The essay, “The ‘Patron Saint’ and the ‘Git’r Done Man,'” is fairly impartial in presenting both sides of the Jacobs-Moses debate, and it shows how both figures played important roles in the history of city planning. Moses and Jacobs had different views about urban planning, but I found that both of their ideologies were important and neither should be vilified, just as neither should be regarded as a saint. There is no doubt Robert Moses did a lot for New York. Although he is often portrayed negatively, it is hard to argue that he did nothing good for New York City. The highways and bridges built by him linked up the boroughs and make transportation much easier. Yes, his projects did displace people, and they may not have been aesthetically pleasing, but driving in New York City today would be much more difficult had Moses not pushed for his projects to be completed.

At the same time, Jane Jacobs makes some valid points regarding urban life. Her idea that cities should be varied and diverse makes perfect sense; having a wide variety of services available to a city’s citizens would certainly make the city better. It seems irrational to believe that leveling an entire area and building strictly residential buildings would be good for a city. In my opinion, this is the strongest of Jacobs’s four components for a successful city, and it is the essential component that Robert Moses was lacking. A purely residential neighborhood does not have much to offer, and Jane Jacobs recognized this while Robert Moses did not. His view on city planning was much more regimented, calculated, and dispassionate, while Jacobs believed in diversity when it came to city planning. She seemed to be much more in touch with the culture of cities, perhaps because her work was informed by actual observations she made while walking the streets of New York, Boston, Chicago, as well as other cities.

Perhaps Jacobs’ and Moses’ views do not need to be mutually exclusive. New York City is a perfect example of the harmony of the two schools of thought. We use the infrastructure established by Robert Moses, but we still maintain neighborhoods, particularly downtown, where the buildings are varied and diverse. Moses provides the transportation (highways, bridges, etc.), while Jacobs provides the actual setup of the city. Both aspects are essential, which is why the theories of both Moses and Jacobs should be considered when a city is planned. Of course, no single theory of urban planning is perfect. It is difficult to predict exactly how people are going to behave in a given environment simply because people are unpredictable. But city planners can still make an effort to expand their views in order to increase the likelihood of a city being successful.

Discussion question – Jacobs believed that diversity is the key to a successful city. How does gentrification affect the diversity of a city?