Edward Glaeser on Jacobs and Moses

What A City Needs

Jacobs did not oppose only highways and urban renewal, but also far more benign private projects such as NYU's library. Education is crucial to urban success. Surely a twelve-story university library would not have hurt Greenwich Village. (italics added)

No, surely it depends on the design of the library. Glaeser continues the mistake of "Euclidian" zoning and emphasizes use rather than design. A library, as marvelous as it may be in providing access to books, can simultaneously hurt the walkable sidewalk or adjacent neighborhood. A library which is not designed to support walkable urbanism (i.e. in my terminology is not designed according to the 3 Rules) indeed will hurt any walkable neighborhood or will at least not help it. Government and NGO buildings — libraries, hospitals, museums, fire stations and all the associated office buildings which support such institutions — are often the worst offenders against walkable urbanism and largely because they are and indeed snobbishly see themselves as above the market.

•••••

Update: I urge you to read Benjamin Hemric's comment to this post. He knows a hell of a lot more than I do about Jane Jacobs and her thinking about cities.

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

Thanks, David, for linking to Edward Glaeser's review of "Wrestling With Moses." I had wanted to post some comments about his review on the website of "The New Republic" (at the source, so to speak) but, although I do see that some comments have already been posted there on-line, I didn't see a "Comments" box or button that would allow me to post my comment there. Perhaps there is a "Comments" box or button only for subscribers? (Of course, "beggars can't be choosers," so this is only an observation, not a complaint!) So here's a quick mini-review of Glaeser's essay.

- - - - - - - - -

I found Glaeser's review of Anthony Flint's book, "Wrestling with Moses," to be both exhilarating and dismaying.

It was exhilarating because I agree with most of the larger points that Glaeser makes here in this review (and has also made elsewhere) about cities (e.g., the importance of modern infrastructure, the practical need for tall buildings, the danger of too much public review of private development, etc.), and it's great to see someone of his stature and visibility making these points.

It was also dismaying for a number of reasons, however:

a) It seems to me that his arguments in this book review contain a number a errors, chief among them some significant misreadings regarding what Jane Jacobs actually wrote.

b) Since I know from reading other articles of his that Glaeser genuinely admires Jacobs, and I've gotten the impression that he may have, in fact, actually had a number of personal conversations with her, it's also perplexing and disconcerting: is Glaeser the one who is misunderstanding Jacobs, or am I (who has read all her books, many times each, over the past 40 years) the one who is misreading her?! (Read my reasoning below and judge for yourself!)

c) On a personal level, I happen to be in the midst of working (procrastinating?) on my own review of the Anthony Flint book (which, by the way, is shot through with surprising factual errors, to be discussed in further detail in my review), and given the fact that I know that Glaeser is one of Jacobs' more pro-development admirers (as am I), I had thought he might enjoy seeing my review (which would also be a larger expose of the many misconceptions about Jacobs's writings that are contained in the spate of things that have been written about her since her death). And, of course, I hoped (daydreamt) Glaeser might be so enthusiastic about such a review that he would pass it along with an enthusiastic recommendation to just the right publication!

Without going into my whole review of the Flint book (along with my concomitant review of the other books and articles that have recently been written about Jacobs), here's a brief rundown of what seems to me to the the mistakes contained in the Glaeser review. (Would be interested in any comments you or others might have, including any where you disagree with me.):

- - - - - - - - -

1) Contrary to what appears to be a very common misperception, Jacobs was not against high-rises. (I find this mistake, which seems to be very common, to be so puzzling. Can anyone actually find a quote where Jacobs herself -- and not someone speaking about her -- says that she is against high-rises?) Rather than being against high-rises per se, Jacobs was against i) "tower-in-the-park" high rises (which is a very different animal); ii) high-rise housing for poor families; and iii) an overabundance of high-rises that destroys what would otherwise be a diversity of building types. (Regarding the last point, Jacobs also thought an overabundance of low- and/or mid-rise housing could also be a negative for city districts -- it was the lack of diversity, not the type of building itself, that was seen as the problem.)

For instance, in Chapter 11, "The Need for Concentration," Jacobs writes, "In some circumstance, they [i.e., elevator apartment houses] are EXCELLENT." [The emphasis is mine -- BH] (pg. 278, of the Modern Library edition) Later in the same chapter, Jacobs even suggests that the North End of Boston, where the existing low-rise buildings covered an unusally high amount of land (with some having been built in what would otherwise be backyards), could actually use the addition of some high-rises: "With the addition to the district of a few elevator apartment houses -- VARIETY of accomodation the North End lacks -- open spaces inside blocks could be somewhat increased without lowering district densities." [Again, the emphasis in mine -- BH] (pg. 283) So, I submit, Jacobs was not someone who was categorically against high rises.

Now, I am aware that in real life there were a number of instances where either Jacobs' actions or her comments could reasonably have been construed to be anti-high-rise. But again, I think when one looks carefully at what Jacobs actually said or did, one would see that she herself (leaving aside whatever feelings her colleagues may have expressed) was not really against high-rises per se, but was instead against i) low coverage "tower-in-the-park" high rises, ii) high rise housing for poor families and iii) a crowding out of diversity, etc.

