City Comforts, the blog

City expansion is always hopscotch

George A. Pieler writes about Jane Jacobs at Ionarts:

Jane Jacobs, as most of her obituaries note, could never be typecast as left-vs.-right (politically) or planner-vs.-libertarian (in urban design). The New Urbanists tried to claim her but she kept her distance...(italics added)

"Keeping one's distance" is an intriguingly spatial way to put it when the subject is different views of how to plan cities.

Options to explain the statement:

1. Perhaps Jacobs simply wasn't a "joiner," and so maybe never sent her $200 to the New Urbanist mothership, CNU.

2. As well, there is a vast generational gap between Jacobs and NU activists such as Duany , Calthorpe et al. We're talking two generations — a good 40 years — between the cohorts. That puts a damper on things in the real world of human beings.

3. Another possibility is that even with all her knowledge Jacobs may not have been all that well-informed about the New Urbanism.

4. Brilliant as she was, she may have had a blind-spot about suburban growth, its historic inevitability and the potential to create fine places at the urban edge. I happen to live in one of those: a street-car suburb of the 1920-30s now firmly in the heart of Seattle, andgrowing more urban each year, so I am sensitive to the evolution of suburb into city.

•••

I see the two — Jane Jacobs and New Urbanism — as seamless, an historic continuity and that Jacobs must  have generally supported it; there could be no good reason not to. Others will claim otherwise for their own political purpose and try to use her name to attack NU; these Modernist enemies will use even the tiniest trowel — and that's all they can find — to undermine New Urbanism because they are too dull to understand how it doesn't force them to compromise their "design integrity." The critic we love to scorn for example, doesn't disappoint us. (Ourousoff's article today is so pathetic and filled with inaccuracies that I will not spend my valuable time on earth addressing it.)

So is there any truth to it? Did Jacobs really have an antipathy to new urbanism?

The closest thing I have been able to find so far — more links sought — is an interview in Reason, where Jacobs says:

....the New Urbanists want to have lively centers in the places that they develop, where people run into each other doing errands and that sort of thing. 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 these hearts, these centers. They've placed them as if they were shopping centers. They don't connect. In a real city or a real town, the lively heart always has two or more well-used pedestrian thoroughfares that meet. In traditional towns, often it's a triangular piece of land. Sometimes it's made into a park.

Her major objection seems to be that New Urbanist developments "don't connect." That's a fair criticism. And putting aside the obvious fact that only a very small amount of suburban development is New urbanist, it ignores time — the actual process by which cities develop -- and that includes Manhattan, I believe: So far as I understand all expansion of American cities was by hopscotching, leaving empty fields until owner-by-owner growth filled in the empty places to make one seamless city. Cities only become seamless over time as the private market determines —purely a function of the serendipity of ownerhip — when a particular parcel is subdivided from farm or forest. Neighborhoods are only connected over a period of decades. At any one time, there will be passed-over lands as developers push out beyond to the easy-to-build on spots. That's the way it has always been, so far as I understand.

So does anyone have anything to add as to
1. What Jacobs actually believed about New Urbanism?
2. My own understanding of the hopscotch nature of urban growth?

Galbraith, Yes.Jacobs, No.

They die in the same week and are roughly the same age, both coming to popular notice in the 1960s; I learned a great deal from both; Arts & Letters Daily pays no notice to Jacobs but a lot to Galbraith:

click to enlarge

There's no clear right or wrong on these things, of course. Values are personal and, literally, what make markets. Both individuals made great contributions. Jacobs gave us "eyes on the street" and Galbraith gave us "conventional wisdom." It's merely interesting to see another person's priority. Of course, while I have read some good obituaries, there has so far appeared no really superb assessment of Jacobs' impact.

One issue certain to arise

What did Jane Jacobs think of New Urbanism, the planning/political movement which, clear to me, is superbly in tune with her thinking?

Andrew Spicer — after hearing her speak about Dark Age Ahead — says not much:

Jacobs slammed New Urbanism, saying that it only produces more urban sprawl, but with porches.

