This is all true. What's also true is that she was a NIMBY and an inspiration for later NIMBYs.
She was right to oppose "urban renewal" projects that destroyed natural urban fabrics in the name of top-down planning visions. But as a NIMBY, she imposed another top-down vision with similarly negative effects.
What has changed since her lifetime is the relative harm caused by her vision versus that of her opponents. Back then housing was affordable while urban renewal projects destroyed whole swathes of cities. Nowadays the balance is reversed, large urban renewal projects are nearly impossible to accomplish while urban housing is unaffordable to much of the population.
This is completely false. Read her classic, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." She's trying to get at what makes cities work (variety and density). IIRC she talks about 100 units per acre as the right balance. This is what that looks like:
Jane Jacobs advocated for neighbourhoods where intermingling of neighbours is facilitated by design. However, I’ve been considering what her take on COVID and close contact with neighbours would have been.
This paper doesn't mention her economic writings, but Jacobs thought they would end up being her most enduring legacy [0]. AFAIK they've had a much more limited impact on economics, except for a burst of interest in some circles around the 1990s (endogenous growth theory and urban econ).
For those interested in her economic ideas, I recommend reading _The Economy of Cities_ (1969) followed by _Cities and the Wealth of Nations_ (1984). For a quicker overview, here's a past submission/discussion on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10834435
6 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 31.4 ms ] threadShe was right to oppose "urban renewal" projects that destroyed natural urban fabrics in the name of top-down planning visions. But as a NIMBY, she imposed another top-down vision with similarly negative effects.
What has changed since her lifetime is the relative harm caused by her vision versus that of her opponents. Back then housing was affordable while urban renewal projects destroyed whole swathes of cities. Nowadays the balance is reversed, large urban renewal projects are nearly impossible to accomplish while urban housing is unaffordable to much of the population.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2017/05/04/visualizing-compatibl...
But yes, she was against destroying neighborhoods with freeways.
https://www.villagepreservation.org/2016/05/05/continuing-ja...
https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2020/4/13/21218759/c...
For those interested in her economic ideas, I recommend reading _The Economy of Cities_ (1969) followed by _Cities and the Wealth of Nations_ (1984). For a quicker overview, here's a past submission/discussion on the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10834435
[0] https://reason.com/2001/06/01/city-views-2/ (search the page for "remembered")