|
|
| Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway (464011) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
|
| (465854) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 24 23:38:11 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:17:38 2007. Moses had the savvy political connections in Washington that we New Yorkers threw away when we elected a carpet bagger (Clinton) and a camera hound (Schumer) to the Senate. I really miss Patrick Moynihan, one of the few Democrats I've voted for happily. |
|
|
| (465856) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:39:26 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 22:46:15 2007. Thank you.I know it's a subject close to you also. Sometimes I get a little annoyed that sometimes you start to sound like a broken record, repeating the same points over and over again whenever the topic of Moses comes up. But I also realize it is necessary since there are always new people viewing this. And I try not to rehash points that we previously discussed. Like you, I disagree with a lot of what Moses did, but I'll also defend him when someone tries to blame him for everything and doesn't give him credit for the good he did do and there was a lot of it. Since you thanked me, I would like to take this opportunity to also thank WillD for his great historical references and taking the time to get the actual quotes from The Power Broker. I also think that it was a pretty well-balanced book and not an entirely negative perspective as some think it is. |
|
|
| (465857) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:39:59 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by ntrainride on Tue Jul 24 22:47:51 2007. Yup, you are so right. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (465862) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:42:07 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:05:33 2007. Hmmm, through the area where Penn Station is on the West Side (which was sort of slummy hells kitchen, and even today isn't "the greatest" neighborhood anyway, and the East side is nice there, IINM today. I don't know what it was like back then to tell you the truth. |
|
|
| (465864) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:44:32 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 20:28:51 2007. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the point he was making was that the person who owned much of the property was deep in debt and had to sell."Under the deal, which was brokered between the NYSDPW and the Federal government, Wilson, who was deep in debt, sold his parcels of land in Old Westbury to the NYSDPW." |
|
|
| (465867) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:47:00 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 22:59:39 2007. And your point about the Underground tunnels being valuable links is...?The point is that the tunnels are just as valuable as a bridge is, except they are not given the credit they deserve, as they aren't as noticable or "speak to the soul" as bridges are. The tunnels are just as important as if they were Bridges instead, yet when we think of New York Scenes (or any city), what do we focus on...the bridges. Would we think of San Francisco the same way when we see an image, if not looking at the beautiful Golden Gate Bridge instead of had it been tbe Golden Gate tunnel? I don't know how high Mr. Roebling was "flying" since he didn't even live to see the bridge's completion. He saw that the project of his bridge was to be completed, even if he didn't see it opened. His design was a beautiful bridge. The same park he wanted to be named after himself. "A rose by any other name...." But anyway, he got a much prettier park named after him..... |
|
|
| (465870) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:49:36 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:39:26 2007. Yes, WillD's comments are also always appreciated.... |
|
|
| (465871) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:52:03 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 19:38:42 2007. No I'm not looking at it the Sunrise as it is today. I'm looking at roads like Merrick Road which was a rural farm road that was congested. It was replaced by the parallel slightly wider Sunrise Highway which was also congested. Why do you think it was further widened and rebuilt? Because it still was congested and had lights even in the 20s.The quotes that WillD found from the Power Broker explains this. It took much longer to access Jones Beach on any road other than Moses' Parkways. |
|
|
| (465873) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:52:48 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 24 23:36:11 2007. And they still didn't learn into the late 70's....as the closing of the Jamaica El killed Jamaica too (although granted, jamaica was also in trouble before the el came down). |
|
|
