Jane Jacobs’ introduction to The Death and Life of Great American Cities briefly touches upon an issue that applies not only to the building of cities but across a wide range of social problems. She speaks of a housing project in East Harlem where the tenants seem to be disproportionately unhappy with a rectangular lawn that most other people approved of. One tenant articulated, “Nobody cared what we wanted when they built this place…Nobody cared what we need. But the big men come and look at that grass and say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything!’” (Jacobs 15) It reminds me of the novel Fathers and Children by Ivan Turgenev which illustrates the cognitive dissonance that the protagonist, Bazarov, experiences by considering himself as an everyman although he was an educated upper middleclass man. He thought he understood and spoke for the poor but was disproved by his interactions with the peasants. This relates to the problem of the liberal elite (including those of the modern day) where there is a disconnect between them and the common man, though they claim that they do things for the common man. Their personal education gives them an upper edge where they believe that they know better than those they are making decisions for. It’s disappointing that even the social worker, someone meant to care about and represent these people, was confused when the tenants expressed their dissension of the lawn. There is a tension caused by an expectation of how things “should” be versus what they actually are and how they work.

I think it’s important that Jane Jacobs was a social activist that spoke simply as a member of the community and brought attention to the democratic aspect of cities. Cities are linked to democracy through the way in which its success represents democratic ­values and its demise is for the same reasons as the fall of a democracy: “corruption, tyranny, homogenization, overspecialization, cultural drift and atrophy” (Rich, 2016). In a world that was constructed and set in place by Robert Moses, an incredibly powerful force in society, she provides a reactionary response — going so far as to speak boldly on the negative relationships that government can have with big businesses (Bellafante 2017). It’s always difficult to be the first one to take a stance or identify a problem because you are paving a way that had not been there previously, presenting a completely new lens through which one can look. Though Jacobs inspired community activism, “there are times when community groups may have too parochial a vision to be taken as guides to a city’s future” (Rothstein 2007). With Jacobs’ focus on city diversity and economic flourishing it’s easy to prescribe idealistic expectations to the city that it doesn’t necessarily have an obligation to. This is also shown in her seventh chapter where she introduces the idea of intersectionality. She says “to understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena” (Jacobs 144).  Jacobs’ ideas are “grounded not in theory, but in experience” (Rothstein 2007) giving a unique point of view at tackling prevalent problems that need to be addressed — such as the 4 conditions that she claims generate diversity. Though some of Jacobs’ statements are not completely reasonable or accurate, she presents a vision that should, nonetheless, be taken into consideration.

 

 

References:

Bellafante G (2017) Learning from Jane Jacobs, who saw today’s city yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/nyregion/jane-jacobs-citizen-jane-film.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FJacobs%2C%20Jane (last accessed 27 February 2018)

Rich N (2016) The prophecies of Jane Jacobs. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-prophecies-of-jane-jacobs/501104/ (last accessed 27 February 2018

Rothstein E (2007) Jane Jacobs, foe of plans and friend of city life. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/arts/design/25jaco.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FJacobs%2C%20Jane (last accessed 27 February 2018)

While looking for information regarding Robert Moses and his reign over New York, I found two very interesting articles: one written by The Atlantic in February 1939, and the other an archived page from The New York Times containing Moses’ obituary. Although these pieces are engaging enough on their own, I found them truly fascinating when compared alongside one another.

Published in 1939 (just 5 years after he came to power), “Robert Moses: An Atlantic Portrait” can’t seem to praise him enough. The article opens with an encounter between Moses and a truck driver. After discovering that he is waiting for a red light in an automobile parallel to the Park Commissioner’s, the truck driver wastes no time in fangirling over Moses (much like one does with a celebrity) and expressing his appreciation, shouting across the lane to Moses, “Well, I just want to tell you you’re doin’ a swell job on them parks.”

