Jane Jacobs dies at 89 (NY Times 4/26/06)
nycroads
Dead at 89"
By DOUGLAS MARTIN
Published: April 26, 2006
Jane Jacobs, the writer and thinker who brought penetrating eyes and
ingenious insight to the sidewalk ballet of her own Greenwich Village
street and came up with a book that challenged and changed the way
people view cities, died yesterday in Toronto, where she moved in 1968.
She was 89.
You can read the rest of the article at the New York Times web site
(free registration required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/books/26jacobs.html
Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
(I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
system in the 1970's.
-- Steve Anderson
http://www.nycroads.com
http://www.phillyroads.com
http://www.bostonroads.com
http://www.dcroads.net
http://www.ratetheroads.com
George Conklin
"nycroads" <nycr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146085854.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "Jane Jacobs, Social Critic Who Redefined and Championed Cities, Is
> Dead at 89"
> By DOUGLAS MARTIN
> Published: April 26, 2006
>
> Jane Jacobs, the writer and thinker who brought penetrating eyes and
> ingenious insight to the sidewalk ballet of her own Greenwich Village
> street and came up with a book that challenged and changed the way
> people view cities, died yesterday in Toronto, where she moved in 1968.
> She was 89.
Jane Jacobs at least got rid of the Le Courbusier-style planning, which
was and is a disaster. But she then took us back to the 1900s with her
'live over the store' motto, now called new urbanism. She hated the
single-family house and the automobile. She also thought that all culture
sprang from urban environments, which is of course nonsense.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> She also thought that all culture
> sprang from urban environments, which is of course nonsense.
"Don't know much about historyyyyy ...."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Magyar
news:1146085854.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
An obit for her from the Toronto Star
Jane Jacobs, 89: Urban legend
Apr. 25, 2006. 02:54 PM
WARREN GERARD
TORONTO STAR
Jane Jacobs was a writer, intellectual, analyst, ethicist and moral thinker,
activist, self-made economist, and a fearless critic of inflexible
authority.
Mrs. Jacobs died this morning in Toronto. She was 89.
An American who chose to be Canadian, Mrs. Jacobs was a leader in the fights
to preserve neighborhoods and kill expressways, first in New York City, and
then in Toronto.
Her efforts to stop the proposed expressway between Manhattan Bridge on east
Manhattan and the Holland tunnel on the west ended contributed toward saving
SoHo, Chinatown, and the west side of Greenwich Village.
In Toronto, her leadership galvanized the movement that stopped the proposed
Spadina Expressway. It would have cut a swath through the lively Annex
neighborhood and parts of the downtown.
Her first book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in
1961, became a bible for neighborhood organizers and what she termed the
"foot people".
It made the case against the utopian planning culture of the times -
residential high-rise development, expressways through city hearts, slum
clearances, and desolate downtowns.
She believed that residential and commercial activity should be in the same
place, that the safest neighborhoods teem with life, short winding streets
are better than long straight ones, low-rise housing is better than
impersonal towers, that a neighborhood is where people talk to one another.
She liked the small-scale.
Not everyone agreed. Her arch-critic, Lewis Mumford, called her vision
"higgledy-piggledy unplanned casualness."
Mrs. Jacobs was seen by many of her supporters - mistakenly - as left-wing.
Not so.
Her views embraced the marketplace, supported privatization of utilities,
frowned on subsidies, and detested the intrusions of government, big or
small.
Nor was she right-wing. In fact, she had no time for ideology.
"I think ideologies, no matter what kind, are one of the greatest
afflictions because they blind us to seeing what's going on or what's being
done,'' she was quoted.
"I'm kind of an atheist," she said. "As for being a rightist or a leftist,
it doesn't make any sense to me. I think ideologies are blinders."
Mrs. Jacobs scorned nationalism and argued in her 1980 book, The Question of
Separatism, that Quebec would be better off leaving Canada. Moreover, she
argued that some cities would be better off as independent economic and
political units.
Her view of cities startled long-held perceptions. In her 1969 book, The
Economy of Cities, Mrs. Jacobs challenged the dogma of agricultural primacy
and created a debate on both the economic growth and stagnation of cities.
"Current theory in many fields - economics, history, anthropology - assumed
that cities are built upon a rural economic base,'' she wrote.
"If my observations and reasonings are correct, the reverse is true: that is
rural economies, including agricultural work, are directly built upon city
economies and city work."
"For me," John Sewell, a former mayor of Toronto recalled, "the most
significant influence was in terms of the notion that cities drive
economies, not provincial or national governments."
"She's the one who propagated the thought, and I think she's dead right."
Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago - the 1995 winner of the Nobel
Prize for economics - liked Mrs. Jacob's theories.
"I like her style," he was quoted. "That kind of stepping back from facts
and asking, what kind of economics produced this idea, is just a natural
thing for an economist to do. I think everybody in economics finds her work
very congenial for that reason.''
Mrs. Jacobs was no expert, bare of established credentials had limited
formal education, but was a member of that wonderful school of amateurs -
American writers who were observers, critics and original thinkers,
including such names as Paul Goodman, William H. Whyte, Rachel Carson, Betty
Friedan and Ralph Nader.
Mrs. Jacobs, born May 4, 1916, grew up in Scranton, the center of
Pennsylvania coal country.
Scranton may well have sparked Mrs. Jacob's life-long interest in cities and
how they work. It provided "a template of how a city stagnates and declines
and may be part of the reason why that subject interested me so much,
because I came from a city where that happened." she was quoted.
"I think I was rather fortunate in having wonderful school teachers in the
first and second grade. They taught me almost everything I knew in school.
"From the third grade on, I'm sorry to say, they were nice people, but they
were dopes.'"
"I came from a family where women had worked, mostly as schoolteachers, for
quite a few generations. I had a great-aunt who went to Alaska and taught
Indians. My mother had worked as a schoolteacher, then a nurse; she became
the night supervising nurse at an important hospital in Philadelphia," she
was quoted.
"Those were traditional women's occupations, to be sure. But I did grow up
with the idea that women could do things, and in my own family I was treated
much the same as my brothers."
Finishing high school, she trained as a stenographer but got an unpaid job
as a reporter at the local newspaper. Mrs. Jacobs moved to New York City in
the Depression years and wrote a few articles for Vogue.
Then, at age 22, she went to Columbia University, but that didn't last and
after two years she returned to writing. She never embraced an institutional
affiliation.
David Crombie, a former may or of Toronto, described Mrs. Jacobs as a
"Harvard refusenik."
In fact, according to Crombie, she had been offered more than 30 honorary
degrees and turned them all down.
"It just wasn't her style," Crombie said. "She didn't see that as what she
was about."
She married Robert Jacobs in 1944. He was an architect and it was his work
that got her interest in Architectural Forum, a monthly magazine, where
after a short time she went to work, becoming a senior editor.
Theirs was a close relationship and a happy marriage. It was to last for 52
years before he died of lung cancer at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital,
a hospital he had designed.
In 1958, after writing about downtowns for Fortune magazine, Mrs. Jacobs
received a grant from The Rockefeller Foundation to write about cities. At
the same time, she was creating havoc with developers, planners and
politicians who wanted to put a highway through New York City.
Jason Epstein, her long-time editor at Random House and co-founder of the
New York Review of Books, recalled that the proposed expressway had nothing
to do with moving traffic. "It would be devastating to the city," he said.
