arikinko
Hi all,
I am doing a research on Robert Moses, the urban planner who is responsible for most of the urban renewal project of new york city between 1930 and 1970. In this process i found a lot of similarities between Haussman and Moses, and between Paris in 19th century and new york in 20th century as far as their socioeconomic and political state at the time, both with idealistic views for future to become the center of the capitalist world; the leading modern metropolis.
Another interesting similarity is the driving force or the real agenda behind the decisions and strategies executed at the two locations. The patterns in which people are shifted from one area to another, roads are laid out on the existing urban landscape, and incorporating the cities with the new transportation system of the time (in case of Paris railroad system, and in case of New York cars) seem to come from the same ideological background; to subdivide the city into more desirable areas for the bourgeois, move lower class people outside of the luxurious downtown, and then connecting all the areas by more reliable infrastructure.
I would like to know what others think about the topic; is it a legitimate comparison? is it a big stretch? is it even an interesting argument? I would appreciate any feedback.
Yavar Khonsari
I am doing a research on Robert Moses, the urban planner who is responsible for most of the urban renewal project of new york city between 1930 and 1970. In this process i found a lot of similarities between Haussman and Moses, and between Paris in 19th century and new york in 20th century as far as their socioeconomic and political state at the time, both with idealistic views for future to become the center of the capitalist world; the leading modern metropolis.
Another interesting similarity is the driving force or the real agenda behind the decisions and strategies executed at the two locations. The patterns in which people are shifted from one area to another, roads are laid out on the existing urban landscape, and incorporating the cities with the new transportation system of the time (in case of Paris railroad system, and in case of New York cars) seem to come from the same ideological background; to subdivide the city into more desirable areas for the bourgeois, move lower class people outside of the luxurious downtown, and then connecting all the areas by more reliable infrastructure.
I would like to know what others think about the topic; is it a legitimate comparison? is it a big stretch? is it even an interesting argument? I would appreciate any feedback.
Yavar Khonsari
