|
|
| Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) (464011) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
|
| (464806) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:27:01 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 00:16:24 2007. EXACTLY. He was a man of his time. And ALL cities were expanding their road systems as opposed to building new transit. Transit was looked at as old fashioned back then. Moses did not "take away" from transit, he lobbied for much needed FEDERAL money to build NY's road and bridge system. That was FEDERAL money that was up for grabs for cities all around the country. It's not like if there was no Moses, that all this money would have went to building transit. Please, what a fairytail thought. No, that money would have went to some other city for THEIR bridge or road project, and not only would NY have not gotten needed federal money for it's roads, highways, and bridges, it ALSO would NOT have gotten new transit either. |
|
|
| (464807) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:29:33 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Parkchester 11:35 on Sat Jul 21 23:15:44 2007. ANd just think of what that place is like during an Earth Quake....say during the World Series.... :) |
|
|
| (464809) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 11:32:13 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:23:40 2007. Oh please, give it a rest. That's an urban legend, and buses were well do go to Jones Beach today. In the beginning, the roads were planned in the 20's and 30's, and buses hadn't taken hold yet. It was impossible to envision the 1950's and the impacts of buses and trucks when the roads were being designed in the 1920's. Complete urban legend. Actually, it's true, but for streetcars, not buses. Moses had nothing but contempt for poor people. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (464810) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:38:27 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 17:18:02 2007. And I mean really, just think of the downward spiral NY fell into in the 1970's. It's a miracle they were able to keep the Yankees and create the Mets, much less try and support the Giants and the Dodgers yet.It's easy to use someone as a scapegoat, especially someone as controversial as Robert Moses, but I mean really.... Not to mention, without Robert Moses, would we even have the Mets....I mean Flushing Meadows was a garbage dump that Robert Moses made a beautiful park out of. A CITY park, for all you persecution complex people that think roads built and designed in the 1920's when buses weren't even a major thought yet, were designed to not allow people with buses to come to Jones Beach. I mean really. |
|
|
| (464811) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:39:58 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 11:32:13 2007. Yeah, all the streetcar routes they would have built on the Parkways. Please. |
|
|
| (464815) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:45:46 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 01:34:18 2007. Haha, let's not confuse people with the whole story, instead of just half the story.Great post. |
|
|
| (464820) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jul 23 11:58:56 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 23 10:39:23 2007. Today's situation on those roads and expressways was different than when Robert Moses (and the highway authorities) built them. Why?Because those bridges and overpasses were REBUILT, often using a similar stone arches like the originals. In some cases the roadways were doubled such that the original bridges and overpasses a twin was created. In several cases due to the single arch of the overpasses, some buses had problems being on the edges of the roadways. In many cases land alongside those roadways and highways had to condemned to support the expansion of those roadways. Too many folks look at the highways, overpasses, roads and bridges - and somehow believe that they still are EXACTLY the way that they were built and designed from Robert Moses' time completely neglecting to note that there have been roadway expansion projects, changes and other improvements over the years. Just because the name of the roadway has not changed in years, does not mean that the actual road has not itself been changed. The issue of Robert Moses and buses on the roadways is not an urban legend as some contend. There is a web-site the Roadways Of New York that discusses these and other issues, as well as the roads not built. Robert Moses planned three expressways across Manhattan, the Lower Manhattan Expressway that everyone loves to talk about which involved Jane Jacobs, but also the Mid-Manhattan Expressway that was to stretch across at about 33rd Street, and the Trans-Harlem Expressway that would have stretched across 125th Street. Ever wonder why the Triborough Bridge on East 125th Street has a set of roadways that do not go anywhere? Need we mention the "Cross-Brooklyn" Expressway - if you have never heard of it, check out the "Roads not built" section of that website. Considering each of the dozen a year of "transit plans" that the arm-chair "transit planners on forums like these" create, or some of the implications the IND Second System - be careful in wishing for a transit czar like Robert Moses. There were plenty of times in the planning of roads and highways where Robert Moses could have taken a different route that would have saved homes, cost less while still offering benefits - that he choose not to pursue. There were times when rich powerful interests on Long Island that simply stopped him, and he had to divert his planned roadways - read the book "The Power Broker". Yes, there is a whole lot that can be said about Robert Moses's activities with the park system, public housing, urban renewal and urban planning in general. The world was we know it has changed, the world has we know is dynamic and always changing - that is the nature of the game. Mike |
|
|
| (464827) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 12:03:48 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 22 13:17:03 2007. It may have had something to do with Bob Murphy eventually needing a hearing aid. |
|
|
| (464828) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 12:03:49 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:39:58 2007. Historians love challenging long-held beliefs, and that's led to a lot of crap being put on the internet. Robert Caro's assertion about the overpasses being built too low for mass transit of any kind accessing Jones Beach is not only true, but totally in character for the man. He made damn sure the Verrazano Bridge could not carry rail service of any kind. He blocked putting rail service on the GWB. He consistently killed off any chance that the SAS would be built in his lifetime. Robert Moses was a flaming racist, which is probably the only thing about the man which makes him truly "a man of his time". Additionally, the assertion that other cities favored roads over mass transit post-WWII is deceiving. NYC was the only major American city to see it's mass transit infrastructure SHRINK during the 50's and 60's. Other cities may have favored road building over subway construction, but these cities did not allow their existing infrastructure to disappear during this era. |
|
|
