Submitted by Benjamin Hemric, Sep 25, 2007 09:11

While it is indeed remarkable how many different types of people have taken up Jane Jacobs as one of their own, and while this essay does present a very intriguing theory about the phenomenon, I'm inclined -- at least for the time being -- to see it slightly differently. I do, however, very definitely agree with one point though: that relatively few people, even among those who consider themselves to be admirers, have actually read more than one of her books. And I will go even further and say that it seems to me that oftentimes people who talk about Jacobs have not even read all of "Death and Life" -- how many people, for instance, ever talk about anything other than the first few chapters (e.g., the "ballet of Hudson St.")? Many commentators seem totally oblivious of the later chapters of that book, especially the last chapter -- which I think serious readers (e.g., urban planning students) should actually read first. Much of the time, therefore, admirers and detractors alike seem to be really talking about what other people -- also non-readers! -- have said ABOUT Jacobs, rather than about what Jacobs has actually written or said (in interviews, etc.) herself. Also, despite the simplicity of Jacobs' language, her books are invariably dense with novel ideas, and with this avalanche of ideas it's sometimes easy 1) to forget that she's said something, or 2) to even realize the full implication of an idea that's been "buried" in a chapter containing many others. (Both have happened to me a number of times!) So although Jacobs may have clearly said something, that idea may be, somewhat understandably, overlooked (especially with a first reading). But rather than seeing Jacobs as writing and speaking in code -- which seems to me to be at odds with her outspoken feistiness (and truthfulness) -- I see her methodology, which is thought of by her and others as being "inductive," as being similar to that of the U.S. Supreme Court. As I understand it (mostly from Linda Greenhouse, who covers the Supreme Court for the "The New York Times"), the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court usually go to great lengths to define a case as narrowly as possible, to stick to the issue at hand, and to avoid as much as possible sweeping generalizations. I think such an approach, whether this is the intention or not, is more likely to find common ground with a broad range of the populace. I think this, along with Jacobs' inclination -- and remarkable ability -- to, as much as possible, go back to basics, back to "zero," question the conventional wisdom, ignore the misleading preconception, and look beyond the ideological "package deal" approach, helps explain why so many different people ultimately find something meaningful in her work.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.