Space and Community at Sunnyside
Part 5. Sunnyside Today
The history of Sunnyside Gardens illustrates
beautifully the path of planning ideology and the planning
process through the better part of the twentieth century.
Based on the benevolent, paternalistic assumptions of a few
urban theorists with a penchant for liberalism and suburbia,
the original development represented a reasonably successful
experiment in modernist social engineering. The progenitors
of Sunnyside Gardens did not think about planning in terms
of history or community self-empowerment; those interested
in buying homes in the neighborhood were simply expected to
accept the grand vision forwarded by Stein, Wright, Bing and
Mumford, among others. The act of conforming to the
legal, spatial and social constraints imposed through design,
covenants and easements defined the community. Without
this framework, enforced from above, the “democratic community”
envisioned by the RPAA could not exist.
The decades following the 1920s underscore
the difficulties associated with maintaining even the most
inspired master vision of community life. From the rent
strikes of the thirties through the social and physical decay
of the fifties, Sunnyside Gardeners often willfully forwarded
their own interests, or lack of interest, in spite of their
utopian environment. Thus the rampant property alterations
of the 1960s were in some sense the pinnacle of a self-interestedness
which had always existed. Additionally, during the 1950s
and 1960s the planning process in Sunnyside Gardens, like
the planning process in much of the country, stagnated, providing
neither the inspiration of utopian models nor the more disjointed
catharsis of community-based planning.
The growth of the Sunnyside Foundation
during the 1980s and 1990s corresponded to an emerging redefinition
of planning, one which prioritized history, community self-determination,
and a small-scale, piecemeal, grass-roots approach to neighborhood
problems. The Foundation’s emphasis on a community defined
by its history and its participation in the planning process
created a new set of questions and contradictions, however.
It was, after all, Sunnyside Gardens’ lack of history, its
separation from the corrupted past of the rest of New York
City, which so inspired its designers; the RPAA envisioned
Sunnyside Gardens as a forward-looking community, capable
of realizing ever-greater levels of democratic cooperation.
The notion that the neighborhood would become a static historical
monument to planning ideals would have deeply disturbed the
progressive minds behind its design.
Community participation in the planning
process, furthermore, has not been the panacea envisioned
by the advocacy planners of the 1970s. Like virtually any
group of neighbors, the residents of Sunnyside Gardens do
not represent anything like a consensus. Offering residents
the option of participating in the Conservation Easement Program
has had only a minor effect on the restoration of common courts.
Efforts to protect the historical character of the neighborhood
have resulted in epic battles. Even modest rezoning proposals
take years to resolve. Perhaps worst of all, the Sunnyside
Foundation’s effectiveness as a small, grassroots organization
close to its constituency is constantly undermined by its
lack of funding. Ironically, the democratization of the planning
process seems to have made it even more difficult to realize
the community-oriented spaces designed by Stein and Wright.
Mediating between overarching socio-spatial
goals and the individual and often individualistic interests
of community members presents a daunting task for contemporary
planners. In an age which frowns on master plans of any variety,
the community planning process increasingly consists of a
series of minor battles which cannot hope to address the larger
issues. At the same time, however, this kind of planning ensures
against many of the minor defeats and major catastrophes wrought
by the more confident planners of earlier generations. Sunnyside
Gardens illustrates the successes and failures implicit to
both methods of planning. It is a neighborhood which continues
to represent the difficult aspirations of planners and the
frustrating complexities of the planning process.
Sources
Consulted
City Housing Corporation. Block
Plan of Third Unit of Sunnyside Gardens. New York, 1924.
________. Declaration
of Easements and Restrictions. New York, February
8, 1926.
Havelick, Franklin and Michael Kwartler.
“Sunnyside Gardens: Whose Land Is It Anyway?” New
York Affairs, Vol. 7, no. 2 (1982): pp. 65-80.
Kroessler, Jeffrey Andrew. “Building
Queens: The Urbanization of New York’s Largest Borough.”
Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, 1991.
Lee, Penny. Personal interview.
March 22, 1996.
Mastopietro, Nancy. Personal interview.
March 22, 1996.
Mumford, Lewis. The
Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Co., 1938.
New York City. City Planning Commission.
Board of Estimate Resolution Adopting Sunnyside Gardens Planned
Community Preservation District. Comprehensive
City Planning Calendar of the City of New York.
CP-22502, June 12, 1974.
________. Resolution to Grant Special
Permit to Margaret M. Weiri for Enlargement to Rear of House.
Comprehensive City Planning Calendar of the City of New York.
C 910338 ZSQ, November 20, 1991.
________. Zoning Text Amendment
to Permit the Mapping of Special Planned Community Preservation
Districts. Comprehensive
City Planning Calendar of the City of New York.
CP-22501, June 12, 1974.
________. New
York City Zoning Resolution, December 1961 and as Subsequently
Amended. New York, 1995.
New York City. Department of City
Planning. A Fact
Sheet for Sunnyside Gardens Residents. New York,
1982.
Rappaport, Nina with Steven Saltzman.
“Sunnyside Gardens,” Metropolis, Vol 10, no. 10 (June 1991): pp. 15-19.
The Sunnyside Foundation. A
Decade of Service to the Community: A Brief History of The
Sunnyside Foundation for Community Planning and Preservation.
New York, 1995.
|