"The reason to build it was that it was eligible for federal highway funds
because it connected New Jersey to New York.
"It meant jobs for the construction industry, lots of money for politicians
and architects who benefit from those things, and probably for real estate
developers who would pick up on the fringes.
"It took 12 years for Jane to finally stop this thing," Epstein recalled.
"She was arrested at one point and charged with a couple of felonies and was
in serious trouble. At one point she was thrown in jail."
In 1968, Mrs. Jacobs and her family moved to Toronto. They didn't want their
two draft-age sons, Jim and Ned, to serve in the Vietnam war.
"It never occurred to me that I would ever be anything else but American,"
she was quoted. But that changed when she took part in a march on the
Pentagon in 1967 and found herself facing a row of soldiers in gas masks.
"They looked like some big horrible insect, the whole bunch of them
together, not human beings at all. . After a certain amount of time passed,
I decided, well, that's it. . I fell out of love with my country. It sounds
ridiculous, but I didn't feel a part of America anymore."
Toronto was ripe for Mrs. Jacobs. She wasn't here long before plans were
revealed to build the Spadina Expressway, which promised to cut a strip
through the city, making it easier for suburbanites to commute in and out of
the downtown. She wrote a newspaper article highly critical of city planners
for their vision to 'Los Angelize' what she described as "the most hopeful
and healthy city in North America, still unmangled, still with options."
In an unrequited sentiment, odd as it might seem, planners adored Jacobs.
She described them this way, however. "First of all, our official planning
departments seem to be brain-dead in the sense that we cannot depend on them
in any way, shape or form for providing intellectual leadership in
addressing urgent problems involving the physical future of the city."
Mrs. Jacobs galvanized local citizens against the planners and politicians
in what became known as the Stop Spadina movement.
"She really enjoyed the activist part," Crombie recalled, "the strategy, the
being on the streets, being at the meetings. She enjoyed meeting people, she
enjoyed the vigour of activism."
That was one facet of Mrs. Jacob's character. Another, as Crombie put it,
was Jane the ethicist.
"She had a terrific sense of the moral order,'' he said. "She had the moral
authority of an Old Testament prophet and the easy authority of a mother
superior."
For the most part, Mrs. Jacob's books were an intellectual progression, each
taking her thoughts on cities and economies a step further.
"She moved beyond planning to look at the city as economic generator,"
commented Christopher Hume, urban affairs writer for The Star.
"Eschewing jargon and received wisdom, she possessed an extraordinary
clarity of mind that enabled her to reveal truths so obvious they were in
visible to the rest of the world."
Epstein, the New York book editor who discovered Mrs. Jacobs as a writer of
books, described her as a "shrewd" woman.
"She had that wonderful double view, trusting no one side, and suspicious of
the other, which she had every reason to be. It made her mind very complex,
extremely clear, strong and vigorous."
As well as The Death and Life of Great American Cities, The Economy of
Cities, and The Question of Separatism, Mrs. Jacobs wrote other books,
including: Cities and the Wealth of Nations; The Girl on the Hat, Systems of
Survival: A Dialogue; A Schoolteacher in Old Alaska; The Hannah Breece
Story; The Nature of Economies; and Dark Age Ahead.
Mrs. Jacobs was taken aback that her book The Question of Separatism was not
well received by some Canadians. She wrote that Quebec would be better off
and more vital economy outside of Canada.
"I don't turn up my nose at people feeling emotional about things," she was
quoted.
"Emotion is valid. But I'm surprised at how emotional people get about
Quebec."
Her story of A Schoolteacher in Old Alaska is a book about her great aunt in
turn-of-the century Alaska. The Girl on the Hat, written for her grand
child, Caitlin, is the story of a resourceful girl named Tina who is two
inches tall.
The central premise of her book, The Nature of Economies, is that economics
is a web of connected forces subject to the same laws as all other living
things in nature.
At the time in March, 2000, she told The Star's Judy Stoffman: "This will be
a radical idea to those who think of human beings as being outside nature.
Human beings are neither adversaries of or the inevitable masters of nature.
They live by the same processes as all nature."
Following the death of her husband, Mrs. Jacobs continued to live in her
three-storey brick house on Albany Ave., a tree-lined street in the Annex
neighborhood she helped preserve.
She wrote in an upstairs office on a typewriter, refusing to use a computer.
A son, Jim, an inventor, lived close by and another son, Ned, worked for the
Vancouver Parks Board and is a musician, and a daughter Burgin, is an artist
and lives in New Denver. B.C.
The shelves of her study were not filled with books about economics or
cities, but with writings on chaos theory and the sciences, subjects which
stimulated her own thinking.
Shortly after writing The Nature of Economies, she was quoted as saying: "I
think I'm living in a marvelous age when great change is occurring. We now
see that there is no straight-line cause and effect; things are connected by
webs.
"This understanding comes from advances in the life-sciences, and it opens
up the possibility of understanding all kinds of things we haven't
understood before. I think it's very exciting."
As for her own life, she said the following: "Really, I've had a very easy
life.
"By easy I don't mean just lying around, but I haven't been put upon,
really. And it's been luck mostly. Being brought up in a time when women
weren't put down, that's luck. Being in a family where I wasn't put down,
that's luck. Finding the right man to marry, that's the best luck! Having
nice children, healthy children, that's luck.
"All these lucky things."
--
Sandor Gulyas
Graduate Student - Louisiana St. University
Dept. of Geography & Anthropology
"Nobody left to do the crazy things we used to do before
Nobody left to run with anymore"
No One To Run With -- (Performed by) Allman Brothers Band (1995)
Steve
> "Jane Jacobs, Social Critic Who Redefined and Championed Cities, Is
> Dead at 89"
> By DOUGLAS MARTIN
> Published: April 26, 2006
>
> Jane Jacobs, the writer and thinker who brought penetrating eyes and
> ingenious insight to the sidewalk ballet of her own Greenwich Village
> street and came up with a book that challenged and changed the way
> people view cities, died yesterday in Toronto, where she moved in 1968.
> She was 89.
>
> You can read the rest of the article at the New York Times web site
> (free registration required):
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/books/26jacobs.html
>
> Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
> (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
> system in the 1970's.
>
--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. (Eng.) '05, M.S. (Transp.) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads
Bolwerk
She didn't care two shits about the single-family house, and her
interest in the automobile at least at the time was to keep it from
destroying the urban environment, which is a perfectly reasonable
position. There's no reason to destroy perfectly nice neighborhoods just
to accommodate people who, as she put it, left the city and have no
business imposing their politics on it.
As for new urbanism, I doubt she was very fond of it. She appeared to
believe quite strongly that urban function cannot be imposed, even if
perhaps urban form could be.
George Conklin
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:444FEF...@worldnet.att.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > She also thought that all culture
> > sprang from urban environments, which is of course nonsense.
>
> "Don't know much about historyyyyy ...."
> --
>
I know a lot more about history than you do. Ever hear of folk culture?
Folk music?
Bolwerk
Of course, since cities don't have folk in them, they couldn't possibly
generate folk culture.
Right....
Scott O. Kuznicki
> Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
> (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
> system in the 1970's.
So her death is rather untimely then, I see.
It would have been hilarious if she had been hit by a car that would
have otherwise been using the safer alternative of a freeway.
--
Scott O. Kuznicki
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 525i 5-speed
'90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!)
