Tag: blog

Response Post to Ariana’s Blog (noelia)

Hey Ariana,

Great blog post! However, I disagree with your opinion that Times Square has gone through a revanchism because many of the choices made in the area by government agencies were motivated by economic desires; I think both a revanchism or rebirth of an area can be results of economic motivations. Rather, I view Times Square as an area that went through a rebirth through revanchist methods. If you look at the area’s history through the eyes of the government, Times Square was a place overrun by criminals, sex, and drugs; essentially, the government had “lost” their control over Times Square. I view the introduction of the Disney store as a revanchist attempt made to regain control over Times Square from the people the government saw as vagrants and criminals. In your post, you mention that instead of looking at why the people in the old Times Square were in the situations they were in and solving these issues first, the government resorted to transform the area by “getting rid of the businesses and shops that facilitated these individuals.” I assume you’re talking about the prostitutes, drug users and dealers, and various criminals? If so, I think this is an interesting take on things and this is why I believe the government used revanchist methods to “retake” the area and transform Times Square into an area they thought would better serve the City as a whole (remember that I mentioned that through the eyes of the government, I believe, they had viewed the area as a place that they “lost” to the vagrants and criminals you referred to). The consequences of introducing the Disney store, which, as you mentioned, stimulated other businesses to set up shop in the area and led to the transition into how we see Times Square today as a clean (as opposed to the drug-ridden “dirty” place) tourist area, is what I see as the rebirth of Times Square.

I found it your questions at the end really intriguing. Before this assignment, I always had the image of Times Square as this really flashy place which huge department stores and people dressed up as movie icons to score more cash. But, I think you’re right, Times Square might be in the beginning of another transformation (another rebirth perhaps?). Several Days After Christmas, Toys ‘R’ Us Closes in Times Square certainly makes me think so! Perhaps the businesses will start to transition into wealthier establishments that can afford to pay rent and then only wealthier tourists will start to visit the area. If this were to happen, I think Time Square could eventually develop into a place that’s segregated from the greater City in terms of the types of people you find visiting the area. This reminds me of the early years of Central Park: the park was established a free public area, yet only wealthier citizens could enjoy the park and while lower class citizens weren’t barred from the park, they certainly felt discouraged from visiting since they were so out of place in the park. So will Times Square eventually evolve to a place where these high-end businesses start to set up shop and cater to the upper class while the City’s lower-class population feels discouraged from visiting the area because it offers nothing for them?

Overall, I had a lot of fun reading your blog post! 🙂

-Noelia

Ariana Outar: Response to Noelia

Noelia I have to say I really enjoyed reading your blog post because I could tell that you seriously considered the question of whether or not Robert Moses was an ‘Evil Genius’ or a ‘Master Builder’. I also loved the fact that your arguments and opinions were so well developed that it made me question my own.

When I finished reading ‘Wait Until the Evening’, I believed that Robert Moses was an ‘Evil Genius’. After reading your blog though, I started to question my opinion. You focus on two of the main arguments against Moses: whether his work was really done for the greater good, and the racial prejudices that may have been behind some of his actions. I loved how you discuss these but then disprove them with sound reasoning that for a moment had me in agreement with you that Robert Moses was indeed a Master Builder.

However, after reading everything and thinking about it, I realized that I still believe that Moses is an Evil Genius. You say that he is a master because of his amazing plans for the city and that we don’t need to attribute the argument of greater good towards him. I disagree, when Robert Moses set out to implement his ideas he did so without looking at the repercussions of his actions. In my Urban Studies class we read a passage from the book “The Stickup Kids” entitled “The Rise of the South Bronx and Crack”. The passage discusses how as a public official, Moses cleared slum neighborhoods in Manhattan causing the displacement of many poor Blacks and Puerto Ricans who later relocated to the South Bronx. Then with the idea of ‘urban renewal’ that Caro describes, many manufacturing plants and factories in the Bronx were shut down and hundreds of thousands of people were left without jobs. The reading goes into further detail how this led to a chain of events that would lead to the rise of drug use and violence in the area. Yes, I know that there is absolutely no way Moses would have known that these things would happen. Yet you must consider the effects his actions had when deciding whether or not you can deem him a Master Builder or Evil Genius.

I believe that at first Moses really did have the best interests of the city at heart but I cannot look past the people he displaced and provided no help for, and the consequences that followed. Once again, I understand, our city would be very different today without Robert Moses, this is why I consider him a genius. However, the ruthless determination he had to make the city what it is without looking back, makes him in my opinion, an Evil Genius.

Moses as a Master Builder (Noelia)

Paul Goldberger’s New York Times article, “Eminent Dominion: Rethinking the Legacy of Robert Moses,” aims to reconsider Moses’s image as a man who “transformed New York but didn’t really make it better” (this is how Moses was described in Robert Caro’s “The Power Broker” according to Goldberger), to someone who had a definite positive influence on the city. It’s safe to say that Goldberger’s article would label Moses as a “Master Builder” rather than an “Evil Genius.”

