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/4kg8u2vgj9s6wnx/Caro%2C%20Wait%20Until%20Evening.pdf?dl=0
