Jane Jacobs: A Modern Misrepresentation

Jane Jacobs’ ideology was based in values that many today would probably agree with: diversity, variety, and gradual shifts into new things. In modern New York City, however, her views are often misrepresented as a conservative longing for a return to village-like life. In truth, Jane Jacobs’ desires for New York City reflect a want for architectural diversity that serve a variety of people and purposes, that maintains both the aesthetic and practical integrity of New York City’s neighborhoods.

 

In life, Jane Jacobs advocated for the kind of New York City many would like to see. She believed that both modernity and antiquity could coexist peacefully here, and that there was room for both without encroaching upon one another. Unlike the common representation of her ideas that cites her as wanting to remain only in old architecture with antiquated- or perhaps now non-existent- uses, Jane Jacobs would have wanted “a new and modern building that adds density and vibrancy to an older area, while replacing an unsightly and quasi-vacant lot” because it would not only be more aesthetically appealing than a lot, but because it would also add practicality to the space; the modern building could be used as an office space, residence, or other commercial endeavour to balance the existing spaces in the area. Simply put, Jacobs was not opposed to the construction of new or even expensive projects as long as they did not come at the cost of useful older buildings. However, in death, her ideology was twisted and misrepresented as an overly conservative desire to return to village life, and to preserve all historical buildings, even if they were no longer useful, beautiful, or preserved. Additionally, Jacobs believed in the value of taking community opinions into consideration when diving into new projects, as it was important to sustain to a certain extent the character and purpose of the neighborhood. This is in direct opposition to how Robert Moses went about building, as he and his committees rarely incorporated the opinions of the communities they developed in. 

 

 

This clash of ideologies between Jacobs and Moses reminds me of a video I recently watched in an Urban Studies 101 course I’m taking entitled My Brooklyn. The documentary followed the effects of a rezoning and community rejuvenation project in downtown Brooklyn, particularly the Fulton St. Mall area. Community members had deeply opposed the rezoning and construction of modern buildings because they did not want to lose the integrity of the existing shops there, which mainly served minority communities and had a rich history in the area, as well as being one of the most successful shopping areas in the city. However, the city council wanted to turn the area into a more modern shopping center, and despite the protests of residents and people who already frequented the area, the construction was approved. Instead of the public space revamp that was originally planned, though, there were built many high-rise, expensive condominiums, which would neither serve the general public nor be affordable enough to the people already living there that they could become new housing. Rather, existing residents and storekeepers were evicted or driven out by rapidly rising rent prices, and the neighborhood became more gentrified with every project, with no benefit to those who previously or still occupied the area. This is the kind of project that Jacobs would never have approved of, as it not only destroyed an already economically viable area, but also the historical significance of the area, as well as displacing the populations that had occupied it for several generations. The modern condominiums would, in this case, have been considered a blight upon the neighborhood for these reasons, instead of a fascinating and useful addition as they could have been had they been built with the community in mind, without tearing away the existing heritage and usefulness of the neighborhood. Meanwhile, it’s likely that Robert Moses would have been the person approving such a project, ignoring input from the community and going ahead with plans for modern construction anyway, even at the detriment of those living there already.

 

References:

My Brooklyn. Kelly Anderson, 2016. http://www.mybrooklynmovie.com/

Who Wears Jane Jacobs’ Mantle In Today’s New York City?David Halle, UCLA. 2006. Pg. 239

One comment

  1. Joan Nieh says:

    Jane Jacobs viewed cities in the lense of diversity, density, and growth. As Emilee stated in her post, her ideals were often generalized as opposition to change. However, the vision she had for cities promoted an adaptive way to change through diversity, specifically in buildings: keeping elements of the old and including modernization of the new.
    Reading Emilee’s post, I wasn’t sure how I felt about the phrase “useful older buildings;” were the antiquated buildings that were taking up physical space in our bustling city really so useful? However, after looking into an article published by Congress for the New Urbanism, I realized the need for old buildings. The author argued that “Old buildings provide cheap and flexible space for business owners, skilled makers, and artists to operate” (Steuteville 2016). He states economic advantages of keeping these old buildings, however, the maintenance of such buildings come at a cost as well. Yet, he also argues that neighborhoods with diverse buildings attract different age groups. By research done in core cities with strong real estate markets, it was concluded that older individuals gravitate to live in areas with newer, larger buildings, while the median age of residents in architecturally diverse neighborhoods is lower.
    But, why diversity in buildings? Emilee mentioned that new buildings help build the character and purpose of neighborhoods. I definitely agree that the diversity of buildings develop the dynamic of what the neighborhood is like, whether socially, economically or simply physically. If predominantly new buildings of higher value in the real estate market, the neighborhood would most likely consist of wealthier individuals who can afford to live there. However, when there are small buildings within a neighborhood, it adds variety and diverse ownership because of its affordability, according to Jacobs. Hence, diversity in buildings doesn’t simply add a unique physical view to a city, but also changes the social dynamics of the neighborhood.
    Halle D (2006) Who Wears Jane Jacobs’s Mantle in Today’s New York City?. City & Community (pp. 237-241). UCLA.
    Steuteville R (2016) Jane Jacobs was right. https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2016/11/03/jane-jacobs-was-right (last accessed 3 March 2018)

Leave a Reply