And that’s just the beginning. The article goes on to describe Moses’ rise to power and his ability to stick to his guns and argue his way to the top. Most importantly, however, the article emphasizes and applauds his work ethic. In a Washington Post article published shortly after his death, Moses claims that “All you need are strong nerves, backbone, ability to argue your case in the spoken and written word, a love for combat, the hide of a rhinoceros and a willingness to work like a dog for an occasional rain-washed bone.”

The quote summarizes Moses quite well, as he has played a role in almost every vital and iconic landmark that New York City is known for. From restoring Central Park to its former glory to building numerous bridges such as the Triboro Bridge, thereby facilitating more efficient transportation routes throughout the city, Moses has affected New York for the better in more ways than one.

That being said, Moses’ reign did have its flaws. In an article written by The Atlantic, for example, Moses was said to have been working day and night to prepare Queens for the World Fair in 1939. Compared to his other achievements, however, this park that was built from scratch was dubbed a financial failure. Furthermore, while he was commended for building recreational facilities throughout the city, there was public backlash against the segregation many experienced there, and while he was applauded for cleaning up and gutting slums, in many cases Moses ended up displacing hundreds of thousands people and creating an even larger problem as a result.

As mentioned in the documentary we saw in class, Moses was described as someone who had “loved the public but hated the people”. He seemed to enjoy looking at the big picture and dealing with buildings rather than people, favoring planning new projects over sorting out issues of racism and eviction. When asked binary questions such as whether Robert Moses was a “Master Builder” or an “Evil Genius”, I think that the answer requires a third option. While Moses was exceptional at what he did (that’s not to say he didn’t make mistakes) and while he wasn’t the biggest fan of people when compared to skyscrapers, it seems that he was more of a mediocre person who had questionable morals sometimes but excelled at his job most of the time rather than a terrible person who transformed the city or an angelic architect sent to bless the skyline with his creations.

 

Works Used:

Goldberger, Paul. “Robert Moses, Master Builder, Is Dead at 92.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 July 1981, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html.

Rogers, Cleveland. “Robert Moses.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 1 Feb. 1939, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1939/02/robert-moses/306543/.

Smith, J. Y. “Robert Moses, Master Builder of Parks, Bridges, Buildings, Dies.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 July 1981, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1981/07/30/robert-moses-master-builder-of-parks-bridges-buildings-dies/903ec75c-88cf-48ac-bb37-d843be5271ff/?utm_term=.c213f621a938.

The story of Robert Moses is one that symbolizes the story of New York. As we all know, Moses was an opportunist that just so happened to be at the right place at the right time. We can thank Moses for many of the great public spaces that many high school seniors enjoy on their senior skip day, like Jones Beach and Coney Island.  

 

The question at hand is whether Robert Moses is a Master Builder or an Evil Genius? Now, it is clear that during Moses’ peak he was seen as the messiah of public spaces, but once you look into his history, the evil genius thrives. To put it plainly, he was both. In 1981, the New York Times regarded Moses as a Master Builder in the title of his obituary. However, in 2007 (only 26 years after his death) the same publication called him “highhanded, racist, and contemptuous of the poor”.

 

The more I read about Moses, the more I realized how similar his business model was to Apple’s. Create a problem, sell the solution. With rising number of cars being sold in the United States, it was clear that there was a need for paved roads. However, having a car was a luxury that only middle-high income families could afford. Thankfully for those wealthy families, that was the public that he served. Public money that could have been used for public transportation was reallocated to create his massive projects that served only a specific population.

 

A perfect example of Moses’ projects that underserved the community was the creation of the Cross-Bronx Expressway. In an attempt to solve the traffic problem that he created, Moses recommended the creation several parkways that stretched across 4 boroughs. Moses parted the Bronx like the Red Sea with the creation of this expressway. The Cross Bronx displaced thousands of families while dividing the Bronx with the higher income residents living in the north and the lower income families migrating south. To make the situation worse, there was another proposal that could have significantly reduce the number of displaced families.

 

In addition to his great public projects, it is no secret that Robert Moses had an impressive resume. His many jobs included Commissioner of the Parks Department, Chairman of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, and head of the State Parks Council to name a few.

