was proposed and all but accepted when one Most people favor the right of those living in a planning commission member asked a seemingly in- locality to determine its future, rather than having an significant question: "How fast do you figure people outside agency come in and do it. But the needs of will be able to travel during rush hour on this net- people who would live in that area if different plans work?" "About 35 miles per hour" was the reply. were made for it are not considered. Nearly all the "What would be the difference in the necessary high- added population in the Study Area of the Second Re- way system if rush hour drivers only travelled at 32 gional Plan, some 11 million people by 2000, will be miles an hour?" living on what is now vacant land-a majority in The difference was millions of dollars and a good municipalities now populated by relative handsful of deal less disruption. people. Probably under 2 million people have been Now, 35 miles per hour may have been the correct determining the residential pattern that could prevail assumption; but this is the kind of question the plan- for the added 11 million. We might conclude that the ning commission, i.e., the general public as opposed to people already there will have tastes in residential the expert planner, should determine. That particular design very similar to those who will be moving there, commission was led by the query on speed to question so the newcomers should be glad to have those already other assumptions-for example, that a person should there work out the residential pattern. But, in fact, the be able to live on one side of a large metropolis and newcomers and the present residents have different work on the opposite side and get to work in a reason- interests. In many municipalities, the first goal of the able time. Is this reasonable freedom of choice? And zoning ordinance is to keep out as many people as what is a reasonable time? possible, particularly families with school-age children Some of these questions can be answered (and prob- and most particularly low-income families. For this ably were answered by the planners) on the basis of reason, the over-all pattern of housing location, though people's behavior. How much money people typically not the neighborhood design, becomes a regional issue pay to save travel time arid how this price relates to and one on which the public of the whole region should the cost of building and operating the expressway speak. system for various speeds (including the cost of com- In our view, then, the function of public participation pensating for disruption) probably were considered in in regional planning is to uncover the assumptions lying preparing the design. But the ramifications of typical behind the planning recommendations in order to (1) travel behavior in a future highway network could well weigh the values in conflict and (2) identify forgotten give the public second thoughts about their choices, factors. The process is to inform the participants as and the public certainly should have a chance to ques- tion the basic assumptions as this planning commis- fully as possible about the issues, identifying the con- sion ultimately did. flicts in values as clearly as possible. Generally, this By uncovering these assumptions, the public can will take the form of projecting the prospective prob- choose among the inevitably conflicting goals. In the lems facing the region and the proposed solutions to highway network example, the choice was between those problems, including the price of the solutions not speed and cost-cum-disruption. There are more subtle only in money but in governmental policy changes, conflicts in regional planning, of course. Improving human disruption, and other negative factors. 15 Evaluating responses esses. Often, for example, a program that is favored Evaluating the replies is as difficult as presenting by a majority without much enthusiasm is blocked the issues and asking opinions on them. by the strong opposition of a minority that does care very much. This can happen in reverse, too, with the First, what constitutes a reliable sample, i.e., what enthusiastic minority getting a program for which the groups are known to have similar interests and views opposition is numerous but relatively indifferent. If on regional planning matters so that a sample of them the informal process of surveying opinion on a regional can stand for the whole? plan is to simulate the political system in this country, To illustrate, we generally associate wealth and how strongly people feel about an issue should be education with individualism, but on metropolitan mixed in the total consideration of the planner. This Assues this does not always follow. For example,. a may be especially important in regional planning, in study by political scientists James Q. Wilson and fact. Some people live narrowly, confining their inter- Edward C. Banfield found "citizens who rank high in ests to their homes and their work places; many don't income, education, or both" have "an enlarged view of even notice what they pass in between. Others live in the community and a sense of obligation toward it. the whole region; they want easy relationships among [They] ... are likely to have a propensity for looking its parts to enlarge their choice of jobs, goods, services, at and making policy for the community 'as a whole' activities and friends; they are sensitive to what they and to have a high sense of personal efficacy, a long see. time perspective, a general familiarity with and con- At this point in history, the indifferent may well fidence in city-wide institutions, and a cosmopolitan constitute a majority of the region's residents. But orientation toward life." This referred to Chicago. A should the region be built according to what their study of several elections in the Cleveland area showed choices would produce? Two conditions argue against consistently strong support for metropolitan govern- -the greater intensity of feeling of those who do care ment proposals in the higher-income neighborhoods. and the probable increase in the number who will care Nor do we know whether other characteristics affect a generation from now. choices. Take ethnic background, for example. More No public response program can be taken at face Jews than Catholics or Protestants said in the Goals value without some adjustment for opinion and atti- project that they liked living in apartments. Does this tudes of the future. Most of the issues will aff ect the reflect taste which is likely to continue, historical acci- children or even grandchildren of those consulted far dent, or other causes which may or may not remain more than they will affect the respondents themselves. relevant? Do Negroes have the same preferences for And we can have confidence that the next generation will, on the whole, be better educated and have more housing types and neighborhood as white people with income and more leisure than the present generation. the same education and income? Limitations on their (See Regional Plan Association, The Region's Growth, housing choices eliminate meaningful inferences. 1967.) Furthermore, they will have grown up in an There is some preliminary indication that women and age of affluence rather than during the depression and men react differently to the same degree of crowding; so be more prepared to use their added leisure and in- must all sample characteristics be divided by sex, also? come in a satisfying way.* And by age? Second, respondents undoubtedly vary in their abili- *A Regional Plan staff member, enjoying the Piazza San Marco in Italy, noticed that the ty to imagine experiences they have not undergone or man next to him was an American. -isn't it magnificent?" the planner asked. "Yeah," options they do not now have. Are the answers to be replied the other American. "Too bad we can't afford it." It is a constant wonder to American aesthetes: why can poor countries afford beautiful public places, well maintained, weighed equally? If not, how do we determine who while we can't? The answer usually implied by those who point this out is that in other countries, a majority of people demand beautiful public places whereas in America, only can and who cannot project himself into different a minority care. In fact, the probability is that in poorer countries the aesthetes have gotten away with burdening the poor to build and maintain their public places-that if the situations? issue of cost had ever been raised democratically, probably the majority in those countries would have voted no, too. It is, of course, a perpetual question as to whether sometimes A further puzzle: how can we determine the different a state must do something to raise the intellectual-aesthetic standards of its subjects as a parent tells a child that he knows what's best for him. (This question even tripped that degrees of concern about the choices at hand? The apparently wholehearted democrat John Stuart Mill when he concluded that Socrates' taste must count for more than a pig's.) Today, the affluence of our economy makes the cost American political system registers intensity of feeling of hig her standards of design and maintenance of urban areas less burdensome to those who do not care about beauty and orderliness, and the swift spread of sensitivity promises about issues that pass through the usual political proc- to reduce their number. 16 3. THE PUBLICS TO BE CONSULTED Keeping in mind these uncertainties about evaluat- walk across the street to talk about regional planning. ing responses and also the kind of information Re- Their interest has to be won while they are a captive gional Plan wants from the public, we have identified audience. five distinct groups to be consulted. Each requires a The difficulty of recruiting non-volunteer types to different approach for effective consultation. such discussions was illustrated by Regional Plan's effort to bring an abbreviated Goals project to an Civic leaders (volunteers) ethnically mixed lower-middle-income neighborhood There is a kind of person who wants to vote on in the Bronx in a full-day's meeting arranged by neigh- everything, who wants to help shape society. These borhood leaders. (See pages 62-63.) These local leaders are the people who become civic leaders, who attend spent weeks organizing the meeting and rounding up meetings, write their congressmen, organize citizen promises to attend. Regional Plan spent weeks writing action groups and demonstrations, and occasionally fairly simple background reading and questionnaires get themselves elected to non-fulltime public office. and translating some copies into Spanish. Then, only (Those elected to fulltime public office or important about 100 persons appeared, many for only half of the party posts become different political animals.) meeting, and much of the discussion was turned to In regional planning, the civic leaders probably care immediate neighborhood problems-admittedly press- most about the region's future-and will do most to ing-rather than to regional issues that affect the make it what they want. They tend to live in the whole locality less immediately and obviously. region, not just their own locality. They want a wide choice of jobs, goods, services, friends. The poor Also, they are easiest to recruit. Issue a call, and Recently, many organizations have sprung up to they come. These are the people who come to Regional represent the interests of the poor, and it is conceivable Plan's annual conference-1,500 plus in recent years. that planning participation can take place through More than 5,000 participated in our Goals for the Re- these organizations. Often, however, there is a sharp gion project via television and mailed questionnaires difference between the opinions of spokesmen for the in 1963. (The Goals project is described in Part II.) poor and opinions of the poor themselves-and the poor Mixed among them in these meetings are those with a have been too inarticulate or felt themselves too pow- special interest in regional development-who may erless to take part in the kind of response program we also be civic leaders, of course: professional planners, have outlined. some local, state and federal officials, builders, etc. Then, too, there is difficulty in winning the interest of the poor to issues that do not seem to relate to them Non-volunteer middle class at all. Their problems are immediate, not long range Though the majority of the region's residents prob- -just living, not choosing a place to live. But when ably are less sensitive and concerned about planning they have had a chance to understand the relevance of issues than the volunteers, it is, of course, necessary regional planning issues to their lives, some poor to assure that their interests and values have been people have been interested. A group of women living considered. Their participation seems best obtained in Harlem public housing, all receiving Aid-To-De- through organizations whose main purpose is not civic pendent-Children payments, formed a Goals for the activity (since these are the people who are not terribly Region group through the persuasion of a welfare interested in that). Trade unions and church mens and worker in the area. Not only did they continue through womens clubs bring together the largest and broadest the whole program, they continued to meet for over a range of non-volunteers, probably. year, discussing community, welfare and personal Response from these groups would have to be tai- problems and how to solve them. Some have attended lored to their convenience; by definition, they wouldn't Association annual conferences since. 17 Showing how the issues are relevant, simplifying them for those with little education, and testing whether the unrepresented differ in their opinions even from poor people who might be recruited will be especially difficult. We may have to use'depth inter- views of those who serve as listening posts in slums- e.g., barbers and bartenders-rather than going di- rectly to large numbers of low-income people. We also will try to tap the observations of welfare workers, public housing managers, and leaders of organizations sponsored by the Office of Economic Opportunity. Representatives of major institutions Major institutions and groups directly concerned with regional planning issues, such as large corpora- tions and their professional advisers (i.e., lawyers, public relations firms), labor organizations, public and higher education, the arts, civil rights, information media, foundations, churches, architecture and build- ing, women's organizations, conservation and trans- portation, have great influence on regional planning decisions made by government. Their own actions are important, too, and these actions result from a difficult- to-trace blend of leadership, logic and followership. These institutions and major groups, therefore, are worth consulting through their spokesmen. Experts in planning-related fields Since regional planning aims at weaving together a dozen or more threads spun out by separate professions and industries-education, health, the arts, retailing, home building, ecology-conservation-recreation, indus- trial and office location, and more a good deal of discussion between regional planners and experts in these fields seems advisable. In many cases, these professions and industries are not planning for the future of the services they provide; in such instances, regional planners can stimulate them to look ahead and can provide economic and demographic projections on which planning for this segment of regional affairs can be based. In any case, the special conditions gov- erning each of these areas of activity must be known to the regional planner for his own work. Furthermore, the planner's way of looking at these activity areas should be known to the experts so they can respond thoughtfully to the final recommendations. In addition to experts in planning-related fields, the regional planner should consult professional planners for municipalities, counties and states. 4. CONCLUSIONS Fortunately, there are many "best" plans for a re- 4. The clearest way to reach value questions is through gion; each involves so many trade-offs of what people the word "assumptions." The public should be told 1 would rather not have for what they really want that the assumptions on which the planner's conceptions 11 it becomes all but impossible to say decisively: this is are based and asked whether they are acceptable. V' the best of all. Therefore, we need not be compulsive 5. All possible differences in interests should be sur--' about getting all the opinions of all the Region's resi- veyed. This means trying to reach as many different dents, giving them all the proper weight and adding groups as possible different in income, education, Lthem into a workable montage. It is fortunate because ethnic background, age, sex, location in the region and of course. we could not do it. any other factors that appear to produce different re- Nevertheless, we feel that plans worked out in con- sponses to the planner's assumptions. sultation with the public will more closely reflect the 6. But in evaluating the responses, some special con- public needs and preferences. siderations must be fed in subjectively. We do not yet Although recognizing that we are far away from a 'know the socio-economic divisions which produce perfect process, we do have some conclusions from different opinions on planning issues, or how to com- these considerations and Regional Plan's experience: pensate for the fact that some people are better than 1. Systematic surveys of public opinion should be fed others in imagining what does not yet exist. Also, into regional planning in the process of developing a adjustments ought to be made for changes in taste long-range comprehensive plan, in addition to the which might be predictable over the coming genera- usual public participation in debate on specific region- tion. Finally, intensity of feeling as well as sheer shaping projects. numbers is important. Nevertheless, we believe that 2. The surveys are only dependable if those responding an open-minded planning organization, genuinely con- have considerable information and if the questions are cerned about public opinion, can be guided by the ideas discussed in the context of regional planning (rather and insights in environmental needs and preferences than simply market-research kinds of answers-what revealed by a wide-ranging public consultation pro- kind of house or yard do you like?-unrelated to re- gram. gional planning issues). 7. In practice, we have identified five groups which 3. Therefore, it is most satisfactory to obtain public should be sought out for consultation, each in a differ- response to the planner's concepts in the regular ent way: course of planning-first projecting present trends and civic leaders (who volunteer to participate) policies and identifying possible inadequacies of urban non-volunteers among the middle class development if the trends continue, then proposing the poor solutions to prospective inadequacies, and finally pro- representatives of major institutions (the posing the policy changes needed to achieve the establishment) solutions. Public response should concentrate on the experts on elements of regional development. value questions as distinguished from the technical How Regional Plan has tried to consult with some of questions on which planners are expert. On the value these groups and what the results have been is the questions, there are no experts. subject of Part II. 19 Our proposed development policies program, when completed, will have an element never before embodied in any other regional plan in this country (and probably anywhere else). We are making this plan literally in a gold- fish bowl. When it is finished it will not be just the product of a technical staff and committees (like the 1929 Plan). Our Plan will have been exposed to several development committees of leading citizens, our board of directors, . . . several thousand active citizen kibitzers.... county planners, New York City's planners, Tri-State Transportation staff, chamber of com- merce and other civic organizations staffs, state planners and the Region's elected municipal and county officials (MRC). We do not expect unanimous approval of our recommendations. We shall, however, have a large working consensus. And we will know who disagrees and why they disagree and how serious the opposition is. Our regional plan will not go on the shelf, because it will already be in the blood stream of the Region's decision-makers before it is published. Progress Report on the Second Regional Plan, December 31, 1966. CONSULTING THE PUBLIC ON THE SECOND REGIONAL PLAN Acknowledgements In addition to Regional Plan Association staff members, the following made significant contributions to the Goals for the Region project described in Part II. On recruiting participants: David B. Rauch, then Director, Adult Education Program, Great Neck Public Schools; Pearl H. Hack, then Lecturer in Political Science, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York; George Case, public relations consul- tant; Hans Neurath, Case Supervisor of the Social Service Center of the City of New York. On preparing and analyzing questionnaires: Mrs. Sanci Michael of the Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University, and Allen Barton, the Bureau Director; Joan Gordon, Research Director, Center for New York City Affairs, New School for Social Research; Joel I. Brooks, then with Elmo Roper and Associates. Dr. Barton also brought together a group of social scientists to review the plan of the project and gave a preliminary report on the results at the 1963 annual Regional Plan Conference. On producing the television series: Telic, Inc., (Elwood Siegel, President, and Edwin Bouton, Vice President and Executive Di- rector); WPIX (Edward M. Roberts, then Production Manager, Otis Freeman, then Vice President in Charge of Engineering, and Leavitt J. Pope, then Vice President in Charge of Operations). Participating in the television shows: Mason W. Gross, President of Rutgers -The State University; Mr. and Mrs. John W. Morris and their children (now of New Rochelle, New York); Dorothy H. Cronheim, then Director of the Newark Commission for Neigh- borhood Conservation and Rehabilitation; Mabel Walker, Execu- tive Director of the Tax Institute of America; L. Clinton Hoch, Partner, The Fantus Company (industrial locaters); Paul Windels, former Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Probably most credit for the project's results belongs to the more than 600 chairmen of small groups around the New York Region who recruited their group members, arranged for meeting places, chaired the discussions and saw to it that written questionnaires were returned. Nearly half also gave us useful comments after the project was over on how public participation could be improved. 5. THE GOALS PROJECT PROCESS AND PARTICIPANTS In 1963, Regional Plan Association had completed ber of questionnaires filed was about the same as after preliminary steps toward the Second Regional Plan: the third and fourth meetings. projections of what the Region would be like in twenty- five years if present trends and policies continued- The process how many more jobs and people, where (in a general way) they would live and work, and what the sum total Participants received background booklets about ten of living conditions probably would be-particularly days before each meeting. Between half and two-thirds what problems could be expected-if present trends indicated they had read each of the booklets at least and policies continued. "fairly carefully," one in six said they read it "in detail or more than once." The number not readinor it at all For nearly three years, we had been reporting these varied from 5 percent to 14 percent. [email protected] projections. Wherever possible, we tried to get the re- At the meeting, participants first watched a half-hour action of audiences. In all, well over 100 speeches were television show covering the same points as the read- made to a variety of groups with almost unanimous ing. The points were made in conversation among three reaction: the prospects are not good enough. Can't we to five panelists, about half of the time speaking over plan a better pattern of development? However, we did illustrative films taken especially for the program.* not know who our respondents were, in a scientific way, Then participants were to spend V/4 hours discussing or whether there were people who disagreed and had key questions listed at the end of the background book- not spoken up. In early 1963, when it was time to go on lets. (Reports indicated that many discussions went far to plan alternatives to current development trends if into the night.) people really were dissatisfied, we carried out a more Finally, each individual filled out a questionnaire systematic effort to get public response to the prospects that had been mailed in bulk to the group chairman. and some guidance for the alternatives we would plan: The questionnaires were anonymous, but they were the Goals for the Region project. Since 1964, when work keyed to a biographical questionnaire filled out before on the Second Regional Plan actually began, we also the programs began so that characteristics of persons have consulted with over 100 representatives of leading giving certain replies could be determined, e.g., atti- institutions of the Region in a Committee on the Second tudes toward different types of housing could be cross- Regional Plan and with experts on education, health, tabulated with the kind of housing then occupied. The cultural facilities, retailing, advanced communication questionnaires were mailed by the group chairman and transportation technology, office and industrial directly to Columbia University's Bureau of Applied So- location, and libraries, and with other professional cial Research, where they were coded and analyzed.