Although Robert Moses was known by many for his racist views and his disregard for the poor, he has drastically changed New York City. Recognized for his urban renewal programs and slum clearance, he completed many public works projects, including highways, public parks, and outdoor swimming pools. Arguments can be made for the debate of whether Moses’ visions to renew the city made him a “master builder” or if his failure to meet the needs of all the people leaves him as more of an “evil genius.” On one hand, could Moses be called an evil genius if he was the one who began the public works program, successfully completing many projects that still stand today? Yet, can he be considered a master builder if he doesn’t take into account the lives of all the people living in the city?
Michael Powell’s “A Tale of Two Cities” discusses the two different views that people hold concerning Moses and his work. Revisionists view Moses as “a visionary who gazed upon the city and region from the perspective of an eagle,” who could see exactly how to link the city together through structures built from wasteland. There are also those who agree with Robert Caro’s work, “The Power Broker,” in which Caro states that Moses, corrupted by power, “threw out of their homes 250,000 persons” while building his projects, thereby tearing out “the hearts of a score of neighborhoods.”
Supporters of Moses’ endeavors acknowledge that Moses was racist; however, they make the claim that it may have been “a product of his time” – more widespread acceptance and tolerance of different cultures and ethnicities hadn’t existed in the past. Even so, while his “most elegant playgrounds” were initially built for “the white and comfortable,” today, they have become “working-class havens.” Supporters could also argue that Moses completely changed New York City from a city of unemployment to opportunity, following the opening of thousands of jobs for the construction workers, architects, and engineers (Gutman) who were all needed to make his visions possible. Ballon and Jackson’s “Introduction” tracks the progress that Moses made, from finding the federal aid to start his public works program, to organizing the city for postwar building efforts, to creating highways and parks for the public.
However, looking past artistic designs and stylish brochures, one could see segregation and racism that shadowed the outdoor pools and public housing. Ballon and Jackson’s “Introduction” states that Moses disregarded the damage that his projects left behind on the people and the neighborhoods they lived in, deciding that it was a cost necessary for progressing the city. There was also much opposition shown toward his projects, including his final Westway superhighway proposal that would have cost $1.7 billion. The project was shut down and money instead was used to fund public transportation and as a result, “saved the subways” (Powell).
These two contrasting views will most likely continue to surround Moses and his work; however, today it would be better to look ahead and use ideas that have succeeded in the past in combination with creating ideas that will correct mistakes that have been made and prevent them from occurring in the future.
Additional Work:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/nyregion/thecity/06hist.html
Hi Loren,
I feel like you got the right idea about the juxtaposition of how much good Robert Moses did for public works versus how much he negatively impacted certain people.
You mentioned that supporters of Moses thinks he is a racist. Is he inherently racist or was he doing what he had to to get things done? Certain people benefitted more so than others from his achievements. Wealthy areas contain people with political capital and are able to have a greater influence in society. Many of the points I can make would be phrased like Moses created amazing public works projects, however he displaced many poor people. It’s a lot of the good vs bad that he did. Although he did move the city towards expenditures to create more money, he prevented the city to extend help to the poor.To build his highways, Moses disposed of 250,000 people.The total number of people evicted was closer to half a million poeple, most of which were black or Puerto Rican (Ballon and Jackson 2007). Robert Moses did make New York a better place because he built so many public works projects. I don’t think prioritizing creating highways over helping the poor is inherently racist. Although racism and classism in New York pretty much go hand and hand since many affluent people tend to be white while many poor people are black or hispanic, I don’t believe Moses was trying to intentionally hurt lower class New Yorkers. Yes he did make things very difficult for some people, I think it was bigger than just them. Moses had a vision and believes he will be justified by history, meaning people for generations to come will appreciate all the work that he did. Today, people of all races use the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway or any of other highways he built. His overall achievements are for the good of society as a whole long term in terms of the access for cars. Moses Passionately cared about making routes for automobiles and saw them as the future. However, do the ends justify the means?
Hey, Lorén!
Awesome post, I think you gave a good overview on Robert Moses and why he was regarded as both brilliant and harmful. I can see why people have mixed views on Moses, considering that he DID benefit the city but it is undeniable that he had his own selfish agenda that often was not all-inclusive.
As stated in the article, the structures that he built (Lincoln Center, highways connecting boroughs, the UN, etc.) are without a doubt important pieces that make up New York City’s identity. However, more so than the physical features of the city the people that make up the population are what make the city what it is. As such, it is rather unsettling that the people blindly supported a man who perpetuated discrimination in the city of immigrants. You mentioned that some of Moses’ supporters essentially justify his blatant racism and classism as “a product of his time.” I strongly feel that for someone so forward thinking–to the point where he could envision such large-scale projects that changed the dynamic of an entire city–his discrimination is unjustifiable.
New York is a city of survivors and as such I believe that in due time, the city could have had another, maybe less “evil” Robert Moses who could have developed the city. Moses may have saved the city but it’s hard to say whether the ends justify the means.