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.

Comments

[A.C. Douglas]

What did Jane Jacobs think of New Urbanism, the planning/political movement which, clear to me, is superbly in tune with her thinking?
-------------------------
Here's what the NYT's Nicolai Ouroussoff had to say about New Urbansim and Jacobs (http://snipurl.com/pv52):

"Perhaps her legacy has been most damaged by those who continue to treat "Death and Life" as sacred text rather than as what it was: a heroic cri de coeur. Of those, the New Urbanists are the most guilty; in many cases, they reduced her vision of corner shops and busy streets to a superficial town formula that creates the illusion of urban diversity, but masks a stifling uniformity at its core."

ACD

[David Sucher]

Out of respect for AC Douglas' enthusiasm for Sherlock Holmes, which must indicate a degree of acumen in at least a few areas, I am allowing in his comment above, even though anyone who reads Nicolai Ouroussoff on a regular basis knows that the man is not a very insightful or inciteful commentator on anything to do with the built environment and his opinion is largely worthless.

[A.C. Douglas]

...anyone who reads Nicolai Ouroussoff on a regular basis knows that the man is not a very insightful or inciteful commentator on anything to do with the built environment and his opinion is largely worthless.

Not in this case -- which is why I provided you the quote and the link.

ACD

[Benjamin Hemric]

Although I am not an "expert" on New (Sub)Urbanism, I've been following its development AND the relationship between it and the urbanism espoused by Jane Jacobs (in a mostly casual way) since, I believe, the early-1980s (?) (when I believe Andres Duany (sp?) was first discussing the then embryonic idea).

From what I was reading (mostly in the "New York Times," but perhaps also elsewhere since I was in planning school at the time), there has always seemed to me to be an off-again, on-again relationship between New (Sub)Urbanism and True Urbanism (Jane Jacobs' urbanism).

While I don't have the citations handy (obviously, I wasn't taking daily notes as I read the daily newspapers, etc.) here are some of the things I remember being said, in roughly chronological order:

1) When I first heard about New (Sub)Urbanism I was kind of intrigued and enthusiastic and thought something like "I'm sure when Jane Jacobs hears about this, she'll be thrilled."

2) I began to rethink my enthusiasm, however, when someone asked Andres Duany something like, "How does New Urbanism (or whatever it was being called then) relate to places like Queens, NYC (much of which was built in ways that seem to me to be pretty close to what New Urbanism espouses). My recollection is that Andres Duany answered (and I don't necessarily hold him to this as he may have just been thinking through New Urbanism in the early stages of its existence) something like, "New Urbanism is really for newly built-up, more car-oriented areas of the country; older semi-suburban areas like Queens already have too much wrong with them (i.e., they are actually "too" transit-oriented [with things like ugly elevated trains, etc.?] and overly anti-auto?) to really make them good New Urbanist settlements that are going to be models for the rest of the country.

3) I believe after this (but not necessarily related to it), I read some comments by Jane Jacobs that were critical of New Urbansim (and maybe even close to ridiculing the idea). I don't remember exactly what she said, but I think it was something like, "There is something basically wrong with idea of New Urbanism." Perhaps it was then that she was objecting to the fact that the downtown commercial areas being planned weren't really more than suburban shopping malls really. (I have the exact quote in a notebook somewhere.)

4) After that, however, I think I read some positive comments by Jacobs about New Urbanism and it seems to me that her comments have been off-again and on-again ever since. (Since I may not have been reading her comments in the order in which they were said, there may have been less back and forth than there appeared to be, however.)

5) I used to participate in the New Urbanism mailing list ("ProUrb") -- primarily, as a matter of fact, to learn more about the relationship of New Urbanism to Jane Jacobs' urbanism.

While there was great diversity in the membership of the mailing list -- and thus it is somewhat unfair to say that New Urbanists think one way or the other way on particular matters -- it does seem to me that most people on the mailing list (which includes some big names in New Urbanism) were essentially people who were not really interested in "real" cities or "true" urbanism. Instead most participants seemed to me to be most interested in creating more urbane suburbs -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, either, but it isn't really New Urbanism then, but New (Sub)Urbanism.

It also seems to me that most people on the list knew very little about real cities or the work of Jane Jacobs. Instead there seemed to be a different area of expertise among the participants and a different constellation of "heroes" -- the exact names of them escaping me at the moment.

So, to the extend that people know about Jane Jacobs, it seems to be second- or third-hand (through the comments of these other heroes).

One of these heroes seems to me, in particular, to be very anti-urban, a late 20th Century / early 21st Century Patrick Geddes (?). (David you will remember him as the guy who posted on the 2Blowhards blog.) Actually much of New (Sub)urbanism seems to me to be, essentially, a more sophisticated and more auto-oriented version of the simplistic and rail-oriented "Garden City" concept.

6) One thing that has particularly annoyed me on the mailing list was when developments that were truly urban (in places like Manhattan or Queens) were discussed and people would claim them as victories for New Urbanism -- as though Jane Jacobs, Oscar Newman, etc. never existed!

[Benjamin Hemric]

Whoops! Instead of Patrick Geddes, I mean to say Ebenzer Howard.

[Andrew Spicer]

Wow. Unfortunately I don't have a great memory of that event, even though it was less than two years ago.

What I'd infer from what I wrote was that she felt the New Urbansit developments she was aware of continued to conform to those 3 rules of suburban planning. In other words, they were essentially traditional suburbia with an architectural glaze of tradition... a superficial change that won't produce the rich web of interactions and innovation that density and diversity do.

But I don't remember more of what she said than appeared in my original blog post.