When reading assigned articles, it so often and so easily becomes a robotic action that students just automatically perform. They frequently do not even process the material and simply accept the given information as fact. In reading Introduction and The Generators of Diversity from Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities and David Halle’s Who Wears Jane Jacobs’s Mantle in Today’s New York City, I went on an autopilot of sorts. I welcomed Jacobs’s person and relationship centered ideals in contrast to Moses’s “I will do whatever is best for this city, provided that the city only consists of white men who own automobiles” approach. I did not, however, question the mechanisms by which Jacobs’s would actualize her ideals. I really enjoyed reading all of the blogs because they provided me with some extra insight; in particular, though, I thoroughly appreciated Kristen’s blog because of her well phrased and appropriately raised criticisms of Jacobs.

The first issue raised concerned Jacobs’s central belief in creating a prosperous city: diversity. Kristen very appropriately brought up the fact that, while Jacobs constantly called for diversity in cities, she never proposed a means of implementing such diversity. I agree with Kristen’s observation that this, however optimistic, does not seem feasible. After reading this blog, I found myself struggling with this idea of diversity; what kind of diversity is Jacobs calling for? The diversity of people? The diversity of businesses? It became clear through Halle’s article that Jacobs was an advocate for the diversity of buildings, meaning that she supported a healthy mix of tall and short and old and new buildings, but Jacobs, herself, wrote in Introduction that this kind of diversification is a difficult undertaking due to the lack of funding available. Furthermore, I agree with Kristen in her comment that one cannot just force entire cities to diversify. Would city planners force members of one community to transplant to another or coerce business owners to move their sources of income to uncharted territory for their industry? Had I not come across Kristen’s blog, I most likely would not have thought to question the likelihood of Jacobs’s vision being actualized. While I still believe that Jacobs’s diversity-centered vision is more reasonable that Moses’s transportation-centered vision, I can see now that it does carry its own cons.

Kristen also called attention to Jacobs’s generalization that “urban life was really better and the maximum number of people possible deserved to live it” (Halle 240) in comparison to suburban and rural life. Kristen maintained that she believes that suburban and rural life is superior to urban life due to their less dense populations and ample “green areas.” It is impossible to pass a clear judgment on which setting is better because it is a matter of personal preference, as Kristen admits, but I disagree with Kristen’s claim. While her opinion is completely valid, I can understand Jacobs’s point of view; I think it goes back to the idea of diversity. I feel, although I may have misunderstood, that Jacobs so heavily favored diversity in cities because it allowed the residents to experience so many different aspects of life in a spatially convenient way. This is definitely true in New York City, as it is in most cities. Take Queens for example: while this is a pretty broad area to contemplate, one can visit a movie theater, a shopping mall, a botanical garden, a small corner store, a museum, and endless other venues all within the matter of a few minutes’ commute, whereas in a suburban area like Southold in Long Island, New York, one can visit a supermarket in town, but must travel a few towns away to see a movie, and a few more towns away to reach an outlet mall. The inconvenience of this spatial barrier can easily discourage residents of Southold to experience out-of-town activities. I personally believe that limiting one’s daily life in this way lessens the quality of that life. At the same time, I can completely see Kristen’s point because the fast-paced New York City life can be extremely stressful compared to the relatively relaxed atmosphere of a small suburban setting. In this case, though, I believe that accessibility outweighs a serene environment.

In terms of the population density issue in cities, I may be mistaken, but Jacobs was in favor of building up rather than initiating new constructions. To my understanding, Jane Jacobs was in favor of population density in cities, but allowing this great population to exist without the erasure of green space to accommodate the population.

I also found it interesting that the self-proclaimed Jane Jacobs disciples severely misinterpret her values for their own personal gain. They manipulate her for-the-people type of ideology to further their own agendas. I enjoyed reading the supplemental article Kristen posted. It was exactly as ridiculous as I expected it to be from my impression of it from the Halle publications, even if it did make a good point about Jacobs’s unrealistic views of diversity.

Thank you, Kristen, for a thought provoking blog. It was a pleasure to read and easy to respond to. I think you had a good understanding of the material and posed perfectly valid questions.