** planners. The process had been discussed with a number of The Goals Project was a series of five meetings (April competent social scientists in advance and worked out 2, 16, 23, 30 and May 7, 1963) in which a total of 5,600 with a sociologist and an adult education expert.' It persons participated in at least one meeting, with the was tested on three pilot groups in different types of fewest responses from any meeting 3,650, the most 4,750. communities-an old city, Newark; an old suburb, Most groups were small, under fifteen, and met in homes Great Neck; a growing suburb, New City. of participants, though a few groups met in churches or other public meeting places. There were 680 groups the *The films were directed by Louis B. Schlivek and produced by Telic, Inc. The shows were put together by Mr. Schlivek and William B. Shore, the Information first week; these decreased slightly to 648 at the fourth Director of Regional Plan. The panel chairman, Rutgers University President meeting. The last week, only 606 groups met because of Mason W. Gross, contributed greatly toward shaping the programs. **Mrs. Sanci Michael of the Bureau prepared the questionnaires with the Regional an unavoidable conflict with annual school meetings in Plan staff and analyzed the responses. Dr. Allen Barton, head of the Bureau, worked with Mrs. Michael and Regional Plan at several stages in the analysis. many New York State suburbs. Even that week, many ***Dr. Joan Gordon was the sociologist, then at Columbia University now at The persons read the background booklets and sent in ques- New School; the adult educator was Dr. David B. Rauch, then Director of Adult Education for the Great Neck public schools and now Community Rela- tionnaires without benefit of the meeting, so the num- tions Director there. 23 The participants COUNTY OF RESIDENCE AND Table COUNTY OF WORK OF GOALS PARTICIPANTS Recruiting of chairmen was done mainly through County of Residence County of Work percent percent of organizations. In addition, there was considerable percent of of Region's percent of Region's 1960 participants 1960 popula- participants emplonTent newspaper publicity, and staff members mentioned the living in ... tion in ... working in ... in ... project in many speeches and distributed descriptive CONNECTICUT brochures to hundreds of contacts. A sam le of organ- Fairfield 2.3% 4.0% 1% 3.9% p NEW JERSEY 53.3 27.2 39 24.6 izations that were asked to publicize the project through Bergen 10.0 4.8 4 3.5 their newsletters, meetings or mailings or by selecting Essex 11.4 5.7 11 6.3 Hudson 1.4 3.8 3 4.1 participants to represent the organization are listed in Middlesex 7.2 2.7 5 2.3 Appendix 1. By and large, chairmen recruited their Monmouth 2.2 2.1 1 1.2 Morris 7.5 1.6 4 1.1 own groups. Passaic 1.9 2.5 3 2.4 Chairmen received biographical questionnaires in Somerset 5.1 0.9 2 0.7 Union 6.6 3.1 6 3.0 advance and gave them to persons recruited to their NEW YORK group. When these were returned by the individual (outside N.Y.C.) 24.9 20.4 13 13.9 participant to the Columbia University Bureau of Ap- Dutchess 1.0 1.1 1 1.0 Nassau 7.0 8.1 3 5.3 plied Social Research, the return address was torn from Orange 4.9 1.1 4 0.9 it and sent to Regional Plan as a registration. From Putnam 0.1 0.2 0.1 Rockland 2.2 0.8 1 0,6 these, addresses for background reading were taken. Suffolk 1.9 4.1 1 2.2 The number 5,600, used as the total of participants, is Westchester 7.8 5.0 3 3.8 the number who returned a biographical questionnaire NEW YORK CITY 16.7 48.2 37 58.8 Bronx 2.0 8.8 1 3.6 and at least one of the weekly substantive question- Brooklyn 3.7 16.3 3 9.6 naires. Manhattan 5.7 10.5 30 37.6 Queens 2.9 11.2 2 6.4 Characteristics of participants. The Goals for the Re- Richmond 1.4 1.4 1 0.6 gion participants are in many ways unlike the popula- RING OF DEVELOPMENT (See Map 1.) Core 17.3% 53.1% 45% 65.7% tion of the Region as a whole. Inner Ring 41.1 26.8 24 20.0 Intermediate Ring31.7 17.4 18 12.3 1. The newly developing areas of the Region were Outer Ring 9.3** 2.6 9** 2.0 overrepresented, New York City underrepresented, Total does not equal 100% because small numbers farther out of Region were though the Regional Plan staff spent more effort re- excluded, Less than 0.1% cruiting from the older parts of the Region. On the Inc luding small number just outside the boundaries of the Region as then drawn. whole, the farther from the center, the higher the ratio ***Regional Plan Association estimate. of participants to population. Somerset County had by 2. A smaller percentage of participants than popu- far the most participants per population, followed by lation worked in New York City (Table 2) because the Orange and Morris Counties. Brooklyn and the Bronx over-weighting of outer area residents was so great; had the lowest ratio of participants to population. New but of those living outside the City, a percentage greater Jersey respondents were far more numerous than New than the average commuted in to jobs in New York City. York and Connecticut in proportion to population. This 3. They were volunteers. Regional Plan made an in- may be because the League of Women Voters of New tensive effort to recruit people of every income and Jersey earlier had begun a two-year study of regional educational level, of many ages and skills, from every planning, or it may have resulted from especially en- county in the Region, but the Association had nothing thusiastic support by a few New Jersey newspapers to off er participants for their time except the chance to while New York City newspapers were on strike. (See have their viewpoint considered on issues that would Map 2.) aff ect the lives of participants and their families. They were, therefore, persons capable of sensing the impor- Table I TYPE OF AREA RESPONDENTS SAID THEY LIVED IN tance of relatively abstract questions which, on first City 23% thought, do not seem to directly affect them personally. Suburb 60 And they were very likely to have been involved in Rural-non-farm 13 civic affairs since most were recruited through organi- Rural farm 4 zations. 24 t Ulster 5 Dutchess: Lilchfteld Sullivan 0 Poughkeepsie C 0 N N E C T I U'T N E W 0 R K Newburgh 0 Putnam range 0 Danbu Middletown 00 ry New Haven 0 ew Haven Fairfteld Westc ester h 0 Sussex rid Ft Rockland 0 Passaic 7, Stamford 0 Bergen White Plains 0 'Pater6on Warren Morris Huntington Brookhaven ron 0 0 Suffolk Morristown Essex Queens Nassau 0 Hempstead Union Ki Hunterdon ich Somerset New Brunswic 0 RINGS OF DEVELOPMENT Middlesex NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION N E W z E R S E Core Mercer Long Branch 0 Inner Ring Monmouth o Trenton Intermediate ring Outer ring NOTE: Because Second Regional Plan research had not begun when the Goals project was carried out, this report deals with the region as defined in 1947 rather than with the Second Regional Plan Study Area. The Study Area used in the rest of this series is larger by 6,000 square miles and nine counties.- The rings of develop' ment also are somewhat different. Counties in white are now part of the Study Area. Ocean Map I P Ulster Litchfteld Dutchess Sullivan 0.3 @,T, N E C T R U @T 0 Poughkeepsie I ITI 1E, Newburgh 0 Putnam Middletown dOrange. 0 Danbury New Haven 0.2 1.5 0 ew Haven Westchester Fairfield 0 0.2 rid 0.5 Sussex 0 Passaic- Rockland Stamford 1 [email protected] --0.9 0.3. 0 Bergen 1White Plains 0.7 _J 'Paters on Warren Morris Huntington Brookhaven ron 0 0 1.6 o Suffolk Morristown,' Essex 0.1 - 0.7 SO Queens Nassau 0.1 o 0.3 King Hempstead Union 0.7 0. Hunterdon ich n Somerset New BrUnSwic .3 2.0 0 Middlesex 0.9 Mercer Long Branch 0 Monmouth 0 Trenton 0.4 PARTICIPATION IN GOALS FOR THE REGION PROJECT Figures indicate persons per 1,000 population who participated in the Goals for the Region project from each county Map 2 Ocean Table 3 ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES tion, 10.8 percent of the respondents were in families QUESTION: Number of organizations to 0-10.0% 6-4.9% in which a second income producer was professional. which you belong which regularly meet 1 -15.8 7-2.3 in the New York Metropolitan Region 2-21.5 8-2.0 By contrast, only about 19 percent of the Region's labor (excluding church membership but in- 3-19.2 9-0.6 force is considered prof essional-executive according cluding church-related civic, social or 4-12.2 10+-2.5 educational groups). 5- 9.0 to the 1960 census. QUESTION: Number of these organiza- 0-15.8% 6-1.9% 7. Participants included fewer first generation but tions concerned at least in part with 1 -29.7 7-0.9 slightly more second-generation American residents civic affairs. 2-25.9 8-0.6 3-13.8 9-0.3 than the Region as a whole. 4- 6.6 10+-0.6 5- 3.8 FOREIGN BORN AND CHILDREN OF FOREIGN BORN Table 6 QUESTION: Number of meetings con- 0-22.2% 6-4.3% cerned with civic affairs you attended 1 -19.9 7-1.6 Goals respondents, Region in the last month. 2-18.5 8-2.0 1963 (1960 census) 3-12.0 9-0.5 Born outside U.S. 6.1% 15.3% 4- 9.7 10+-4.5 Born in Puerto Rico 1.3 3.0 5- 4.8 One parent born 4. Goals people had much more education than the outside U.S. 33.8* 27.8 average resident of the Region. *Fathers only 8. Furthermore, respondents' fathers and, only a lit- iTable 4 QUESTION: Highest grade you completed in school or college. tle less so, the fathers of respondents' spouses, were Goals well up the economic ladder. respondents Region's population 1963 over 25 (1960 Census) 9. There probably were more Protestants than in the 8 grades or less 1.2% 38.5% Region as a whole and probably fewer Catholics. The Some high school (no diploma) 4.4 20.0 High school grad. 14.0 Census does not inquire about religion, but a survey Post high school training; secretarial, technical, etc. 17.5 24.0 of 1952 data by the Protestant Council of the City of (not college) 3.51 New York (published in 1958) provides a comparison Some college, no degree 15.3 8.0 (Table 7). College grad. 33 -3 MA. MS. or professional degree 151 Goals respondents, Region, Table 7 PhD or MD '159.9 9.5 1963 1952 3.1 Graduate study (unspecified) 8.4 Catholic 18.7% 51.8% No answer 1.7 Protestant 52.8 28.0 Jewish 19.4 18.0 Note: Since 8% of the Goals' Participants were under 25, and many had not yet Other 2.6) completed their education, the disparity with the Region is greater than the table None 6.4 2.2 indicates. For example, about half of the 1.2% who had not completed eighth grade were in a class in an Ardsley, New York, elementary school. 10. Very few were non-white. 5. Participants' income was considerably higher than Goals respondents, 1963 Region (1960 Census) Table 8 that of the population of the Region as a whole, though White 96.3% White 89.4% the disparity in income between the Goals people and Negro 3.3 Negro 10.1 the whole population was not quite as sharp as the Other .4 Other .5 disparity in education. 11. A little over half were men. Table 5 Goals Family income 12. Nearly all were married (Table 9) and 69 percent respondents, in Region in 1959 had children under 18 in the household. 1963 (1960 Census) Less than $3,000 1.0% 12.3% Married, female 40.7% Table 9 $3,000 to $4,999 2.7 17.3 Married, male 44.2 $5,000 to $6,999 8.0 23.9 Single, female 6.3 $7,000 to $8,999 12.6 17.7 Single, male 6.4 $9,000 to $9,999 8.3 6.1 Other, female* 1.5 $10,000 to $14,999 35.1 14.8 $15,000 to $24,999 24.9 5.7 Other, male* .5 $25,000 or more 7.3 2.3 *Includes widowed, divorced, separated or status undetermined Note: The table exaggerates the income disparity by giving 1959 figures for the Region, 1963 for participants. Family income went up about 10 percent from 1959 13. Altogether, 72.3 percent had two generations in to 1963. The income disparity, nonetheless, is considerable. the household. More than 18 percent had children over 6. The sample was drawn heavily from professionals 18 in the household. Nearly 5 percent had a third gen- and top management compared to the population as a eration, and a handful had a fourth generation in the whole: 44.2 percent fell in these two categories. In addi- household. 27 Table 10 Total number in household: ment chosen by whites in the same income and educa- 1 4.7% tion category, we have too little evidence to tell. Our 2 17.0 3 17.3 sample of Negro participants was too small to be valid. 4 28.6 5 19.3 The information presented 6 8.2 7 2.8 These are responses from people exposed to written 8 1.1 9 0.4 and televised presentations about regional develop- 10 0.4 ment, and we certainly feel that the replies would have 14. Half the respondents were 31-45 years old, a third been different without the information presented in were older, a sixth younger. advance. The question is: were the presentations fact Generally, then, the kind of people who showed or propaganda? About one in eight noted on the first enough interest in regional planning to ftll out a three questionnaires that the presentations were one- lengthy biographical questionnaire and in a majority sided. These sessions dealt primarily with prospective of cases attend all five meetings were middle-class problems; understandably, the presentations seemed families in their middle years with children living in threatening to these people, who were, on the whole, their household at the time. They were unusually well- very satisfied with current conditions. After the fourth educated and with substantial enough incomes to allow and ftfth presentations, where the direction of possible them to turn to broad questions of a good environment. alternatives to present trends was sketched, the accu- Three-fifths lived in new or old suburbs, though nearly sations of onesidedness diminished. There could have half worked in the Core (New York City without Staten been many reasons for this, but we assumed that the Island; Newark and Hudson County, New Jersey). reaction of the Goals participants was similar to that What of value can be learned from a sample biased of the three pilot Goals groups (see page 23) and two in this way? three-day conferences held with business executives The meaning of the sample bias. While it is neces- in 1961 and 1962. In these meetings, suspicion disap- sary to get other views on the planning issues facing peared at about the same time-when the shape of the the New York Region (see Chapters 3 and 8), the bias solutions to prospective problems became visible. of this sample is in a useful direction. On policy issues, We do not contend that absolutely no bias or emo- it is useful because this group is both interested and tionalism crept into the presentations; not at all. We active in civic affairs. Regional Plan was asking not feel, however, that many of the participants started only whether the prospects for the Region without a with enough suspicion-judging from the question- plan looked unsatisfactory but also whether the re- naire comments, pilot meetings and also from ques- spondents were concerned enough to support policy tions asked at orientation meetings for group chairmen changes that would modify the trends. With this sam- -so that they were alert to any threat of brainwashing. ple, an indication of support is likely to mean active And since three-quarters had been to college and nearly support. half were professionals or executives, it seems far too On personal preferences, the bias is useful because flattering to the Regional Plan staff to assert that many it is in the direction of the next generation, for whom respondents were unduly swayed by false argument. we in fact are planning. That generation will have In addition, we received comments on the drafts of higher incomes than today's average and longer edu- the booklets from experts who don't always agree with cation and more skilled jobs, and probably a smaller the Regional Plan analyses, and we made some changes percentage will have been born in another country or where the points were doubtful. Puerto Rico. In fact, the 1963 sample had an income In all, it does not seem likely that either the printed distribution not too different from that projected by word or the somewhat amateurish television presenta- Regional Plan economists for the Region as a whole for tions deceived the participants or emotionally (as dis- the year 2000-if present economic trends continue * tinct from rationally) swayed them to accept a particu- It is not certain what the bias toward Protestants and lar line, even though Regional Plan had a point of view whites might mean in personal preferences. For ex- about the issues discussed, and we presented that view- ample, whether Negroes, when freed of economic and point as clearly as we knew how.* other discrimination, will choose the kinds of environ- *Copies of the background booklets are available from Regional Plan on request. 28 6. WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THE GOALS PROJECT Very briefly, the Goals replies provided the following dents than suburbanites favored transfer of zoning guidance to Regional Plan Association. (Replies are powers upwards and Core residents were underrepre- analyzed in detail in Chapter 7.) sented in the sample, the vote for land-use powers at higher-than-local levels probably underestimated the General concern about current trends Region's support. Even more favored county or state review of local Most important, a strong majority of respondents zoning. indicated-on several questions over the five week About three-fourths felt that "some means should be period-concern that present development patterns devised to reduce the effect of local tax considerations would not produce as good a region as they would like on local land-use decisions." This agreed with a sug- and thought possible. This encouraged Regional Plan gestion made in the presentations that if many local to go on to the preparation of alternatives to present zoning decisions are based on local financial needs development trends, a Second Regional Plan, and it rather than on a conception of good local development, probably contributed to the receptiveness of founda- elimination of local real estate tax pressures might tions and businesses which are supporting that work. eliminate conflicts between what is good for the locality Furthermore, it indicated to the Association that at and what is good for the Region. If so, simple review least the educated activists of the Region were ready of local zoning decisions by a county or state agency, for fairly sharp changes in the current development without amendatory power, might be enough to assure trend, even though they were, on the whole, highly good land-use regulation for all affected. satisfied with the present. On the first questionnaire, two-thirds recognized that For example, support for metropolitan planning was people in their own community were considerably af- almost unanimous. About two-thirds would have given fected by what happened elsewhere in the metropolitan the regional planning agency at least limited direct area. Only I percent said they were not at all affected. enforcement powers, and 86 percent felt that federal All of this suggested that the Plan could propose grants should be contingent on a project's conforming strong solutions. It need not be limited to improving to a metropolitan plan, which certainly invests the the neatness of the regional pattern that present trends planning agency with considerable power. This pro- would bring but could propose basic changes in the vision has since been incorporated in federal legis- pattern itself with some expectation of support from lation. those who usually take the lead. We specifically raised the possibility that a person's self-interest as a local resident might conflict with his Centers and public transportation self-interest as a resident of the Region. First, we asked One issue of urban form was whether or not to group whether they thought local zoning "is or will be causing jobs in centers: 84 percent favored such centers. How- problems for neighboring municipalities or for the ever, 34 percent favored large centers, 50 percent metropolitan area as a whole." The response: 82 per- smaller ones. At present, Regional Plan research points cent yes; 5 percent no; 13 percent not sure. Then we to the greater usefulness of large centers. This added asked whether municipalities should continue to have usefulness will have to be clear to win adequate sup- the final say on zoning. Seventy percent would vest port, the Goals responses warn. some zoning power in a higher level of government, Other replies were consistent with the choice of job though there was disagreement on whether it should centers. be a metropolitan agency (48 percent), the county (47 For example, one of the characteristics of job centers percent) or the state (28 percent). Since more Core resi- is that they provide greatly expanded job choice with 29 only slightly increased average trip times to work. in their community and a majority would not be against Most participants said they would tolerate a longer having Negroes of their income level in their neighbor- trip to work to avoid changing jobs or homes, an indi- hood. Only a minority strongly favored these condi- cation that job and home choice is more important than tions, however. short work trips. While 41 percent were then travelling On another question, related to future traffic prob- less than half an hour to work, 82 percent-exactly lems, an almost equal number favored "permitting twice as many-said they would be willing to travel construction of more housing that factory workers can over half an hour. Nearly half said they would travel afford near suburban. factories" (72 percent) and "mak- over an hour to work compared to less than a fifth who ing city living more attractive to suburbanites working then travelled over an hour. in the city who might then want to live in the city" (70 One of the reasons respondents gave for preferring percent), though opposition to the former was some- job centers to more scattered work places was their what higher (19 percent compared to 9 percent). support for increased use of public transportation, in- More federal and state aid for the older cities was cluding public financial aid where necessary and allo- one step a substantial majority said they would support cation of some highway lanes exclusively for buses. to improve city living and so attract the middle class. Support for improved public transportation was just But would any of this sample-who were mainly about unanimous. middle- and upper-middle-income families-live in the Comments on personal transportation preferences older cities even if the cities had more money to make and experience do not run counter to this. Those who conditions better? About a fifth of the suburban sample used public transportation to work were no less satis- not only said they would consider living in a city, they fled with their trip than those who drove. Satisfaction also showed in their other replies that their urban with the work trip varied with its length in time but tastes dominated. (Altogether, two-thirds of the sub- not with the mode used. urban respondents said they might choose to live in a About 43 percent of the two-thirds who were then city, but their other replies indicated most probably using their cars to get to work would switch to never would.) A greater sense of safety and better pub- improved public transportation if conditions were lic schools were two of the requirements a majority of changed, particularly if public transportation were this urban-oriented group set for moving to a city. faster. The importance of speed in choosing a travel Regional Plan's approach to improving prospects for mode has been demonstrated in other studies and is the older cities conforms with these responses-a pro- merely confirmed by Goals replies. gram of better public services, particularly education. But larger housing units, i.e., more rooms, at a reason- able cost, also would be essential to attract many of Desegregating the poor these urban types, they told us. Also, the extent of active dissatisfaction with air pollution was revealed in Continued outmovement of middle-class whites from Goals responses: 71 percent of New York City-Newark- the older cities and continued in-migration of lower- Hudson County residents said clean air was very im- income Negroes and Puerto Ricans to the older cities- portant to them (ranking third in a list of thirty-two i.e., growing separation of rich and poor, Negro and living conditions in the number replying "very desir- white-will cause harm and should be stopped in some able--right after "good public schools" and "personal way by public action, according to 58 percent; 21 per- safety"). Of those saying "very desirable," 63 percent cent said no. The fact that another 20 percent were of New York City-Newark-Hudson County residents still undecided suggests that in 1963, even civic leaders were dissatisfied about the quality of the air. This was needed more discussion of this issue. Recent events more pervasive concern than we had anticipated from may have eliminated the undecided vote. urban types at that time. Their concern has since be- More of those favoring action called for improving come politically effective. (We had rightly surmised city conditions so middle-class whites would stay than that more suburbanites than city residents were very specified opening the suburbs to lower-income Negroes. concerned about air pollution, but the difference was But a majority said they would accept public housing not very great.) 