tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post2897034557692289584..comments2024-03-27T04:02:47.206-04:00Comments on Old Urbanist: Jane Jacobs on Narrow StreetsCharlie Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-28451872005846907882015-02-18T15:39:18.528-05:002015-02-18T15:39:18.528-05:00I am watching a history of New York City and how t...I am watching a history of New York City and how the grid was imposed upon the northern part of the city in the early 19th century, mostly by the efforts of Dewitt Clinton. I wonder how people like Jane Jacobs and others who think of the city as an ever growing living organism think what NYC and other large cities like it would have been like without a grid?Lil' Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17602360929612582017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-75616172087165839482011-12-02T11:35:08.487-05:002011-12-02T11:35:08.487-05:00@Benjamin: Yes, she does lay out a strategy of &qu...@Benjamin: Yes, she does lay out a strategy of "attrition of automobiles by cities," which she describes, in part, as a process that will involve widespread diminishment of space given over the automobiles in the city through roadbed narrowing (i.e. sidewalk widening). She does not, so far as I remember, clearly spell out a likely end point for this approach. It was an outline for a strategy rather than the strategy itself. She seems to have envisioned it as a long-term, ongoing process intended to gradually increase the space given to the pedestrian and limit the space given to the car. In European cities, that process has ultimately resulted in the pedestrianization of certain districts, and greatly lessened traffic elsewhere. But Jacobs could not have been aware of that, because, in 1961, it had not happened yet. The car was very much in ascendance, so simply bringing about a change in emphasis probably seemed like enough of a task at the time. <br /><br /><i>"The way I interpret it, Jacobs comment about a downtown with a bunch of Maiden Lanes being "insufferably quaint" is only partially an aesthetic comment. It's really a comment about economic viability, as such a downtown would be all "show" and little "real" business. In such an environment, if such environments could even be created in the first place, it would be difficult for many necessary businesses to succeed (e.g., problems with truck deliveries, businesses being too "gritty" to fit in, a narrow base of businesses being too undiverse and also destroying secondary diversity, etc.)."</i><br /><br />That may have been what she meant, but we simply don't have any evidence in support of her statement. If the book had been called <i>The Death and Life of Great Italian Cities</i>, it might have seemed even more questionable. Many, many large and economically successful cities outside the United States are made up mostly, if not entirely, of Maiden Lane-like streets. Now, Jacobs did visit some of these places later in life and had very complimentary things to say about them: in the Kunstler interview from 2000 that Marc mentions, she singles out Japan for admiration and also describes her experience in Dutch cities:<br /><br /><i>"The human scale of the whole thing and the density is far above what we are used to in North America, or anywhere. The high density and human scale are not incompatible at all."</i><br /><br />Two countries with prosperous cities abundant in Maiden Lane-like streets. So it's possible the Jacobs of 2000 might have amended her 1958 statement – we can't know for sure.Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-12938928211341071952011-11-29T01:17:35.421-05:002011-11-29T01:17:35.421-05:00Benjamin: I owe you a response and will get around...Benjamin: I owe you a response and will get around to writing one soon. <br /><br />Jeffrey: As for pedestrianization of wide streets, I agree. This is part of the issue Benjamin and I had been debating: since Jacobs notes that 1) people prefer to walk close to buildings even where the full roadway is available to them and 2) it takes vast crowds to congest a hypertrophic street, it would seem that you'd lose more activity than you'd gain by banning automobiles from center lanes in most cases. If you have it, in other words, you may as well use it. Still, if any place could get away with it, it would be New York, at least on certain streets. Something like a pedestrianized Lexington Ave., repaved in stone, embellished with fountains and lined with sidewalk cafes, would I think have foot traffic more than sufficient to make up for the loss in cars.Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-62447102527105655192011-11-28T13:18:05.847-05:002011-11-28T13:18:05.847-05:00I think it's important to note the significant...I think it's important to note the significant difference between pedestrianizing an already excessively wide street versus one that's very narrow and was probably pedestrian before the 20th century. <br /><br />Here in the US, the super wide building-to-building dimension doesn't lend itself well to pedestrian-only use because it's nigh impossible to attract enough pedestrians to fill up all that space. Thus it always seems empty and creepy. Even narrowing the roadbed doesn't always work if it's a struggling corridor, as was done with State Street in Chicago. In 1979 the roadbed was narrowed to only 2 or 3 lanes total, and only buses (and maybe taxis) were allowed. It didn't help bring back the street's vitality at all, and they put it back as a "normal" street in 1996, which actually helped quite a bit. <br /><br />Already narrow streets that are very mixed use, or at least that have a large retail/food component seem to be the best bet. Strøget, Copenhagen's main shopping street is quite narrow but had I think one-way traffic with parking and tiny little sidewalks in the mid 20th century. They pedestrianized it during the day, allowing delivery vehicles during off hours, and it's been a huge success, despite citizens originally saying things like "we're not Italians, this won't work here." <br /><br />So you definitely have to look at the specific circumstances. In the USA, a struggling street usually is not helped by pedestrianization, but an already successful shopping/mixed use street can, especially if there's transit service nearby. To pedestrianize an excessively wide "hypertrophic" street is likely to fail as well, and even narrowing the roadbed can be detrimental if there isn't the pedestrian traffic to keep it feeling busy.Jeffrey Jakucykhttp://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-81419207145389628752011-11-27T14:35:17.781-05:002011-11-27T14:35:17.781-05:00Part III
Charlie wrote [added emphasis is mine --...Part III<br /><br />Charlie wrote [added emphasis is mine -- BH]:<br /><br />The “functional” virtues of the narrow street I read as IMPLIED by the passage in "Death and Life," which suggests that in a pedestrian-focused area, wide streets provide few benefits, since . . . . <br /><br />Benjamin writes:<br /><br />That's not my interpretation, but I haven't reread that part of the book yet. <br /><br />In general, though, I think it's important when teasing out implications to look at all the other things that Jacobs (or any other author) has written in a book -- how do these fit in with the supposed implication? With Jacobs' emphasis on the importance of business to a city's health, I find it hard to see such passages as an endorsement of "pedestrianism" (by which I mean pedestrian-only type streets).<br /><br />Plus, I believe there are spots in the book where she comes pretty close to specifically saying that "pedestrianism" is likely to hurt a city's health rather than help it, and where she suggests that just limiting, but not banning, vehicular traffic ("attrition") is, instead, a likely better way to aid a city's health. <br /><br />- - - - - -<br /><br />Charlie wrote:<br /><br />I agree that this doesn't mean that she's advocating only narrow streets -- far from it -- only that she understood their benefits in certain contexts.<br /><br />Benjamin writes:<br /><br />I would basically agree with this.<br /><br />- - - - - - - <br /><br />Charlie wrote:<br /><br />Finally, after re-reading her section on cars and what she calls the “attrition of automobiles by cities,” I am getting the sense that the endpoint of her pro-pedestrian, or rather pro-urbanist, strategy is a car-free or at least car-lite city. She doesn’t say it explicitly (unsurprising as her strategy is to reach a desired goal through a lengthy series of piecemeal changes, deliberately avoiding anti-car rhetoric), but that would seem to be one likely outcome.<br /><br />Benjamin writes:<br /><br />I very strongly disagree with this. Again, it seems to me that Jacobs is interested in understanding how to help existing large American cities become strong and healthy again -- and this means economically strong and healthy -- and she doesn't see pedestrian-only streets as being helpful towards this end, but likely harmful instead.<br /><br />Jacobs has said elsewhere, and I think she also basically says it in "Death and Life . . . " that autos -- and, especially, trucks and buses -- are important for the health of modern "great" American cities. What she thinks works against the health of these cities, though, is an undue catering towards them -- especially with regard to private autos.<br /><br />Benjamin Hemric<br />Sun., November 27, 2011, 2:35 p.m.<br /><br />P.S. -- May not have time to continue this discussion for a while. Have to get back to my reading of Jacobs!Benjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-10155899499417871862011-11-27T14:27:35.502-05:002011-11-27T14:27:35.502-05:00"In other words, people shouldn't think t..."In other words, people shouldn't think that Jane Jacobs is suggesting what many people today, in fact, do erroneously believe that she is suggesting!"<br /><br />Well said! This was a pretty interesting interview done a few years before JJ's death:<br />http://www.kunstler.com/mags_jacobs1.htm<br /><br />It doesn't directly address the narrow streets discussion, but she got to speak more informally and bluntly here than is typical in her writings or other interviews. I think it reflects several of her thoughts in their most "evolved" state in the final years of her life.Marcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-7046627540277551062011-11-27T13:57:14.712-05:002011-11-27T13:57:14.712-05:00Part II
