It’s very difficult to conclude completely who is correct on the issue of city planning policy. Now that a new element has been introduced to the fray, the Jane Jacobs argument that essentially denounces the principles of the entire body of Robert Moses’ work, my view on the correct approach to city planning is quite fragmented.
Last week, difficult questions were raised on the morality of Robert Moses’ agenda–whether, although within complete legality, the powerbroker was in the right when, time and time again, he overlooked the needs of the poor, the framework of culturally significant neighborhoods and the lifestyles of thousands of New Yorkers in order to complete what he had set out to do in his mind. It is undoubtedly so that Robert Moses was a megalomaniac; unfortunately so, as seen in his episode with the “embattled mothers of Central Park.” He allowed his lust for power and unyielding persona to cloud better judgement, and at that point in time, it was his downfall. One could say he operated similarly his entire career. However, what he did for the city was ‘GET THINGS DONE.’ And that is to be admired, for it is certain that the infrastructure he laid out for the city of New York, especially, in my opinion, the highway and bridge system, allowed the city to meet the demands of its inhabitance.
Now, enter Jane Jacobs. She posits that the entire approach of city planners is at fault, that their actions attempt to fragment and shatter the essence of the ‘great city’ instead of allow it to flourish. Superblocks, public housing, arterial highways and principles that address urban problems in isolation rather than in conjunction with adjacent city problems are all means to an end not in accordance with the proliferation of cities. She posits something far more complex, something I only vaguely understand. However, I agree with her, in some respects. I acknowledge that the city is a dynamic, interactive being. From personal experience, I agree that city planners must not always adhere to city planning dogma and tackle problems in isolation. In fact, I hate superblocks and public housing. It’s true, it saps the intrinsic vibrancy that is born within this melting pot we call New York City.
However, I began to question the feasibility of Jacobs ideas if hypothetically put into practice. I’m well aware Jacobs favored a realistic view on city planning, that planners should come out of their caves, drop mystified principles and learn how a city really works, but how efficient would the system be if all problems must be tackled in conjunction with a slew of other problems? In my mind, the process must be overwhelming. I’m sure it was a difficult task to build a highway system directly through the heavily populated New York City metropolitan area. Now imagine a viable transportation system that met the growing demand of the mobile populous that accounted for, and complimentary assisted, neighborhoods, the poor, the environment, etc.
