Turf War

The fight to protect urban neighborhoods from overwhelming development is a topic that resonates widely, especially in dense metropolitan areas. In an episode of Booked On Planning, we cover the fight recounted in Steven Robinson’s book “Turf War: How a Band of Activists Saved New York from Donald Trump’s Masterpiece.” The narrative recounts how a group of determined activists rallied together to oppose a grand development project known as Television City during the late ‘80s and ‘90s, initiated by real estate mogul Donald Trump. This project posed significant threats to the Upper West Side of Manhattan, jeopardizing not only the local businesses but also fundamentally altering the community’s character. As cities increasingly face relentless development pressures, the lessons from this successful campaign offer insights into community activism and urban planning.

Television City was envisioned as a massive 18.5-million-square-foot development situated on the Hudson River waterfront, encompassing luxury residential towers, an enormous shopping mall, and the world’s tallest building. However, this project wasn’t merely about real estate; it represented a deeper cultural divide intended to wall off a wealthy enclave from the surrounding community. The proposed design disregarded the unique character of the Upper West Side, an area celebrated for its diverse population and vibrant local businesses. The activists recognized this. They understood that they were not just fighting a development project; they were advocating for the very essence of their neighborhood and the quality of life for its residents.

Led by the grassroots organization West Pride, a coalition of like-minded activists emerged to oppose the environmentally detrimental and socially exclusive nature of the project. They leaned heavily on community engagement and participation during the city’s development review processes, which was not typical at the time. Forming a united front required them to raise funds, hire experts, and leverage legal frameworks available to them, such as the Freedom of Information Act. By utilizing these resources effectively, they could articulate their concerns, gather data, and present their case for a more integrated and sustainable alternative to the Television City proposal.

The Community Board played a pivotal role in this battle. They provided not just a conduit for information but also a level of legitimacy that empowered the activists. By collaboratively engaging with city officials, the Coalition managed to gather and present credible criticism that highlighted the flaws within the original zoning resolutions and development plans. Their actions led to a court ruling halting the project—a testament to the impact of organized advocacy when citizens demand a voice in their urban environments.

The evolution from opposition to proposing an alternative plan is perhaps the most compelling aspect of this story. The activist coalition evolved from merely resisting a detrimental project to actively participating in the planning process—a strategic shift that has the potential to redefine how community advocacy operates in development decisions. When the coalition proposed the Civic Alternative, they envisioned a project that would integrate green spaces, respect the neighborhood’s scale, and promote community accessibility rather than exclusivity. This approach, highlighting collaboration between residents and developers, has inspired many discussions on how cities can benefit from inclusive planning practices.

Today, the experiences chronicled in “Turf War” resonate within the context of ongoing urban development debates. The fundamental questions addressed—about who benefits from development and the importance of maintaining a community’s identity—remain ever-relevant. For community advocates today, the message is clear: proactive engagement in the planning process is essential. Successfully navigating the intricacies of city regulations, maintaining open dialogues with planning authorities, and encouraging developers to embrace community input earlier in the process can lead to the kinds of developments that benefit both residents and the environment.

Listen to Episode