1

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 The Role of Robert Moses .......................................................................................................... 3

3.0 The History of the South Bronx ............................................................................................... 7

3.1 The Term South Bronx ......................................................................................................... 10

4.0 The History of the Cross-Bronx Expressway .................................................................. 12

5.0 The Effects of the Cross-Bronx Expressway on the Bronx ........................................ 15

6.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 20

7.0 References .................................................................................................................................... 22

2

1.0 Introduction

"If you have ever wondered if you're in Hell, then you are experiencing a

rather normal spiritual quandary that you share with many. If however,

you know without the shadow of a doubt that you are in Hell, then you

must be on the Cross-Bronx Expressway."1

- Jeff Saltzman, contributor to nycroads.com

At approximately 184,000 cars per day (cp. Dolnick 2010), the Cross-Bronx

Expressway is known as one of the busiest roads in the United States (cp. ibid.).

As its name already suggests, it runs across New York City’s borough of the

Bronx. It is one of the major roads in the New York area and notorious for its

congestion and the poor state it is in (cp ibid.). Most importantly, though, is that it

is said to have been a major influence on the borough of the Bronx. Not only is it

today regarded by many as an atrocity (see quote above), it is also claimed that

the expressway is to blame for a negative development the area was subject to on

a highly dramatic scale during the last century (cp. Dolnick 2010.). Then again,

there are other voices that deny a link between the expressway’s construction and

the downfall of the borough. The controversy that is thereby created will be the

main issue of this paper. It will be dealing with the question whether any

statements can be made regarding a connection between the expressway and the

desolate state the Bronx was in during the middle of the last century.

The following three chapters will be dedicated to give the information

necessary to answer this issue, with respect to three major topics. In combination,

this knowledge will be needed later, when different opinions and theories

regarding the link between the Cross-Bronx Expressway and the negative

development the Bronx underwent will be examined.

First of all, an overview of Robert Moses as a person and what role he

played in the history of New York City and the Cross-Bronx Expressway will be

given. That is, because his plans and his decisions are blamed by many to have

1 http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-bronx/

3

caused considerable hardship to the Bronx. In the next chapter, the history of the

Bronx, especially the area referred to as the South Bronx, will be outlined. In a

separate part, the term South Bronx in particular will be addressed, as it carries

certain connotations that will be of interest later. In the subsequent chapter, the

planning and construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway will be discussed. This

chapter will lead to the most important part with respect to answering the main

question of this paper, as the impact the expressway had on the Bronx will be

examined. Eventually, a conclusion will follow which will summarize the points

made throughout the course of this paper and that will try to answer the initial

question of the existence and the extent of the link between the Bronx’s negative

development and the Cross-Bronx Expressway as well as the role of Robert

Moses.

2.0 The Role of Robert Moses

Before looking further into what impact the construction of the Cross-Bronx

Expressway had on the Bronx, it is imperative to examine the people in charge of

its construction, most importantly Robert Moses. The description of his person as

well as his role in the history of New York City and the Cross-Bronx Expressway

will be given in this chapter.

Robert Moses was the construction coordinator in charge of the creation of

the Cross-Bronx Expressway. In nearly every written piece of information on

Robert Moses, it is made clear what tremendous influence on and power over the

shaping of New York City Moses possessed at the time (cp. Callahan & Ikeda

2004:260, Caro 1974, Tokaji 1995, Goldberger 1981). He created, among other

projects, “Shea Stadium, the World's Fair Grounds in Queens, […], the Triborough

Bridge, Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, the United Nations Headquarters”

(Callahan & Ikeda 2004:253), several expressways and parkways around New

York City and New York State, the Verrazano Narrows Bridge as well as

“numerous other roads, playgrounds, parks, and housing projects” (Callahan &

4

Ikeda 2004)2. It is also emphasized time and time again that Moses was not once

elected to any of the offices he held (cp. Callahan & Ikeda 2004:253). On the

contrary, having run for election once as governor in 1934, he lost that election in

a landslide (cp. Goldberger 1995). Moreover, depending on the source, he is

portrayed in many ways: from his own view of being a visionary who thought that

real change always comes at a price (cp. Moses 1974:11); as being arrogant; or

even as “a power-hungry megalomaniac”, as Raymond Mohl interprets Robert A.

Caro’s biography of Moses (cp. Mohl 2008:1012). Others went as far as saying

“Moses thinks he’s God” (cp. Jonnes 2002:119). Either way, especially in

hindsight, there is some consensus regarding Moses’ person – which is mostly

negative and best summarized by June Williamson when she writes that there is

an “accepted view of Moses as insensitive, tyrannical, and corrupted by power”

(2007:84).

In an article published in The New Yorker in 19983, telling the story of how

he wrote his 1300+ page biography “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall

of New York”, Robert Caro writes that “in 1950s New York, it didn’t matter what

elected officials wanted, but what Robert Moses wanted”. Caro, one of Moses’

harshest critics, further links him to “scandals almost incredible both for the

colossal scale of their corruption […] and for the heartbreaking callousness with

which he evicted the tens of thousands of poor people in his way”. Due to the

length of this paper, it is impossible to examine in detail the way Moses achieved

and held his power. However, at this point, it should be made clear what role he

played and how extensive his power was at the time of the planning and

construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway. Only this way it will be possible, in

the further course of this paper, to point out and examine in detail the extent to

which Moses’s actions had an impact on the Bronx in regard to the expressway’s

design and creation.