Stephane Dumas
"Steve" <smal...@hackmit.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
4450075a$0$556$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> nycroads wrote:
>> Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
>> (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
>> system in the 1970's.
>>
> So now that she's dead, the Lomex will be built?
Or the "Lomdig" and the "Mid-Dig", maybe Toronto could even revive the
Spadina expressway ;-)
>
> --
> Steve Alpert
> MIT - B.S. (Eng.) '05, M.S. (Transp.) '06
> http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads
Stéphane Dumas
Revive755
It is rather amazing how many people think it is easier and safer to
cross a large surface street at grade than a freeway via an over or
underpass. One has to wonder how much these people actually walk or
bike in a decent sized town.
I thought the Spadina Expressway was already being built before it was
cancelled, so that a lot of money went to waste.
Mike Tantillo
Revive755 wrote:
> Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
> > On 26 Apr 2006 14:46:08 -0700, "nycroads" <nycr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
> > > (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
> > > system in the 1970's.
> >
> > So her death is rather untimely then, I see.
> >
> > It would have been hilarious if she had been hit by a car that would
> > have otherwise been using the safer alternative of a freeway.
> >
> > --
> > Scott O. Kuznicki
> > Civil (Traffic) Engineer
> > Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
> > Driving Enthusiast:
> > '03 525i 5-speed
> > '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!)
>
> It is rather amazing how many people think it is easier and safer to
> cross a large surface street at grade than a freeway via an over or
> underpass. One has to wonder how much these people actually walk or
> bike in a decent sized town.
>From my perspective, when I can walk across a street, directly from
point A to point B, that is much easier then having to climb up an
overpass, walk across, and climb back down. I'd also rather have a
street that I can see across....makes the neighborhood seem more
cohesive.....then a road with tall fences.....looks like more of a
barrier.
Crossing a street is perfectly safe if accomodations are put in to
protect the pedestrians.
I'm not anti-freeway....i'm just saying there is a time and place for
them, and when you want a walkable cohesive community, its best to put
the freeway elsewhere.
Peter T. Daniels
Ever heard of C,atal Hüyük? Uruk?
I didn't think so.
Geoffrey Hatchard
> On 26 Apr 2006 14:46:08 -0700, "nycroads" <nycr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
>> (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
>> system in the 1970's.
>
> So her death is rather untimely then, I see.
>
> It would have been hilarious if she had been hit by a car that would
> have otherwise been using the safer alternative of a freeway.
Wow, that's tasteless. It would be 'hilarious' if someone was hit by a
car? How about if someone dies of cancer, or is mauled by a wild
animal? Maybe if they're killed by a armed thug or maimed in an
industrial accident. Whoa-ho funny stuff, huh?
--
All the best,
Geoff
Mike Tantillo
I agree that "ironic" might have been a better choice of words.....but
hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinions I suppose <g>
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Bolwerk wrote:
> She didn't care two shits about the single-family house, and her
> interest in the automobile at least at the time was to keep it from
> destroying the urban environment, which is a perfectly reasonable
> position. There's no reason to destroy perfectly nice neighborhoods just
> to accommodate people who, as she put it, left the city and have no
> business imposing their politics on it.
The tough policy challenge that many cities faced was kind of a
half-a-loaf or no loaf.
Those people had left the city. But they still came back to the city
for commerce. Should cities make it easier for such people to come
back so as to keep their commerce? Or, would such efforts only make it
easier for more people to leave?
Another issue was clogged city streets that even locals couldn't
transverse, and it was hoped that expressways would make that better.
In some cases the expy did the job too well, they removed the traffic
and the commerce.
There is another side to this issue and that is the prevailing mindest
toward "slums" of the 1940s and 1950s. TODAY, we look at the old-time
surviving corner grocery store and think it has charm. But back then
"newness" was the rage, society wanted to let go of old 1900 tenements.
They thought those old stores and houses were dirty and run down,
which in many cases in poor neighborhoods, they indeed were.
A color book on the Third Avenue El shows 1950s sidewalk scenes. While
the el structure was attractive by today's standards, the
stores--already with anti-crime grill screens--didn't look charming,
they looked ugly and not very appealing. The food places didn't look
very appetizing and the bars looked rough. Photos taking in the 1930s
and 1940s by govt photographers of slum housing wasn't charming, it was
squalid.
For example, when Peter Cooper Vlg and Stuyvesant Town opened in the
1940s, they were hailed as attractive improvements over housing that
existed before.
The reformers of those days thought that poverty and crime stemmed
partly from frustration over squalid living conditions. They felt that
modern homes would inspire confidence and upward mobility efforts. It
turned out the poor needed much more than merely modern kitchens, but
it was a reasonable assumption. (Hindsight is always 20/20).
Pete from Boston
> nycroads wrote:
> > "Jane Jacobs, Social Critic Who Redefined and Championed Cities, Is
> > Dead at 89"
> > By DOUGLAS MARTIN
> > Published: April 26, 2006
> >
> > Jane Jacobs, the writer and thinker who brought penetrating eyes and
> > ingenious insight to the sidewalk ballet of her own Greenwich Village
> > street and came up with a book that challenged and changed the way
> > people view cities, died yesterday in Toronto, where she moved in 1968.
> > She was 89.
> >
> > You can read the rest of the article at the New York Times web site
> > (free registration required):
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/books/26jacobs.html
> >
> > Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
> > (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
> > system in the 1970's.
> >
> So now that she's dead, the Lomex will be built?
Sorry, people and money have populated the neighborhood since then. You
can't come back to the bar thirty years later and say, "excuse me, but
I was sitting there."
Pete from Boston
> On 26 Apr 2006 14:46:08 -0700, "nycroads" <nycr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Jane Jacobs was instrumental in stopping the Lower Manhattan Expressway
> > (I-78 and I-478) in the 1960's and much of Toronto's urban expressway
> > system in the 1970's.
>
> So her death is rather untimely then, I see.
>
> It would have been hilarious if she had been hit by a car that would
> have otherwise been using the safer alternative of a freeway.
Hilarious, no, but surely ironic, something like legendary
supersonic-plane test pilot Scott Crossfield dying last week by
crashing a little Cessna.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> She didn't care two shits about the single-family house, and her
>> interest in the automobile at least at the time was to keep it from
>> destroying the urban environment, which is a perfectly reasonable
>> position. There's no reason to destroy perfectly nice neighborhoods just
>> to accommodate people who, as she put it, left the city and have no
>> business imposing their politics on it.
>
> The tough policy challenge that many cities faced was kind of a
> half-a-loaf or no loaf.
>
> Those people had left the city. But they still came back to the city
> for commerce. Should cities make it easier for such people to come
> back so as to keep their commerce? Or, would such efforts only make it
> easier for more people to leave?
That aside, with new suburbs popping up, functions formerly left to
cities and local law were being more and more taken over by the state
and federal governments. The problem was that cities often no longer had
a choice in the matter. Policies at the time were decidedly anti-urban.
To answer your question though, couldn't it be argued that there are
other ways to bring people in and out of cities? I mean, commuter rail
doesn't hurt for those who do want to go to the city.
> Another issue was clogged city streets that even locals couldn't
> transverse, and it was hoped that expressways would make that better.
> In some cases the expy did the job too well, they removed the traffic
> and the commerce.
That's another type of bad planning though. My street is narrow, not
widely trafficked, almost Parisian, and it's still set up to give
preference to automobiles. Most of the traffic on it is foot traffic,
but we have to accommodate that guy who decides he should have a
footprint many times larger than everyone else.
