Late Arrival (Part 2 of 2)

Core idea

The second part of Late Arrival is the closest Caro permits himself to speculation. Maybe some other system would have worked better here, he writes — maybe a less Moses-dominated approach to urban renewal would have produced less displacement, less corruption, less neighborhood destruction. That can only be a matter of speculation. What we do know is that, in general, New York's slum clearance progress has been unequalled and that, in the memory of living man on the New York scene, no comparable program has produced comparable damage. The topic is Caro's most direct verdict.

Why it matters

The speculation Caro permits

Caro is generally reluctant to speculate about counterfactuals. Here he allows himself the rare exception: maybe a different system would have worked better. Maybe the Title I program could have been run with more community input, more relocation honesty, less Moses-style executive concentration. The counterfactual cannot be tested, but the comparison with Moses's actual output frames the question.

The verdict

Caro's verdict — unusually direct — is that no comparable urban renewal program in the United States produced comparable damage to its targeted neighborhoods. New York's slum-clearance output was unmatched in quantity; New York's slum-clearance damage was unmatched in quality. The combination is Moses-specific.

Key takeaways

Mental model

Copy sourceZoom

Practical application

Example

Modern assessments of mid-twentieth-century urban renewal programs in the U.S. uniformly note the damage; few are honest about whether the damage was necessary for the output. The counterfactual matters: a different system might have produced less of both. Caro's Late Arrival is the model honest retrospection.

Related lessons