Transporting Changes - Essay Example

Transporting Changes The modern age brought with it a sense of sweeping change across the countryand the world as strong distinctions were being made between the rural picturesque landscapes of the country and the densely packed yet cleanly lines of the urban powerhouses. One of these powerhouses, New York, had already managed to glean a reputation for being forward-thinking and progressive as a result of its need for constant change as large groups of immigrants were filtered through its port and city streets into the rest of the country at large. One of the primary ways in which these changes were brought about was through changes in the city’s modes of transport, from the old days of walking, bicycling, trams and els, to the new mode of individual vehicular traffic and high-speed underground trains. In constructing the necessary amenities for these sorts of changes, it was necessary to break some of the old ways of doing things, either through the destruction of previously apportioned space or through novel approaches to cutting through traffic. Before one can understand how current conceptions of New York were shaped by these changing forms of transport, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the concept of place and then to observe how this concept shifted and changed with each new introduction to the city’s landscape. In his article “Defining Places” (2004), Tim Cresswell presents a general examination of how the term ‘place’ might be defined in a variety of different contexts. Foremost among these is the idea that the term ‘place’ doesn’t simply refer to a specific location but is instead used to refer to a variety of ideas and concepts that are tied up in our conception of place. To make his point, Cresswell illustrates how the term ‘space’ tends to refer to a general location defined by geometric shape, which is different from place, which is presented as an idea of a particular place with a specific character and socio-political concepts already associated with it. In discussing the places of New York, it is the transportation routes that provide Cresswell with the means to describe the areas he’s speaking of as examples: “Crossing over Houston Street to the south you can visit the Lower East Side Tenement Museum in one of the old buildings that formally housed new immigrants” (3). It is perhaps helpful to consider the abstract idea of place in conjunction with the abstract ideas of space as are brought forward by Yi-Fu Tuan: “From the security and stability of place we are aware of the openness, freedom and threat of space, and vice versa. Furthermore, if we think of space as that which allows movement, then place is pause; each pause in movement makes it possible for location to be transformed into place” (Yi-Fu Tuan 6 cited in Cresswell 7). However, this doesn’t necessarily mean ‘place’ is stationary either. In attempting to clarify the various meanings of the word ‘place’ as it differs from other words such as ‘space’ or ‘location’, Cresswell illustrates how modes of transportation themselves can become identifiers of place. “A ship, for instance, may become a special kind of place for people who share it on a long voyage, even though its location is constantly changing” (Cresswell 7). Thus, while transportation is seen to be a means of relocating from one place to another, it has the ability to also become a place in and of itself. The concept of something in motion as place is seen in the development of New York’s subway system, which contributed to the city’s identity as a modern and high-tech community. The original idea was based more upon necessity for the area rather than out of any desire for a world-wide showcase of the city’s ultra-updated approach. According to one article, “The main object of the road was to carry to and from their home … the great army of workers … and it was therefore obvious that the general direction of the routes must be north and south, and that the line must extend as nearly as possible from one end of the island to the other” (Route 1). Manhattan-Bronx Route (Route) In the actual creation of the subway, however, the concept of it as a public place as defined by Cresswell is emphasized within the contract itself. “The railway and its equipment as contemplated by the contract constitute a great public work. All parts of the structure where exposed to public sight shall therefore be designed, constructed and maintained with a view to the beauty of their appearance, as well as to their efficiency” (Routes 9). This directive, as an investigation of the lines will show, was taken to heart in every element of the design, both above and below ground. East Side Line, 28th St. Station (Route) City Hall Mezzanine (Route) From the ceilings to the floors, the stations are each sumptuously decorated. “The ceilings are separated into panels by wide ornamental moldings, and the panels are decorated with narrower moldings and rosettes” (Route 13), as can be seen to some extent in the above images. According to this same description, “The bases of the walls are buff Norman brick. Above this is glass tile or glazed tile, and above the tile is a faience or terra-cotta cornice. Ceramic mosaic is used for decorative panels, friezes, pilasters, and name-tablets” (Route 13). Each station is distinguished from the others through the utilization of different decorative treatments which vary based upon the symbolisms of the streets above. Although they are associated with the subway, this examination of the stations remains focused upon the place as a stationary location imbued with meanings and associations. However, from its opening day, the subway as a moving place had already begun to define New York as one of the more innovative and progressive cities in the world. “The IRT belonged in the tradition of grand civic projects that made New York the greatest metropolis in North America, such as the Erie Canal, the Croton Aqueduct water system and the Brooklyn Bridge” (Hood 92). This concept was supported by the considered opinions of experts in the field such as the British transit expert who pronounced the subway “one of the great engineering achievements of the age” while also acknowledging that it was “more advanced technologically than London’s underground” (Hood 93). Designed as mass transit for the poor workers, “The IRT was like a magnet, attracting groups from the outskirts of Brooklyn and Queens, two or three hours away” (Hood, 96). The idea that the subway had already gained a sense of place for the people of New York within its first week of operation is also emphasized by reports of their reaction to the first advertisements to go up in the stations. “When workers for the Interborough’s advertising firm, Ward & Gow, began driving nails into the