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