| (464832) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 12:06:15 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 12:03:48 2007. I always thought that was due to Lindsey Nelson's loud jackets. |
|
|
| (464833) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 12:08:50 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Bob Andersen on Sun Jul 22 08:22:41 2007. Sea Beach Fred OTOH was tickled pink when the Dodgers first moved to LA, having left New York in 1954. It didn't take long for him to change his mind. He's told this story more than once. |
|
|
| (464855) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 12:41:55 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Michael549 on Mon Jul 23 11:58:56 2007. Today's situation on those roads and expressways was different than when Robert Moses (and the highway authorities) built them. Why?Irrelevant. The approach to Jones Beach is just as it always was. The bridges that were rebuilt, have similar clearances to the old ones, and the ones that were doubled are twins of the original. The issue of Robert Moses and buses on the roadways is not an urban legend as some contend. There is a web-site the Roadways Of New York that discusses these and other issues, as well as the roads not built. Robert Moses planned three expressways across Manhattan, the Lower Manhattan Expressway..........Need we mention the "Cross-Brooklyn" Expressway - if you have never heard of it, check out the "Roads not built" section of that website. ANd the point being? What do the never built roads have to do with the urban legend? The EARLY roads, designed in the 20's and 30's were designed without larger vehicles traversing them, because buses were not a real thought back in the 20's. Later roads were built as Expressways when it seemed obvious, that larger motor vehicles like buses were becoming the norm. Some of the earlier parkways were even converted into expressways. Still sounds like urban legend to me.... Considering each of the dozen a year of "transit plans" that the arm-chair "transit planners on forums like these" create, or some of the implications the IND Second System Robert Moses did not kill the second system. The lingering effects of the Great Depression, WWII, and changing times killed the IND Second System. EVEry city came to the point at that time that it was necessary to expand the roads and bridge infastructure. Every city turned their funds to roads/bridges, etc instead of transit. Robert Moses didn't take money for transit away, he instead BROUGHT federal money for roads and bridges. Money that would have went to other cities instead, had he not brought it here. The issue is not that Robert Moses used federal money for bridges/roads. The issue is that there wasn't a similar guy looking to expand transit in the same era to bring money for that. But there wasn't a guy like that anywhere else in the country either. It was a different time. It's easy to look back at Robert Moses' era with TODAY's thinking, but you have to go back to RObert Moses' era with the SAME era's thining to understand what happened back then. read the book "The Power Broker". Yes, very interesting and informative, but it only gives part of the story, from one angle. Yes, there is a whole lot that can be said about Robert Moses's activities with the park system, public housing, urban renewal and urban planning in general. The world was we know it has changed, the world has we know is dynamic and always changing - that is the nature of the game. Exactly, and that's just the point. We can't go back to THAT era with TODAY's thinking, as it was a different world then. |
|
|
| (464872) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 13:08:56 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 12:03:49 2007. Robert Caro's assertion about the overpasses being built too low for mass transit of any kind accessing Jones Beach is not only true, but totally in character for the man.It's still urban legend, and one man's assesment of opinion, that people take for fact. I have not seen one piece of solid evidence that makes that claim a fact, other than speculation. He made damn sure the Verrazano Bridge could not carry rail service of any kind. Agreed, but with the height of that bridge, you would need ramps for a train incline all the way in Prospect park to begin that ascent at a doable grade to get to that height from out of the subway.... He blocked putting rail service on the GWB. I am not as familiar with the building of the GeoW, other than that the towers were built to be encased like the Brooklyn Bridges, but the Depression or the wear (not sure), altered it to remain just the skeleton it is today. Point me to some unbiased writing on the Moses part of the project, and I will read it and perhaps re-evaluate, but I couldn't find any, but of course, didn't look long. He consistently killed off any chance that the SAS would be built in his lifetime. Nonsense. Again, where was the funding coming from? The Great Depression and WWII killed the initial plans, and after the war, ideals and focus changed, and not just NY, everywhereNo city was getting funds for projects to expand transit on any large scale. The federal government was giving out plenty of highway funds though, which RObert Moses took fool advantage of. Robert Moses was a flaming racist, which is probably the only thing about the man which makes him truly "a man of his time". Perhaps. But that means nothing but a hearsay evaluation or reason for the parkway bridges, which were again, FACT, designed and built in the 1920's and 30's, long before buses were seen to be a way of the future. It would have been impossible to realize the extent of what transit, buses, etc would be like by the 50's, much less in the 20's, WHEN THE FIRST PARKWAYS werew built, and others designed. Robert Moses may have been many things, both good and bad, but a psychic was not one of them. |
|
|
| (464873) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 13:09:36 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 12:03:49 2007. Robert Caro's assertion about the overpasses being built too low for mass transit of any kind accessing Jones Beach is not only true, but totally in character for the man.It's still urban legend, and one man's assesment of opinion, that people take for fact. I have not seen one piece of solid evidence that makes that claim a fact, other than speculation. He made damn sure the Verrazano Bridge could not carry rail service of any kind. Agreed, but with the height of that bridge, you would need ramps for a train incline all the way in Prospect park to begin that ascent at a doable grade to get to that height from out of the subway.... He blocked putting rail service on the GWB. I am not as familiar with the building of the GeoW, other than that the towers were built to be encased like the Brooklyn Bridges, but the Depression or the wear (not sure), altered it to remain just the skeleton it is today. Point me to some unbiased writing on the Moses part of the project, and I will read it and perhaps re-evaluate, but I couldn't find any, but of course, didn't look long. He consistently killed off any chance that the SAS would be built in his lifetime. Nonsense. Again, where was the funding coming from? The Great Depression and WWII killed the initial plans, and after the war, ideals and focus changed, and not just NY, everywhereNo city was getting funds for projects to expand transit on any large scale. The federal government was giving out plenty of highway funds though, which RObert Moses took fool advantage of. Robert Moses was a flaming racist, which is probably the only thing about the man which makes him truly "a man of his time". Perhaps. But that means nothing but a hearsay evaluation or reason for the parkway bridges, which were again, FACT, designed and built in the 1920's and 30's, long before buses were seen to be a way of the future. It would have been impossible to realize the extent of what transit, buses, etc would be like by the 50's, much less in the 20's, WHEN THE FIRST PARKWAYS werew built, and others designed. Robert Moses may have been many things, both good and bad, but a psychic was not one of them. |
