Robert Moses is often viewed as a ruthless tyrant, who had unlimited power and did whatever he wanted. He built what he could using federal money to make an ideal city for the rich at the expense of the poor. He is especially criticized for wiping out slums, because public housing already had a large waiting list, and these people would not be able to afford other housing. Nonetheless, this is an unfair description of the man who was so much more then that and who did a lot for New York City.
According to Phillip Lopate, Caro spent hundreds of pages writing out how magnificent many of Robert Moses’s projects are. But many have not read such a long book, and choose to focus on criticizing Moses instead.
New York City looked very different after all of Robert Moses changes. He built 11 swimming pools that could give thousands of people a day a break from the heat. He added 20,000 acres of parkland. He built Riverside Park and Jones Beach, and turned a swampland in Long Island into beautiful beaches.
Lopate makes another interesting argument that Moses was held accountable for policies that were already used and considered standard practice in many places. Moses did not choose the automobile as the future preferred mode of transportation, nor did he pass the federal highway construction act. He did not decide that highways should be placed at waterfronts or that housing should be sited according to neighborhood racial pasterns. He was not the one that mandated millions of dollars for slum clearance, and should not be held solely accountable for it. Moses has been heavily criticized for these policies, but he was just implementing what many others had already done and what is considered standard practice.
Moses did what he could with the money he had available. He may have placed highways along the river, but he also made some of these places beautiful like Battery park. Robert Moses tricked Staten Island into using Fresh Kills as a garbage dump by saying it would only be temporary. It turned out to serve that function extremely well. Now that it is closed, New York faces a huge waste-disposal crisis. Robert Moses viewed New York City as a whole, instead of looking at individual neighborhoods and people. He engaged in slum clearance that displaced thousands of people of low income, and he replaced their homes with projects for the middle and upper class. But as he said in a film called “The Master Builder,” these places were slums and horrible places to live. They were not going to fix themselves, and could only get worse over time. What Moses did, saved the city as a whole. He also built facilities that would help consolidate New York’s status as world capital. This includes the United Nations headquarters, Lincoln Center, the Coliseum, and the Fordham, Pratt, and Long Island University campuses. It is tragic for all of those who lost their homes, but the slums were a problem that needed to be fixed, and Robert Moses fixed them.
Robert Moses also did not have as much power as everyone thinks. He had to work very hard to make the government work together with private investors. Hillary Ballon says that he was more of a middleman than a tyrant. Title 1 seemed to give Moses unlimited power, but really there were a lot of guidelines that he cleverly worked around. As Hillary Ballon says in “Robert Moses and Modern Renewal,” the City is supposed to find a slum, clear it, and then find a buyer for it. But this turned out to be a ridiculous order, so Robert Moses would first make sure a buyer wanted a place and then cleared it. By the time the land was ready for private investors, the deal had already been effectively closed. Robert Moses was just very clever and efficient in his projects.
New York City was on the decline. Slum neighborhoods were growing like a “cancer” with no clear way of fixing them. The City had no order and lacked decent parks or public facilities. If he did not build highways or bridges, the city very likely would have remained in a stagnant position. Robert Moses made many positive changes for the city that were sorely needed.
I agree that Robert Moses was instrumental in reshaping in New York City by viewing the city as a whole and attempting to strengthen the city through building housing for the middle class, expanding higher education, and promoting the city’s cultural preeminence (Ballon, 96). Moses was able to achieve many of these goals by negotiating between public and private interests on land use, recognizing that both were essential in solving the city’s problems, especially in regards to some clearance projects. Moses was somewhat detached from the immediate needs of the community because of his failure to include local citizens in the decision-making process. He trusted the “wisdom of professional expertise over the local concerns of residents, and he put the interests of the city over those of a neighborhood (Ballon, 94).” He was focused on providing affordable housing for the middle-class to prevent a polarized city of rich and poor. His solution to the slum problem was to demolish these areas and redevelop them to meet the housing needs of the middle-class. He recognized the need for the government to assist the displaced poor in finding housing. But, he did not address the social conditions that created the slums; therefore, slum clearance just re-located the slums.
