Searching for Jane Jacobs' Influence
Some of her most powerful ideas never got much traction.

Jane Jacobs is often called one of the most influential urban thinkers of the last century, and in a sense that's true. Ten years after she died and 100 years after she was born, she remains more famous than most living urbanologists. Her 1961 book The Death of Life of Great American Cities is still widely read today. Several of the practices she criticized, from neighborhood-destroying "slum clearance" schemes to high-rise public housing projects, are now far less popular than they once were, thanks in part to her critiques.
But some of Jacob's core ideas have never gotten much traction among planners—unsurprisingly, since they undermine a great deal of what those planners do. Nolan Gray makes that point in a nicely done article about the ways Jacobs' critique of centralized urban planning parallels F.A. Hayek's critique of centralized economic planning. "For all the love Jane Jacobs has received from urban planners and policymakers since her first book was published," Gray writes,
her greatest theoretical innovation seems to be largely disregarded. Cities across the country continue to centrally plan the minutiae of urban life, from obsessively detailed land-use regulations to impossibly ambitious comprehensive plans. Even many of those who have embraced Jacobs' urban design insights scrapped her theoretical underpinnings, using rigid, top-down plans to create unsettling and unchanging recreations of natural neighborhoods and cities.
You should read the whole thing. And then, if you want to see some thoughts in a similar vein, go here to read one of my earliest articles for Reason—a long complaint about the ways Jacobs' work is misappropriated by people who don't share her more libertarian impluses.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
OT, sorry Jesse.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/.....d=11593611
the "Cecil effect" where nobody wants to pay $50,000 to hunt a lion because of the negative publicity and now the refuge has to cull 200 lions.
Unintended consequences, how does that work?
Oh, and did those 200 lions have a name? I mean, if they didn't have a name, does it matter?
Smug cuntery doesn't help, Hyper.
But it's all I know.
The left swims in it and rarely has to give ground, so it can't hurt.
As long as you don't mind being an insufferable twat.
#LionLivesMatter
#onlynamedlionsmatter
Anyway, ya'll are disgusting. After 10 long years, Jane Jacobs, ok I admit I never heard of her, finally gets a glorious article about her legacy and you bad people hijack it and talk about lions. You are bad, bad people!
They're just towing the lion.
[narrows gaze]
If you get a chance, you really should read her work. Death and Life of American Cities is excellent
It should be required reading for... someone or other. The points she makes about mixed-use zoning as a source of crime deterrence was prescient given the inner-city criminality, economic decline, and urban flight that followed the 60s.
Ugh, there is no kindle version available.
Jane Jacobs provides zero assistance while playing sim city like games.
The important question here is 'Did she protest the death of Cecil?'. Oh wait, she was dead. Carry on!
Confession: I almost went into City Planning. Got into Cornell and everything. But I changed my mind and not long after that I finally got around to reading The Death of Life of Great American Cities and unlike my peers I immediately picked up on all the things that I knew they would completely pretend she didn't say. Such as her views against big projects and against "planned" affordable housing. Amazing how people are still picking and choosing what they want to hear but I guess that is the way of humans.
Eh. I still wish I had pretended Stephen King died when he got run over and never read any of his fiction after that. I also like to pretend Robert Crais had stayed away from the Elvis Cole character after LA Requiem. And that George Lucas died shortly after Last Crusade. In fact, I guess I do live in a fantasy world, culture-wise.
Joe from Lowell's nemesis?
*narrows angry gaze*
Cities across the country continue to centrally plan the minutiae of urban life, from obsessively detailed land-use regulations to impossibly ambitious comprehensive plans.
The Supreme court said all that was required for an Eminent Domain taking to hand over to a wealthy developer was a "comprehensive plan". You think that was going to result in fewer comprehensive plans?
I shall not today attempt further to define 'comprehensive', but I'll know it when I see it?
Like spontaneous utopia is going to happen in our nation's cities. Please.
Utopia is like the Wild Orchid, it needs cultivatin'.
Degenerating shithole would be a step up for many of them.
SJWs==WBC==Illinois Nazis
Wait, so am I free to hate all of the above?
I live in a part of the country in which the political class and their bootlickers take pride in nitpicking, control-freakish planning. If you give me a few weeks, I may be able to give you an example that worked out as planned. OTOH, maybe I should thank them for pushing me in the direction of libertarianism.
Unfortunately, I think this has become the norm in most places now. :/
Yeah, you'll have to be more specific.
Apparently I can add another name to the list of people who have done good things but I've never heard of.
This reminds me of the periodic lists of "greatest presidents" issued by historians. Almost by definition, to make the list you must do big, intrusive things. A president who would cut spending and keep the military at home would have a hard time making the experts' list of greatest presidents.
I find those lists easier to swallow if you distinguish between great presidents and good presidents and use "great" in a morally neutral sense (e.g. Hitler was a great world leader). Great presidents are the ones who do big things. Good presidents are ones who do the job well and according to the constitution. By that measure, FDR, for example, is undoubtedly one of the greatest presidents, but far from a good one. Someone like Coolidge, on the other hand, is certainly a good president, but not great in the sense of doing big things.
Ivan Grozny
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..
Click This Link inYour Browser....
? ? ? ? http://www.Paybucket40.com
the lions are eating all the other wildlife.
And the villagers.
didn't the dentist who killed Cecil have to close his business and move?
If only one lion was saved...
Chose to, Woody, chose to. The state did not force him to close.
Remember how libertarians are all about choice, including the choice to boycott - at least in theory, anyhow.
Throw in a couple examples of "The Most Dangerous Game" and I'll buy a safari.
I am still free to call the protesters assholes?
hate speech
No. That's hate speech
/prog
And unfair to assholes.