I posit the repulsive, debased zoo of Five Points, along with the deplorable, barely inhabitable tenement housing situations (which characterized many urban dwellings in the United States) were healthy and a requirement for urban development. Galvanized by a mass influx of poorer immigrants from Europe seeking a outlet, along with limited space and the universal self interest to make money, the situation we encounter during this time period was inevitable. Nevertheless, the conglomerate of different cultures and ideas undermined by a shroud of depravity is truly the essence of what defines the city of New York.
Yet, although Jane Jacobs’ insightful suggestions have their place, there is no specific formula for what makes urban areas successful. Plans which turn awry with one neighborhood and people, could very well work a few blocks over. Furthermore, learning from trial and error is paramount. The city of Chicago, in many ways similar to New York, redefined and revamped its infrastructure after the Great Chicago Fire in the 19th century, and the differences between these cities, can now even be seen on street level. Of course, different commercial atmospheres and environments play a large role in complicating the the direction of urban growth, but these urban problems and difficulties only lead to positive innovation and change.
As some of my classmates have pointed out, writers as Jacobs who rejected the modernist ideas of urban planning which destroyed the community aspect of neighborhoods, would probably be against the gentrification seen in many present day NYC areas. However, even though gentrification benefits a young, urban group of professionals while devastating the previous inhabitants, this double-egged sword serves to further keep the city changing and interesting. Essentially, cities now and back then need the Five Points’, tenements, gentrifications and fires to learn from and redefine themselves into something greater.
