Submitted by Benjamin Hemric, Feb 3, 2007 00:01

Last night I attended the symposium on Moses at the Museum of the City of New York (the key speaker was Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff), and today I've just come back from the portion of the exhibit that is at the Queens Museum. I've read many of the recent assessments of Moses that have been prompted by the exhibits. Last fall, I attended a "warm-up" event in the series, a panel discussion, entitled something like "Jacobs vs. Moses," which had as it's key speaker Hiliary Ballon, the curator of the exhibits. In light of the above, it seems to me that most commentators, including Mr. McWhorter (who is otherwise become a favorite writer of mine), are missing the larger questions being raised by these exhibits. The real question has never really been whether or not Mr. Moses built a good number of great things. That issue is a straw man; I think even his worst enemies would concede that he did. The real questions to be discussed are 1) which individual projects of his helped or hurt the city -- and WHY?; and 2) is it a good idea, or not, for New York City to once again engage in highly centralized planning and large-scale public works (e.g., the Summer Olympics, Atlantic Yards, the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan)? Taking the second issue first, I think it's important not to overlook, as these exhibits by their nature do, all of the large-scale "public" works, infrastructure that Robert Moses is not really responsible for. The list is endless, here are just a few: Washington Sq. Park, Central Park, Prospect Park, our subway system, most of our cities great bridges, our water and sewerage system, the original Hudson Tubes, the original Pennsylvania Station (and the enornmous Hell Gate bridge which was part of the same system), the rebuilding of the New York Central rail yards (Park Ave. and Grand Central Terminal), Rockefeller Center, Tudor City, the great boulevards in the outer boroughs. So Moses and his methodology wasn't and isn't the ONLY way to get things done. Looking at the first issue (which of his projects worked, which didn't and why), it's important not to forget about all the neighborhoods and districts that have been successfully revitalized WITHOUT Moses (e.g., SoHo, NoHo, Tribeca, etc.) and also to remember how many of his projects actually impeded urban revitalization, even though they were intended to spur it. Regarding Lincoln Center, I think many commentators, including Mr. McWhorter misunderstand the criticisms that have been leveled against Lincoln Center by people like Jane Jacobs. Is concentrating all these wonderful "chess pieces" into one single-use center (surrounded by, but disconnected from, surrounding single use centers) really the best way to build a city? Why deprive other neighborhoods and districts of these useful anchors? (Remember the idea was not only to build Lincoln Center but to tear down the theaters, like Carnegie Hall, that were "replaced.") Also, how does Lincoln Center compare, aethetically, economically and urbanistically with Rockefeller Center (which, of course, was originally conceived as a home for the Metropolitan Opera)? One last note: I haven't been to the Columbia University portion of the exhibit yet, so I don't know if Moses' plans for the South Village are included. But if one read's Robert A.M. Stern's wonderful "New York 1960," one sees that Moses actually wanted to tear down and replace with a "Stuyvesant Town" the most vibrant part of Greenwich Village -- Bleecker St., McDougal St. etc.! So in order to get a true picture of what New York would be like without Moses one should also look at SoHo, Greenwich Village and other successfully revitalized NYC neighborhoods and business districts and remember that this is what Stuyvesant Town, Penn South, etc., etc., etc. might be like today if it weren't for Robert Moses!

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.