As already mentioned, at the time the Cross-Bronx Expressway came into

being, starting in 1948 (Sedensky 2001), Moses had already accomplished

2 As some of this information is directly quoted from Callehan & Ikeda 2004, the passages in question are

marked as a citation. However, as the authors note themselves, most of it is common knowledge and they don’t cite page numbers, having acquired it from Caro 1974. Therefore, other information will not be cited. 3 The article can be found online: http://www.robertmosesnyc.com/NYer.html. As this is the source used

here, no page numbers can be given.

5

numerous projects within the realm of New York City. In an obituary published

after Moses’ death in 1981, the author Paul Goldberger notes that Moses

played a crucial role in the negotiations to bring the United Nations to New York City and to

convince John D. Rockefeller to obtain the organization's East River site; he was active on,

and often controlled, the City Planning Commission; he came to dominate the city's

Housing Authority, and he obtained for himself another new ''umbrella'' title: City

Construction Coordinator, giving him authority over virtually every public construction

project in the city of New York.4

This statement clearly indicates how powerful Moses was at this time to the extent

that he himself could make up his job description as well as the laws he would

have to abide as construction coordinator.

This may be one of the reasons why, even though often criticized and

challenged by other city officials, Moses hardly ever had to divert from his original

plans, even if they involved considerable hardship for city residents (see later

chapters)5. Goldberger further writes that Moses possessed “a virtual obsession

[…] with getting things done, whatever the methods, whatever the costs”,

suggesting a general disregard for the common man. When, for example,

construction of the Triborough Bridge began in late 1936, six hundred families

were evicted from their homes. Even though it was two weeks before Christmas,

they had to leave their buildings. The reason for this was that these buildings had

been designated to make way for the construction of approaches to the Triborough

Bridge (cp. Gonzalez 2004:103).

In contrast, there are a few instances in which Moses did alter his plans. In

these cases, however, he is said to have done so only for his own benefit (or that

of people whose favors he might need one day): For example, Robert Caro (1998)

describes an incident in regard to the construction of the Northern State Parkway

on Long Island. Here, he claims, Moses changed his original plans for the

construction of a parkway several times in a southward direction, resulting in a

rather unusual and very noticeable detour. This way, however, the parkway would

no longer cross a golf course belonging to Otto Kahn, a highly influential

multimillionaire Moses was acquainted with. Instead, it would eventually cut

4 http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html

5 Using the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway as an example, this will be discussed in detail in

chapter 4.

6

through a farm, making it considerably harder for its owner to work on his fields.

Eventually, this would even ruin him (according to Caro’s description in Caro

1998). The reasons for this behavior (and how actions like these were even

possible) are notable with respect to Moses’ role in connection with the

controversy surrounding the Cross-Bronx Expressway and will therefore be

discussed in the following paragraph.

In general, a few aspects are mentioned in regard to Moses’ unwillingness

to make changes to his plans: Firstly, he is said to simply have been too stubborn

to compromise (cp Caro 1974:878), suggesting that his plans were of such

importance to Moses that changes to them were simply unthinkable to him. Caro

writes that he was “overflowing with pride at his construction feats” (1974:846). In

addition, as already indicated (cp Goldberger 1981), some of Moses’s critics cl

aimthat many of his decisions were based on a general disrespect for people that

were in his way. Caro quotes Jacob Lutsky, whom he even calls an “admirer” of

Moses: “He thought about people. But if it came to project or people, he’d take the

project” (1974:848). In an effort to contradict the notion that he didn’t care about

people, Moses is famously quoted with a statement in response to Power Broker6

that he “hails[s] the chef who can make omelets without breaking eggs” (cp.

Moses 1974:11). Furthermore, as already mentioned, there are accusations that,

when Moses did make changes to one of his plans, that he usually did so in order

to accommodate his own financial or personal interests, those of politicians whose

approval he might need for future projects, or other persons of interest to him.

These points should be kept in mind, as they will be of significant importance later

in this paper when the reasons for the realization of the expressway despite

ubiquitous criticism will be discussed.

Whatever the reason, Moses was only able to keep most of his plans intact

from blueprint to actual construction by being in charge of a number of city offices.

According to Caro, “he used his power to bend the city’s social politics” (1998).

Eventually, as already indicated in the Goldberger quote above, when there was a

change in the New York City mayoral office, Moses was taken on by the new

mayor Robert F. Wagner and was not only in a situation in which he could create

his own new position in the city legislative, but where he could also make up the

laws he would have to abide. This ability, of course, gave him immense power 6 A facsimile can be found at http://www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/detritus/moses/response.htm.

7

over the city’s planning. He would soon take advantage of this in order to get

(legal) approval for the decisions he thought were right. This circumstance will be

one of the major points discussed later in this paper when criticism concerning the

construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway will be addressed. However, this

venture should not only be one of his biggest and most controversial projects, but

also his last. With the Expressway finished, maybe having pulled too many strings

this time, and supposedly due to an increasingly “preservationoriented [sic]

philosophy in the 1960's, his reputation began to suffer” (Goldberger 1981). He

slowly but gradually lost his power and the Cross-Bronx Expressway was one of

the last major projects he would be able realize (cp. ibid.).