|
|
| (464874) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 13:11:03 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 13:08:56 2007. hahah, typo:The federal government was giving out plenty of highway funds though, which RObert Moses took fool advantage of. I meant...."full" advantage (but I am sure many would say the former, hahahaha) |
|
|
| (464886) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 13:43:53 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 12:06:15 2007. He liked plaid jackets, no doubt. |
|
|
| (464888) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 13:46:04 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 13:08:56 2007. The lower level of the GWB was originally designed for rail traffic and supposedly could still be converted, if needed. Not that it would ever happen... |
|
|
| (464894) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jul 23 13:51:38 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 23 00:16:24 2007. New York City would have died without the vision of Bob Moses. It would have ended up like Detroit and so many other formerly great American cities.<That's an opinion loaded with irony. Detroit embraced the automobile far more than New York did, and this accelerated the suburbanization of that city. The man may have been arrogant and stubborn but that is the only way to get things done in NY. Nothing of public importance has been built here since he left the scene. The reason why its so difficult to build great public projects is because of laws that were passed in reaction to Robert Moses, not because of the lack of a great man. Imagine NYC had Moses never existed. It would have become a dump. The pre-WWII Robert Moses left a legacy that supports your opinion. The post-WWII Robert Moses does not as he did turn parts of New York into "a dump." One of his worst legacies are the Le Corbusier inspired housing projects that he built. Functioning neighborhoods were replaced with architectural monstrosities that helped to institutionalize poverty. My only beefs with him is his contempt for mass transit and the overt racial implications of his housing policies. I'm glad that some of his projects like the LOMEX were shot done. Other then that I wish we had a modern day more sensible and transit oriented version of Robert Moses. There was never any whiff of malfeasence in his work. "The path to hell is paved with good intentions." It doesn't matter if there was no malfeasance. As I see it, he was either blinded by arrogance, or he was incompetent when it came to his implementation of social programs. His legacy stands the test of time. It seems that the biggest gripe here is that he didn't bend to O'Malley's blackmail. Any public servant who shuns requests of handouts to the rich and other corporate welfare should be commended instead of vilified. I agree that not bending to O'Malley was a good thing. Robert Moses' legacy, though, has definitely not stood the passage of time. Yes, Robert Caro's book was polemic and devoid of scientific discipline. After 30 years, where are the well regarded books challenging The Power Broker? Until that happens, Robert Moses' legacy is in the gutter. |
|
|
| (464895) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 23 13:52:59 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Jul 22 15:01:36 2007. MATHA:The reason Milwaukee got the Brewers was because the Seattle Pilots went bankrupt in early 1970 (after just one season) as people in Seattle as I understand it at that time held up the building of what would eventually become the Kingdome (which opened for the 1976 inaugural season of the Seattle Seahawks). Bud Selig came in and bought the Pilots (so late in fact that Topps baseball cards for 1970 had "Seattle Pilots" for that team) and moved the team to Milwaukee to become the Brewers. MLB gave Seattle what would be the Mariners as expansion compensation because of the botching of the Pilots when they were in Seattle (and likely how Toronto got the Blue Jays that like the Mariners began in 1977). As for Washington, there were stories the Griffiths, who owned the original Senators left for Minneapolis after the 1960 season (where they became the Twins) because they didn't like what was moving into DC at the time. Of course, the second Senators only lasted in Washington for 11 years from 1961-'71 because even though they played in what was in those days a very modern baseball stadium (RFK, which is the Nationals current home through the end of this season), Washington was much more of a "goverment town" at that time and not many cared about baseball. Washington now is a much different place from then, and I suspect when the Nationals move to their new park next season, they will see a huge jump in fans. As for the Giants, had they moved to Minneapolis as some have said here, obviously the original Senators would not have moved there. Of course, one thing MLB could have done back then was allowed the Dodgers to move to LA and placed an expansion team in San Francisco (that could have perhaps taken the name of the minor league team there, the Seals?), with the Giants eventually moving into what became Shea Stadium to replace the Polo Grounds (perhaps if necessary moving into Ebbets Field for a few seasons while Shea was being built?) while a second expansion team was placed somewhere else (most likely Houston, which got the Colt 45s that would after 1964 become the Astros as the second expansion team with the Mets in 1962). Very interesting stuff. |
|
|
| (464901) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:05:40 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 13:46:04 2007. So if it was DESIGNED for rail traffic, what is the problem people have here? There was no one pushing to expand rail traffic, so the funds didn't come....but if it's in the design, that means it COULD have been done, had expansion for rail on that bridge been an issue, and could still be done.....if there was a need for it, and funds allocated. |
|
|
| (464905) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Jul 23 14:10:01 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 23 04:08:24 2007. Then things have changed. Someone might want to tell the Kings County sheriff not to come in today. :) |
|
|
| (464910) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 14:12:50 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 11:38:27 2007. The Mets went into a major tailspin themselves in the late 70s with M. Donald Grant, who in Whitey Herzog's opinion didn't know beans about baseball, running the show. IMHO the Mets would not have tanked had Gil Hodges remained alive. Grant never questioned any of Gil's moves. I also think Herzog would have stayed in the organization in some capacity (yes, he used to work for the Mets). |
|
|
