Jane Jacobs is downright blunt in this introduction; she does not approve of the current city planning and this book is going to make you see why. She plainly says, without beating around the bush, that this book is an attack on the current ideas. Not an alternative, or a criticism, but a direct attack and appraisal of the complete opposite ideas of what the city is currently planning. She words the introduction harshly and with such bluntness it makes it quite obvious that she and Robert Moses were serious arch-nemeses. Since Moses was the main figure in charge of city planning of this time, it is more than likely that Jacobs had his name in mind when making these criticisms, especially when she attacks automobiles on page 7. Moses is famous for his highways, which are primarily for cars, so Jacobs is not directly attacking him (by mentioning his name) but she is attacking the way he thinks and all that he has done for the city. She seems to think that there are better ways for the city to go about spending its money that can wipe out slums for good without moving people around and without starting projects that end up failing. It’s not as professional as I would have liked; it seems more like a dirty newspaper article than a display of constructive ideas. It’s a low blow to Moses rather than a civil disagreement.
Speaking of hitting Moses, it seems that even after the what the people thought he had done well, Moses’s image was still very vulnerable. It’s a little treacherous, not to mention suspicious, however, to continuously spring up changes to the city’s parks and neighborhoods when it is too late to protest them (Caro, pg 4). I understand Moses did this in order to get what he wanted, or what he felt the city needed but this took away the voice of the people living in these areas. Not to mention that it gave way to a lot of industrial work, which may have been a great idea at the time, but it was environmentally brutal. As much as I admire Moses for his determination to build what he felt would better the city, it seems that his decision, literally made in the dark, should have been a different one. It was such a small matter to lose one’s great reputation over. There are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding the issue, a lot of things that the media may have skewed or that never made it out to the public, so Moses’ decision cannot be completely condemned or justified. Though the citizens did not keep their park, and as the Counting Crows song goes, “They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot,” Moses’ victory was whole. The people rallying against him shook his power by taking away his supporters. They strategically exposed the problem to the media in an attempt to make Moses succumb to pressure, and though they were not successful, they set somewhat of a precedent for other protests. They damaged Robert Moses, and a couple of more blows would have taken him down. The manner of protesting (which kind of reminds me of Occupy Wall Street) lived on; the more the press is involved, and the more people know, the quicker things happen. Moses was forced to take action in the dark since there was no way he would win during daylight. He had to resort to “fighting dirty” in order to get what he wanted, tarnishing his reputation and lessening his power. It did not accomplish a goal, but had it gone on long enough, I think it would have done something major.
A refreshing air to Moses’ supposed evil intentions and decisions was Kenneth T. Jackson’s work on the Power Broker. It put Moses in a much better light, praising his work for the city and explaining its fundamentality. However, Jackson’s was a work in hindsight. He, like many others, did not see the value of Moses’ work until later. Men who work on such large projects, such as the highway system or the New York City skyline, work for the future, because in the present it is quite a hassle. In this relatively short time after Moses’ work, he is a clear hero, even though at the time, and quite possibly a little ways down the road, he wasn’t/won’t be.
