The Danger of Cities

I love cities, I love the daytime hustle and bustle and the ease of access of everything. I also love the myriad of things to do at night. Yet, my interactions with cities have been largely shaped by the New York City of my Childhood and the New Orleans I knew as an adult.

In the 1980s and early 1990s when we used to drive into New York from Long Island it was always a place of mixed emotions. It was tall and grand with countless places to see and visit, but danger seemed to lurk around the corner. We didn’t take the subways, we took busses, and we never walked down dark alleys or empty streets. When someone asked you something on the street you kept your head down and kept on moving, you never knew if they were really in need or pulling some sort of grift. In addition, you never went into Central Park at night, nature was not to be trusted — it provided wonderful places for people to hide and attack you.

When I moved to New Orleans for college my conception of a city changed. The fear and danger were still there, but I quickly learned three cardinal rules of safety. First, If there are grand trees overhead, you’re probably ok: you may get mugged, but you’ll still live to tell about it. Thats not to say I would go to Audubon or City Park at night, they were still plenty dangerous in the dark, this rule pertained more to residential neighborhoods. Second, when in doubt, walk in the street, there are less places for people to hide. This rule was especially pertinent in all of the dark neighborhoods of the upper French quarter and Marigny. Third, open stores and other people make good witnesses, and while they might not help you, they can call 911 and get you to the hospital sooner and provide positive ID to the police later. This isn’t to say I always felt scared in New Orleans; I didn’t. I just knew where to walk and where not to, and what neighborhoods were fine to drive through, but never stop in.

I am still trying to figure out the danger map of DC. At first I thought the Tall Tree rule of New Orleans was the same up here, but I’ve been in neighborhoods that most people up here consider safe and they are absent of trees, and I’ve heard of muggings and other crimes occurring on and around the National Mall, which might just have the tallest trees in the city. In addition, friends of mine will have no qualms about walking down residential blocks at night, and this has always been a major danger sign for me. I know that eventually I’ll figure it out, though it would be easier if I was living in town instead of our in the exurbs.

Preservation’s Choice

The New York Times has a brief article about a church that could not afford to expand on their historic structure, and so instead worked a deal with a developer to get space under a new highrise. In addition, neighborhood improvements were also carried out. The article poses the most poignant question that preservationists must face: is the historic architectural fabric more important than the quality of life of those who inhabit the spaces?

This question is really the crux of modern preservation. With modern laws and sensibilities homes and structures relating to famous people will be saved and preserved, it is the fabric and architectural experiments of the nameless faceless crowd that really make up our architecturally history and too often they are pushed aside for progress. In the case of this article it IS sad to see such an interesting structure fade into the past, but then again is it worse to see a community die around a building like this? The issue here comes down to a matter of means, if it was possible the church should have found a developed willing to build a building that would create architectural interest and install a plaque/display about the old building. That way, even though some of the history would be lost, it would not be forgotten, and the new building would have the potential of filling the same architectural niche that the old one did.