| (464916) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 14:16:28 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jul 23 13:52:59 2007. I really don't think it would have been pragmatic for the Giants as such to move to Shea....the Brooklyn fans simply would never have been able to swallow that in the same way the vast majority could not swallow the thought of becoming Yankee fans, as that wonderful human piece of garbage, the Commissioner of baseball suggested.The only thing that could have worked is O'Malley being allowed to move his franchise to Los Angeles but being forced to leave the name Dodgers where it belonged in Brooklyn....the Giants one way or another were history in NY, no amount of anythng could bring back their fan base or whatever. Brookyn could then have been awarded an expansion franchise called the Brooklyn Dodgers...they could have played in Flushing...fans would probably have grumbled a bit but when they realized the wonderful site that was (three major highways, the LIRR and the number 7 train right next door) and while there might be a bit of a blank on the pages of Brooklyn Dodger historical records, today we would have Fred Wilpon owning the Brooklyn Dodgers, perhaps the franchise moving back to Brooklyn (Coney Island) or staying put, opening up Ebbets Citi Field or Citi Ebbets Field whichever and while many would still lament the loss of the real Dodgers, by 1969 when the new Dodgers would have beaten the Baltimore Orioles to win the World Series, all would have been forgiven! But for that to have happened, we would have need a baseball commissioner with a large pair of you know whats, something Ford C. Frick sorely lacked. He should have stuck to doing the 6:45 PM sports report on WOR radio before Stan Lomax too that time slot. |
|
|
| (464921) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:33:13 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Russ on Mon Jul 23 13:51:38 2007. New York City would have died without the vision of Bob Moses. It would have ended up like Detroit and so many other formerly great American cities.That's an opinion loaded with irony. Detroit embraced the automobile far more than New York did, and this accelerated the suburbanization of that city. Detroit is a much different city than NYC. NYC, as a city and it's surrounding areas built on islands, that need good roads, tunnels and bridges to access them, it's more important than cities that are not a part of a whole river, and island configuration. NYC and Long Island would have choked if not for it's bridges and tunnels and good roads to access them. The man may have been arrogant and stubborn but that is the only way to get things done in NY. Nothing of public importance has been built here since he left the scene. The reason why its so difficult to build great public projects is because of laws that were passed in reaction to Robert Moses, not because of the lack of a great man. Oh please. This is not a NY phenomena, this is true everywhere nowadays that it's hard to get things built. Imagine NYC had Moses never existed. It would have become a dump. The pre-WWII Robert Moses left a legacy that supports your opinion. The post-WWII Robert Moses does not as he did turn parts of New York into "a dump." It wasn't "RObert Moses". There was a turnover from city life to suburbanization ALL OVER the country in that era. There was a "white flight" from the city to suburbs ALL OVER the country. This is not at all unique to New York City. And areas like Bushwick fell all on their own with out the help of the "Cross Brooklyn" expressway that "supposedly" killed the Bronx. The Bronx was in trouble long before the Cross Bronx Expressway, and areas fell all on their own without the "Cross Brooklyn", so one does not necessarily cause the other. The Bronx indeed would have fallen even without the Cross Bronx Expressway. Robert Moses didn't "kill" the city, people were "killing" cities all over the country as cars became the norm, and people left the city for the suburbs. If anything, seeds for the flight from the cities in the 1950's began when cars were invented. Robert Moses didn't cause that, he just happen to be a man in that era that just expanded upon the national trend, and the need for expanded roads, bridges, and infasturucture that was necessary with the country's new found love of automobiles. One of his worst legacies are the Le Corbusier inspired housing projects that he built. Functioning neighborhoods were replaced with architectural monstrosities that helped to institutionalize poverty. While I agree that "mega-projects" were not the answer either, many of these neighborhoods were far from "functioning" neighborhoods. Many of these old buildings destroyed were barely livable in the 50's, they were 1800's old law tenemants that had never recieved any sort of upgrading for modern living. Today, in hindsight, sure they could have been rehabilitated, but again, you are thiniing in TODAY's thinking where what's old is new again. Back in the 40's, 50's and 60's, it was an "out with the old, in with the new" mentality. People LEARNED from their mistakes, but back then, it was a different thining, that was NOT unique to Moses. (These are the same generations that destroyed Penn Station for a "modern" arena and office tower), and thought that was a good idea. But no, it didn't institutionalize "poverty". Poverty was already in many of these un-upgraded 1800's old law tenament buildings, many of which didn't even have central heating yet. Robert Moses' legacy, though, has definitely not stood the passage of time. Says who? One book that only writes one side of the story from one angle? What about all the millions of people that use the parkway system, the expressways, the tunnels, the bridges AND the Parks....and see what NY would be like without any of these improvements to the infastructure. Just see what it's like when one of these bridges are closed for repair, or a highway is blocked because of a major accident on them, and see what a mess things are without them. It's the same thing as when a subway line is out or unusable for some reason. |
|
|
| (464922) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 14:36:22 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:05:40 2007. There was no one pushing to expand rail traffic,That is patently untrue and a criminal amount of revisionism. Francis Dodd McHugh was chief of the City Planning Commission and realized none of the numbers for the Van Wyck expressway's capacity and Idlewild's number of generated trips added up. He suggested Moses leave a 50 foot right of way in the median of the Van Wyck for an eventual subway expansion to the airport. The cost would have been a mere 2 million dollars on a 30 million dollar road project, but Moses turned him down flat and then proceeded to ruin his career. Other contemporaries of Moses attempted to divert a small fraction of the 1955 Joint Program bond with the PANJNY and TBTA to the badly neglected subway and LIRR riders. Even with a complete renovation of the LIRR's rolling stock, additional tunnels under the Hudson and East Rivers, (forming a kind of ESA and ARC terminals, although the NJ side called for tunnels in midtown and lower Manhattan, connected by a loop), and an extensive rehab of the subway system and construction of the SAS and Flatbush Ave subway amongst other projects there'd still be money left in the 2.7 billion dollar program to build the Narrows