There is no denying the fact that Robert Moses impacted New York City in a way that will never again be possible. The Achilles heel of the “Master Builder” was the fact that “Moses felt himself uniquely able to interpret the public good”. What is the greater good? And who decides how to measure it? An article in the New York Post even discusses the New Yorker talking about former mayor, Michael Bloomberg, saying “Thanks to his money, Bloomberg has managed, perhaps more than any other Democratic politician ever before, to govern strictly with what he considers to be the greater good in mind”. This idea of the greater good is a clear excuse that people cite as reasons for large urban planning decisions which displace thousands upon thousands of people. Critics of urban planning masters, like Moses, and aspiring urban planners, like Bloomberg, have to find reasons why such decisions are made.
Robert Moses throughout the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s was involved in almost all urban projects that changed the city. As we read in the Ballon and Jackson reading, he used aerial photographs of the city to inspire his projects. He looked at the city as a whole, not as five boroughs and this allowed him to plan for projects that made the city a more functional place, as well as, prepare the city for the advent of the automobile. Some would argue that because of Moses the popularization of the automobile was possible; however, just because his projects facilitated the popularization of the automobile, it does not mean that without him they would not have become the main mode of transportation in the future. In fact, more critics would take offense to the amount of people displaced by his projects rather than the egotistical assumption that he knew what was good for the city. Bloomberg seemed to have started urban reconstruction under his term and with some interesting responses.
Mayor Bloomberg attempted to reform the city’s structure in ways that “made a lot more sense”, according to a New York Post article from 2009 that quotes an interview Bloomberg had with the New Yorker where he argued that he wanted to mimic the progress of Moses’ projects that reshaped the city. Bloomberg was quoted saying that roads separated the people from the waterfront and something should be done to avoid more issues in such situations where urban planning gets in the way of the purpose it is trying to fulfill. He also mentioned that Moses’ accomplishments weren’t all fantastic. He mentions that putting roads along most waterways was a bad move if the city wanted to enjoy the perks of waterfront living. Bloomberg’s argument is exemplified in the case of the Queens-Brooklyn Expressway which the article says, “separates the city from the Brooklyn waterfront”. In his efforts to restructure waterfront areas he had “rezon[ed] for commercial and residential use large sections of waterfront property that had been the province of industry”. Mayor Bloomberg wasn’t exactly aspiring to impact the city like Robert Moses did, however, he did get his way with the projects that he did implement. Both articles point to his massive amounts of cash funneling towards critics for the success of his projects. Moses avoided critics because of connections and because he was the only one that would get things done (as opposed to the long political processes that were not fundable at the time). Bloomberg had the funds to avoid opposition, but did both of them have the right to decide what was better for New York as a whole? Did their reasons justify their actions? I don’t think we can definitively answer that, but we can see that both men did get things done with the same attitude: If there is a will, there is a way.
Citation
Geller, Andy. “HOLY MOSES! Mike Toots His Own Horn.” New York Post 17 Aug. 2009. Jesse Angelo. Web. 27 Feb. 2015. <http://nypost.com/2009/08/17/holy-moses-mike-toots-his-own-horn/>.
Dear Antonio,
As always, great writing. I really liked your choice to take Moses and compare him to Bloomberg. For me, this invoked the question of whether headstrong people are needed to get big projects done. If everyone agreed on one plan, there would be no need for deliberation. Someone needs to take the reins and, to quote Adidas, “just do it”. President Lincoln for example, who, right up until his death, was widely hated by many Americans because he overstepped his boundaries as President – but nowadays people would generally consider him one of the best Presidents in history. So, to paraphrase what Professor Larson said in class, it really comes down to what time period and context it is that you’re discussing Moses (or Bloomberg). For Moses, I think the long-term benefits of his restructuring of the city, when you consider how many people it benefitted over decades, outweighs the immediate costs.
I think it’s also interesting to note other similarities between Moses and Bloomberg. Most of Moses’ changes to the city occurred in the years of the Depression, and during WWII. In the article you cited, it is is said, “Bloomberg ‘hoped to rescue New York City from financial ruin and prevent a return to the bloody chaos of the 1970s,'”. So, is it perhaps important to note that both of these game-changing figures implemented their plans while New York City was at a low point rather than a high point? Could Moses have even accomplished his infrastructure changes had New York been in a time of prosperity? I would contend that it not only requires a strong-minded and motivated leader to spearhead these changes, but also the political and economic climate must call for something different to be done.
Though, of course, the two men have one great big difference, and that is that Bloomberg was elected and Moses just sort of used his connections to get things done. I mean, if you think about it, much of our city today was formed by a guy who really had no business changing it. And, he did so with little opposition. Bloomberg, however, was taking crap from local pizzeria owners because of his soda law (see here: http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/02/bloomberg-refused-second-slice-of-pizza-at-local-restaurant/). I mean, that’s weird, right? Why was some dude who seized power, bulldozed land, and displaced thousands of citizens just… allowed to do that? Why didn’t more people complain? Were they more concerned with the war/Depression? Did they not know what was going on? Or was popular opinion on his side? One has to wonder what it was that Moses utilized to his advantage so well for years, that Bloomberg could not. Or, if I haven’t thrown enough question marks at you already, was Moses just really lucky?
But, anyway, good job. Bravissimo!