30 One f airly obvious point: responses substantiated and part devoted to spread city to give people a choice. that cities need strong urban attractions if many people Responses indicate that some will choose one horn of are to choose to live in them. Nineteen percent said the dilemma, some the other when faced with the mu- they would "like very much" to live in Manhattan and tually exclusive choice (if it turns out to be exclusive) fewer than 6 percent were living there-latent demand between an urbane metropolis and large lots. Fortu- if, as the question put it, respondents could find hous- nately, this Region is large enough to provide both ing they could afford. without interfering with each other: Great Neck and Huntington, Hartsdale and Chappaqua, East Orange Residential density and Holmdel. Respondents also favored a good deal of inter- While about 20 percent of the suburbanites might, action with their neighbors. While responding to ab- with improved city conditions, move to a city, more stract questions about conditions they felt were very respondents wanted to live in less dense residential desirable, many more said privacy than said neigh- areas than they now did. This parallels responses on borliness. The more education respondents had, the a number of opinion surveys in other regions. Even greater number emphasized privacy rather than neigh- families without children seemed to want one-family borliness. However, when confronted with a question houses on relatively large lots-38 percent of those about real activities and neighborly relations, 90 per- without children in the household wanted to live on a cent did exchange favors (e.g., baby-sitting, car-pool- half-acre lot or larger. Regional Plan has generally ing) with neighbors some of the time, 58 percent at assumed that most families without children would least several times a month. And 84 percent socialized prefer apartments, and the recent apartment boom with neighbors some of the time, 44 percent at least seems to confirm this. But the Goals responses contra- several times a month. Furthermore, 13 percent would dict it and indicate that research is needed on housing have liked to exchange favors more often than they choices of households without children. did, and 21 percent wanted to socialize more than they There is a possible conflict between preferences for did, compared to only 3 percent who would have liked large lots and a preferred regional form. Respondents less neighboring of each type. In other words, most did like their large yards, for a variety of reasons, people want privacy if it is defined as the ability to but expressed dislike of the prospect of extensive devel- choose when and with whom to interact, but a substan- opment consisting almost entirely of houses on large tial majority want a good deal of neighborly interaction. lots. As to the relationship of density and housing type Regional Plan's basic guidelines for regional growth to neighborly relations and privacy, fewer of those liv- will not deal with residential lot sizes in detail; as of ing on one-acre lots or larger in newly-urbanizing and now, it seems likely that centers of regional activity still-rural areas were dissatisfied with both their pri- served by public transportation can work even with vacy and the neighborliness available to them than the lower residential densities than now exist in the Region sample as a whole, while more of those living in the as a whole. However, if the Region became a mosaic of denser areas were dissatisfied. Multi-family housing the residential lot sizes respondents say they like, they residents did less neighboring than those on very large would get less of what they want outside their home lots and many more of them wanted to have more and yard. Regional Plan probably will encourage ex- interaction than did other respondents. Those on perimentation and design eff orts to provide the amenity medium-sized lots neighbored the most, but many of people now seek on large lots at somewhat higher them wanted to do more, too. densities than respondents felt they needed to get it. While this result does not closely correlate lot sizes The replies offer a warning, however, that space it- with satisfaction over privacy, neighborliness and self may be what people want and not just the illusion amount of neighboring-particularly since people want of it. If so, the challenge of regional planning will be different amounts of neighboring and probably have to provide convenience, efficiency, urbanity and attrac- different interpretations of privacy, it does indicate that tive appearance with large lots. Failing this, parts of large lots are not a bar to neighboring. We had thought the Region probably should be organized more tightly they probably did interfere. 31 Open space The sample was overwhelmingly favorable to spend- trees and natural landscape in new subdivisions were ing a great deal more public money for parks-63 per- nearly as popular as air and water pollution abatement. cent favoring this strongly, 22 percent somewhat (a Billboard and other sign control received the next larg- total of 85 percent in favor), and only 5 percent oppos- est support, followed by more open green spaces and ing. The percentage strongly in favor rose slightly small playgrounds in the cities. Between two-thirds with income, so that businessmen earning over $15,000 and nine-tenths of the sample "strongly favored" all of a year were the most persuaded. Sliced geographically, these items and 88-98 percent favored them at least Core residents included the most respondents saying "somewhat." "strongly favor." Political support for more park ex- But two of the Regional Plan staff's pet concerns penditures seems likely, then, and the Association has about the appearance of the Region-subway stations proposed a huge Appalachian park system parallel- in the City and parking lots in the suburbs-bothered ing the urbanized Boston-to-Washington corridor as the majority of respondents considerably less than they well as acquisition of remaining open oceanfront along bother us. Only 31 percent strongly favored reconstruc- the urbanized Eastern Seaboard and the shorefront of tion of key subway stations, and another 31 percent major river valleys that are still in their natural state. somewhat favored it; only 27 percent strongly favored This would place natural countryside in convenient a requirement that parking lots be landscaped, and 27 places for most of the Region's residents, a condition percent somewhat favored it. While a majority were that ranked eighth among the thirty-two living condi- in favor of action in both instances, the two items were tions in the number saying "very desirable." at the bottom of the list of thirteen proposed improve- While the participants did worry about access to out- ments in amenity and appearance. Even among Core door recreation in the face of projected increases in residents (mainly New York City people), only 43 per- population, leisure and income, they weren't hurting cent strongly favored subway station reconstruction. yet, apparently. Of those feeling that convenience to natural countryside was "very desirable," only 9 per- Brief conclusion cent were dissatisfied; of those wanting nearby outdoor swimming very much, only 7 percent weren't satisfied; To sum this summation, the Goals responses indi- of those wanting "convenience to other large outdoor cated strong support for more urbanity, more public recreation areas" very much, only 6 percent were dis- transportation, more public open space, more beauty satisfied. And more than half the sample went off to ski, and greenery even if they cost a great deal in public hike, picnic, swim, etc. in a large recreation area at funds and regulation. And more participants preferred least ten times a year. their regional interests over their local interests than the other way around when in conflict, though they Quality of the environment would hope that elimination of local real estate tax Participants also were willing to spend substantial pressures would dissolve some of the present and po- public funds on improving the appearance and general tential conflict. Finally, they hoped they could get the environment of the Region-particularly air and water region they want even while living on much larger lots pollution controls. Tighter public controls to preserve (on the average) than they do now. 32 7. DETAILED REPLIES OF GOALS PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Issues discussed in the Goals project can be grouped We asked: into eight packages: Suppose that some of the land in the undeveloped parts of the Region Table 11 will be used for industry and/or offices and that the same amount of 1. Location of jobs and large-scale activities (drawing land will be used whatever job location pattern is chosen.* In general, people from distances upwards of a few miles). do you think the land should be set aside primarily for ... a few large centers at key transportation points with direct 2. Transportation. access to railways and expressways ............................................ 34% 3. Living conditions in the older cities of the Region a large number of smaller centers at key transportation points 50 and their effect on the Region as a whole. with direct access to railways and expressways ... .................... 5 many smaller tracts scattered over the area ................................ 4. Housing, neighborhoods and neighbors. strips adjacent to roads and highways .. . .... . ...... ...... . ... 3 5. Open space and outdoor recreation. No reply ......................................... ...... ...... ...... .. . ..... ...... 7 *Note: This biases the answers against centers because, in fact, centers would 6. General appearance and amenity. use considerably less land per job than more scattered job sites. 7. Relations of citizens to local governments. Other preferences did not seem to conflict. S. Shifts of public power. For example, though some might oppose the cluster- ing of jobs outside their community if it would lose Location of jobs and regional activities them tax profitable development, three-fourths of the respondents favored "some means . . . to reduce the Job locations are-and will remain-the most im- effect of local tax considerations on local land-use de- portant element in a regional pattern. Homes are cisions," which would dissipate tax opposition to job chosen in relation to the job location of the breadwin- centers. ner, and therefore land values are strongly affected by Otherwise, the greatest possibility of conflict between major job locations. The Region's transportation sys- preference for large job centers and other values would tem is designed primarily to accommodate the trip to corne in transportation: (1) the larger the job center, the work. greater the distance to be travelled to it on the average In the Goals project, Regional Plan pointed to the (though job opportunities rise much faster than dis- growing scatter of newly locating jobs of the Region, tance and speed of travel would be greater to centers); mainly of manufacturing jobs, and to its significance (2) large job centers probably would require about half in the way the Region operates. (Subsequently, we of the employees to use public transportation. have observed that office jobs will increase far more Attitudes toward their trip to work correlated closely than factory jobs, and the potential for shaping the with the time they travelled. The longer the travel time, Region is much greater with offices than factories.) the larger percentage of dissatisfied respondents, what- Three factors were associated in the presentations ever mode of travel was used. Even so, fewer than half with the issue of scattered vs. clustered jobs-(1) num- of those travelling more than an hour were dissatisfied ber and variety of jobs convenient to people's homes, with their work trip and nearly all respondents said (2) the Region's appearance, and (3) transportation and they would tolerate longer trips to work if necessary its effect on the Region's appearance and functioning. to avoid changing jobs or home locations, should their Almost certainly, the general environment of the work job move. About 82 percent said they would travel 30 place also was considered by respondents. minutes or longer each way before changing jobs or 33 homes. At that time, only 41 percent travelled as long switch to public transportation if one or another con- as 30 minutes to work. It is highly unlikely that job dition changed, particularly if public transportation centers recommended in the Second Regional Plan were faster or one conveyance could bring them to would be farther than 30 minutes from any but a small their jobs. Willingness to switch to public transporta- percentage of employees, and no one need live 60 tion was slightly higher among the college educated minutes away from a center of this kind. So length than among those who had not finished college. of work trip would be no obstacle if this sample is Furthermore, respondents regarded public transpor- representative on travel time preferences. tation as a strong reason for centralized jobs (without Table 12 TRIP TO WORK: CURRENT DOOR-TO-DOOR TRAVEL TIME which public transportation seldom can work) rather AND MAXIMUM TIME WILLING TO TRAVEL than as a condition they do not like but would tolerate Current Number of Maximum time willing to travel to get job centers. In a question on "methods of trying travel time respondents Lessthan to prevent traffic congestion as jobs and population 1/2 Hr. 1/2-1 Hr. 1-11/2 Hr. 11/2 + Hr. rise," 90 percent favored "locating jobs in centers large 0-15 Min. 925 26.1% 54.4% 15.0% 4.5% enough to provide public transportation for people who 15-30 Min. 637 9.9 59.2 24.2 6.8 30-60 Min. 652 3.7 35.7 46.0 14.6 wish to use it." Only 5 percent opposed. (See Table 15, 1 + Hrs. 499 2.2 9.2 41.1 47.5 page 37.) Their willingness to travel longer than they do now Altogether, participants clearly seemed to prefer the to enlarge job and home choice is quite marked, as general idea of job centers to scattered job sites, along Table 12 shows. Of those travelling 15-30 minutes, 90 with the conditions attendant on centralizing jobs- percent were willing to travel longer, 59 percent for as slightly longer trips to work on the average than much as a 1/2 to 3/4 of an hour more, 30 percent for even present suburb-to -suburb commuters had and depend- longer periods. Of those travelling from 30-60 minutes, ence on public transportation for a large number of 61 percent were willing to travel longer. Of all those trips. travelling less than an hour (2,214), 35 percent would Location of other large-scale activities. Table 13 travel more than an hour: 27 percent 1-11/2 hours, 8 shows the frequency with which the respondents used percent for over 11/2 hours. Apparently those who al- Manhattan, and for what. Note that-if we are to be- ready were travelling an hour or more had become lieve the replies-more than half of the respondents resigned to long trips; nearly half were willing to travel go to the theater or a musical event in Manhattan at for 11/2 hours or more. As to public transportation, least three times a year, and another 14 percent attend there was no correlation between how respondents got twice. Nearly half go to an art gallery or museum in to work and their satisfaction with the work trip. Manhattan at least twice. More than half shop in Man- Nearly two-thirds were using their cars to get to work hattan at least twice. Nearly half go to a restaurant, (a greater percentage of automobile commuters than night club or movie in Manhattan at least three times. among the Region's employees as a whole, which was No other place is visited as frequently for any reason 43 percent in 1960). except professional services-even for restaurants- About two-thirds of the respondents working in the movies-night clubs or department and specialty store Core but outside Manhattan and about three-fourths of shopping-by as many of the participants. So despite those working in the Manhattan central business dis- the high ratio of non-New York City residents-five out trict used public transportation, but only 8 percent of of six-the respondents were attracted more often to those working in the suburbs used public transporta- the biggest center of the Region for specialized activi- tion. Of those going to work by car, 43 percent would ties than to any other part of the Region. Via television, Goals for the Region participants saw illustrations of some of the issues of regional life. Here, a Waldwick, New Jersey, public rela- tions man starts his journey to work: 5 minute walk to an express bus, a 45 minute trip to the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan, then an- other 15-20 minutes crosstown to the East Side. Sr, . ..... .. ... 41 ;T Sko [email protected] Sk", IL -01 5 7 7 'J [email protected],[email protected] Fftl Ir [email protected] rr TIT 1, WJ F7 'LAI - L,@: - W. 4'@- 1 - !J rl JA ID PF cut, 16AILI zoo, J V lip MW on PIG i 66 mr-p- Lj @V 7 Kill ALI r*7 On the East Side of midtown Manhattan is the largest concentration of corporate headquarters in the country. The transportation center of the Region, Manhattan's central business district draws employees from every direction, and from greater distances than other job locations. Nearly all employees there come by public transportation or on foot. Table 13 About how many times a year do you go to Manhattan for ... Other downtowns (including Bridgeport, Danbury, 0 1 2__ 3-5 _6-9 10-14 15-23 24-39 40-51 52+ Norwalk, Stamford, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Morristown, Theatre, opera, concerts, ballet, etc. 17% 8% 14% 22%10% 11% 5% 21". 1% 0% 10% Newark, New Brunswick, Passaic, Paterson, Hemp- Other entertainment stead-Garden City-Mineola, New Rochelle, Poughkeep- (restaurants, night- sie, White Plains, Yonkers) do not compete as well; clubs, movies, etc.) 28 6 11 17 8 10 5 3 2 1 9 but for shopping, they were visited slightly more fre- Art galleries or art museums 29 18 14 15 5 6 2 1 1 0 10 quently than stores "elsewhere," presumably shopping Shopping centers. For restaurants, movies and professional serv- (department stores, ices, the participants used other downtowns slightly specialty shops, etc.) 32 9 10 14 7 9 4 3 3 3 8 less frequently than "elsewhere," but not a great deal. Other museums (natural history, Otherwise, the only indication of whether the re- historical, planetarium, scientific, etc.) 35 22 15 12 3 2 1 0 0 0 9 spondents wanted downtowns as consumers (distin- Zoos and botanical guished from wanting to work in them) is the response gardens 57 18 10 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 to whether they liked the pattern of new development Spectator sports the Region was then getting and had scheduled by (baseball, basketball, football, hockey, tennis, present zoning ordinances. We had labelled that new horseracing, etc.) 63 8 9 9 3 2 1 0 0 0 5 pattern "spread city." It is distinguished, we said, by Professional services one-family houses, almost all on large building lots, (doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc.) 72 5 5 6 3 3 1 1 0 0 4 with large-scale activities such as department stores, *Respondent checked space rather than using anumber. hospitals and cultural facilities scattered rather than Table 14 NUMBER OF TIMES RESPONDENTS WENT TO MANHATTAN concentrated. FOR ALL LISTED PURPOSES To the question, "Does 'spread city' appeal to you as 0 ........................................................................ 6% a place to live?" 52 percent said no, 23 percent yes, 25 1 ...... .................................................................2 percent not sure. Since both scattered activities and 2 ................................................................ . .....3 3-5 or few times a year .....................................8 large lots were emphasized in the presentations, along 6-9 or several times a year ................................ 11 10-14 or about once a month ............................ 13 with the heavy mesh of roads they would require, the 15-23 ........................................................ ......... 14 centralization of large-scale activities may not have 24-39, or 2-3 times a month .............. ............... 12 been the main factor considered, either by those who 40-51, or about 4 times a month ......................5 52 or more, or weekly plus ............. .................. 14 disliked or liked spread city. Some of the 23 percent Went to Manhattan but frequency uncertain ... 12 might have wanted centers and uniformly large lots; PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS WHO WENT TO MANHATTAN some of the 52 percent might have been relatively in- AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH different to centers but have disliked the broad spread By ring of development of one-family residences. But coupled with the earlier 1) Cc re .............................................................. 82% question on job centers, this response tends to support 2) Other cities .................................................. 44 3) Inner suburbs ................................................ 52 centralizing large-scale activities. 4) Outer suburbs ................................................ 37 5) Rural .............................................................. 30 Other hints at the attractiveness of centers to the 1) New York City except Staten Island, with Hudson County, New Jersey, and sample can be inferred from response to thirty-two Newark. conditions of living to which we asked degrees of 2) Respondent said he lived in a city but he did not live in a Core coun ty. 3) Respondent said he lived in a suburb in one of the following counties: Bergen, desirability and degrees of satisfaction with present Essex West, Passaic South, Union, Nassau, Westchester South, Richmond. 4) Respondent said he lived in a suburb in one of the following counties: Fairfield, conditions. One-third felt it was very desirable to live New Haven, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic North, Somerset, conveniently to performing arts and museums, and half Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester North, Litchfield, Hunterdon, Ocean, Sussex, Warren, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Sullivan, Ulster. thought it was desirable. A fifth were dissatisfied with 5) Respondent said he lived in a rural area, which in some cases was in an inner county listed in 3. the inconvenience of reaching cultural activities at that For other "downtown" activities, the Region's residents use Manhattan, smaller downtowns, shopping centers or scattered highwayside shops, restaurants, etc. White Plains (below) illustrated for Goals participants the characteristics of a downtown compared to a shopping center: more public transportation to and within it, offices mixed with shopping, parking garages drawing facilities closer together. M 7 71'. -X anon Sk- 4t k- 0 time. Two-thirds thought an "adequate public library" We also asked: very desirable, and a quarter were dissatisfied. (Sub- Do you think a tri-state public agency should be created Table 16 urban centers would strengthen these cultural activi- for the following transportation purposes: ties and put them close to more people than scattered Yes No Undecided sites would.) To arrange for improved rapid tran- sit service (New York City subways Over 80 percent felt it desirable to get places by pub- and H and M Tubes, now PATH) 91% 5% 5% lic transportation, and 28 percent were presently dis- To arrange for improved passenger satisfied with the adequacy of public transportation. service on suburban railroads . . . 94 3 3 Recalling that the participants were highly satisfied, Since the question of commuter railroad subsidy was on the whole, the degree of dissatisfaction with lack of under public discussion then, we also asked who should public transportation and public libraries and incon- support improved commuter railroad service: venience of performing arts and museums was large Yes No Undecided Table 17 compared to dissatisfaction with other conditions. The Federal .................... 73% 17% 10% State ........... ......... 87 7 6 only condition about which as many or more were dis- Counties Served ... ... .... 75 14 11 satisfied was convenience to outdoor swimming, which Municipalities served ........ 68 19 13 was of interest to slightly fewer persons. Another question tested the preference for public In all, however, we do not have a clear endorsement transportation in competition with automobiles during of the centers idea, which was not worked out as clearly rush hours: before the Goals project as it is now. This is being If a tri-state agency were to recommend that lanes be reserved for buses Table 18 discussed in clearer fashion in public response projects on existing expressways and major highways during rush hours, would now. However, such evidence as these responses did you favor or oppose such a proposal? provide indicated that it was reasonable to go ahead Favor: 73%; Oppose: 7%; Have mixed feelings: 16%; Don't know: 5% with the hypothesis of large downtowns for the Region. There also was interest in better transportation plan- ning: 95 percent of the participants favored a tri-state Transportation public agency to make plans for and to coordinate state The strongest viewpoint expressed through the ques- and federal programs for major highways and public tionnaire was pro-public transportation. We asked: transportation. We now have a Tri-State Transporta- tion Commission to do that. Table 15 How strongly do you favor the following methods of trying to prevent traffic congestion as jobs and population rise? Favor Favor Don't Oppose Oppose No Older cities and the Region By building more highways strongly somewhat care somewhat strongly reply We identified four possible problems related to the when traffic seems to be older cities of the Region on which questionnaire re- reaching capa city on any stretch .......................... ................. 22% 34% 2% 21% 15% 6% sponses provided some information: By improving public transpor- 1. A growing separation of rich and poor, white and tation .... . .............. 85 12 1 0 0 2 Negro, as the former leave the older cities while the By locating jobs in centers large enough to provide public latter are forced to remain. transportation for people who wish to use it .............. . ...... 57 30 4 4 1 3 2. Inferior conditions in the older cities for living gen- By permitting construction of erally and particularly for raising children. more housing that factory workers can afford near subur- 3. Reluctance of people who would like to live in a city ban factories .... .......... . ........... 38 34 6 13 6 3 (as distinct from the suburbs) to do so because of cer- By making city living more tain conditions. attractive to suburbanites working in the city who might 4. The possibility that even if these conditions were then want to live in the city .... .......... . .................. ........... 