Bridge, Throgs Neck bridge, and several other major road projects. Instead of this logical balanced approach Moses continued as he had since 1933, funding none of the rail projects and all of the road projects, to the point of constructing low-use, high cost roads which served no purpose but to employ the construction unions that assured he stayed in power. The rehabilitation of the LIRR's system had to wait until Moses was just about gone and Rockefeller had to do it at 10 times the cost it would have been in 1955. We're finally getting the terminals proposed by Moses' contemporaries, but they're invariably a pale shadow of what was proposed. The NYC subway STILL hasn't fully recovered from the neglect of the 1950s. And yes, Moses is responsible for that neglect, it was he who proposed raising the fare slightly so as to make the subway "self supporting" debt, then took all the money from the debt limit that opened up for road construction and left the city to eventual bankruptcy. In essence at the time he stole from the poor to give to the rich, neglecting the city's essential functions, including fire prevention, the police force, the schools, healthcare, and everything other than the parks and roads which were his domain to advance his own power. He wasn't just hostile to transit, he was hostile to anything he didn't control, but to claim he was anything else is completely and utterly false. |
|
|
| (464925) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jul 23 14:43:20 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Jeff Rosen on Sat Jul 21 22:00:03 2007. Actually, it is Moses, 100%. Moses was just too difficult to deal with, and his anti-NYC stance left him...and baseball Giants ownership, which tailed the Dodgers to the West Coast at the same time, with no choice. What else could O'Malley have done then...wait for Moses to croak? |
|
|
| (464926) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:55:25 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 14:36:22 2007. He suggested Moses leave a 50 foot right of way in the median of the Van Wyck for an eventual subway expansion to the airport.And there is a rail line right in the center of the Expressway today, so what's the problem? And where was the money coming from AT THAT TIME to build this line? Instead of this logical balanced approach Moses continued as he had since 1933, funding none of the rail projects and all of the road projects, And name all the other cities that were expanding, and upkeeping their systems running like a swiss watch in that era. The NYC subway STILL hasn't fully recovered from the neglect of the 1950s. The NYC subway STILL hasn't fully recovered from the neglect of the 1950s And yes, Moses is responsible for that neglect, it was he who proposed raising the fare slightly so as to make the subway "self supporting" debt, No, the bankrupt IRT and BMT was responsible for that, and the failure for them to be able to raise the 5 cents fare for decades before to allow them to remain viable. The city inherited the BMT and IRT, that was left to deteriorate since the 1930's while they were still privately owned. In essence at the time he stole from the poor to give to the rich, neglecting the city's essential functions, including fire prevention, the police force, the schools, healthcare, and everything other than the parks and roads which were his domain to advance his own power. He wasn't just hostile to transit, he was hostile to anything he didn't control, but to claim he was anything else is completely and utterly false Yes, that's one opinion on one side of this. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of what he did, or I should say how he did it left much to be desired, but there was a lot of good and improvement also under his reign. The highway, bridge system being one, but also the many, many parks. There's good and bad in the story, and I will not listen to just one side of the story as being the full picture, and being the absolute truth in the whole saga. There were many contributing factors involved also in the fall of NY and the breakdown in the 70's. |
|
|
| (464928) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:58:31 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jul 23 14:43:20 2007. Oh please. |
|
|
| (464930) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 15:01:38 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jul 23 14:43:20 2007. O'Malley could have rehabilitated Ebbets Field which was built around the same time as Fenway Park and Wrigley Field both of which are still going strong today...ah but they were only drawing 1,000,000 a year I hear people cry...well that was considered the threshold between fair and good in that era...check out the attendance of other teams and see what they were drawing.....only Milwaukee was consistantly out drawing Brooklyn in the National League and of course they didn't have nearly the same sources of revenue the Dodgers had.O'Malley could have looked ot make his own deal...what about the land down by Floyd Bennet Field...why didn't he explore that? And it wasn't as if he wasn't offered a suitable place for a ballpark namely Flushing Meadow...he rejected that offer without a second gthought. You know for a long time, many people felt the Mets' lease at Shea Stadium was a sweetheart deal....did O'Malley actually investigate with him the possiblity of Flushing Meadow? Or did O'Malley say no way jose (or bob) when the topic was brought up with the ridiculous assertion he could not call them the Brooklyn Dodgers if he played at Queens. And yes, he could have waited for moses to croak also...he was far younger than Moses and was making money in Brooklyn head over heels. And as has been noted, it was illegal under NYS law for Moses to hand the land at Flatbush & Atlantic to O'Malley...illegal period end of the discussion. But O'Malley either was blind to the law, hard to believe as he was a lawyer, or had decided he was moving to la la land and all this Flatbush-Atlantic business was simply for the sake of posterity as is being pushed now by the imoster organization playing on the left coast that calls itself the Dodgers. |
|
|
| (464932) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 15:15:07 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:33:13 2007. NYC, as a city and it's surrounding areas built on islands, that need good roads, tunnels and bridges to access them, it's more important than cities that are not a part of a whole river, and island configuration. NYC and Long Island would have choked if not for it's bridges and tunnels and good roads to access them.You have it backwards. If NYC is an island and access and space are at a premium then you would want to go with the mode that allows the greatest number of people to pass through a passage of a given cross-sectional area per hour and uses the least amount of land for those people travelling into the city. In that case the car is the worst mode for NYC to depend on, the capacity of any road bridge or tunnel will be far less than a subway or commuter rail bridge or tunnel, and all those people coming into the city with cars create traffic on the surface streets and require parking lots that waste valuable land. What little industry existed on LI choked because of the Port Authority's failure to build a freight tunnel to the LIRR, and no new industry was able to spring up because of Moses' stubborn insistence that LI be either suburban