« When to put on a gas tax | Main | Houston fact of the day »
Why I cannot fall fully for Jane Jacobs
I love the main ideas of Jane Jacobs. Her passing was truly sad for me. I read her as a teenager. It shook my world.
Nonetheless I think she is a tiny-teeny bit overrated. She never coped with the problems of scale. Nor did she explain how infrastructure should be built.
It is fine to juxtapose the old Greenwich Village against the gargantuan planning of the corrupt Robert Moses. Few other social scientists of her time grasped the idea of spontaneous order. But what to do if a city grows from one million to ten million people, as has happened many times in the Third World?
To be sure, favelas and shanties work far better than their reputations. Drug gangs aside, they embody many of the best qualities of Jacob's analysis, or for that matter Hayek's. But surely it is a problem when there is no piped water or reliable electricity. How can you get those services into new areas without some serious planning? You can call for private sector involvement but it is planning nonetheless and it probably will involve some use of eminent domain. Or how about new roads?
Perhaps I am unfair to Jacobs, but I read her as thinking we can confront the problems of cities without answering those questions.
It is perhaps unfair to note that Jacobs's "straight economics" often made little sense, but surely this is relevant to how she understood the major problems of cities. She doubted the necessity of the nation-state and was suspicious of internal economies of scale under a common legal order. She promoted "import substitution," which is now a discredited idea among both left-wing and right-wing economists.
Here is a list of Moses's projects for New York City. Could the Big Apple have prospered and grown without them?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 25, 2006 at 06:19 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
"The corrupt Robert Moses"? I wasn't aware of that -- is there a good source for more information?
Posted by: sammler at May 25, 2006 4:25:06 AM
Read The Power Broker by Robert Caro. That follows by a number of years Jane Jacob's The Death and Life of Great American Cities which was a challenge to Moses as much as anything.
Posted by: Fred at May 25, 2006 8:43:23 AM
Your criticism is quite fair and relate as much or more as to the way Jacobs is mis-read and mis-interpreted by right-wingers eager to attack all government regulation and infrastructure development.
But if memory serves (and I am starting to re-read her "Death and Life...) Jacobs does seem -- and I am very big Jacobs fan -- to blissfully glide over how that lovely Greenwich framework of streets and blocks was established in the first place.
There must have been some social agreement (and probably govt intervention to enforce) the inital pattern. Was it lower key and more informal than now? Sure. There were fewer people.
But these days there needs to be some level of central planning to establish the invisible (invisble because it is so obvious) initial platting and installation of utilities. To suggest that such things will arise out "spontantaneously" is absurd.
If govt didn't exist, developers would create it to facilitate solving the 'boundary problem' where new plats come together, to provide mimimum standards and certain large scale infrastructure such as trunk roads and sewer.
Posted by: David Sucher at May 25, 2006 9:04:53 AM
Philip Lopate, a wonderful essayist and inveterate NYer, published an interesting piece a few years back essentially rehabilitating Moses (and implicity the idea of thinking big, planning etc). It may have been in Metropolis, I forget. Also, for those in/near NYC, the municipal TV station (yes, there is one) shows amazing old films and the like from the city's archives. There's a great one from around 1962 in which Moses displayes his stupefying arrogance. Highly recommended.
Posted by: Dan at May 25, 2006 9:07:01 AM
"She promoted "import substitution," which is now a discredited idea among both left-wing and right-wing economists."
I suppose that's one reading of Cities and the Wealth of Nations. A more charitable reading is that she believed city regions in essence created something like "import substitution" as regional producers responded to the diverse demands of consumers in a dense urban core. Whether or not all of her economic policy recommendations made sense (they were hit and miss, and where sometimes grounded in curious conjectures or probably mistaken views about how economies function), her suspicions about how urban economies work have generated some very interesting social science (a fruitful empirical debate in urban economics about within- and cross-sector information externalities, for instance).
Posted by: lk at May 25, 2006 9:33:15 AM
For someone who has not read anything from Jane Jacobs (shame on me!), where should I start? "Death and Life"?
Posted by: Commenterlein at May 25, 2006 10:09:35 AM
She never coped with the problems of scale. Nor did she explain how infrastructure should be built.
One could ask why the same complaint isn't levied against, say, economists who write letters advocating open immigration.
