While Jane Jacobs seems to have had good ideas that I agree with partially, I have a few critiques/comments regarding them.
She lists the problems that the current attitude toward city planning resulted in, such as the decay of cities, and she says what she thinks one of the solutions is, which is diversity, but she doesn’t necessarily say how to implement this solution and get to that point. Yes, she lists four conditions that she thinks will lead to diversity, but these conditions don’t seem entirely feasible. She claims that diversity will improve cities economically and socially, and that diversity can be created with shorter blocks, diverse buildings, districts that serve more than one purpose, and dense concentrations of people, but how can this really be implemented? I do think she is on the right track here, and that these qualities would definitely improve neighborhoods, but I don’t see how this can be done in poorer, monotonous neighborhoods, as she puts it. I suppose one can imitate Robert Moses and replace the old, worn down buildings with different ones, but it doesn’t seem like a good idea. It would require money and work, and the government and local banks don’t seem too interested in Jacobs’ ideas. It just seems like it would require a lot of upheaval, with the uprooting of many people. Also, certain neighborhoods already have certain stigmas attached to them, and i’m not sure that improving the neighborhood in these ways would remove the stigma, so other people would want to go there. Maybe I’m just cynical, but I don’t think her ideas would work in these types of neighborhoods, despite it having worked in the North End. It just seems easier said than done. It seems hard to make areas diverse, that aren’t already diverse. But, when I think of certain successful districts, they do meet her requirements.
I also have another issue. Though this may seem minor, I did not agree with her assessment that cities are better than sub-urban and rural areas, and that “urban life was really better and the maximum number of people possible deserved to live it” (Halle, p 240). I think this is actually subjective, and is different for everyone, yet it seems as if she is trying to pass it off as fact. She argued that cities should be made available for more people to love there, and that cities should be more densely populated while sub-urban areas should be less densely populated.I read the article mentioned by Halle written by Nicolai Ouroussoff. I understand that he was a critic of Jacobs, and that he misunderstood and misrepresented much of what she wrote, yet I think he raised a valid point when he wrote “Nor did Ms. Jacobs really offer an adequate long-term solution for the boom in urban population, which cannot be solved simply through incremental growth in existing neighborhoods.” Personally, I would rather live in a sub-urban or rural area. But personal opinion aside, I am wondering how cities would keep up if large numbers of people were to abandon the sub-urbs/country for cities. Cities already seem overcrowded, so where would everyone be put? I would hate for the city to lose green areas so new apartments & etc. could be put up, but the only other solution seem to be to build upwards even more.
I find it interesting that much of her main ideas are misrepresented by various groups, and her ideas are taken out of context and twisted, such as the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation did. Although I didn’t understand everything she wrote, I did get the main ideas. Although I question a few of her ideas, I do think she had the right idea when she focused on what makes cities effective, and when she advocated for “planning that recognizes and respects local and market-based characteristics of neighborhoods.” (Halle, 240). I respect that she wanted to preserve the sense of community, and to work with communities. Maybe I was too critical in this post, and it’s quite possible I misunderstood what she was saying.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/weekinreview/30jacobs.html?_r=0