development or parkland. Oh please. This is not a NY phenomena, this is true everywhere nowadays that it's hard to get things built. But it certainly seems a good deal harder in NYC. DC's entire 103 mile subway system has sprung into existence since Moses was driven from his many offices. The same is true of MARTA and nearly true of BART. Chicago added an entirely new line to Midway Airport. Even Philadelphia has managed to add some 15 or 16 miles of subway to their system in addition to the commuter rail improvements made in the 1980s. In all that NYC has built the Archer Ave extension and the 63rd St tunnel and connector, and that was heavily contested. Admittedly NYC suffered worst at Moses' reign of terror, but the subway *should* have recovered by now. Instead the politicians are afraid of installing another leader who can subvert them for his or her own goals, and neighborhood groups are determined not to be pushed aside. The problem in NYC is very clearly a reaction to Moses' tactics, and his legacy of bulldozing neighborhoods will likely hang over the city for decades to come. One book that only writes one side of the story from one angle? Have you read the book you're deriding so viciously? If you did you'd likely find it a far more moderate piece of literature than you make it out to be. Caro makes it clear that early on in Moses' career as Parks Commissioner he was a force for good, scraping parks together out of the corners of farms on LI so families out from NYC's crowded neighborhoods wouldn't have to pay to swim at a rocky beach. Yes, his parkways were a good thing back then when Jericho Road, Sunrise Highway and a few other thoroughfares were thoroughly choked with traffic every saturday and sunday during the summer. He also did tremendous good when he parlayed his state posts into the city, clearing out the Tammany position-fillers, getting long talked-about projects like the Triboro Bridge built and so on. He cleaned up Bryant Park, then moved on to completely redo Central Park, removing so many of Tammany's signs of occupation. However, Caro also makes it clear that something changed in the 1930s after LaGuardia made him construction coordinator. LaGuardia fought with him on a continuous basis by the end of his term as mayor, and those that followed didn't have the stomach to take on Moses. Moses steadily became deaf as he aged and by the mid 1950s not only was he out of touch with the changing demographics of the area he was building in he was too stubborn to change his views and even if he had been willing to listen it is unlikely he would have heard most of what wassaid. Those parkways which 25 years before had been a godsend as a way for car owners in NYC to escape the city for a weekend were instead a daily slog for millions of commuters, an unending source of frustration for everyone connected to them which continues to today. The Long Island Railroad offered the capacity to carry those commuters into the city, but its cars and track were in deplorable shape and it had no money for improvements. Because Moses was locked firmly in a 1920s mindset and never drove the roads he was shoving down NY's throat after the 1940s there was no way in hell he was going to be able to fix NY or LI's traffic problems no matter how much money he spent. |
|
|
| (464937) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jul 23 15:54:20 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 15:01:38 2007. Actually, O'Malley did think about Floyd Bennett Field for a minute before dismissing that because of its atrocious access. As for Moses, he didn't exactly care for the law either...and Moses was powerful enough to pressure Albany to make an exception in the law anyhow.However, similar issues also caused the New York (baseball) Giants to move out to San Fran that same winter...because Moses didn't give a damn about the city until it was too late. |
|
|
| (464939) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 23 16:01:57 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 23 12:03:49 2007. Additionally, the assertion that other cities favored roads over mass transit post-WWII is deceiving. NYC was the only major American city to see it's mass transit infrastructure SHRINK during the 50's and 60's.That is false. Every American city that could legitimately call itself a city had a streetcar system up until the 1950s, but by the end of the immediate postwar era, only a handful still had them and their networks were much reduced. |
|
|
| (464945) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 16:16:09 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 14:55:25 2007. And there is a rail line right in the center of the Expressway today, so what's the problem?It cost 1000 times the amount that 50 foot ROW was expected to cost, or almost 200 times the completed subway was supposed to cost! It doesn't give a one seat ride up to the Queens Blvd IND stations, nor even a one seat ride to Manhattan. And where was the money coming from AT THAT TIME to build this line? The City's contribution to highway construction, not counting state and federal funds for the same projects, was at that time 280 million dollars. If they couldn't find some way to scrape around 9 to 11 million dollars together to fix an expressway which was broken before it opened then what does that say about the city's priorities at the time? Clearly not all the city thought this was a bad idea, the CPC with F. Dodd McHugh was behind this project, as were other departments, but at that time the city's will was Moses' and he didn't want transit on his highway. And name all the other cities that were expanding, and upkeeping their systems running like a swiss watch in that era. Chicago. They opened the State Street Subway in 1943, the Dearborn St Subway in 1951. I-290, then called the Congress Expressway and now called the Eisenhower was opened in 1955 with the EXACT arrangement that was proposed for the Van Wyck. Admittedly rather than a new route the CTA route down the median which opened in 1957 was a rerouting of the old Garfield Park branch and thus little mileage was gained it was exactly what NYC should have done on the Van Wyck. Later the CTA returned to this arrangement for the Dan Ryan line and the Kennedy expressway to O'hare and both of those were new lines. They've now realized that median lines are far from perfect, and the Orange line to Midway was built along an AT&SF freight line. It is also worth noting that Cleveland's Red Line came into existence in 1955, as did Toronto's subway. No, the bankrupt IRT and BMT was responsible for that, and the failure for them to be able to raise the 5 cents fare for decades before to allow them to remain viable. The city inherited the BMT and IRT, that was left to deteriorate since the 1930's while they were still privately owned. Yes, the city left them to deteriorate because it didn't have any goddamn money because every time the debt limit was raised those funds went off to build roads. 