Reconsidering Jane Jacobs

I discovered Jane Jacobs while reading a Wikipedia entry about Robert Moses a couple of weeks ago.  I thought she was a remarkable woman, considering that with no formal background in urban planning she almost singlehandedly stopped the Moses juggernaut from paving Manhattan.  Her 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities took on the Modernist notions then current.  No sooner had I found out about her then she was gone; Jane Jacobs died one week ago at the age of 89.

Since her death, I've read a couple of eulogies from planning geeks.  Steve Boland at San Francisco Cityscape made a fitting tribute, and John King had a nice column, pondering the irony of learning of her death in the midst of urban sprawl on the fringe of the Bay Area.  But the most interesting and insightful thing that I've read by far is the column by Certified Planner and Reason Foundation member Leonard Gilroy  in the Opinion Journal, that echoed some thoughts I'd had about urban planning in this very blog.

Gilroy says "Given urban planners' almost universal reverence for Jacobs, it is ironic that many have largely ignored or misrepresented the central lesson of "Death and Life"--that cities are vibrant living systems, not the product of grand, utopian schemes concocted by overzealous planners"  Gilroy goes on to point out how Jacob's insight was to let be, which runs contra to the highly prescriptive playbook of urban growth boundaries, smart growth and high density development built around mass transit.  He illustrates his point by citing how in Portland, Oregon the darling of the New Urbanism movement the heavily subsidized transit system carries just 1% of the city's total trips, housing is unaffordable and congestion is on the rise. 

Jacobs herself was no fan of New Urbanism.  She said in a Reason Magazine interview "the New Urbanists want to have lively centers in the places that they develop...And yet, from what I've seen of their plans and the places they have built, they don't seem to have a sense of the anatomy of their hearts, these centers.  They've placed them as if they were shopping centers.  They don't connect."

Urban planners have missed the central message of Jane Jacobs when it came to the urban cores of cities:  Just let it be.  Yesterday's planners gave us the International Style and the Radiant City; today's planners give us New Urbanism and Smart Growth, but both fall far short of getting at what makes cities tick.   

I think of Jane Jacobs like Christ, with a clear, simple and beautiful message and the urban planners who worship her like the early Christians who became bogged down in theological minutiae. It's worth remembering that Jacobs herself said "... I don't want anybody to be my disciple." (hat tip to John King in today's Chronicle.)

Comments

[Jeff Joslin]

What Jane Jacobs Truly Saw

To employ as a rhetorical platform the death of Jane Jacobs (“What Jane Jacobs Really Saw,” Leonard Gilroy, May 2) to assault all of modern day urban planning, and the planning here in Portland Oregon in particular, is both disingenuous and erroneous. How do I know this? As a student of architecture and urban design, through 15 years as an urban planner in Portland, and through specific conversations with Jane when she visited Portland less than two years before her departure.

The history of planning here in Portland is not that of “Modern planners, imposing their static, end-state vision of the City”. Nor does what’s occurred here run counter to Jacobs’ vision. In a recent interview, she stated that “Portland’s a place that gives me great hope.”

What Portland may have taken most directly from Jacobs’ legacy is an unfailing commitment to community-based planning. This has been true at the street, neighborhood, city, and regional scales. Our remarkable form of excessive democracy has generated a genuine partnership between neighborhoods, the development community, and government. The result has been an active, rich, economically vibrant urban environment. This is hardly the result of the “authoritarian recipe for policy intervention” Mr. Gilroy imagines. He’s correct in emphasizing Jane’s statement that “no other expertise can substitute locality knowledge in Planning.” Embracing this premise has much to do with Portland’s success, prompting Jane’s observation that Portland “obviously has a very strong sense of values that is immediately recognizable.”

Jane Jacobs visited Portland more than once. In her most recent visit, she was asked repeatedly what she thought we might do differently or better. As sharp-tongued and stunningly articulate as ever, she consistently refused to take the bait. She found Portland’s planning results to be successful and replicable.

It’s precisely the power and success of this Portland model that concerns those such as Mr. Gilroy, who maintain that the government and community should have no role in establishing visions and plans for our cities and towns, that we should just “step out of the way of innovators and entrepreneurs” (i.e. - builders and developers). I would propose that it’s not who does the planning, but why and how the planning’s accomplished, that’s critical to generating fitting and lasting environments. The intentions and results here are community driven, sensible, and appropriate, prompting Jane to note on her visit that “In Portland, a lot of good things are being done….People in Portland love Portland, that’s the most important thing. They really like to see it improved, and not with a lot of gimmicks, but with good intelligent reasons.”

Finally, for Mr. Gilroy, who believes the results of planning in Portland are “dismal and dramatic”, a few parting words from another recent interview with Jane. “Never underestimate the power of a city to regenerate. And things are not as bad as you are picturing it. For example, Portland – lots of constructive things are happening there.”


Jeff Joslin
Portland Oregon

Jeff Joslin, an architect, urban designer and planner, has been managing urban design and planning functions for the City of Portland for over a decade. He’s currently Land Use Manager, administering urban design, design review, and historic landmarks programs for the City.