|
|
| Re: A Transit Robert Moses Guy (384462) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: A Transit Robert Moses Guy |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Feb 10 15:54:12 2007, in response to Re: A Transit Robert Moses Guy, posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 9 21:59:13 2007. Jusat close enough To the city..but NOT PART OF IT..."as in the case with Long Island,Westchester,New Jersey and part of New England.That's not true. Just as healthy suburbs can't survive without a healthy city, a healthy city can't survive without healthy suburbs. They need eachother, rather than drain eachother. The suburbs are not a parasite of the city any more than a city is a parasite of it's suburbs. Close enough to USE IT'S RESORCES..but not contribute TOTALLY..ESPECIALLY taxes"..Like having the house with the backyard..with 2.5 children and the dog named FUFFY That's not true. Suburban commuters coming into the city, yes, do use resourses, but they also contribute to the economy of the city too by patronizing their businesses, conducting business. Lets see how many business owners would be unhappy if the suburban people stopped coming in to city. And the house with the backyard and the kids (and last I checked city people also had kids), and the dog are totally irrelevant. Moses used the city as a sounding board to help move them right on out at OUR expense...and I do MEAN OURS.. But those people WANTED to leave. It's not like anyone was forcing them out. That was the mindset in the 40's and 50's, and perhaps even into the 60's. His pitifull attempts at "smoothing over the rabble" with his parks and socalled PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS has done nothing more than further URBAN BLIGHT in our neighborhoods.. The parks were a good thing, and the parkways were built to take people out of the city and TO the parks in the suburbs. What happened after the parkways were built with development was after the parkways were built. As for the public housing, yes that did destroy neighborhoods. But again, it was a different mindset in that time by everyone, not just him. The housing that was knocked down "could" have been refurbished, but many of the buildings were 19th Century housing that was never upgraded. Many people lived pretty badly in many of those buildings. Back then it was an out with an old, in with the new mentality. Today we know better, that those old buildings can be refurbished. But back then, many people were living in slum-like housing. There's a housing authority website that shows just what some of these buildings were like. THIS photo was taken on Aug 24, 1955. This is the 50's, and look how these people were living!  Mrs. Walter Maloney with her five children, aged from 4 to 12, in the kitchen of their tenement apartment at 124 Moore Street in Bushwick, Brooklyn, August 24, 1955. The monthly rent for their five-room cold water flat was $17. The tenement was torn down to make way for the 1960 Bushwick Houses, a 16-acre project that houses 2,962 people. (The Maloneys are also pictured in THE SLUMS 2, image 9.)   This is presumably a pre-Old Law apartment, built prior to 1879 (windows/transoms between rooms where there are no windows on the outside), June 14, 1940. The Hennesey family lived in this tenement at 150 Norman Avenue in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and were probably photographed as prospective tenants for a project then being constructed, such as Kingsborough Houses.  "There are revealing details of domestic consumption." Mrs. Herman Koenig, with her son and dog, doing laundry in the bathtub in the kitchen, August 11, 1941. The Koenig family were about to move out of their tenement and into Kingsborough Houses in Bedford Stuyvesant, Brooklyn. The 16 acre complex, completed in 1941, houses some 2,362 people. ID# 02.003.00060 Here's the Housing Authority Website showing this and more on it. Again, today, we are smarter, and know old buildings can be reconfigured, or refurbished. But we are talking the 1930's to 1960's which people had an out with the old in with the new attitude. And of course, SOMETHING had to be done with the way people were living in these places, especially after the Great Depression and WWII, that almost two decades of neglect to places that probably were run down even before the Depression. Yes, his methods were not always great, especuially near the end, but at the same time, people can't look past many of the good things, as well as the horrid things that were done. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|