Hi Jalissa,

I definitely think you hit the nail right on the head with the points you elaborate on in your blog post.  Jane Jacobs had (at the time) unique take on city planning and urban development that differed greatly with the ideas of her predecessors.

While going through the readings, I was struck by how different Robert Moses’ and Jane Jacobs’ approach to city planning was. One might even say that Jacobs was the antithesis of Moses. Robert Moses loved the city for the sake of its buildings and its highways. As a historian in the documentary we watched in class aptly put it, “[Moses] loved the public, but he hated people.” His approach to urban development put automobiles, highways and bridges as the priority. Jacobs, however, wastes no time in her book, and right from the get-go states that she is launching “an attack on current city planning and rebuilding” and is seeking to introduce ideas that are “new and opposite” from those currently in place.

I like how you pointed out how the advent of Jacobs’ ideas signaled a new era of city planning, and government proceedings in general. Where in the past, figures like Robert Moses, were given full reign in how they operated, Jacobs considered, and even prioritized the sensitivities of the people living in the city. Your link on participatory budgeting was very interesting and informative, and a great example of how much city planning and government work has changed in the past century..