Even in the evening, drivers often honk to try to get pedestrians to
move out of their ways faster. I often personally halt them and tell
them that people live upstairs and that they're insufferable assholes
for blasting their horns.
> There is another side to this issue and that is the prevailing mindest
> toward "slums" of the 1940s and 1950s. TODAY, we look at the old-time
> surviving corner grocery store and think it has charm. But back then
> "newness" was the rage, society wanted to let go of old 1900 tenements.
> They thought those old stores and houses were dirty and run down,
> which in many cases in poor neighborhoods, they indeed were.
>
> A color book on the Third Avenue El shows 1950s sidewalk scenes. While
> the el structure was attractive by today's standards, the
> stores--already with anti-crime grill screens--didn't look charming,
> they looked ugly and not very appealing. The food places didn't look
> very appetizing and the bars looked rough. Photos taking in the 1930s
> and 1940s by govt photographers of slum housing wasn't charming, it was
> squalid.
>
> For example, when Peter Cooper Vlg and Stuyvesant Town opened in the
> 1940s, they were hailed as attractive improvements over housing that
> existed before.
Definitely. I'm not denying that there were serious problems with the
tenements of the day, and I'm certainly not waxing nostalgic about them.
> The reformers of those days thought that poverty and crime stemmed
> partly from frustration over squalid living conditions. They felt that
> modern homes would inspire confidence and upward mobility efforts. It
> turned out the poor needed much more than merely modern kitchens, but
> it was a reasonable assumption. (Hindsight is always 20/20).
I agree, but I think if Jacobs had something right, it wasn't so much
the issue of Le Corbusier-style projects being hideous. There was a
rather sinister moral utopianism behind a lot of those plans. People's
living conditions were being reformed, but with it they destroyed how
people could interact with each other. Even in New York, some people are
just bothered that other people might be enjoying a drink or buying a
dildo. The attitude reflects the times quite well. People were afraid of
radical ideas then, and name one revolution that didn't start in a bar
or on the street.
There's a less cynical take on it, too. Some people honestly think
having a nice, quiet life is impossible without having commerce take
place away from their homes. Kind of strange for a country that so
prides itself on market performance.
Either way, I know urban isn't for everybody, but in a city so
superlatively urban as New York, I see no reason not to embrace urbanism.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Bolwerk wrote:
> That aside, with new suburbs popping up, functions formerly left to
> cities and local law were being more and more taken over by the state
> and federal governments. The problem was that cities often no longer had
> a choice in the matter. Policies at the time were decidedly anti-urban.
I'm not quite sure the policies we're discussing were "anti urban", my
point is that at the time (1940s, 1950s), those policies were seen as
_positive_ things that would improve the city. High rise apt buildings
in themselves are not bad, many exist with very high rents. But they
turned out to be bad for the poor families (if it was exclusively
senior it was ok).
As to ceding control to the state and Feds, again in those days that
was seen as a good thing because the cities wanted the money. In New
York, LaGuardia got the city addicted to New Deal funds. Indeed,
during WW II the city didn't get that money and hurt a bit since it
didn't have many war projects going on with fed money helping. After
the war the city welcomed Federal housing grants. So did other cities.
Again, today we say it was a mistake to tear down slums and put a
superhighway through, but back then many people thought it was a
positive improvement. It was desirable to tear down the slums, it was
desirable to build a new highway.
Of course, the slum dwellers didn't have much say in the matter, while
the people who built the highways had quite a bit of influence.
> To answer your question though, couldn't it be argued that there are
> other ways to bring people in and out of cities? I mean, commuter rail
> doesn't hurt for those who do want to go to the city.
Yes, but the same dilmema applies. Does a good commuter rail system
keep jobs in the city or does it encourage more city people to move to
the suburbs?
Further, again there was a very different mindset in the 1940s and
1950s. The _govt_ built roads were seen as a good thing while the
privately owned railroads and streetcars carriers were seen as a bad
thing (greedy, inefficient, indifferent, etc.) LaGuardia pushed hard
_against_ BMT vehicle improvement projects for example and wanted
streetcars converted to buses. The BMT sought to provide modern PCC
based technology but the city took the BMT over and literally scrapped
those efforts.
Robt Moses came out of the "progressive era" where railroads were seen
as the Enrons of their day. The public still had that mindset in the
1940s even if it was no longer true. In NYC, they built a city owned
subway then bought the other two companies. They didn't think about
how to pay for, run, or rebuild them, but public ownership was the
goal.
Let's face, by 1950 many commuter railroads and transit lines had
ancient equipment and a dilapitated physical plant. The postwar
automobile was far more comfortable and people thought a shiny new
highway was more desirable. People imagined very light traffic along a
nicely landscaped park-like right of way, not total gridlock, dirt,
noise, and fumes in a concrete and steel pit.
> I agree, but I think if Jacobs had something right, it wasn't so much
> the issue of Le Corbusier-style projects being hideous. There was a
> rather sinister moral utopianism behind a lot of those plans. People's
> living conditions were being reformed, but with it they destroyed how
> people could interact with each other. Even in New York, some people are
> just bothered that other people might be enjoying a drink or buying a
> dildo. The attitude reflects the times quite well. People were afraid of
> radical ideas then, and name one revolution that didn't start in a bar
> or on the street.
I'm pretty sure the planners never expected that the street
plazas--built in so many places in urban renewal--would become desolate
windswept places. Actually they expected quite the opposite. Drawings
of proposed Penn Center plaza in Phila show a cafe like atmosphere and
lots of people walking about. The reality was the opposite.
There is a wonderful episode of "Car 54" in which a stubborn woman
"troublemaker", played by Molly Pichon, refuses to take a promised
modern apartment "because you're building me a jail! No iceman to
deliver, no meter readers, no radiator to bang on, no fire escape to
visit, no stoop to sit out? I could die and no would notice!" At the
end she forced them to redesign the modern project back into a tenement
to keep that interaction.
I must note however, that this old style of layout is no guarantee of
community health. Plenty of classic communities have terrible problems
with drugs and crime. That kind of layout--close interaction--requires
that the residents respect each other and maintain basic courtesies. I
suspect Ms. Jacobs neighborhood had that inherent respect, but many
neighborhoods did not and do not today. People put up grillwork and
heavy doors and shutters as a subsequent response to crime, not before.
> There's a less cynical take on it, too. Some people honestly think
> having a nice, quiet life is impossible without having commerce take
> place away from their homes. Kind of strange for a country that so
> prides itself on market performance.
Actually, there is justification to that. I grew up near a strip of
stores. Being close to it was very convenient, but admittedly it had
problems too. There was some rough kids who hung out at the stores and
you stayed clear of them. Sometimes trouble would spill over onto our
block. My mother found living near the stores rather distasteful and
her next house was not near them. Indeed, I must admit in my house
shopping I shyed away from being near the bright lights of a shopping
center.
> Either way, I know urban isn't for everybody, but in a city so
> superlatively urban as New York, I see no reason not to embrace urbanism.
In the phl.media newsgroup we are having a discussion about that. Take
a look at the subject "Broken Windows.. and you'll see a diversity of
views on this issue. Join in if you like.
