[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.