It should also be mentioned, however, that, in contrast to the general

criticism surrounding him, and whilst being a truly controversial figure in the history

of New York City, Moses was also without a doubt one of the most important

influences on what the city looks like today and how it was shaped in the last

century: “In the 20th century the influence of Robert Moses on the cities of

America was greater than that of any other person.'', Goldberger (1981) quotes

Lewis Mumford, whom he says never to have been “a fan of Mr. Moses”.

3.0 The History of the South Bronx

In order to be able to make an appropriate statement regarding the impact the

Cross-Bronx Expressway had on the Bronx at the time it was built and perhaps

even has today, a short look at the history of the borough in general is in place.

This overview will be necessary to make assumptions that distinguish natural

development from a possible negative influence the expressway may have had. In

the next chapter, the information given in this chapter will be necessary to

understand some of the points made regarding the topic of this paper. Evelyn

Gonzalez’s 2004 dissertation “The Bronx” gives a thorough and comparatively up-

to-date insight into the history of the Bronx and its developments. Therefore, it will

8

serve as the main source for this chapter. It will highlight some of the key aspects

that will be necessary to understand the arguments made later in this text.

During the last century, the Bronx has undergone several dramatic

changes. Like many other neighborhoods throughout the United States, the

borough had originally been planned as a peaceful, hopefully profitable suburb

(cp. Gonzalez 2004:18), associated with “newness and modernity” (ibid., p.88),

that people working in Manhattan could commute to and from and where they

could own their own house instead of just an apartment. Consequently, around the

1870s, one of the neighborhoods that had already been built, Morrisania, offered a

high-quality alternative to the comparatively congested borough of Manhattan.

Besides, it offered newer and therefore qualitatively better housing (cp. Gonzalez

2004:37). The fact that, for example, this area was acquired under the premise

that “’no intoxicating drinks’ could be manufactured, bought, or sold” (Gonzalez

2004:32) here shows an initial effort to “keep the Bronx clean”.

According to Gonzalez, as early as the 1870s, Morrisania was already a

rather segregated neighborhood (cp. 2004:37). This trend would increasingly

continue and by 1940, “the small black population of the Bronx was more

segregated than ever [as] almost three quarters were in the South Bronx” (ibid.

p.100). Even worse, as the author points out, in a survey conducted in 1927,

African Americans in particular were highly at a disadvantage in regard to quality

of housing. They were in all cases those living in dwellings “with no heat, hot

water, or toilet facilities” (cp. ibid. p.101). This is important to keep in mind, as the

aspect of segregation will be of interest later.

Over the years, the borough as a whole and the South Bronx in particular

underwent a highly negative development and were even partially destroyed in the

1970s, becoming a widely known symbol of urban decay and destruction

(Gonzalez 2004:1).

At this point, it should be mentioned that there is a history of the South

Bronx being subject to neglect by city officials as well as the consequences arising

9

from this negligence. For example, Gonzalez (p.96) explains an incident during the

1930s depression: At this time, many federally sponsored projects were available

to the borough of the Bronx. However, the South Bronx was exempt from most of

these attempts to improve the condition of the borough. Gonzalez describes them

to have “heightened the growing disparity between the older and newer areas of

the Bronx” (p. 96), thus creating a gap between these parts and giving the area a

developmental disadvantage. The area’s resulting loss of prestige, as well as the

bad condition of housing in general, contributed to a flight of “better-off residents”

(ibid. p.101) to other neighborhoods. These residents’ moving away even became

a “sure sign of status” (p. 102), as Gonzalez describes it, proving the borough’s

fading attractiveness. As a result, the neighborhood would become poorer (cp.

p.101) and had now completely entered a downward spiral. Accordingly, Gonzalez

claims that “[b]y the 1940s, the South Bronx no longer met middle-class

expectations” for reasons of decay in housing and infrastructure (cp. p.109). Crime

and violence soon became a major problem: “As early as 1944, there were ‘more

than 500 conflict gangs of boys in New York City’. […] [Y]outh violence and gang

warfare would increase during the fifties and eventually fed into the drug-related

street crime of the sixties” (p.105). This development could be one of the reasons

for the downfall of the neighborhood. This is important to keep in mind when, in the

later course of this paper, the effect the construction of the Cross-Bronx

Expressway had on this area will be examined.

The borough also changed in terms of its residents. As already mentioned,

historically, parts of the borough have always been segregated. This trend,

however, would not only persist, but also expand to the South Bronx (among other

boroughs). Gonzalez notes that the borough “in particular went from being two-

thirds white in 1950 to two-thirds African-American and Hispanic by 1960” (p.2). As

an effect, “the heterogeneity of the population vanished as the South Bronx

became poorer, blacker, and more Hispanic” (p. 115).