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. That is unless NYC had a construction coordinator acting as a liasion between New York City and NY State and the Federal Government who was monomaniacally focused on highway construction. In fact it'd make a whole lot more sense to spend that money fixing up the subways than to spend it building roads. Frequently Moses' desire to continue building highways despite the war effort put him at odds with the groups coordinating steel and concrete production. And because of wartime limitations on oil and rubber few people drove, so he could claim his highways were reducing traffic and thus boosting productivity. In reality everyone was on the subway which was being run ragged and a rebuilding of those likely would entailed a far simpler recycling of steel as opposed to new construction. Yes, that's one opinion on one side of this. An opinion? It may be an opinion but it's backed up by ample evidence that he was an incredible control freak. He fought the Midtown Tunnel which tunnel engineer Ole Singstad had been placed in control of by LaGuardia. Moses first tried get control of the authority from Singstad, then attempted to delay its construction so as to cause the Public Works Administration funding to lapse, and finally refused to construct a highway to connect it with his parkways. Both Singstad, city legislative represenative Reuben Lazarus and corporation council Paul Windels all arrived independently at the opinion that Moses' only problem with the project was that it didn't have his name on it. The same situation played out with the Brooklyn Battery Bridge and later Tunnel debacle, with the same cast of characters and nearly the same fight except that now the government reformers who had secured his position found he turned on them rapidly when confronted with what he saw as desertion. In the end only the president of the country could put an end to Moses' plans and force the construction of a tunnel. He also proved himself astonishingly petty by closing the Batttery Aquarium and relocating it to Coney Island, then attempting to bulldoze the old fort it occupied. It's particularly interesting because as soon as Moses did get control of the Tunnel Authority he reversed his position that the Queens Midtown didn't need an access road and after the Horace Harding expressway was constructed traffic soared, exactly as Singstad had predicted it would. Moses' only problem with the Queens Midtown and Battery tunnels was that he didn't control them. The highway, bridge system being one, but also the many, many parks. There's good and bad in the story, and I will not listen to just one side of the story as being the full picture, and being the absolute truth in the whole saga. No, you'll only listen to the good side. Never mind that those parks were almost exclusively built in middle class white neighborhoods, despite them costing more money than parks in lower class neighborhoods. There were many contributing factors involved also in the fall of NY and the breakdown in the 70's. Of course, but when the City spent almost all their funds from the rich years of the 1950s and 60s on the basic equivilant of fried chicken it's little wonder that they had a heart attack just 10 years later. |
|
|
| (464979) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 23 17:36:16 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 16:16:09 2007. Interesting synopsis. Pity we aren't fixing those mistakes six decades later. |
|
|
| (465005) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 23 18:20:47 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jul 23 10:42:11 2007. As far as the Bronx thing, I do remember reading that a slight alteration in the route would have spared the houses and taken it through an area which was not residential in nature.I think the number was something like 5,000 fewer people displaced by routing it along the north side of Crotona Park. However a friend of Moses would have had to relocate his business, I believe, hence that route was never seriously considered by Moses but it was proposed by one of the local groups at the time. |
|
|
| (465011) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 23 18:32:53 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 12:41:55 2007. I disagree that the Power Broker only gives part of the story from one angle. Yes, it is very negative toward Moses and deservedly so. I haven't found anything in it that is untrue. However, with all its negativity, Caro does praise Moses for the good he did and his brilliancy in getting things accomplished. What I got out of the book was that Moses started with the best of intentions but realized early on that good intentions without the power to make changes does you no good. But once he got the feel for power, there was no stopping him. And by the time he reached his later years, he was still planning as if he was still in the 1930's, never realizing that you just couldn't build enough roads to meet the demand and would need mass transit to move the masses. |
|
|
| (465017) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Kid Twist on Mon Jul 23 18:38:51 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by treman262 on Sat Jul 21 22:00:49 2007. Stoneham was considerin a move to Minneapolis, not Milwaukee. O'Malley steered him to the West Coast. |
|
|
| (465018) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 23 18:40:21 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 13:08:56 2007. Robert Caro's assertion about the overpasses being built too low for mass transit of any kind accessing Jones Beach is not only true, but totally in character for the man.It's still urban legend, and one man's assesment of opinion, that people take for fact. I have not seen one piece of solid evidence that makes that claim a fact, other than speculation. If I remember what Caro wrote, he said that buses would fit in the center lanes but the overpasses were too low for the outside lanes. And because bus drivers could not be sure that their buses would fit in all the lanes, they wouldn't take the risk to use the Parkways at all. |
|
|
| (465166) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 22:30:02 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jul 23 18:40:21 2007. Yes, and remember, we are talking about parkways and bridges that were designed in the 1920's, when buses were not even a real thought. |
|
|
| (465174) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 22:55:26 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 16:16:09 2007. It cost 1000 times the amount that 50 foot ROW was expected to cost, or almost 200 times the completed subway was supposed to cost! It doesn't give a one seat ride up to the Queens Blvd IND stations, nor even a one seat ride to Manhattan.So would any project not done years ago. Everything goes up. And the LIRR Rockaway line was there all along, and no one used that for an airport use back then either, and that was an existing ROW, that could have connected to the QUeens IND, and a one seat ride to Manhattan, just as good as a Van Wyck line....and they didn't use that one either either in Moses time, or after. The City's contribution to highway construction, not counting state and federal funds for the same projects, was at that time 280 million dollars. If they couldn't find some way to scrape around 9 to 11 million dollars together to fix an expressway which was broken before it opened then what does that say about the city's priorities at the time? And no other city was doing that either. It was the times. Chicago. That's one, and that was pretty late on, in the late 50's. Where are all the others? As I said, NY was certainly not unique in not building new transit, and focusing almost entirely on road infastructure. NY was the norm rather than the exception, and of course there may always be a few exceptions. Especially a city as rail based as Chicago is, and certainly was. Yes, the city left them to deteriorate because it didn't have any goddamn money because every time the debt limit was raised those funds went off to build roads Yes, and that was not Moses, that was other people that destroyed the BMT and IRT. And yes, money went to roads, but it went to roads almost everywhere else too, again, not unique to NY. 