The Cross Bronx Expressway and the Ruination of the Bronx

The Cross Bronx Expressway is known as one of the most congested roadways in all of the U.S. Some might not know, however, of the displacement and destruction it created. Study into the expressway raises more questions about how great of an impact it has had on the social and economic problems in the Bronx leading up to today (Ploschnitzki 2017).

When Robert Moses decided to build the Cross Bronx Expressway in the late ‘40s, he was trying to erase and deny the cultural significance and vibrancy of areas such as East Tremont that were to be demolished. The documentary series New York: A Documentary Film explores the disconnect between the actuality of Bronx neighborhoods and how Moses presented them. East Tremont, for instance, was a low-income area but was self-sustaining both culturally and materially (Burns 2001). Moses, however, presented the area as if little were going on and that he would have little trouble displacing residents (Burns 2001). Upon receiving criticism and protest from those in threat of displacement, Moses says in an interview, “New York has too many critics, we ought to get rid of some of them” (Burns 2001).

Quite literally, Moses got rid of his critics by displacing more than 1,500 families to build the 7-mile expressway (Sedensky 2001). The massive trench created during construction (Figure 1) is the result of the destruction of Bronx homes. Though Moses could have built along another route that would have displaced far fewer residents and cost much less money (Ploschnitzki 2017), his massive project was a showing of power in the face of displaced residents. The ruination of these homes created immense grief for displaced residents, who could now do nothing to stop Robert Moses.

Anthropologists and critics argue about how much affect the expressway had on the Bronx’s turmoil in the 1970s and ‘80’s, but it is significant to consider. The expressway acts as a boundary that solidifies the cultural and economic differences of the north and south Bronx. As a direct result of the expressway, those that could move out did, while living conditions were worsened and drugs and violence rose in the South Bronx. This likely accelerated the economic turmoil known as the burning of the Bronx (Figure 2), whereby landlords burned down South Bronx apartments for profit and left much of the Bronx in ruin. Vivian Vázquez, who grew up in South Bronx in the ‘70s, explains that “What people learn on the outside is that the people in the Bronx burnt it; that it was us who destroyed our community” (Ricciulli 2019). In this instance, corrupt politics hide from public blame, which can be framed on the community itself.

Study into the South Bronx shows a history of neglect of immigrant, Jewish, and African American residents. The Bronx is also an example of how immense political power (in the form of Robert Moses and otherwise) can use ruination to disenfranchise low-income residents.


Ploschnitzki, Patrick

    2017   Robert Moses, the Construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway and its impact on the    Bronx. University of Arizona. December 11, 2017.

   Accessed November 9, 2019.

Burns, Ric

    2001   New York: A Documentary Film. “The City and the World.” PBS. October 1, 2001.

Accessed November 10, 2019

Ricciulli, Valeria

2019   In the 1970s the Bronx was burning, but some residents were rebuilding. Curbed. May 3, 2019.

Accessed November 10, 2019.

Sedensky, Matt

2001   Decades Later, Doing the Cross Bronx Expressway Right. The New York TImes. October 7, 2001.

Accessed November 10, 2019.


Figure 1

Figure 2 

Further Reading

Fires in the Bronx and what caused them:

Why The Bronx Really Burned

A deeper dive into the South Bronx by the New York Times: 

Costs and benefits of the Expressway:

The Cross-Bronx Expressway: was it worth it?

How Rome Got Its Water

In ancient Rome, water was worshipped like a deity. Its abundance not only meant the wellbeing of Rome’s citizens but was also a sign of wealth and power for its burgeoning civilization. The site of Rome is naturally well-supplied with sources of water, notably nearby springs, and easily-accessible groundwater. However, as Rome’s population grew, the demand for water rose with it. To meet this increasing demand, aqueducts and other feats of engineering were constructed.

Aqueducts carried water from springs, reservoirs, and rivers into Rome’s metropolitan area. The introduction of aqueducts to the Roman water system, starting with Aqua Appia in 312 B.C.E., allowed water from further outside the city to be utilized and thus increased the amount of water at the Romans’ disposal. When we think of aqueducts, we often recall the architecturally-striking bridges, abundant with arches. Though many of these are easily observable and well preserved, they make up only a small fraction of most aqueducts. Aqua Appia, for instance, had only 300 feet of its 11-mile length above ground. The water was primarily sent through terracotta pipes underground, which have also been unearthed by archaeologists. The pipes used were likely made of terracotta because the Romans didn’t have cast-iron technology, bronze was too expensive, and lead pipes were rarely made at such great diameters. 

Figure 1 – Aqua Appia aqueduct bridge

Aqueducts were built at a slight decreasing angle, such that the pressure would not be too great yet water would still flow in the desired direction due to gravity. When the path of the aqueduct was impeded by a valley or gorge, an aqueduct bridge was usually built, featuring the now-iconic archways that served to limit building material while preserving structural integrity. Though some aqueducts maintained their steady decline, others had features such as siphons, which carried water down a ditch and then back up it. 

Cisterns were utilized by the Romans to collect rainwater as well as to collect water from aqueducts. When the water from an aqueduct reached the city, it would be stored in a cistern or distributing reservoir called a castellum. Smaller lead pipes would carry water from the castellum to either public works like fountains and bathhouses or private residences. These pipes had inscriptions embossed on their exterior indicating the manufacturer of the pipe, its subscriber, and how much water they were entitled to. By analyzing these inscriptions, we understand that private access to the water supply had to be purchased and was regulated by authorities. Citizens could buy a license to connect their property to an aqueduct, with the cost depending on the width of the pipe. This seemingly modern system also lead to some unlawful activity, however. Illegal tapping of aqueducts, widening pipes, and bribing aqueduct officials were relatively commonplace. 

Figure 2 – Roman lead pipe with inscriptions

Though the Romans did not invent the aqueduct, its development was not only revolutionary from a technological standpoint. They pioneered the idea that water could be the property of a government and had to be paid for.



Rodà, Isabel

“Aqueducts: Quenching Rome’s Thirst.” National Geographic, November 15, 2016.


Johnston, Harold Whetstone.

“Johnston’s Private Life of the Romans, Ch. 16.” Forum Romanum. Scott, Foresman and Company, 1903.


Mays, L.

Ancient Water Technologies. Springer, 2014.




Figure 1

Figure 2


Additional Reading


How is LA like ancient Rome?

The Rise and Fall of Roman Aqueducts: