As many of our fellow classmates have already discussed, Scott Larson’s “The ‘Patron Saint’ and the ‘Git’r Done Man'” emphasizes the dichotomy between the ideologies of Jane Jacobs, a leading figure and critic of urban design and planning, and Robert Moses, the “master builder” who brought about a massive transformation of New York City through infrastructure construction and redevelopment projects. While both may have their own flaws and critics, there is a recurring theme within the text that hints at the harmony that can arise, should elements of the two seemingly opposing viewpoints be applied concurrently. This theme of “balance” – understanding the importance of Moses’s contribution to New York City’s status as a thriving, modern metropolis, and incorporating Jacobs’s emphasis on neighborhood diversity and small-scale, localized developments – is something both Larson and many classmates have underscored.

This reading also so happens to relate quite significantly to the current issues of rezoning that New York City faces today. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s citywide rezoning plan, which includes the creation of about 80,000 affordable houses through mandatory inclusionary zoning (i.e. developers can make their buildings bigger or set up new projects, so long as they set aside a certain portion of their buildings for permanently “affordable housing”) has recently come under a lot of fire from many neighborhood organizations and residents. Does it sound a little like something Moses would do and Jacobs would hate? Perhaps.

Though Larson’s excerpt was written primarily concerning Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s redevelopment agendas, the Moses-like systems that prevailed with the Bloomberg administration undoubtedly remain at work today. That’s not to say they’re necessarily a bad thing, seeing the achievements Moses helped bring to fruition in the past. However, the negative consequences of Moses’s projects: gentrification and the displacement of hundreds, thousands of people, particularly in the low-income sectors, are two of the most major issues affecting NYC today. It thus comes as no surprise that neighborhoods and local residents are so concerned about being displaced and not actually being able to afford “affordable housing” (which is another major issue worth discussing). So what’s to be done? Maybe we have to incorporate Jacobs’s ideologies for a street- and neighborhood-level approach, just as we see implied in the reading.

Discussion: How can we do that? How can we use the ideas that Jacobs proposes and implement them in today’s rezoning plans, so as to prevent further gentrification and the displacement of numerous NYC citizens?

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?

The excerpts,”Jacob vs. Moses, The Patron Saint, and the Git’r Done Man,” from Scott Larson’s Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind provided an interesting read. Larson explains and displays how Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs clashed in their ideas for urban planning. Robert Moses is described as the “single minded” man who wanted to shape New York with respect to the region and the world. He wanted to make sure that New York was rid of its infected neighborhoods and then rebuilt in glory on a global scale. Jane Jacobs on the other hand was the opposite. She was analytical and wanted to strengthen neighborhoods through her four principles of urban design: varied building ages, short blocks, density of population, and mixed land use.

While looking at the two sides of urban planning, the differences between them are clear as day and night.

Moses focused on the Macro of New York. Moses wanted New York to be extravagant and a force to be reckoned with. With his power in official city positions, bridges, parks, highways, and much more public spaces were built to basically put New York City on the map of the world. He didn’t seem to care too much for the Micro of New York as long as he felt that the future of New York looked strong.

Jacobs on the other hand looked upon the Micro of New York. She wanted to keep the neighborhoods and strengthen its core: the people. Jacobs aimed to allow people to make their own decisions, to protect their areas. She wanted to keep the essence of a neighborhood.

Were their methods effective?
Looking at the present, in the Macro sense, Moses’ idea about modern planning on public spaces have made New York a known name all around the world. At the same time, Jacob’s ideas of her style of urban planning still remains with its diverse neighborhoods and buildings throughout the city. By continuing to take parts from Moses’ and parts from Jacobs, then New York can continue to expand in both a Macro and Micro way.

Discussion Question: Is it possible to fulfill the needs of New York City in both a Macro and Micro sense considering the fact that gentrification might be affecting the Micro of New York City?

The excerpt “The ‘Patron Saint’ and the ‘Git’r Done Man'” described the beliefs of the proponents behind two different philosophies in urban design. On one hand is Robert Moses who was seen as a leader in shaping New York City through brute strokes of modernism. And on the other hand is Jane Jacobs who vied for diversity and a natural integration of new constructs into the already existing city. In order to go forward in growing the city, we have to first analyze the forces that got us to where we are now.