By the 1960s and in the following years, the situation in the South Bronx was

devastating: As the aging borough was hit particularly hard by a citywide rise in

crime (cp. p.119), a struggling economy (cp. p.118) and subsequent cutbacks in

fire, police and sanitation services (cp. 121), continuously emerging rival youth

gangs as well as burglaries, assaults and murders would create an “atmosphere of

10

terror” (p.120). As a consequence, those residents who could afford it moved away

from the area (cp. p.121), leaving only the poorest behind, and only the ones who

had no other choice came (cp. p.121). The decline in population that followed

eventually led to a “social collapse” (p. 122) of the neighborhood.

Gonzalez points out that this social collapse alone, however, was not

responsible for the abandonment and destruction of the South Bronx (cp. p.122).

She blames the continuing state of restructuring, the constant presence and

influence of construction in the area as well as fear of loss of housing due to

construction: The author explains that the latter kept people from forming social

networks in the form of neighborhoods. The resulting lack of community led to a

loss of residents: “Once stability and safety were gone, the neighborhoods […]

disappeared and the blighted area of the South Bronx grew” (p.124). This left

many tenements empty and thus subject to vandalization or destruction (cp.

p.124). Soon, “the South Bronx burned and devastation spread” (p.128).

As any information regarding additional developments of the borough will not

be of particular interest in the further course of this paper, this part will not be

discussed in much detail. Gonzalez explains it as follows: Eventually, as the South

Bronx deteriorated even further and the area of devastation continued to spread in

the 1960 and 1970s and while the cost of housing rose in other parts of the city

and South Bronx residents had nowhere left to move to, several public and private

groups formed (cp. p.130). Their goal was to revive and renew the borough (and

others). With the help of city officials, the borough was eventually rebuilt and,

starting in the mid-1980s, slowly began to recuperate (cp. p.141 ff.).

3.1 The Term South Bronx

Having described the changes the South Bronx underwent during the last century,

this chapter is dedicated to the term South Bronx itself and its importance in the

determination of the role of the Cross-Bronx Expressway. That is, because the

way in which people figuratively divide the Bronx and refer to certain parts of it

11

may give evidence for the effects the expressway has (or has had) on the

borough.

Gonzalez (2004) points out that during the 1920s and 1930s, parts of the

Bronx were rather referred to to be either in the “West Bronx” or “East Bronx”7.

However, these “[d]istinctions disappeared by the 1970s” (Gonzalez 2004:7). This

notion is supported by a statement made in a New York Times article8 by (1995)

Borough President Fernando Ferrer: "The term 'the South Bronx' did not exist

before the 60's. […] It was mostly an invention, a shorthand way to describe

physically decaying neighborhoods, rising crime and rising poverty” (Onishi 1995).

This statement also reveals another connotation the term South Bronx has:

Apart from the question of the time the term came into existence and when it

started to be used by an increasing amount of people, it is important to note the

negativity the term bears. In the same New York Times article, it is said that “[t]he

term South Bronx carries so many negative connotations that many residents,

when asked to identify a northern line, say bitterly that there is no such thing”.

Edward Conlon, a former NYPD officer, gives another example in his

autobiography “Blue Blood” about his time on the force, when he writes: “There

were many bad neighborhoods in New York, but the South Bronx was a byword

for ‘slum’” (p. 5). Furthermore, the additional issue of segregation and racism is

addressed by Jonathan Kozol (1995) when he writes that “[u]ntil some years ago,

the term ‘South Bronx’ was used to speak of four predominantly black and

Hispanic community districts south of the Cross-Bronx Expressway” (p.289). In the

following, however, Kozol points out that there doesn’t seem to be a rigid definition

of the area the term actually covers (cp. p. 289f).

Keeping this idea in mind and taking into consideration how the term has

developed in the recent past, a noteworthy excerpt from the same 1995 New York

Times article states that

[…] in recent years, as thousands of new homes have been built as part of the South

Bronx's much-chronicled rebirth, many say the term has lost its meaning and denies the

7 This division is also reported by Robin&Robin (1998:3).

8 The article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/nyregion/neighborhood-report-south-

bronx-mapping-lower-bronx-it-s-south-but-south-what.html

12

rich diversity of neighborhoods in the area. Others, especially residents, say that in the

borough's redefined geopolitics, "South Bronx" has started to acquire a positive ring (Onishi

1995).

This notion, as well as the change implied in Kozol quote above, could be

indicators for how the term may be changing parallel to the area’s improving

condition.

It is now important to keep in mind that the birth of the term as well as its

negative connotation started to appear around the time the Cross-Bronx

Expressway was finished. It seems reasonable to consider that a connection

between these incidents is not random. As the construction of the Cross-Bronx

Expressway is said to have had a major impact on the Bronx to the extent that it is

now a central marker for dividing the Bronx, the circumstances described in this

chapter will be important later in this paper.

4.0 The History of the Cross-Bronx Expressway

The aforementioned “newness and modernity” of the Bronx (according to

Gonzalez) was an effect achieved by it being “[s]eemingly forever under

construction” (2004:88). This went along with the notion that construction and

imperfections of the Bronx were supposed to be temporary and the downsides it

came with could be neglected as they would not be permanent. Eventually, the

temporary negative side-effects of the construction were supposed to be

outweighed by the positive change the new construction would bring (cp.

