In the Introduction of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs criticizes city planning and building. However, since this book was published in 1992, it is important to note that there have been many changes in the cities within the last 20 years. Although I can see the problems of the cities, which she mentions, I do not agree with her ideas on how to solve them. Yes, every city will have its own problems, but her descriptions of the “sacking of the city,” which is found on page 4 in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, are biased towards her pessimistic view of city planning and building. Because no city is perfect, there are “low-income projects that become worse centers…than the slums they were supposed to replace.” However, what about the ones that actually work? For example, during the 1960-1990s, Times Square was notorious for its sex shops, pornographic theaters, and other X-rated entertainment. However, now, in 2012, it has become one of the biggest tourist attractions in New York City. The Upper West Side has also become much more family friendly since it used to be an area rampant with drug dealers and such during the 1960s-1970s. In the same paragraph, Jacobs expresses disgust with the Civic centers, whose only company are the homeless. Given that most natives would not journey to the Civic centers, it is still a popular area for tourists wanting to know more about the city they are staying in.
When she mentions Morningside Heights, Jacobs does explain the many positive effects of the cleanup. However, she proceeds with “after that, Morningside Heights went downhill even faster.” She offers no examples of it “going downhill,” which leads me to question if it really did. In fact, today, Morningside Heights is the “hangout” spot for students attending Columbia University, Julliard School of Music, and other colleges that are situated there. Its supposedly seedy atmosphere does not prevent students from applying to these prestigious schools, and even venturing outside the campus.
Jacobs proceeds to criticize what professionals see as slums. She uses North End in Boston as an example. Judging from her anecdote, like her, I do not see how North End qualifies as a slum. However, North End is just one example of a so-called slum. What about the other slums in America, most prominently found in Jacob Riis’s How the Other Half Lives, detailing the slums of New York City?
Her idea of actually fixing the city involves “success and failure” as opposed to plans “derived from behavior and appearance” of other towns, suburbs, etc. However, how many trials do you have to take to realize what succeeds and what fails? She does briefly state that towns, suburbs, etc., are completely different from big cities, and I completely agree with her, but I do not see the problem of taking certain aspects of these other communities. In fact, she actually spends a majority of the introduction analyzing the different plans of the Garden City, City Beautiful, and Radiant City, and how all of these fail to explain how cities work. If cities were to follow exactly how each of these three cities was constructed, of course it would lead to a disaster. However, if big cities take certain aspects of what all three cities entail, then maybe, they can blossom into an exciting metropolis. By putting these aspects into plan, wouldn’t that also qualify as the “success and failure” plan she was promoting earlier?
Lewis Mumford focuses a great deal of a chapter in his book, The City in History, on capitalism/mercantilism and its effects. I find it fascinating how capitalism, which has its roots in the 1500s, is actually still in effect even today. I have also never thought about the many profits of building public transportation, streets, etc. are to the private owners. For example, as many natural features were being sacrificed to make way for more space, the wealthy did not have to give up their places of entertainment, which included Central Park and Rotten Row. With public transportation, I have never thought about how it actually formed, and how it forever changed how big a city could be. Cities were at first limited to how much a person can walk to work, but with the advent of the public transportation, the cities exponentially grew. What probably fascinated me the most in the section about the public transportation was how private owners were profiting from areas with the most people, and how it always had to lead to Manhattan. I have also never really thought about why big cities always had tall buildings prior to this reading. However, it makes sense because since cities can now grow “horizontally,” why doesn’t it grow “vertically” to include more people? Unfortunately, many exploited this feature, and so the birth of slums cam about.
Another interesting aspect of this chapter was the beginnings of the department store. Although department stores with dazzling window displays are of the norms in big cities, I somewhat disagree with Mumford’s statement of how “market squares have no place in the new urban layout.” There are hundreds, if not, thousands, of open street markets or flee markets that annually take place in the big cities. If it really didn’t belong in the new urban layout, then why would these flee markets be done annually? The success and popularity of them are what keeps it going for years to come.
I personally found The Five Points the most interesting reading amongst the three we were assigned to read. I really had no prior knowledge as to what Five Points even was, but I do find its history very fascinating. After reading the prologue, I am actually surprised at how violent those who were against abolition were. If these Northern rioters sought to not only injure African American owned or occupied property, but to actually destroy homes and businesses permanently, how far would Southerners go to express their disgust with abolition?
After reading the many different accounts of people describing Five Points, I couldn’t help but think about Tortuga, the pirate island depicted in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Yes, it may be rampant with disease, prostitutes, pigs, and liquor, but the exciting nightlife somewhat makes up for it. I also couldn’t help but question how biased all these different accounts are. Charles Dickens is the first person to account his adventures in Five Points in the book, and most follow his lead on describing the absolute horrid characteristics of the neighborhood. However, are they just following popular opinion or are they really describing what they see/how they feel? Because the neighborhood is notorious throughout New York, perhaps these authors are only trying to fuel public speculation. The notoriety of the neighborhood prompts many to expect to meet these awful conditions; is it so hard to believe they may have exaggerated their stories?
