In Jane Jacobs’ The Life and Death of Great American Cities, she presents her purpose early in the text that it is to attack and critically analyze city planning and how its been taught to be used. Unlike the goal of planners and city constructors, her focus is on the social needs of the community rather than the infrastructure and physical complexes. She found the “need of cities for an intricate diversity of uses that give support economically and socially”. Recognition that “components of this diversity must supplement each other” creates a network and value between what the city is and what it has. The people, their relationships, the economy and wellbeing of the city, all depend on each other to work and use the city in different ways.
One important concept Jacobs’ discussed was the failures of using the function of the city to the citizens in planning its structure. She recognized that the failures of urban planning could not be resolved by the ideal notion that a larger proposal of money/grants will bring more opportunity. “Rebuilding can promote social and economic vitality in cities” however she argues that the accomplishments often time preceded a degradation to a state worse than before. Jacobs in 1961 would be horrified with the philosophy of city planning now. It is agreeable that the concerns and need of the citizens must be prioritized to the suggestions by private corporations or state/federal governments. Citizens of a community should be given a budget to decide which issue requires immediate attention, be it education, roads construction, infrastructure, entertainment centers, etc. However it id wrong to deem an inner-city area illegible for assistance because of the existence of a park or field. “People don’t care if it works but have a quick and easy impression.” The method to find how a city “ought to look” would ignore the issues the citizens find in their slum or community. There comes an issue then on criteria, Morningside Heights has a park so it was considered a “good neighborhood” that is until it was becoming a slum in the 1950s which then identified it as a city of need since its state was harming the appearance and business of the institutions it held. How would we decide the threshold to label a city as “in need”? Is there a number or level of economic activity, wellness or other factor that would distinguish these neighborhoods? Is it right to leave it in the hands of the residents or can they not be trusted to make a right decision on the behalf of their population? A tenet in East Harlem felt her community embodied the quote, “all that glitters is not gold.” She said that the ignorance and incompetence to see their need was worse than the state her town was before it was covered by trees and building complexes.
About 30 years after Jacobs announced these claims, in 1994 Nicholas Lemann confirmed that America’s major problem is the inner-cities and slums. It seems Lemann found that programs geared to clean slums were introduced after the citizens presented their disgust of city conditions and rioted, like it worked in Los Angeles. In this way citizens are taking the initiative to familiarize the government with their issues. The Empowerment Zones program would pick 6 large cities to receive tax breaks, aid and benefits, however the problem arises again “who is to select and measure the need of a city?”. Would it truly benefit the citizens with the label “greater good”? The representative of New York Charles B. Rangel showed favor towards this program but came to terms that “it may not work for the rest of the nation”. Handing the responsibility to individual populations in various cities may ensure that each area is catered to its needs and not provided with a “one size fits all” plan which often proves to be the downfall of proposals of construction. “Social uplift”, defined as education counseling, improvement of housing stock and crime control, was perceived as demeaning to those of lower income and as too expensive to the wealthy. What the city needs should be decided by that city and those who would have to deal with the consequences or rejoice in its success.
Lemann Nicholas (1994) The Myth of Community Development. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/09/magazine/the-myth-of-community-development.html?pagewanted=1 (last accessed 1 March 2017)
Jacobs Jane (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.
