One of Jane Jacobs’s main points in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities is that city planners misunderstand the benefits of city living and only value an ideal that is similar in look to a small town or village. These planners promote a society in which everyone knows each other and form strong connections with one another. Jacobs claims their mistake lies in the idea of connections requiring time. Instead of these small neighborhoods of seven thousand bonding together, the residents [usually] avoid one another due to mistrust of their neighbors. People who are thrust together so forcefully by their environment naturally resist. If you don’t know your neighbors, you can’t trust them, and getting involved with business of those you can’t trust can have repercussions. Jacobs touts a better system in which neighborhood residents are to slowly build trust through small interactions in daily life, whether it be on the street or in a bar. There is no commitment to fully involving yourself in strangers’ lives, and your privacy is respected.
When reading this, I was reminded of my idea of small-town life. I was born and raised in NYC, so never having experienced it myself, what popped into my head was a show I watched this past summer called Once Upon A Time. In this show a multitude of fairy tale characters have their memories wiped (and replaced with fake ones) and magically moved into a small town named Storybrooke, designed in a style similar to that which Jacobs describes. In this town, the residents all know each other well, and coincidentally hate the mayor, who is pretty much the entire government. This is the other possible scenario Jacobs mentions, in which the cityfolk get along with each other and intermingle their lives closely with one another. They then proceed to attempt to surround themselves with those of similar lifestyle and push away those different from themselves. Jacobs cites this as the problem that arises in cities built this way, even when they’ve succeeded in their goal.
It would seem that I’ve brought evidence backing up Jane Jacobs’s ideologies about having city dwellers interact in small, non-committal ways. While I agree that the problems she brings are at least partially valid, I question the light in which she shows them. Reading through the book nearly overwhelmed me with the sheer number of adjectives and descriptions she manages to use, and taught me a good many that I’d never seen before. Here’s where doubt comes to mind. Jacobs’s arguments seem logically valid, and yet the entirety of my reading makes me question how her style of writing is any different from those that debate using personal insults and name-calling instead of proper and fair argumentation. I went so far as to contact a journalist-in-training friend of mine who I asked to confirm. The response I got, when paraphrased is: “That’s not scholarly… That’s a HUGE journalism rule; avoiding adjectives, because they introduce bias”. Because of this, I cannot say I’ve formed a proper opinion on the topic either for or against her ideas.
Further Questions:
- Should we trust books’ claims simply because of the topic or amount of work put into them?
- How much does writing style affect the trustworthiness of a source? Is striving towards sounding academic not manipulative in nature?
- Assuming Jacobs’ claims are true, are the city planners bad at their job as she seems to imply? Is it possible they know of these problems and continue regardless, working towards a different goal (such as personal gain or fame)?