| (465884) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:02:38 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 19:43:22 2007. I don't believe Caro had a vendetta against Moses. He printed what his research told him. He does conjecture a little, but most points are backed up with facts.The quotes WillD cited from the Power Broker directly contradicts your assertion that no one foresaw what buses would become. And as WillD stated, they sre prima facea evidence based on interview and testimony. And as for another book being written, it just has been, designed to clear Moses' "bad reputation" from the Power Broker. But I haven't heard much about it because I don't think it refutes anything said in that book. Although I haven't read it, I think what it tries to do is just emphasize Moses's great accomplishments without any of the negatives. But I think if you read the Power Broker carefully, you can still see Moses' accomplishments. Caro doesn't deny them. He just puts them in perspective by showing you the how and why not just the end results like I believe this latest book does. It certainly doesn't seem to be having the impact that the Power Broker had. |
|
|
| (465885) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jul 25 00:03:31 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:52:48 2007. It's truly remarkable how those along the elevated lines wanted them gone, and once they were gone, so were the communities along those rights of way when they were never replaced with a subway or viable alternatives. Hopefully some day, perhaps 20 or so years after the SAS opens its full length, people might spot these in an archive somewhere and chuckle when Second Avenue becomes "the place to be." :) |
|
|
| (465887) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:05:52 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by E Line Fan on Tue Jul 24 20:23:28 2007. I know. The TA insisted the cars on the IRT were too small for A/C to work properly, but when it was pointed out that the PATH cars were smaller and already had A/C that worked fine, they had to yield. |
|
|
| (465890) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:14:12 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 20:31:29 2007. I'm not sure what you are saying when you say "new technology" allowed it. The LIRR had functional A/C. The TA's argument against A/C in the subway had nothing to do with technology. Their argument was that the stops were placed too close together and because the doors would open so frequently, with the hot air coming in so often, the cars would never get cool. They said it worked on the railroads only because the doors remained closed for longer periods.This turned out to be just bullcrap just like the argument that the IRT cars were too "small" to hold A/C units when the PATH already had smaller cars with perfectly functioning A/C already in operation and some closely spaced stations as well. And it was primarily General Motors. Of course no one knew that at the time. That fact didn't become public until twenty or thirty years later. |
|
|
| (465896) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:23:52 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 24 20:39:03 2007. Thanks. I didn't remember how much Lindsay had to do with it. While he wasn't the best Mayor, he certainly tried a lot of things, some of them disastrous failures like scatter site housing and his super agencies. But I give him credit for trying. I can't remember anything positive happening during the horrible twelve Wagner years. The city just deteriorated. Not a single local roadway was rebuilt during his administration. Everything just rotted. The only time a road was rebuilt was for a block or two in conjunction with a sewer project. The buses rattled like crazy because every major road was in disrepair even the brand new buses. It wasn't until Lindsay and subsequent administrations that entire arterial roads were reconstructed. Don't know how much Wagner was to blame or was it because all the money was going to Moses' projects? |
|
|
| (465899) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Jul 25 00:29:17 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by WillD on Tue Jul 24 15:42:20 2007. "It is blatantly obvious that not only was it done by Moses, but it was his idea for the expressed purpose of keeping the lower class and black people away from his parks."Hold up. Don't you know the Long Island highways? The routes to Jones Beach, for one example, have NO blocking overpasses south of Merrick Road. Buses from Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan and The Bronx can easily reach the beaches. There were/are no gates, no border fences, nothing to stop a bus from reaching the shore. Since the parkways were specifically built to carry automobile traffic ONLY, the bridge designs were simply that, part of the overall scheme of the highway. It's just too easy to base a viewpoint on one set of facts that confirm what the researcher believes. It's intellectual laziness. Did the man block access to the beaches by ensuring that buses can't travel on the limited-access connecting parkways that also lead to the beaches? Anybody who has knowledge of the area arterial highway network, anybody with eyes who walks by the southbound entrances to both parkways going to Jones Beach can answer that one. |
|
|
| (465902) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Jul 25 00:31:18 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 24 23:38:11 2007. It's probably irrational but I hate Schumer. |
|
|
