With the Bloomberg administration came the reintroduction of Robert Moses-styled building and its societal consequences. Though recognized for being infused with Jane Jacob’s ideals, Jacobs herself criticized city planning under Bloomberg’s reign. (Larson) Privatized planning of public land with public funds became the new trend. And as we saw with the construction of Central Park – which set the tone for “public (re)development” in New York City– to the revitalization of Time’s Square, in order to accomplish what private investors deem to be advantageous to the city, the needs and benefits that it offers must be sacrificed by a select group of residents.

In the proposal for the completion of the Hudson Yards, Barclay’s center and Columbia University extension- to name a few, there was an evident conflict between private owner’s redevelopment ideas and that of the local community residents. How is it that the Harlem neighborhood’s (to be directly affected by the expansion) 16-year plan for development was denied, but Columbia was accepted? Money. In all these rezoning cases we see that large businesses/corporations with tons of money have the resources necessary to essentially bid over the ownership and control rights of private and public land that has large public interest.

Rezoning however, should be used to match the changing needs in districts, rather than to be constantly manipulated for political and economic gains. Don’t get me wrong, the city should be interested in making profits through tax revenues- but shouldn’t overestimate the profits of overzealous projects to justify the means of completing them. Bill Keller, the VP of Finance, attributed NYC’s fiscal crisis during the 1970s partly to “optimistic forecasts of tax revenues” that ultimately left the city responsible for its debt. Supporters of large-scaled building resulting from rezoning also cited the creation of jobs as a positive consequence. (Larson) In reality however, jobs in construction are only viable until the end of the building project and office positions would only cater to those with the required job skills- which includes non-city residents.

When rezoning, the consequences on residents needs to be one of the primary focusses. Ultimately zoning is a factor in determining the life chances of city residents. A person’s life chances as their opportunity to education, home ownership, and employment. (Dyer) In restricting who gets to live where, through downzoning particularly, there has been increased inequality through racial segregation and class disparities. (Dougherty) As previously mentioned, upscaling projects in low-income neighborhoods with the combination of redevelopment schemes has often-times cost the government more money than it made. However, Dougherty shines light on lost economic output seen in lack of development in downzoned neighborhoods. It’s interesting to see how much negative feedback development in downzoned areas receive despite its positive economic projections. Even more interesting is how in these neighborhoods comprised of mainly single family, detached homes have their wished respected- while in low-income neighborhoods with apartment filled streets, resident’s are forced to their stifle their concerns for the “city’s benefit.”

 

Sources

 Larson S. (2013) “Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind”: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press

 

Keller B (2017) “The NYC Fiscal Crisis:  The Cost of Good Intensions.”

Presented at Queens College URBST 101 Lecture, Queens, USA, March

 

Dyer G (2017) “The New Urban Segregation.”

Presented at Queens College URBST 101 Lecture, Queens, USA, March

 

Additional Works:

Dougherty C (2016) How Anti-Growth Sentiment, Reflected in Zoning Laws, Thwarts Equality. The New York Times. 6 May

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html

            Robert Moses- regarded as having the greatest impact on the physical character of NYC- played a major role in the creation of many modern architectures that can be seen throughout the city today- their unique characteristics having edged their way into the its identity. His manipulative methods of accomplishing his plans, which might hint at an unpleasant side of his character, contributed to the creation of various public works that were of good quality and constructed quickly. Though some hold Moses with high regard- I refuse to. His case is one where personal morals and values- or lack thereof, override his accomplishments as Park Commissioner.

Robert Caro, author of “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York,” explains that Robert Moses ignored the values of New York in “The Tale of Two Cities”. (Powell 2007) This seemed inevitable: in order to cater to the personal needs of New Yorkers, one would have to objectively, yet empathetically immerse themselves in the various cultures, struggles, and triumphs of New Yorkers. It was practically impossible for him to accomplish this when “his preferred point of view for planning was from the sky, where people disappeared from sight and the city appeared as a physical tapestry of land masses, waterways, and structures.” (Ballon, Jackson) Though Moses focus on refining the physical aspects of the city, the changes he employed significantly impacted the lives of those he expunged from his visions; from creating social inclusivity of both genders on mutual grounds like swimming pools, to displacing over 250,000 people from their homes to build highways. (Powell 2007)

The advent of modern architecture was with thought of to bring about beneficial consequences. Out of sight, out of mind, however. When political figures lose sight of the citizens they are creating and implementing policies for; ultimately the positive effects of those policies will be overlooked and destabilized. The recreational public facilities were built in hopes of removing boundaries between working-class men and women. These persons were also set to receive benefits of clean water, sunlight, and fresh air. With a 21^st century, first world country citizen perspective- politicians should not be praised for offering basic necessities to their citizens, especially when it’s not offered to every citizen.

New swimming pools and recreational centers created under Moses leadership were found mainly in Manhattan, and less in African American neighborhoods than white ones. Only following race riots targeted at a lack of recreational facilities, was a rise in these centers seen in Harlem. Although extremely subtler in comparison, it echoes the end of the Jim Crow era and slavery. Only when contested should we be aware of basic human rights? Why must black and Italian Americans protest to get the same privileges of “superior” whites?

Known for setting a standard of high-quality design that remains unmatched- this legacy of Robert Moses that equates him to a master builder. It’s ironic though, that in expanding the public realm of New York City, Moses also limited it for some- promoting racial segregation. It’s saddening that- something quite common in America’s history- we seem to praise and remember historical figures for their most successful accomplishments and use that as a means to justify their wrong-doings. It’s what allows racist, self-indulging people to make it far in this country. Who knows, the mass may even allow someone with such attributes to lead them one day, once they have brought some sort of improvement to the lives of a few- maybe even if they haven’t.

 

 

Ballon H and Jackson K (2007) Robert Moses and the Transformation of New York (pp 65-66) W.W. Norton & Company

 

Gutman M Equipping the Public Realm: Rethinking Robert Moses and Recreation (pp 72-83)

 

Additional Source: Powell M (2007) A Tale of Two Cities. The New York Times. 6 May

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/nyregion/thecity/06hist.html