When a city and its metropolitan areas are designed and settled, the purposes for which an area is used are taken into consideration. This subject is examined by Sociologist Ernest Burgess in "The Growth of the City," in which he examines Chicago and vicinity. In addition, Bruce Epperson (2007), the author of “Eminence Domain: Reassessing the Life and Public Works of Robert Moses” examines the way in which Robert Moses geared his projects for New York City and the surrounding area (p.1). However, one may find that the way in which Moses plans projects for New York City may connect to the way in which Chicago was planned.
Before the formation of suburbs, the majority of Americans tended to live in cities as they were able to live a short commuting …show more content…
One way in which Burgess’s study shares ideas with the way in which Robert Moses’s planning is that they both took class into account. For example, Burgess (1967) mentions that there are areas of Chicago where there are poorer workers living closer to the city (p.94). Bruce Epperson (2007) states: “On the other hand, it was beset by problems, many of which the exhibit touches on only lightly. Just 15 percent of those displaced by the slum clearance program were relocated in the Title I or Title III units intended to replace the lost housing. Moses initially favored consortiums of small private developers, who often failed miserably, and it was the big players, such as William Zeckendorf and Herbert Greenwald, who eventually pulled the program out of trouble. Title I was not primarily a housing program; it was for slum clearance, and it was often used to clear land for university buildings and cultural amenities for the wealthy. The program was not race neutral. Although the extent of Moses 's racial feelings was the subject of considerable debate at the symposium, it is clear that he did not strongly object as the NYCHA and his private developers systematically denied applications from single-parent households and the dependent poor, and that he embraced a "separate but equal" doctrine by using two middle-class Harlem projects, Lenox Terrace and Delano Village, to meet federal fair-housing requirements (p.822). With this statement, it is clear that Moses took account for separating the wealthy classes from less wealthier
Before the formation of suburbs, the majority of Americans tended to live in cities as they were able to live a short commuting …show more content…
One way in which Burgess’s study shares ideas with the way in which Robert Moses’s planning is that they both took class into account. For example, Burgess (1967) mentions that there are areas of Chicago where there are poorer workers living closer to the city (p.94). Bruce Epperson (2007) states: “On the other hand, it was beset by problems, many of which the exhibit touches on only lightly. Just 15 percent of those displaced by the slum clearance program were relocated in the Title I or Title III units intended to replace the lost housing. Moses initially favored consortiums of small private developers, who often failed miserably, and it was the big players, such as William Zeckendorf and Herbert Greenwald, who eventually pulled the program out of trouble. Title I was not primarily a housing program; it was for slum clearance, and it was often used to clear land for university buildings and cultural amenities for the wealthy. The program was not race neutral. Although the extent of Moses 's racial feelings was the subject of considerable debate at the symposium, it is clear that he did not strongly object as the NYCHA and his private developers systematically denied applications from single-parent households and the dependent poor, and that he embraced a "separate but equal" doctrine by using two middle-class Harlem projects, Lenox Terrace and Delano Village, to meet federal fair-housing requirements (p.822). With this statement, it is clear that Moses took account for separating the wealthy classes from less wealthier