I believe that crime and acts of violence are largely a product of the environment and opportunity as opposed to criminality i.e., those with a certain mindset and attitude etc. That is not to say that there aren’t people out there in society who are aggressively/violently inclined however if we look at the majority of acts/offenses they are committed by people who find themselves in the moment able to advantage their position psychologically/emotionally or tangibly by committing an offense/crime e.g., a person scans an avocado at the self-checkout as an onion because they believe the store employee overseeing the checkout process won’t notice and/or care to have an awkward interaction concerning something so trivial etc. Whilst a lot of violence involves people who may have a predisposition to act this way, if an “opportunity” isn’t presented – such as an argumentative/combative individual who challenges them – most will go about their day-to-day lives in peace and harmony etc. Don’t worry I’m not suggesting that we all sit around, holding hands and singing “Kumbaya” (I think it was the comedian Craig Feguson who said that it translated as/meant , “Who gives a shit”) or ”I’d like to teach the world to sing” etc., but rather that it’s worth acknowledging that crime and violence is largely the result of opportunity, rather than that being caused by us living in a Mad Max-style apocalypse where everyone belongs to a warring faction. This means that the environment(s) we live in have the ability to promote or dissuade crime and violence, giving those who are involved in public planning a pivotal role in creating and developing living spaces that either increase or decrease our public safety. One such individual who took/was given such a power in New York was Robert Moses.
Robert Moses was never an elected official. However, during the early to mid-twentieth century there was probably nobody who influenced an urban environment like him. There were few architectural/public projects in New York that Moses didn’t touch/have a hand in. Some positive, and some negative. Robert Caro, convincingly portrayed Moses as an unrepentant racist in his 1974 biography of him – “The Power Broker – Robert Moses and the fall of New York” – and presented a lot of evidence demonstrating that this was the case e.g., keeping water temperatures at public swimming pools low as he believed Black/African Americans were cold intolerant and wouldn’t visit them, as well as putting up statues/sculptures of shackled monkeys which were painted black up in Harlem, to “mock” the predominantly black neighborhood, along with detailing comments that he’s made such as complaining that his public parks were being spoilt by, “that scum floating up from Puerto Rico”. However, it was perhaps in the way that Moses divided the city using roadways that he had the greatest effect in separating communities and creating high crime areas. Moses favored the automobile over public transport, and “designed” New York around this “idea”/concepts; that it would be a city that could be easily accessed not so much by its residents but by those who lived in the suburbs surrounding it. Influenced by the Chicago School’s idea of cities being formed of concentric bands (an idea of zones suggested by Ernest Burgess), with a central business district, and the furthest out band being occupied by the predominantly white/middle classes who had moved/migrated out to the “suburbs” etc. For Moses, giving these individuals easy access into the city/business center was a priority. Often, the bridges and roads he created divided up districts and created “islands” in which there were limited resources, where residents “cut off” found themselves being targeted and ruled by criminal gangs/entities who could control these isolated – and often poorly policed - areas.
Crime has a degree of “directionality” to it e.g., if an offender lives on the coast, with the sea to their West, they are more likely to find offending opportunities to their East; in the opposite direction – heading directly North or South keeps them in a relatively narrow band. Moses, knew creating these structural boundaries either “contained” and “encouraged” crime in certain areas and/or inadvertently directed it. Offenders are constrained by their built environment. A busy road with few crossings may make it difficult for someone to cross it, restricting their movement in a certain direction. A person living next to a river will find that their movement is directed by where there is a bridge, if they need to cross to the opposite side/neighborhood etc. I remember returning to Glasgow with a friend and trying to explain to him that “proximity” to the city center wasn’t as important when it came to safety as recognizing some of the roads that divided the city and “cut off” certain areas from others – he was a photographer who I went to university with and was interested in capturing some of the architecture etc., and I’d agreed to show him around/accompany him. The East End of Glasgow comes on you quickly. You cross the High Street from the City Center and in a few short minutes you’re in Calton, one of the high crime areas of the city. I remember the shock on his face when, after quickly leaving the modern city center, we were crossing a piece of waste ground with a makeshift “market” set up on it that basically comprised of piles of old clothes etc., that people were selling. The High Street cut off a deprived area with a high crime rate from a relatively safe, modern city center.
It is easy to demonize Moses for the way he “divided” up New York and influenced/created ghettos and pockets of crime, along with directing the pathways of crime, however he was a complex individual who was also responsible for creating many green spaces and playgrounds in New York, including many in predominantly black neighborhoods etc. However, his impact, through bridge building and highway development, also cut communities off, deprived them of access to resources and caused them to economically fail, helping them to become localities and communities that criminal gangs and organizations were able to exploit. Whenever we look at the value of a public work project we should also consider how it may direct crime and violent offending.