39 31 18 6 3 3 eliminated, so few people would want to live in older Garden State Plaza (below), a shopping center in Paramus, New Jersey, was compared to downtown White Plains. The cluster of nearby Bergen Mall shopping center, several adjacent individual department stores and Garden State takes the place of a downtown for many families in suburban North- ern New Jersey. ippi. low APW 000 IX 'VIC Ir The power of social forces over physical in older cities was demonstrated to Goals participants on 94th Street. East of the Park, turn-of-the-century brownstones, owner-occupied, sell for upwards of $100,000. West of the park, very similar brownstones were occupied by as many as seventy per- cities that as incomes rise, cities gradually would lose There was some difference in replies by where the much of their population. respondents lived in the Region: 82 percent of the All four problems merge, in fact. Core residents said yes to one or the other, 85 percent The questionnaire stated: of those living in cities outside the Core, 73 percent of Table 19 Regional Plan Association has reported the trend that large those living in the inner suburbs, 69 percent in the outer numbers of white middle-incor-ne families with children are suburbs, 70 percent in rural areas. There also was some moving from the cities to the suburbs, while lower-incorne discernible difference by education, the more education, persons and Negroes and Puerto Ricans are not moving out in large numbers. Do you think that anything should the larger the support. be done to slow or stop this trend? Note that only 58 percent felt after the first meeting Yes: 58 percent; No: 21 percent; Don't know: 20 percent that something should be done to slow the trend of What are participants willing to do about it? On an separation of rich and poor, while 74 percent were will- open-ended question (respondents wrote whatever they ing to give cities extra state or federal aid after the wished, rather than checking prepared answers): fifth meeting. Table 2o 57 percent said improve city conditions and provide Altogether, suburban residents among Goals people more middle-income housing-then, by implication, were not adamant against city living. More than two- middle-income families will remain in the older cities; thirds would consider it. While we think this is many 46 percent urged more housing opportunities for lower- more than would actually choose to live in an older city, income families and minority groups outside the cities; we did identify a group, consisting of about a fifth of 8 percent suggested eradication of the basic causes of the suburban residents, who not only said they would the separation-prejudice and chronic low income of consider city living but indicated elsewhere in the ques- minority groups-via better education; tionnaires more interest in conditions easily obtained 6 percent said no overt action is necessary. in a city than in those easily obtained in more rural (Some 20 percent gave more than one of these answers, surroundings (e.g., convenience to specialty shopping, and there was a handful of less classifiable responses.) cultural activities and public transportation), less inter- Slightly more people, then, were looking toward at- est in rural values than other participants (e.g., quiet, tracting middle-income families to rernain in or move private outdoor space and convenience to natural coun- to the older cities than were recommending efforts to tryside) plus more tolerance of difficult-to-overcome bring low-income families out of the cities (though con- city disadvantages (e.g., air pollution and dirt). sidering what to do about city residents working in The conditions that this group set for moving to the suburban factories and suburban residents working in city are therefore worth considering. city centers, the percentage favoring opportunities for CHANGES IN CITY NEEDED TO INDUCE PEOPLE WITH URBAN TASTES Table the former to move out was about equal to the per- TO MOVE FROM A SUBURB TO A CITY centage wanting to encourage the latter to move in). Changes in these Total suburbanites With children Without children conditions with urban tastes under 19 under 19 Attracting the middle class to city living. We sug- Housing 34` 370 28? gested that better public services might help to attract Safety 15 16 10 the middle class to city living and asked: Schools 11 15 0 Traf f ic 9 7 10 Table 21 Do you think the older cities of the Region have special problems war- Cleanliness 7 5 9 ranting extra aid from the following sources: Parks 6 8 3 Congestion 5 6 3 Federal Yes: 61 percent; No: 21 percent; Undecided: 18 percent Slums 3 2 6 State Yes: 72 percent; No: 14 percent; Undecided: 15 percent Social undesirables 3 2 4 Political and civic life 2 2 3 Altogether, 74 percent said yes to one or the other level. Unspecified city changes 8 6 15 41 Al sons, mainly Negro and Puerto Rican poor, often a whole family to a room. A gradual program of renewal, with neighborhood participation, is underway. In addition, 43 percent of the suburbanites with urban terest in them (i.e., "very desirable" down to "very tastes who had children said they might move to the undesirable") and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with city if their family conditions changed, which we in- them as these conditions existed where they lived. In ferred to mean, in most cases, when their children left eleven of the conditions, Core residents were consider- home. Judging from this response and recent apart- ably more dissatisfied than the sample as a whole: ment demand in Manhattan, there seems little doubt RATINGS BY CORE RESIDENTS OF SELECTED LIVING CONDITIONS Table 24 that demand for Manhattan housing will continue high, Saying Saying since, according to Regional Plan projections, the num- Environmental Conditions very desirable dissatisfied ber of one- and two-person households with incomes Good public schools 721. 3806 Personal safety 72 30 above $10,000 a year will be over 40 percent higher in Clean air 71 63 Parking near horne 58 31 1970 than in 1965, an added 220,000 households, with Quiet 44 34 Manhattan obs likely to be increasing, too. Private outdoor space 43 42 i Opportunity to influence local policy 43 41 The main source of middle-income families for the Convenience to natural countryside 40 45 Dpportunity to influence school policy 39 35 cities are lower-income families living in the cities now Convenience to large outdoor recreation areas 33 31 whose incomes will rise and whose children will get Convenience to outdoor swimming 29 39 higher-paying jobs. New York City residents in the Here is a list of problems to be solved, certainly, to Goals project were fairly loyal. When asked to check satisfy middle-income families who might live in the whether they "like very much," "like," "have mixed City. Many probably would apply to smaller cities of feelings," "dislike" or "dislike very much" various the Region as well. areas or kinds of areas in the Region, three-fourths of Further, city residents told us what might cause them the New York City residents said they liked living in to move to a suburb. the Region's Core at least as well as they thought they CHANGES IN CITY CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT INDUCE CITY RESIDENTS Table 25 would like any other part of the Region. On the other TO MOVE TO A SUBURB hand, a larger percentage of city residerits than of sub- Changesin Total With children Without children urbanites were not very satisfied with living conditions. these conditions city residents under 19 under 19 Housing 17% 19% 15P. When asked: Safety 11 11 12 Congestion 11 13 8 Table 23 In your opinion, how satisfactory are the living conditions ... [for you Social undesirables 9 8 9 in your community]? Schools 8 12 4 Slums 7 8 6 Participants residing in Very satisfied Satisfied Not satisfied Traffic 5 5 6 1) Core 51o 26* 23oo Cleanliness 5 4 5 2) Cities outside Core 64 19 17 Political and civic life 4 5 3 3) Inner suburbs 66 22 12 Parks 2 2 2 4) Outer suburbs 63 22 15 5) Rural 73 18 9 Note that housing and safety were at the top of the 1) New York City except Staten Island, with Hudson County. New Jersey. and concerns of both city residents who might consider a Newark. 2) Respondent said he lived in a city but he did not live in a Core county. move to the suburbs and suburbanites considering a 3) Respondent said he lived in a suburb in one of the following counties: Bergen, move to the city, but housing was of concern to far more Essex West, Passaic South, Union. Nassau, Westchester South, Richmond. 4) Respondent said he lived in a suburb in one of the follovdng counties: Fairfield. people than any other item. (See Table 22 as well as New Haven, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic North, Somerset, Rockland, Suffolk, Westchester North, Litchfield, Hunterclon, Ocean, Sussex, Table 25.) Warren, Dutchess, Orange. Putnam, Sullivan, Ulster. 5) Respondent said he lived in a rural area, which in some cases was in an inner We did an extensive analysis of types of housing county listed in 3 respondents liked and number of rooms needed and Respondents also were asked to check their feelings amount of rent (or its equivalent) they were willing to about thirty-two living conditions, their degree of in- pay and discovered that the size of housing units appar- 7 DIFFER A WORLD OF ently is far more important than most analyses of hous- LIVING )TAL LIVI ing location preferences have indicated. on Crossing housing preferences with residential area Table 01YOC SWIMMING POOLS no likes, we found that among those who said they would _51a_ - so sP90S AIR CONDITIONED SUITES ME! like the Core as well or better than living elsewhere in :7 5TS RUA 5 10 ONE FARE ZONE TO MANHATTAN the Region, 72 percent of the respondents with children 'ON SITE SHOPPING SCHOOLS PAW in the household and with incomes of $10-15,000 and 80 man P". percent of those with incomes over $15,000 felt they n eeded six rooms or more; of those without children, 21 perc nt and 29 percent felt they needed six rooms at least. Of these, about a fourth eliminated themselves for city living by liking only lots of 1/4-acre or more (prac- New apartments for middle-income families (renting for $25-40 per tically unavailable in New York City); but of the rest, room) in New York City have been built mostly outside Manhattan. Above: Lefrak City rising on vacant land in Queens in 1963. In add ition about a third said they would be willing to pay more to low-cost travel to Manhattan, new middle-class apartments in New than $333 per month for an apal-tment or for a house York City try to provide some separation from the City's problems, just as the suburbs do. on a small lot (over $50 a room) and another eighth said 4 21 T", q_J @@ i 7H 'A6 n6 rJ1 Lefrak City today. View from terrace overlooking swimming pool and recreation area. 5,7 -T Vr F_ @Tt I IN pARTMENi ir -100 On Manhattan's East Side, new apartments at luxury rentals ($75 a room) were in sufficient dernand to support the largest urban renewal program in history, without any public aid. But few of these apartments "On Site" shopping at Lefrak City. are large enough for families with more than one child. 40 they would pay between $250 and $333 per month ($40 remain in the cities. There seemed to be enough interest plus per room). Only a sixth were unwilling to pay more in city living among respondents (interest that went up than $167 a month ($28 a room). This seems to point to with income and education) so that it seems feasible a good deal of effective demand for larger apartments to try to keep some middle- and upper-income families and houses in New York City, but not certainly. Most in the city. of these people want to live only in or very near Man- However, among those who had never lived in a city hattan, and rentals of unsubsidized housing are now -an increasing proportion of the Region's population, running substantially above $50 a room there.* the interest in city living was smaller than among those Of the suburbanites considering a move to the city, who had lived in a city. Changes in living conditions a third would like to live in Manhattan but only about in the cities which seem most important to maintain an eighth would like to live in Brooklyn or Queens and more economically balanced residential communities fewer in the Bronx. While preference for Manhattan are: (1) more housing units with six or more rooms, increased with income, preference for the other bor- (2) continuing attention to personal safety, (3) better oughs decreased (with the exception of families without schools, (4) less air pollution. Outside of Manhattan, children earning $10-$15,000 a year, more of whom pre- cities and boroughs should provide the advantages that ferred Queens than households without children earn- compact population can support: cultural activities, ing under $10,000). The lesson, clearly, is that people specialty shopping, convenient public transportation, will put up with city living if there are compensating good libraries. attractions since, in many ways, Manhattan has the most disadvantages in living conditions, but of course Housing opportunities for lower-income families in it has the most compensations. Altogether, it might be the suburbs. As to attitudes toward increasing housing easier to provide the blend of suburban amenity and opportunities for low- and moderate-income families city attractions most satisfactory for those with urban and Negroes in the suburbs, we obtained four measures: tastes by increasing the city attractions outside Man- We asked whether "in choosing where to live," the Table 28 hattan in the Core than by trying to introduce more "chance to associate with people from diverse back- spaciousness into Manhattan living. grounds" was desirable or not. The response: very A final observation: interest in living in a city was desirable 27 percent; desirable 54 percent; not im- lower among those who had never lived in a city. portant-17 percent; undesirable-1 percent; very un- fable 27 Among suburbanites, only 60 percent of those who al- desirable-0 percent. ways had lived outside a city would consider moving to a city, but 72 percent of those suburbanites who at But their definition of "diverse backgrounds" may not some point in their lives had lived in a city would con- include the poor and Negroes because we have reason sider the move. Similarly, only 14 percent of those who to believe that few of the places where these people live always had been suburbanites said they would like liv- would foster a chance to associate with the poor and ing in the Core as well or better than some other place with Negroes, yet when asked how satisfied they were in the Region, while 31 percent of the suburbanites who with their present opportunity to associate with those had once lived in a city considered living in the Core as of diverse backgrounds, they replied: very satisfied-14 attractive to them as some other place. As the percent- percent; satisfied-50 percent; neither satisfied nor dis- age of second-generation suburbanites rises, the poten- satisfied-24 percent; dissatisfied-10 percent; very tial for recruiting city residents may decline, then. dissatisfied-1 percent. The reverse also was true. Fewer city residents who Zeroing in a little closer-on willingness to live had always lived in a large city were considering a among moderate-income families, of whom many in move to the suburbs. this Region would be Negro, we asked: In sum, respondents were concerned about abandon- ing the poor and minority groups in the older cities and How would you feel if more factory workers were to live in your com- Table 29 wanted some middle- and upper-income families to munity? Favor strongly 13% Favor somewhat 20 *However, we did not ask how much more than $333 a month respondents would be Don't care 30 willing to pay-some might have paid more. Also, most of thes6 respondents were Oppose somewhat 24 home owners who may not have been able to translate housing 6osts into rent easily. Oppose strongly 12 41 d MR 14 Fill T 14 > cto 1, 16 Ffi 0 Ell, CD Or '5 "T'j; 0 CL 10 -00 U au > 71 IM D.C) 'ok LL. _00 .Jr. 6A en 8 3:u- IP0 ILI .220 1 wmv) u tto w Irdl 29 co 41 1-4 E 2 lift Wink, 220 'a 0 mu riff -4 CL U Wpw DD @j V- 0 0'a cuu0 [email protected], , [email protected] MIN. L mTm > > N CL. So only 36 percent would have opposed living in a This, again, does not show adamant opposition of a community that included factory workers, with a clear majority to having poor families in the community. Nor majority accepting them into the community; but only does the opposition to high buildings raise practical 33 percent would have actively urged that they move problems in the newer suburbs, where garden apart- in, and only 13 percent with strong feeling. ments and row housing would be economically feasible We also raised the question in a moral way: for low-income and lower-middle-income families. Fable 30 Suburbs wanting industry for tax purposes should permit a certain Then we asked about types of people respondents amount of housing to be built which industrial workers could afford. wanted in their neighborhood. To us, neighborhood Agree strongly 54% meant a much smaller geographical area than a com- Agree somewhat 32 munity, but we cannot be sure that respondents distin- Don't care 2 Disagree somewhat 7 guished the terms in this way. We asked: Disagree strongly 4 How would you personally feel about living in a neighborhood where the Table 33 Looking at even lower-income families, we asked: people are: like Dislike 11er, Do It Mixed very Don't ITable 31 Apart from tax considerations, how would you feel about permitting the much Like cane feelings Dislike much know following types of housing in your community, assuming they were well Similar race and designed and located and provided with lawns and recreational areas? similar income level 2 2 5"o 30% 9% 18% 14-1. 6% 1 % Low-income housing develop- Favor Favor Mixed Oppose Oppose No Similar race and ments consisting of: strongly somewhat feelings somewhat strongly opinion different income levels 10 36 11 26 13 4 1 Attached houses with Different races and private yards 24% 24% 16% 14% 21% 2% similar income level 15 31 8 28 12 5 2 Garden apartments 27 33 15 10 14 1 Different races and (2-3 stories) different income Medium-rise levels 10 14 7 28 26 12 3 apartments (about 6 stories) 11 18 16 18 36 1 Different income levels undoubtedly implied to this High-rise elevator sample lower incomes, particularly in the context of the apartments 6 8 11 17 56 2 reading, TV programs and total questionnaire. The A majority would not only accept but would favor question came directly after one about moving to a city low-income housing if the physical form were accept- or from a city. Forty-six percent liked neighborhoods able, 60 percent favoring garden apartments for low- with varied income levels but the same race or with income families compared to only 24 percent opposing. different races but the same income, compared to 17 Nearly half would favor low-income row houses, against percent who disliked such neighborhoods-a strong a third opposing. plurality for some neighborhood diversity. But when We asked a parallel question about middle-income both income and race diff er, (and here, certainly, re- housing developments to try to identify how much more spondents were thinking of Negroes with lower incomes opposition there was to low-income families than to than themselves), only 24 percent liked the idea while Fable 32 middle-income families. The greatest differential was 38 percent disliked it. in attached houses: 61 percent favored row houses for So in this group, there was just about as much dis- middle-income families, but only 48 percent for low- crimination against those with different income as income families; 26 percent opposed row houses for against those of different race, and significantly larger middle-income families and 35 percent opposed row numbers were averse to a combination of racial and houses for low-income. income differences. In fact, even adding the "don't The difficulty of bridging the growing gulf between the poor (of whom many are Negroes and Puerto Ricans) and others in the Region was illustrated by this West Side Manhattan renewal program which placed upper-middle-income and low-income housing on the same site with a school between. Almost all of the school's students came from public housing, and over 80 percent of them were Negro or Puerto Rican. Wt r .4 M V r 7 _rnL IL cares" to the likes, which is logical for our purposes, lower-income families and Negroes in the suburbs, gen- still more people opposed than approved of-let us say erally. Middle-income Negroes might find more support it directly-low-income Negroes moving into their than opposition in moving into a suburban neighbor- neighborhood. But 54 percent didn't mind having Ne- hood; low-income Negroes would be accepted in the groes with their income level in their neighborhoods, suburban community by the type of person in our compared to 17 percent who would not like that. Little sample, but a majority of even these "public -regarding" positive effort to achieve mixed neighborhoods would types do not think they would happily accept them in seem likely by this group, however, since 52 percent the smaller area, the neighborhood. liked homogeneous neighborhoods and only 20 percent did not. The rest didn't care, didn't know or had mixed Housing space f eelings. It is clear that a majority of respondents wanted to In sum, one can say that in middle- and upper-income live in more spacious surroundings than New York neighborhoods, civic leader types (i.e., our respondents) City, despite the attractiveness of Manhattan for a would support open occupancy for Negroes of the same significant minority. The replies about the kind of income as theirs in much greater number than would housing and neighborhood respondents wanted can be oppose, though even among these people, more actually applied to planning in the newer areas of the Region wanted neighborhoods made up entirely of families of in two ways. about the same income and race than favored racially First, they tell us whether personal preferences might diverse neighborhoods. And there was substantial op- conflict with the regional policies on land use and position to low-income Negroes in the neighborhood. In transportation the respondents advocated. For example, a larger area, which we have called a community, a ma- jority accepted low-income families as long as the will public transportation, a nearly unanimous pref- public could afford to build garden apartments or row erence, be feasible with the housing and lot-size prefer- housing for them. And two-thirds didn't mind factory ences expressed? workers living in the community-but not necessarily Second, the responses can contribute to the design in their neighborhood. of housing, neighborhoods and communities for which Since recent polls have shown that upper-income Regional Plan might prepare prototypes. white people are more willing than lower-income white Assuming the neighborhood and community were satisfactory to you and Table 3 people to accept Negro neighbors, and other indicators you could find housing with the number of rooms you want for your show the type of sample we have as "public-regarding" @ousehold at a cost you could afford, how would you feel about living in the following housing types? more than most (in the words of Wilson and Banfleld, Like All right Dislike Undecided see Chapter 2), the rather meager majorities for allow- Elevator tower of 20 stories or more 9% 11% 76% 4% Elevator apartment building of about ing low-income families and other races into suburban six stories 10 23 64 3 neighborhoods from this group suggest that there will Rehabilitated multiple-dwelling be strong opposition from suburbanites as a whole. walk-up housing 4 12 80 4 Walk-up garden apartment 13 32 50 4 Recent events (e.g., efforts to locate public housing in Two- or three-family house 6 17 72 4 Greenburgh, Westchester County, and in Queens) bear Attached one-family house 11 28 57 4 this out. Nevertheless, this survey seems to indicate a Detached one-family house 82 11 6 2 recognition that one ought to want a variety of people Of those who liked one-family houses, roughly half in one's community and that morally, the suburbs liked quarter-acre or smaller lots and half liked only should not be restricted to upper incomes. half-acre or larger, with the largest number liking Politically, then, it would seem a more effective tactic about quarter-acre, the smallest about an eighth-acre. to urge great investment in improving living conditions Note that respondents were asked only whether they in the older cities in opposition to the acknowledged liked, would accept or disliked various densities of problem of a growing separation of rich and poor, Ne- housing-not their first and subsequent preferences. gro and white, and allowing housing for factory work- Of all the sample living in multi-family dwellings, ers in municipalities getting new suburban factories. nearly half didn't like living in multi-family housing. But one also could expect a spearhead of civic-minded Of those living in one-family houses on smaller lots people to make an effort to open the way to housing for ('/s- or 1/4-acre), 35 percent did not like to live on such 44 small lots. On the other hand, given some incentive to do so, 16 percent of those living in one-family houses on small lots would have lived in multi-family housing, i.e., in denser surroundings. Of those living in one-fam- ily houses on lots of a third- or a half-acre, 18 percent didn't like living on that small a lot; but, given an in- centive, 32 percent would have lived on an even smaller lot or in multi-family housing. Of those living on an 43 acre lot or larger, one-quarter said they would like a house on a smaller lot, and 10 percent would have lived in multi-family housing if there were an incentive to do so. Comparing the living arrangements of the sample as a whole with the densest arrangements they would "like," we find very little difference in demand for multi-family housing (though some living in apart- ments didn't like them, some not living in apartments did). However, there was some greater preference for larger lots than respondents as a whole then had. 