The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Jacobs argues that city sidewalks serve functions beyond carrying pedestrians, key among which is their role in keeping cities safe. This critical function distinguishes city sidewalks and streets from their counterparts in small towns and suburbs. Cities are filled with people who do not know one another, which can engender fear. Policing is not central to street safety. Residents play a larger role by forming an “unconscious network of voluntary controls” (32).

Jacobs argues that low density development does not lead to safer streets. Rather, crime rates go down when areas have heavy and near-constant foot traffic. The lack of pedestrian traffic leads to high crime, while large numbers of diverse users from different neighborhoods make crime rates go down.

Safe streets and sidewalks have three main qualities. First, they clearly demarcate public and private spaces. They do not bleed into each other, as they do in small towns and suburbs. Second, they are heavily populated. Safety requires “eyes upon the street” (35), including those of residents and strangers. Third, pedestrian traffic must be fairly continuous. Jacobs notes that the second and third qualities are difficult to achieve because pedestrians cannot be forced to use streets.

Stores, restaurants, and other public enterprises work in different ways to promote street safety. First, they give residents and strangers concrete reasons to use sidewalks. Second, the short routes between businesses encourage walking, further populating the streets with pedestrians. Third, shopkeepers tend to advocate strongly for public safety. Fourth, people attract people. According to Jacobs, the last point baffles urban planners, who assume city dwellers desire “emptiness, obvious order, and quiet” (37).

Orthodox planners have utopian, puritanical conceptions of how people should behave in their spare time, and they seek to impose their values on cities. In diverse urban settings, however, disparate organizations, such as bars and church groups, do not simply coexist, they also serve a similar “street civilizing service” (41). As Jacobs observes:

There is not only room in cities for such differences and many more in taste, purpose and interest of occupation; cities also have a need for people with all these differences in taste and proclivity (41).

Adequate lighting draws more eyes onto streets, while also improving the range of these eyes. However, proper illumination alone does not lead to safer streets, nor does darkness necessarily lead to violence. Serious crimes, for example, often occur in well-lit subways, while they rarely occur in dark movie theaters. The key to safety is not lighting, but rather, the presence of plentiful and effective eyes. Orthodox planners who design neighborhoods to minimize street use are thus responsible for increasing insecurity.

Jacobs identifies three modes of living with insecurity. The first is to “let danger hold sway” (46) and simply live with the consequences. The second is to “take refuge in vehicles” (46), a technique that has been ineffective in car-centric cities like Los Angeles. The third is to “cultivate the institution of Turf” (47), whereby different social groups, like gangs, keep to their own neighborhoods. Gates and fences reinforce such divisions.

Cities appear chaotic, but they have an underlying order for maintaining safety in their streets. Key to this order is sidewalk use, which brings “a constant succession of eyes” (50). Jacobs compares the movement of bodies on sidewalks to a ballet: “the individual dancers and ensembles all have distinctive parts which miraculously reinforce each other and compose an orderly whole” (50).

Jacobs begins the chapter with a critique of orthodox planners, who view loitering as an urban problem that needs solving. This conventional attitude attests to a fundamental misunderstanding of cities. Sidewalks are public places that bring strangers together. This casual contact, when repeated, fosters trust. Contact also creates a sense of public identity and respect, in addition to being an important resource in times of need. The benefits of contact cannot be institutionalized, nor do they necessitate private commitments. Urban planners assume that formal city organizations “grow in direct, common-sense fashion” (57). By contrast, Jacobs argues that “formal public organizations in cities require an informal public life underlying them, mediating between them and the privacy of the people in the city” (57).

Sidewalks and their adjacent enterprises offer many opportunities for public contact. They are places where acquaintances and strangers from diverse social groups interact, sometimes forming long-term bonds. This type of contact does not exist in areas that lack sidewalk life, notably, where there is an absence of commercial structures. Non-urban dwellers must either work harder to foster contact (or togetherness) or accept the lack of contact. According to Jacobs, togetherness relies on personal sharing and can “work well socially, if narrowly, for self-selected upper-middle-class people” (65). This contrasts sharply with dwellers of vibrant cities, who have regular contact with diverse social groups.

