Like many people who have commented, I definitely found Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities thought-provoking. Although most, if not all, of her points were debatable (as Jackie and others have already demonstrated in their posts), I think the point I’m most ambivalent about was the one regarding gentrification. Certainly, gentrification, as most evidence suggests, basically begins on its own accord, but without some kind of harness – a benignly imposed governing system if you will – there is no telling where, or how far, the process will spread. It’s just not a systemic black and white procedure. There are casualties – sometimes in large numbers. That being said, there are positive aspects to it as well, not least of which include giving much needed neighborhoods an all-around facelift of sorts, since gentrification, like it or not, increases revenue for the businesses located in the affected neighborhood, provides better resources for the residents, and turns the area into a much more accommodating and agreeable place. (There is a sad reality to the flip side of this – why must thorough and real reform largely occur only in neighborhoods with a certain “caliber” of residents?)
As far the unforeseeable evolution of cities goes, there is clearly a type of synergy between a city and its citizens that lends itself to unpredictability. Like Jacobs implies, it works like an equation: if you assume that a city (and everything about it) is largely the result of its inhabitants, and said inhabitants are all inherently unpredictable and diverse, then it stands to reason that a city, in all its nuanced characteristics, mirrors its constituent personages in precisely that way. As Liz and Jackie both mentioned, there can be no such thing as an overarching urban blueprint fitted for every metropolis. That would be misunderstanding the city at its core. As far as citizens are concerned, city planning can only be effective and beneficial when it considers just a few specific localities. Otherwise, it becomes a highly impersonal force, blindly brandishing its powerful and potentially destructive hand, leaving many cities at the risk of ruin or, as Jacobs wryly put it, “sacking.”
I’ve noticed that many people have addressed the Times Square “reformation” as a kind of rebuttal to Jacobs’ assertion that “low-income projects…become worse centers…than the slums they [a]re supposed to replace.” While I do agree that the “Disney-fication” of Times Square is an extremely positive thing, there are surprisingly some people who aren’t quite as enthusiastic about it. My sociology professor mentioned just the other day that he can think of countless people he’s come across who have said that the seediness of Times Square contributed to the overall “flavor” of the city. According to them, the authentic vibe of the city was markedly compromised. Of course, that argument appeals more to subjective nostalgia than to objective reason, but nonetheless, I thought it was an interesting thing to note.
