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

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

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20161030/POLITICS/161029839/does-new-york-city-need-another-power-broker-like-robert-moses-the-urban-planner-has-pushed-through-needed-infrastructure-such-as-the-triboro-bridge-and-could-have-allowed-megaprojects-like-penn-station-to-move-through

 

We are posed with the question of Robert Moses’ legacy: master builder or evil genius. But, I’d like to pose an additional one: “Does New York need a new Robert Moses?”

It is undeniable that Robert Moses has had an immense amount of influence on New York’s, particularly New York City’s, physical layout. He is often referred to as the “Master Builder” for his exceptional public works projects throughout his years in power. His accomplishments range from parks, beaches, and swimming pools, to bridges, parkways, and expressways. His projects benefited thousands of people while at the same time negatively affecting thousands of others as well as destroying neighborhoods (Ballon and Jackson 2007).

However, his influence is still felt today, in a positive aspect. His infrastructures and facilities are still largely intact and operating, contributing to the need and desire of public space as well as democratization in that aspect. However, the city government’s interest in public projects in the past couple of decades has declined and it is crucial to consider whether we are in need of a new master builder (Ballon and Jackson 2007: 83).

Marc J. Dunkelman explores this idea in his article “Does New York need another Robert Moses?”: “Rather than proactively building for the future, New York has contented itself with ‘building back’ in response to crises. In the absence of Moses’ cudgel, the pipeline of major projects has slowed to a trickle. To this day, with the possible exception of the forthcoming water tunnel for Brooklyn and Queens, no major project has reached completion since the Verrazano Bridge opened in 1964. And it’s not because New York has been bereft of leaders with grand visions. In fact, the city’s failure to keep up with the demands of a growing population is a direct result of the well-meaning protections erected to preclude the rise of another Moses.”

Moses abused his power and people are wary of having another Robert Moses controlling some of the city’s largest decisions. But how else can New York City fix all of its problems and move forward another step towards modernity if someone doesn’t take action?

So many safeguards are now put in place to ensure that no one single person wields as much power as Robert Moses did. After all, we live in a democratic rather than authoritarian government, right? But these precautions have acted as barriers and obstacles to the point that even projects that have almost universal support and approval get bulldozed because of the slightest opposition. Is this system of safeguards and protections against tyranny benefiting New York City or contributing to its downfall? (Dunkelman 2016).

Dunkelman concludes by claiming, “A system that makes progress possible again will get some projects wrong. But the status quo—a system in which nothing gets done absent a crisis—imperils too much of what New York does well.” Ideally, the best system would be one that benefits all, if possible. It would be proactive but not over productive. It would use the power it has but not abuse it.

There is no doubt that Robert Moses has made enormous improvements to the city which benefited thousands of people. Similarly, there is no doubt that he abused his power and negatively impacted thousands of other peoples lives. His contradictory legacy makes it difficult to decide whether he should be praised or scorned. Which in turn makes it difficult to decide whether New York City needs another master builder in its future. But these two dilemmas go hand in hand. Is it best to continue with the democratic yet unproductive system we currently have in place or would it be more beneficial to go back to the prime time of Robert Moses where there was corruption but implementation of numerous public projects that benefited all in the long run? It is a difficult question to answer, but one that needs to be discussed and debated as the future of the most marvelous city in the world rests in our hands.

 

By: Izabela Konopko

 

Works Cited:

Ballon H and Jackson K (2007) Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York. New York: W.W. Norton

Dunkelman M (2016) “Does New York need another Robert Moses?”  (Last accessed 25 February 2017)

Robert Moses essentially shaped New York City into what it is today. He was a man of great power and influence, and whether you believe he did more harm than good or vice versa, it is without a doubt that he impacted New York City. In The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York by Robert Caro and Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York by Hillary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson, we are taken on a journey through which both the pro’s and con’s are weighed concerning what Moses accomplished. While Moses did connect New York City through use of parkways, highways, parks, pools, and fancy buildings, he managed to displace ~250,000 people doing so. Therefore, the question is, what right did he have to ruin the lives of thousands? Is it possible/appropriate to enjoy something that caused so much pain and suffering?

In A Town Revived, A Villain Redeemed, journalist Phillip Lopate discusses what lights that have been shone on Robert Moses. In the Power Broker book, at least from what we have been given to read, both sides of Robert Moses are shown. It’s discussed that the Tammany government was not using any taxes from the citizens to construct and revitalize New York City, and Robert Moses came in and effectively forced government funding to be funneled towards rebuilding our city, but destroyed anyone that got in his path. In the Modern City, it’s primarily just discussed how Robert Moses shaped New York City and Long Island through building parks and pools.

Lopate puts forth the idea that if we like our modern city, we have to thank Robert Moses. Truthfully, he is right. Without Robert Moses, it’s probable that I would have no easy way to commute to Queens College from Long Island, and my already dreadful commute would be even worse. There would most likely be far less playgrounds and pools for families to enjoy and Lincoln Center would not be the landmark it is today. We can admire all the parks, the layout of the highways, and the way these luxurious buildings look because they are what make New York City today.

Or we can hate the way everything was designed and built and be frustrated at Robert Moses for uprooting and destroying hundreds of thousands of lower-income lives.

Lopate quoted a professor saying “The important questions, however, are not about whether Moses was prejudiced — no doubt he was — but whether that prejudice was something upon which he acted frequently.” Apparently in modern day society it is still possible to excuse a rich, old, white man for destroying the lives of people of color and other lower-income peoples. To be able to say that someone is without a doubt prejudice but claim the way they destroyed lives was not because of their prejudice is slightly ridiculous. Was it his right to do this because of a modernized “White Man’s Burden?” He took away land from those who were economically disadvantaged, typically people of color, and told everyone it was the right thing to do to make New York City better.

It’s a moral dilemma figuring out whether we should be ashamed for enjoying what a racist, old man built. The best solution at this point might just be to remember and fight to prevent more lives from being destroyed. Robert Moses is vital to the history of New York City, and will forever be remembered as both an innovator and a menace to lower-class society.

 

Caro, Robert A. Wait Until Evening. “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.” (pp 4-21)

Caro, Robert A. New York City: Before Robert Moses. “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.” (pp 323-346)

Gutman, Marta. “Equipping the Public Realm Rethinking Robert Moses and Recreation.”

Lopate, Phillip. “A Town Revived, a Villain Redeemed.” The New York Times. February 10, 2007. Accessed February 22, 2017.  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/nyregion/thecity/11moses.html?pagewanted=all.

This is where you will post blogs, links and responses for the course blog. Please blog and response according to the instructions in your syllabus. Please cite all references and refer to the citation style sheet for guidance.

The course blog/response schedule is available here.

A guide to posting on the blog can be found here. A sample of a very good blog/response can be seen here.