The existence and disposition of every building was a matter of public concern, and sound use was therefore imperative. Except for borough halls and county courthouses and the like, the outlying city districts lack almost everything worthy of civic pride or community attachment.since buildings are currently being appraised for taxation on the basis of how prestigious they are, rather than on the basis of their actual value, it is obviously public policy to reward undistinguished building, a lesson not lost to speculative builders. If perpetual change is the destiny of New York, it might not have to be at the cost of such devastation and bloodletting. Believing it to be the price of progress, New Yorkers are remarkably cheerful about destruction. They have faith that their city is in the process of adapting itself better to their needs, even the reverse may be true.
Perpetual change is just as difficult to live with as perpetual unchange.
If postwar planning had been concerned with urban conservation, it might have been possible to direct the explosive expansion of management facilities up to Central Park North or perhaps Fordham Road in the Bronx, instead of letting it destroy part of Park Avenue. Indeed, the expansion might have moved any place in the city, north or south, which was weak in form but well situated and well connected with transportation. New York has miles and miles of nebulous suburbs to spare. The time and effort of building should be directed towards making them identifiable subcenters, instead of eradicating the existing city. New York can fulfill its destiny through changing its weakest elements.