NYC: Incapable of "big projects"?

A journalist tried to provoke me the other day by suggesting that New York City didn't have the conviction, determination, savvy, smarts, and even guts to push through a "big project." By big project, he meant a stadium, or a modern architectural wonder, anything, anything, dear god, that would show the world once and for all that New York City, the city of big egos, can build something as big as it talks. There is definitely an undertone among architectural circles that there isn't any "good" new architecture in New York City.

We have to get away from this big mentality. What's so great with always shooting for the big? The big projects take the largest amount of resources for the smallest amount of immediate, and in many cases, long term, gratification and benefits. Given the long length of time that they require for the building process, they tend to fall short of meeting the needs of realities in the future year when they are finally realized.

Regardless, I think NYC has succeeded at things bigger than big projects. Big projects tend to serve the interests of a narrow band of privileged people. I think the bigger challenges are to serve more people with fewer resources, something NYC has been successful at doing.

As a city of small cities, towns, villages and neighborhoods, NYC has improved the ability of the smallest micro-neighborhoods to succeed and become destinations in their own right. Crime rates are down, schools are undergoing an experiment in improvement, property values are going up, and people are investing in the city economically and socially. There are more people coming to the city now who stay in the city because it is a good place to live. I have spoken to countless taxi drivers who thought they would leave once they made their foundation, only to find themselves being able to carve out a good life in the city. Check out the Mayor's Management Report. (Sure, it's election year, so all the more reason to find out what he's trying to sell.)