Charlie wrote [added numbering is mine --...Part II<br /><br />Charlie wrote [added numbering is mine -- BH]:<br /><br />. . . the comment of hers that you quote really strikes me as odd coming from Jacobs, now that I consider it again. [1] First, she presents no evidence for why a city could not be built of nothing but Maiden Lanes –- she simply announces it. [2] The second part of the comment is atypically aestheticist. “Insufferably quaint”? By whose standards? [3] If it’s an impossible result, why belittle it?<br /><br />Benjamin writes:<br /><br />Regarding [1]:<br /><br />Although I haven't had a chance to reread the whole article, and although this article is earlier than "Death and Life . . . ", I suspect that in this article Jacobs was also interested in existing "great" (large) American cities -- not in the creation of brand new cities. <br /><br />So, the way I interpret it, Jacobs is saying here that great American cities have already been built up with mostly "wide" streets, so it's pretty much impossible to now remake them so that they have a bunch of Maiden Lanes, even if it was something you wanted to do.<br /><br />Regarding [2]:<br /><br />The way I interpret it, Jacobs comment about a downtown with a bunch of Maiden Lanes being "insufferably quaint" is only partially an aesthetic comment. It's really a comment about economic viability, as such a downtown would be all "show" and little "real" business. In such an environment, if such environments could even be created in the first place, it would be difficult for many necessary businesses to succeed (e.g., problems with truck deliveries, businesses being too "gritty" to fit in, a narrow base of businesses being too undiverse and also destroying secondary diversity, etc.). <br /><br />It seems to me that her criticism here about a bunch of Maiden Lanes being insufferably quaint is very similar to the criticisms that many people ERRONEOUSLY make about Jacobs herself -- that she was (so these critics say) interested only in "quaint" districts (e.g., supposedly Greenwich Village, which isn't as "quaint" as people make it out to be, especially when Jacobs was writing) for yuppies and whe was not (so these critics say) interested in real life districts that would work for everyone else.<br /><br />Regarding [3]:<br /><br />The way I see it, Jacobs is saying that even if it's virtually impossible to create a downtown with a bunch of Maiden Lanes, such a downtown is not even something that those who are interested in helping "great" American cities should even strive for, or work towards.<br /><br />In other words, people shouldn't think that Jane Jacobs is suggesting what many people today, in fact, do erroneously believe that she is suggesting! <br /><br />Benjamin Hemric<br />Sun., Nov. 27, 2011, 1:55 p.m.Benjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-60140575830535703592011-11-27T13:12:43.854-05:002011-11-27T13:12:43.854-05:00Part I
Charlie, even when I disagree with them, y...Part I<br /><br />Charlie, even when I disagree with them, your posts have been great -- as usual -- but I haven't had the time to comment on as many of them as I would have liked. But commenting on this Jane Jacobs one, however, is kind of helpful for a project that I'm trying to work on.<br /><br />- - - - - - - <br /><br />Jacobs wrote:<br /><br />"It would, of course, be ideal to dispose of cars entirely on city streets where children play; but worse troubles still are harvested if this means disposing of the other utilitarian purposes of sidewalks, and along with them, supervision . . . "<br /><br />Charlie wrote:<br /><br />I don’t really take that [above quote] as a critique of pedestrianization so much as . . .<br /><br />Benjamin writes:<br /><br />Although this is one of the parts of "Death and Life . . . " I was thinking of, I was really thinking of her comments about things like Gruen's plan for Ft. Worth and similar pedestrian-free schemes for areas with businesses. If I remember correctly she says something like unless there is [1] some kind of viable way of bringing people into the area via transit and [2] some kind of viable way of making truck deliveries and pickups for factories, offices, stores, etc., pedestrianism creates more problems for a city's economy (and health) than it solves. <br /><br />Plus she also mentions, if I remembering correctly (and if I'm interpreting correctly what I remember) that people generally don't really "need" or "want" pedestrian streets anyway since, except on very narrow streets, people tend to cling to the sides anyway.<br /><br />From what I can see in real life, her critique of pedestrian streets has been very perceptive. And, although there is not 100% agreement on this issue, of course, it seems to me that among "urbanists" in general total or near total (with bus lanes only) pedestrianized streets are generally thought these days to be a failed idea.<br /><br />Furthermore, it seems to me that the idea of narrowed roadbeds instead of pedestrianized streets has shown its "superiorty" and has become more and more popular. The west side of Union Square in Manhattan, for instance, was rebuilt a few years ago, and some people called for it to be pedestrianized, but "cooler" heads prevailed and the roadbed was narrowed instead. And it seems to me that it has been a tremendous success. Also a lot of initiatives -- the successful ones -- of Janette Sadik-Kahn seem to be along these lines; and the "failed" ones (loudly opposed), seem to be along the totally pedestrianized lines (e.g., original 34th St. plan).