| (465911) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:39:59 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 20:36:07 2007. I haven't been paying close attention to the Giants argument. But I could see the merit of the Dodgers argument. Ebbets Field was clearly old and obsolete. Without a lot of land clearing, it could not have been rebuilt with adequate parking. Moses was clearly in charge of everything that was cleared and was built. It would seem that it would have had to be rebuilt somewhere else in Brooklyn. I agree with O'Malley that Atlantic and Flatbush would have been the most logical area given the fact that it would not entail massive relocation of residences and it's great transportation access and access to the LIRR where many former Brooklynites were relocating. Floyd Bennett Field was just not feasible, transportation wise, and if Brooklynites would not patronize the Dodgers if the stadium were located in Queens, that limited the choice to Brooklyn.If building a stadium in Downtown Brooklyn needed Moses's blessing and it did, and he would not give it, why shouldn't he not be blamed at least in part for the Dodgers leaving? |
|
|
| (465912) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by 5119 on Wed Jul 25 00:43:35 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by randyo on Tue Jul 24 16:51:46 2007. As usual Randyo, you give well informed feedback with facts to back up your comments. |
|
|
| (465917) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:57:06 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:39:59 2007. I responded before I read Matha531's excellent post.Maybe Moses is not guilty of this one and Coney Island would have been almost as good a location as Atlantic Avenue, although more people might have had to have been displaced. |
|
|
| (465919) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Wed Jul 25 00:58:52 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:39:59 2007. ...again because it was illegal under NY law for Moses to condemn private property for the purpose of giving it to another private entity. Period on that.Now whether Brooklyn fans would have or wouldn't have gone to Flushing, who knows. The only thing wrong with Flohyd Bennet was the city's adamant refusal to carry through what it promised when a bond issue was voted through namely to use the money to build the Utica and Nostrand Avenue extensions down to that area. Also, downtown Brooklyn was not a good location for the ballpart if a big issue was parking because how were the cars to get to the new ball park? A spur off the BQE? The BQE is at a standstill in that area much of the time anyway...imagine adding ballpart traffic to it. O'Malley was the spoiled brat in this...he wouldn't take no for an answer regarding Atlantic & Flatbush...it was his decision to say either my way or the highway. Although I agree Moses did not go out of his way on Atlantic & Flatbush, according to NY law it was a moot point anyway. And the fact was, once la la land had offered to give the slime ball O'Malley the land at Chavez Ravine which was not privately owned, it wouldn't have made any difference what the city offered. O'Malley was history and everything else that occurred was simply to try to draw the last few bucks from Brooklyn fans in 1956 and 1957 as he led them to believe the team could be saved or to protect his image in history which, as noted, some members of this imposter organization on the left coast which stole the name Dodgers from Brooklyn is trying to use to get the slime ball low life voted into the baseball Hall of Fame. And I don't think anybody who is truly aware of what went on back then could disagree; unfortunately the people who know the truth are passing from the scene and these lies about the Brooklyn Dodgers and the theft of the Dodger franchise are being pushed more and more by such as Professor Shapiro at Colombia and the HBO so called documentary which simply ignores many of the facts. |
|
|
| (465920) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Jul 25 01:03:50 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:52:03 2007. "It took much longer to access Jones Beach on any road other than Moses' Parkways. "Really? Let's see. From a place like South Jamaica, or East New York, or Bedford-Stuyvesant, there ain't no "parkways" passing close by. You HAVE to take local routes to get away from any of those areas. The Belt Parkway skirts the south shore of Brooklyn and Queens. By the time you get close to a parkway from most areas parts of Queens and Brooklyn you're more than half way there already. And even if the trip took a little longer, so what? Nobody gave a crap, especially the folks on the buses going there. Even today look how long it would take those same people to get down to Rockaway Beach. Even if the LIRR never abandoned their line, even with the NYC subway going there, even now, you're still talking about something like a mini-adventure to get to the waves from anywhere in New York City. It's a geographical fact of life. And IMO that simply adds to the experience, makes it seem like a neat little vacation for a day. It reinforces the fact that you're doing something out of the ordinary. |
|
|
| (465926) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Wed Jul 25 01:21:39 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by ntrainride on Wed Jul 25 00:29:17 2007. Did you read the first paragraph: "Bus trips therefore had to be made on local roads, making the trips discouragingly long and arduous?"Moses had to allow trucks to access Jones Beach for deliveries and maintenance, otherwise the park would be unable to function. If trucks are taller than buses, then an obvious side effect is that buses would be able to access the park. |