Gonzalez 2004:88). This notion ties in with Robert Moses’s idea of a positive

outcome as a justification as discussed in chapter 2. When Moses proposed his

visions of the Cross-Bronx Expressway in 1944 (cp. Jonnes 2002:119), this idea

was not prevalent, however: Before, during and after the construction of the Cross-

Bronx Expressway, there was considerable criticism and strong protest against

those plans, mostly from Bronx residents whose buildings were subject to

destruction. In this chapter, the history of the expressway’s construction and the

controversy that surrounded it will be discussed. In combination with the

13

information that has already been given concerning the person of Robert Moses

and the history of the Bronx, this chapter will lead to the concluding part of this

paper.

In Power Broker, Robert Caro gives a highly detailed insight into the early

stages of the expressway’s planning. A shorter overview will be given in the

following, mostly using facts stated by Caro (1974) as they are the most detailed

description available. It should always be kept in mind, though, that Caro’s view of

the expressway and especially of Robert Moses is characterized by a seemingly

biased, very emotional and almost literary approach.

It has been mentioned before that approval of Moses’s vision of an

expressway across the Bronx would not be a problem because of the power he

held at the time. However, one major issue regarding the construction was the

vast amount of destruction Moses had included in his plans. Much of the criticism

regarding the expressway’s construction was based either on its highly difficult

implementation or the natural effect caused by it: its immense price tag. Caro

gives numerous examples of the size of this enterprise as he describes the

measures that needed to be taken to realize it (cp. p. 839ff). In summary, he writes

that “in terms of physical difficulty, his [Moses’] program would dwarf [all other

projects he had accomplished so far]” (1974:844). And, in fact, tremendous efforts

had to be undertaken. In addition, Moses’ influence on the city at the time

becomes clear once more as Caro writes:

The path of [the Cross-Bronx Expressway] lay across 113 streets, avenues and

boulevards; sewers and water and utility mains numbering in the hundreds; one subway

and three railroads; five elevated rapid transit lines, and seven other expressways or

parkways, some of which were being built by Moses simultaneously. All had to be kept in

operation [during the construction] (1974:840f.).

Consequently, the project created ever rising, eventually unheard of expenses.

Caro puts them in perspective by saying that

[h]ighways had always cost millions of dollars. In the whole world, only a handful had cost

as much as $10,000,000. These new highways would cost $10,000,000 per mile

(1974:844).

14

Nevertheless, most of the criticism regarding the expressway was effectless. Caro

describes the effort of one neighborhood, however, East Tremont, which became

famous in its attempt to stop Moses from implementing his plans: Shocked by the

news of theirevictions and unwilling to give up their houses, the residents of the

neighborhood, highly dependent on the low rents it offered, formed a group to

protest the planned construction and to raise awareness of the situation, getting

city officials involved (cp. p. 1974:859ff.)

Some, like for example Jill Jonnes in her book “South Bronx Rising: The

Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of an American City”, quote witnesses of the project

even saying things like “Moses ad nauseam was destructive.” (2002:125) or

“Moses thinks he’s God.” (Jonnes 2002:119). Statements like these in turn feed

into the ubiquitous view of Moses as being either too powerful and/ or his having

delusions of grandeur

Henry Epstein, a deputy mayor to then New York City Mayor Robert F.

Wagner, soon pointed out that there was “no rational reason” for the planned route

of the expressway, as there was a parallel route available which would not nearly

displace as many residents and which would only make necessary the destruction

of six instead fifty-four buildings (see map 1) (cp. Caro 1998). Caro suspects the

cause for Moses’ opposition to this proposal to be that the alternative route as

suggested by Epstein included the demolition of a depot belonging to the Third

Avenue Transit Company (cp. Caro 1974:878). Caro claims that some politicians

had hidden interests in this depot and that Moses acted in those politicians’ favor

(cp. ibid.). Eventually, as Caro goes on to tell, after several town hall meetings, it

map 1 (source: Caro 1974:864)

15

was decided to proceed as planned and that the people of East Tremont would be

relocated (cp. p. 1974:882).

At any rate, despite the ubiquitous criticism that was predominant at the

time, it should be mentioned, however, that, from today’s view, the construction of

the expressway is at least justifiable to the extent that it “has become not only an

indispensable part of the New York area transportation system, but also an

essential link in the East Coast Interstate highway network” (nycroads.com)9. This

notion is very similar to Moses’ opinion at the time, who claimed that the eventual

benefit of the expressway to the general public would outweigh the tremendous

effort it took to create the Cross-Bronx Expressway; that the ends do justify the

means. Says Moses in 1945: “[the expressway’s] effects on the Borough will be

enormous, and few people can visualize the future these […] improvements will

usher in.” (Jonnes 2002:120). Several ideas are implied by this statement: First of

all, that Moses was well aware of what he was doing and that the enormous efforts

he imposed on the city and the people are justified in his opinion. Secondly, he

seems to believe that what he does serves a greater good which, thirdly, only he

and a “few people” are able to understand at this point. Especially the last notion

could serve as grounds to accuse Moses of a certain superiority he seems to think

to inhibit, maybe even some arrogance towards others.

