Jane Jacobs makes a compelling argument against what she calls orthodox city planning. She says that the idea that one can impose order on a city, by breaking it into neat pieces with separate roles, is a destructive fallacy. According to Jacobs, not only does orthodox city planning make bad neighborhoods worse, it also suppresses beneficial features such as diversity and small business. (I particularly liked this quote: “As in all Utopias, the right to have plans of any significance belonged only to the planners in charge.”)
A modern professor of sociology, David Halle, describes Jacobs’s philosophy as relevant to modern New York. He looks at Bloomberg and his Department of City Planning as surprisingly well in line with Jacobs’s vision.
This article (Governing magazine, March 2013) reflects upon Bloomberg’s legacy on the New York City space.
Some of his projects have been extraordinary successful, such as the High Line. According to the article, “’High Line’ has become shorthand for planners and activists worldwide who want to transform the derelict into something dazzling.”
Other descriptions of Bloomberg sound like they could just as easily refer to Robert Moses: “He’s been successful in making major changes in the city — and getting them done quickly — for two big reasons. For starters, he’s a political outsider who is independently wealthy, making him beholden to nobody… [he] also has a reputation for avoiding micromanagement, empowering his deputies and loyally defending them from any political fallout they may encounter.”
In as much as the Bloomberg administration was successful, did they partake more of Moses or of Jacobs? On the one hand, they acted forcefully and were not afraid to get things done. On the other hand, their attention to detail and respect for existing neighborhoods seems relevant to Jacobs’s ideals. I think Bloomberg’s recent projects could lend an interesting perspective on the two opposing philosophies.
One thing missing from the link I posted is the story of the downsides to Bloomberg’s plans. That would be another interesting facet of this discussion.
Tamar, you mention that according to Jacobs, orthodox city planning not only makes bad neighborhoods worse, it also suppresses many beneficial features of that city. I want to expand on that a bit. Jacobs compares “a good city planning to a good chess player, one who recognizes existing assets and tries to deploy them in support of each other.” This directly combats the suppression of many beneficial features of the city. Jacobs plan for a city is one that recognizes the wide array of neighborhood characteristics and diversity and puts them together to optimize their effect and support one another.
You also pose the question of whether the Bloomberg administration was more Moses or Jacobs. The article we read, “Who Wears Jane Jacob’s Mantle in Today’s New York City” mentions that it was Bloomberg’s Department of City Planning that was most faithfully implementing Jane Jacobs ideas. They saw it as the role of government to facilitate urban growth and density and to provide jobs for newcomers in a way that was balanced and took existing neighborhoods into account. They moved way from vision of Manhattan being the “central” downtown and started creating other downtown areas in the other boroughs, which was a very Jacobs type principle. I would argue the the Bloomberg administration, although (as you mentioned) they were forceful in getting things done, had ideals that were more in line with Jacobs rather than Moses. Both Bloomberg’s DCP and Jacobs had aspirations of density and diversity of land use.
I love this concept of diversity and small businesses helping out a big city; I’m picturing a mass of people holding up something incredibly heavy above their heads. Her slamming of orthodox city planning was definitely a different view to things. Something I found interesting was towards the end of Chapter 7 in her book, where she discusses the four rules to generate great diversity in a city. Short streets, dense populations, buildings from different times, and facilities that serve many different functions.
It seems that in order to draw diversity to a city, we need a diversity of services available, which makes sense when you think about it. But this poses a questions: why would we incorporate a diversity of facilities without a diversity of people to access them? Who’s going to make the first jump, the people or the facilities?
Another interesting point in the four rules was the age difference in buildings in order to yield economic balance. We need some older buildings and some newer ones, which means that construction and renovation isn’t necessarily the answer to improving a city area. In Chapter 1 of her book, Jacobs explains that there are projects much worse than the slums they were meant to replace, which only further supports this point. It’s definitely something interesting to think about. Can diversity simply be a step to solve this issue?
Your connection between Jacobs and Bloomberg via the article you posted definitely sprouted a great question. Bloomberg’s policies were very impactful on the city, but worked more in terms of fueling the economy as opposed to benefitting small sections of space. We can see that with the inclusion of the High Line, the Brooklyn Bridge Park, and more. I think his prioritizing of the economy reflects strongly on the idea of Moses.
Comparing Bloomberg to either Moses or Jacobs was one great question, so maybe we can pose another: is Mayor de Blasio incorporating more of Jacobs policies? We know that de Blasio is more centered on fixing neighborhood parks and working on a smaller, yet very widespread scale. Jacobs was all for the diversification of neighborhoods, and how that diversity in general makes cities much more successful. Can de Blasio be an example of putting Jacobs’ methodology to the test?