|
|
| (465928) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Wed Jul 25 01:23:23 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 19:43:22 2007. All this is quoted from a book with a vendetta against Moses. Let's seem some sources (that don't quote "The Power Broker"). When a book is written, it can be made with a certain spin depending on the author's goals, beliefs or opinions.Dismissing a source just because you don't like it without evidence is intellectually dishonest. |
|
|
| (465929) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Wed Jul 25 01:26:07 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by ntrainride on Wed Jul 25 01:03:50 2007. And IMO that simply adds to the experience, makes it seem like a neat little vacation for a day. It reinforces the fact that you're doing something out of the ordinary.In YOUR opinion. Most people would probably disagree. |
|
|
| (465930) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by 5119 on Wed Jul 25 01:27:17 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jul 24 22:38:54 2007. West Bronx started to decline in 1969 and completed in 1974. I lived there and saw for myself the deterioration of University Avenue, etc. |
|
|
| (465934) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jul 25 02:00:57 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:23:52 2007. He did manage to cope with the mess the other three left behind in rather challenging economic times, and he was rather creative in getting the private sector to do things when the city couldn't afford to do so. "Vest pocket parks" for one, concerts sponsored by local businesses in the streets in all five boroughs, and managing to get funding for all those new subway cars that came in on his watch. He was the first "limousine liberal" republican from the "Silk Stocking" district of Manhattan and in all fairness, he did fairly well given the realities.Wagner was a bum. So were the others before him. I think Wagner will go down as the poster child for neglect though ... then again it was Dinkins that came close to getting as much done as Lindsay did and like Lindsay, Dinkins never got the credit he deserved. Giuliani took it. But then this isn't the place for that. Suffice it to say though that the truth of the city's problems isn't what we get to hear. And while Moses was a "dooshbag," you have to look higher up the food chain for the actual culprits. Had they not endorsed what Moses had done, Moses would have woke up in cement shoes. Such is politics no matter how high and mighty your own ego may place you. :) |
|
|
| (465935) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by American Pig on Wed Jul 25 02:01:18 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by randyo on Tue Jul 24 16:51:46 2007. Yes, that was partly my point although I didn't say it. With its own "Moses," Chicago was able to provide for mass transit expansion. |
|
|
| (465936) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jul 25 02:06:06 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by 5119 on Wed Jul 25 01:27:17 2007. 230th and Kingsbridge Avenue for me, then over to Webster and 204th, and finally Sedgewick and Kingsbridge Road. 1975 was when I moved upstate. :) |
|
|
| (465945) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 25 04:30:55 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:17:38 2007. Oh yeah,he would have...even if he had to rob Peter to pay Paul. |
|
|
| (465949) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 05:00:04 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 21:39:56 2007. Some digging reveals this map and this posting (July 11) about it. |
|
|
| (465957) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 05:48:15 2007, in response to Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 20:22:09 2007. Sure, the furnishings and number of people to the size of apartment aren't exactly great, but that isn't actually a problem with the building: the issue is that the people were too goddamn poor to afford anything better.Housing projects, if anything, made the quality of what was affordable worse. At best, you're just moving the slum around at vast public expense. At worst, you're reducing the supply of affordable housing, creating even more overcrowded slums. But if those people ultimately get priced out of the city, we can all live in some upper class fantasy land invented by Le Corbusier (or worse still Ebenezer Howard). Woo fucking hoo. Never mind that the trash won't get collected -- there won't be any shopkeepers to buy the trash from in the first place. And if you do catch some horrible lurgy from all the rotting trash, at least you'll die quickly with there being no nurses. If people had been serious about tackling slums, better (and likely cheaper) policies would be: (1) To densify surrounding neighborhoods by gradual infill, if needs be subsidized (it would still be cheaper than a housing project), and with the last resort of using eminent domain to buy out people who think that they live in the country. This would increase the supply of the housing type that was obviously in too high demand, reducing its price in real terms, raising the square footage that a poor family can effectively demand. (2) To address the causes of poverty: e.g. by increasing the minimum wage, granting tax rebates to large families, etc. (3) Where necessary, offer landlords a subsidy on installation of gas, electricity, hot and cold water, and central heating. But then again, I've read Jane Jacobs' books, and I largely agree with her... |