<br /><br />Benjamin Hemric<br />Sun., November 27, 2011, 1:10 p.m.Benjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-90984447180319637202011-11-27T00:43:51.701-05:002011-11-27T00:43:51.701-05:00Hi Benjamin, and thanks for your great comments. J...Hi Benjamin, and thanks for your great comments. Jacobs is indeed skeptical of attempting to solve certain urban problems simply by closing streets to car traffic, without more, and her observations on that count are similar to my own in "Suburban Follies: The Rear Alleyway" (this is p. 453-54):<br /><br /><i>"It would, of course, be ideal to dispose of cars entirely on city streets where children play; but worse troubles still are harvested if this means disposing of the other utilitarian purposes of sidewalks, and along with them, supervision. Sometime such schemes, too, are automatically self-canceling. A housing project in Cincinnati affords an illustration. The houses in this project front on pedestrian precincts of lawns and sidewalks, and they back up on service alleys for cars and deliveries. Al the casual coming and going occurs between the houses and the alleys and therefore, functionally, the backs of the houses have become the fronts and vice versa. Of course the alleys are where the children all are too."</i><br /><br />I don’t really take that as a critique of pedestrianization so much as a common sense observation that when transport is mainly by car, wherever the car goes will be the focus of human activity. Trying to hide this fact by placing garages in so-called “rear alleys” does not magically result in increased foot traffic. <br /><br />As far as narrow streets, the comment of hers that you quote really strikes me as odd coming from Jacobs, now that I consider it again. First, she presents no evidence for why a city could not be built of nothing but Maiden Lanes – she simply announces it. The second part of the comment is atypically aestheticist. “Insufferably quaint”? By whose standards? If it’s an impossible result, why belittle it? Again, this seems out of character for her. That her views may have changed over the next few years may be one possibility, or this article may have been intended for a somewhat different audience. <br /><br />The “functional” virtues of the narrow street I read as implied by the passage in Death and Life, which suggests that in a pedestrian-focused area, wide streets provide few benefits, since 1) people prefer to walk directly alongside shops; 2) it is nearly impossible for pedestrians to congest the roadways anyways, and 3) as she mentions elsewhere, the narrower the street, the easier it is to cross over to shops on the other side without hazard or delay. I read that, in combination which the favorable mention of shared space (“Paving which merged roadbed and sidewalk”), as indicating an appreciation of the benefits of narrower rights-of-way for a vibrant urbanism. I agree that this doesn't mean that she's advocating only narrow streets -- far from it -- only that she understood their benefits in certain contexts.<br /><br />Finally, after re-reading her section on cars and what she calls the “attrition of automobiles by cities,” I am getting the sense that the endpoint of her pro-pedestrian, or rather pro-urbanist, strategy is a car-free or at least car-lite city. She doesn’t say it explicitly (unsurprising as her strategy is to reach a desired goal through a lengthy series of piecemeal changes, deliberately avoiding anti-car rhetoric), but that would seem to be one likely outcome.Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-75503673794029398942011-11-26T14:09:32.499-05:002011-11-26T14:09:32.499-05:00Part II --
In "Death and Life . . ." (...Part II -- <br /><br />In "Death and Life . . ." (which was written over the subsequent three years and may have represented, as you point out, an evolution in her thought), Jacobs was interested primarily in understanding what made large modern American cities successful (i.e., Life) and unsuccessful (i.e., Death) -- in order to better be able to "save" them (since many of them were, at the time, under great stress). Hers was not, as many people seem to feel, a Martha Stewart like quest for the aesthetically most pleasing city. Rather, in Jacobs' view cities are seem primarily as economic engines, and it is important for their health to have streets (and even highways too!) that are supportive of their modern day commerce. <br /><br />Jacobs did feel, as others have alluded to, that wide sidewalks were also important for urban health, and thus she criticized mindless "roadbed" widenings that would needlessly encroach on these sidewalks. But this is not the same thing as recommending narrow streets -- streets being the distance between building lines, not the width of a vehicular roadway.