What do you think the speakers and interview subjects did particularly well to communicate their ideas? What questions do you still have, or what do you think they could have explained better? Feel free to link to 1-2 of your favorite podcasts if you regularly listen to ones you want to share.
I believe the speaker did well in getting firsthand accounts by the people and using that to build on top of the facts that explains why Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Rezoning plan works. The speakers speak about the pleasant new parks and bars and new schools to serve communities. In contrast the speakers speak about gentrification and the scammers that influenced foreclosures in the neighborhood. Pros vs Con clearly advocating that the mayor’s plan works in certain cases and doesn’t work in other cases. Besides the Excitement of the people how else does the plan help the community. There was only account of a new school being constructed and only a ¼ a building serve as a legitimate affordable housing (By legitimate I mean the amount of people in a current neighborhood that can actually afford to live there). It seems to me like the opinion of the plan not working has more powerful reasoning’s behind it where as its con was not advocated enough.
In the case where an archive is damaged or lost after the document or object was cited and used, is the source still usable. In other words is the an argument or statement supported by a citation no longer useful in a paper if the source can’t be found?
Do archives create secondary documents in case a primary document is lost? For example a picture or a scan of the original document. Will this still be considered to be of the same value when citing it in paper?
Change is inevitable. It must be managed in a way that would influence sustenance. Sustaining the livelihood and social interactions that occur in cities is perhaps one of the many positive ways to manage change in a city. Reflecting upon the film Citizen Jane, It seems that great ideas to facilitate change are created. Specifically, the design of the building towers proposed by Le Corbusier that was intended to be used as high rise offices that would facilitate light and air for these spaces. More importantly the idea behind Robert Moses’s initial thought of cleaning up the streets for the sake of the people; The urban condition post depression consisted of slums and over populated living spaces. These great ideas are then viewed through the eyes of bureaucracy where developers and city officials begin to interchange information and ideas that modify what was initially intended to favor currency and the wants of each party. Simultaneously the social needs of the individuals of a city are forsaken. Take for example the public housing projects that overturned Le Corbusier concept. As described in Citizen Jane, these projects isolated the inhabitants of the high rise residential tower from the surrounding communities physically and in economic stature, creating unsafe and desolate areas. The lack of social interactions and isolating a certain group of people through any means whether economically socially or physically, resulted in a city failure. How can livelihood and social interactions be sustained if bureaucracy forsaken it? The individuals in the city must be apart of the efforts and ideas that facilitate change if there is hopes of managing it. Reflecting on both films saving Brooklyn featured sitter a developer who spoke of the needs of the inhabitant of Brooklyn but really didn’t represent them. In citizen Jane we see a individual who lived in the areas and was apart of these communities but also had the means to revolt against the bureaucracy.