|
|
| (465960) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 05:55:03 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:39:26 2007. This was indeed an interesting topic and almost everybody's contribution was very instructive. The jury will always be out on Robert Moses' legacy. I just hope that whatever their conclusions about the man, that people understand that things that seem like bad ideas now were in fact the only possible choices at the time and were the products of that era's social and economic realities. Other cities and metro areas were also upgrading their motor vehicle arterial systems too. The end of WW2 and the increasing prosperity and education of the workforce thanks in large part to strong unions, the GI Bill and the VA home loan program brought incredible and rapid changes in American habits and aspirations. Raising families in crowded and unhealthy tenements and riding jammed subways was not one of those aspirations. The white flight to the then new suburbs and outer parts of the boros would have happened anyway. That's where the land was and suddenly people had the cars to get there. The question is what would happen to the city? While certain parts of the Bronx may have suffered great dispacement there were other areas cleared of blight. Le Corbusier inspired projects in places like Al Smith Houses may look like crap today but just remember what was there before. People should take a look at old pictures from the 1890s by crusading photojournalist Jacob Riis just to get an idea. It was like in "The Gangs of New York". Disease, premature death and rampant crime were the norm. That housing stock lasted for several decades after those pictures. The newer housing projects were a godsend for millions of New Yorkers. The waterfront had become a decaying collection of obsolete 19th century industry. Things like the FDR Drive and the BQE were necessary upgrades to keep the city relevant in the 20th century and within the difficult geographical conditions of NY, they were done with great skill and taste. Think of Riverside Park or the Brooklyn Bridge Promenade. Imagine what Moses would have done with the old Central RR yards on the Hudson instead of the what Trump is doing. Moses would have made the housing entirely middle class and the new park would have been a jewel. He may or may not have hated poor people but he definitely hated rich people. The man was firmly grounded in the middle class. Yes, the racial implications were lamentable but it was the 30s, 40s and 50s and racism was widespread in every aspect of life including the aformentioned unions, GI Bill and VA loans. (after all, many minorities didn't get a fair chance to serve in combat because of the virulent racism of the time) There is probably not much Moses could have done about that even if he had wanted to. The truth is that the latter and most controversial part of his reign coincided with a time when the city was run by derelicts. The elected politicians of that time didn't have the intellect or the courage to step up to take the heat that comes with making unpopular decisions that are necessary for progress. Moses filled in that leadership vacuum and to the delight of those politicians and to those that followed he took and continues to take the scorn, hate and vitriol that should have been reserved for them, the actual Dem Bums. |
|
|
| (465961) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 06:00:34 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 24 18:54:31 2007. Jacobs was not the first person to stand up to Moses, but she was probably the first one to successfully do it. As much as we should praise her and Jacqueline Kennedy-Onassis for ending the era of "tear it down, no matter what", we seem to now have gone to the other extreme. If an ordinary Bronx housing project can claim landmark status as the "birth of hip-hop", then we've lost our collective minds.Oh, I totally agree. But the "let's landmark absolutely everything" strategy is quite a good one against the Moses-style abuse of power. There must be some way of restoring popular trust in public policy, but I sure don't know what it is. |
|
|
| (465963) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jul 25 06:16:19 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 05:48:15 2007. Before I head off to work..I need to address some of the issues.You guys should know that certain areas in NY were "blacklisted" by banks for YEARS..PURPOSELY DRIVEN into the poverty level. All levels of services were kept to a bare minimum..and new transportation was BLOCKED at EVERY TURN. Case in point... What caused the developers of MODEL CITIES to drop the Myrtle Avenue corridor after only constructing a few set of co op Housing type buildings? What caused NYCH to abandon it plan to develop housing from Nostrand to Ft Green? What caused then to stop construction on new housing in Bushwick[Central avenue..?] Remember..Model Cities wasn't NYCH..it was HUD. Answer those questions..and pose some more tommorrow. Gotta pretty nice run today to North Carolina..[always fun] |