In my planned article, I intend to mention a fair number of instances where it seems to me that Jacobs' actions and statements have been misconstrued (e.g., where Jacobs was criticizing "tower-in-the-park" high-rises, but it was mistakenly reported instead as a criticism of high-rises in general).

Of course, since I didn't know Jacobs personally, I don't know if perhaps, very late in life, she may have indeed changed her mind regarding high rises. But, even if she did, I think it would be important to know why -- in her own words -- she changed her mind. Just because Jacobs changed her mind (if, in fact, she did) doesn't mean that her readers should accept her supposed change of heart without any reasoning or explanation. During my research, I've also gotten the feeling (from her somewhat world weary sound of some of her comments) that if Jacobs did in fact change her mind about high-rises, it would essentially be only because she gave up trying to convince her anti-development colleagues that high-rises could, in fact, be "excellent.") And, in any case, it wouldn't erase the fact that for most of her life Jacobs was a defender, not a critic, of high-rises as a legitimate part of the mix of urban residential building types. So, in the end, I think it is inaccurate to say that the Jacobs model of cities is necessarily an anti-high-rise one.

- - - - - - -

2) In light of the mistake regarding Jacobs feelings about high-rises, it seems to me that Glaeser misreads what Jacobs was saying in Chapter 11, "The need for concentration."

The way I read it, Jacobs is saying that there's no problem with building urban districts as dense as they can be (with buildings being built as high as they can be) -- as long as an area doesn't become a district of "towers-in-the-park" high rises or a monotonous district of virtually all high-rise residential structures.

As Jacobs says on page 272:

"What are proper densities for city dwellings?

The answer to this is something like the answer Lincoln gave to the question, "How long should a man's legs be?" Long enough to reach the ground, Lincoln said . . . . Densities are too low, or too high, when they frustrate city DIVERSITY [emphasis mine -- BH] instead of abetting it."

So, in misunderstanding Jacobs comments about high-rises, I wonder if Glaeser has also misunderstood the thrust of her comments regarding the maximum number of residential units for healthy urban districts. (In other words, I'm not sure if the way Glaeser is measuring density is the same way that Jacobs, or people in general in the 1950s, measured density.

For instance, on page 279 Jacobs writes, "Popular high-density city areas have considerable variation among their buildings -- sometimes immense variation. Greenwich Village is such a place. It manages to house peoople at densities ranging from 125 to above 200 dwelling units per acre, without standardization of buildings. These averages are obtained from mixtures of everything from single-family houses . . on up to elevator apartments of many different ages and sizes [emphasis mine -- BH].

And then on page 280 she mentions that Stuyvesant Town (which, of course, is infamous for being a monotonous development of virtually all high-rise towers) has ONLY a density of "125 dwellings per net acre, a density that would be ON THE LOW SIDE FOR GREENWICH VILLAGE."

So it seems to me that, for Jacobs, her calculations (however she did them) of densities of 200 to 254 units per acre in Greenwich Village (the later figure taken from a footnote on page 265) and densities of 275 dwelling units per net acre for the North End are seen as densities HIGHER than those of the 125 dwellings per net residential acre (her calculations) that are to be found in such high-rise (and low land coverage) developments like Stuyvesant Town.

So, in other words, Jacobs did not advocate for low-rise districts having lower densities than high-rise districts. She is recommending districts of mixed low- and high-rise structures (with high land coverage) that have HIGHER DENSITIES than districts of solely high-rise (and low land coverage) structures.

- - - - - - -

3) Jacobs was, famously, against the construction of a roadway through Washington Square Park and, again famously of course, against the construction of one particular highway, the Lower Manhattan Expressway. However, she was not against modern day automobile infrastructure when such infrastructure repected the needs of cities -- which a surprising number of them actually do. For example, look at thecity-friendly Queensborough Bridge (which I believe Jacobs discusses indirectly as part of her discussion of a proposed city-destroying garage on 59th St.). Thus she was not against bridges, tunnels or even modern highways. What she was against were city destroying superfluous highways (like the Lower Manhattan Expressway) or those that are poorly planned or poorly placed, etc. For instance, in Chapter 14 of "Death and Life . . ." ("The Curse of Border Vacuums"), she writes, "It [a big city] needs some expressays (especially for trucking) . . . . The point is hardly to disdain such facilities as these, or to minimize their value. Rather, the point is to recognize that they are mixed blessings . . . . If we can counter their destructive effects, these facilities will themselves be better served. It is no blessing to most of them, or to those who use them, to be surrounded by dullness or vacuity, let alone decay."

Late in life, Jacobs seemed to have become a big fan of urban boulevards as an alternative to urban highways. So it's possible that she might have come to disagree with her earlier statements in support of highways for trucking and buses -- and favoring the construction of urban boulevards instead. But, in any case, in her writings Jacobs has always was very cognizant of the need for modern roadways, especially in support commerce.