George Conklin
<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:1146155840.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bolwerk wrote:
> > She didn't care two shits about the single-family house, and her
> > interest in the automobile at least at the time was to keep it from
> > destroying the urban environment, which is a perfectly reasonable
> > position. There's no reason to destroy perfectly nice neighborhoods just
> > to accommodate people who, as she put it, left the city and have no
> > business imposing their politics on it.
>
> The tough policy challenge that many cities faced was kind of a
> half-a-loaf or no loaf.
>
> Those people had left the city. But they still came back to the city
> for commerce. Should cities make it easier for such people to come
> back so as to keep their commerce? Or, would such efforts only make it
> easier for more people to leave?
>
Most commutes are from suburb to suburb even in the NYC market. Leave?
Most people who grew up in NYC left and are replaced by immigrants who will
leave when they get the chance too.
> Another issue was clogged city streets that even locals couldn't
> transverse, and it was hoped that expressways would make that better.
> In some cases the expy did the job too well, they removed the traffic
> and the commerce.
>
>
> There is another side to this issue and that is the prevailing mindest
> toward "slums" of the 1940s and 1950s. TODAY, we look at the old-time
> surviving corner grocery store and think it has charm. But back then
> "newness" was the rage, society wanted to let go of old 1900 tenements.
> They thought those old stores and houses were dirty and run down,
> which in many cases in poor neighborhoods, they indeed were.
>
> A color book on the Third Avenue El shows 1950s sidewalk scenes. While
> the el structure was attractive by today's standards, the
> stores--already with anti-crime grill screens--didn't look charming,
> they looked ugly and not very appealing. The food places didn't look
> very appetizing and the bars looked rough. Photos taking in the 1930s
> and 1940s by govt photographers of slum housing wasn't charming, it was
> squalid.
>
When the Third Avenue El opened those under the El successfully sued for
lower property values. It was NEVER quaint. It was just another burden for
property owners.
> For example, when Peter Cooper Vlg and Stuyvesant Town opened in the
> 1940s, they were hailed as attractive improvements over housing that
> existed before.
>
> The reformers of those days thought that poverty and crime stemmed
> partly from frustration over squalid living conditions. They felt that
> modern homes would inspire confidence and upward mobility efforts. It
> turned out the poor needed much more than merely modern kitchens, but
> it was a reasonable assumption. (Hindsight is always 20/20).
>
Bad living conditions are still correlated with high crime rates.
George Conklin
"Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:AO74g.2726$Ci.780@trnddc05...
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Bolwerk wrote:
> >> She didn't care two shits about the single-family house, and her
> >> interest in the automobile at least at the time was to keep it from
> >> destroying the urban environment, which is a perfectly reasonable
> >> position. There's no reason to destroy perfectly nice neighborhoods
just
> >> to accommodate people who, as she put it, left the city and have no
> >> business imposing their politics on it.
> >
> > The tough policy challenge that many cities faced was kind of a
> > half-a-loaf or no loaf.
> >
> > Those people had left the city. But they still came back to the city
> > for commerce. Should cities make it easier for such people to come
> > back so as to keep their commerce? Or, would such efforts only make it
> > easier for more people to leave?
>
> That aside, with new suburbs popping up, functions formerly left to
> cities and local law were being more and more taken over by the state
> and federal governments. The problem was that cities often no longer had
> a choice in the matter. Policies at the time were decidedly anti-urban.
Wrong. The nature of cities evolved away from the old "pack-em-in"
model.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> That aside, with new suburbs popping up, functions formerly left to
>> cities and local law were being more and more taken over by the state
>> and federal governments. The problem was that cities often no longer had
>> a choice in the matter. Policies at the time were decidedly anti-urban.
>
> I'm not quite sure the policies we're discussing were "anti urban", my
> point is that at the time (1940s, 1950s), those policies were seen as
> _positive_ things that would improve the city. High rise apt buildings
> in themselves are not bad, many exist with very high rents. But they
> turned out to be bad for the poor families (if it was exclusively
> senior it was ok).
I don't think they were hostile to urban form necessarily (many people
certainly were), but there was definitely a consorted effort, even
within cities and by cities, to reject urban function.
> As to ceding control to the state and Feds, again in those days that
> was seen as a good thing because the cities wanted the money. In New
> York, LaGuardia got the city addicted to New Deal funds. Indeed,
> during WW II the city didn't get that money and hurt a bit since it
> didn't have many war projects going on with fed money helping. After
> the war the city welcomed Federal housing grants. So did other cities.
>
> Again, today we say it was a mistake to tear down slums and put a
> superhighway through, but back then many people thought it was a
> positive improvement. It was desirable to tear down the slums, it was
> desirable to build a new highway.
I can stay neutral on the matter of slum clearance and just point out
that, if you look at the replacement projects, there is a fascinating
attempt to completely usurp any sense of urban form in them. Many were
carefully constructed to face away from the street, or destroy any hope
that any form of, say, commerce or street life could form.
> Of course, the slum dwellers didn't have much say in the matter, while
> the people who built the highways had quite a bit of influence.
>
>
>> To answer your question though, couldn't it be argued that there are
>> other ways to bring people in and out of cities? I mean, commuter rail
>> doesn't hurt for those who do want to go to the city.
>
> Yes, but the same dilmema applies. Does a good commuter rail system
> keep jobs in the city or does it encourage more city people to move to
> the suburbs?
I don't really see that as a dilemma per se. I don't think most cities
did very much to make themselves attractive at the time, or if they did,
they didn't do it very well. That was very likely the bigger problem.
On the other hand, today, many cities around the world have shown they
can prosper in the face of growing suburbs. If people are going to move
out to suburbs, suburbs inherently need to develop economies of their
own to sustain themselves, just as a healthy city or a healthy state
each need an economy to sustain themselves.
> Further, again there was a very different mindset in the 1940s and
> 1950s. The _govt_ built roads were seen as a good thing while the
> privately owned railroads and streetcars carriers were seen as a bad
> thing (greedy, inefficient, indifferent, etc.) LaGuardia pushed hard
> _against_ BMT vehicle improvement projects for example and wanted
> streetcars converted to buses. The BMT sought to provide modern PCC
> based technology but the city took the BMT over and literally scrapped
> those efforts.
>
> Robt Moses came out of the "progressive era" where railroads were seen
> as the Enrons of their day. The public still had that mindset in the
> 1940s even if it was no longer true. In NYC, they built a city owned
> subway then bought the other two companies. They didn't think about
> how to pay for, run, or rebuild them, but public ownership was the
> goal.
>
> Let's face, by 1950 many commuter railroads and transit lines had
> ancient equipment and a dilapitated physical plant. The postwar
> automobile was far more comfortable and people thought a shiny new
> highway was more desirable. People imagined very light traffic along a
> nicely landscaped park-like right of way, not total gridlock, dirt,
> noise, and fumes in a concrete and steel pit.
I agree with pretty much all of that. Nonetheless though, I think was a
clear need at the time to commute into cities, and there was no reason
cities HAD to embrace the automobile. There is far less need for
commuting into a city today I guess.
>> I agree, but I think if Jacobs had something right, it wasn't so much
>> the issue of Le Corbusier-style projects being hideous. There was a
>> rather sinister moral utopianism behind a lot of those plans. People's
>> living conditions were being reformed, but with it they destroyed how
>> people could interact with each other. Even in New York, some people are
>> just bothered that other people might be enjoying a drink or buying a
>> dildo. The attitude reflects the times quite well. People were afraid of
>> radical ideas then, and name one revolution that didn't start in a bar
>> or on the street.