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. It may be an opinion but it's backed up by ample evidence that he was an incredible control freak. I never said he wasn't. That still doesn't get you transit built instead of roads, as the money wouldn't have come here at all. No, you'll only listen to the good side. Never mind that those parks were almost exclusively built in middle class white neighborhoods, despite them costing more money than parks in lower class neighborhoods. Yes, where there was amble vacant land to do so. And there were plenty he did in the city too, what's Flushing Meadows, still an ash dump? Hundreds of new playgrounds in the city for kids. Jamaica Bay Park, about 15 new public pools in the city, and Coney Island also had been widened with more beach sand. Here's a rundown of the parks: http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_about/parks_history/historic_tour/history_robert_moses_modern.html |
|
|
| (465176) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jul 23 22:58:18 2007, in response to Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Dave on Sat Jul 21 18:35:14 2007. anybody remember why the ny giants moved to san francisco ? |
|
|
| (465178) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 22:59:08 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by American Pig on Mon Jul 23 16:01:57 2007. Exactly. A real shame, but it unfortunately was a NATIONAL trend, not just in "Moses' NY". It was no different in most other places. |
|
|
| (465185) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 23:12:55 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by WillD on Mon Jul 23 15:15:07 2007. You have it backwards. If NYC is an island and access and space are at a premium then you would want to go with the mode that allows the greatest number of people to pass through a passage of a given cross-sectional area per hour and uses the least amount of land for those people travelling into the city.Yes, and we have that, it's called the NYC Subway system, it's the lifeline of the city. Could it be better? Sure. But it's better than most cities, and that is because of the island scenario. In that case the car is the worst mode for NYC to depend on Exactly, and that's why we depend on the subway and our LIRR, and our Metro North to get people in. The car is certainly not the preferred method in NYC.....by no means.... But you still need good roads and bridges, and tunnels too. The entire country (not just NY) is also dependend on trucks....for better or worse, but Long Island would be crippled if it could not move all that traffic that needs to come in, it would all be on the little local roads. Every shipment, right down from the hamburger you eat at a restaurant to the TV you buy at Best Buy comes in to Long Island or NY by truck, just as it does everywhere else. And don't tell me they can do it by rail, as there is no way you can have the type of modern movement this country relies on by rail alone. Rail has it's place for many commodities, but you still can't have a rail line from every point A to every point B. The problem in NYC is very clearly a reaction to Moses' tactics, and his legacy of bulldozing neighborhoods will likely hang over the city for decades to come. No that is opinion, not fact. scraping parks together out of the corners of farms on LI so families out from NYC's crowded neighborhoods wouldn't have to pay to swim at a rocky beach. I just responded to a post here where someone, after reading that same book said that he "only made parks for rich people, and nothing for the poor". (Sorry if that was not you, but it can't be both ways. Yes, I did read that book, and yes, of does show good in it too, which is OBVIOUSLY undenyable (except the RM bashers appear would never say that), however, it is also filled with plenty of opinion. Those parkways which 25 years before had been a godsend as a way for car owners in NYC to escape the city for a weekend were instead a daily slog for millions of commuters, an unending source of frustration for everyone connected to them which continues to today. The Long Island Railroad offered the capacity to carry those commuters into the city, but its cars and track were in deplorable shape and it had no money for improvements. Yes, and that LIRR still is the busiest commuter RR in the country. And you can't use the LIRR for every use, as it doesn't go from every point A to point B. In fact, many of those people using those roads are not traveling to the city all the way, but use them for intraisland travel, as well as to places in the city where the LIRR is not feasible. Don't get me wrong, Moses was a pompous, arrogant individual, but at the same time, you needed someone like him to get a lot of the things done that we enjoy to this day. Yes, the LIE can be cursed often times, but it would be much bigger curses without it (or add any other road in the LIE's place in that sentence). |
|
|
| (465186) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 23:14:33 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Jul 23 15:54:20 2007. LOL, now moses is responsible for the loss of baseball teams in NY too. LOL, he's a scapegoat for all of NYC's problems over the years. LOL LOL. |
|
|
| (465191) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 23:30:31 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jul 23 22:58:18 2007. It must have been either Robert Moses or George Bush, the two biggest scapegoats in the country. |
|
|
| (465192) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jul 23 23:33:04 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 23 23:30:31 2007. i do not think georgy W was even born yet ....lolbut when the new york giants moved to san francisco instead of staying in new york there had to be a reason why |
|
|
| (465232) | |
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 |
|
|
| (465242) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 24 02:31:32 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 23 14:12:50 2007. M. Donald Grant is the reason I became a Phillies fan in fact.Back in 1979, I became sick of the Mets because of Grant (probably the worst GM in the history of New York sports), and in Manhattan, back then we were getting Phillies and Red Sox games through the Philadelphia and Boston TV stations that were part of our cable package. Since I got to see the Phillies a lot, I became a fan of theirs, and have remained such to this day through all the suffering. Of course, I would seven years later move to Philly, so that had a lot to do with it also. |
|
|
| (465268) | |
Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jul 24 03:31:48 2007, in response to Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Scrabbleship on Mon Jul 23 05:36:45 2007. Srart a ballot initiative for more money for mass transit. |
|
|
| (465282) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jul 24 04:07:31 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by Michael549 on Tue Jul 24 01:31:55 2007. Good post. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 11 |
||