|
|
| (465965) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 06:23:05 2007, in response to Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 20:22:09 2007. Great pictures. That is precisely my point. (and yours) People think that today's housing projects are garbage. If they only knew what was there before and how people were living (if you wanna call it living)! The flight to greener pastures was inevitable to anyone who could afford it. After the war most people could indeed afford to do so and they did. The blight elimination and urban renewal projects that Moses built actually kept many people living in the city and were initially targeted to middle and lower middle class people. Of course after a few years many of these people were also able to afford to move to something bigger and better and they were replaced by newer immigrants and other poor people (aka "those people") creating a snowball effect and this happened everywhere in America. However unlike other cities, Moses' other works kept NYC relevent and vibrant even though it went through a rough patch for a while. That rough patch was brought by politicians incompetence and not by Robert Moses. |
|
|
| (465971) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 06:44:28 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:13:07 2007. Here's the whole book. This shocked so many people in its time and is still shocking. It helped usher in the Progressive Era. It was the first ever example of what today we call "photojournalism". I read this once from this very Yale site. It's very sobering since those people may have very well been my great-uncles and aunts. Today's laws mandate better living conditions for farm animals then how that "other half lived" back then.http://www.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.html |
|
|
| (465972) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 06:49:33 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 05:00:04 2007. thanks |
|
|
| (465975) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 07:15:22 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:39:59 2007. If building a stadium in Downtown Brooklyn needed Moses's blessing and it did, and he would not give it, why shouldn't he not be blamed at least in part for the Dodgers leaving?Because doling out corporate welfare was not part of his job description and as powerful as he was he wouldn't had been able to get around the law that banned taking private property for private use anyway. O'Malley knew this and that's why he asked for something that he knew could not be delivered by Moses. O'Malley wanted to move to LA but wanted Moses to be the scapegoat. |
|
|
| (465979) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:21:43 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:39:59 2007. Moses was clearly in charge of everything that was cleared and was builtYes, for public roads, public housing, and public parks, not private projects such as for the Dodgers. Can you just imagine the screaming added to his list (And he ruined neighbrohoods for a private baseball team. Sorry, that argument isn't cutting it, this wasn't for public use. |
|
|
| (465980) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:23:04 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by MATHA531 on Wed Jul 25 00:58:52 2007. I agree, it's bad enough when a Mets game gets out right along all those major highways. What happenes when you would have dumped them right in the middle of local roads in Brooklyn? |
|
|
| (465981) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:24:45 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:57:06 2007. I responded before I read this too. :)Coney Island would have been better road-wise, but yes, more people displaced....and giving it to private entities would have been scandal. |
|
|
| (465982) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:31:21 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 05:48:15 2007. Sure, the furnishings and number of people to the size of apartment aren't exactly great, but that isn't actually a problem with the building: the issue is that the people were too goddamn poor to afford anything better.No it has nothing to do with the size, but the condition of the buildings - unupgraded 1800's buildings in the mid-1900's. Housing projects, if anything, made the quality of what was affordable worse. I am not arguing that. But at the time, they were thought to be the answer, and were well intentioned. Hindsight is 20-20. ut if those people ultimately get priced out of the city, we can all live in some upper class fantasy land Priced out? What the hel;l are you talking about. You are taking this as a 1980's, 90's, 2000's situation, and placing it in the 40's and 50's when cities were on the decline. By the 70's, many areas you couldn't give away. You are placing today's scenarios of "pricing out and gentrification, in the past's ideal of city flight to the suburbs. If people had been serious about tackling slums, better (and likely cheaper) policies would be: Again, you are taking today's ideas and thoughts, and trying to place them in a different era of thinking when it was out with the old and in with the new, and cities were evil, and suburbs good and the wave of the future while citieas were thought to be dying entities. |