>
> I'm pretty sure the planners never expected that the street
> plazas--built in so many places in urban renewal--would become desolate
> windswept places. Actually they expected quite the opposite. Drawings
> of proposed Penn Center plaza in Phila show a cafe like atmosphere and
> lots of people walking about. The reality was the opposite.
I think the intention was to fill such places with "nice" people, and
create something that functionally prevented the problems rooted in
slums. Part of the trick to that theory was keeping places socially
homogeneous, which NYC is not.
> There is a wonderful episode of "Car 54" in which a stubborn woman
> "troublemaker", played by Molly Pichon, refuses to take a promised
> modern apartment "because you're building me a jail! No iceman to
> deliver, no meter readers, no radiator to bang on, no fire escape to
> visit, no stoop to sit out? I could die and no would notice!" At the
> end she forced them to redesign the modern project back into a tenement
> to keep that interaction.
>
> I must note however, that this old style of layout is no guarantee of
> community health. Plenty of classic communities have terrible problems
> with drugs and crime. That kind of layout--close interaction--requires
> that the residents respect each other and maintain basic courtesies. I
> suspect Ms. Jacobs neighborhood had that inherent respect, but many
> neighborhoods did not and do not today. People put up grillwork and
> heavy doors and shutters as a subsequent response to crime, not before.
Oh, of course not. I just think it's more a matter of projects being a
guarantee of community illness, at least unless there's a massive
security or police presence.
>> There's a less cynical take on it, too. Some people honestly think
>> having a nice, quiet life is impossible without having commerce take
>> place away from their homes. Kind of strange for a country that so
>> prides itself on market performance.
>
> Actually, there is justification to that. I grew up near a strip of
> stores. Being close to it was very convenient, but admittedly it had
> problems too. There was some rough kids who hung out at the stores and
> you stayed clear of them. Sometimes trouble would spill over onto our
> block. My mother found living near the stores rather distasteful and
> her next house was not near them. Indeed, I must admit in my house
> shopping I shyed away from being near the bright lights of a shopping
> center.
>
>
>> Either way, I know urban isn't for everybody, but in a city so
>> superlatively urban as New York, I see no reason not to embrace urbanism.
>
> In the phl.media newsgroup we are having a discussion about that. Take
> a look at the subject "Broken Windows.. and you'll see a diversity of
> views on this issue. Join in if you like.
I'll definitely check it out, thanks.
Bolwerk
It wasn't only a matter of evolution. It was also a matter of planning.
But we hate planning!
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Bolwerk wrote:
> I can stay neutral on the matter of slum clearance and just point out
> that, if you look at the replacement projects, there is a fascinating
> attempt to completely usurp any sense of urban form in them. Many were
> carefully constructed to face away from the street, or destroy any hope
> that any form of, say, commerce or street life could form.
Which was the intent! Way back then the reformers thought kids playing
literally in the streets was a major negative; they were afraid of
contamination from undesirable elements. They wanted the kids in
wholesome supervised activities in nice playgrounds. The reformers
also sought to make the streets quiet and serene; to get rid of the
dirty and noisy pushcarts, stores with merchandise spilled onto the
sidewalk, etc.
If you can find old books on urban planning in the library (printed
before 1960), you'll see all this spelled out. A congested busy street
is "bad", a serene [sterile] street is "good".
There's an old negative expression "off the street", meaning the lowest
form of something or something undesirable. "Get the kids off the
streets" or "clean up the streets" were political/reformer slogans back
then.
> I don't really see that as a dilemma per se. I don't think most cities
> did very much to make themselves attractive at the time, or if they did,
> they didn't do it very well. That was very likely the bigger problem.
Cities constantly reinvent themselves over the years, sometimes with
wonderful results, sometimes with failure. In the 1950s new "civic
centers" replaced industrial districts.
Philadelphia had a massive railroad viaduct that was torn down and
replaced by a modern office building complex (Penn Center). It was
certainly better than the horrid viaduct and generated a lot of fresh
commerce. But as mentioned, while the center plazas were intended to
be pedestrian friendly, they didn't turn out that way.
> On the other hand, today, many cities around the world have shown they
> can prosper in the face of growing suburbs. If people are going to move
> out to suburbs, suburbs inherently need to develop economies of their
> own to sustain themselves, just as a healthy city or a healthy state
> each need an economy to sustain themselves.
See the previously mentioned thread in "broken windows" in phl.media
for a discussion on a city economy. Lots of diverse viewpoints.
> I agree with pretty much all of that. Nonetheless though, I think was a
> clear need at the time to commute into cities, and there was no reason
> cities HAD to embrace the automobile. There is far less need for
> commuting into a city today I guess.
Planners, politicians, and voters, follow the artistic and logistical
style of the times they're in. By the 1950s, the heavy masonry look
for buildings was out and sleek/shiny glass and steel in, and that was
encouraged and built. Trains were out and cars were in.
Sure, they didn't _have_ to embrance the auto, but that was the fashion
of the times. (Plus the auto industry lobbied very hard and encouraged
it greatly.)
Actually though, Phila didn't embrace the car as much. Thank goodness,
lots of proposed expressways never got built (one remains abandoned
piers in the air to this day). In the late 1950s Phila was the first
city to help preserve commuter train service, for both city residents
and suburbanites. New trains were purchased and improvements made in
service. It was successful and patronage went up. Sadly, in the NYC
area nothing was done and the MTA found itself with a horribly
dilapidated system when it was created in 1968. NJ wasn't much better.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>> I can stay neutral on the matter of slum clearance and just point out
>> that, if you look at the replacement projects, there is a fascinating
>> attempt to completely usurp any sense of urban form in them. Many were
>> carefully constructed to face away from the street, or destroy any hope
>> that any form of, say, commerce or street life could form.
>
> Which was the intent! Way back then the reformers thought kids playing
> literally in the streets was a major negative; they were afraid of
> contamination from undesirable elements. They wanted the kids in
> wholesome supervised activities in nice playgrounds. The reformers
> also sought to make the streets quiet and serene; to get rid of the
> dirty and noisy pushcarts, stores with merchandise spilled onto the
> sidewalk, etc.
Yeah, I know. It's really only that moral aspect that bothers me, and I
think Jane Jacobs was right on about it. I think it left a lasting dent
on the city that wouldn't be there today if it weren't for the
selfishness of the planners of the day. "Utopian minders of other
people's leisure," I believe is what she called the planners of the day. :-D
>> On the other hand, today, many cities around the world have shown they
>> can prosper in the face of growing suburbs. If people are going to move
>> out to suburbs, suburbs inherently need to develop economies of their
>> own to sustain themselves, just as a healthy city or a healthy state
>> each need an economy to sustain themselves.
>
> See the previously mentioned thread in "broken windows" in phl.media
> for a discussion on a city economy. Lots of diverse viewpoints.
Yeah, I'm actually only getting a few posts of that here. I'll look on
Google.
Scott O. Kuznicki
wrote:
> > > So her death is rather untimely then, I see.
> > >
> > > It would have been hilarious if she had been hit by a car that would
> > > have otherwise been using the safer alternative of a freeway.
> >
> > Wow, that's tasteless. It would be 'hilarious' if someone was hit by a
> > car? How about if someone dies of cancer, or is mauled by a wild
> > animal? Maybe if they're killed by a armed thug or maimed in an
> > industrial accident. Whoa-ho funny stuff, huh?