Overall, he was efficient in clearing the slums and focusing on the middle class. Where he lacked vision was how to deal with the discrimination and limited options for the displaced poor and minorities who lived in the slums. There is no denying that Moses’ developments benefited the public with his contributions such as parks, roads, beaches, universities, and cultural/recreational centers. While I agree that Robert Moses had a positive impact on the shaping of New York City, I don’t think he “saved the city as a whole” because it didn’t address all the social inequalities that would continue to exists housing. Although Moses’ approach of ensuring there was a buyer in place before the clearing the slums seemed to make better business sense and was more efficient in building, it made the problem of relocating these people a secondary concern. “Efficiency was Moses’ critical concern. Conceiving of relocation as a practical and technical challenge, not a social problem (Ballon, 101).” In this regard, creating a greater city disregarded the protection of all its citizens.
I really like the approach you took to this David. Instead of weighing the pros and cons, you went full force on the supportive side and covered yourself really well. I see where you’re coming from with a lot of this; New York was already heading in a certain direction, and Moses took charge to make sure that New Yorkers were prepared for this change. Other put a sort of system in place, and Moses did what he could to make sure that these changes would be efficient and useful.
I find your fourth paragraph to be particularly interesting. People put Moses at the end of all these policies that he didn’t establish. It’s as if people will say whatever they can to throw him under the bus, forgetting that their lives would probably be immensely more difficult had Moses not implemented the highway systems that he did. While New York is typically known for its skyscrapers and bustling streets, the parks that he implemented gave New Yorkers a break from the whole cityscape, making them much more unique as opposed to being located elsewhere. With the condition of the slums at the time of Moses, they definitely wouldn’t fix themselves. He said in that video you posted that he lived in one of the worst slums for a week, and couldn’t possibly imagine why anyone would want to keep them there.
The parks that he implemented are always full and attracting tourists. Getting around New York would be such a chore had it not been for his construction of highways and parkways. He’s attributed so much good to the city. I’m sure opposers would see just how necessary his contributions were if they stopped using the infrastructures that Moses created.
Lopate says something very interesting in that article you posted. “Moses often seemed cheerfully indifferent to the plight of those dislocated by his constructions. On the other hand, he built more public housing than anyone else.” Like with any other decision in life, it’s almost impossible to do something that doesn’t hurt someone else. Moses did some horrible things, like relocating hundreds of thousands of people, but the magnitude of horrid things he did arguably doesn’t compare to the magnitude of good he’s done for the city. No one is saying that Moses was a saint who did nothing wrong, but as with everything in life, he did what he had to in order to shape New York as it is today.
No one was going to take the initiative the way Moses did. He took a city that needed help, and give it the assistance it required. As you said, look what happened with the waste dump. It was extremely deceitful of him to set it up in such a manner, but now that it’s closed, we face an issue. If there’s anything bad about what Robert Moses did, it could solely be the fact that the city might be a little too reliant on the infrastructures he brought into play, and even that is something we can’t really blame Moses for.
Great blog post David!
David, great post, and I agree that Robert Moses was not a “ruthless tyrant”. While many people like to criticize Robert Moses, I think that people should first take a step back and look at all the positive changes he made for New York City. Without Moses, New York City would not be the place it is today. Moses built pools, parks, garbage dumps, highways, and other facilities. These were all great additions to our city. However, I think that part of what may cause people to view Moses in a negative light is the way he handled the slums.
There is no way to know for sure what went through Moses’ brain when he decided to clear the slums. You mentioned that he saw a problem that needed to be fixed, and this was his way of fixing it. I doubt though, that he had such pure intentions. I’m not a Moses hater. But, I think that regardless of one’s views on this issue, it is important to remember that Moses was a politician. While this may be cynical, I believe that Moses, just as most politicians, cared about one thing most, power. So yes, Moses did do a lot of good, and I think for people to claim he was all bad and negate everything he ever did is wrong. Some of these people may believe that other politicians are better and would never do such things. But let’s be real here, if there are politicians who wouldn’t do such things, that’s just because they know that it would end up hurting their public image.
So I’m with you that we shouldn’t unfairly hate on Moses. He was just like any other politician, he did what helped his public image most at the time. But while defending Moses and appreciating all the positive change he enabled, we shouldn’t be naive and believe that he had pure intentions.