However, he acquired all of this power through his public project, not by the will of the people. Moses did try running for Governor of New York in 1934 but lost by over 800,000 votes.

 

The tale of Robert Moses is like the Tale of Two Cities, he was a great man who contributions shaped the New York that we know today. He was also an evil genius with no regard to the poor. I believe Moses was an evil genius BECAUSE he was a master builder. He knew that the city needed him, and with that power came his great irresponsibility.

 

Site Used:

“Robert Moses and the Modern Park System (1929-1965).” Robert Moses and the Modern Park System (1929–1965) : Online Historic Tour : NYC Parks, www.nycgovparks.org/about/history/timeline/robert-moses-modern-parks.

Goldberger, Paul. “Robert Moses, Master Builder, Is Dead at 92.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 July 1981, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html.

Powell, Michael. “A Tale of Two Cities.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 May 2007, www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/nyregion/thecity/06hist.html.

Chatelain, Phillipe Martin. “5 Things in NYC We Can Blame on Robert Moses.” Untapped Cities, 25 Aug. 2016, untappedcities.com/2013/12/18/5-things-in-nyc-we-can-blame-on-robert-moses/5/.

If I’m being quite honest, I had a hard time figuring out the stance I wanted to take with this blog post. Robert Moses was indeed a master builder, having created some of the most well-known infrastructures in New York City today. However, I couldn’t shake the feeling that he had a hidden agenda that was only slightly alluded to, in the second reading, making him seem more like an evil genius. So, I researched and read other sources in order to come to some understanding on whether his contributions to the city were made in the interest of the people or himself.

In the film we watched in class it was apparent that some people believed he wasn’t for the individuals as much as he was for the overall public and city. But, it’s hard to ignore the fact that some of the public works helped poor, underprivileged and specific racial communities and the reading by Gutman didn’t seem to have a strong position since it mainly just laid out the timeline during the 1930s. So, I found a New York Times article and another piece by Gutman to absolve some confusion.

While creating the parks in working-class neighborhoods was a step in the right direction, the outcome wasn’t as constructive as it could have been. The pools that were meant to be for the people were protested by those living in those communities. They didn’t agree with the WPA wage scale, competition with public pools, and the higher fees to use the public space (Gutman 2007). But nothing came from their demonstrations and they were created anyway. In the end, most minority working-class residents went to “Jones Beach and the Rockaways” over the pools anyway because it was cheaper (Gutman 2007). So, why were the pools considered a success at reaching “everyone” when there were groups who felt more comfortable traveling for fresh air than using the new installment in their own backyard?

The answer to that might be that Moses seemed completely comfortable toeing the line of racial segregation. He never outright kept certain races from using his public pools, but he turned a blind eye when racial discrimination occurred. Since his pools were still “helping” the living situation of the city, it didn’t matter whether the integrity was upheld. In the New York Times article, “Complex, Contradictory Robert Moses” the author depicts the Mid-Manhattan Expressway” as an actual symbol of Moses’s “surgical detachment from the city he was operating on” (Nicolai Ouroussoff 2007). He had a vision and it was made of roads, bridges, and public works. It was the center and the focus. The people were just supporting actors.

Lastly, Gutman recounts in “Race, Place, and Play: Robert Moses and the WPA Swimming Pools in New York City,” that Moses’s “passion for extending the New Deal benefits to New Yorkers of color was less clear” than his plan for NYC (Gutman 2008). We can look at Moses building the pools in urban areas as a positive for the community, but, we must also be critical of the fact that he was making his life easier. It would not only create a better New York City (which seemed to be his only concern), but he was also using “available park land” (Guttman 2007). He got the credit for looking out for smaller and less fortunate communities while also building the pools he wanted so badly and ignoring the inequality they created. His mark was made and he was able to accomplish great things, but was there any thought to how the people would feel or be affected?

And that’s why I wonder if “Master Builder” is actually the perfect title for him. That’s what he was. A master builder…he didn’t do it for the people, didn’t think of the people, or listen to the people. He just built New York City and he did it well.