5.0 The Effects of the Cross-Bronx Expressway on the Bronx

Now that the role of Robert Moses as well as an overview of the history of the

Bronx and the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway have been

established, it is possible to examine the potential connections the highway’s

construction may have had on the South Bronx. These will be discussed in the

following chapter.

9 to be accessed under http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-bronx/

16

As already discussed, it is a fact that, as Gonzalez (2004) describes it,

“[d]uring the 1960s and 1970s, the Bronx became a national symbol of urban

deterioration. Neighborhoods […] disappeared under waves of arson, crime, and

housing abandonment” (p.1). The reasons for what is said to have caused this

progress, this development of the Bronx turning from the suburban dream it had

intended to be into the urban nightmare, “the wounded borough of the Bronx”

(Quindlan 1981), that it had eventually become, have already been described to

some extent in an earlier chapter. Most important for the topic of this paper,

however, is the question: Is the Cross-Bronx Expressway to blame, is it in any way

linked to this development, and if yes, to what extent?

It has already been mentioned that Gonzalez notes that youth violence and

gang warfare in the Bronx had been in existence “as early as 1944” and increased

further in the following decades (cp. 2004:105). The author also mentions that at

the time when the borough was in its worst condition, a rise in crime, mostly drug-

related, had taken place throughout the whole city of New York and that this was

not just restricted to the South Bronx (cp. p.119). However, it is also made clear

that while a dramatic rise in crime and poverty was a city-wide issue, there is an

emphasis on the view that the borough that was hit the hardest usually was the

South Bronx: “Crime was everywhere, but there seemed to be more of it in the

Bronx” (Gonzalez 2004:120). It should be noted here that, again, the borough

seems to stand out, just as it did with respect to the perceived general neglect of

the borough mentioned in chapter 3.

Robert Caro (1974:889f.) ties the downfall of the borough directly to the

expressway’s existence. He explains, analogous to the downward spiral as

described by Gonzalez, that due to the unbearable living conditions Moses had

created by building the Cross-Bronx Expressway, people near it started to move

away and were followed by poorer residents moving in (cp. p.889). Caro explains

that, consequently, criminal activity, such as muggings and robberies, increased,

thus triggering a rise in insurance premiums. These would force even more

residents out of their homes and their businesses, which would then be

abandoned (cp p.890). Eventually, by 1965, East Tremont was in a desolate state

where “[a]fter seven o’clock, the residential streets […] are deserted, roamed by

narcotics addicts in gangs like packs of wolves” (p.893). The resulting change in

17

terms of population is documented by Robin & Robin (1998). Citing census data,

they point out the gradual decline in overall population as well as a significant

change in terms of racial diversity (cp. p 8). Having examined previous research

indicating similar results (cp. p.10), they also state that the initial decline in

population is “in part due to the razing of buildings to make room for the

construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway” (p.8). They go on to propose that the

expressway was, in fact, linked to the extraordinary shift in the neighborhood’s

residents (1998:10f.).

That being the case, there are claims that the dramatic changes the South

Bronx faced during this period would not have been as bad, had the Cross-Bronx

Expressway never been built, or at least if it had been built in a different way. Jim

Rooney, in “Organizing the South Bronx”, for example, lists the expressway

among other factors that he says in combination to have contributed to the Bronx’s

“collapse” (cp. 1995:41). Some authors even seem to think of the suggested link

as evident, that in fact “the Cross Bronx Expressway […] contributed strongly to

the destruction of several neighborhoods” (Papacosma 2008:146) and that it is

responsible for the dramatic economic and social changes the borough underwent,

as well as its continuing segregation (cp. Tokaji 1995:99). Moreover, Jane Jacobs,

author of “The Death and Life of Great American Cities“, presents a direct link in a

quote to be found in a New York Post article from 1960. The article reports on the

rise in crime in the borough: “Ever since work started on the Cross-Bronx

Expressway across the street some two years ago, a grocer said, trouble has

plagued the area.” (1992:260). This observation shows how shortly after the

construction a noticeable change seems to have happened. On the other hand

however, it also indicates a different idea concerning the expressway’s impact on

the borough.

That is, when considering the idea of a direct link between the expressway

and the borough’s hardship, it is possible to hypothesize that the impact of the

Cross-Bronx Expressway on the South Bronx, as it is often described, may in fact

be based on emotional perception rather than identifiable facts.

18

Kenneth T. Jackson, for example, is a harsh critic of the idea that the

expressway was the sole reason for the borough’s downfall. Firstly, he doubts that

the condition the neighborhood of East Tremont was in before the expressway

came was as good and intact as Caro claims it to be (cp. Jackson 198910). Caro

had described East Tremont as a run-down, low-income, but fully functioning

melting pot that was a good and affordable alternative to Manhattan’s Lower East

Side and that was needed as well as beloved by its residents (cp. p.851)11 who

would soon become dependent on it for lack of another (affordable) option (cp.

p.858). Jackson (1989) further claims that

Charlotte Street, for example, the most notorious slum in the United States in the 1970's

and 1980's […] is well away from the Cross Bronx Expressway. In other words, even if

Robert Moses had redirected this controversial roadway, the likelihood is that East Tremont

would have experienced dramatic demographic and economic changes. This is because

highway construction has not been the only factor responsible for neighborhood change in

the United States.