Posted by: candid at May 25, 2006 10:22:15 AM
I believe Jacobs was essentially a libertarian in her profound suspicion of government planning at all levels, in part because of the inability of planners to recognize what she termed "locality knowledge" or what we now refer to as local or contextual knowledge, and in part because of her confidence in the common sense of ordinary people. She did not, however, eschew all government planning. She advocated zoning to regulate the scale of buildings instead of use, for example. She never said local governments should not lay out street grids. In fact, in her Death and Life she is explicit about how she thinks they should best laid out in order to promote urban liveliness (i.e., blocks should be short). She concentrated, though not exclusively, on telling public choosers what governments shouldn't do because the 1960s and 70s was the era of big government.
Her "straight economics" is fascinating, especially in her most developed exposition, publicshed in 2000, called The Nature of Economies. It is a book from which all economists, including Austrians, can learn something new about how economic systems actually work. Among other things she understood the informational role of prices, the worthlessness of neoclassical equilibrium analysis, and presented an alternative conception of "dynamic stability" which is an improvement over or richer version of what some call the "market process." Was she right about everything? Was Hayek?
I'm sorry but you are completely wrong on what Jacobs calls "import replacement." She takes great pains in The Economy of Cities (especially Chapter 5) to distinguish this from "import substitution," which IS a discredited doctrine (and she herself effectively discredits it no later 1969 than when this book was published). In her system, imports serve to spur local innovations, some of which can be exported. While the end of most versions of import *substitution* is self-sufficiency, import *replacement* is part of a dynamic process in which local economies network to form dynamically stable global economies. What's fascinating about this analysis is that Jacobs emphasized the importance for trade of both diversity of skills and knowledge and the diversity of tastes, suggesting the importance of the latter in driving the former.
On a final note, I believe Jacobs's analysis offers a new way to understand what I call "market pathology," an alternative to another discredited doctrine, "market failure." Are markets immune to endogeneous problems? are they immortal? Probably not, and her explanation of the death and life of cities suggests why.
(To respond to a previous query, I would recommend in the following order Death & Life, The Economy of Cities, The Nature of Economies, and on morality, Systems of Survival. The last two are short and entertaining as well as informative.)
Posted by: Sandy Ikeda at May 25, 2006 10:36:36 AM
The main difference is that cities of old used to follow this pattern:
* Lay out streets and utilities
* plat out blocks and lots
* let whatever wants to get built happen wherever it happens to work.
* Let redevelopment happen at its own pace
Then over time you end up with a random and haphazard mix of ages, types, uses, etc all arising yes from planning, but the planning of space, not of order.
And thats what I feel that Jane Jacobs argues against most, not planning or infrastructure in and of itself per se, but the deliberate planning of usage and order. The idea that some megaproject or superproject will cure all ills, which exists even to this day.
Moses was instrumental in bringing along the age of the housing project, which took blocks that may once have been slums and converted them for ever and all time into monolithic bunker style complexes that will never be able to change and adapt with new ages and ideas. Jacobs propably would have said that just allowing those buildings to stay as they were without 'fixing' them would allow one day for them be the next Tribeca, or SOHO or any number of areas now gentrified but previously slums.
And so it is with the Highway project as well. Manhattan seems to have done just fine being the center of a (The?) world class city without having a highway arterial pierce through its neighborhoods. What more proof is needed that shows that Moses's Cross Manhattan expressway plan was not necessary? Who knows if Manhattan would be Detroit today with the aftereffects of what was once planned?
Posted by: Perry at May 25, 2006 11:03:44 AM
I agree, Perry. Jacobs is not thinking a vibrant community will spring out of an empty parcel of land.
I've actually taken to carrying an old copy of 'death and life' in my backpack. Sometimes, while my commuter train speeds through the lengths of empty greenspace that litter my city's sprawled, lifeless suburbs, flipping it open randomly and reading a few passages is the only thing that keeps me sane.
And, for some reason, whenever I read her, all I can think of is Howard Roark.
Posted by: josh at May 25, 2006 11:45:16 AM
I also have to question--strongly, in fact--the characterization of Robert Moses as "corrupt." Wasn't he simply addicted to power and very good at amassing it? You can be a power-drunk jerk and not be corrupt. (And you can be a power-drunk jerk and still be useful, as the original post indicates.) Perhaps I'm forgetting some malfeasance of his, but I don't recall a single instance of corruption.
As to the role of government and citizenry in the development of Greenwich Village, I find this passage from the Encyclopedia of New York fascinating:
"Efforts to preserve the [Village's] crooked colonial lanes were mounted as early as the second decade of the nineteenth century, when a coalition of residents prevailed on thhe Common Council to modify the grid plan of 1811. As a result much of the district was exempted from the rigid symmetry that dictated the development of Manhattan north of Houston Street, except for lands east of what is now 6th Avenue."