Although, both Goldberger and I are under the impression that Moses was a Master Builder, we have different reasons to back this claim up. Two arguments Goldberger makes in his article really attracted me when I was trying to label Moses: firstly, the idea that everything Moses did was for and can be excused by the “greater good;” and secondly, whether or not his motivations for choosing where and what to build were racially motivated.

To prove that Moses had a positive influence on the city, Goldberger brings up the argument of the “greater good:”

“In an era when almost any project can be held up for years by public hearings and reviews by community boards…. it is hard not to feel a certain nostalgic tug for Moses’s method of building by decree. It may not have been democratic, or even right. Still, somebody has to look at the big picture and make decisions for the greater good.”

Reading this, I thought back to our discussion in class: what exactly is the “greater good?” Who gets to decide what is “right” for the “greater good?” And who gets to drive this (seemingly omnipotent) task forward? Goldberger obviously attaches Moses’ actions to the “greater good” by sweeping his lack of respect for democratic practices under the carpet. But I’m not so sure that this is a great argument for changing how Moses’ image is seen; it sounds more like an excuse. Also, can we really prove that anything he did was for the greater good?? While I certainly agree with Goldberger that the sheer amount of public works Moses built makes him an extraordinary person, I don’t see need to attribute the “greater good” argument to Moses’ legacy. Rather, I think that Moses being a visionary (and being able to drive his visionary ideas forward) is what- mostly- made him a Master Builder:

“…he was one of the first people to look at New York City not as an isolated urban zone but as the central element in a sprawling region… he would charter small planes and fly across the metropolitan area to get a better sense of regional patterns… Moses’s view of “urban renewal” was no different from that of officials elsewhere, and in some ways it was far more imaginative.”

When I read the introduction and pages 323-346 of “the Powerbroker,” I was really drawn to Caro’s assertions that Moses was motivated by his racial prejudices when deciding what and where to build certain public works. For example, Caro’s example about Moses believing that black people preferred warm water and using this to deter them from using a particular pool in Harlem. At first, I immediately labeled Moses as an Evil Genius after reading this, but then Goldberger brings up that there might not be sufficient credible evidence to back this claim up. This was my biggest conflict in deciding whether Moses was a Master Builder or Evil Genius! If he really was completely motivated by his racial prejudices, does it make him evil or just an asshole? It sounds awful to say, and in no way do I think it’s right, but where else was Moses going to build if not in minority neighborhoods or slums? Moses was trying to “improve” (this term is fairly subjective) the city, and at a time where the Great Depression ravaged the city, I don’t see why he would think to build anywhere else. It’s not like you can really tear down houses and neighborhoods to build a highway through a wealthy white neighborhood without a lot more opposition than a poorer neighborhood can give. So while I don’t think what Moses did is fair to minority and poor neighborhoods, I don’t necessarily think it makes him evil- although I’m sure some people in these neighborhoods probably thought so. Rather his ability to create so many public works, whether it be in minority populated areas or not, is part of him being a Master Builder. However, I totally disagree with Goldberger when he says that even if Moses was racially motivated, it’s okay because he made NYC better- whatever “better” means. Again, I feel like Goldberger uses these general vague statements as valid reasons when they shouldn’t be.

It’s interesting how Goldberger attributes Moses’ preoccupation with the “greater good” as his biggest feature yet also his biggest flaw. He agrees with Caro that Moses’ indifference to the neighborhoods and people where he built his public works was apparent, yet suggests that this is what made him such an asset to NYC. While I think the whole “greater good” argument is a bunch of nonsense, I also think that his indifference to neighborhoods and people is what contributed to him being a Master Builder. If Moses was preoccupied with every person in the city, he would’ve never gotten anything done, and we wouldn’t even be writing this blog. His indifference is what led him to build a legacy that outshines other city planners in NYC.

Goldberger implies that it doesn’t matter if Moses’ decisions were racially prejudiced or not, if Moses didn’t build where he did, certain places wouldn’t have become landmarks of the neighborhoods (he gives the example of the Hamilton Fish Pool on the Lower East Side or Lincoln Center, which jumpstarted the revival of the upper west side). This makes me think back to our discussion about shaping the city. Did Moses shape the city into what he wanted, or create the conditions for the city to be shaped? I think it’s a combination of both. And while a Master builder and an Evil Genius both have the capacity for either outcome, I don’t think Moses was an evil person for increasing the trend of automobiles in the city, opening public parks and pools, building in the city’s poorer neighborhoods, or using his political skills to get things accomplished.

Supplemental Works

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/05/eminent-dominion

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zy5ahvbykzsm6zt/Caro%2C%20New%20York%20City%20Before%20Robert%20Moses.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4kg8u2vgj9s6wnx/Caro%2C%20Wait%20Until%20Evening.pdf?dl=0