This is as a result of the 3 rules of planners, that she says have come down as unsubstantiated dogma, contrary to the evidence of experience:

• High ground coverages are bad
• High densities are bad
• The mingling of commercial or other work uses with residences is bad

With these three rules in place, nothing good will come.  See page 153 of her book for more.

I just happened to pick up a copy of Dark Age Ahead a few days ago and I don't see how page 153 refers to New Urbanism. I am simultaneously curious and dubious. Andrew, if you are reading, could you possibly amplify a bit on what she said? The context? etc etc. Thanks.

Anyone have any more specific cites, links, quotes from her? I have found only one so far and it is by no means a thorough critique. More later.

NIMBYism in Holland

Ayaan Hirsi Ali ordered out of secure home in The Hague.

The one who stands in defiance to fascism is made the scapegoat.

So long, Sonics!

Sonics going-away party.

Good idea.

•••

Btw, my scorn (and boycotting of Starbucks) for the position taken by Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz — also the head man at the Sonics' organization — is not in conflict with my general admiration for Starbucks' contribution to American culture. Howard's just dead wrong on what Seattle owes the Sonics..

Wrong

We'll probably see worse distortion of Jacobs' ideas before the dust settles but this is a pretty serious one:

The great sin of mid-century urban planning, she argued, was zoning.

The battle over her memory

Overall a pretty good radio discussion on Jane Jacobs at Christopher Lydon's Open Source Radio. Some of the guests — especially anthropology prof Neil Smith — had a distinct anti-market bias, which was a big weakness, especially as Smith in particular seemed quite ill-informed. For example, he suggested that our urban problems must be laid at the feet of the real estate industry and that housing should be produced by non-market entities, such as "tenant cooperatives."

There are two problems:

1. Non-market entities can and do already take part in the housing market.
2. I defy a group of non-specialists to produce even a single-family house in today's extraordinarily complex regulatory environment.

What some left-wingers don't quite get is that housing is expensive because it is valued. The builder's profit margin is not the difference between a cheap housing market and an expensive one. It is expensive to build, period. Moreover, windfall profits in extremely tight markets are not the creation of the real estate industry but of society at large and of regulation in particular, regulation initially forced on government by liberal neighborhoods. At least that's the story from Seattle.

Oh well, it was still a good show and it was public radio, so what does one expect but a liberal bias? And the show did bolster my point that now that Jacobs is dead, we will see ferocious battles to capture her memory for one or another perspective, which I guess should act as a tribute to her importance. I urge Lydon to follow-up with more shows on Jacobs' legacy in particular and on the built environment in general.

Interesting way to sum up the book

Jane Jacobs, Social Critic Who Redefined and Championed Cities, Is Dead at 89.

"Death and Life" made four basic recommendations for creating municipal diversity:

1. A street or district must serve several primary functions.

2. Blocks must be short.

3. Buildings must vary in age, condition and use.

4. Population must be dense.

It's probably time for me to re-read it as there is something about this list which doesn't seem quite right.

First of all, I don't think Jacobs would offer "diversity" by itself as a goal. At least I hope not. Diversity is a byproduct of something else and by itself just doesn't move me.  For example, I have no problem being in some very un-diverse places e.g. Aspen, Colorado. For my own self, I don't care one wit about something as abstract as "diversity" — I just want amusing and comfortable and that does not necessarily include the obligatory person of other ethnicity to assuage my sense of liberal guilt, as I don't have any. (And my god, I'm a person of other ethnicity so why the devil should I make a big deal of  it?)

(In fact if there is any one thing which I found slightly annoying about "Death and Life" (is it too soon to be finding any flaws in her work?) is the "Oh my! Aren't we liberal as we walk down the street and exchange smiles with the Italian green-grocer!" It was almost fifty years ago and she was a girl from a small town, but there is just something slightly off about the pleasures which some people find in the simple fact of other ethnicity. Being, as I said, of "other ethnicity," I don't like to see myself as part of someone else's "one from column A and two from Column B.")