'Ible 35 Multi-family One-family les than about I acre or d Z s k4-acre arger Where the sample lived* 24% 40% 19% 17% Maximum density "liked"' 23 30 26 21 *These two are not exactly the same groups. Where respondents lived came from @reliminary biographical questionnaires submitted by 5,600 persons. What they 4 liked" came from a question on Questionnaire 111, whi ch was answered by 3,550. This being an unusual sample, particularly in that, as a group, they lived in more spacious surroundings than the Region's population as a whole, it is necessary to analyze preferences by type of respondent. I, Reaction of respondents with children. About 35 per- cent of all respondents with children under 6 lived in multi-family housing, but only 21 percent of these re- spondents said they "like" multi-family housing; 31 percent of those with children under 6 lived in homes V on lots of at least half-an-acre, but 45 percent said they only like a lot at least that large. On the other hand, only 8 percent of those with school-age children (6-18) lived in multi-family hous- ing, and 16 percent said they would like to; there was a slightly larger percentage of those with children 6-18 liking half-acre lots or larger than living on them-52 percent compared to 45 percent. Though preference for one-family housing was con- AN siderably higher for those with children in the house- hold, lot size preferences did not seem to vary much _r between those with children and without. A few more of those with children between 6 and 12 seemed in- clined toward half-acre lots or larger, but there were Pill Suburban densities were illustrated for Goals participants. Here, the same basic "bidevel ranch house" is shown on lots of three different sizes: top, 7,500 square feet (1/5 acre); middle, 112 acre; bottom, I acre. actually smaller percentages of those with children of other ages wanting half-acre lots or larger than those without children at all. lookin- only at those wanting one-family houses. Responses by income group. Fifty-two percent of the respondents with family incomes below $7,000 a year __A lived in multi-family housing, but only 36 percent liked 51m,r multi-family housing; 34 percent liked only lots of half- acre or larger while only 20 percent lived on such large lots. On the other hand, the respondents with incomes above $15,000 liked multi-family housing in far larger numbers than actually lived in it; 23 percent of those respondents liked multi-family housing, but fewer than 14 percent lived in it. Well-to-do families (over $15,000 a year) with children and without liked multi-family housing in larger numbers than lived in it. The $20,000 or-over group in one-family housing was satisfied with its lot sizes, on the whole-about the same percentage lived on each lot size as liked it. Less affluent respond- ents liked larger lots than they had, taking the group Families with modest incomes must now look for housing far from the as a whole. center of the Region, beyond a ring of vacant land on which only houses on large lots may be built, by order of the municipal councils (see Map In other words, the wealthiest families have bought 3). Prices of houses on large lots usually are too high for families what they like, though if given a reason, a significant with modest housing budgets. Commack, Long Island, 40 miles from Manhattan in Suffolk County, was pointcd out as one of the places number would -o from one-family houses on small lots beyond the large-lot zoning where house prices had been kept lower. to apartments. Among less affluent families, many more Until 1960, Commack was largely open fields. Then. as Nassau County filled up and the land along the Nassau-Suffolk line was protectcd by wanted half -acre or larger lots than had them. While the I-acre zoning, Commack quickly assumed the pattern shown here: a percentage living on half-acre lots or larger went up swarm of small homes on quarter-acre lots. Their price: around $15,000. C-1 with income, the percentage liking only lots that large did not go up in steady progression. V r T Aa JIM now Vy 46 Table 36 Incomes "Likes" ranged from only 4 percent for "rehabilitated Under $7,000- $1 0' 000- $12,500- $15,000- Over multiple-dwelling walk-up housing," to 6 percent for Lived on smaller than $7,000 $10,000 $12,500 $15,000 $20,00 $20,000 "two- or three-family housing,".9 percent for "elevator half-acre lots* 80% 73% 69% 59% 55% 48% tower of twenty stories or more," 10 percent for "eleva- Liked smaller than half- acre lots* 66 58 53 46 48 45 tor apartment building of about six stories," 11 percent Percentage difference be- 14 15 16 1-3 _7 3 for "attached one-family house" (not really a multiple tween households living, dwelling) and 13 percent for "walk-up garden apart- on less than half-acre lot and households liking to ments." Each of these categories meant a very clear live on these lots. housing type to the architects who helped write the *The e two are not exactly the same grouos. Where respondents lived came from prelTm,i,nary biographical questionnaires submitted by 5,600 persons. What they questionnaire, but it is likely that they did not call up liked came from a question on Questionnaire III, which was answered by 3,550. for respondents clear conceptions of what these kinds By religion. Of all religious groups in the sample, of housing could be like or usually are like. The one more Catholics seemed dissatisfied with the density of interpretation that seems fairly sound is that the gar- their living conditions than others: 26 percent lived in den apartment, the lowest-density type of multi-family multi-family dwellings but only 22 percent liked living dwelling (at least as it is typically built in this Region's in multi-family (and the 22 percent were not necessar- suburbs), was clearly the favorite. ily those living in multi-family); while only 28 percent In cross -tabulating the replies, we found that high- had lots of half -acre or larger, 46 percent liked only lots rise elevator apartments were favored by substantially of that size or larger. more respondents with incomes of over $20,000 a year Respondents who gave their religion as "other" than than by other income groups. Even high-income house- Protestant, Catholic or Jewish liked multi-family living holds with children under 18 had a somewhat larger in greater numbers than lived there, as did those saying percentage favorable to high-rise housing than the they had no religion. The same percentage of Jewish total sample. But high-income persons were not as respondents liked multi-family housing as lived in it, attracted to garden apartments as the rest of the sam- and more Jewish respondents than any other religious ple. If high income generally correlates with preference category were then living in multi-family housing. for high-rise over garden apartments, this probably In each religious category, more persons liked only will mean a faster increase in demand for high-rise large lots (half-acre or larger) than lived on them. apartments than for garden apartments as households By location in the Region. Seventy-eight percent of with high incomes increase. the respondents living in the Core were in multi-family Protestants were least accepting of every type of dwellings, but only 54 percent liked living in them; al- multi-family housing, with a slight exception of "walk- most none lived on lots of half-acre or over, but 18 ups," where Catholics were less interested. (Perhaps percent liked only large lots. More Core residents with the work ethic implied in walking up satisfied the children than without disliked the density of their liv- Protestants; more seriously, fewer Protestants than ing conditions, understandably-75 percent with chil- Jews and Catholics probably associated the walk-up dren lived in multi-family dwellings but only 43 percent with a New York tenement.) Those saying their religion liked to. On the other hand, some living in what they was "other" were most accepting of each multi-family termed rural areas liked smaller lots than they had: 57 housing type; those indicating no religion were next. percent of those living in rural areas had acre lots or As many Jewish respondents liked high-rise and six- larger, but 50 percent would have liked smaller lots; 6 story apartments as the "other" religionists, but fewer percent were living in multi-family housing, but 11 per- Jewish respondents liked walk-up or two- or three- cent would have liked it. family houses. More of those living in the suburbs liked multi-family What do these preferences imply? housing than lived in it, too. Possible conflicts of preference and policy. It is clear On the other hand, there were some in each location that this sample-though already living more spac- category who only liked larger lots than they then had. iously than the Region's population, taking both as a Types of multi- family housing whole-wanted more space per household. Even among those without children, 27 percent were living on lots In discussing density, above, we have considered of half-acre or larger but 38 percent liked only lots of multi-family housing as a single type. But there was a that size. great deal of difference in the reaction to different kinds On the other hand, twice as many respondents dis- of multi-family housing. liked as liked the "spread city" regional development 47 T-1 __F1_1 gas 7M Q a 7 Ir k Large-lot zoning does limit the number of houses that can be built in an area, saving school costs, but it does not guarantee an attractive neighbor- hood, as illustrated for Goals participants by this subdivision with one-acre lots built on land that recently had produced corn. pattern, which is characterized by increasingly large (outside Washington, D. C.), for example, is totally dif- residential lots. And the respondents were all but unan- ferent from what most people in the Region conceive imous in supporting public transportation, which can- of when asked the kinds of housing and lot sizes they not readily serve an area in which all residences are like. Even Radburn, which has been in the Region for one-family houses on half-acre lots or larger. Yet 47 a third of a century, is unknown to all but a handful. percent of the sample said they liked nothing more More recently, the stacked houses, Habitat, shown at compact than a half-acre lot. Expo 67, offer a totally new type of compact housing. Nor does it seem likely that the pull of urban attrac- Most apartments in the Region, new and old, are ugly tions will keep many of the respondents from actually and overpowering; most small-lot subdivisions look buying the house on the large lot that they say they crowded and monotonous. want. Cross tabulations indicated that the urban types, On the other hand, we are only beginning to get those respondents who were particularly interested in large-lot subdivisions that are equally monotonous; un- convenience to activities available only in densely til recently, large lots were confined to rolling country populated areas, already liked multi-family housing or and were used for expensive houses, or they were in small lots-80 percent of those with predominantly ur- genuinely rural areas. Consequently, large lots call up ban leanings, nearly 60 percent of those with strong a picture of attractive housing, small lots of unattrac- urban leanings but also a liking for more rural condi- tive. Similarly, the clear dislike of attached housing tions. But the first group is only 19 percent of the total, probably represents a reaction to the rows of dreary the second only 15 percent. While this group may be attached houses in Brooklyn, Manhattan and some sufficient to populate the older cities, as we said in the other older cities, since there are few places in the earlier section, it does not seem adequate to keep the Region where attached housing has been designed at- newer areas compact. tractively. This conflict between what individuals want for their Those who look around the world for attractive neigh- homes and what they want for their Region probably borhoods report that there are at least as many of quite should be resolved-if at all possible through the de- high density as of very low. In fact, most of the new sign of housing and neighborhoods that satisfy what communities that have become known among archi- people want when they choose large lots, without the tects, planners and designers as aesthetically outstand- disadvantages of a very spread urban area. ing are high density compared to the average new It may be that a large number of participants who subdivision in this Region (which is about half an acre indicated they did not like multi-family housing or per lot). small lots were basing their judgment on the predom- It may be, however, that good looking houses and 0, A "A U I a., - 7' inant examples of each housing type all around them. neighborhoods would not woo large numbers of the Few people know the kinds of housing and neighbor- Goals participants to smaller lots or apartments. We hoods that could be available to them. Reston, Virginia asked: 48 rable 37 If you now live in a house with a yard, how important are these uses zoning," which enables builders to take some land that of your backyard? N t used typical zoning ordinances would require for each priv- Most Not so for this ate lot and transfer it to community open space. important Important important purpose Perhaps more were convinced of the efficacy after Play area for children 58% 22% 8% 12% two more weeks of pondering planning questions, in- Adult recreation 26 40 27 7 Outdoor entertaining and cluding TV time devoted to Radburn and a new cluster dining 29 39 25 7 development in Hillsborough, New Jersey. Perhaps the Gardening and hobbies 41 37 18 4 concept was presented in a more attractive way the Feeling of openness 56 32 9 2 Sense of privacy 57 32 9 3 second time than the first, leaving the impression, for All uses appear important, but a "feeling of open- instance, that only near neighbors would be using the community open space with clustering, rather than ness ... .. sense of privacy" and "play area for children" 11 strangers." Or perhaps the extra support for clustering are important for 80-90 percent. The first turns out to came from people who wanted it available for others be most important of all, apparently, according to re- but would not want it themselves. We do not know. plies to other questions. Altogether, it seems that preferences for the conse- When asked about privacy, they leaned toward the quences of more compact neighborhoods, i.e., more privacy of distance more than of walls: natural countryside, more variety in residential design, able 38 The following lots differ in size and amount of privacy. Assuming that convenient public transportation and reduced auto they cost the same, which would you prefer? trips, will clash with preferences for more spacious A fairly small lot completely enclosed by a garden wall 10% housing and neighborhoods. It is conceivable that bet- A larger lot partially screened by fencing and shrubbery 65 ter designed compact neighborhoods would convince A still larger lot completely open to neighbors, with shrubbery around the house 21 these people that a very large private yard is not neces- Undecided 4 sary for a sense of spaciousness. But if there is no de- When asked whether they would exchange some of cisive demonstration that well-designed compact com- their frontyard for more backyard space, 47 percent munities can attract large numbers of home buyers, it said "no," 45 percent "yes." Only 30 percent would ex- seems likely that housing will continue to spread and change some frontyard for "more open space in a com- the values with which spread development appears to munity park nearby," 56 percent would not. Even more conflict-natural countryside, variety, public transpor- decisive, only 18 percent would sell part of their front- tation-will be impossible to achieve. yard, and 69 percent definitely would not. We can in- Other neighborhood characteristics terpret this loyalty to the typical frontyard as a vote neither for privacy nor play space but simply for spac- Types of neighbors. We discussed attitudes toward rable 39 iousness and the particular kind of aesthetic that front- neighbors of other races and incomes in looking at the yards usually express. prospects for the old cities and their residents. Sum- There was strong loyalty, also, to a private play space. ming the responses a little differently from the analysis Only about a quarter of the respondents would take a in the last section, about a quarter said they like simi- smaller yard (not specifying front or back) in exchange larity of both race and income; about a tenth said they for a handy park; two-thirds definitely would not. like diversity of both race and income; about a fifth After the meeting two weeks later, however, respond- said they like racial diversity with income similarity; ents gave 72 percent to 12 percent support to "cluster about a tenth said they like different incomes as long The TV program on life in suburbia showed that new residential neighborhoods with lots of children seem to create a neighborliness-at least among the children. It also showed the dependence on the automobile for almost every trip. J. ,Z, V i, "A' Lo @,/5'4; as the race is the same; the rest were ambivalent or The more education respondents had, the more this tolerant of all. was true: Percent saying "very desirable" Table We also asked about other characteristics desired in Not a neighbors. college College Graduate graduate graduate education Table 40 Some 82 percent wanted the sarne moral values Privacy 46% 56% 57% among their neighbors and only 12 percent preferred Neighborliness 35 27 24 neighbors of different moral values; but 43 percent 2. Questions on how much interaction actually took wanted neighbors with different living styles and only place between respondents and neighbors and whether 35 percent wanted similar living styles-the rest didn't more or less was desired also were asked. care. Table 41 As to age, 13 percent wanted the same ages in their About how often would you say you and your neighbors Table usually exchange favors (e.g., babysitting. carpooling, books, neighborhood and 7 percent mildly favored that; 52 garden tools, etc.) or help out in emergencies? percent liked different ages in their neighborhood, with Several times a week 25% 11 percent less strongly in favor; and 18 percent had no Several times a month 33 clear preference. Several tinies a year 33 Table 42 Even more of the sample favored variety in religion Never . ... . . 10 in their neighborhood. Only 6 percent strongly favored About how often do you and your neighbors usually get together for visits in the evening or a coffeebreak during the similar religious views in their neighborhood and 5 day or things like that? percent favored it less; 58 percent strongly favored Several times a week 13% religious diversity, with another 11 percent mildly in Several times a month 31 favor; 21 percent had no preference. Several times a year . . . . 41 Never .... .. .. .... ... 16 Interaction with neighbors. We had two measures of How do you feel about the amount of exchanging between desired interaction with neighbors. you and your neighbors? Would you say it's 1. Items of "privacy" and "neighborliness" were More than I would like 1 % Somewhat more than I would like 2 among the thirty-two living conditions on which we About right 83 asked respondents to indicate degrees of desirability Somewhat less than I would like 9 and degrees of satisfaction with their present environ- Less than I would like 4 ment. How do you feel about the amount of visiting and get- Privacy was more desirable to more respondents than togethers between you and your neighbors? Would you say it's neighborliness: More than I would like ... 1010 Table 43 Very Not Very Somewhat more than I would like 2 desirable Desirable important Undesirable undesirable About right ... 76 Privacy 56% 41% 3 % 0% 00 Somewhat less than I would like 16 /0 Neighborliness 27 59 13 1 0 Less than I would like 5 As a substitute for spread city, in which almost all housing is spread on large lots and facilities are scattered, Regional Plan suggested that people might prefer more variety in housing densities along with centers of activity. The Great Neck peninsula illustrated how housing naturally varies N% e- Ll 'tc lit % More than half the respondents exchanged favors living in one-family houses on lots of one-acre or larger frequently-at least several times a month (58 percent), preferred privacy and were indifferent to neighborli- and 90 percent did at times; nearly half socialized with ness than any other lot size. neighbors frequently (44 percent) and five out of six did sometimes. There was a preference among 13 per- Percent saying "very desirable" Table 46 cent of the respondents for more exchange of favors privacy neighborliness compared to 3 percent who wanted less; there was a Core* preference of 21 percent for more socializing with (New York City, 57% 25% neighbors compared with 3 percent who wanted less. Hudson County, This seems more reflective of actual feelings than the Newark) highly abstract concept of "privacy" and "neighborli- Inner Ring (older suburbs) Multi -family- 1/8 acre 48 29 ness" on the thirty-two item list. It seems to demon- 1/8-1/4 acre 51 26 strate what can often be seen by the observing eye: larger 57 30 even though everyone wants the maximum freedom to Intermediate Ring (newer suburbs) choose his friends and the frequency of interacting Multi-family-/@ acre 52 26 with them and, in the abstract, most persons fear get- 1/4-1 acre 53 26 ting "too involved" with neighbors, in practice, they larger 71 23 very frequently do get involved with their neighbors Outer Ring (mostly rural) and like it-and many want more interaction. Multi-family-1/4 acre 52 32 1/4-1 acre 50 32 This being so, the apparent preference of many re- larger 73 21 spondents for privacy over neighborliness probably *Almost all Core residents live in multi-family housing or on the smallest lots. should not be weighed heavily. It is a consideration to be tested again. But even if people don't really want as much separa- tion from their neighbors as they think they do, they are likely to include abstract feeling for privacy over Judging from respondents' satisfaction with their de- neighborliness in their house-buying decision. gree of privacy and neighborliness, people who prefer Looking at residential locations in the Region, city privacy should choose large lots. (Table 47.) Of those residents (Core plus other cities) were the least desir- who felt privacy is "very desirable" or "desirable," 12 ous of neighborliness and Core residents were next in percent were dissatisfied with their degree of privacy. desiring privacy to persons living in a rural area. Resi- Core residents were far more dissatisfied than the dents of other cities in the Region were least desirous average-18 percent. Elsewhere, lot size seemed to af- of privacy, though. Looking at lot size, more of those fect the degree of satisfaction with privacy. in density in relation to centers or good transportation points. There are apartments in Great Neck Plaza around the Long Island Railroad station and local shopping. Then, moving out, there are @,@6 acre, ;3 acre, @,i acre, and finally, 1- and 2-acre lots two miles from the station. % V Ar. SL 0,@.V WSW ."a arf W__ "o T-- r7LT SCORN-. Mill I Table 47 Percent saying "very desirable" who are Core respondents) are dissatisfied about their degree of dissatisfied with present condition privacy raises a question about this assumption. Or it privacy neighborliness may indicate that city residents are extremely touchy Core 18% 18% about privacy. Inner Ring Looking at actual behavior, frequency of interaction Multi-family-1/8 acre 19 5 is lowest among respondents living in apartments, 1/8-1/4 acre 13 6 highest among residents of houses on one-third to one- larger 6 4 half acre lots. Intermediate Ring Apartment 2-3 family One-family house _ Table Multi-family-1/4 acre 20 9 house -jess @than i/p/4 1/3-1/2 1 acre 1/4-1 acre 10 5 Exchanging favors at i/8.acre acre acre and over larger 3 4 least several times Outer Ring monthly 43% 52% 53% 62% 68% 56% Multi-family-1/4 acre 15 5 Socializing at least 1/4-1 acre 8 3 several times monthly 42 45 38 44 51 44 larger 3 3 Wanting to exchange favors more 23 18 15 11 10 10 While the numbers dissatisfied about neighborliness Wanting to exchange are small, the total table seems to suggest a need for favors less 5 6 2 3 3 2 further analysis of the relationship of lot size and Wanting to socialize neighborliness. We had assumed that lots of an acre or more 29 21 24 21 19 17 more tended to decrease neighborliness, but these re- Wanting to socialize sponses raise a question as to whether this is so. It also less 4 4 2 2 2 2 has been assumed that city living provided a privacy Percentages desiring privacy very much (on the thirty- of anonymity, i.e., that so many people were there, per- two living conditions listed) and percentages exchang- sonal relations could be avoided unless deliberately ing favors frequently roughly correlate inversely: i.e., undertaken. The fact that 18 percent of Core residents those living on the largest lots tend to want privacy who very much desire privacy (and 15 percent of all in greater numbers and actually exchange favors in smaller numbers than those living on all but the smallest lots. Neighborliness and socializing among neighbors are less clearly related to lot size. On the direct question of whether respondents would Z like closer or less close relations with neighbors, more expressed a wish for a change than expressed dissatis- faction a week later on the more abstract question about neighborliness and privacy. The conclusion must be that people of all types have a good many neighborly relations; many want more than they have and only a few want less. But the rela- tionship of lot size to satisfying one's neighborliness V M is less clear. The numbers are too small to be decisive, but (adding together the last four lines in Table 48), it looks as though the large lots satisfy on neighboring more than do smaller lots: the fewest respondents are unhappy about either too much or too little neighbor- ing on one-acre lots or larger, the most are unhappy in and 'three-family houses and MW apartments, then two A neigh borly- looking block of 1920's Tudor style houses on 1/8-acre lots houses on lots smaller than 1/8 acre and then 1/3-1/2 in Nassau County, just across the Queens boundary. But among Goals acre lots; 1/8-1/4 acre lots were next-to-the-most satis- respondents, it was those living on 1/3 to 1/2-acre lots of new suburbia who reported the highest degree of interaction with their neighbors. factory. 