Compared to the city that Robert Moses depicted, reconstructed and modernized in large scales, the city Jane Jacobs described, to me, has more sense of community and friendliness. In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” Jacobs presented her idea about the relationship between the city and its people, “give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially” (Jacobs, 1931, p.14). Her belief, that the formation of a great city should be spontaneous and the residents in the city should be part of developing progress, is very different from that of Robert Moses. She argued that the city and its people should mingle together and the city should be structured to improve the quality of life for its residents.
During Robert Moses’ era, the city went under many construction programs supported by the government. Residents were convinced that these programs would improve the quality of life of working people and solve the problem of unemployment. In fact, neighborhoods reconstructed did not perform better, instead went downhill faster (Jacobs, 1931, p.6). To Jacobs, theses programs led by Robert Moses seem to care about the apparent of the city, how it is present to people, more than the actual function of the city. In the introduction of her book, Jacobs pointed out the difference in the life of North End during her two visits, which supports her point that the city is able to adapt and generate itself without construction programs that Robert Moses promote. Additionally, the city undergoes the regeneration by its residents would function in a way that benefit its people the most. The community in North End is similar to the city that Jane Jacobs described in chapter 7, “The generator of diversity,” of her book.
Jane Jacobs believed a successful city should be diverse, in both physical structure and population. Population diversity will bring in different types of business due to various needs of people. Once a business succeed in the neighborhood, it would attract their competitors. As the number of different types of store increases, more individuals would be attracted to the community due to the convenience it provides. Following this cycle, the city will develop both financially and culturally and became the city that Savitch described in his article, “What Makes A City Great? An American Perspective.” which contains “the 4C of greatness.” New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles were listed to be four cities that presents “great city,” because them contain “4C,” which are currency, cosmopolitanism, concentration and Charisma (Savitch, 2010).
The ideal way of how a city should develop according to Jane Jacobs will lead the city to obtain the “4C” that Savitch discussed in his article. However, once the city becomes “successful,” would the same group of residents benefit from the convenience that the city provides? As more people move into the neighborhoods where parks, schools, stores and residential buildings mingle, the price of real estate will eventually rise, leading to unaffordable housing for low-income class and working class. Additionally, increase number of stores will lead to competition and forced small stores that are not able to keep up with the competition to shut down. In this case, how would the city that Jane Jacobs promotes remain diverse socially?
I agree with Jane Jacobs that residents have the power to shape the city, and what I would call “the resident-centered community” works best for both the financial and social development of the city. However, I think the residents’ ability to keep the city functioning in the same order is questionable. The mutual relationship between the city and its residents will remain, but the city will change as more people arrived and new ideas created.
Work Cited:
Jacobs, J. (1961). Introduction. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 2-25). New York: Vintage Books.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The generators of diversity. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities (pp. 143-151). New York: Vintage Books.
Savitch. H.V. (2010). What makes a city great? An American perspective https://www.planetizen.com/node/46776 (last accessed 3 March 2017)
Great post! I agree with a lot of the points that you made, including your support for Jacobs’ idea that residents shape the the city and that’s what works best for both the financial and the social development of the city. However, it sounded like you were saying that once a city becomes “successful,” it would consist of a whole new population; in other words, it would have been gentrified. However, I believe that cities can mitigate at least a part of gentrification.
You mentioned that new people would move into these neighborhoods. These new people can also be viewed as new customers for existing businesses. They can bring with them new investments of time and money to old buildings, as well as the time and knowledge to be involved with community organizing efforts. However, it starts to go bad when diversity is at the risk of being stamped out. Nevertheless, I believe that cities can try and mitigate some of these effects. For one, having a supply of affordable housing that are located in the same areas as the “wealthy” houses is a good way of ensuring that these neighborhoods stay diverse. Moreover, if ownership was encouraged when it came to small stores and businesses, they wouldn’t be as affected by rent, which would obviously increase as the neighborhood became more gentrified. Of course, these don’t completely solve the problem of gentrification; however, they might be able mitigate its effects when it comes to social diversity.