Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
As a town planner myself I found this book had alot of really meaty things to say on cities, town planning and how to build successful cities, and I think Jacobs was a revolutionary ahead of her time. It was sad that some of the things she was talking about were just really getting started around that time. Wonder if anyone else has read it/been inspired by it.
I know of it, and know it's considered a classic, but I've never read it. Still I hope your discussion gets off the ground because her work sounds interesting.
I had to read this book in an urban studies class at Lehigh University (this was not my major) in Bethlehem, PA. The professor was David Amidon and he was a huge follower of Jane Jacobs. I even remember watching an interview he did with her in Scranton, PA, where she may have lived for awhile. He showed this interview to the class because he asked her questions he had about her book.
Her work was considered ahead of her time. If I remember correctly, she was the first person to say that cities came before suburbs/rural areas, which runs contrary to prevelant thinking. It is absolutely a meaty book, and if you aren't into this sort of thing you won't comprehend even 1/2 of what's in there.
I read that book cover to cover as a requirement I had for an urban geography class I took in college. Pretty much the thesis of that book is that in order for a city to be great, it has to be as pedestrian friendly as possible, and non-reliant upon the automobile. As I recall, the original pressing on that book was 1961. Here is how the underlying premise of the book copies: northeastern cities = good, sunbelt = bad. If the city encouraged mixed use dwellings, this was a good thing. If it was stringently heirarchal in development, with work, dwellings and commerce all separated, that was a bad thing. In theory, her musings made a lot of sense. In reality, new urbanism, in my opinion, is inherently elitist, because only the wealthiest of citizens can afford the types of housing she lobbies for, and/or, it is subsized for permanent underclass citizens. In other words, governmental social engineering influences and dictates the cost of real estate. Moreover, such influence immediately eliminates any opportunity for middle class citizens to live in such a setting. That's why San Francisco, New York and Boston are the way they are, with virtually no middle class, but Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte can support a middle class.
The last four or five sentences were my commentary. Back to the subject matter at hand, Jane Jacobs is much in the strain of Lewis Mumford: the interstate highway system should basically be carpet-bombed in her view. She was critical of the 'big dig' in Boston before it became 'big'. Basically, the I-93 insertion through the Hyde Park neighborhood, which ran right up against pre-existing high rise tenements. A lot of hand wringing, the inevitable racial discrimination claims, etc. The writer was very idealistic, but, also, very naive.
Jacobs moved to New York and fell in love with it. She was disturbed, as were many New Yorkers, about Robert Moses' plans to bulldoze parts of neighborhoods to accommodate new highways, as well as urban renewal projects. The justification was often that "they were slums anyway," but she found otherwise. Lewis Mumford also found the incursion of highways into the city disruptive. By contrast, Chicago pretty much pushed them through with no complaint, its main Post Office even designed with provisions. Later moving to Toronto, where she helped stop a planned expressway project. I have read some of her later works and find them a bit radical, even statiing that cities should be able to have their own currencies.
Last edited by pvande55; 06-29-2010 at 05:10 PM..
Reason: Subject-verba agreement
I read it as an undergrad, years ago. IMHO, she was way ahead of her time. When she wrote the book, great American cities were declining due to suburbanization. Functional neighborhoods were being reduced to ghettos and no-mans-lands by the "slum clearance" and freeway projects that were the rage at the time. She challenged the prevailing thought that newer was automatically better, that everyone wanted (and should) eschew all forms of transportation to the private automobile. The traffic engineer was king, he knew what was best for all. Today, many are regretting what has happened to American cities since WWII, and are realizing that what she warned became reality. A visit to any soulless downtown in virtually any city or town of any size is testament to her wisdom.
In theory, her musings made a lot of sense. In reality, new urbanism, in my opinion, is inherently elitist, because only the wealthiest of citizens can afford the types of housing she lobbies for, and/or, it is subsized for permanent underclass citizens. In other words, governmental social engineering influences and dictates the cost of real estate. Moreover, such influence immediately eliminates any opportunity for middle class citizens to live in such a setting. That's why San Francisco, New York and Boston are the way they are, with virtually no middle class, but Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte can support a middle class.
I believe a big part of the reason why these areas are so expensive is that they are at a premium. Back in the day (before the auto-age) our cities were structured more to Jane Jacob's liking. That being the case you could find dynamic urban settings in more places than just the usual suspects that we have left today. Even the cites that do have great urban neighborhoods still have many blighted areas that were once structured like the neighborhoods which support urban yuppies. What we have left is a handfull of places that have become expensive, with the rest of our truly urban areas in bad shape. Places that are affordable are usually suburban in nature or are shells of their former existence.
Also, our inner-city schools systems are a mess in this country. One big factor which prevents people from living in an urban setting is that it's tough to afford housing plus a private school education.
I agree with you about the government and social engineering screwing things up. Our cites would be much healthier today if not for many "progressive" government policies from the 40's -80's.
I believe a big part of the reason why these areas are so expensive is that they are at a premium. Back in the day (before the auto-age) our cities were structured more to Jane Jacob's liking. That being the case you could find dynamic urban settings in more places than just the usual suspects that we have left today. Even the cites that do have great urban neighborhoods still have many blighted areas that were once structured like the neighborhoods which support urban yuppies. What we have left is a handfull of places that have become expensive, with the rest of our truly urban areas in bad shape. Places that are affordable are usually suburban in nature or are shells of their former existence.
Also, our inner-city schools systems are a mess in this country. One big factor which prevents people from living in an urban setting is that it's tough to afford housing plus a private school education.
I agree with you about the government and social engineering screwing things up. Our cites would be much healthier today if not for many "progressive" government policies from the 40's -80's.
While I agree some social policies were to the detriment of quality of life in US cities, not all policies harmed. Look at Canadian cities. Much more "social engineering" there, but their cities are extremely livable for all classes.
Also, our inner-city schools systems are a mess in this country. One big factor which prevents people from living in an urban setting is that it's tough to afford housing plus a private school education.
One trend that is supporting the re-birth and revitalization of our urban areas, is the growing prevalence of Charter Schools. These are publicly funded, free schools, that are outside the standard geography based school catchment system. This allows people who are interested in their child's education to move back into the city and still have reasonably priced educational options outside of the local school. Their only added cost will be finding a means of getting their child to the Charter School they have chosen. This makes the city a viable option for middle class parents.
While I agree some social policies were to the detriment of quality of life in US cities, not all policies harmed. Look at Canadian cities. Much more "social engineering" there, but their cities are extremely livable for all classes.
I think the big reason is different results is the race issue that in Canada would not exist for the most part. It is something that can't be ignored in all of this since it is still prevelent though not as much as in the past. It was a significant factor in migration patterns in the past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
