In the Jane Jacobs reading, it is interesting to see how a sidewalk can define a city–either make a city or break a city. I do agree with Jacobs view, because a city is made of streets. Therefore, if the streets are awful, the city will most likely be awful, and vice-versa.
I also concur with the fact that a safe street must have eyes on it at all times and that there have to constantly be people. The more people, the more witnesses, the less likely crime will occur. Crime usually occurs because the perpetrator does not believe there will be consequences for him or her (does not think that he or she will get caught). The idea of people being able to watch the streets is also related to lighting. Well lit places tend to not have as much crime as dark, shady areas. However, like Jacobs mentions, there are always exceptions.
I found Jacobs theory of street surveillance linked to the amount of stores on a street logical. With stores and restaurants, there will be an attraction of customers. With a bare street, there will be no one walking on it as much, and therefore, people might feel less safe if no one is around. An example to prove this point is when I lived in Lower East Side, my dorm was surrounded by fast food restaurants, pubs, and a Duane Reade. If I came home after midnight, I did not feel so unsafe because there was always light and people around. However, now I live in Upper East Side almost near East Harlem. The dorm is basically surrounded by residential buildings. When I come home late at night, the streets are dimly lit and there are barely anyone walking around, and I feel less safe and secure most of the times.
What I was shocked at was when Jacobs said how city planners think the sight of people does not attract people–that is false in my opinion. In psychology, there is a term: herd mentality/conformity. This means that people tend to follow other people. Thus, if a couple sees a lot of people standing on line in front of a restaurant, the couple will be curious and follow the crowd, or remember the restaurant and try it out next time. So if I were to build a city, I would not think emptiness is the best solution. That’s why Manhattan is known for it’s Midtown area and Lower Manhattan area, cause there are a lot of people there. If there are a lot of people, others want to know why so will follow.
Another part of the reading that took me by surprise was when Jacobs said how when a man was harassing a young girl, people in the neighborhood came out of their shops/buildings to intervene. I do not seem to feel that something like this will happen today in Manhattan. People seem to be more concerned about themselves than others’ well-being. I think what the problem is that in Jacobs’ time, community was still close-knit, while society nowadays has shifted away from it, although disasters like Hurricane Sandy can actually bring communities close together. If this is the case, I want to know why there is this shift.
