New York is home to an incredible amount of parks, highways, pools, and other public facilities. The man to whom credit is often granted, Robert Moses, undoubtedly played a fundamental role in the development of much of New York’s infrastructure. Take the Whitestone and Verrazano bridges, for example, which have served New Yorkers for over fifty years. Without Moses’ vision or creative approach, New York would surely be a different place economically, socially, and culturally. Yet in spite of this recognition, he is often questioned for employing unequal or even undemocratic practices. As we’ve discussed in class many times, it is crucial to assess any situation within its context; “who won, who lost, and what historical factors impacted the outcome?”. I believe Marta Gutman, in her essay Equipping The Public Realm, describes numerous factors that impacted the decisions made by Moses. That in mind, it seems difficult to brand him as somewhat of a self-absorbed, unconcerned, undemocratic visionary. On the contrary, Robert Moses was a man faced with difficult circumstances who acted in line with those circumstances while striving to always better New York.
Preceding Moses’s role as commissioner, the country was recovering from the most severe economic collapse in its history. The aftermath of the Great Depression left unemployment as a major issue, urging Moses to consider how many jobs would be created from a given project. In many ways, there was a sense of urgency in contributing to economic recovery, surely impacting the projects and methods Moses ultimately chose.
Also pressing during his time was the recent Prohibition repeal, which created challenges of social control. Crime was on the rise and adults who drank regularly were left with few alternatives to release stress. The construction of recreational facilities had to now consider this “challenge of the new leisure” (74). In other words, it’s possible that Moses asked himself- ‘to what extent will different neighborhoods benefit from the implementation of this alternative source of leisure?’. Towns with large numbers of saloons could certainly have been given priority for a new pool, for example, in the hopes that men would choose a positive outlet to let off steam, such as swimming.
Another factor that influenced Moses’ decision making process was the conditions he entered into. “When Moses arrived at the Department of Parks, the city’s parks, pools, and beaches were in deplorable condition, having been sullied for decades by poor maintenance and corrupt management” (74). I found it interesting that Moses did not face a ‘blank canvas’ before constructing any facility or building. On the contrary, he was presented with hazardous conditions that grew even worse with the increasing concern for public health. With this in mind, it’s quite conceivable to see how Moses faced the daunting task of not only modernizing and improving the City, but keeping it clean, safe, and within regulation.
One example offered by Gutman which illustrates the contextual challenges Moses faced is the construction of aquatic recreational facilities project. Many question why Moses built pools on existing sites, invariably placing homes and established buildings in jeopardy. As expressed by Gutman, historians propose that the site and location decisions were based on “economy and expediency” (77). With regards to the pool project as a whole, Moses and his team faced obstacles such as scarce land, high acquisition costs, and a tight construction schedule.
While many of Moses’s projects could have serviced Americans in a more equal, even, or democrat fashion, it’s important to be cognizant of the context surrounding his decisions. Robert Moses faced historical, social and economic circumstances that made his initial task of improving New York’s infrastructure that much more difficult. There is surely more to be said on this topic, but from the reading it seems incredibly difficult to brand Moses an “Evil Mastermind”, simply given the frame of reference.
