Robert Moses- regarded as having the greatest impact on the physical character of NYC- played a major role in the creation of many modern architectures that can be seen throughout the city today- their unique characteristics having edged their way into the its identity. His manipulative methods of accomplishing his plans, which might hint at an unpleasant side of his character, contributed to the creation of various public works that were of good quality and constructed quickly. Though some hold Moses with high regard- I refuse to. His case is one where personal morals and values- or lack thereof, override his accomplishments as Park Commissioner.
Robert Caro, author of “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York,” explains that Robert Moses ignored the values of New York in “The Tale of Two Cities”. (Powell 2007) This seemed inevitable: in order to cater to the personal needs of New Yorkers, one would have to objectively, yet empathetically immerse themselves in the various cultures, struggles, and triumphs of New Yorkers. It was practically impossible for him to accomplish this when “his preferred point of view for planning was from the sky, where people disappeared from sight and the city appeared as a physical tapestry of land masses, waterways, and structures.” (Ballon, Jackson) Though Moses focus on refining the physical aspects of the city, the changes he employed significantly impacted the lives of those he expunged from his visions; from creating social inclusivity of both genders on mutual grounds like swimming pools, to displacing over 250,000 people from their homes to build highways. (Powell 2007)
The advent of modern architecture was with thought of to bring about beneficial consequences. Out of sight, out of mind, however. When political figures lose sight of the citizens they are creating and implementing policies for; ultimately the positive effects of those policies will be overlooked and destabilized. The recreational public facilities were built in hopes of removing boundaries between working-class men and women. These persons were also set to receive benefits of clean water, sunlight, and fresh air. With a 21st century, first world country citizen perspective- politicians should not be praised for offering basic necessities to their citizens, especially when it’s not offered to every citizen.
New swimming pools and recreational centers created under Moses leadership were found mainly in Manhattan, and less in African American neighborhoods than white ones. Only following race riots targeted at a lack of recreational facilities, was a rise in these centers seen in Harlem. Although extremely subtler in comparison, it echoes the end of the Jim Crow era and slavery. Only when contested should we be aware of basic human rights? Why must black and Italian Americans protest to get the same privileges of “superior” whites?
Known for setting a standard of high-quality design that remains unmatched- this legacy of Robert Moses that equates him to a master builder. It’s ironic though, that in expanding the public realm of New York City, Moses also limited it for some- promoting racial segregation. It’s saddening that- something quite common in America’s history- we seem to praise and remember historical figures for their most successful accomplishments and use that as a means to justify their wrong-doings. It’s what allows racist, self-indulging people to make it far in this country. Who knows, the mass may even allow someone with such attributes to lead them one day, once they have brought some sort of improvement to the lives of a few- maybe even if they haven’t.
Ballon H and Jackson K (2007) Robert Moses and the Transformation of New York (pp 65-66) W.W. Norton & Company
Gutman M Equipping the Public Realm: Rethinking Robert Moses and Recreation (pp 72-83)
Additional Source: Powell M (2007) A Tale of Two Cities. The New York Times. 6 May
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/nyregion/thecity/06hist.html
Hi Emerald,
Great post! I found your comparison of Robert Moses’ preference in the advancement white neighborhoods to that of the racial preferences that took place during slavery and the Jim Crow Era very interesting. I agree that although the racism may be subtle in Moses’ case, it still greatly effected the African American residents of New York City and their neighborhoods. Even though he was trying to improve the city with his public works projects, the disproportional manner in which he did it negatively effected the poor.
To add on, I feel like it is important to mention how by displacing the poor for the advancement of his projects and not investing in the more low-income neighborhoods, Robert Moses influenced the class divide we have today in New York City. I find it crazy how only a mile radius difference within the city can produce vastly different neighborhoods in terms of wealth. By choosing to invest in certain areas and not others, not only is a monetary divide created, but there is also a divide among the people. By having attractions such as recreational centers being built there, this boosts the area’s market value and attracts the wealthy white individuals. Due to this, the poor are forced out of these areas into more affordable ones. Moses, in a way, made sure that these low-income neighborhoods stayed poor by not providing them with equal opportunities to advance. This, in return, physically segregates the poorer African Americans into specific lower-income neighborhoods of the city. Therefore, I feel that your comparison has a valid argument as to why Robert Moses negatively impacted these residents.