Abstract

This paper builds on two of the author's earlier pieces, and argues that Jane Jacob's most celebrated book was at its roots a form of NIMBYism and was thus regressive-the antithesis of any model of justice.The first half of the paper situates Jacobs in the now-familiar struggle with Robert Moses but also the bigger picture of redevelopment in mid-century Manhattan. The second half revolves around three aspects of Jacobs' approach to cities; the first is her focus on individual actors, the second a libertarian stance which argues that government was the problem, never the solution, and the third was a claim for universal principles (regarding, for instance, density and land-use), although these were not based upon any empirical evidence.In short, it is argued that while Jacobs was an admirable individual whose struggles have remained inspirational, it is a mistake to attempt to recycle her views in any type of urban design and to use her principles of neighborhood life as a model for how cities should evolve in the future. This is especially true of any considerations of how cities can be transformed into places that are more just.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalCities
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

redevelopment
experience
land use
urban design
justice
evidence
city
Empirical evidence
Government
Redevelopment
Land use
Recycle
Justice
book

Keywords

  • Gentrification
  • Manhattan
  • Neighborhoods
  • NIMBY
  • Preservation
  • Urban design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Development
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Urban Studies
  • Tourism, Leisure and Hospitality Management

Cite this

Jane Jacobs and the limits to experience. / Kirby, Andrew.

In: Cities, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a4243125ab06460684eb8cf14a95f7aa,
title = "Jane Jacobs and the limits to experience",
abstract = "This paper builds on two of the author's earlier pieces, and argues that Jane Jacob's most celebrated book was at its roots a form of NIMBYism and was thus regressive-the antithesis of any model of justice.The first half of the paper situates Jacobs in the now-familiar struggle with Robert Moses but also the bigger picture of redevelopment in mid-century Manhattan. The second half revolves around three aspects of Jacobs' approach to cities; the first is her focus on individual actors, the second a libertarian stance which argues that government was the problem, never the solution, and the third was a claim for universal principles (regarding, for instance, density and land-use), although these were not based upon any empirical evidence.In short, it is argued that while Jacobs was an admirable individual whose struggles have remained inspirational, it is a mistake to attempt to recycle her views in any type of urban design and to use her principles of neighborhood life as a model for how cities should evolve in the future. This is especially true of any considerations of how cities can be transformed into places that are more just.",
keywords = "Gentrification, Manhattan, Neighborhoods, NIMBY, Preservation, Urban design",
author = "Andrew Kirby",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.021",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Cities",
issn = "0264-2751",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Jane Jacobs and the limits to experience

AU - Kirby, Andrew

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - This paper builds on two of the author's earlier pieces, and argues that Jane Jacob's most celebrated book was at its roots a form of NIMBYism and was thus regressive-the antithesis of any model of justice.The first half of the paper situates Jacobs in the now-familiar struggle with Robert Moses but also the bigger picture of redevelopment in mid-century Manhattan. The second half revolves around three aspects of Jacobs' approach to cities; the first is her focus on individual actors, the second a libertarian stance which argues that government was the problem, never the solution, and the third was a claim for universal principles (regarding, for instance, density and land-use), although these were not based upon any empirical evidence.In short, it is argued that while Jacobs was an admirable individual whose struggles have remained inspirational, it is a mistake to attempt to recycle her views in any type of urban design and to use her principles of neighborhood life as a model for how cities should evolve in the future. This is especially true of any considerations of how cities can be transformed into places that are more just.

AB - This paper builds on two of the author's earlier pieces, and argues that Jane Jacob's most celebrated book was at its roots a form of NIMBYism and was thus regressive-the antithesis of any model of justice.The first half of the paper situates Jacobs in the now-familiar struggle with Robert Moses but also the bigger picture of redevelopment in mid-century Manhattan. The second half revolves around three aspects of Jacobs' approach to cities; the first is her focus on individual actors, the second a libertarian stance which argues that government was the problem, never the solution, and the third was a claim for universal principles (regarding, for instance, density and land-use), although these were not based upon any empirical evidence.In short, it is argued that while Jacobs was an admirable individual whose struggles have remained inspirational, it is a mistake to attempt to recycle her views in any type of urban design and to use her principles of neighborhood life as a model for how cities should evolve in the future. This is especially true of any considerations of how cities can be transformed into places that are more just.

KW - Gentrification

KW - Manhattan

KW - Neighborhoods

KW - NIMBY

KW - Preservation

KW - Urban design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041599682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041599682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.021

DO - 10.1016/j.cities.2018.01.021

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85041599682

JO - Cities

JF - Cities

SN - 0264-2751

ER -