 

Sources:

“Equipping the Public Realm: Rethinking Robert Moses and Recreation,” Gutman, Marta. 2007. In Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York, Hillary Ballon and Kenneth Jackson, eds. pp. 72-85

Ouroussoff, Nicolai (2008). Complex, Contradictory Robert Moses. www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/arts/design/02mose.html

Gutman, Marta (2007). “Race, Place and Play: Robert Moses and the WPA Swimming Pools in New York City. http://www.academia.edu/465674/_Race_Place_and_Play_Robert_Moses_and_the_WPA_Swimming_Pools_in_New_York_City_

Destany Batista

HNRS 226

Scott Larson

The Astoria Post’s article on Councilman Constantinides highlights the councilman’s ambitious plans to begin an extensive renovation on Astoria Park’s Pool. In addition, the article addresses the relationship between Astoria’s councilman and President Trump. Marta Gaman also addresses the relationship between Robert Moses, master builder of New York City, and the former President Roosevelt.

Both pieces examine a time nearly a century apart, yet hint at the complex economic relationships between the government at local and federal levels. Robert Moses managed to manipulate the federal government’s money in order to fund his ambitious public facility projects (Gutman 2007). The federal government under President Roosevelt provided New York City, and thus Robert Moses, with the money to work on public concerns (Gutman 2007).

Councilmember Constantinides received his money through a different elected official, this official being the mayor of New York City (Law 2018). The sources of New York City’s money has vastly changed; in particular, the federal government no longer funds the city’s park programs (Judd, Swanstrom 2010) . The people of New York City no longer look to federal politicians to fund their public facilities. Local government is responsible for funding, carrying out, and fixing all pools and parks in New York City (Judd, Swanstrom 2010).

Furthermore, they both address the changing perceptions of the President by the people of New York City. Gone are the days in which residents of New York City listened to fireside chats and chanted the president’s name during park opening. In current times, local elected officials feel the need to inform their constituents that the President doesn’t have the correct approach in policy reform. “We will show our native son in the Oval Office that it is tolerance and love, not division and discord, that lie at the heart of the Queens we love and that light the path to our future.” said Councilmember Constantinides (Law 2018).

In direct opposition, Gaman stated that the president was cheered during the times of Robert Moses’ involvement with the parks of New York City (Gutman 2007). Though it is no surprise that times have changed and our presidents’ values have changed, it’s interesting to note just how varied our perceptions of the president could be.

Finally, both pieces point to the changed expectations of the time in which public pool projects are completed. Councilmember Constantinides had this to say about his ambitions to renovate the Astoria Park Pool, “Now, let’s be clear…it will not be completed before I leave office. All of us, however, have a responsibility to ensure that we leave things better than we found them, and while it will be daunting, I believe that we can do it.” (Law 2018) The councilmember had no date for when the project would be completed or even started, but he felt he had a responsibility to the public in fixing the park.

Moses had a similar sense of responsibility, but his projects were much more streamlined. Perhaps this is because the Parks Department was so much smaller during his time and more people were willing to work for less, but projects were completed much more quickly. The Parks Department, in modern New York City, is known for being one of the slowest working departments in the city.

While there is still a sense of responsibility to constituents and the public by local officials, the culture of New York City’s departments, elected officials, and residents have changed. New York City is no longer dependant on the federal government for funding projects, and the President is no longer held to as a high a standard as the position used to be. However, there is hope in the fact that elected officials still want to maintain public facilities and improve them for the people of New York City.

 

References

“Equipping the Public Realm: Rethinking Robert Moses and Recreation,” Gutman, Marta. 2007. In Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York, Hillary Ballon and Kenneth Jackson, eds. pp. 72-85

Judd D, Swanstrom T (2010) City finances and the dynamics of growth. In Judd D, Swanstrom T (ed) City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America (pp 289-316). New York: Pearson.

Law T (2018) Constantinides plans to get funding to revamp Astoria Pool, announcement made at state of the district speech. https://astoriapost.com/constantinides-plans-get-funding-revamp-astoria-pool-announcement-made-state-district-speech (last accessed 23 February 2018).

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.