|
|
| Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) (465232) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jul 24 01:31:55 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 22:55:26 2007. From a previous message:"The IRT and BMT may have left things in sorry shape, but there's absolutely no reason the city couldn't have fixed them up with the amount of money they recieved in the 1930s and 40s from the federal government. Sure, money that was BROUGHT to NY by Moses. HIGHWAY and road funds that would have went to some other city had not Moses brought it here. It's not like the money would have come here anyway. The issue is not that Moses brought the money here, and brought it for roads, the issue is that there wasn't a similar person lobbying for transit....but then again, there wasn't anyone anywhere lobbying to get money for transit, as opposed to roads. So no, it's not like if Moses had used the money HE GOT to NY for roads/etc, that it would have been used for transit instead. Instead, not only would we would not have gotten it for transit, but we wouldn't have gotten it for road improvement either, as it would have went to some other city for THEIR road projects." There are two different realities going on. Subways and public transit, like railroads are CENTRALIZING elements - bringing masses of people and goods together for transport. These items are fixed in one place and their users have to figure out a way to access those facilities. Translation - if a station is not near you - you are out of luck. The car and its roads bring about a whole different order. Roads and cars are DECENTRALIZING elements - spreading homes, businesses, shopping over vast areas. The period after World War 11 (but the themes were present before the war) was about finding new markets, opening new areas, and frankly putting massive amounts of people to work to do so. Having folks living on top of each other, in crowded tenements was no longer seen as the way of the future. The General Motors exhibit of the 1939 World's Fair showed the country the way, and frankly it was not by a crowded subway train. (Must we bring up the issue of General Motors and bus transit?) If you want to put a political economy spin on the issue - it is simple. There is a great deal of money to be made in building roads and in selling the land alongside and in between those roads. There is a greate deal of money to be made in building housing, especially homogeneously zoned single family housing. There is a great deal of money to be made in manufacturing items that cater to those new homes. There is a great deal of money to be made where certain businesses and industries can actually spread out to conduct their business with the amounts of land needed. There is a great deal of money to be made going after the retail market and your consumers, if they move your business moves. The world as "we know it" made it insane on a financial, architectural, in every federal urban policy affairs sense that one can think of to remain "city-bound". In fact federal urban policy was in every way all about getting out of the city!! If you want to put a sociological spin to the issue, many people do not mind NOT living next to the people that they do not want to live next to. Add in notions of self-sufficiency and independence, good neighborhoods, good schools, and none of "those people" - new little utopias get to be created. The city was seen as a very bad place to be, to live or to work -- the very definition of a place to get away from. What a lot of people did not look at when it came to city life during this period was the removal of the blue-collar life. Those who worked in factories, in small business, also the factories, and small businesses themselves. Many such businesses and factories were condemned/removed under urban renewal and similiar policies to build places like the United Nations, the World Trade Center, etc. As people moved away so did the businesses, and a cycle is created. Ever wonder what used to be under the Gowanus Expressway? Before it was built, and after its expansion? Or how about the FDR Drive? Did anyone really think that the land under which Robert Moses built many of his roads, parkways and highways was vacant land? Not in the city - often vacant in areas in the outskirts and surrounding the city, but not in the city. To build those roads, many businesses and homes had to be removed. When the businesses and small factories started to move out of the cities to suburban areas - beyond taking the jobs moving with them, newcomers found little employment. Hence the areas where these newcommers moved to (since they could not afford much) became "blighted" - meaning another reason to leave the city. The newcomers of course were blamed for the policies that were set in motion long before their arrival. As the tax base of the city left, cities were faced with demands that they did not have the money to deal with, creating another cycle. As the transfer of capital, resources, etc was moving out of the cities and sometimes to other countries - a redefinition of what use are cities came about. Cities it was hoped would be seen as the place of white collar employment, the place of business headquarters. Only a fool would "invest" in the city, since numerous federal policies made it advantageous to be anywhere else but in the city. The city was seen as a place where only what was "really needed" to be in the city remained. As technology changed, the business headquarters really did not have to be in "the city" - so many of those started to move out. That is why there were all sorts of "renewal" and "restoration" projects for cities - efforts to retain or gain some of the tax base. All of these activities was taking place not only in New York City, but in cities across the country. Robert Moses while a very powerful player in this tale, is just one of the many powerful interests that helped to bring about these changes. Why did the Giants move out of New York City? Simple - because it was financially an advantage to do so. The conditions were set in such a way for that to happen. Stadiums need space and frankly space downtown is just too expensive. Mike |
|
|
|