52 Other environmental characteristics The most frequent responses were: All of the thirty-two living conditions on which re- DISAPPOINTMENTS WITH CURRENT HOUSING OR COMMUNITY Table 50 spondents indicated their sense of desirability and sat- Transportation problems 17% isf action are listed below, ranked according to the num- Cost and taxes 11 ber of respondents who deemed them "very desirable." Neighbors dull, snobbish, conformist 11 For clarity, we have omitted middle-of-the-road re- Unexpected physical changes 11 sponses, "desirable" and "not important," "satisfied" Household maintenance problems 9 Noise 9 and "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied." They are not Urban amenities inconvenient 7 really diagnostic. Poor municipal services 7 Schools not good enough 6 Table 49 A. In choosing where to live, how much do you want to have the Neighborhood declining socially 5 conditions listed below? Lack of playmates, playgrounds 5 B. How satisfied are you with the degree to which you have these conditions now? While disappointments do not appear to have afflicted A. B. these happy people in large numbers, classifiable re- Very Very sponses on open-ended questions like this were not desirable Undesirable satisfied Dissatisfied high generally, so these items may have greater num- Good public schools 77% 0% 30% 15% Clean air 75 0 37 19 erical significance than appears on the surface. At any Personal safety 68 0 32 9 rate, they may be some guide to house hunters about Parking near home 64 1 50 7 Adequate public library 64 0 24 23 what to try to find out before moving. Privacy 56 0 29 10 Another indicator of the kind of environment liked Private outdoor space 55 0 32 15 Quiet 53 4 35 11 and disliked-more a response to image than reality, Convenience to natural countryside 53 0 32 15 probably-was the following question: Convenience to school 51 0 31 7 Convenience to work 48 0 30 14 Opportunity to influence local decisions other than school Suppose you could find housing accommodations at a price you could Table 51 policy 44 1 14 20 afford to pay and that your job could be located at a reasonable distance Opportunity to participate in community affairs 44 0 24 8 from your home. How much would you like to live in each of the follow- Not too many large buildings in ing types, of communities in the New York Metropolitan Region? neighborhood 43 4 40 5 Convenience to grocery and other Partici- Like Have oislike regular shopping 43 0 31 7 P=ts then very mixed Ve ry N a Variety in design of buildings in living in* much Like feelings Dislike much opinion neighborhood 42 1 25 12 Manhattan 5.7% 19% 12% 2D% 25*/o 21% 1% Opportunity to influence school Brooklyn 3.7 3 7 13 38 31 4 policy 42 1 16 16 Bronx 2.0 1 4 12 41 33 4 Possible to get places by public Queens 2.9 3 9 18 35 26 5 transportation 38 1 17 28 Active religious institutions in the Staten Island 1.4 2 10 22 32 22 9 community 37 2 31 6 Newark 1.6 1 3 12 41 33 6 Convenience to friends 37 0 32 5 Other large city (50,000- Convenience to outdoor swimming 33 1 20 24 200,000) 4.0 2 11 26 29 19 6 Convenience to the performing Outlying smaller cities, arts, museums 33 1 13 21 older towns, villages 60.0 27 40 18 6 3 2 Possible to walk to and from Newer areas, suburbs (18 35 25 12 5 2 stores, schools, etc. 30 1 20 15 Rural 17.0 25 24 22 16 7 2 Only one-family homes in *Some categories estimated neighborhood 29 6 31 6 Convenience to other large outdoor recreation areas 29 1 17 15 If responses on all lines are combined for each par- Neighborliness 27 1 23 6 ticipant, the following general preference patterns ap- Chance to associate with people from diverse backgrounds 27 1 14 11 pear: Convenience to good restaurants 20 0 17 10 24 percent liked "newer areas, suburbs" and "outlying Convenience to specialty shopping (imported goods, etc.) 17 1 14 13 smaller cities, older towns and villages" equally and Convenience to relatives 14 3 20 11 Possible to bicycle to and from best. places 13 3 10 12 24 percent liked all the above plus "rural areas" equally Convenience to professional sports 9 3 10 8 and best. Disappointments. Another guide to improving neigh- 14 percent liked only rural areas best. borhoods is the response to a question about disappoint- 11 percent liked Manhattan best (though only half that ments in one's house or community after moving in. many lived there). 53 6 percent more liked some other place or places in Nevertheless, even for children over 18, conditions the Core best-one of New York City's boroughs, seemed at least "somewhat satisfactory" to 70 percent Hudson County or Newark (more than 10 percent of the respondents and "very satisfactory" to nearly lived in these places). half. 9 percent liked Manhattan, "outlying smaller cities, As to satisfaction for oneself: 73 percent of those older towns, villages" and "newer areas, suburbs" living in rural areas are "very satisfied," 66 percent of or "other large city" equally and best. those in the inner suburbs, 64 percent in cities outside 2 percent liked other large cities outside of New York the Core, 63 percent in an outer suburb, and only 51 best. percent in the Core. Other responses were even more mixed. Finally, comparing life in the Region with conditions Comparing where the total sample lived and where elsewhere: they said they would like to live, a latent demand for Compared to other places in the United States, in general, how do you Table Manhattan and rural areas appears. To these satisfied, feel about living in the New York Metropolitan Region? well-educated, upper-middle-income people, the image Very satisfied: 38% of the Bronx and Newark is bad, Brooklyn almost as Satisfied: 38 bad, and Queens and Staten Island scarcely less so. Mixed feelings: 19 Dissatisfied: 3 Only outlying smaller cities, older towns, villages, Very dissatisfied: 1 newer areas, suburbs and rural areas attracted more Summary of housing, neighborhood preferences. In likes than dislikes-in that order. sum, respondents wanted large lots for privacy and No surprises, except that 31 percent would like to live play space. They also wanted frequent relations with in Manhattan if they could find housing accommoda- their neighbors. A large minority wanted even more tions they could afford. interaction with neighbors than they had. And a good A final indicator for those planning the residential deal of neighboring seems attainable even with very environment: large lots. Table 52 Often members of a household are affected differently by the community Furthermore, fewer of those living in the Core, the chosen. In your opinion, how satisfactory are the living conditions for densest part of the Region, were "very satisfied" with members of your household? Somewhat their living conditions (51%) than those living in a rural Number Very Somewhat All unsatis- u=s- area (73%) or inner suburbs (66%). responding satisfactory satisfactory right factory factory On the other hand, the respondents also wanted, as 3773 Self 63% 22% 1D% 4% 1% 3344 Spouse 59 24 10 6 2 we saw in earlier sections, the fruits of more compact 655 Other adults in household 50 22 15 10 2 settlement-primarily public transportation, proximity 1478 Pre-school children 70 16 8 5 1 to cultural activities and other facilities of Manhattan, 1678 Children 6-12 69 21 6 4 1 1212 Children 12-18 51 26 11 9 2 which large.numbers of them used frequently. And they 754 Children over 18 46 24 14 11 4 did not like the prospect generally of miles and miles of What comes through is that this Region-and prob- large residential lots surrounding present development. ably that means mainly the suburbs, where 60 percent In short, one might say that the majority wanted to live of this sample said they lived-doesn't provide as well on large lots with neighbors who did not. for individuals 18 and over as it does for youngsters As to types of neighbors, they clearly preferred mixed under 12 and their parents. The environment does not ages and religions and similar moral values. About an provide satisfactorily, according to respondents, for 15 equal number preferred similar "living styles" as pre- percent of the children over 18 living with their families ferred different styles in their neighborhood. In income or 12 percent of other adults living with a family in and race, many more liked similar incomes and races which they are not the head or his spouse. Including than dissimilar, but a bare majority would be satisfied the "all right" responses, more than a quarter of both living with people of other races but the same incomes groups were not served satisfactorily. or different incomes but the,same races. 54 Open space and outdoor recreation strongly favoring more large parks-72 percent. As In the early 1960's, one of the hottest urban planning incomes rise, then, we probably can expect more people issues was saving open space. Regional Plan helped to to favor park expenditures. Living conveniently to natural countryside ranked stimulate interest in open space and outdoor recreation eighth in the list of thirty-two environmental conditions with a four-volume study in 1960,* which has had sig- in number of respondents saying it is "very desirable"; nificant influence on park acquisition in the Region. 53 percent said so. Of these 53 percent, 16 percent were The Goals participants were in accord with the awak- dissatisfied with the convenience for them of reaching ened concern for capturing natural countryside before natural countryside. urbanization spreads across the whole landscape. That it is to a large degree the feeling of natural Table 54 Do you favor, or oppose, large-scale public expenditures for acquiring countryside rather than its use that is important might land for parks, particularly the Region's seashore, mountains and scenic be indicated by the much lower rating respondents areas? Favor strongly: 63% gave two other items: "Convenience to outdoor swim- Favor somewhat: 22 ming--only 33 percent rated that "very desirable"; Mixed feelings: 10 11 Oppose somewhat: 3 convenience to other large outdoor recreation areas" Oppose strongly: 2 -only 29 percent said "very desirable." Of these, 35 No opinion: 0 percent were dissatisfied with convenience to swim- In sum-85 percent favorable, 5 percent unfavorable. ming; 25 percent to convenience to other large outdoor The percentage favoring "strongly" these large-scale recreation areas. park expenditures was slightly higher among Core Convenient or not, seven out of eight used "large out- residents than among others and also rose slightly with door recreation facilities (parks, beaches, ski slopes, higher incomes. Businessmen with incomes above $15,- etc.)" at least once a year. Median use was 10 times a 000 a year included the highest percentage of those year; a quarter of the sample used these facilities about every-other-week; three-quarters used them at least *The Race for Open Space, Nature in the Metropolis, The Dynamics of Park three-to-four times a year. Demand, The Law of Open Space. rA' V sz AW Ali Ile- N I P 5- JW r @70 ..j 74, @[email protected] _4 L r MW AT [email protected] eri [email protected]_ The possibility of keeping nature close to homes despite the surge of population was illustrated with examples of close-in parks and "cluster" subdivi- sions. Here in Hawthorne, New Jersey, on the out- skirts of industrial Paterson, Goffle Brook County -long strip of natural backyard. Park provides a mile Ji On L 56 General appearance and amenity rise public housing projects in Manhattan with vest- We asked one set of questions about types of aesthe- pocket parks and trees along Manhattan curbs.) tic-amenity improvements in cities for which partici- Core residents also were much more interested in pants would be willing to spend "substantial public better subway appearance, but only 43 percent of them investment" and accept "some public controls": favored "strongly" the necessary substantial public in- vestment. Perhaps these relatively high-income Core Table 55 Considering the fact that most of the improvements listed below will residents were not subway users.* Only 29 percent of involve substantial public investment and some controls, how do you feel about the following ways of improving the appearance of the Re- non-Core participants favored improved subway ap- gion's cities? pearance, the lowest interest shown on any item in Favor Favor Mixed Oppose Oppose No this question. On other items, city and suburban re- Stronger measures to strongly somewhat feelings somewhat strongly opinion sponses were close to the same. combat dust, smoke and Then we asked about improving the appearance of other forms of air suburban areas, emphasizing here "firmer public con- pollution 88% 10% 2% 0% 0% 0% An accelerated program trols over private development plus some public invest- to stop the pollution of ment." rivers, bays and shores to make them usable for recreation 88 10 2 0 0 0 Favor Favor Mixed Oppose Oppose No Table 56 Provision by developers strongly somewhat feelings somewhat strongly opinion of more on-site land- Stronger controls to scaped spaces even in preserve trees and very densely populated natural landscape in areas 66 22 8 2 1 1 new developments 80% 15% 3% 1% 0% 1% Clearance to provide Restrictions on bill- small public parks and boards and other out- playgrounds in built-up door advertising even areas 65 25 7 2 1 1 in commercial areas 72 17 7 3 1 1 Some community control Some community con- over the appearance of trol over the appear- new buildings and ance of new buildings renovations 58 27 10 3 2 0 and subdivisions 52 31 11 3 2 1 A large-scale effort to Stronger provisions plant trees and shrub- against commercial bery on city streets 50 29 13 5 2 2 development alongside Firm controls to preserve of highways 49 23 16 7 3 1 or large investment to Requiring that parking restore the character of lots be landscaped 27 27 20 12 6 10 architecturally and his- torically distinctive areas 45 28 18 5 2 2 Major reconstruction of Finally, we asked how much participants would be Table 57 key subway stations to make them more willing to add to the purchase price of a new house to attractive 31 31 17 7 3 12 bury electric or telephone lines. Twenty percent were undecided and 21 percent wouldn't pay anything, but Understandably, Core residents were slightly more 5 percent would pay $1,000, a quarter would pay at least interested in this list of improvements-which applied $500 and another third would pay about $200-alto- mainly to Cities-than those living outside the Core, but gether, 59 percent were willing to pay at least $200. in fact the difference in response between Core and Of the thirty-two living conditions we asked about, non-Core residents was not very great. Suburbanites four related to appearance and amenity in the environ- were more interested in on-site landscaping than Core ment. Clean air ranked second in numbers saying residents, and Core residents were far more interested very desirable" (only good public schools ranked than suburbanites in tree planting and shrubbery on higher), quiet ranked eighth, "not too many large build- city streets and in more small parks and playgrounds. ings in neighborhood" ranked fourteenth, and "variety (Is it that city people want green introduced into the in design of buildings in neighborhood" ranked six- city while suburbanites want buildings inserted in a teenth. Fewer Core residents than others ranked these greensward? Aesthetically, the difference is great- items "very desirable." compare the use of green space in the typical new high- *Mrs. Michael, who computed the data, suggests they may be subway users afraid of the disruption attendant on reconstruction of stations. But see page 63. 57 U3 OD -Al CL I En ol p V I to 10 q I , co cc, Q) VY CD 'fai- (A r- 12 CU 0 16 0 C 00 FA cg if) Relations with local governments Further, in a large sample of responses to the open- Among the thirty-two living conditions, the oppor- ended question, "What are your goals for the Region?" tunity to influence local decisions, to participate in only 21/2 percent said no eff ort should be made to change community affairs and to influence school policy ranked the metropolitan development trends. About 90 percent specified or clearly implied in their answers the need twelfth, thirteenth and seventeenth in numbers saying -very desirable." The longer the education, the more for changes. Both these questions were asked after the likely that these items were considered "very desir- fourth meeting. By this time, the participants were be- able." In all three items, more people living in old cities ginning to accept the possibility that there were better outside the Core than anywhere else felt these were patterns of growth than the one the Region was em- important. barked on and to raise the question of how to achieve As to dissatisfaction with present conditions, more them. On the goals question, 40 percent specified a need residents of the Core, mainly New York City, were un- to change public policies regarding housing, transpor- happy on all three items, and residents of other cities tation, open space and recreation facilities. were next most dissatisfied. However, on influencing The entire fifth meeting was devoted to machinery local government, it must be remembered that consti- of change. tuents of small municipalities can exercise a great deal Support for metropolitan planning of some kind was Table 60 of influence and still not affect many important issues all but unanimous: of their lives, which increasingly are decided at higher 96 percent said yes, I percent no, 3 percent undecided. levels of government. Large cities, on the other hand, And 63 percent believed that the regional planning still make many of the significant decisions for their agency should have at least limited enforcement constituents. Core residents' interest in and satisfaction powers. Advocacy of limited enforcement power was with their opportunity to participate in community af- most frequent in the Core (75 percent) and tapered off fairs were far higher than their interest and satisfaction toward the outer edges of the Region, but even 61 per- in influencing local government or school policy. cent of those who said they lived in rural areas favored We asked three questions about improving the re- regional planning with some power. lationship. We asked about two types of enforcement power Spe- Table 61 cifically: whether federal grants should only be given Table 58 Do you favor establishing the following in neighborhoods or groups of to urban areas if the investment will be made in con- neighborhoods in cities and large towns? Yes, Yes, formance with a regional plan-to which 86 percent ve ry somewhat No important important No opinion said yes and only 5 percent no-and whether local zon- Set up special communication channels ing powers should be modified. While zoning may not between municipal government and neighborhood civic and political groups 73% 22% 2% 3% be the most important enforcement mechanism for Sub-centers of city government to give regional planning-indeed, enforcement through the people li ing in the area assistance and informativon on city programs 57 31 5 8 power of the federal purse could be more decisive-the "Local" schoolboards with authority to zoning questions focused on possible regional-local act on some matters and with influence on policies set by the municipal or dis- conflicts and so tested relative loyalties on land-use trict school board 51 31 11 8 issues. And on one local program, urban renewal, we asked First, 82 percent of the participants agreed that Table 62 whether it is worth the necessary delay and cost to "municipal zoning is or will be causing problems for have people who are representative of those living and neighboring municipalities or for the metropolitan working in the area participate in the preparation of area as a whole"; only 5 percent said no. renewal plans." To this, 83 percent said yes and only 8 So the conflict was recognized. What should be done? percent said no. Ninety-nine percent favored some zoning agency Table 63 above the municipal level with at least review powers, Shifts in public powers and 70 percent said they would vest the agency with Table 59 To the question, "Do you think that a pattern of land limited powers or a veto over some municipal zoning use and transportation should be worked out which is decisions. better than the one the Region is presently develop- But which level of government was a point of con- ing?", 68 percent replied yes and only 11 percent no. tention: county, state or metropolitan? Because of a 59 -14 J r U .7 T, 4 Ujjjer, 2.: 0- e @T_ Lr ldhfield. D [email protected] 'Suffic In A_ 7 ji; g -eepaie @k -4:f- L W, [email protected] -7. Im r ;New j L Middlet Ora'nge X". :,2,. ";I It aso own 0 -4, D all bur) I eul- aven 05- L I - - ' "i ' N H '4- j ,@7:7. [email protected] x rj 'P;_1 Y WesijhAl V), r,7 rid rx S [email protected] 4 d Passsaic- t 6r, IF j W P e'n'--: 11' te lift 44" j3e .......... 0 aterson [email protected] 71 HuirittngLoiC`@,,1,[email protected],. 2 ron ,,7 7 4 0: Nutwt NI'o eisto" n 0. 'E, 4ueens so Nas G:7 Sa U 0 ITIPSIC %d He Union ing 2 d [email protected] SorhArs`et 61,Brunswic 4- 2Z. ZONING OF UNDEVELOPED LAND, 1960 _,,Wercer - :L 0 Developed land (including public parks). 0 renton. El Undeveloped land zoned for residences on smaller than half-acre lots. ;-7 -Y, El Undeveloped land zoned for residences on half-acre lots or larger or for industry and z, commerce. -7, Note: Orange and Dutchess Counties were excluded because very little land there was zoned in 1960. Since 1960, much of the land indicated here as zoned for housing on ess -acre has been rezoned for larger lots. than half Map 3 Ocean 7-7 urgli [email protected] d 3 split on the level of government that should have some fiscal grounds; 76 percent of the respondents agreed Table 65 zoning powers now exercised by municipalities, there that "some means should be devised to reduce the effect was no majority for any one level on residential zoning, of local tax considerations on local land-use decisions." though a majority favored giving either the counties or Only 8 percent disagreed. a regional body some zoning powers over industrial On specific proposals for reducing the effect of local and commercial activities. There were clear pluralities real estate tax needs on municipal zoning, nearly half for metropolitan and county residential zoning powers favored increasing state aid to localities, almost as and clear majorities for county (68 percent) or state (60 many favored collecting real estate taxes countywide percent) review of municipal zoning on residences. and distributing them to localities, and a slightly smaller number favored substituting another local tax Table 64 Would you favor or oppose the following measures if zoning policies of for part of the real estate tax. Just over a third favored some municipalities seem to be causing serious problems for neighbor- increased federal aid to localities. ing municipalities or for the metropolitan area as a whole? About two-thirds of the respondents said they would Table 66 Industrial and support joint planning by a group of municipalities as Residential zoning commercial zoning unde- Unde- long as the local planning boards retained their auton- Review of municipal zoning by Favor oppose cided Favor Oppose cided omy-about the same percent as said they would sup- county agency which could rec- port county review of local zoning without power over ommend changes but not enforce its recommendations 68% 19% 13% 67% 21% 13% it. Only 35 percent said they would support the replace- Review of municipal zoning by ment of local planning bodies by a board covering county agency which could over- several municipalities-and 26 percent more had not rule a municipal decision after a public hearing 37 42 20 43 38 19 made up their minds. Transfer of some zoning powers to county 47 33 20 51 30 19 Review of municipal zoning by state agency which could recom- mend changes but not enforce MUNICIPALITIES IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION its recommendations 60 26 14 60 26 14 Review of municipal zoning by state agency which could over- rule a municipal decision after a public hearing 25 55 20 28 51 20 Return of some zoning powers to state 28 48 24 31 45 24 Transfer of some zoning powers to a metropolitan agency ap- pointed by the three states 48 30 22 51 28 21 Since support for a zoning authority superior to the 40 municipality was strongest in the Core and dropped off toward the outer parts of the Region, the heavy weight- ing of the suburbs and outer areas in the sample, com- pared to the Region's actual population, would indicate that there probably is substantial support in the Region for zoning powers above the municipal level. (See also page 63.) Support for review of local zoning decisions by a higher level of government without any veto power must be based on the assumption that at least some differences can be worked out satisfactorily to both levels. A strong majority of respondents supported one method suggested in the presentations to mute the con- flict between regional and local interests-moderating local real estate tax burdens. We suggested that many In the 3 states of the New York Metropolitan Region, the 551 municipal local planning decisions were being made primarily on governments have been given sole zoning authority. 