Other authors, like for example Ralph Herman, contributor to nycroads.com, a

website dedicated to the history and description of roads in and around New York

City, even claims that “[m]any of the most desirable neighborhoods in […] New

York City are located next to expressways and parkways.”12, thereby strongly

opposing Caro’s opinion and denying any negative effects the expressway may

have caused.

Then again, there are some statements that use the Cross-Bronx

Expressway as a clear geographic marker to make a negative assertion. One such

statement made by “a banker” in 1975 can be found in Gonzalez (2004): “You can

write off the entire area south of the Cross-Bronx Expressway.” (p.127).

Statements like these, and others which define the expressway as a dividing line

for the South Bronx, are mostly uttered by residents of the Bronx or New York (cp.

Onishi 1995). They convey two things: First of all, the said use of the expressway

as a geographical marker. Secondly, however, they support the thesis already

10

The original source of Jackson’s statement is unavailable. It is quoted from other sources quoting it themselves. Therefore, no page numbers can be given except for the ones noted in the references section. 11

This description matches the one in Krause (2008:33). However, most of the information here is cited from Caro 1974. 12

to be found at http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-bronx/

19

mentioned above, that emotional perception may indeed play a major role in the

assessment of the factual impact the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway

had on the surrounding borough. One indicator of this idea is that, when looking at

residents’ descriptions of the expressway, repeated descriptions of its (subjective)

atrociousness and impracticability seem to be prevalent. For example, the

expressway is described as a “catastrophe” by a Bronx resident (Sedensky 2001)

or as “a monster, a segmented snake of station wagons and pickup trucks and

sports cars, all seemingly moving through and away from the Bronx. “ (Quendlen

1981). Negatively connotated descriptions like, which seem to be embedded in the

general public, could be a major factor in using emotion as an explanation for a

link between the expressway and the decay of the Bronx. Therefore, they must not

be neglected when evaluating the emotional aspect of the controversy surrounding

the expressway. That is, they may indicate or even give evidence for how emotion

may play a role in determining the impact of the expressway on the Bronx.

Naturally, these can hardly be measured or otherwise be proven unlike the

obvious decline and ghettoization of the borough can be expressed in census

numbers. On the other hand, neither can, at least so far, the construction of the

expressway be linked to the borough’s downfall, even though of course some

indicators strongly suggest that this was actually the case.

One of the attempts to revive the South Bronx mentioned in chapter 3 is

mirrored in an article published in the New York Times. It reports that “the State

Department of Transportation is putting the finishing touches on a multiyear study

on how to undo some of the damage caused by the [Cross-Bronx

Expressway]” (Sedensky 2001). It is suggested that there seems to be an

increasing awareness in the general public and city officials of the supposed link

between the expressway’s construction and the Bronx’s deterioration during the

1960s and 1970s. The head of this study, Peter G. King, is quoted in his attempt to

“address some of the problems created by the original Cross Bronx Expressway,

which divided communities and did not adequately serve those communities”

(ibid.). Here, again, a connection seems to be taken for granted. As this is a rather

recent idea, this suggests that a direct link is slowly but surely found to be evident,

even without actual proof.

20

6.0 Conclusion

Through the course of this paper, the person of Robert Moses and his role in the

planning of the City Of New York have been presented. It was shown that Moses’

power helped him to a great extent to put his plans into effect regardless of most

critcism and that his view of himself as a visionary ahead of his time is challenged

by a general controversy discussing whether the sacrifices that were made had

really been necessary. This contributes to a mostly negative view of Moses, his

plans and that they were put into action. In the second chapter, an overview of the

history of the Bronx, in particular the area known as the South Bronx, was given.

The development and the use of the term South Bronx was highlighted because,

as it was discussed later, these characteristics bear important information

necessary to evaluate the impact the Cross-Bronx Expressway had on the Bronx.

After a summary of and the circumstances surrounding the expressway were

given, all the angles necessary to make a statement regarding the paper’s topic

were pointed out and led to a final chapter which dealt with the question if, and to

what extent, assumptions can be made regarding a connection between the

expressway and the downfall of the South Bronx.

It is possible to conclude that both ideas of the expressway’s impact are

possible. While Caro gives a highly detailed summary of the events surrounding

the planning and construction of the expressway in Power Broker, his description

and view regarding the topic is challenged by Moses himself (cp. Moses 1974) , as

well as scholars such as Jackson (1989). It has been shown that there are signs

that can be interpreted as proof, as well as even some evidence, that hints at both

the ideas presented. Time, as well as further research, may tell whether a clear,

unchallenged statement can be made at some point. As the study mentioned in

the last part of chapter 5 suggests, a general agreement blaming the expressway

at least to some extent seems to be forming. At this moment, there are indicators

for both a dramatic impact of the expressway on the Bronx as well as the idea of

the downfall of the borough being the effect of a development that would have

happened nevertheless. It can be speculated that the general perception of the

expressway’s construction as the main trigger for the borough’s downfall may at

least in part be due to a more emotional rather than a factual, verifiable basis.

