Long Sunday
‘You are reserved for a great Monday!’ Fine, but Sunday will never end.—Kafka

« fast, cheap | Main | Karl (und Carl) »

Jane

Jane Jacobs, was one of the first, if not the first, chroniclers of "this mad spree of deceptions and vandalism and waste that was called urban renewal", passionate defender of the flaneur and the multitudinous bustle of the street, "foot people" and, of course, the city itself as a form of life.

Jacobs was the author, among other things, of The Death and Life of Great American Cities. She died yesterday. I'm grateful that she lived, and reminded that there are aspects of her work that I carry around to this day, though I've not read her later writings. Really very sad to hear of her death.

Described as having a "trenchant writing style", Jacobs declined the ethnographic posture of the Chicago School and its antecedents, as well as the bestowal of honorary degrees. Hers was a writing and politics of the street. One might not agree at all times with her arguments, but you are invited to jostle with them, mingle and wander for a while, as one might with another person in a crowded city street.

It's possible to trace the strands of those encounters, in Hardt's and Negri's affirmation of a quotidian biopolitics, in Reclaim the Street's "disco-socialist activity in the footsteps of Jane Jacobs famous manifesto", and more besides, such as Mark Davis's writings, which are shaped, I think, as much by an antagonism toward one of the "most genteel of anarchists" as by the precondition of having passed Jacobs on the street and headed down another one.

And then there's Marshall Berman on Jacobs, in All that is Solid Melts into Air. The most sustained encounter with Jacobs that I've read. And one which recalls that Marx and Jacobs - whose birthdays were separated by a day and births by almost a century, nevertheless - shared the passions of a critical, streetwise modernity. One that cuts through the distinction between 'public' and 'private', and finds itself on the same side against the efforts of other versions of modernity that would 'kill the street' (Le Corbusier), contain its flows and erect the dull economic repulsions of borders through gentrification.

Here's Jacobs:

Under the seeming disorder of the old city [she means the areas yet gentrified] is a marvellous order for maintaining the safety of the streets and the freedom of the city. It is a complex succession of eyes. This order is all composed of movement and change, and although it is life, not art, we may fancifully call it the art form of the city, and liken it to the dance.

In other words, Jacob's city is one that embraces the presence of strangers on the street as a condition of safety, of freedom and of life, rather than one which battens down with xenophobia, and where the only eyes left on the street are those of security cameras.

By s0metim3s | April 26, 2006 in Labyrinths | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/4746715

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jane:

Comments

One that cuts through the distinction between 'public' and 'private', and finds itself on the same side against the efforts of other versions of modernity that would 'kill the street' (Le Corbusier), contain its flows and erect the dull economic repulsions of borders through gentrification.

Question. Which do you think would more likely be under the arm of the present-day agent of gentrification, Vers une architecture or Death and Life of Great American Cities?

Just think the question of the politics of the contingent vs. planned development debate are very much an open issue.

Posted by: CR | Apr 26, 2006 9:58:06 AM

CR, the first time I read Death and Life was while writing an essay on the anti-gentrification campaigns in St Kilda in the early 1980s (which no one here is likely to have much knowledge of, but anyway).

And what I thought then, and still do, is that Jacobs too is an "agent of gentrification", although in a deeply ambivalent sense that's worth untangling. Which is why, much later, phrases like this pop out when thinking of the subsequent trajectory of the bohemian: "much like gentrification has followed university students around suburbs and de-industrialising areas since the 1970s".

Now, though, it occured to me that it might be worth returning to Death and Life (not for the biological metaphors, which I baulk at, nor for the ambivalent relation toward gentrification, but) for an embrace of the strange/r freedoms of the city at a time when cities have increasingly become fortresses, surveilled across every inch and intersection, and where gatherings of x or more people on the streets are subject to 'move along' (or 'stop and search') orders, and suchlike.

One might take a different street than Jacobs did, but the travelling back so as to go elsewhere seems to me important.

Posted by: s0metim3s | Apr 26, 2006 10:40:31 AM

Yes... I see what you are saying...

