
Jane Jacobs: The Champion of Little Plans - raleighm
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/06/07/the-champion-of-little-plans/
======
spodek
For those who have read _Death and Life of Great American Cities_ and _The
Power Broker_ , most of this article tells history you already know.

After that part, it's about applying her principles to today's issues beyond
cities to entrepreneurship versus large corporations and red tape and how to
serve people and their lives.

The article didn't apply her principles to the environment, where I find a
relevant parallel: people in traffic jams felt, "if only this road had another
lane, then I wouldn't have to endure this traffic jam" so we built more lanes
and roads. After generations, people learned that empty roads helped only
temporarily, eventually leading people to use them and create more traffic
than before the expansion.

The parallel is that people see pollution today and think, "if only a new
technology reduced this pollution, I wouldn't have to breathe this polluted
air / endure sea levels rising / etc" so we develop new technologies. We
haven't yet learned the parallel with roads that more technologies help only
temporarily, eventually leading people to use them and create more pollution.

I've overstated things to simplify, but there are shades of gray. We need some
roads, but more isn't necessarily better and short-term solutions often worsen
the situation. Same with technology, as Jevon's paradox, among other effects,
illustrates.

In complex systems, if you don't address the leverage point of the beliefs and
goals of the system, changing elements in it rarely changes the system, no
matter how wonderful the new technology seems, be it LED lighting, nuclear
power, carbon sequestration, space travel, and so on. In a system based on
beliefs that we can expand out of any problem, they'll make the system expand
faster. In a system designed to serve people, new technologies would help
serve people better, but we don't live in such a system yet.

We could use an environmental Jane Jacobs.

~~~
cirgue
> We haven't yet learned the parallel with roads that more technologies help
> only temporarily, eventually leading people to use them and create more
> pollution.

This is a false equivalency. Traffic is very much the limiting factor in the
use of roads. Pollution is absolutely not the limiting factor in the use of
technology. The volume of pollution produced does not expand to some magical
limit in response to changes in process in the same way that traffic expands
to fill roadways in response to road expansion.

~~~
maxsilver
> Pollution is absolutely not the limiting factor in the use of technology.
> The volume of pollution produced does not expand to some magical limit in
> response to changes in process in the same way that traffic expands to fill
> roadways in response to road expansion.

Yep, and this is a false equivalency too. Traffic does not "expand to fill
roadways" in that way, we are just so under-provisioned on transit
infrastructure that it gives the artificial appearance of this. By this flawed
logic, we should never build Hospitals (because it would 'make more' sick
people, they would 'expand to fill hospitals'). Or we should never build
schools (because that would 'make more' uneducated people).

This isn't new, grossly misunderstanding induced demand is par for the course
in that field. But it's worth mentioning every time this comes up.

~~~
mapleoin
Yes, traffic does expand to fill roadways if all you do is build roadways and
population and car-ownership increases. One solution to traffic congestion is,
yes to provision more transit infrastructure, but that usually means subways
and cycling paths in a city, a better train system in the countryside. Another
solution is to redesign the city so that people don't need to move as much.
Build vertically, encourage varied local businesses where people live, rather
than in a mall outside town and relocate things that you don't need in a city
centre (i.e. industry).

~~~
closeparen
Satisfying more people’s desire for transportation is a good thing. Roads can
be an inefficient way to do that, but it’s baffling how people talk about
“extra” traffic like there’s no public value in enabling it.

~~~
yayana
The post you replied to explained why it shouldn't be baffling. Individual
agents all optimize to the changes in factors offered by new roads leading to
a non optimal society of people commuting hours to get to jobs and big box
stores from "less expensive" housing before calculating commute costs and
externalities.

------
gaius
A slight tangent but Jane Jacobs book _Systems Of Survival_ is excellent,
thought-provoking and insightful

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival)

------
thomasfl
It's fascinating how many problems urban development architecture can actually
solve. When a citys population grows, the economy grows even faste. Drug and
mental problems can be solved by giving people better housing conditions.

~~~
YorkshireSeason
These are daring statements!

In the light of the gigantic failure of 20th century early modernist
architect's to solve many social problems, despite their loud claims to the
contrary. What did early modernist architects give us? Brutalism, car-friendly
and pedestrian-repelling architecture following the blueprint of Le Corbusier
"Radiant City" [1] and the Athens Charter [2]. Some solution to social
problems ...

In the light of the extreme failure of most of 20th century's modernist
architecture, the burden of proof is firmly in the architects & urban
planner's court.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ville_Radieuse)

~~~
jhbadger
That's exactly the sort of thing Jacobs was against, though. She believed a
functioning city needed to have a mixture of uses -- not just residential or
just commercial and that great cities had discovered that by accident. She was
a proponent of "New Urbanism" which (at least in the US) is a popular trend --
new developments aren't just residential suburbs or shopping malls but often
have things like apartment/condo buildings with stores and restaurants in the
lower levels making pedestrianism a practical option.

~~~
ghaff
She generally favored cities developing somewhat organically (little plans as
the headline says) and in keeping with the needs and wishes of the residents.

Today I think you see a certain cherry-picking of Jacobs' beliefs going on. A
lot of people latch onto her opposition to running a highway through
Washington Square Park because they don't like car-centric culture.

That's all well and good. But, as you suggest, she also tended to be against
other types of large-scale urban planning. She probably would have been
skeptical of the school of thought that the SF housing situation would be so
much better if they'd just bulldoze the Mission and build residential towers.