Like non-urban dwellers, residents of low-income projects face a choice between sharing nothing or too much. On one hand, some residents go to great lengths to maintain their privacy and avoid contact. In these contexts, “suspicion and fear of trouble often outweigh any need for neighborly advice and help” (67). On the other hand, some residents forge deep connections through contact in shared spaces, such as the laundry room, or through tenant organizations. The latter can lead too much contact and a lack of privacy.

Jacobs discusses self-appointed public characters, which she defines as “anyone who is in frequent contact with a wide circle of people and who is sufficiently interested to make himself a public character” (68). The main role of a public character is simply to be present. Shop clerks and bartenders are examples of anchored public characters. Roving public characters include street artists and community organizers seeking petitions. In addition to being present, public characters communicate information and spread news. However, their efficiency as communicators declines if they are overburdened. An exceedingly busy store, for example, leaves little or no time for meaningful interaction between clerk and customer.

Jacobs argues that sidewalk contact and safety have a direct bearing on two serious problems: segregation and racial discrimination. Good city planning alone cannot solve these problems, but bad planning can make them worse. Unsafe sidewalks and the absence of contact make overcoming discrimination in American cities difficult (72).

Orthodox planners view urban environments as places of immorality that are inappropriate for children. Their goal is to get children off the streets and into safe spaces, such as parks and playgrounds. These seemingly child-friendly zones, however, are often rife with gang violence. The children involved in gang crime often come from housing projects, where “their everyday play has successfully been removed from the streets” (76).

Jacobs posits that the rules of city safety and public life that apply to adults also apply to children. Important changes occur when children are removed from lively streets to parks or playgrounds, namely, they are no longer under the watchful eyes of many adults. Unlike well-used sidewalks, playgrounds either have few adults or lack them entirely. Jacobs is not implying that all playgrounds and parks are unsafe. Rather, “those that are wholesome are typically in neighborhoods […] where a strong tone of civilized public sidewalk life prevails” (79).

Urban planners build housing development playgrounds, creating “enclosed park enclaves within blocks” (79). Children quickly outgrow playgrounds and the sheltered togetherness they encounter in them. Children need varied places to play and learn. They also benefit from structured and unstructured play. Sidewalks are well-suited to the latter. Eschewing populated sidewalks and relying instead on hired substitutes in parks is socially and economically frivolous. Moreover, the notion that playgrounds, grass, and hired guards are intrinsically better for children than city streets is a myth.

Children learn from adults on city sidewalks. The most important lesson relates to public responsibility, which children learn from strangers rather than their friends or families. This is a lesson that people hired to take care of children cannot teach because people can’t be hired to take part in public responsibility. Parents are also unable to teach this lesson because the instruction is societal.

Jacobs argues that sidewalks are more interesting to children than playgrounds and back yards, both of which are quiet, matriarchal spaces. Just as adults value the convenience of sidewalks, so too do children. Play generally occurs at incidental times, in the intervals between school, organized activities, meals, homework, and bed. Younger children use these moments in varied ways (jumping in puddles, writing with chalk, jumping rope), whereas older children spend more time loitering with their peers. The incidental play of younger children requires space. Narrow sidewalks lead to less active incidental play and to a higher likelihood of children venturing into roadways. Even without adequate space, however, sidewalks remain convenient and compelling places for children. 

Planners typically view parks and other green spaces as boons for deprived urban populations. Jacobs turns this notion on its head, arguing that “city parks deprive places that need the boon of life and appreciation conferred on them” (89). Conferring or withholding use is what makes parks successes or failures. Parks can be economic assets that bring delight to urban populations, but most of them are not. Few have staying power, and many are magnets for undesirable populations. In spite of this, orthodox city planners approach parks in an uncritical manner. To them, open spaces are intrinsically valuable. Rarely do planners question the functions of these open spaces.

Jacobs distinguishes between real and mythical park uses. She dismisses the notion that parks are “the lungs of the city” (91), pointing out that it takes 3 acres of woods to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by 4 people. Moreover, parks are not the real estate stabilizers planners make them out to be, nor do they function as community anchors. 