Posted by: John Lilly at May 25, 2006 12:27:27 PM
I don't think he was corrupt so much as drunk on his own power. THat with massive cash flow from "his" TBTA allowed for many things to happen, good and bad.
Posted by: Perry at May 25, 2006 12:30:29 PM
Seems like a bit of a caricature going on here. I just read Death and Life recently, and Jacobs certainly didn't seem to be opposed across-the-board to centralized planning, construction, etc. Indeed, one of her concerns was that neighborhoods should be structured so that they're capable of exercising influence on the higher, more centralized levels of planning. Her concern was mostly with what the central planners were actually doing, not per se with the fact that they existed. See also this snippet from an interview:
Blake Harris: When you start talking about the big role of government and that it messes around too much in people's lives sometimes, is there a danger that one can become too free-enterprise, that one is forgetting the social network that government can provide?Jacobs: You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that government was messing around too much in our lives. I said it was doing stupid things. That's not the same thing at all. It may be doing too little in our lives and still be doing stupid things. It's not an ideological thing.
Posted by: Christopher M at May 25, 2006 12:46:18 PM
Jacobs is, I think, almost Hayekian in her advocacy of evolved (and evolving) institutions.
I looked over the list of Moses's projects. It seems to me that most of them were deleterious to actual life in New York. The good ones were the Throg's Neck and Whitestone bridges between the Bronx and eastern Queens, the Verrazano between Staten Island and Brooklyn, Jones Beach and, perhaps, the Laurelton Parkway. The Cross-Bronx was (and remains) a disaster for the Bronx, the BQE damaged western Brooklyn, the Belt Parkway prevents useful access to the shoreline, the Henry Hudson bridge splits Inwood park in two. And these projects did little good. There would have been no harm if the West Side Highway had terminated in upper Manhattan (feeding Dyckman Street the same way that Harlem River Drive does the other side) for example.
To some extent the highways exist to support the rationale for the bridges: the SIE, Belt and BQE for the Verrazano, the Cross-Bronx for the Throg's Neck. Just as Jones Beach helped support the Long Island parkways. There was a whole Moses system which was superimposed on the city regardless of the actual city's needs. In some cases, the system helped the city. In other cases, it hurt. But the impact on the city wasn't important in the construction of the system.
Posted by: jim at May 25, 2006 12:50:11 PM
As to the favelas, Hernando de Soto in The Mystery of Capital makes a convincing argument that the missing link to prosperity is a "social network" made up of laws making the ownership of real property easy to attain and relatively safe from interference by the powers that be. Once that's established, the provision of services can be taken care of by the market, financed by the money residing in the real property. Without that, no prosperity is possible. It looks to me like Jacobs would agree with de Soto. Government doesn't build roads and sewers. Money does.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at May 25, 2006 2:04:15 PM
Regarding utilities, "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" is one of the most interesting things I've read: http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
I second the criticism of the term "corrupt" when applied to Moses. It reminds me of Orwell on how the meaning of "fascism" had warped to "what I don't like". Personally, I think corruption gets a bad rap. It's the symptom that makes the disease of government more tolerable, like the heat the body generates during a fever. Theodore Dalrymple had an interesting piece on that: http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_3_oh_to_be.html
Posted by: TGGP at May 25, 2006 2:36:44 PM
I'm with Perry and Christopher M. Of course, we all read into _Death and Life_ what we want to read into it. I read it only after reading Roberta Gratz's _Cities: Back from the Edge_, which is a more understandable primer based on D&L (as is Gratz's _The Living City_, which has a chapter describing JJ's battle against the freeway). (D&L is subtle and requires a fair amount of experience to really understand in all its nuance.)
I agree that she wanted us to focus on places and people and what makes great places. A great place isn't anti-planning, but is anti-stupidity.
E.g., yesterday I wrote a blog entry about an eminent domain seizure being disallowed in Baltimore, in the Station North Arts District. That area has tremendous assets, and the urban renewal attitude that Baltimore still proudly wears is antithetical to harvesting those assets--what Gratz/Jacobs call "urban husbandry."
I guess deep down I accept the Convention Centers etc., although I never claim that they are the panacea they are made out to be. I have many criticisms of DC's convention center, partly because they invested no money into rehabilitating the historic buildings along 9th Street NW between M and Rhode Island--the area is severely disinvested and strategic rehabilitation would have actually enticed people out of the white elephant to visit neighborhoods.
That's the kind of thing that I like to believe Jane Jacobs pointed us to. She was for asset-based community and economic development, at a time when people like Moses and Mumford believed there was no worth in the extant assets (physical, human, organizational).
