Robert Moses had an extraordinary impact on New York City. From the Triborough, Whitestone, and Verrazano bridges, to the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and the Prospect and Henry Hudson Parkways, Jones Beach, Central Park Zoo, playgrounds, public housing, and public swimming pools in every borough, his legacy is everywhere you look. For better or worse, the New York City that we know today would not exist without him.
Despite his great achievements, his legacy is burdened with controversy. As seen in the essays we read in “Robert Moses and the Modern City”, some might view him as a dedicated public servant, with the best interests of the city at heart, while others see him as a bully and a racist, who gave little thought to the wishes of the people. Kenneth T, Jackson, as the sub-title of his essay suggests, attempts to put the image of the “Power Broker” in perspective, portraying Moses as a visionary and arguing that his achievements overshadow any controversies. He tries to soften allegations of racism by saying that everyone was a racist at that time. The other essayists are more critical of Moses. Hilary Ballon’s essay mentions the controversial use of eminent domain and forced relocation. Martha Biondi outlines clear evidence of racism on the part of Moses, in particular regarding his efforts to keep public housing segregated in the Stuyvesant Town project. Robert Fishman’s essay concerns the legal efforts of the residents of the Washington Square neighborhood to thwart Moses’s plans for an expressway though Washington Square Park, exposing his opposition to consideration of the opinions of the public.
The controversies raised in these essays give us a lot to think about. In urban planning, is the “greater good” more important than the wishes of the public? How much input should the public have? How important is it to preserve the uniqueness of individual neighborhoods? If a large scale project requires use of eminent domain, do the ends justify the means?
