I found this week’s readings to be quite enlightening. Every urban studies and sociology course I have had so far had taken care to mention Robert Moses, his works and most importantly, the popular notion of his authoritarian style of city planning. Every story has two sides and Ballon and Jackson persuasively argue for the other side of the Robert Moses legend. He may have been the power broker but he was also a great agent of progress. The evidence for this, as argued by both Ballon and Jackson, can be found in the fact that New York City remains one of the few cities to have come out of the post-industrial era as a still thriving metropolis. This was a refreshing point of view from which to understand this chapter of New York history.

However, I liked that Ballon, while making the case for Robert Moses’ actions to be seen in context, also acknowledged that there was some merit to the criticism that is usually leveled at him. Personally, while I am impressed by Mr. Moses’ vision and achievements, I also feel that such an approach is counter-intuitive for any city that seeks to retain or attract new residents. City planning needs to be a democratic process. There is no use in having a city that attains visionary heights if that vision is not shared by all those who live in and contribute to the city.

Hilary Ballon writes Moses did indeed avoid democratic planning meetings in favor of swiftly moving projects along. Her key argument here is that given the context of Robert Moses’ time as the leader of city planning in New York, his approach was perhaps the one that was necessary. Since most of this work was carried out with federal funding, it was necessary to reconcile federal approval requirements with concerns of the private builders who were to be attracted to the city. Ballon argues that far from beng the “commanding general,” Moses was merely a middle man who did what was needed to save the city in tense circumstances.

I think this brings up an important question regarding large scale projects such as the rehabilitation of slum areas that was carried out in Moses’ time. Any such project will have to reconcile the needs of varied groups. To say that federal funding always comes with strings for state governments is understandable. However, this cannot be the reason to somehow expedite city projects without the ‘pesky’ democratic meetings and debates that need to take place before decisions are made.

Overall, I agree with the authors about Robert Moses’ extraordinary and vital contributions to making New York City into the flourishing city that it is today. While we can all be glad that New York itself made it through as a better place, it is also important to note that widespread dissatisfaction and resentment can arise from planning for the future of the city without consulting everyone who will be affected by it, namely the general public. This is especially illustrated by Robert Moses’ work; both authors successfully show that he accomplished extraordinary things, yet we cannot help but note that the popular attitude towards Mr. Moses is not one of gratitude.