Designing Gotham

In Designing Gotham, Logel provides a service by reminding us that New York City did not build itself. Histories of the city are inclined to focus on the political and economic forces instrumental in the growth and development of the nation’s leading metropolis. One obvious exception is David McCullough’s The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge (New York,1972), a work celebrating heroic engineering on a massive scale. As Logel states, “While much of this urban transformation has been documented, the role of individuals educated at the U.S. Military Academy on the ‘S’ turn of the Hudson River remains mostly unexplored or unnoticed in New York history” (3).Concentrating on West Pointers, especially in their civilian roles, Logel is particularly interested in demonstrating West Point’s production of “a body of experts who advanced science, technology, and engineering throughout the nation, most notably through the Army Corps of Engineers” (4). A rich history of the Corps already exists, especially through the auspices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers History Office, but Logel’s book is much more urban in its focus and more assertive in its claim that West Point engineers through human relationships “forged uniquely American ideas in the development of engineering, professionalism, and civic administration”(5). Such a claim assumes a much deeper role for these engineers than mere construction, edging toward a central authority in city/regional planning and urban decision making. Logel wants to connect the work of his West Pointers to movers and shakers like William Marcy Tweed and Andrew Haswell Green (a little early for Robert Moses), who received more headlines for making the city than did the engineers.Logel comes close to crossing a line that equates his engineers with the historically familiar city builders, but he never really crosses it. He justifiably accepts Crackel’s view that the military academy’s history reflected the nation, and that the individuals discussed shared a West Point experience that “shaped their actions and influence in the city” (7).1 But making the West Point engineers central to the study—to the exclusion of a broader context for the city—may overstate the case. Designing Gotham, therefore, should be viewed as a complementary study rather than as a corrective to our understanding of city building.The eight chapters systematically lay out the players, their influences, and their actions. Chapter 1 outlines West Point’s influence in “Victorian Gotham”—helping to develop the American Society of Civil Engineers, setting urban development and public-works standards replicated through the country, and establishing relationships between technical professionals and political leaders. This useful structure would have been made stronger, however, by greater attention to New York City history itself, especially for events leading to consolidation in 1898. Chapters 2 and 3 tread familiar ground by discussing the education imparted at West Point, although the information is necessary to underline Logel’s major arguments.Chapter 4 focuses on the early growth of New York City, the professionalization of civil engineers, the significance of the Croton Aqueduct (providing the city with its water supply), and the introduction of key participants. Logel makes a solid connection between the West Point system and important early features of the city’s growth, carefully explaining the extent of the engineers’ power in bringing about change. Chapter 5 turns to Central Park, opened in 1858. This topic usually focuses on Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, but Logel instead gives primary attention to Egbert Viele, the park’s chief engineer, who was replaced by Olmsted in May 1858. In one of the most interesting parts of the book, Logel follows Viele from Central Park through sanitation reform to mass transit and elevated railroads, thus resurrecting an important figure worth further study.In Chapters 6, Logel explores how engineers fulfilled or modified Green’s vision of New York. A lawyer, planner, and civic leader, Green is regarded as the “Father of Greater New York” for his contribution to the development of Central Park, the New York Public Library, the Bronx Zoo, and the various steps leading to the city’s consolidation in 1898. In Logel’s mind, the engineers helped with the process of physically consolidating the boroughs of the city that began with Green. Chapter 7 discusses issues in the post–Civil War years, including engineers as city managers and as political links between the antebellum city and the modern metropolis. Chapter 8 puts a cap on the story, suggesting, “In New York, perhaps, West Point’s engineers made their greatest contribution to the nation” (190).Designing Gotham departs from the norm by giving the work of technical experts, in this case engineers, a closer look in nineteenth-century city building. Many studies deal with the building process itself and the role of civil engineers in producing essential infrastructure; some of them even treat engineers as urban decision makers. Yet, Logel’s efforts to link the vision of city building to the training and perspectives of engineers bears further examination. Logel took on a Herculean task in relating New York’s early history with West Point. Although his discussion of key episodes in the city’s history is often sketchy, given his divided subject matter, his overall argument merits serious consideration. Can his engineers rightfully cross the line from technical experts to urban visionaries

Economic history · Point (geometry) · Political science · American Environmental and Regional History · Architecture, Design, and Social History · Engineering · Historical Architecture and Urbanism · History · Mathematics

• The infrastructural power of the military

  Open Access•Laleh Khalili•European Journal of International…•2018

  Add to list

• Consigning the Twentieth Century to History

  Charles S Maier•The American Historical Review•2000

  Add to list

• West Point

  Rick Atkinson, R Dwight Atkinson et al.•The Journal of Military History•2002

  Add to list