Jane Jacobs and the limits to experience. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kirby, Andrew
• Is Part Of: Cities. Volume 91(2019)
• Page Start: 17
• Page End: 22
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: NIMBY -- Urban design -- Neighborhoods -- Manhattan -- Preservation -- Gentrification; City planning -- Periodicals; Urban policy -- Periodicals; 711.4
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-2751

Abstract

Abstract: This paper builds on two of the author's earlier pieces, and argues that Jane Jacob's most celebrated book was at its roots a form of NIMBYism and was thus regressive—the antithesis of any model of justice. The first half of the paper situates Jacobs in the now-familiar struggle with Robert Moses but also the bigger picture of redevelopment in mid-century Manhattan. The second half revolves around three aspects of Jacobs' approach to cities; the first is her focus on individual actors, the second a libertarian stance which argues that government was the problem, never the solution, and the third was a claim for universal principles (regarding, for instance, density and land-use), although these were not based upon any empirical evidence. In short, it is argued that while Jacobs was an admirable individual whose struggles have remained inspirational, it is a mistake to attempt to recycle her views in any type of urban design and to use her principles of neighborhood life as a model for how cities should evolve in the future. This is especially true of any considerations of how cities can be transformed into places that are more just. Highlights: The paper situated Jane Jacobs key ideas in the context of contemporary urban studies; While her views seem to be common sense, they lack empirical support and are likely to contribute to gentrification; The paper concludes that while her work has much to interest the contemporary reader, it is not a blueprint for a just city.