Driving (Part 3 of 3)

Core idea

The third part of Driving documents the design control. Moses personally approved brick color, font choice, sign placement, lawn species, and bench material across hundreds of projects simultaneously. Aymar Embury, his architect, would arrive with drawings; Moses went through them quickly — Nope. Okay. Nope. Change this. The control was real and the result was aesthetic consistency across thousands of public works projects. The cost was that Moses's taste — sometimes good, sometimes severely limited — was imposed on the entire metropolitan region.

Why it matters

Design control at scale

Moses approved details for hundreds of projects simultaneously. The control was real — Embury and the other architects produced drawings Moses ran through quickly with binary decisions. Few executives in American history have exercised this level of personal aesthetic control over public works at this scale.

The cost of imposed taste

Moses's taste was sometimes good (Jones Beach's nautical theme) and sometimes severely limited (the brutalist housing towers of the 1950s). Either way, his taste was imposed on a metropolitan region of 12 million people. There was no design committee, no community review, no architectural alternative path.

Key takeaways

Mental model

Copy sourceZoom

Practical application

Example

Steve Jobs's personal aesthetic control over Apple products produced a consistency the industry has not matched. The aesthetic choices have aged better than Moses's — but the principle is the same. Personal taste at scale, applied via fast binary reviews, produces consistency. Whether the consistency ages well depends on the taste.

Related lessons