<br /><br />Plus, if I remember correctly (haven't gotten to this part yet), it should also be pointed out that Jacobs was very skeptical about the usefulness of pedestrian streets to promote urban health. She wasn't against them per se, but did feel that (largely for economic reasons) they oftentimes created more problems than they solved, and that a better approach would often likely be the narrowing of a roadbed for vehicles, rather than the complete closing off of the street to vehicles.<br /><br />She did, of course, believe in the importance to urban health (large for economic reasons) of small blocks (a/k/a many streets). But, as far as I can recall, she didn't seem to be feel that the creation of small blocks with conventionally "wide" streets would lead to too much space being devoted to streets. That isn't to say, of course, that creating small blocks with narrow streets couldn't also be useful too (and possibly more practical) -- just that creating them with "wide" streets didn't, as far as I recall, seem to be a problem for her.<br /><br />I think the above points are important to make since many people do seem to erroneously believe that in "Death and Life . . ." Jacobs is somehow recommending that "great" American cities have, supposedly Greenwich Village-like narrow streets (most streets in Greenwich Village are not, in fact, narrow) -- and they then use this erroneous "fact" to dismiss her work!<br /><br />So it seems to me that "she recommends narrow streets" is one of the myths about Jacobs that needs to be debunked because it is obscuring what she really wrote -- which is, of course, what really should be discussed and evaluated.<br /><br />Benjamin Hemric<br />Sat., November 26, 2011, 2:00 p.m.<br /><br />P.S. -- Thanks Jeffrey Jakucy for the links to the interesting photos. I've seen the shorpy site before (they once linked to a post of mine) but didn't realize that they had such interesting photos.Benjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-65320042057263750622011-11-26T14:09:07.768-05:002011-11-26T14:09:07.768-05:00Part I
As I've mentioned a number of times, J...Part I<br /><br />As I've mentioned a number of times, Jacobs' writings are so 'dense' with ideas, it's easy to forget all the things she's "said." So, thanks, Charlie, for bringing up this article, which I haven't read for a while and had somewhat forgotten about.<br /><br />While I still haven't gotten a chance to find my copy of the entire article, it seems to me from the quotes you've posted (and also from "Death and Life . . . " which I'm currently rereading), it's inaccurate to characterize Jacobs as making "a case for the functional benefits of narrow streets." Rather, I think it's more accurate to say that Jacobs felt that it's important to see, and not overlook, the usefulness that existing old narrow streets can still have in great (large) American cities.<br /><br />As one of your quote points out Jacobs wrote [added numbering is mine -- BH]:<br /><br />Downtown [1] can't be remade into a bunch of [San Francisco's] Maiden Lanes; and [2] it would be insufferably quaint if it were.Benjamin Hemrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774747428869052111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-86344143160540780402011-11-24T01:07:41.073-05:002011-11-24T01:07:41.073-05:00Matthew: Jacobs was reacting in part to the 800-fo...Matthew: Jacobs was reacting in part to the 800-foot blocks in parts of Manhattan, which, I've supposed, were laid out that way by the early planners precisely so that the mandatorily wide streets would not take up too much valuable land:<br /><br />http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/07/blocks-of-new-york.html<br /><br />Jeffrey: I agree -- her observations on sidewalks I always understood to pertain to New York's already-wide streets, rather than serving as a suggestion for planning new streets (wide sidewalks, plus the implied roadbed, suggest a rather wide street).Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-12322467846275549362011-11-23T15:07:31.548-05:002011-11-23T15:07:31.548-05:00One thing Jacobs was also a big proponent of was w...One thing Jacobs was also a big proponent of was wide sidewalks. She fought against the removal of sidewalk space in 1950s New York to add street parking or additional driving lanes. <br /><br />That's still not a "really narrow streets" typology, but it relates to the framework that was already put in place. Many streets had sidewalks that took up just as much space as the roadway (so say 15' sidewalk, 30' road, 15' sidewalk, or something in a similar ratio). 5th Avenue near the Flatiron Building even seemed to have more of the space devoted to the sidewalks than the road. This appears to be mainly a NYC thing, but it mitigated the excessive width of the building-to-building dimension to some extent. <br /><br />Here's a few examples:<br /><br />http://www.shorpy.com/node/7687<br />http://www.shorpy.com/node/11327<br />http://www.shorpy.com/node/11640Jeffrey Jakucykhttp://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-66923194017701383422011-11-23T12:26:40.880-05:002011-11-23T12:26:40.880-05:00I always felt her emphasis on small blocks leads n...I always felt her emphasis on small blocks leads naturally to the notion of narrow streets. Having small blocks with wide streets means you are wasting a lot of land on asphalt.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.com