61 Table 67 The Metropolitan Regional Council, composed of staff effort. Only 81 persons answered questionnaires chief elected officials of counties and municipalities in in the morning, and only 55 in the afternoon; many of the Region, is a forum for discussion of regional issues. the 55 were different persons than had appeared in the It has no power. Eighty-two percent of Goals respond- morning. Furthermore, the discussion that preceded in- ents favored it, 7 percent opposed. (Nevertheless, sub- dividual questionnaire responses was almost entirely urban governments refused it financial support about taken up by a single issue which was not really on the the time of the Goals project, and it is only now being agenda, protection of the neighborhood from thieves. revived.) Many participants openly questioned the relevance for This set of replies seems to demonstrate that an edu- them of the agenda questions. cated group, given enough exposure to the issues, rec- Nevertheless, some of the responses, though statis- ognizes that their regional interests often are more tically insignificant, are interesting when compared to important to them than their local interests, and a the earlier Goals project replies. majority are willing to accept modification of present From a list of conditions "that bother some people in public powers to weigh more heavily their regional New York," we asked participants to check once those concerns. A large majority also favored real estate tax that bother them a little and check twice those bother- modification which might dissipate one cause of con- ing them a great deal. Following is a list of items that flict between municipal and regional interests in land- bothered them most, in order of the number of checks use decisions. Where the possibility of local-regional each received: (1) vandalism, (2) police protection, (3) conflicts was not spotlighted, (i.e., before questions general appearance of neighborhood, (4) parks and were asked on local zoning powers), a decisive number playgrounds too few or too small, (5) teen-age behavior of respondents supported regional planning with (other than vandalism), (6) air pollution, (7) subway power. conditions, (8) bus service, (9 and 10) taxi service and The Hunts Point project parking in neighborhood. Sixteen other items received fewer checks. Shortly after the Goals project was completed, Negro We asked them to choose the three improvements in and Puerto Rican businessmen in a Bronx neighbor- the City environment they most wanted action on. Bet- hood, Hunts Point, invited Regional Plan Association ter police protection got the most first place votes and to join them in a community planning effort. Eager to the most second place votes, also. Better schools came strengthen the Goals sample among city residents and in second in first place votes and total votes. After those with incomes below the regional average, we that, the vote split several ways; in total votes, more accepted. (Family incomes in Hunts Point in 1960 aver- and better play space, parks and green areas was next, aged $4,958 a year compared to $5,830 for the Bronx as a followed by better housing for middle-income people whole. Just under half the families had incomes below and then reduced unemployment. $5,000 compared to 38 percent for the Bronx. But in- On neighborly relations, Hunts Point participants did comes were higher in Hunts Point than in immediately about as much socializing with neighbors as other surrounding neighborhoods.) Goals participants, and about the same percentage With a large committee representing the very diverse would have liked to socialize more. But fewer ex- residents of this community, led by the elementary school principal and including clergy and civic leaders changed favors with neighbors frequently, and ap- -Negro, Puerto Rican, Protestant, Catholic and Jew- parently about as many would have liked to exchange ish-we worked out a one-day meeting following the favors frequently because the percentage preferring Goals project format. more was considerably higher than in the Goals proj- Background reading (in both Spanish and English) ect, enough to compensate for the lower incidence of was distributed in advance. An oral presentation began frequent exchanges. the meeting in the morning, followed by small-group The percentage liking apartments was considerably discussion and individual written questionnaires. A higher than for the Goals participants. Only a third second round took place in the afternoon. chose a one-family house (in a question asking for one The project failed, however, as noted in Part I, despite choice of housing type only), compared to 82 percent the tremendous amount of citizen and Regional Plan in the Goals project who "liked" one-family houses. 62 Nearly half chose apartments of various types, more low, even neighborhood swimming pools, though that choosing high-rise than lower apartments; and more was next. Distant large natural areas was fifth. Ocean than a fifth chose two- or three-family or row houses. and bay swimming was last. Hunts Point consists mainly of relatively low apart- On improved appearance and amenity, brighter, ments and row houses. Even Core residents among the cleaner more attractive subway stations was the most Goals respondents-who, we estimate, had higher in- important to Hunts Point participants. (Reconstructing comes on the average than the Hunts Point partici- subway stations was least important to Goals partici- pants-preferred one-family housing in larger percent- pants.) It was followed by cleaning up pollution of ages: 46 percent did not like multi-family housing rivers, bays and other water that might be used for and row houses as well as one-family housing. recreation. Air pollution control followed, then more Of the small number liking one-family houses, only trees and shrubbery on city streets, then landscaping one wanted a lot larger than a Levittown lot, 6,000 among buildings when areas are renewed, which just square feet or about a seventh of an acre. Half of the about tied in the vote with historic preservation. There respondents who wanted a one-family house chose the was somewhat less concern about appearance outside Levittown lot size, and the rest wanted smaller lots. the City, but billboard control and keeping builders About half said that if they were to move, they would from unnecessary tree cutting and hill levelling got look for housing in the Bronx. substantial support nonetheless. In this thoroughly integrated neighborhood, there In choosing what to do about the outmovement of was clear preference for varied neighbors-only 5 per- factories, nearly half thought the best policy would be sons wanted people to be of the same race as they, and to require housing for factory workers near the factory; 5 wanted them all to be of a different race. The rest- half as many chose city subsidies to keep factories in 52 in number-either actively wanted a mixture of the City; and the same number chose cheap, fast trans- races or didn't care. Almost the same response was portation from the City to the outlying factories. Only given on religion, ethnic backgrounds, age and in- a handful thought that better expressways for auto comes, except that many more "voted" on those than travel to suburban factories would be the best policy- on race-81 persons giving their opinion on age and though a majority favored trying all four policies. only 62 on race, with numbers in between on the other Similar to the Core residents' responses in the characteristics. Goals project, Hunts Point participants were quite Only 10 favored low-income public housing in their willing to transfer some planning and zoning controls neighborhood compared to 39 who favored a middle- to a metropolitan agency. Only one person opposed. income project of the same size. Nearly as many would accept state planning and zon- Only 3 thought it was good that middle-income ing powers, but six would oppose instead of one. State whites were moving out of the City and lower-income or federal expenditures to purchase open space and Negroes and Puerto Ricans moving in, 49 thought it good public transportation were enthusiastically ac- bad, the rest didn't know or didn't care. cepted by a decisive number. Their priorities to help Negroes and Puerto Ricans Most Hunts Point participants were not discouraged living in slums were to end overcrowding in apart- by their relations with City government. About twice ments and provide cleaner and healthier housing, both as many respondents were satisfied as dissatisfied with way ahead of the next item in the vote: mixing neigh- the way the City government took their needs into con- borhoods racially, ethnically, etc. Many participants sideration in policy-making and also listened to and probably had recently escaped the slums themselves. acted on complaints. On whether governments should acquire more parks, In sum, separating out the pressing problem of police the vote was almost identical with the Goals response, protection, the Hunts Point responses were different heavily in favor. When asked to list a priority for types from the Goals responses in their preference for multi- of parks, neighborhood playgrounds ranked first; then family housing and their preference for neighbors with large parks with picnic areas, woods for hiking, play- varied incomes and races. Otherwise, their tastes were ing fields, etc. within an hour of Hunts Point; and third, not much different from the Goals respondents-except neighborhood sitting parks. Swimming ranked fairly that they did want the subway stations improved. 63 8. FAILURES AND HOPES We made mistakes in the Goals for the Region proj- problems constitute a serious obstacle to satisfactory ect, some from lack of technical skill, some due to regional development and must be considered by Re- incomplete theory of public participation when the gional Plan as well as by the specialized social work- process began. We knew we shouldn't plan the Region civil rights agencies. Additional research on specific from our own closet, but we had not worked out ex- aspects of poverty and race problems in relation to the actly what give and take could fruitfully take place Plan probably will be undertaken as a result of Com- between the public and ourselves. Furthermore, we mittee concern. Other Committee responses which had not yet evolved a definition of regional planning clearly have guided the Association's approach to the issues-as distinct from county and local planning Plan relate to: the idea that large central business dis- issues. As a result, many replies, while interesting, tricts are needed around the Region (the Committee are not directly relevant to the Second Regional Plan was almost unanimous and enthusiastic), the process of except as we might eventually develop prototypes of public intervention needed to achieve efficient and at- new local development patterns. tractive central business districts (the Committee rec- The main inadequacy, of course, was in the sample. ommended strong public leadership) and a totally new While the total population is gradually coming to be public transport device (the Committee showed great like the sample in income and education and while this interest). group of civic leaders is most likely to shape the Region in the image they prefer once that image has crystal- Further public consultation lized through a plan, clearly we must consider other interests as well. That was not essential at the stage The Committee is a sounding board of breadth, ex- at which we organized the Goals project. Then it was perience and tested judgment, and it is small enough enough to learn there was a majority of activists who to allow direct interchange with the Association staff. would be interested in a new regional plan that would It has provided an important initial review. But it is provide a different urban form than the one we would not a substitute for broader samples of the population. have without a plan. Other public consultation programs anticipated- Now that we have alternatives to propose, it is time though some are not yet financed-are a continuation to hear from more varied interests. of the dialogue with volunteers in some format like the Goals project, an effort to reach non-volunteer types Committee on the Second Regional Plan through churches and unions, methods for considering Over the past year, as ideas behind the Second Re- the interests of the very poor in the Plan's recommenda- gional Plan have evolved, we presented them to a Com- tions, and county meetings at which county planning mittee on the Second Regional Plan, a high-level group leaders will apply the broad regional recommendations from many different institutions, including labor and to their own area. The Association also will continue civil rights as well as business and finance. (See Ap- frequent formal and informal consultation with local, pendix 2.) Meeting directly with the Association staff, county and state professional planners. this Committee has been able to comment on every Finally, the basic outline of the Plan already is being facet of the material, not just the questions framed by tested in the political- economic arena. Several organi- the staff. However, the most important responses are zations have begun to study the potential of enlarging the same as the most useful comments of the Goals specific central business districts to see whether public participants-responses to such questions as: Does the and corporate decision-makers can be persuaded to presentation make sense? Will the proposals fit your encourage large-scale development in renewed and needs? Is more evidence needed to persuade? Are our new compact centers. assumptions of public preferences valid? The Goals project, however, was the first effort to The Committee also has discussed policies which bring public vision and Regional Plan Association might achieve the proposals. vision into mutual focus, so that both see our Region One point on which the Committee on the Second in the same way and generally have the same develop- Regional Plan has insisted is that poverty and race ment Goals for the Region. 64 APPENDIX I. Organizations Invited to Participate in the Goals for the Region Project Some 5,000 organizations were asked to help recruit partici- *National Audubon Society pants in the Goals for the Region Project. A random sample of *National Council of Catholic Men these organizations, about 10 percent, is listed below. *National Council of Jewish Women Recruiting through organizations began systematically with National Federation of Business and Professional Womens Clubs invitations to a luncheon on October 18, 1962, at which a variety National Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs of national and regional organizations were asked for advice on New York City Federation of Womens Clubs how they might take part. Those invited were: *Puerto Rican Committee on Housing American Association of Retired Persons Republican State Committee, Connecticut *American Association of University Women *Republican State Committee, New Jersey American Institute of Architects *Republican State Committee, New York American Institute of Civil Engineers "Rotary Club of New York Americans for Democratic Action *Savings Bank Association of New York State *Associated YM and YWHA's of Greater New York *United Community Funds and Councils Chamber of Commerce, State of Connecticut United Italian American League Chamber of Commerce, State of New Jersey *United Neighborhood Houses *Chamber of Commerce, State of New York *United Parents Association *Commonwealth of Puerto Rico *United Synagogue of America Community Council of Greater New York *Urban League Democratic State Committee, Connecticut *Wildlife Preserves *Democratic State Committee, New Jersey *YMCA Central Atlantic Board *Democratic State Committee, New York *YMCA National Board Elks Association, Connecticut *YWCA National Board *Elks Association, New Jersey As active enrollment began, through staff speeches, press re- Elks Association, New York leases, and personal acquaintances, the snowball encompassed Federated Garden Clubs of New York State local organizations and chapters of regional and national organi- *Federation of Hispanic Societies zations as well as the "organizations of organizations." *Federation of Mental Health Centers Many of the groups listed took the initiative to come to us for Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies information after hearing about the project. In all, this list gives *Garden Club of America a flavor of the hectic recruitment that went on and particularly of Golden Ring Clubs of Senior Citizens where a major part of our recruiting efforts were invested. The *Junior League of America names listed come from records of telephone messages and cor- Kiwanis Clubs, New England District respondence - a random selection, about 10 percent of total *Kiwanis Clubs, New Jersey contacts. Kiwanis Clubs, New York State District Knights of Columbus Community Service Knights of Pythias, State of Connecticut Knights of Pythias, State of New Jersey American Association of Retired Persons Knights of Pythias, State of New York American Association of Retired Persons, Union, N. J. *Leading Club Women of New York American Association of University Women, Bloomfield, N. J. *League of Women Voters, Connecticut American Association of University Women, Islip, N. Y. *League of Women Voters, New Jersey American Association of University Women, Madison, N. J. *League of Women Voters, New York City American Association of University Women, New York, N. Y. *League of Women Voters, New York State American Association of University Women, North Shore Branch, *League of Women Voters, Westchester County Manhasset, N. Y. *Liberal Party, New York American Association of University Women, Nutley, N. J. *Metropolitan Council of B'nai B'rith American Association of University Women, Stamford, Conn. *National Association for the Advancement of Colored People American Association of University Women, Washington, D. C. *NAACP, Connecticut State Conference American Veterans' Committee NAACP, New Jersey State Conference American Foundation of Religion and Psychiatry *NAACP, New York State Conference American Jewish Committee NAACP, Regional Conference Bronx Housing and Redevelopment Committee *National Association of Social Workers Community Council of Greater New York *Indicates organizations represented at October 18 luncheon. 65 Community Relations Work Shop, Lines of Communication, Robert F. Wagner Youth & Adult Center, New York, N. Y. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania Welcome Wagon International Community Service Society of New York West Side Tenants and Consumers, New York, N. Y. Conservation Association of Rockland County Women's City Club, New York, N. Y. Council of Social Agencies, Group Work and Recreation Division, Women's Civic Club of Katonah Newark, N. J. Women's Clubs in Flushing Elks Association, Connecticut State YMCA Central Atlantic Area Board, Newark, N. J. Elks Association, National Convention Committee YMCA of Greater New York Elks Association, New Jersey State YMCA National Board Elks Association, New York State YM-YWHA, East Tremont, Bronx, N. Y. Family Life Bureau, Fort Lee, N. J. YM-YWHA, of Greater New York Federated Garden Clubs of New York State Youthtown Community Center, Brooklyn, N. Y. Federation of Jewish Philanthropies YWCA, Orange, N. J. Federation of Mental Health Centers YWCA, Yonkers, N. Y. Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies Federation of Womens Clubs, New York State Flushing Council of Women's Organizations Garden Club of America Good Neighbor Council, Elizabeth, N. J. Religious Organizations Health and Welfare Council of Bergen County Hudson Guild, New York, N. Y. Archdiocese of Newark, N. J. Junior League of America Bethany Lutheran Church, Bronx, N. Y. Junior League of New York City Bethlehem Lutheran Church, Brooklyn, N. Y. Kiwanis Club, Bensonhurst and Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, N. Y. Calvary Episcopal Church, Bayonne, N. J. Kiwanis Club, New York City Cambria Heights Community Church, Cambria Heights, N. Y. Kiwanis Club, New York State District Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, New York, N. Y. Kiwanis Club, Staten Island Catholic News, New York, N. Y. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Armonk, N. Y. Central Presbyterian Church, Newark, N. J. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Dobbs Ferry, N. Y. Central Unitarian Church, Paramus, N. J. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Hempstead, N. Y. Christ Church of Ramapo, Suffern, N. Y. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Kingston, N. Y. Church of the Messiah and Incarnation, Brooklyn, N. Y. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Malverne, N. Y. Community Church, New York, N. Y. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., New Jersey District Diocese of Bridgeport, Vice Chancellor, Bridgeport, Conn. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., North Massapequa, N. Y. Diocese of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, N. Y. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Ozone Park, N. Y. Diocese of New York of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Patchogue, N. Y. New York, N. Y. Kiwanis Club International, Inc., Whitestone, N. Y. Diocese of Paterson, Paterson, N. J. Knights of Pythias, Grand Lodge, New York Diocese of Rockville Centre, Rockville Centre, N. Y. Knights of Pythias, New Jersey Diocese of Trenton, Chancery Office, Trenton, N. J. Leading Club Women of Greater New York Ethical Culture Society Lions' Club, New York State First Baptist Church of East Orange, N. J. Lutheran Welfare Council First Baptist Church, Roselle, N. J. Masons, New York, N. Y. First Baptist Church, Westfield, N. J. Mayor's Committee of 8, Bogota, N. J. First Presbyterian Church, Baldwin, N. Y. Men's Club, Pelham, N. Y. First Presbyterian Church, South River, N. J. Metropolitan Assembly of Civic Organizations Grace Episcopal Church, Nutley, N. J. National Association of Social Workers, Hartford, Conn. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, National Association of Social Workers, Massapequa, N. Y. New York, N. Y. National Association of Social Workers, New York City, N. Y. Hitchcock Presbyterian Church, South River, N. J. National Association of Social Workers, Peekskill, N. Y. Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Nutley, N. J. National Association of Social Workers, Summit, N. J. Interdenominational Ministers Alliance, New Rochelle, N. Y. National Audubon Society Judson Memorial Church, New York, N. Y. National Council of Jewish Women Methodist Church, Huntington, N. Y. New Jersey Parks and Recreation Association Meyersville Presbyterian Church, Gillette, N. J. New York Archdiocesan Committee on Housing and Mount Zion Baptist Church, Newark, N. J. Urban Renewal National Council of Catholic Men New York Lodges of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks New Jersey Council of Union of Hebrew Congregations New York Public Library New York Federation of Reform Synagogues New York State Nurses Association New York State Council of Churches, Syracuse, N. Y. Rotary Club, New York, N. Y. Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church, Bronx, N. Y. Rotary Club, Paramus, N. J. Presbytery of Long Island, Huntington, N. Y. Rotary Club, Pawling, N. Y. Protestant Council of the City of New York Salvation Army, New York, N. Y. Rockaway Valley Methodist Church, Boonton, N. J. Sasquanaug Association, Southport, Connecticut Staten Island Division of the Protestant Council South Branch Watershed Association, Clinton, N. J. Suffern Presbyterian Church, Suffern, N. Y. United Community Funds & Councils, New York, N. Y. Temple Bnai Israel, Elizabeth, N. J. United Italian American League Trinity Methodist Church, Richmond Hill, N. Y. United Neighborhood Houses of New York Trinity Methodist Church, Staten Island, N. Y. Visiting Nurse Service of New York Union of Hebrew Congregations, New York, N. Y. Uniondale Methodist Church, Uniondale, N. Y. Riverhead Chapter Unitarian Fellowship for Social Justice, Cresskill, N. J. Roslyn Chapter Unitarian Society, New Brunswick, N. J. Scarsdale Chapter United Federation of Orthodox Rabbis Setauket Chapter United Presbyterian Church of Stewart Manor, Garden City, N. Y. Smithtown Township Chapter United Synagogue of America, New York, N. Y, Westbury Chapter Urban Planning Commission of the Methodist Church, Westchester County Chapter New York, N. Y. Liberal Party, Bronx County Committee Liberal Party, New York County Committee Liberal Party, Queens County Committee Liberal Party, Richmond County Committee Republican Party, Connecticut State Central Committee Political Groups Republican Party, Kings County Republican Committee Republican Party, New Jersey State Committee Americans for Democratic Action Republican Party, New York County Committee Democratic Party, Bergen County Democratic Women Republican Party, New York State Committee Democratic Party, Bronx County Democratic Committee Republican Party, New York Young Republican Club Democratic Party, Committee for Democratic Voters Republican Party, Setaukets Republican Club Democratic Party, Dutchess County Democratic Committee Republican Party, Woman's National Republican Club, Democratic Party, Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Association, New York City Affairs Committee South Bronx, N.Y. Democratic Party, Kings County Democratic Committee Democratic Party, Lexington Democratic Club, New York, N.Y. Educational Organizations and Schools Democratic Party, Mt. Kisco Democratic Club Democratic Party, Nassau County Democratic Committee Bedford, N. Y. Public Schools, Division of Adult Education Democratic Party, New Jersey State Committee Bethpage, N. Y. Union Free School District No. 21 Democratic Party, New York County Democratic Committee Bronx High School of Science, Social Studies Teachers Democratic Party, New York State Committee Brooklyn College of the City University of New York Democratic Party, Orange County Democratic Committee Citizens Committee for Public Schools, New York, N. Y. Democratic Party, Putnam County Democratic Committee Columbia University Democratic Party, Queens County Democratic Committee Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Higher & Democratic Party, Richmond County Democratic Committee Adult Education Democratic Party, Rockland County Democratic Committee Cornell University Democratic Party, Suffolk County Democratic Committee Deep River, Connecticut Parent-Teachers Association Democratic Party, Westchester County Democratic Committee Drew University Democratic Party, Women's Club of the Town of Rye East Northport, N. Y. Junior High School League of Women Voters, Connecticut Elmont, N. Y. Central High School District No. 2 Bridgeport Chapter Elmont Road School Newtown Chapter Erasmus High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. Westport Chapter Fairleigh Dickinson University League of Women Voters, New Jersey Farmingdale, N. Y. Senior High School, Division of Adult Chatham Township Chapter Education Cranford Chapter Federated Home and School Association, Ridgewood, N. J. Hoboken Chapter Flushing, N. Y. Association of Teachers of Social Studies Hunterdon County Chapter Flushing, N. Y. High School Linden Chapter Franklin Square, N. Y. Central High School District No. 2 Middletown Township Chapter Garden City, N. Y. Public School, Division of Adult Education Monmouth County Chapter Glassboro State College, N. J. Montville Township Chapter Goshen, N. Y. Central School Mountain Lakes Chapter Great Neck, N. Y. Public Schools, Division of Adult Education Newark Chapter Greenwich, Connecticut Parent-Teacher Association Orange Chapter Hempstead, N. Y. Parent-Teacher Association Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Chapter Hempstead, N. Y. Public Schools Paterson Chapter Hunter College of the City University of New York Plainfield Chapter Huntington Station, N. Y. Parent-Teacher Association Princeton Chapter Jamaica, N. Y. High School Sayreville