Hey Willow!

I found your blog post very well thought out and intriguing, and was glad that it addressed all the aspects of Loughran’s article. I didn’t initially think of the article in term of “fixing” different neighborhoods, but I easily see how you got there. 

I take issue with Loughran’s argument that the rich only want to fix these “quality of life violations” to destroy neighborhoods. I think that people who are born into specific circumstances and have always lived a certain way can’t fathom why someone would want to hang out on an abandoned rail yard. I don’t think that most people set out with a  mindset of ‘lets destroy the culture and cohesion of this neighborhood so we can all move in!” 

The ‘fetishization’ of the rustic aspect of the High Line is, in my opinion, a way for those in power to  reverse that which they unintentionally did. I find it hard to believe that that people intentionally destroy cultures, but once they realize they have, I have no problem with preserving that which they have destroyed.

If someone asked a rich person to design an ideal park, chances are it would look something like Bryant Park, or the reconstructed High Line. That is not because of malicious intent, it is because you asked a subjective question to a biased person. Because all people are biased! Perhaps the issue is not so much the decisions that rich people keep making, but rather the fact that as a society we tend to keep asking the rich people those questions. If it was easier for those who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouth to get to positions of power where they could make these decisions for their own neighborhoods, These discussions wouldn’t be happening.

While the Robert Moses’ contributions to New York City cannot be understated, his accomplishments come at the cost of his reputation. To outsiders the typical New Yorker is two contradicting things; a bleeding heart liberal who trades in his gun for some legal marijuana, and a ruthless businessman who squashes all in his way to achieve corporate success (washingtonpost.com). Bloomberg was dealing with the scars Moses left on the city’s consciousness by personifying the second persona, and therefore had to mask his Moses-style building projects in a friendly Jacobs haze.

Jacobs, historically, is seen as the more compassionate take on city planning. Her ideas tend to sit better with people and lend themselves to acceptance. A Moses-style building initiative requires ruthlessness, which is simply much harder to sell to the public. Bloomberg is remarkable in that he was unafraid to be the bad guy with his actions, but played the deft politician in how he presented them to the public. While he experienced varying levels of success in his projects he embodied Moses’ legacy by recognizing that the unpopular move is usually the right one. It is impossible to make everyone happy, and some people never will be, that shouldn’t stop elected leaders from doing what is best for the city. Much like Moses, Bloomberg brought the city into the modern age. For Moses that meant accommodating cars, for Bloomberg it meant being able to compete in a globalized economy.

 

The Bloomberg initiatives were met with varying levels of success largely due to public opinion regarding the project at hand. Moses could accomplish much more because he could be more aggressive. “He did not need to be nearly as accountable to the community as [the Bloomberg administration did]” Nevertheless, The Bloomberg Administration did achieve most of its goals, even if they were watered down versions of the original plans. The Hudson Yards was redeveloped, albeit minus the stadium and badly financed. The Barcalys Center was built, but without all the extra trimmings of surrounding buildings. Columbia University’s expansion was eventually approved after a prolonged legal battle over the use of eminent domain to acquire land from several holdouts. The use of eminent domain to acquire land that was unavailable through more conventional means is the clearest link between Moses and Bloomberg. The main difference between the two eras is that Bloomberg had to make concessions to community boards. In the case of the Columbia expansion this meant “spend[ing] $150 million over 12 years on the establishment of a community based K-8 public school administered by Columbia’s Teacher’s College, as well as $20 million for affordable housing initiatives.” Moses was not an elected official, but rather the City Park’s Commissioner (nypost.com), an appointed position. This meant that he had the luxury of not having to worry to much about what people thought. It should also be noted that in the modern age we have more oversight of our elected officials because technology allows regular people to easily express opinions and criticisms. This was not possible during Moses’ time, making his job much easier.

 

I believe that Bloomberg wanted to be the modern equivalent of Robert Moses. He was certainly just as ambitious, and pursued grand scale projects similar to that of his idol. Unfortunately for Bloomberg, the man he wished to imitate left behind too strong of a legacy that New Yorkers were not willing to forgive. The realities of building in the Post-Moses age made it impossible for Bloomberg to be as successful as Moses.