> >
>
> I agree that "ironic" might have been a better choice of words.....but
> hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinions I suppose <g>
Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me sound
like Tim Brown. :-)
Mike Tantillo
Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2006 07:11:30 -0700, "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > So her death is rather untimely then, I see.
> > > >
> > > > It would have been hilarious if she had been hit by a car that would
> > > > have otherwise been using the safer alternative of a freeway.
> > >
> > > Wow, that's tasteless. It would be 'hilarious' if someone was hit by a
> > > car? How about if someone dies of cancer, or is mauled by a wild
> > > animal? Maybe if they're killed by a armed thug or maimed in an
> > > industrial accident. Whoa-ho funny stuff, huh?
> > >
> >
> > I agree that "ironic" might have been a better choice of words.....but
> > hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinions I suppose <g>
>
> Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me sound
> like Tim Brown. :-)
But only if Ms. Jacobs was a Republican....
George Conklin
> >> I agree, but I think if Jacobs had something right, it wasn't so much
> >> the issue of Le Corbusier-style projects being hideous. There was a
> >> rather sinister moral utopianism behind a lot of those plans.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure the planners never expected that the street
> > plazas--built in so many places in urban renewal--would become desolate
> > windswept places. Actually they expected quite the opposite. Drawings
> > of proposed Penn Center plaza in Phila show a cafe like atmosphere and
> > lots of people walking about. The reality was the opposite.
>
> I think the intention was to fill such places with "nice" people, and
> create something that functionally prevented the problems rooted in
> slums. Part of the trick to that theory was keeping places socially
> homogeneous, which NYC is not.
Once again, Oscar Lewis' book on Defensible Space (free from HUD-USER)
describes these failures in great detail.
John Mara
>
> I'm pretty sure the planners never expected that the street
> plazas--built in so many places in urban renewal--would become desolate
> windswept places. Actually they expected quite the opposite. Drawings
> of proposed Penn Center plaza in Phila show a cafe like atmosphere and
> lots of people walking about. The reality was the opposite.
>
I think that it is interesting that some of the office towers on Sixth
Avenue in Manhattan now have stores on the first floor. The plazas are
still there but the stores pull people across the plaza into the
building and make the plaza a bit more lively. The first floors of
these buildings were originally vast lobbies. Using the space for
stores also bring in some rent for the building owner.
John Mara
Scott O. Kuznicki
wrote:
> > Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me sound
> > like Tim Brown. :-)
>
> But only if Ms. Jacobs was a Republican....
You mean to say she wasn't? ;-)
Of course, "New Urbanism" and conservation and walkable communities
are all ideas that conservatives and liberals alike embrace; I don't
think any one party has a monopoly on any of those concepts, although
some would like you to believe they do.
nycroads
> On 27 Apr 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me sound
> > > like Tim Brown. :-)
> >
> > But only if Ms. Jacobs was a Republican....
>
> You mean to say she wasn't? ;-)
>
> Of course, "New Urbanism" and conservation and walkable communities
> are all ideas that conservatives and liberals alike embrace; I don't
> think any one party has a monopoly on any of those concepts, although
> some would like you to believe they do.
>
ally of the left, as I have thought for years. However, she actually
espoused some free-market philosophies (i.e., why should government
spend hundreds of millions to tear down neighborhoods when that money
could be invested into new private enterprise), so in that respect she
was an iconoclast.
The following article is linked from City Journal, which is published
by the Manhattan Institute (a right-leaning New York-based think tank):
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2006-04-27hh.html
-- Steve Anderson
http://www.nycroads.com
http://www.phillyroads.com
http://www.bostonroads.com
http://www.dcroads.net
http://www.ratetheroads.com
George Conklin
"Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottk...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message
news:54p252pd1j9tgdef9...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Apr 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me sound
> > > like Tim Brown. :-)
> >
> > But only if Ms. Jacobs was a Republican....
>
> You mean to say she wasn't? ;-)
>
> Of course, "New Urbanism" and conservation and walkable communities
> are all ideas that conservatives and liberals alike embrace; I don't
> think any one party has a monopoly on any of those concepts, although
> some would like you to believe they do.
>
all hate the single-family house. I think that democrats are vastly more
likely to be smart growth advocates than Republicans, which is one reason
why outside New England (home of high prices), Republicans win Presidential
elections because people don't feel comfortable with the Al Gore blabber
about things most people don't agree with. Somehow the old democratic push
for a house for everyone has become, "A house for the elites." Transit for
YOU.
George Conklin
"nycroads" <nycr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146218059.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me
sound
> > > > like Tim Brown. :-)
> > >
> > > But only if Ms. Jacobs was a Republican....
> >
> > You mean to say she wasn't? ;-)
> >
> > Of course, "New Urbanism" and conservation and walkable communities
> > are all ideas that conservatives and liberals alike embrace; I don't
> > think any one party has a monopoly on any of those concepts, although
> > some would like you to believe they do.
> >
> It is interesting to note that Jane Jacobs is thought usually as an
> ally of the left, as I have thought for years. However, she actually
> espoused some free-market philosophies (i.e., why should government
> spend hundreds of millions to tear down neighborhoods when that money
> could be invested into new private enterprise), so in that respect she
> was an iconoclast.
>
Jane Jacobs was against the Le Corbusier school of urban planning. But
her ideal-type went back BEFORE that to the idealized city of 1900. She
hated what most people want: a single-family house on a lot. She wanted
you to live over a store on a busy city street. Further, she also wrote
other books which argued that all civilization was found in cities, a silly
view but one also pushed by the urban militant posting on Usenet.
Leroy Molebiters
George Conklin wrote:
> New Urbanism is pushed by planners who hate the middle class and above
> all hate the single-family house. I think that democrats are vastly more
> likely to be smart growth advocates than Republicans, which is one reason
> why outside New England (home of high prices), Republicans win Presidential
> elections because people don't feel comfortable with the Al Gore blabber
> about things most people don't agree with. Somehow the old democratic push
> for a house for everyone has become, "A house for the elites." Transit for
> YOU.
What's your gas bill like this month, Conky? Are you screaming like a
lunatic along with the rest of the country?
Americans all want a single house and a big yard and they think gas
should be free. Oops I guess they miscalculated. More pain to come,
including re-configuraing the country to be be less car dependant.
Won't happen overnight, but Gas ain't getting no cheaper.
George Conklin
"Leroy Molebiters" <leroy.mo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146237176.4...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > New Urbanism is pushed by planners who hate the middle class and
above
> > all hate the single-family house. I think that democrats are vastly
more
> > likely to be smart growth advocates than Republicans, which is one
reason
> > why outside New England (home of high prices), Republicans win
Presidential
> > elections because people don't feel comfortable with the Al Gore blabber
> > about things most people don't agree with. Somehow the old democratic
push
> > for a house for everyone has become, "A house for the elites." Transit
for
> > YOU.
>
> What's your gas bill like this month, Conky? Are you screaming like a
> lunatic along with the rest of the country?
>
The house is all-electric + solar hot water. $140 a month year-round, with
a high-efficiency heat pump and 2,300 square feet.
Is is 7 miles to work. 15 minutes door-to-door. Most of my petrol costs
are weekend expenses.
> Americans all want a single house and a big yard and they think gas
> should be free.
Speak for yourself.
Bolwerk
Really? It seems more like Republicans win elections via gerrymandering
and theft. The same way Democrats frequently win elections.