The list above also includes the very specific — "short blocks" — with the unrealistic — "variety in age, condition and use." (Does that mean it is impossible to have good suburban expansion? Jacobs was far too smart to think that.) Plus, it's repetitive: #1 and # 3 say much the same thing.

Yes I'd definitely better go back and re-read the book, which will not be a chore.

Beware of cuetsy-pie

The Most Jane Jacobs Block in NYC Contest.

In honor of urban thinker extraordinaire Jane Jacobs, Curbed is teaming up with Lisa Chamberlain at Polis to sponsor a contest to name the Most Jane Jacobs Block in New York City.

Jacobs was not about Ralph Lauren streetfronts, though she would have nothing against that level of finish. But she would like an urban street even if it was filled with only Dollar Stores and Nedicks and Joe's Plumbing. In fact, she might like it better.

Would that it were so

A Visionary Remembered....

...her most radical early propositions have since become so pervasive and widely accepted...

I think folks are getting a bit carried away. Just go look at the sort of anti-urban stuff — Gehry, Koolhaas etc etc — still being lauded as works of genius. No, Jacobs has been widely-discussed and praised but her ideas, even the most basic, are only hesitantly being implemented. Her approach is more extolled than followed. If you want the most perfect example possible, just go look at the three blank facades (out of four) of Gehry's Disney Center in LA. Even such a simple rule as "eyes on the street" is invisible in the major part of a building which is supposed to be the generator of a new urban neighborhood.

Jacobs was not about air-fairy sort of things like "community" and "sustainability" and "diversity" — I mean, who can be against those words?  Yes, a Jacobean city would have those attributes. But Jacobs was about specific details of how to get there, what makes a good city. So something simple like the vivid "eyes on the street" is not supposed to be a goal or a discretionary amenity but an essential specific required building block, like a 2" x 4" is in house construction.

•••

Btw, the more I read the accolades for her impact, the more I feel it necessary to suggest that Jacobs' impact was enormous on thinking about cities but not all that great in actually building them, if you judge from the stuff still considered good architecture by not-missed critics like Muschamp.

Jane Jacobs has died

I grew up with Jane Jacobs, so to speak. My mother was much taken with her first (and I believe best) book when it was first published. (In fact, from looking at pictures of Jacobs, she and my mother had a physical resemblance and were roughly the same age.)  Her book was around the house. So I read Death and Life... when I was in junior high or something like that; I guess the book must have some impact on me.

I don't have a lot more to add to the many observations of her importance. But Chris Bertrams's brief notice and links at Crooked Timber prompted me to comment there.

I have no doubt that Jacobs will be claimed (especially now that she can't respond) by both Left and Right for their own purposes, (Indeed, I have no doubt that even Gehry and Koolhaas will now be claiming her as their inspiration.) So I will repeat my comment from CT here in hopes of helping to prevent the total distortion of her legacy:

Jeff Pruzan's obituary in the Financial Times offers the (I think) very incorrect suggestion that Jacobs “spent her entire career fighting for one deceptively simple principle: leave the cities alone and let them develop by themselves.”

I believe that is not an accurate assessment at all. Jacobs believed that there are rules for good city building and while there need not be a great many rules, rules there must be. She by no means urged any sort of anarchy.

Indeed, it’s not really clear what a statement like “leave the cities alone and let them develop by themselves” could actually mean. Cities don’t develop by themselve. Cities are not urban gaias, some meta-object. They don't think on their own but are the manifestation of many separate thoughts. Individuals and various corporate entities—people— create them and there must be some set of rules by which they organize and coordinate their activities. For example, Jacobs wasn’t fighting Robert Moses because he was an urban planner, setting forth rules, but simply because he was implementing bad rules which resulted in bad plans.

