WHO IS JANE JACOBS?
I can’t begin this article without first expressing my gratitude
for Jane Jacobs and everything that she accomplished throughout her life. The mere fact that she was a common citizen,
an untrained urban theorist, and was unafraid to challenge everything that was
believed of city planning at the time is baffling to me. Let alone that she was a woman in the 60’s
standing up to numerous men on a topic they were much more knowledgeable
on. It just goes to show that
standardized education isn’t always the answer.
Experience and formulating your own perception of things can be just as
powerful. So with that, let’s begin…
 |
| http://i0.wp.com/www.philipcaruso-story.com/ wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Jane-Jacobs.jpg |
Born in 1916, in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Jacobs began her career after high school taking an unpaid position as a women’s page editor for the Scranton Tribune. After a year she moved to New York City working mainly as a stenographer and freelance writer, which she stated “gave me more of a notion of what was going on in the city…” (1).
By 1952, Jacobs became Associate Editor of Architectural Forum, allowing her to observe the mechanisms of city planning and urban renewal much closer. Becoming increasingly critical of conventional planning theories and questioning whether the projects she was writing about were actually as ‘safe, interesting and economically sound’ as they proposed.
Her career was launched in 1961 with the release of her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, challenging the modernist planning ideals of the moment with the wisdom of observation and community intuition. Challenging the idea that urban sprawl wasn’t the answer to the Industrial Age and the suburb. But rather, a successful city was created by focusing on the elements that are already in place within a city, providing more mixed use buildings for a more unified community and to embrace your past in order to create a better future; “people are a pillar of time and need to be surrounded (in some amount) by its history in order to thrive.” (2). While urban renewal then, and even now, typically focuses on introducing new ideals to improve wrong doings, Jane argued that we need to take a look at the mistakes that are currently in affect, understand them, and correct so it isn’t repeated later down the road.
One of her biggest accomplishments, besides her book, was
during the mid 1960’s when she ended the reign of Parks Commissioner Robert
Moses. Ending his efforts to construct a
number of major highways, running through Manhattan’s Washington Square Park
and West Village. Her efforts led to her
arrest in 1968 which is considered one of the turning points in the development
of New York City (1).
I think one of the major takeaways from Jane Jacobs’ career
is that it is okay to stand up for what you believe in. The ideals that she presented (the integration
of mixed use buildings, preserving architectural heritage, and creating safe,
community based environments) are still key factors that planners strive to
achieve today. Historic preservation is
one of my biggest interests when it comes to architecture. And I could not agree more that we need to
utilize historic structures and learn from their mistakes, in order to create a
better future. If we don’t reflect on
the past and learn from it, mistakes already experienced have a greater
possibility of reoccurring. “New” isn’t always
the answer. “Bigger” isn’t always
better.
Challenging urban sprawl and the domination of the automobile
on city centers, allowed cities to become what they are today. She created the idea that cities should be “place-based,
community centered”, an idea considered inconceivable during this time. Yet it is the one of the major objectives considered
at this time. Basically what I’m trying
to say is, thank you Jane Jacobs. You
finally helped me confirm how I define urban planning. It is about utilizing elements that are
already in place and redefining them to create a stronger, all-encompassing
environment for all.
1 P. (n.d.).
Jane Jacobs. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from
http://www.pps.org/reference/jjacobs-2/
2
Polakit, Kasama. Urban Design | The "Field". [PowerPoint
slides]. Retrieved
from https://bblearn.uidaho.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_63923_1&content_id=_1181869_1
Good choice. My question would be do you see that her work "the death and life of great American cities" is still applicable to the present day context?
ReplyDeleteI believe her ideas on the use of mixed use buildings in order to promote lively cities that can function at any time of the day is a concept that we still strive for. Providing buildings that are intriguing to all types of users at any given time help keep downtown areas active which ultimately promotes continuous economic growth and safety of the area. It creates "eyes on the street" as she called it, which basically means that the streets can be constantly monitored by it's users which lessens the possibility for crime and unwanted activities. Which in return promotes even more users to the area.
DeleteSo basically I think some of the book is still relevant today but some was never actually a practical theory. Mixed use buildings will always be a relevant way to provide for the masses in a single area. But her ideas on removing major motorways and possibly eliminating the automobile in cities entirely was and will never happen. We are a society reliant on convenient transportation. And motorway infrastructure will always be a part of the urban environment. But making cities walkable like she proposed is a way to promote a healthier/more active cities. I think a lot of the points given in "the death and life of great american cities" has been implemented in the urban environment throughout the years, just some of them will always be too extreme of a theory to every be practical.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTheres an obvious notion of success and theory behind her work, but as its been a good deal of years we can look back on these "areas" Jane calls out as the forefront of her theorys......all of which are now dead urban spaces, sucked up by the rich and in return spit out the ones who once lived and reside there. Potentially what could of been the next stepping stone?
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily think that her theories are "dead" do to the lag in time since they were presented. I think I lot of her ideas are still considered today they are just common knowledge now and not as controversial so they aren't noticed as much (multi-use buildings, walkable city layouts, self security by promoting users on the street 24/7). So for that I don't really know what the next step would be for her. Sprawl is always going to be an issue, which was usually the main issue of theorists of her time, so learning to work with the automobile and providing more sustainable options has resolved a lot of their concerns of that time.
DeleteWhile Greenwich Village is certainly a gentrified area, it is still extremely successful as an urban area, which is why so many people want to live there! They are most certainly not dead urban spaces, but in fact a product of capitalism. Jane Jacobs has been criticized for her lack of attention to gentrification and its effect on minorities, but truth be told, gentrification and cultural displacement is happening in a large amount of neighborhoods in the five boroughs of New York City, some of which certainly do not abide by Jacob's standards of an urban space.
Delete