Chapter Jericho, N. Y. Union Free School District No. 15 Sparta Chapter Jersey City State College Tenafly Chapter Lafayette High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. League of Women Voters, New York Long Island University Brooklyn Chapters Mahopac, N. Y. Central School Goshen Chapter Metropolitan School Study Council Great Neck Chapter Montclair, N. J. Public Schools Hempstead Chapter Morris High School, Bronx, N. Y. Nassau County Chapter National Education Association New Castle Chapter National Education Service of the United States New York City Chapter Newark, N. J. Central Evening High School North Brookhaven Chapter Newark State College Northeast Queens Chapter Newdorp High School, Staten Island, N. Y New Jersey Federation District Boards of Education NAACP Conference, New Jersey State New Jersey State Department of Education NAACP Conference, New York State New York Adult Education Council Northside Center for Child Development New York City Board of Education Districts 29, 30, 31, Brooklyn Puerto Rican Association for Community Af 'f airs New York City Board of Education Puerto Rican Citizens' Committee on Housing, Bronx, N. Y. New York City Council on Economic Education Puerto Rican Leadership Forum New York City Teachers' Association Puerto Rican Womens Club, Bronx, N. Y. New York State Adult Education Council St. Phillips Church, N. Y. C. New York State Congress of Parents and Teachers Urban League of New York New York State Department of Education, Bureau of Adult Urban League of Westchester Education YMCA, Harlem Branch New York State School Boards Association New York School of Social Work New York University Business Organizations North Salem School Board, Brewster, N. Y. Orange County Community College Advertising Women of New York Peapack-Gladstone School, Gladstone, N. J. American Women in Radio and Television, Inc. Pleasantville, N. Y. Parent-Teachers Association Brooklyn Business and Professional Women's Club Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Builders Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties Poughkeepsie, N. Y. Central School District No. 1 Business and Professional Women's Club of Nassau County Poughkeepsie, N. Y. Parent-Teacher Association Committee on Women in Public Relations Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. Electrical Women's Roundtable, American Home Magazine Putnam Valley, N. Y. Central School National Association of Mutual Savings Banks Rutgers -The State University National Association of Real Estate Boards St. Peters College, Jersey City, N. J. National Home Fashions League, Inc. Sarah Lawrence College New York Newspaper Women's Club Scarsdale, N. Y. Public Schools Savings Bank Association of New Jersey South Side Senior High School, Rockville Centre, N. Y. Savings Bank Association of New York State Suffern, N. Y. High School The Fashion Group, Inc. Tenafly, N. J. Public Schools Tilden High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. Union County, N. J. Department of Education Uniondale, N. Y. Director of Adult Education Local Civic, Commerce, and Neighborhood Associations Uniondale, N. Y. Union Free School District No. 2 United Federation of Teachers, N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, Asbury Park Area, N. J. United Parents Association Chamber of Commerce, Bergen County, N. J. University of the State of New York, Albany, N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, Elizabeth, N. J. Waldwick, N. J. Public Library Chamber of Commerce, Greater Newburgh, N. Y. Wantagh, N. Y. Union Free School District No. 23 Chamber of Commerce, Huntington Township, N. Y. Wappingers Central School Board, Wappingers Falls, N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, New Brunswick-Raritan Valley, N. J. Washingtonville, N. Y. Central School Adult Education Chamber of Commerce, New Jersey State Wheatley School, Old Westbury, N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, New York City, N. Y. White Plains, N, Y. Public Schools Chamber of Commerce, New York State White Plains, N. Y. Union Free School District No. 7 Chamber of Commerce, Paramus, N. J. White Plains, N. Y. Workshop for Adult Education Chamber of Commerce, Plainfield Junior Chamber of Commerce, Yonkers Association of Chairmen of Social Studies N. J. Chamber of Commerce, Regional Council, Middletown, N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, West Milford Township, N. J. Chamber of Commerce & Civics, Oranges and Maplewood, Negro, Puerto Rican and Civil Rights Groups Orange, N. J. Citizens League of Elizabeth, N. J. Abyssinian Baptist Church, N. Y. C. Civic Association, Montclair, N. J. Afro-Arts Cultural Center, N. Y. C. Civic Association, Brewster, N. Y. Antioch Baptist Church, N. Y. C. Civic Association, Tappan, N. Y. Amsterdam News Civic Associations, Federation of East Meadow, N.Y. ASPIRA Community Council of Mid-Bronx, New York Bedford YMCA, Brooklyn, N. Y. Coordinating Committee of Neighborhood Associations, Brooklyn Council of Puerto Rican Organizations Village of Mamaroneck Church of the Master, N. Y. C. Greater Elizabeth Movement Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Department of Labor, Migration Larchmont Gardens Tenants Association, N. Y. Division LENA - Lower E astside Neighborhood Association, CORE New York, N. Y. Council of Puerto Rican & Spanish American Organizations Long Island Association Countee Cullen Public Library, N. Y. C. New England Colony, Montclair, N. J. HARYOU Pound Ridge Association, Pound Ridge, N. Y. Lt. Joseph Kennedy, Jr. Community Center, N. Y. C. South Shore Discussion Group of Staten Island National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing U-Care - University-Clinton Area Renewal Effort, Brooklyn, N. Y. NAACP, Brooklyn Branch Wakefield Taxpayers & Civic League, N. Y. NAACP, Staten Island Branch Westchester County Realty Board 2. Committee on the Second Regional Plan* Chairman: Morris D. Crawford, Jr., President, The Bowery Savings Conklin, William J., Partner, Whittlesey, Conklin & Rossant Bank (Architects and City Planners); Director, Foundation for the Arts, Abrams, Charles, Chairman, Division of Urban Planning, and Religion and Culture Director, Institute of Urban Environment, Columbia University Connorton, John V., Executive Vice President, Greater New York Adams, H. Mat, Special Assistant to the Chairman of the Board of Hospital Association Directors, Johnson & Johnson; Chairman, Middlesex County Sew- Craco, Louis A., Partner, Willkie, Farr, Gallagher, Walton & Fitz- erage Authority Gibbon (Attorneys); Chairman, Mayor's Task Force on Reorgani- Alexander, Archibald S., Jr., Attorney, Newark, New Jersey; Sec- zation of New York City Government retary, Lord Committee (advising the governor on state problems) Crawford, Morris D., Jr., President, The Bowery Savings Bank Allen, Alexander J., Director, Eastern Region, National Urban Currier, Stephen R., President: Taconic Foundation; Potomac League Institute; Urban America Allen, James E., Jr., President, The University of the State of New Darrow, Richard W., Executive Vice President, Hill and Knowlton York and Commissioner of Education (Public Relations) Ames, Amyas, Chairman, Executive Committee, Kidder, Peabody Davis, Kenneth N., Jr., Vice President and Treasurer, Interna- & Co., Inc.; President, The Philharmonic Symphony Society of tional Business Machines Corporation New York DelliQuadri, P. Frederick, Dean, The New York School of Social Barbash, Maurice, Long Island home builder; Chairman, Citizens' Work, Columbia University; U.S. Representative to Executive Committee for a Fire Island National Seashore Board of UNICEF Barrett, Edward W., Dean, Graduate School of Journalism, Colum- Diebold, John, President, The Diebold Group, Inc. (Management bia University Consultants) Bartholomew, Arthur P., Jr., Partner, Ernst & Ernst Dougherty, The Most Reverend John J., President, Seton Hall Bebout, John E., Director, The Urban Studies Center, Rutgers - University and Auxiliary Bishop of Newark The State University; Consultant to Advisory Commission on In- Driscoll, John J., President, Connecticut State Labor Council, tergovernmental Relations, Washington, D. C. AFL-CIO Blake, Peter, Editor, Architectural Forum Dumpson, James R., Associate Director, Hunter College School of Social Work of the City University of New York; former Com- Bogdanoff, David, President, Jefferson Valley Corporation (build- missioner of Welfare, City of New York ers); Westchester County Advisory Board of the Open Space Action Cbmmittee Duncombe, Henry L., Jr., Chief Statistician, General Motors Boyd, Hugh N., Publisher, The Home News, New Brunswick, New Corporation Jersey Eisenpreis, Alfred, Vice President, Allied Stores Corporation Brassler, Norman, Chairman of the Board, New Jersey Bank and Epstein, Jason, Publisher and Vice President, Random House, Trust Company; Board of Directors, Paterson Y.M.C.A. Inc.; Founder, Doubleday Anchor Books Brim, Orville G., Jr., President, Russell Sage Foundation Etherington, Edwin D., President, American Stock Exchange Brown, Courtney C., Dean, Graduate School of Business, Columbia Fabricant, Herbert J., Partner, Fabricant & Lipman, Monroe, New University York (Attorneys); Chairman, Orange County Park Commission Brown, Raymond A., Attorney, Jersey City, New Jersey; President, Faulkner, Bayard H., Chairman: New Jersey Taxpayers Associa- Jersey City N.A.A.C.P. tion's Committee on Municipal and County Government; State's Commission on Local Government which developed the New Byrne, Very Reverend Monsignor Harry J., Assiptant Chancellor Jersey Optional Municipal Charter Law of the Archdiocese of New York and Executive Secretary, Arch- diocesan Committee on Housing and Urban Renewal Gang, I. Lloyd, Attorney, Passaic, New Jersey; Chairman, Mont- Chase, Stuart, Author and Consultant clair Planning Board Geddes, Robert L., Dean, School of Architecture, Princeton Uni- Clark, Kenneth B., Director, Social Dynamics Research Institute versity and Professor of Psychology, City College of the City University of New York; Research Director, Northside Center for Child Gelb, Richard L., Executive Vice President, Bristol-Myers Com- Development pany; Trustee, Committee for Economic Development *As originally appointed and with positions as of September 1, 1966. In a number of Gerber, Martin, Director, Region 9, United Auto Workers, AFL- cases, positions have changed, and a few members have left the region. CIO Gero, Mrs. William B., President, New Jersey Division, American Kirk, Grayson L., President, Columbia University Association of University Women; Member of The Governor's Conference on Education Levy, Gustave Lehman, Partner, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (Invest- ment Bankers); President, Mount Sinai Hospital Gladieux, Bernard L., Partner, Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (Man- Lilienthal, David E., Chairman, Development and Resources Cor- agement Consultants); Chairman, Board of Directors, National poration; Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Civil Service League. Gould, Samuel B., President, State University of New York Lord, Clifford L., President, Hofstra University Greenawalt, Mrs. Kenneth, President, League of Women Voters of MacFadyen, John H., Architect, MacFadyen & Knowles New York State; Chairman, Urban Renewal Commission, Green- McElwain, William H., President, Jersey Central Power & Light burgh Company, New Jersey Power & Light Company; Trustee, Stevens Greenough, William C., Chairman and President, Teachers Insur- Institute of Technology ance and Annuity Association of America McLaughlin, Frederick C., Director, Public Education Association, Hadley, Morris, Partner, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy New York City (Attorneys); Chairman of the Board, Carnegie Corporation of New McMalon, M. T. J., Regional Manager, Civic and Governmental York Affairs, Ford Motor Company, Trenton, New Jersey Harris, Griffith E., Insurance Broker; Former First Selectman McMurray, Joseph P., President, Queens College of the City Uni- (Mayor), Town of Greenwich, Connecticut versity of New York Hart, William C., Manager, Programs in Community and Govern- McQuade, Walter, Board of Editors, Fortune ment Relations Service, General Electric Company; Chairman, Action for Bridgeport Community Development (anti-poverty Metzger, Karl Edward, Secretary, Rutgers -The State University agency) of New Jersey Hawkins, The Reverend Edler G., Pastor, St. Augustine Presby- Meyner, Robert B., Attorney, Newark, New Jersey; Governor of terian Church; Chairman, Long Range Planning Committee of New Jersey the Presbytery Mills, Alfred S., President, The New York Bank for Savings; Hawley, Samuel W., President, People's Savings Bank, Bridge- Trustee, Urban America port, Connecticut Mortlock, Eugene M., Chairman of the Board, First Federal Sav- Heckel, Willard, Dean, School of Law, Rutgers -The State Univer- ings and Loan Association of New York sity; President, United Community Corporation of Newark (anti- Mortola, Edward J., President, Pace College poverty program) Muller, John H., Real Estate Consultant, New York City; Chair- Heckscher, August, Director, The Twentieth Century Fund man, National Council, Urban America Heiskell, Andrew, Chairman, Board of Directors, Time, Inc.; Nostrand, Dudley S., Chairman, Cross & Brown Company (Real Chairman, Board of Trustees, Urban America Estate Management) Hess, Walter J., President, Ridgewood Savings Bank (Queens) Nufiez, Emilio, Justice, Supreme Court of the State of New York Hester, James M., President, New York University Oakes, John B., Editor of the Editorial Page, The New York Times Heyman, David M., President, New York Foundation Osborn, Danby C., President, The Home Savings Bank of White Hill, James T., Jr., President, Interchemical Corporation Plains; President, White Plains Public Library Hoguet, Robert L., Jr., Executive Vice President, First National Ottaway, James H., President, Ottaway Newspapers-Radio Inc. City Bank, New York-, President, Repertory Theater of Lincoln (Middletown, N. Y. Times Herald-Record) Center Pei, 1. M., Partner, I. M. Pei & Associates, (Architects) Houghton, Arthur A., Jr., President, Steuben Glass; President, Perlman, Alfred E., President, New York Central System Metropolitan Museum of Art Phalen, Clifton W., Chairman of the Board, New York Telephone Hudgins, William R., President, Freedom National Bank of New Company; Chairman, Board of Trustees, State University of New York; President, Interracial Council of Business Opportunity York Hull, Roger, President, Mutual of New York Insurance Company Potter, The Reverend Dr. Dan M., Executive Director, The Protes- Jacobs, Eli S., White, Weld & Co.; Member, Mayor's Task Force tant Council of the City of New York; Co-Chairman, Committee of on Urban Design for New York City Religious Leaders of the City of New York Jacobs, Robert Allan, Partner, Kahn and Jacobs (Architects) Pough, Richard H., Chairman, Open Space Action Committee; James, Dr. George, Executive Vice President, Mount Sinai Medi- President, Natural Area Council, Inc. cal Center, and Dean, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Member, Raushenbush, Mrs. Esther, President, Sarah Lawrence College Mayor's Task Force on Health Problems Ravitch, Richard, Vice President, HRH Construction Corporation; James, Winfield H., Executive Vice President, New York News Director and Vice President, Citizens Housing and Planning Council, New York City Kelcey, Guy, Partner, Edwards & Kelcey, Inc. (Engineers); Ad- Renchard, William S., Chairman, Chemical Bank New York Trust visory Committee, Department of Civil Engineering, Newark Col- lege of Engineering Company Keppel, Francis, Chairman of the Board, General Learning Corpo- Robinson, Cleveland, Commissioner, City Commission on Human ration; former Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department. of Health, Rights; International Vice President, Retail, Wholesale and De- Education and Welfare (for Education) partment Store Union, AFL-CIO Kerrigan, Charles H., Director, Region 9A, United Auto Workers, Root, Oren, Executive Vice President and Counsel, Irving Trust AFL-CIO Company; President, Charter New York Corporation Kiermaier, John W., President, Educational Broadcasting Corpo- Roth, Arthur T., Chairman of the Board, Franklin National Bank ration (Channel 13-WNDT) Rothschild, Walter N., Jr., President, Abraham & Straus 70 Rousmaniere, James A., Attorney; Member, Nassau County Plan- ning Commission Ruebhausen, Oscar M., Partner, Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons & Gates (Attorneys); Chairman, Board of Trustees, Bennington College Sadler, Marion, President, American Airlines, Inc. Scudder, Richard B., Publisher, Newark News Senior, Clarence, Professor of Sociology, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York; Member, Board of Education, City of New York Sillin, Lelan F., Jr., President, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Poughkeepsie; Temporary Chairman, Mid-Hudson Pattern for Progress Simon, Robert E., Jr., President, Simon Enterprises Inc. Simpson, Alan, President, Vassar College;. Member, Hudson River Valley Commission Spofford, Gavin, Executive Vice President, Summit and Elizabeth Trust Company; Board of Trustees, Greater Elizabeth Movement Starr, David, Managing Editor, Long Island Press Straus, Donald B., President, American Arbitration Association; Chairman, Executive Committee, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Straus, R. Peter, President, The Straus Broadcasting Group; Pres- ident, New York State Broadcasters Association Strauss, Miss Anna Lord, INTERCHANGE, Past National Presi- dent, League of Women Voters of the United States Sutphen, James Ralph, Managing Editor, The Record, Hacken- sack, New Jersey; Vice Chairman, Bergen County Planning Board Sviridoff, Mitchell, Executive Director, Community Progress Inc., New Haven, Connecticut; President, National Association for Community Development Thayer, Walter N., President, New York Herald Tribune Tillinghast, Charles C., Jr., President, Trans World Airlines Trosky, Helene, Artist and Columnist, "Muse Roundup"; Colum- nist, The Independent Herald, Harrison, New York Turner, H. Chandlee, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Turner Con- struction Company Tyler, Gus, Assistant President, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union Tyner, Ralph T., Jr., Chairman of the Board and Director, National Bank of Westchester Van Buskirk, Mrs. Lloyd A., Chairman, Tri-State Committee of the League of Women Voters VanWegen, Paul M., President, Stony Brook-Millstone Water- sheds Association; Director, Water Resources Association of Delaware River Basin Wallace, Anthony E., Vice President, The Connecticut Light and Power Company; Executive Committee, Natural Resources Coun- cil of Connecticut Webster, Bethuel M., Attorney, Webster, Sheffield, Fleischmann, Hitchcock & Chrystie; Trustee, The New York Public Library Weinstein, Mrs. Sidney, Board Member and Chairman, Public Affairs Committee, National Council of Jewish Women Whyte, William H., Conservation Consultant; Chairman, New York Governor's Conference on Natural Beauty; Member, Presi- dent Johnson's Task Force on Natural Beauty Williams, W. Daniel, President, New Jersey Natural Gas Company Woodard, The Reverend George H., Jr., Executive Officer, Joint Urban Program, Executive Council of the Episcopal Church Yaseen, Leonard C., Chairman ofthe Board, The Fantus Company (Industrial Locators) 71 LIST OF TABLES AND MAPS TABLES 1. Respondents' residence by type of area 24 36. Density preferred vs. density lived in, by income 47 2. Respondents' residence and place of work by county 24 37. Uses of back yard by respondents 49 3. Respondents' participation in organizations 27 38. Yard type preferred by respondents 49 4. Respondents' education 27 39. Private yards, willingness to trade for public open space 49 5. Respondents' income 27 40. Moral values and living styles of neighbors, attitudes toward 50 6. Respondents born outside U.S. or 41. Age of neighbors, attitudes toward 50 with parents born outside U.S. 27 42. Religion of neighbors, attitudes toward 50 7. Respondents' religion 27 43. Privacy and neighborliness, attitudes toward 50 8. Respondents' race 27 44. Privacy and neighborliness, attitudes toward, by education of respondents 50 9. Respondents' marital status 27 45. Interaction with neighbors, present and preferred 50 10. Respondents' household size 28 46. Privacy and neighborliness, attitudes toward, 11. Job location pattern preference 33 by residential location and lot size 51 12. Trip to work: travel time and time willing to travel 34 47. Privacy and neighborliness, dissatisfaction with situation, 13. Use of Manhattan, frequency by activity 36 by residential location and lot size 52 14. Use of Manhattan, frequency (total) and 48. Interaction with neighbors, present and preferred frequency, by residential location 36 by residential density 52 49. Thirty-two selected living conditions, attitudes toward 15. Traffic congestion prevention, preferred methods of 37 and satisfaction with 53 16. Metropolitan transportation agency, support for 37 50. Disappointments with current housing or community 53 17. Commuter rail improvements, preferred financing source 37 51. Selected places and types of places in Region, 18. Exclusive bus lanes, support for 37 attitudes toward living there 53 19. Increasing separation of rich and poor, 52. Community living conditions, for various household members 54 support for action to end 38 53. Attitudes toward living in New York Metropolitan Region 54 20. Increasing separation of rich and poor, 54. Park acquisition, support for 55 types of action favored to modify 38 55. Improving appearance of cities, attitudes toward 57 21. Extra aid to meet city problems, support for 38 56. Improving appearance of suburbs, attitudes toward 57 22. City changes needed to attract suburbanites 57. Underground utility lines, willingness to pay for 57 with urban tastes to live in a city 38 58. Citizen relations to city government, attitudes 23. Community living conditions, satisfaction with 39 toward proposed changes 59 24. Living conditions about which Core residents were 59. Improvement in regional land-use and transportation much more dissatisfied than others 39 pattern, support for 59 25. City changes that might induce city residents 60. Regional planning, support for 59 to move to suburbs 39 61. Regional plan as a requirement for federal grants, 26. Housing needs of respondents with urban tastes 40 support for 59 27. Respondents who would consider city living, 62. Municipal zoning as a cause of problems, views on 59 by whether they had ever lived in a city 41 63. Zoning powers of municipalities, support for modifying 59 28. Association with people from diverse backgrounds, 64. Zoning powers for county, metropolitan or attitudes toward 41 state agencies, support for 61 29. Factory workers in respondents' community, attitudes toward 41 65. Local tax considerations in land-use decisions, 30. Permitting housing for factory workers in communities support for modifying their effect 61 that have allowed factories, attitudes toward 43 66. Joint planning by adjacent municipalities, support for 61 31. Low-income housing developments in respondents' 67. Metropolitan Regional Council, support for 62 community, attitudes toward 43 32. Middle-income housing developments in respondents' MAPS community, attitudes toward 43 1. Rings of Development: New York Metropolitan Region 25 33. Race and income of neighbors, attitudes toward 43 2. Participation in Goals for the Region Project 26 34. Type of housing, attitudes toward 44 3. Zoning of Undeveloped Land, 1960 60 35. Density of housing preferred vs. density of present housing 45 4. Municipalities in the New York Metropolitan Region 61 72 American Institute of Planners The Board of Governors of the American Institute of Planners acting upon the recommondation of the Fiftieth Anniversary Committee on Awards, hereby presents the Fiftieth Anniversary Award for achievement and contribution in Metropolitan Planning to the Regional Plan Association New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area Citation: Throughout wirtually the entire half- century the American Institute of Planners here celebrates, the New York tri-state metropolitan area has benefitted from the leadership of a typical American voluntary public-interest organization- the Regional Plan Association and its predecessor Committee on Regional Plan of New York and its Environs. Thanks to the Exceptional gifts of Thomas Adams, General Director of the orginal Committee and God-father of the successor Association, the New York Regional Plan pioneered in broadening and deepening both the theory and practice of city and regional planning in this country. Under his direction social and economic disciplines were merged with the traditional physical approach to urban planning, anticipating the direction of comprehensive city and regional planning in the United States over the ensuing decades. Many distinguished citizens and professionals contributed to the Plan's preparation and accom- plishments;two others must be cited. Charles Dyer Norton's vision saw the need of a regional plan, and his enthusiasm launched the project. It was he who enlisted the essential moral and financial support of the Russell Sage Foundation. His son, C. McKim Norton, has led the successor Regional Plan Association since 1941 in a quest for rational regional development unparalleled in this country. By happy coincidence, the Second Regional Plan, up-dating and re-directing the original Plan appropriately for our times, is being issued this very year. This record of persistent progress toward constantly up-dated goals has directly affected major elements of the physical environment, mitigating the rush of urban development that has engulfed the New York area in recrent decades. The work of the Regional Plan Association has had great national influence, not only in the techniques of planning but alsoin furthering the metropolitan planning movement and in stimulating the participation of citizen groups outside of government that is so essential to the workings of our pluralistic democratic society. The presentation of this Award is made at the Fiftieth Anniversary Commemoration of the American Institute of Planners at Washington, D.C.,on the 4th day of October,1967 President Executive Director . liffilmlifilillill 3 6668 00001 8087 1w