tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3165685960408738683.post613668474455577460..comments2023-09-02T06:07:12.525-04:00Comments on Restoring the Urban Fabric: Blog Post No. 2010-13: Washington Beech in the News & Reconsidering Jane Jacobs' LegacyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3165685960408738683.post-17190270926521833002010-07-05T10:57:53.081-04:002010-07-05T10:57:53.081-04:00Understanding Andrew's intent a bit better, I ...Understanding Andrew's intent a bit better, I agree with him that the biggest downside to Jacobs' legacy is the current public approval process and the virtually unlimited ability of NIMBYs and BANANAs to wreak havoc on even the most thoughtful proposal. The details may change from place to place and state to state. But the essential nature of the approval process does not. Over the winter, I put the question to Anthony Flint, who recently wrote "Wrestling with Moses" about the decade-long series of battles between Moses and Jacobs over Washington Square Park, urban renewal in the West Village, and the LOMEX, something like this: How do you think Jacobs would view the NIMBYs and BANANAs that an overreliance on public involvement, appeals through the courts, and distrust of government have engendered? My recollection is that he said Jacobs would probably view it with mixed emotions. That sounds about right to me: the process today very often kills or significantly delays the good projects along with the bad.<br /><br />Of course, how to change the process to maintain validity while increasing predictability and efficiency is the difficult task. One path to a better balance seems to be reinvigorating master planning at all scales (small area, neighobrhood, municipality, region) so that major decisions about growth and community goals and vision are made up front. Those plans can then be used as the basis to create new land use regulations (hopefully form-based) that have as much discretion removed from them as possible. The idea is to avoid constantly revisiting the issues that bother a community every time a development proposal comes through the process.Matthew Lawlorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925606126247326449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3165685960408738683.post-13446239720082052312010-07-01T23:20:21.006-04:002010-07-01T23:20:21.006-04:00Well, your comments were quite thoughtful and Andr...Well, your comments were quite thoughtful and Andrew's (I, too, am on the board of PPS and a fan of Whyte's) are riddled with factual errors. <br />Jacobs did not predict Lincoln Center would fail. She criticized the mallification of culture replacing wide swaths of city fabric instead of individual theaters anchoring neighborhoods separately (Carnegie Hall, Joyce Theater, The Public, etc). She said culture malling was anti-city development. <br />Jane did not cite the Village as "the ideal of city living" and she did not "prescribe" all neighborhoods to be Greenwich Village clones. The Village was her laboratory for observing and understanding city life, just like Seagram's Plaza and Bryant Park were observation posts for Holly.<br />The ULURP process today is a joke, not a result of too much Jacobs. All big, Moses-like developments sidestep the whole process altogether by going through the Empire State Development Zone, i.e. Atlantic Yards, Columbia.<br />Jacobs and Whyte are totally in sync when it comes to fine-grained thinking and they are brilliant at what they do BECAUSE they are not trained planners (nor is Fred Kent) but keen observers of what makes cities work and don't work.<br />True, developer, architects, planners all cite Jacobs' work but then they do exactly the opposite of what she observed to be organic.<br />Jacobs did not object to "large-scale planning" when it came to transit , park systems, water systems and quality of life infrastructure that reinforced city frabric but didn't replace it.<br />But the worst error is that "the cutting-edge wisdom of the time was to increase urban density by building taller and creating more open space--clearing slums and speeding transportation..." Towers in the parks for low or middle income decreased density everywhere. Moses was for less density, she was for more. He thought bulldozing would eliminate problems, built towers surrounded by grass with less density than the mixed scale blocks they replaced. He tore down more units than he built. Taller does not mean denser.<br />For another view of what REALLY reignited the upper west side (not Lincoln Center), read my book.<br />Ironic that no one seemed to get too much of the 3 huge exhibits and endless press coverage rehabilitating Robert Moses 3 years ago, but there is sure plenty of "we've had enough of Jacobs" attitude to go around.<br />For a clearer understanding of how the clashing vision of Moses and Jacobs shaped NYC, read my new book THE BATTLE FOR GOTHAM: NEW YORK IN THE SHADOW OF ROBERT MOSES AND JANE JACOBS.RobertaGratzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476613324029760866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3165685960408738683.post-76147497199851724022010-07-01T12:05:59.739-04:002010-07-01T12:05:59.739-04:00Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I wasn't...Thanks for your thoughtful comments.<br /><br />I wasn't attempting to set up Jacobs and Whyte as adversaries. Holly was Jacob's editor at Fortune and encouraged and supported her work. I also don't mean to say that Jacob's work is without value -- of course it is essential. But I do think we've lost sight of some of the limitations of her analysis and have overlooked the care and thoughtfulness of Holly's work. What I admire about Whyte, and about PPS (of which I am an officer and board member) is that they are about improving public spaces through community engagement, leadership, close observation and knowledge about what works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com