Being against stupidity is a lot different than being against planning. Being for citizen engagement and paying close attention to what really happens at the street level, rather than theory (modernism etc.) is not being against planning either.
As I say in my efforts, I am not against development, just stupid and ugly development. Jane Jacobs has paved the way for deliberative advocacy and engagement.
And she built the foundation that others have added to, ranging from the books I mentioned by Gratz, to Steve Belmont's _Cities in Full_ and to the _Urban Design Compendium_ available for free from English Partnership.
And these efforts have everything to do with the path laid out by Jane Jacobs, and not by New Urbanists, which have merely repackaged, but brought much greater attention to, the principles of urban design, which again, come out of _Death and Life_.
At the root it comes down to connecting places, mixed primary uses, people-sized blocks, vitality, density, and yes, "a large stock of old buildings." And it took Jane Jacobs to point it out to a profession increasingly enamored with the car and suburban dwellers, a profession that thought that cities were old news, and ready for the ash can of history...
That planners and developers militantly ignore the principles laid out in D&L still shows us how much work remains.
Posted by: Richard Layman at May 25, 2006 3:24:37 PM
Here is the correct wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobs,_Jane
Posted by: purpleslog at May 25, 2006 4:45:53 PM
"Could the Big Apple have prospered and grown without" Robert Moses' projects? Most definitely; it was already the largest city in the Western Hemisphere before Moses came along. For a few years I lived several blocks away from the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, one of Moses's projects. More than a generation after it had been built, it remained a blight on the neighborhood. And one of his enormous swimming pools nearby was by that time just a decaying concrete hole in the ground. Moses thought on a big scale and inflicted damage on a big scale.
Posted by: Kurt Schuler at May 25, 2006 4:56:31 PM
"She never coped with the problems of scale. Nor did she explain how infrastructure should be built."
Candid repliedL
"One could ask why the same complaint isn't levied against, say, economists who write letters advocating open immigration."
Well, you could levy the same complaint against economists who write letters in favor of open immigration, except that economies of scale in infrastructure would favor increased immigration.
After all, if average costs of infrastructure decline in population, then increased immigration confers a benefit on other people in the area, even if the immigrants themselves are poorer.
If a bridge has a fixed cost of production and zero marginal cost per user, then an additional immigrant lowers others' cost of building that bridge, even if that immigrant contributes only a dollar.
So thanks, Candid, for contributing another great argument in favor of open immigration!
Posted by: Keith at May 25, 2006 5:16:43 PM
Keith --
Next time I am stuck sitting in LA traffic, I will try to grin and bear it by reminding myself that I am benefiting from a low "average cost of infrastructure".
If a bridge has a fixed cost of production and zero marginal cost per user, then an additional immigrant lowers others' cost of building that bridge, even if that immigrant contributes only a dollar.
The problem with this reasoning is that at some point each additional user lowers the marginal _benefit_ of the bridge, of the power plant, the water purification facility, the sewer system, and so on.
Your "economies of scale" argument only works in some fantasy world where new bridges (and freeways and sewer lines and water pipes and power plants) can instantly come into being as soon as demand for them exists.
Posted by: candid at May 25, 2006 9:29:10 PM
We are the language bridge, which help you understand China.
Beijing Giant Company is a professional tanslation company , which has devoted itself for the industry for about ten years. We offer professional service of document tanslation and interpretation , aiming at serving of economy & culture between China and all over the world
By our work you get the first step to entering into Chinese market and acquainting yourself with Chinese culture. At present, our company has been ranked ahead in the Chinese translation company
for its convenient service to the clients in China and abroad. Giant translation company
is able to carry on 70 kinds of languages including English, Russian, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Arabic, Korean, Thai and Italian etc. if you have any question, don’t hesitate to contact us as soon as possible.
Welcome to China
Posted by: jiayinte at May 25, 2006 10:58:48 PM
three cheers for Robert Moses. His vindication is all but assured.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at May 26, 2006 12:38:16 AM
Sandy,
Thank you for the recommendation.
C.
Posted by: Commenterlein at May 26, 2006 11:38:24 AM
Candid, then you're not making an economy-of-scale argument against immigration. You're making a congestion argument, which has nothing to do with economies of scale.
But, if we follow your logic, then what you're saying is that immigration imposes some short-term costs as immigrants cause congestion, but generates long-term benefits as they enable lower average costs of infrastructure. Okay.
Posted by: Keith at May 26, 2006 10:17:37 PM