But, take note you enthusiasts for "more planning." I think Jacobs would agree that while rules are essential, land use laws should have a "least intrusive means" test so that we end up with the fewest rules possible. Indeed, it would be a fitting tribute to Mrs. Jacobs if the American Planning Association would adopt a "fewest rules possible" goal. I'm reminded of  Prof. Gary Hack's "Ten Commandments of Design Review and rule #2 in particular, with which I think Jacobs would be sympathetic:

2. Do not overreach. Don't try to regulate too much. Isolate the small number of critical aspects of design that can make a difference. Ask: "How few rules to set?"

Such would be a fitting epitaph for the grand dame of urbanism.

•••

Others comment on Mrs. Jacobs:

Curbed

Andrew Spicer's Weblog

Bird to the North

University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog

2blowhards

Crescat Sententia

PropertyProf Blog

Btw, I did a "Technorati" search last night for "Janbe Jacobs" and I think I found literally hundred of blog links, though most of them are fairly or extremely superficial with no commentary on or assessment of her importance.

Not likely to succeed

Los Angeles With a Downtown? Gehry's Vision.

It isn't easy to create a real downtown district, vibrant and intense, in a city as sprawling and diffuse as Los Angeles, Frank Gehry admits. But that's what he has set out to do with his design for Grand Avenue, unveiled in preliminary form yesterday.

Clever move

Mayor Nickels wants Olympia's support before talking with Sonics.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels wants assurances from top Democrats in Olympia that they'll support a taxpayer-financed $220 million KeyArena expansion before the mayor sits down to negotiate with the Sonics in coming weeks.

Just as I said.

Doors Close for Real Estate Speculators.

Investors who sought quick profits buying and selling real estate in the Washington region are in full retreat, dampening demand for homes, most notably for condos.

The end of the world is upon us.

Some good and not surprising news

Junk cars are money.

Rich

City tackles Mercer Mess.

The plan for fixing the Mercer Mess continues to chug along, even though more analysis by the city of Seattle is showing it won't do much to get people around faster.

Doing the obvious but better late than never

County Executive wants to boost sales tax to add buses. He wants

...so many buses that riders won't even need a schedule.

Everyone wants to suck off the public teat

Stern's threats won't help Sonics one bit In fact I am bit surprised that Sonics' ownership — chief among them being Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks — would get into a dispute which could so easily morph into a local Boycott Starbucks movement. I know that as for now I am avoiding Starbucks as its leader's stance on public subsidy is just too unpleasant.

The Viaduct

A readers asks, so what is this "Viaduct" you keep obsessing about? Fair question. Here's the start of an answer from Wikipedia: Alaskan Way Viaduct and it's not a bad start.

Here's a photo by Wac:

I'd give you a link to Google Earth so you can see the context and proximity to the Seattle CBD but I haven't quite figured out how to do that.

Department of Urban Forensics

Who Lived at 1117 Pike Street in 1930.

Welcome...

...to visitors from Sound Politics.

I've been posting quite a bit on the Viaduct. It's got all the makings of first class civic catastrophe; that is one thing on which probably everyone agrees. I have blogged on it here several dozen times at least. Use the Google search function (right hand column) to find more posts if you, too, find the Viaduct a compelling issue..

Many Americans — even carnivores who should know better — make the same mistake. Alas.

Argentina On Two Steaks A Day

The classic beginner's mistake in Argentina is to neglect the first steak of the day. You will be tempted to just peck at it or even skip it altogether, rationalizing that you need to save yourself for the much larger steak later that night. But this is a false economy, like refusing to drink water in the early parts of a marathon.

Via (and with appreciation to) Felix Salmon.

The issue of Viaduct closure time

Engineer brings plan to brace viaduct to marine coalition.

The issue of viaduct closure was chief on the minds of coalition members, worrying that projected viaduct closures of up to 3-1/2 years would be devastating to the marine businesses and freight companies that use the viaduct.

The state said that could be the closure time if the viaduct is replaced with a tunnel; a rebuilt viaduct would take longer to complete, but complete closures would be significantly shorter. The closure time would range from 18 months to 3-1/2 years, Paananen said.