|
|
| (465984) | |
Re: Robert Moses, Brooklyn, The Bronx, etc. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jul 25 07:33:18 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 23:39:26 2007. Absolutely:Moses may not have been a saint, but he was not responsible for everything that went wrong with New York in the 1950's,'60s and '70s even if he is indirectly responsible for SOME of it. What was going on then was more of a national trend, and Moses did get a lot of things done that were absolutely needed at the time. His failure to adjust and think ahead to what might happen in the '60s and '70s, however, is another matter entirely. If you check out the New York Daily News special series "The Bronx Is Burning" (at: http://www.nydailynews.com/features/bronxisburning/index.html) that they are doing in conjunction with the ESPN series "The Bronx Is Burning" (based on the 1977 Yankees), you can see for yourself what happened in the '60s and '70s and what led to everything that happened then, a lot of which I got to see firsthand, especially with the subways when I rode then regularly in the early-to-mid '80s. You can see how things rapidly deteriorated in Bushwick, Brooklyn in particular. |
|
|
| (465985) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:33:22 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 06:23:05 2007. Yes, and notice it's not all "poor minorities" as was always assumed being brought to these "projects"...it wasn't intended for that, as people argue all the time. |
|
|
| (465986) | |
Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 25 07:34:38 2007, in response to Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jul 25 06:00:34 2007. Oh, I totally agree. But the "let's landmark absolutely everything" strategy is quite a good one against the Moses-style abuse of power.Another fallacy. |
|
|
| (465987) | |
Re: Robert Moses |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jul 25 07:47:09 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 25 05:55:03 2007. That is all very true SMAZ:I don't think people today realize what kind of buildings there still were before I was born in 1965 for example. Many of those buildings were torn down to make way for highways, but those buildings in many cases would likely have had to be torn down at one time or another anyway. Moses did things that had to be done, and while in retrospect it would have been good to get subway lines expanded and the like (not only the SAS but maybe instead of tearing down rebuilding the 3rd Avenue El and other such lines?), without the highways we have now, NYC would be much worse off than it has been and might never have recovered from the 1975 bankruptcy or something similar later on. He was only doing what were the national trends at that time, and while he may have gone overboard (especially in later years), most of it was clearly needed and was well-intended in those days. You're also right that if Moses had gotten to build the stretch Trump is building now in Manhattan, you would have seen something much more middle class there. The pricing out of Manhattan was beginning to get out of hand when I moved from New York in 1986 and only has gotten worse since, especially with vacancy rates in Manhattan at all-time lows (something like .25% I believe). |
|
|
| (466007) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Jul 25 08:46:27 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jul 24 23:28:15 2007. 'I didn't know they had such a thing!' [The Lower East Side Tenement Museum]Interesting - it is featured in guidebooks to NYC aimed at foreigners, but it is not known to a generally well-informed New Yorker. Isn't it always the way, people don't go to see features of their home town, yet they'll travel the world to see foreign sights. (No personal offence intended to anyone, by the way - we all do it.) Similarly, I read Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities before I had ever visited the USA yet some New Yorkers here had never heard of the book. It became a seminal text on city planning, read throughout the world, despite the fact that Jane Jacobs (who died last year) was not a professional city planner, more a community activist. |
|
|
| (466032) | |
Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jul 25 09:52:29 2007, in response to Re: Housing Projects Re: Jane Jacobs Re: Cross Manhattan expressway, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 20:51:35 2007. I've heard such horror stories:Those are buildings that should not have been torn down as they were perfectly good, but unfortunately, there was a lot of short-sightedness in that regard. |
|
|
| (466037) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jul 25 10:03:44 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Wed Jul 25 00:14:12 2007. Didn't Standard Oil and Firestone play a role as well? |
|
|
| (466038) | |
Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic) |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jul 25 10:04:29 2007, in response to Re: Brooklyn Dodgers (on topic), posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jul 24 20:13:44 2007. There was a 1967 commercial that started with, "Every day you ride on the subway. The subways are hot and sticky...." |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 11 |
||
