Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
From ‘a Surly Kind of Slum' to a Desirable Locale

Submitted by Benjamin Hemric, Sep 30, 2007 19:18

It seems to me that Gale Brewer misses the point of Jane Jacobs' discussion of the problem of long blocks on the Upper West Side. Jacobs wasn't saying that Upper West Siders weren't gregarious (!), that the neighborhood was sterile (at least in the sense that housing projects, for instance, are generally thought of as sterile), or that people were never out on the streets or benches (or, more likely in those days, hanging out on the stoops). What she was saying was that the long blocks in the area work against neighborhood cross use and the development of diverse, lively, economically healthy -- i.e., not boom or bust -- streets.

And with all the discussion over the past few decades about how Columbus Avenue has become over-successful (i.e., with boutiques, etc. pushing out mom and pops), it's interesting to note that one of the negatives of long blocks that Jacobs discusses is the fact that long blocks (a/k/a too few streets) result in a greatly reduced supply of sites feasible for commerce -- and, on the "modern day" Upper West Side, this increases the demand (and cost) for those sites where commerce is feasible (i.e., Columbus Ave.). An additional north-south street through the area, on the other hand, would increase the supply of feasible commercial sites both directly (by providing sites for commerce on the new street itself) and indirectly (by opening up locations in the "middle" of what had formerly been long blocks) as well. (Without Lexington Ave. -- an additional north-south street that breaks up what otherwise would be the long blocks between Third Ave. and Park Ave. -- how likely is it that the colorful curry and sari shops, etc. north of Gramercy Park would be able to exist -- would they be able to compete successfully for space on either Park Ave. So. or Third Ave.?)

Two other points:

1) Unless there is a source of information other than Chapter 9 in "Death and Life" ("The Need for Small Blocks"), I think it is inaccurate to say about Jacobs, "So MUNDANE did she consider the neighborhood that she DREADED the visits, even when they were topped off by a side trip to the Hayden Planetarium on 81st St." [Additional emphasis is mine -- BH] Jacobs own account of her trips to the area is far less emotional, so it seems to me, and much more matter-of-fact.

2) I think it's important to note that Jacobs mainly compares the long blocks of the West Side to the short blocks of the East Side. She also favorably mentions the short blocks of Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia and, famously, the short blocks created by the additional street in Rockefeller Center. So it's not just a Greenwich Village "thing."


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

Other reader comments on this article

Comment By Date

Maxey-Allison's comments show a certain ... point of view that's a little disturbing, and Vitullo-Martin repeats it without question. Vitullo-Martin writes... [MORE]

ABG 

Oct 2, 2007 09:22

It seems to me that Gale Brewer misses the point of Jane Jacobs' discussion of the problem of long blocks...

Benjamin Hemric 

Sep 30, 2007 19:18

Julia Vitullo-Martin's piece on changing perceptions of the Upper West Side was nicely balanced and gently provoking. It reminded me... [MORE]

cal snyder 

Sep 30, 2007 14:38

As the article already points out, Jacobs was writing about the Upper West Side as it existed in the late... [MORE]

Benjamin Hemric 

Sep 28, 2007 22:04

Comment on From ‘a Surly Kind of Slum' to a Desirable Locale

    Before submitting your comment, please provide a valid email address to complete the verification process.