Robert Moses is an interesting character in the history of New York City and its surrounding areas. He was never mayor, governor, or things of that nature, but what he did is probably more vital and more noticeable to every commuter and resident. Reading about him was kind of interesting. I feel that what he did as a developer made New York as powerful as it is today. Developing highways, bridges, and roadways allowed for the city to grow, and let boroughs become more accessible through transportation. As somebody that used to travel from Queens to Long Island everyday (Chaminade boy representing,) having highways makes commuting much more efficient. But as somebody that doesn’t like big projects tearing neighborhoods down, Moses’ work is kind of troublesome.
Does the end justify the means?
Moses helped usher in the New York era of commuters. I also feel that his developments also aided in the development of suburbs in the mid 20th century. But the way he went about these projects was brash. He literally displaced people from their homes, forcing them with nowhere to go. In comparison, I could say that the people losing their homes was a small negative in context with the big positive of the increased business, mobility, and accessibility of New York City and its surrounding areas. If it wasn’t for Moses, the people that were displaced would have been “stuck.” Opening up the city for them would have allowed for more job opportunities. I feel that developing roadways made New York City “smaller.”
I also feel that it’s important to note the critiques of Jane Jacobs, who was totally like the anti-Robert Moses. I read some of “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” and her arguments for the beauty of a neighborhood should be seen in conjunction with Moses’ urban renewal. Yeah.