Under the seeming disorder of the old city [she means the areas yet gentrified] is a marvellous order for maintaining the safety of the streets and the freedom of the city. It is a complex succession of eyes. This order is all composed of movement and change, and although it is life, not art, we may fancifully call it the art form of the city, and liken it to the dance.

The ambiguities ramify, though, don't they. The passage that you cite above - about the freedom of the city - could be mobilized either in favor of decentralized policing or the "broken windows" policy, developed and exported by Rudy Giuliani all over the world.

And gentrification itself - such a complicated topic. Always the danger of aestheticizing poverty....

Thanks for your thoughtful response!

Posted by: CR | Apr 26, 2006 10:52:39 AM

Another way to think of it. There's something deeply analogous between, say, the complete unthinkability today of large scale public works projects in a city like NYC and the and the unthinkability of grand scale ideological projects and horizons.

All politics, unfortunately, are local politics. Isn't the US Democratic Party (like many other parties of the center-left) the party of NIMBYism, when it (rarely) chooses to take any stand on any issues at all.

Posted by: CR | Apr 26, 2006 11:02:23 AM

I can't speak at length about the Dems, not being a Yank myself ... And I'm not, any time soon, inclined to aestheticise poverty. [Donations that might allow me the luxury of doing so will be happily accepted, however.]

Anyway, CR, I don't think I'll join you down the path of recovering grand plans.

I did want to add, though, that Jacob's remark about the dance of the city and eyes had me thinking about this stuff.


Posted by: s0metim3s | Apr 26, 2006 11:23:07 AM

s, that first link again?

Posted by: Matt | Apr 26, 2006 7:06:48 PM

http://www.ncf.ca/~ek867/2006_04_01-15_archives.html#04.25.2006

Posted by: | Apr 26, 2006 7:14:10 PM

Jane
via & more

Posted by: Matt | Apr 26, 2006 7:37:19 PM

Sorry Matt, what? You mean the wikipedia link?

Posted by: s0metim3s | Apr 26, 2006 11:13:43 PM

Nice post. I'm particularly grateful for the Mike Davis link (which caused him to rise a notch in my estimation).

As to the pro/anti-gentrification tilt of Jacobs' theory, did she ever claim to be against gentrification as such, or just against the modernist style of gentrification (i.e. monolithic and rapid alteration of neighborhoods)? On the other hand, the postmodern style of gentrification that is the norm here in New York City, which involves partial changes while maintaining (rent-stabilized) blocks of old housing, seems to be specifically informed by her theory.

Her sense of the organic change and development of cities, added to her bohemian asthetics, stripped of "grand plans" for overall improvement of housing stock, proves ideally suited for landlords who want to extract a maximum profit from gentrifiying areas with a minimum investment.

Which is all to say -- wasn't Jacobs just a bohemian, and therefore bound to further muddy these already murky waters?

Posted by: sam | Apr 26, 2006 11:44:45 PM

I meant the "much later" link, if you please, (and if there ever was).

Posted by: Matt | Apr 27, 2006 6:06:16 AM

Oh, I see it Matt. Sorry. Fixed.

Sam, the problem of St Kilda turned around precisely these kinds of issues, but it boiled down to a quite simple one in the end and as it came to the intersection between real estate and policing. Which is that it's appeal for gentrification was premised on its street life, but for that gentrification to occur, the life on the street had to be shorn of grime, beggars, street sex workers and the like.

When I was living in St Kilda, just prior to the final stages of gentrification, I could always rely on various people being around on the street late at night, most of them sex workers, if I felt unsafe or was getting harassed while coming home late. And although I don't live there anymore, it doesn't feel quite as safe to me now, in major part because it's quieter, 'cleaner'.

Posted by: s0metim3s | Apr 27, 2006 8:35:09 AM

More information, primarily Toronto-centric, here. (I note with bemusement that the "Book of Condolence" can be signed at Dooney's Cafe. Toronto area academics will know the place.)

Posted by: Craig | Apr 27, 2006 1:15:21 PM

Post a comment

Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.






 

Technorati Tags: