[mturmon]

"They should do what Time Magazine does..."

Sorry, but you have really made a blunder here. The magazine you're critiquing is the foremost American journal of left political thought. It has been publishing weekly since the Civil War. Its editors, writers, and readers expect to read difficult, complex pieces there. It wants nothing to do with Time, which, being an upstart Luce rag, is the opposite of it in so many ways.

Anyway. Doubtless, Jacobs excites some contradictory impulses in the Nation readership. As a small article in another leftist journal (http://inthesetimes.com/article/2743/jane_jacobs_reconsidere...) put it:

"Jacobs’ iconoclastic ideas raised questions about her political beliefs. Her opposition to the Vietnam War and her role in organizing movements for urban social justice seem to mark her as a woman of the left. And yet, conservatives also embraced Jacobs’ wars with City Hall, joining her on the barricades to stop federal urban renewal policy. They found comfort in her cantankerous individualism and her attack on planners and government bureaucracy. Her economic ideas–which locate the roots of productivity in ingenuity rather than class struggle–attract libertarians."

This is the reason a short article on Jacobs in this magazine, especially, makes no sense.

[ghaff]

That's a pretty good summary based on what I know of Jacobs. She has a lot of fans in the circles of city living advocates who are particularly opposed to car-centric cultures. On the other hand, I suspect that based on her record in NYC she'd be equally critical of those who would like nothing better than for the city (e.g. SF) to just bulldoze blocks of low rises and build, build, build.

[snrplfth]

That's the trouble with a lot of people who think of themselves as Jacobs fans. They like the sorts of outcomes that she liked, but then they ignore almost the whole of her analysis and basically come up with ideas for Master-Planning the Jane Jacobs City.

[ghaff]

That's a good way to put it. I think it's also the case that Jane Jacobs wanted outcomes for cities that make them attractive and vibrant living places in the eyes of many. However, she was far less interested in then making, say, NYC easy and affordable for more people to live in--especially if doing so ran counter to goal #1.

[mturmon]

Very true. It's hard to just look to her for a plan out of our current problems. In my own city (LA), we've got to make up our mind on whether to encourage big projects such as: high-rises along transit corridors in Hollywood and elsewhere, wide busways and big metro stations along major streets, small-lot subdivisions of 1920s homes that sit on 10k sq. ft. lots, etc.

There is considerable overlap between her own "cantankerous individualism" in the face of City Hall and that of NIMBYs in my own city.

[ghaff]

Exactly. Controlled, organic growth that preserves the existing mixed use culture of a neighborhood through political activism is pretty much the definition of NIMBYism to the transplant who thinks their well-paying professional job should give them a right to live in their favored city with affordable rent.

I'm pretty much a fan of Jacobs but, as the article even notes, she wasn't generally viewed as much of an advocate for affordable housing. I think it's generally fair to say that she was far more focused on the quality of life and aesthetics of the city than necessarily making it possible for the maximum number of people to live there.

[apenwarr]

One thing that I think people miss about the book is its profound disappointment that there are so few cities that even begin to approach her ideal. I think she would agree that you don't need to get the maximum number of people to live in a particular city; in fact, I recall that the book lists actual a goal range of densities. What we should do is learn the basics so that if more people want to live in urban environments, we can more easily build those environments. America has not built a "new" city in the style of NYC or SF in a very long time.