- - - - - - - - -

4) Glaesner seems to believe that Jacobs was anti-Moses all the time. But she actually praises some of his works. For instance, just like Glaesner, she praises his pools, or at least the one in Jefferson Park (see page 141). "However, among Jefferson Park's several separate sections, one does redeem itself handsomely. This is a big outdoor swimming pool, obviously not big enough. Sometimes it contains more people than water."

- - - - - - -

5) Jacobs was not, from what I remember and from what I've recently re-read so far as part of my research, against the construction, per se, of NYU's Bobst Library. What she was against was the destructive placement of such a high-rise structure along the southern edge of Washington Square Park, where such a structure would needlessly cut sunlight and deaden the park. And, indeed, this terrific library -- where I am at this very moment, by the way! -- has in fact deadened the southeastern corner of the park, which is the only really dead spot in the entire park. (Compare, for instance, the always dead southeastern section of the park, for instance, with the almost always lively "chess" corner of the southwestern part of the park, in front of the NYU's low-rise law school.)

And it's important to remember that when one looks at the urban renewal plan that produced Bobst, one can see that there are were (and still are) plenty of other places where a high-rise Bobst Library could have been built -- without damaging the park -- if only NYU had abandoned its anti-city "tower-in-the-park" scheme for the area.

- - - - - - - -

6) It also seems to me that Glaeser, like so many others, seems to have confused Jane Jacobs with Robert Caro. Yes they probably agree on many things, but Caro's criticisms of Moses are, in fact, very different from Jacobs's criticism of him, both in "Death and Life . . . " and in her later economic works. Caro's criticisms have more to do with Moses political methods (upon which he actually focused a new and more damning light that, from her comments, even surprised Jacobs a bit) -- but Caro seems to be more accepting of Moses' end products and even certain aspects of his methods (what Jacobs would call the "thing" approach to economic development). Caro seems to think that what Moses did was necessary, he just didn't approve of the politics (Moses being more powerful than elected leaders). Jacobs, on the other hand, was somewhat ignorant of Moses political methods (weren't we all -- that's why Caro's book is such an important classic!), but very critical of both his end products and, later, the "thing" approach to economic development which he (and seemingly Caro) subscribe to.

- - - - - - - -

To sum up, it seems to me that especially since her death (when she can no longer defend herself) Jane Jacobs has been made the victim of a "bad rap" -- being held accountable not for what she has written, said or done, but for what others have SAID she has written, said or done. And, it's disappointing to see that Edward Glaeser seems to have been swayed by this incessant drumbeat of misinformation.

- - - - - - - - -

Thanks, David, for the opportunity to address these issues (in an admittedly very long comment)! Again, if you have time, I'd be interested on your take on what I've said.

Sun., 9/6/2009 at 8:42 p.m.

[Linda]

Thanks, Benjamin, for this excellent and thoughtful comment. Where will your review of Flint's book appear, and approximately when?

[David Sucher]

My take, Benjamin, is that I wish you had a blog of your own or would post regularly here at City Comforts.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Linda and David, thanks for the kind comments!

Linda, I have yet to write my review and am not sure which publication would be interested. In my mind, I'm writing it as though it's to be a feature-length article for the "City Journal." But since Glaesner is associated with the "City Journal," and since he himself submitted his own review to the "New Republic," it's probably unrealistic to think they would be interested in my review -- even though my "review" would actually be more than "just" a review of Flint's book. It would be more along the lines of an article that might be entitled, "On Reading Jane Jacobs."

Regarding the writing of the review, part of the problem has been procrastination on my part since it is a big task (as alluded to, my intention is not only to review the Flint book but to review at least two other similar books that have appeared since her death); and part of the problem has been finding the time to do the necessary research (for instance, the necessary research has involved traveling from New York to Boston, to view Jane Jacobs' papers, on two separate occassions).

David, thanks for the encouragement! If I can get the review published, I'm hoping that my next step would be to set up a blog of my own, which would be mainly about my interpretation of Jacobs' theories regarding the "death and life" of cities, economies and civilizations.

Now, on to work!

Tues., Sept. 8, 2009 -- 7:54 p.m.

[Sandy Ikeda]

David,

I've suggested in the past to Benjamin that he'd make an excellent blogger. I too hope he starts his own blog -- the more the merrier!

[tom Bamberger]

I am sure I am late to this discussion, and really found both Glaeser and Hemric to be fascinating and intellectually fulfilling. However, I think don't think the two disagree. My reading of Glaeser was not about literally what Jacobs believed and wrote. He is talking about the her ideas now function in the world. Jacobs is very much alive, mostly among people who have never read her. That's ok, because ideas have a life of their own that is not determined, interesting enough, but the person who creates them.

[Benjamin Hemric]

Hi, Tom! Thanks for the comment!

While I certainly agree that ideas have a life of their own and that this life is valid for discussion too, it seems to me that Glaeser (and many others also) are not making this distinction in their discussions.

Quickly taking a second look at the Glaeser article, it seems to me that Glaeser is, indeed, not saying that this is how Jacobs' ideas have come to function in the world, but instead saying that these are actually her ideas. But I will take a more extended look at the article later to see if there may be places where he is making such a distinction.