Perhaps the proposed link has other reasons, like the combination of many

21

factors, among them the Cross-Bronx Expressway, as Rooney (1995) suggests. A

combination of both emotional perception as well as the expressway’s existence

as an explanation for the borough’s downfall is possible as well. Eventually, as a

solution that serves both proposed ideas, it could be hypothesized that the Bronx

had already been affected by negative development caused by other reasons

when the Cross-Bronx Expressway was build and that this, in combination, led to

the devastating state the borough was in a few years later; that it maybe even

accelerated it.

The suggested admission of guilt as indicated towards the end of the last

chapter seems to express that, while there is “no clear consensus in why the

South Bronx collapsed” (Rooney 1995:41), the overall opinion seems to point in

the way of Caro’s description, blaming many of Robert Moses’ actions with respect

to the Cross-Bronx Expressway for the borough’s decay. Therefore, it can be said

with some certainty that a link between the expressway and the devastating state

of the Bronx in the 1960s and 70s is in fact very likely. However, the question if the

highway was the sole reason for the borough’s downfall will perhaps never be

resolved. It seems possible that emotional views of the situation may play a certain

role in the determination of the Moses’ and the expressway’s guilt in the matter.

In conclusion, it can be said that it is hard, if not impossible, to give

indisputable evidence for any of these theories at this point. Further, more in-depth

research is necessary as well as an investigation of the events surrounding the

expressway’s construction in a more scientific, unbiased way than the one given

by Caro in Power Broker, taking into consideration newer data and more diverse

sources.

22

7.0 References:

Callahan, Gene, and Sanford Ikeda. "The Career of Robert Moses: City Planning

as a Microcosm of Socialism." The Independent Review IX.2 (2004): 253-

61. Print.

Caro, Robert A. "The City-Shaper." Editorial. The New Yorker 5 Jan. 1998.

Robertmosesnyc.com. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.robertmosesnyc.com/NYer.html>.

Caro, Robert A. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York,. New

York: Knopf, 1974. Print.

"Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95, I-295 and US 1)." Cross Bronx Expressway (I-95,

I-295 and US 1). Nycroads.com. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.nycroads.com/roads/cross-bronx/>.

Dolnick, Sam. "On the Cross Bronx, Torture. On the Stoop, Entertainment." New

York Times. The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Apr. 2010.

Web. 15 Apr. 2013.

Goldberger, Paul. "Obituary - Robert Moses, Master Builder, Is Dead at 92." The

New York Times. The New York Times, 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html>.

Gonzalez, Evelyn Diaz. The Bronx. New York: Columbia UP, 2004. Print.

Kenneth T. Jackson, “Robert Moses and the Planned Environment: A Re-

Evaluation,” in Joann P. Krieg,

Ed., Robert Moses: Single-Minded Genius (Interlaken, N.Y.: Heart of the Lakes

Publishing, 1989), pp. 21-22.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage,

1992. Print.

Jonnes, Jill. South Bronx Rising: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of an American

City. New York: Fordham UP, 2002. Print.

Kozol, Jonathan. Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a

Nation. New York: Crown, 1995. Print.

Krause, Katja. Robert Moses Urbane Vision Von New York City Erfolge Und

Misserfolge Seiner Stadtplanungskonzeptionen. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag

Dr. Müller, 2008. Print.

Mohl, Raymond A. "Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of

New York, Edited by Hillary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson." Review.

Journal of Regional Science 48.5 (2008): 1012-014. Print.

23

Moses, Robert. "Comment on a New Yorker Profile and Biography." Letter. 26

Aug. 1974. MS.

Onishi, Norimitsu. "NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT: SOUTH BRONX; Mapping the

Lower Bronx: It's South, but South of What?" The New York Times. The

New York Times, 19 Feb. 1995. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/nyregion/neighborhood-report-south-

bronx-mapping-lower-bronx-it-s-south-but-south-what.html>.

Papacosma, Kate. "Robert Moses and the Modern City: Remaking the Metropolis ;

The Road to Recreation ; Slum Clearance and the Superblock Solution by

Hilary Ballon; Exhibition Catalogue ByHilary Ballon; Kenneth T. Jackson;

Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformationof New York."

Review. The Public Historian 30.1 (2008): 146-49. Print.

Quindlen, Anna. "About New York; ROBERT MOSES IS REMEMBERED IN THE

BRONX." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Aug. 1981. Web.

16 Apr. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/01/nyregion/about-new-

york-robert-moses-is-remembered-in-the-bronx.html>.

Robin, Helenan S., and Stanley S. Robin. "The Resurrection of the South Bronx:

An Event of Fin De Siecle." Sociological Focus 31.1 (1998): 1-15. Print.

Rooney, Jim. Organizing the South Bronx. Albany: State University of New York,

1995. Print.

Sedensky, Matt. "Decades Later, Doing the Cross Bronx Expressway Right." The

New York Times. The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2001. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/nyregion/thecity/07CROS.html>.

Tokaji, András. "The Meeting of Sacred and Profane in New York's Music: Robert

Moses, Lincoln Center, and Hip-Hop." Journal of American Studies 29.1

(1995): 97-103. Print.

Williamson, June. "New York City and the Legend of Robert Moses." Places 19.2

(2007): 84-87. Print.