If anything, the Tavern on the Green case was less of a victory for democracy, but more of a victory for the local media and freedom of speech. Albeit, democracy eventually came in to stop Moses from tearing town a part of Central Park, if it hadn’t been for all of the media coverage on the case, the protests, and Moses’ underhanded acts there is no doubt that Moses would have won this case. Luckily, the piece of land the mothers from little glen were fighting for, just so happened to be part of Central Park, which also helped their case. Personally, reading the actions Moses took to try to get this project done definitely dampened my perspective of him. From the events that took place, Moses appears to be someone who wanted to be the master of reconstruction in New York, and was willing to do anything to stop those who oppose him even if it meant lying and cheating along the way.
In addition, reading Jane Jacobs intro did help Moses’s case either. Jacobs’ view of how a city should be constructed is the complete opposite of Moses’. Instead of viewing the benefits of the city as a whole, Jacobs believes that planners should focus on aiding the individual neighborhoods of a city. Without ever-stating Moses’ name, she delves into how ineffective his planning techniques are by comparing them to the old fashioned, now neglected, profession of bloodletting. Jacobs basically states that just because we have viewed cities in a particular fashion for a long time while continually advancing our techniques based on this view, does not make it the right method. The example of North End in Boston was astonishing; the fact that planners completely ignore all the positive aspects of North End because in the terms of planners North End is a “slum” is ridiculous. Although focusing on the individual neighborhood is beneficial, I feel that there should be a mix of ideas from Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs in order to have a fully functional city.
The only person who was standing up for Moses was Ken Jackson in his article, “Robert Moses and the Rise of New York.” Jackson sheds light on multiple negative aspects of Moses’s personality, including being a racist, but somehow pushes past those features by defending him with the great things he has done for New York City. Revealing that Moses did not rebuild the city for money, didn’t go out of his way to evict people from their homes, and actually had good intentions shadows a large amount of the negative criticism Moses’ receives. Personally, I still believe that Moses did a good thing for New York City by bringing it into the modern era as well as shortening my daily commute like I said in my previous comment. However, cities need urban planners that are willing to utilize ideas from both Moses and Jacobs’ perspectives in order to create a city that is habitable to businesses and its dwellers.
