Comments on: Carrying the Torch for Jane Jacobs

By: T Heller

T Heller — Tue, 02 May 2006 23:56:29 +0000

Khadisi and Alice are right on. Jane Jacobs’ insight into the underlying economic basis of a city’s success/vibrancy is obviously missed –certainly underappreciated– by planner types. Yet this point is so incredibly important to the contextual framework of their work.

Bob Terragno’s beliefs about suburbs, transit and smart growth stem from a misunderstanding/misperception/misinterpretation of Ms. Jacobs’ legacy. Smart growth is nothing a hollow slogan — and will prove as ineffectual as the “solutions”advanced down the years by folks as diverse as Robert Moses, Jacob Riis and the federal HUD.

Jazzman’s additional point about interaction of folks in neighborhoods is one with which Jane would concur.

By: Brent Taylor

Brent Taylor — Tue, 02 May 2006 18:49:57 +0000

Ben, I saw a condensed version of that editorial in the Toronto Star as well.

From it:

“Time passes. Jane Jacobs, the great lover of cities who stared down Robert Moses’s bulldozers and saved many of New York’s most precious neighbourhoods, died last week at 89. It is a loss for those who value urban life. But her death may also give us permission to move on, to let go of the obsessive belief that Jacobs held the answer to every evil that faces the contemporary city.”

Yeah, she had a bunch of great ideas. I’m glad she lived here in Toronto. But she offered little for those suburban/exurban souls who wanted a community too. Not everyone can live in the Annex, or Riverdale (Toronto examples) or Greenwich, but she seemed to be, well, totally uninterested in the suburbs.

Too bad. I think she could have made a real difference if she’d channeled some of her energies there.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 02 May 2006 17:56:33 +0000

For aftershow browsers – a NYT story from the following Sunday,

Critic’s Notebook: Outgrowing Jane Jacobs and Her New York

By Nicolai Ouroussoff, April 30, 2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/weekinreview/30jacobs.html

By: warren

warren — Mon, 01 May 2006 04:51:05 +0000

I feel Chris didn’t do justice to Neil Smith’s idea’s, particularly the need to have better plans for economic diversity. Part of the New Deal created urban living housing that was cooperatively owned by low-income folks, and can be found in a couple cities. A couple units can be found in my old neighborhood in Eugene, OR.

Federally provided low-income housing, and community land trust’s are great models which should be incorporated into the New Urbanism philosophy. We at least need a strong caucus at the next National New Urbanism conference.

These kind of efforts would be a great mechanism for re-building New Orleans.

Great show.

Thanks.

By: Potter

Potter — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:20:38 +0000

Jazzman- good thoughtful post.

By: jazzman

jazzman — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:15:25 +0000

Some of the impediments to the return of the nostalgic neighborly neighborhood that Jane Jacobs experienced are the phenomena of the isolated individual and the breakdown of the nuclear and extended family. People when not working are watching the TV, plugged into their Ipods, on-line or busy at the gym or other self oriented tasks or entertainment. They donâ€™t have or want to acquire the skills or take on the responsibility that socialization requires and are content in their solipsistic entertainment numbed existence.

Often in urban areas (gentrified or not) people are afraid of their neighbors and do not wish to interact with or get involved in the ambient community preferring to socialize with a small set of friends or remain behind multiple locks and barred windows. Due to the modern economic situation, 2 parent families need both parents to be wage earners so no one is home during the day; the kids are in daycare where they used to be cared for by grandparents. In many cases grandparents are raising children of divorce abandoned by both parents. The luxury of having the time or inclination to watch the comings and goings of the neighborhood from the stoop or window has receded into a Jacobsian nostalgia.

The grail of mass local employment in the modern age is impractical. The manufacturing base is gone and no one wants a factory in the neighborhood anyway. The skills set for todayâ€™s work is not likely to coalesce in any urban area, the best that could be feasible for local employment is telecommuting or working at home. I think that urban renewal or reuse will be ghettoized by ethnic groups and new immigrants as they were throughout our past. The class and ethnic diversity that the neo-urbanistas envision is unrealistic and more dystopian than utopian.

By: loki

loki — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:43:08 +0000

Jane Jacobs was a real mensch(sorry for the gender bender anaology) She envisioned a civitas fom of city. Something like the old sound end when Mel King was buiding his rainbow coalition. Today Boston is very rich or very poor. We are loosing the middle class-the glue that holds any civilation together. May be in a strange way wirelees communication will rebuild community-a community Boston tasted briefly in the Blizzard of 78. Public Gardens,parks, elderly,poor,middleclass and wealth living together buidling a city on a Hill. Viva Jane Jacobs!

By: sidewalker

sidewalker — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:29:40 +0000

You can hear Jane Jacobs in a 2004 talk given at the Vancouver Public Library in May of 2004 if you subscribe to the podcast at the link below.

http://canadianvoices.org/speakers.php?id=29

By: sidewalker

sidewalker — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:38:00 +0000

Brendan, David, Robin, something is wrong with the link to the mp3 file. It takes us to this page.

Not Found

The requested URL /ros/open_source_060427.mp3 was not found on this server.

By: Bob Terragno

Bob Terragno — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:30:00 +0000

I needed to register before I could send a comment, so the program on Jane Jacobs has just wrapped up. I would only add that none of the guests on the program addressed the crucial interaction of urban design and transportation systems. Freeways have made suburban flight and sprawl possible. Conversely, no renaissance of humanizing urban spaces is possible on any considerable scale without a renewed commitment to public transit. In fact, some of the best examples of “smart growth” environments are in the form of transit-oriented developments. Building or redeveloping more dense residential neighborhoods along transit routes reduces highway congestion and emissions and lowers the cost of living for those residing near enough to use transit regularly. In addition to many other values, such development is beneficial for low-income populations and for promoting the level of economic, cultural and racial diversity emphasized by one of the guests. Coupled with the savings on transportation costs, locations near transit are ideal for building affordable housing of all kinds and Location Efficient Mortgages reduce those housing costs even more. Such development is indeed compatible with establishing richly diverse urban neighborhoods. You canâ€™t really debate the value of â€œsmart growthâ€? ideas without including the role and contribution of well designed public transit.