As an education major, I feel very strongly about anything that takes away from the children, andwhat Robert Moses did with Tavern on the Green certainly takes away from the children. I suppose that if Moses has the role of City Planning Commissioner and he feels that something is necessary for the public (such as the many highways and expressways he commissioned), then there must some validity to Moses’ reasoning. However, I cannot picture any way in which tearing down a playground to create a parking lot for an elite restaurant would be the best interest of anyone besides the business owner (and possibly those who could afford to dine in Tavern on the Green). Moses was entrusted to make decisions to advance those in the city not private businesses.
Moses’ secret mid-night attack on the park is a blatant attack on democracy. The mothers and local citizens made sure to follow the correct legal procedures to challenge Moses. One might have even have believed that they would succeed (and certainly it can be argued that they would have if the case had actually went to trial) because unlike other individuals who were displaced or put at a disadvantage on behalf of Moses’ public works projects, the individuals in this area had the financial means to defend their position. Perhaps Moses feared that if the issue had gone to trial he would not get his way – and for Robert Moses, this was an unacceptable outcome. So he took matters into his own hands.
There is also the issue with taking what little green space there is in New York City and turning it into a concrete jungle. This without a doubt goes against Le Corbusier’s view of what a park should look like in a big city. In the midst of the modern push towards environmental awareness, I think Le Corbusier was ahead of his time in suggesting that a city be 95% park and the remaining 5% left to vertical structures with the necessary housing and shopping facilities. While I do admit that this is a rather large (and highly exaggerated) percentage of park space, not only does this city planning strategy yield recreational and aesthetic benefits, but environmental as well.
If the public had not questioned Moses’ decision making after the incident with the Cross Bronx expressway and the displaced mothers, the public certainly (and rightly so) began to question Moses after the incident in Central Park. While historically it has proven that making progress often displaces and puts many at a disadvantage, the construction of this parking lot was not progress. It was not a necessary project to be undertaken. There was no reason to take away this public space from the families that certainly appreciated it more than those who use the area for parking ever will.