Having had the largest impact, Robert Moses instantly comes to mind when talking about urban planning. Holding several official city positions he used his influence to make abundant public works, highways, parkways, and bridges. His methods were often Machiavellian however with a focus on the end rather than the means. Hundreds became displaced from their homes all in the name of shaping a New York that would be at the center of the world’s political power. His destructive effect on communities in the way of his urban crawl is clear, but he cannot simply be depicted in a purely negative light. Change is a needed force in a developing city, and Moses molded the city into the modern metropolis that it is today.

Focusing on Jane Jacob, her view on urban planning originally began with just four requirements involving land usage, population density, building age, and block size. She focused on the importance of neighborhoods and was against Moses’ thoughtless destruction of communities. In time, her design philosophy shone through as it developed beyond being four simple tenets. She valued a diverse city with mixed use neighborhoods and varying building ages. Moses built a city that would have a place in the modern world, but Jacobs worked for a city that would have a place for people and their need for human expression.

Truly both schools of thought are needed going forward and the two philosophies go hand in hand. A city can be modern without being monotonous and New York reflects that. Old buildings stand by new and the city’s diverse ethnic hubs are tied together by an extensive transportation system. To thrive the city needs to maintain its balance of urban sprawl and community diversity.

Discussion Question: How much does daily life hinge on a city’s urban planning?

Scott Larson’s chapter, “The ‘Patron Saint’ and the ‘Git’r Done Man,’”  from his 2013 book Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind, contained a lively discussion of the merits and drawbacks of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs’s urban planning philosophies. Larson made sure to give a fair overview of their legacies, and their impact upon the modern New York City was stressed, but he ultimately made no attempt to pick a side in the Moses-Jacobs argument. A person’s views on the matter would definitely depend on how they think of New York City and what the city ought to be like; should it be more like a shining, homogeneous, “modern” city, which would require the presence of a grand architect to oversee its development, or should it be more like a diverse mass of neighborhoods that determine their own identities, without outside interference?

However one may feel about the question, it is clear that the modern New York City features a synthesis of the best parts of Moses and Jacobs’s ideas. The diverse neighborhoods that Jacobs so favored are present throughout the city, while the strong infrastructure engineered by Moses connects them and unifies them into a cohesive patchwork quilt. It is important to remember that every city presents its own challenges when it comes to urban planning, and such a large city like New York has many unique challenges that make it especially hard to plan, such as how to coordinate with the numerous minority enclaves within the city’s boroughs and how to build infrastructure that can adequately service the largest city in the nation. As a result, some imagination is essential when it comes to urban planning, as what has worked in one city may not necessarily translate over successfully in New York.

Discussion Question: How would the urban planning of New York change if the city were half its current size? Would it look more like Jacobs’s ideal city or Moses’s ideal city?

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?

When it comes to any construction, redevelopment, or rezoning, one is sure to meet much resistance. In the case of Robert Moses, he wielded such great power that he was able to move all those in his way and build his grand projects. These projects sometimes mirrored the idea of the green city. Stuyvesant Town, for instance, is a residential development of medium-sized buildings surrounded by green trees and grassy areas. The development is conspicuously missing something,  business. If someone needs food or wants to do much else besides look at trees they need to leave the development and seek what they are looking for elsewhere. This prevents the development of a local community because one does not end up shopping at the same stores as  their neighbors. The segmentation of life created by developments such as this foster sterile living conditions devoid of character and convenience.

Then we have the “competing” ideology of Jacobs who advocated for smaller blocks, varied building age, and a mix of residential and commercial facilities. These areas foster a much stronger economic engine because they are in some ways self contained. The lack of central planning enables these areas to develop specialized neighborhood architecture and allow the community to shape itself. By means of gentrification the area is able to redefine and grow in a gradual manner. This allows the area to find out what is needed rather that necessitate an omnipotent planner who knows how everything needs to be from the beginning. It is likely, however, that this gradual growth without central planning is not good for the growth of a city because it doesn’t address the need for highways or large apartment buildings – resulting in areas that have lower population densities thus limiting the ultimate growth of a city.

Somehow a balance must be struck where the redevelopment of a city can be undertaken on grander scales while taking into account the inability to plan everything ahead. Planners perhaps should focus on designing areas that could take on many functions as they are needed. Mixing commercial and residential and even allowing for easy conversion between the two as needs change. This way communities are enable by large projects to make decisions on their own. Thus harnessing the power of government to build large projects while allowing communities to grow into the space strengthening the development with a robust economy and society, much like roots fortify an otherwise weak soil.

Discussion question: Public development and gentrification are often demonized as pushing out the underprivileged but are they a necessary “evil” in the growth of a city and its shifting infrastructure?