 

Sources:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/18/what-ted-cruzs-new-york-values-attack-is-really-about/

http://nypost.com/2015/07/28/time-to-give-new-yorks-robert-moses-the-public-recognition-he-deserves/

Hi Samantha!

I really enjoyed reading your post because of it’s personal touch tied in with the facts.

I can definitely relate to al the anecdotes you spoke about in your post. I work in the city twice a week, and take late-night classes at the Fashion Institute of Technology. While both the company I work at and the school I attend are in the garment district, in order to get to places that sell kosher food I need to cross through times square. I would also consider myself a part of the Times Square Demographic. 

As a woman, I am always hyper aware of whatever it going on around me. I am fully cognizant of the fact that I do not look very strong, something else you touched upon in your post, and that I relate to.

I completely agree with your characterization of New Yorkers in that we ‘tend to avoid interaction with strangers a much as possible’. However, I do not feel that is what Delaney meant in his essay. As Willow already pointed out in her response, the times Square that dElaney was referencing was not one filled with strangers and tourists, ti was part of the community of that specific location. Today, very few people live in that area at all. The LGBT community of Delaney’s time adopted Times Square as their city center. The people you might meet in Delaney’s Times Square were not complete strangers. I also think it’s important to note that Delaney is speaking about a time before it was normal to walk down a street carrying a smartphone. People used to actually see things when they walked around. With their eyes. Not their cameras. Take a minute to let that sink in. Crazy, I know.

Whether or not Times Square has been ‘fixed’ or needs ‘fixing’ at all is something that I have not made up my mind about yet, but I feel these points are an important part of the discussion.

-Rebecca

Robert Moses is idolized as the man who had the biggest effect on New York City’s parks and recreation areas. He is recognized for his ability to get things done in the middle of a depression and to circumvent corrupt politicians in the interest of the good of the public. Some feel this crystal clear image of someone who fought for the people begins to crumble when looked at more closely, especially in relation to the African American community. I think that Moses was ruthlessly practical in how he implemented his policies. He took the path of least resistance to accomplish his end goals, without really caring about how it affected the African American community. I don’t think he acted maliciously, just lazily.

Almost every decision has a money trail that can be followed, revealing inherent bias. Robert Moses’ swimming pools are no different. Once the source of Moses’ money, the New Deal, is examined more closely all of Moses’ decisions fall nicely into place. In getting the new deal passed, President Roosevelt needed the support of Southern Democrats, who strongly favored segregation and racist policies. FDR decided that the economy was more important than the moral issue of segregation and therefore made concessions to these Southern Democrats. . There are many technical examples of how FDR could have better supported the African American community including, the National Recovery Administration had lower pay rates for blacks, blacks could not get mortgages in white neighborhoods, and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration’s policies were particularly harmful to black sharecroppers because it made it more profitable for white landlords to live the land unworked (digitalhistory.uh.edu). President Roosevelt allowed for these racist policies to continue, so he could pass his New Deal. (It should be noted that the head of the National Youth Administration, Mary McLeod Bethune, was black. A significant amount of NYA funds were directed towards the African American community).

Robert Moses knew that in order to achieve his goals he needed to strike while the iron was hot, and the New deal money was available. This meant that in order to get as much of the New Deal money as possible into New York City, projects needed to be completely quickly. I believe this caused Moses to make a conscious decision not to rock the boat. He took the path of least resistance, which perpetuated already existing racial divide. The quickest way to find land for the swimming pools was to use land that was already available in public parks. Moses also believed in putting parks near public schools. Centering the project on a neighborhood centric location, forces the pools to reflect the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods were already segregated, the pools merely reflected this.

There are some reports of policies that specifically discouraged African Americans from using the pools. These include keeping the pools cold and hiring white lifeguards. While there is some evidence to support this, none of these could be confirmed or definitively traced to Moses personally.

Moses reflected his time and more importantly, the source of his money. Much in the same way President Roosevelt chose not to rock the boat in order to promote his plans, Moses chose the path of least resistance to providing New York City with an amazing 10 new pools in one summer. I do not believe that there was malicious intent here, just an unwillingness to go the extra mile to change the status quo. In decided to leave things the way they were, Moses squandered an opportunity to better integrate New York City.

 

Additional Source:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3447