"Enough With the 'Enough with Jane Jacobs' Already!"

Definitely so.

Toward the end of her life, Jane Jacobs was writing a follow up to her insightful 1969 The Economy of Cities. And while she considered that book probably her most important, she made it clear that some of her observations needed revisiting. After all, she noted, all her writing was based on observation of real life -- how things are, not how they should be, what works and what doesn't -- and, therefore, if things changed in a fundamental way than it behooved any keen observer to take a second look. Sadly, her 'second look' never saw the light of day.
Roberta Gratz in Planetizen

Interesting to read both Gratz article (and Siegel's comments) on mis-use of Jacobs.

Part of the problem may be that so few people have actually read (and carefully) any of her books. So you can do anything with her, like quoting JFK or Churchill to prove that Coca-Cola is the drink of choice or that Medicare is a socialist plot.

Jacobs has become exactly what she definitely would detest -- a post-Modernist oracle who offers no fixed meaning to a text — where any interpretation is a good one.

Comments

[Benjamin Hemric]

PART ONE Hi, David! As you know, the myths that surround the writings of Jane Jacobs is a favorite topic of mine --and two Septembers ago (i.e., Sept. 2009) you were kind enough to "print" my very lengthy comments along these lines with regard to Edward Glaeser's review of Anthony Flint's book, "Wrestling With Moses." (Your Sept. 5, 2009 thread was entitled, "Edward Glaeser on Jacobs and Moses.") I'd like to make some further comments about why I think this has happened and what "should" be done about it but, first, I don't know if you've seen some of my more "recent" comments on this topic, which were done during a period when your blog seemed to be inactive. Here's a list of some of articles that seem to me to have unintentionally, but greatly, mis-charaterized Jacobs' writings, along with the date and time (or the comment number) of my comments, which outline why I think the original articles are incorrect. I think my "best" set of comments, perhaps, were those in response to the Benjamin Schwarz's article in "The Atlantic" ("Gentrification and Its Discontents") and the Andrew Manshel article in the "Wall Street Journal" ("Enough With Jane Jacobs Already"): 1) "Taller Buildings, Cheaper Homes," Edward Glaeser article in the "Economix" blog in the online version of "the New York Times." (My comments to this article repeat some of the arguments I made in my Sept. 2009 comments here at "City Comforts.") Comment #35, 5/5/10, 11:27 p.m.; and Comment #36, 5/5/10, 11:47 p.m. http://tinyurl.com/4tsw3rd) "Reservations about Landmark Preservation," Edward Glaeser article in the "Economix" blog in the online version of "the New York Times." Comment #18, 5/11/10, 10:;56 p.m.; and Comment #19, 5/11/10, 10:56 p.m.http://tinyurl.com/49p3pnf 3) "Gentrification and Its Discontents," Benjamin Schwarz article in the on-line version of "The Atlantic." 5/13/10, 9:42 p.m.; 5/14/10, 6:50 p.m.; 5/21/10, 7:08 p.m.http://tinyurl.com/458tqxx4) "Enough With Jane Jacobs Already," Andrew Manshel article in the on-line version of the "Wall Street Journal." 7/2/10, 11:45 p.m.; 7/3/10, 12:50 p.m.http://tinyurl.com/4e5thgj (To be continued.) Benjamin Hemric Thursday, February 3, 2011, 10:35 p.m.

[Benjamin Hemric]

"Enough With Casual Mis-characterizations of Jane Jacobs Already"

PART TWO

David, thanks for accepting "Part One" so quickly! I see however, that something seems to be amiss with the display of my comment -- the right side of the comment seems to be cut off.

I wonder if this is because the links that I included in my comment may be, in effect, super long "words" for the computer and this has thrown things off? If so, I wouldn't mind your "disabling" my links, if you think this will help, by (for instance) adding a space somewhere in the line of each of the links to "break up" each super long "word." If that is done (and if it corrects the problem), anyone interested in reading the articles/comments could still, I believe, cut and paste the URL -- and then delete the "phony" added space -- in order get to the article/comments quickly and easily. And even if this doesn't work, my comment does contains the relevant search info that would allow someone who's interested to find the articles/comments via a search engine, although it would be a bit more work.

- - - - - - - - -

David wrote [added text within brackets is mine -- BH]:

"Part of the problem may be that so few people have actually read (and [read] carefully) any of her books [from cover to cover]. . . ."

Benjamin writes:

This is part of my theory also. Here are some other parts:

a) Jacobs books are so dense with ideas, it's easy to "forget" a lot of what she has written.

b) Since Jacobs talks mostly about particulars, it's hard to get at the "larger meaning" of what she has written unless i) one reads her from cover to cover (and not just some excerpts); and ii) one reads some of her subsequent books too. (I think some of her subsequent books do, indeed, greatly clarify what Jacobs was getting at in her earlier works).

c) Much of the time, people claim that Jacobs has said something but don't provide examples of where Jacobs has supposedly said it -- and this isn't being challenged (see further below).

d) Many people seem unaware and, in any case, rarely address those parts of her work that disagree with their own interpretation of her work (see further below).

e) Since Jacobs was an "outsider" her work is rarely discussed seriously, in a rigorous fashion ("pro" and "con"), especially inside academia. And until the internet came along, there were actually few opportunities to discuss Jacobs in a serious fashion at all.

f) Even today, the discussions about Jacobs that do occur (e.g., at panel discussions and forums, etc.) are mostly (always?) among like-minded people (e.g., people who occupy roughly the same part of the political spectrum), so there is rarely any serious discussion about what Jacobs did or didn't say.

- - - - - -

I believe there are a few other important issues to discuss, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. But, I'd like to briefly mention here my "three rules" for discussing the work of Jane Jacobs (or any writer):

1) WHAT DID SHE WRITE?

What did she actually write? What are the actual words? What was the context? Etc.

2) WHAT DID SHE MEAN?

Given all that she has said, what does it all mean? How can one resolve any apparent internal contradictions so the whole body of work still makes sense?

3) IS IT VALID OR NOT?

Once one determines what was written and how it makes sense, one has to determine for oneself what parts, if any, are valid/worthwhile or not?

Plus, here's a fourth rule:

4) IF VALID, WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO APPLY IT TO THE REAL WORLD?

Here, questions of values also come up, as sometimes one has to make a choice between competing values.

(To be continued -- perhaps tomorrow?)

Benjamin Hemric
Thursday, February 3, 2011, 12:30 p.m.