ornamental tilework and covering the walls with large, tin-framed signs, New Yorkers reacted with surprise and anger. Many thought these unsightly billboards … detracted from the subway’s stature as a noble civic monument” (Hood 96). Although regular New Yorkers quickly became bored with the subway lines through sheer familiarity with the sights of it, it continued to remain a place of significance for out of town visitors who had heard about this modern marvel. “Along with the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty, the Flatiron Building and Wall Street, the IRT embodied the wealth, power and modernity that distinguished New York from all other cities” (Hood 97). It also introduced a place unlike any other place in the world in that it provided riders with a view of the city below the surface. “Isolated from their familiar surroundings and dependent on steel rails, track switches, electrical conduits, signals and other mechanical devices, passengers thought of the subway as a realm of impersonal, complicated technology” (Hood 98). At the same time that the subway was giving New York a reputation for technological achievement and modern artistry, it was also helping New Yorkers gain a reputation for being pushy, rude and plentiful beyond the point of reason. The trains were quickly overcrowded with the masses of people wanting to go from one place to another in the easy-to-use subway, but this, combined with Americans’ unique sense of identity and selfish interest, led to disorganization at the stations, crowded conditions, pushy people attempting to exit or enter the trains and impolite behavior that served to dirty the material space as well as the air within the stations (Hood). This pattern of New York as emblematic of progressive modernistic thinking and subsequent negative impression of the people is repeated through changes introduced by Robert Moses beginning in the 1930s. In his grand project to build the pools of New York in the 1930s, Parks director Robert Moses brought attention to the city again as a place of modernized democratization of services to the masses of working class men, women and children. The pools he constructed throughout New York were designed and constructed at various places throughout the city with the stated intention of providing the working class neighborhoods with recreation and outdoor activities conducted in fresh air and sunshine. While this was seen as a new and novel idea, it was actually in response to the same process occurring in Europe and in other parts of the United States. The difference introduced in New York was its emphasis on providing facilities for the working poor and its creation of these facilities as modern pieces of architecture, thus emphasizing cleanliness and a new use of public space. The effort of the pools was, perhaps, a form of payment in advance to reduce the impacts of the expressways upon the city, which are also blamed upon Moses in studies such as “Crosstown Expressways” (2007). As these roadways came in, previously quaint and quiet neighborhoods became transformed into the dirty and dangerous slums they have been considered since. Describing the Cross-Bronx Expressway, the authors indicate “Ten minutes on this road, an ordeal for anyone, is especially dreadful for people who remember the Bronx as it used to be; who remember these neighborhoods as they once lived and thrived, until this road itself cut through their heart and made the Bronx, above all, a place to get out of” (291). According to the author, the neighborhood was stable, quiet and self-contained to a great extent before the introduction of the roadway. With the roadway, those homes that weren’t destroyed in the construction process were soon destroyed by the noise, traffic and clutter that came along with the new expressway. As the noise level grew, those families living closest to it cleared out, leaving behind empty residences that would be filled with other impoverished individuals. While the expressway granted perhaps easier access to far-away places by people who had themselves come from far away, it also served to force those who lived in the area to acquire transportation of some sort as a means of accessing the stores and other commercial areas that were now blocked off by dangerous roadways or further away as closer districts had been closed by construction or went out of business for lack of customers. Despite the obvious damage his works caused to areas of town such as the Bronx, the author of “Crosstown Expressways” points out that Moses and his works were widely considered to be synonymous with progress and the future. “To oppose his bridges, tunnels, expressways, housing developments, power dams, stadia, cultural centers, was – or so it seemed – to oppose history, progress, modernity itself” (Crosstown 294). This is perhaps more because of his ability to equate himself with the shining image of New York that had already been started with its great public works and unusual places. “Moses struck a chord that for more than a century has been vital to the sensibility of New Yorkers: our identification with progress, with renewal and reform, with the perpetual transformation of our world and ourselves” (Crosstown 295). With the introduction of the subway, New York gained a reputation for the type of shining innovation Moses highlighted in his early renovation works within the parks department in his construction of the public pools and bathhouses. Just as the subway introduced a negative edge to this reputation as the individualistic New Yorkers proved themselves to be pushy and rude, the public works of Robert Moses proved to have a detrimental side as well, such as the destruction and destabilization of the Bronx, creating a unique place on earth now synonymous with the concepts of urban war zones. Through the subway, the reappropriation of public places and the introduction of expressways cutting through portions of the city, transport has served as a means of building up New York’s reputation as a city of progress as well as tear it down as a city of urban decay. Works Cited Cresswell, Tim. “Defining Place.” In Place: A Short Introduction. Oxford: 2004. 1-12. “Crosstown Expressways.” In Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York. Ed. Hilary Ballon and Kenneth Jackson. New York: 2007. 212-227. Gutman, Marta. “Equipping the Public Realm: Rethinking Robert Moses and Recreation.” In Robert Moses and the Modern City: The Transformation of New York. Ed. Hilary Ballon and Kenneth Jackson. New York: 2007. 72-85. Hood, Clifton. “The Subway and the City” and “The Subway Crush.” 722 Miles: The Building of the Subways and How they Transformed New York. 91-101, 113-119. “The Route of the Road: Passenger Stations and Tracks.” The New York Subway (1904). June 14, 2008 Read More