Robert Moses vs. Jane Jacobs
Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses: Two Unmovable Urban Forces.
Most people discover Jane Jacobs when they’re urged to read her classic, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” For whatever reason, I discovered Jane Jacobs by accident – I was drawn first to her adversary, Robert Moses.
True story: Paul Brum, former public works director, was at a meeting and did his typical rebutal when asked about green space along drainage canals: “When I go in and visit with the homeowners,” he’d say, “they tell me they don’t like trees.”
No kidding. Anyone who worked around Brum can back me up on this. And at one of these meetings, someone, I can’t even remember who, leaned over and mumbled to me “he thinks he’s another Robert Moses.”
Who in the world is Robert Moses? I didn’t bother asking. But then a while later, someone else mentioned Robert Moses and urged me to read a biography on the man, “The Power Broker.”
It’s a long read. I’m pretty sure the newspaper’s focus groups would hate it. But it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read.
Robert Moses was god in New York City. He was in charge of Urban Renewal, he was in charge of public housing, he was in charge of parks, public works, highways and bridges. And he took a very pragmatic, engineered approach to creating order in what he perceived to be chaos.
He had no problem destroying neighborhoods to create a highway that would get travelers from point a to point b. The means justified the ends.
But then Robert Moses ran into Jane Jacobs. He wanted to create a Manhattan expressway through the heart of Greenwich Village. Jacobs was just one woman with no power. But she declared war on Moses, she mobilized opposition and created a movement against urban renewal.
Chaos, Jacobs argued, wasn’t always bad. Nice, neat and organized suburbia, she argued, was without a soul and certainly wasn’t always good.
I’ll let the experts take this story from here…
Robert Moses Meets His Match
Jane Jacobs Speaks
The following video is a bit more academic and deviates into a discussion of feminism that is pretty much a distraction. But it’s still pretty informative on Jacobs’ impact.
The Impact of Jane Jacobs
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Dennis, what do you take out of this in regards to MidTown, most importantly your neighborhood?
Let me pretend, for a second, that I am Jane Jacobs and I’m asking uncomfortable questions:
Is there a place for the working class to continue living in your area? Should there be an effort made to ensure that your neighborhood doesn’t become a collection of great modern architecture that is out of reach for people of modest incomes?
Great series, Steve!
These videos really do give a great bit of context on why our city is the way it is. When I learned about Robert Moses a few years back on a trip to NYC, I had a moment of clarity that Oklahoma City would have been his ideal in many ways – all on a grid, built around the car, and a general separation between where people shop, where they live, and where they work.
Have you seen this presentation from the 2004 TED conference? http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html
“The Death and Life…” should be required reading for every person who takes on a role in revitalizing or developing urban areas. I was lucky enough to be given a copy more than a decade ago, and it’s pretty dogeared at this point. Thanks for shedding some light on her work, Steve.
Steve,
Obviously there’s a place for the “working class” in SoSA, but because I subscribe to capitalism rather than socialism I don’t know what kind of “effort” can be made to ensure that the neighborhood doesn’t transform into something else… I’m open to suggestions, but I’ll resist plastic realities.
Fair answer. Not meaning to offend, just spark some discussion. One thing that occurs to me as we go through all this is that much of the housing coming out downtown isn’t going to be affordable for the folks working as servers at Bricktown restaurants or as clerks at the hotels or secretaries in the corporate offices.
Are the older homes in SoSA that are being torn down an example of housing that maybe, with some fixing, might have been suitable for these folks?
Of course the existing housing in SoSA (rehabilitated or not) is fine housing for those already living in them, or others in the future regardless of status.
So far not one house has been torn down! I for one am not advocating or discouraging that they be replaced with architectural wonders, or anything else… I’m only advocating freedom of design. I can not control the property values and the possibility that market forces will transform the neighborhood. I’m just along for the ride, and will be content wherever it leads!
I think Jane Jacob’s observation of “chaos & confusion” is alive and well in SoSA, and is pretty darn cool!
Now let me talk out of the other side of my mouth: I say “freedom of design,” but I really do want some appropriate controls on density, scale, view corridors, and etc… (However, I don’t want controls on materials, color, orientation, openings, etc…)
How do you define “appropriate?” That’s the political question du jour…
This is an important and difficult subject, and I think some productive dialog will result from your thoughtful post.
“So far not one house has been torn down!”
How do you define the neighborhood’s boundaries – wouldn’t the homes torn down in the past two years by St. Anthony as being within SoSA/Cottage District?
Defining appropriate … ah yes, that’s the million dollar question here, isn’t it?
I don’t know – it’s not for me to say.
But I do still wonder – isn’t it inevitable with the pattern we’re seeing in your neighborhood that as the best empty lots are built up, someone is going to want to tear down one of the older worn out homes to make way for a newer structure?
Yes, that will most likely be the result (knock-down for modern)… But to date it hasn’t happend. Were the St.-A knock-downs motivated by knock-down for modern?
I’ll side-step your question with a more important one: is it wrong to knock down for modern? Do the displaced occupants suffer? Is it unjust? …undesired? If so, why?
Dennis, those are my questions as well. And here is where I have the unfair advantage in this discussion: my role is to ask the provocative questions of community leaders and advocates like yourself. My role here is to get people thinking about the larger ramifications of changes underway, whether they are good, bad, or in that gray area in between good and bad. And what I admire about you Dennis is that you’ve not shied away from challenging the status quo and introducing a new way of thinking.
So, I’m bouncing back your questions at you.
The St. Anthony knock-downs, we both know, were not related to the desire to build modern housing. Instead, it’s a neighborhood clean up effort – something I’m not saying is good or bad, though it has certainly been questioned by the likes of Michael Smith and others in your neighborhood.
So, back to you…
Is it wrong to knock down an old worn out home to make way for a modern home? Do the displaced occupants suffer? Is it unjust? Undesired? If so, why?
Oh, by the way, I’d be happy to hear from Michael and others on these questions as well. Don’t let Dennis be the only brave guy out there online.
Steve, I’m glad you’re able to maintain your objectivity; otherwise half your readers would be enemies! (And I don’t want to know which side I’d be on.)
Personally I don’t think it’s wrong to knock down an old worn out home to make way for a modern one… in SoSA. It is wrong in Heritage Hills or other neighborhoods with a recognized homogeneous character. SoSA is a hodge-podge mixed use neighborhood with no redeeming architectural character, other than its eclecticity. (Well, there are some pretty cool new houses that are beginning to set the tone for a “recognized character.”)
Wearing my Robert Moses hat I say: “Fire up the bull dozers! The displaced occupants will survive just fine…” Putting on my Jane Jacob’s bonnet I say: “There’s really not much value to preserve… let’s be considerate to the poor souls who just received a windfall profit on their real estate.”
So the short answer is: No it’s not wrong; The displaced occupants may be inconvenienced, but not unduly; And it IS desirable… (Please remember that this answer is in context of SoSA, not Crown Heights.)
Dennis, thanks so much for being willing to expand this discussion. I wanted to draw you out and give readers another viewpoint – and I’m very happy that you did just that.
My only bias is that I appreciate that the innercity has strong voices like your’s and Randy Floyd’s to ensure that both sides of the debate are heard.
Moses & Jacobs are like parents… Neither one by themselves is absolutely right. A child raised singly by either one of them would not be as well balanced as one raised by them together.
Wonderful neighborhoods aren’t as wonderful if you can’t get to and from them efficiently. And efficient transportation is meaningless if the destinations are bypassed or destroyed… It’s a complicated balancing act. I’m glad I’m not a politician.
(I like Jane’s view on chaos & complexity!) Steve, thanks for the films.