The battle for the streets of New York was an epic and historical moment that influenced the development and urban growth for the city we’ve grown to love today. On one side, we have “Bob the Builder,” otherwise known as Robert Moses, who used his political prowess to construct highways, bridges, and buildings. On the other side, we have Jane Jacobs, an eloquent writer who was seemingly Moses’ foil. She believed in the preservation of urban environments through four categories: “mixed land use, short blocks, buildings of various ages and conditions, and density of population” (Larson 1).
Although both ideologies seem contradictory, they’re both right about something: New York needed help in its urban planning.
Moses was about projects while Jacobs was about process. Moses sought to tear down buildings for the construction of new highways and road systems to ease the congestion within neighborhoods. Jacobs fought as an activist against Moses’ plans. Jacobs believed that cities do not only require landscape, institutions, shopping centers, playgrounds, churches, and hospitals to flourish, the “mush” concept that we’ve all come to accept. We need to know how the city works before we tackle the problem. She wanted to change the perception of how a city should flourish. Her experience in the North End taught her that the key to a flourishing city is its residents. Good cities encourage social interaction at the street level. Moses slashed through run-down areas and displaced the poor and the Blacks, which was his idea of slum clearance. Jacobs mistrusted the state and government, while Moses exploited his power by utilizing public funding to help the city survive suburbanization.
As Larson pointed out, the triumphant ideology is actually a fusion of both- “building like Moses with Jacobs in mind.” Although the two were very different, they both fetishized the concept of a built environment and believed that New York needed a new plan for its development. Current development focuses on diversity and a scale-appropriate design. Although developers have the right idea, they aren’t implementing it properly. Developers emphasize urbanization, quality public space, and walkability, but their development projects reinforce economic segregation, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
In the end, these two rivals have made their name known throughout New York history.
Without Moses’ daring pragmatism we wouldn’t have the playgrounds, parkways, bridges, and housing units we have today. However, he essentially created the start of the displacement of the poor, where tenements for low-income residents were besieged by the construction of middle-income apartments. Nonetheless, his accomplishments stood the test of time.
Without Jacobs’ appreciation for neighborhoods and design sense, we wouldn’t have the human-scale and livable communities we have today. She fought against the bulldozer and big development projects that would “revitalize” business districts and improve the quality of public spaces. Jane Jacobs was the center of the living city.
Discussion question: Jane Jacobs sought citizen involvement, but has this idea taken the wrong turn and created powerful residents of neighborhoods who reward the politician who strives to keep conditions exactly as they are?