Being against the single-family house has nothing to do with being
against the middle class. People of all kinds of social classes live
under all kinds of arrangements. There's nothing more than a casual
correlation at best.
And your religious belief that the single-family house is intrinsically
good under all circumstances is just nonsense.
Bolwerk
> Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "Mike Tantillo" <mjtan...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sorry, I should have used ironic . . . using hilarious makes me sound
>>>> like Tim Brown. :-)
>>> But only if Ms. Jacobs was a Republican....
>> You mean to say she wasn't? ;-)
>>
>> Of course, "New Urbanism" and conservation and walkable communities
>> are all ideas that conservatives and liberals alike embrace; I don't
>> think any one party has a monopoly on any of those concepts, although
>> some would like you to believe they do.
>>
> It is interesting to note that Jane Jacobs is thought usually as an
> ally of the left, as I have thought for years. However, she actually
> espoused some free-market philosophies (i.e., why should government
> spend hundreds of millions to tear down neighborhoods when that money
> could be invested into new private enterprise), so in that respect she
> was an iconoclast.
Conservatism, properly speaking, is frequently associated with
community-driven solutions rather than imposition by the state, and in
that sense Jane Jacobs is one of the more conservative commentators of
the 20th century. American conservatives in fact have a major liberal
bent insofar as they tend to use the state to further policy goals and
protect and cater to the interests of the market. The closest thing to
pure conservatives I can think of in American politics are the so-called
"paleo-conservatives," who often believe or at least espouse that social
policy should be deferred to provincial units of government (states'
rights).
I think it's pure folly to associate urban politics with liberalism,
either way. Urban areas tend to vote as a bloc in national politics, but
labels are misleading. The bloc tends to fall along party lines, rather
than ideological lines, and they'll vote for the same party whether
there's a conservative or liberal or socialist or whatever heading that
party's ticket. It just so happens that party is the Democratic Party.
Cities voted for Clinton as easily as they voted for Mondale and Kerry.
I suppose it's the same with many Republican areas, though the old
Republican strongholds in the northeast seem to be shying away from
national Republican politics. Look at places like Long Island and
Connecticut though. They may not like Bush, but the local politics are
still often very Republican. And heck, Connecticut has Lieberman, who is
hardly a new Deal Democrat.
Peter Schleifer
<georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> When the Third Avenue El opened those under the El successfully sued for
>lower property values.
Got a reference for this? I would be surprised to learn of any
grounds for such a suit to be successful in the 19th century.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"
Peter T. Daniels
> Really? It seems more like Republicans win elections via gerrymandering
> and theft. The same way Democrats frequently win elections.
When did Democrats ever gerrymander other than in a year following the
Decennial Census?
What DeLay did in Texas comes very close to treason: subverting the
plain meaning of the Constitution, as well as nearly 220 years of
precedents.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
> I suppose it's the same with many Republican areas, though the old
> Republican strongholds in the northeast seem to be shying away from
> national Republican politics. Look at places like Long Island and
> Connecticut though. They may not like Bush, but the local politics are
> still often very Republican. And heck, Connecticut has Lieberman, who is
> hardly a new Deal Democrat.
Peter King is as cretinous as any Bush-area Republican.
Even Nassau County now has Democrats in charge.
Bolwerk
Yeah, he's a complete troglodyte. That might be a swing district if he
dies or retires though. Long Island has a lot of immigrants, or at least
first and second generation Americans.
He must be either well gerrymandered, or know how to bring home federal
pork.
Bolwerk
> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Really? It seems more like Republicans win elections via gerrymandering
>> and theft. The same way Democrats frequently win elections.
>
> When did Democrats ever gerrymander other than in a year following the
> Decennial Census?
I didn't say they did. I think gerrymandering is bad no matter who does
it, and what the circumstances are. The House is purely gerrymandered
though. How many seats could possibly be competitive in the worst of
circumstances for the ruling party? 50 or so? I seem to recall the
number for this upcoming election being something like 17 to 30,
depending on who you ask and what their agenda is.
Of course, that probably means the Republicans have no chance of losing,
since they'll undoubtedly capture SOME competitive seats.
> What DeLay did in Texas comes very close to treason: subverting the
> plain meaning of the Constitution, as well as nearly 220 years of
> precedents.
DeLay just goes above and beyond. But I have to say, I think districts
carved out by court fiats are no better. The entire system just
conceptually sucks, and it sucks even more in practice.
Leo Wong
http://janejacobs.tyo.ca/2006/04/26/jane-jacobs-1916-2006/
Leo Wong
http://www.murphywong.net
Sancho Panza
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Bolwerk wrote:
> >
> >> I suppose it's the same with many Republican areas, though the old
> >> Republican strongholds in the northeast seem to be shying away from
> >> national Republican politics. Look at places like Long Island and
> >> Connecticut though. They may not like Bush, but the local politics are
> >> still often very Republican. And heck, Connecticut has Lieberman, who
is
> >> hardly a new Deal Democrat.
> >
> > Peter King is as cretinous as any Bush-area Republican.
> >
> > Even Nassau County now has Democrats in charge.
>
> Yeah, he's a complete troglodyte.
Wow! You would say that about a revered member of mass transit!
George Conklin
"Peter Schleifer" <psch...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:ab85525sd0flpqatb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:36:59 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > When the Third Avenue El opened those under the El successfully sued
for
> >lower property values.
>
> Got a reference for this? I would be surprised to learn of any
> grounds for such a suit to be successful in the 19th century.
It was in the book Gotham.
Bolwerk
> "Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zsy4g.951$g01.311@trnddc01...
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Bolwerk wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose it's the same with many Republican areas, though the old
>>>> Republican strongholds in the northeast seem to be shying away from
>>>> national Republican politics. Look at places like Long Island and
>>>> Connecticut though. They may not like Bush, but the local politics are
>>>> still often very Republican. And heck, Connecticut has Lieberman, who
> is
>>>> hardly a new Deal Democrat.
>>> Peter King is as cretinous as any Bush-area Republican.
>>>
>>> Even Nassau County now has Democrats in charge.
>> Yeah, he's a complete troglodyte.
>
> Wow! You would say that about a revered member of mass transit!
Who or what is a "revered member of mass transit"?
Sancho Panza
Representative King.
Bolwerk
Mass transit is a members-only club?
I don't care about his views on mass transit, which I'm sure don't
extend benefit many outside his district regardless. The major problem I
have with King is he's a jingoist.
Peter T. Daniels
> I don't care about his views on mass transit, which I'm sure don't
> extend benefit many outside his district regardless. The major problem I
> have with King is he's a jingoist.
He came to mind because the other day Channel 7 had him and Charlie
Rangel opining on the "Spanish national anthem" crisis. Guess which side
he took.
argatla...@yahoo.com.mx
> Once again, Oscar Lewis' book on Defensible Space (free from HUD-USER)
> describes these failures in great detail.
Surely you mean Oscar Newman?
George Conklin
<argatla...@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:1146400943....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Yes. Thanks. Oscar Lewis wrote the famous book about povery. Sorry.
Sancho Panza
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4453FB...@worldnet.att.net...
Uhhhhh, not yours?
Sancho Panza
"George Conklin" <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rjI4g.1791$Vn....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Page 1055-1056 in my edition. It also makes clear that the Court of Appeals
ruling was the deathknell for el's in Manhattan.
Peter T. Daniels
And which side would mine be, and why?