Throughout the readings I kept finding myself coming back to the fact that Robert Moses seems to have done so much for the city, and yet I have never heard of him. When I started reading about the Washington Square Park ordeal though, I realized that I actually have heard of him. In Seminar 2, I was in a group project about Greenwich Village where I researched art and activism in Washington Square Park. His name had popped up when I learned that part of the park’s history of activism involved fighting against someone who wanted to cut it in half. During this project I also learned that in 1917, Marcel DuChamp and various other artists had decided to open a door on the side of the famous Washington Square Arch, climb to the top, and have a small party in which they read from a document (written by DuChamp) saying that Greenwich Village should secede and be its own republic. They revelled in the idea that Greenwich Village was a community of artists and misfits— independent because of its unique composition. John Sloan, one of the artists in attendance, created an etching of the night which I think captures the spirit not only of that night, but of Jane Jacobs and Shirley Hayes and everyone else who fought against Robert Moses:
Arch Conspirators by John Sloan, 1917
Greenwich Village is a neighborhood that brings together people from all different walks of life and Washington Square Park is its symbol. As Dan Wolf wrote in protest of Moses’ plan, “Washington Square Park is a symbol of unity in diversity. Within a block of the Arch are luxury apartments, cold-water flats, nineteenth-century mansions, a university, and a nest of small businesses. It brings together villages of enormously varied tastes and backgrounds” (Revolt of the Urbs, 126). That is the exact same reason Marcel DuChamp and his friends wrote up a document claiming they wanted to secede. All of these people recognize Greenwich Village as its own unique community. Moses had this idea that he was going to make New York City great, but in order to do so he needed to tear down places that already existed to help traffic flow better, but by putting a highway through Washington Square Park he was threatening the neighborhood. I think Sloan’s etching (along with the words of Dan Wolf and William H. Whyte) really emphasizes the fact that this was already a place that was great and it didn’t need to be reimagined because it’s value came from the fact that it was a community in every sense of the word. Charles Abrams was part of this group people who recognized this, saying that “Its values must be rediscovered, and built upon, not destroyed” (Revolt of the Urbs, 126). I thought it was amazing that all these people came together to fight against a highway being built because they so strongly felt this sense of community. It made me wonder:
- Since that area is extremely congested today, as is the rest of the city, is there a way to relieve some of the traffic (like Moses intended with the highway) without compromising the community itself?
- How can the city today become more “pedestrian-oriented” as Jane Jacobs said cities should be?
- How does one decide if it is neighborhoods or infrastructure that takes precedence in the development of a city?