The city is now completing a traffic analysis of what will happen to cars and trucks during viaduct construction. That is expected to be completed this summer. (italics added)

Note the timing of the trafic analysis in the last part. Why now? At such a late date? An issue as critical as interim traffic impacts — an issue on which the project may ultimately turn — should have been part of planning at the very earliest stages.

A manufacturer goes into the service business

Dell to manage Boeing's printers.

Dell will install and maintain Boeing's printers, supply toner, paper and fuser kits and will use Lexmark International Inc. as a supplier.

I receive interesting email

Viaduct forum

The public is invited to a Seattle Marine Business Coalition's meeting to hear from engineers — not politicians — about their findings and recommendations for the future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct. City business leaders, elected officials and policymakers will participate in the presentation on construction, safety, financial and freight-mobility issues surrounding viaduct replacement.

The program, "The Viaduct: Rebuild, Tunnel, Or?" is Thursday at the Canal Restaurant, 5300 34th Ave. N.W., Seattle. Registration is from 7:30 to 8 a.m., followed by buffet breakfast and then the program from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. Free parking. Cost is $22; pay at the door. RSVP by the end of the day Tuesday to 206-284-8285 or maggie@RHP Publishing.com.

Engineers will present their views on the future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct at a Thursday breakfast gathering open to the public.

Someone was talking about bubble?

The prices keep going up: $405,000 Median house price in King County.  Obviously this is not even remotely conclusive and anecdotal to one unique area. But if you look at the secular trends which support housing prices -- immigration, healthy economy, longer life-spans, and especially regional growth management combined with no transportation development -- you can see a broad base for long-term stability in housing prices in the Seattle area, at least. But who knows? The vote of several hundred thousand people of all political persuasions is that buying today in Seattle at what appears to be an absurd price is a good idea. Of course a majority is simply a majority and can be wrong.

Raban starts to offer some common sense

"The Viaduct"

I think I'm at present lukewarmly on the side of the surface road rather than the tunnel or the rebuilt viaduct, but I could convert to the tunnel if somebody comes up with a convincing picture of what would happen in the space between existing structures and the water. But just getting the city closer to the water seems an inadequate reason for spending a ton of money on a scheme that will do nothing to ease our present traffic difficulties.

....I'm a cheapskate: if I had my way, I'd just add an extra pillar or two to the viaduct, slap a coat of paint on it, and leave it at that and hope for the best.

This isn't novel stuff but it's a cut-above most of the discussions around Seattle right now, most of which are still based on the breathless worry about whether it's safe to drive on the viaduct. And why, including especially an Englishman who one would think would have respect for fixing things, does everyone so easily ignore the obvious: retrofit the existing viaduct.

Take that, Seattle!

They left:

Muzak went through an exhilarating period of self-examination and redefinition, and moved its headquarters from Seattle to Fort Mill, (South Carolina!) — mainly for economic reasons, but also to sever itself from its stodgy past.

(italics added)

I'd never thought of this aspect

Building nuclear power stations, especially when designed by Russians and Chinese firms that are subject to no international scrutiny, on the world's most active earthquake zone might not be the best of ideas either for Iran or its neighbors.

Maybe not such a good idea at all

Convergence of environmentalism and national security

Leave the oil to the Arabs:

While Iran is racing towards its nuke, the West should be racing towards an economy without Middle Eastern oil. President Bush made some remarks about our addiction to oil in his State of the Union, but there is still no emergency plan in place. (italics added)

And our Mayor kills the Monorail and urges us to squander literally billions on a one mile highway.

Good sense

Alex Marshall says:

I suspect the Seattle monorail would have been a great asset to its city and region — if city leaders had allowed it to live. But that's not the only reason I believe Mayor Greg Nickels and his allies in the business community made a mistake when they helped kill the populist transportation project last November. In working to shut down this grassroots movement, Nickels and allied business leaders were also shutting down democracy and civic engagement. And in the long run, that's more important to a healthy city than any specific transportation project