Parks defy generalization. They are as diverse in size and design as they are numerous. In addition, every park is influenced by its specific surroundings. Nevertheless, Jacobs identifies two main types: specialized parks and neighborhood parks. The latter is a generalized form of park, such as a city square, which often capitalizes on natural features, such as riverbanks or hilltops. Specialized parks get less use because they serve specialized functions (swimming, tennis, and so forth).

Different parks behave differently, even those in the same city. Some are beloved by their users, while others are underused. Parks in housing projects fall into the latter category; they do not increase property values, nor do they serve to stabilize or improve neighborhoods. Unpopular parks are not only wasted space, they are also missed opportunities. Worse, they frequently have negative effects on neighborhoods. Like streets that lack eyes, underused parks are unsafe and targets of vandalism. In short, parks and their neighborhoods are interrelated in complex ways.

Jacobs argues that a major failure of park planners is their inability or unwillingness to nurture “diversified neighborhoods capable of using and supporting parks” (101). Successful parks integrate the surrounding neighborhood rather than interrupt it. The capacity for a park to engender attachment (or apathy) bears no relation to the income level or occupation of its users. A successful park remains successful even when the economic fortunes of its users change. Unsuccessful parks either lack diversity in their surroundings, or that diversity is spread too thinly across many parks. Bringing parks into diverse neighborhoods is counterproductive if it means razing already vibrant areas.

Highly frequented parks share four design elements: intricacy, centering, sun, and enclosure. The first, intricacy, relates to the varied reasons people come to parks, such as people-watching and reading. Through subtle variations in design, a successful park can accommodate the diverse needs of its users. The second design element, centering, refers to a central point, a crossing, a pausing point, or a climax within a park. Centering is difficult to achieve in long strip parks. The third design element, sun, is a key aspect of the park experience. Tall buildings negatively impact parks by blocking sunlight. The fourth design element, enclosure, relates to the peripheral buildings surrounding parks. Border buildings delineate and call attention to parks. Badly designed parks are underused, but they nevertheless add visual interest to their neighborhoods.

A badly located park presents a bigger challenge. Jacobs compares this type of park to a badly situated store, which stays in business by focusing on demand goods rather than impulse sales. Parks are badly located when they are built on the outskirts of communities, or when they are bounded by rivers or heavily trafficked streets. Such parks are often sites of conflict and violence. People might come to badly located parks on special occasions, but they do not use them regularly. As Jacobs observes, generalized parks that are not supported by uses arising from nearby diversity must convert to specialized parks. Conversely, adding special activities can transform an underused generalized park into a neighborhood asset. Spending on minor park activities is preferable to creating new parks that are “too large, too frequent, too perfunctory, too ill-located, and hence too dull or too inconvenient to be used” (111). 

Jacobs defines city neighborhoods as “mundane organs of self-government” (114). Thus, failures and successes with city neighborhoods are failures and successes in localized self-government. Jacobs’s use of the term self-government includes the formal and informal self-management of society. 

Jacobs is critical of the small, inward-looking, ideal neighborhoods favored by planners. She argues that building ideal neighborhoods harm cities. Unlike small towns, where inhabitants generally know one another and meet in common areas, urban populations have “no such innate degree of natural cross-connections” (116). City dwellers are mobile. Rich choice and opportunity in employment, entertainment, schooling, and other areas are salient features of city life. This fluidity underlies most cultural activities and special enterprises, drawing “skills, materials, customers or clienteles from a great pool” scattered across the city. City neighborhoods cannot work against mobility and fluidity without weakening the economy because they are not economically or socially self-contained.

Jacobs describes three useful kinds of neighborhoods: the whole city, the street neighborhood, and the district, a large area with upwards of 100-thousand inhabitants. Each type serves different, but complementary, functions. The whole city holds the purse-strings and makes most administrative and policy decisions. Street neighborhoods offer protection through public surveillance, foster trust, exert social control, and help children learn public responsibility. Successful street neighborhoods are not self-contained units, but rather, “physical, social and economic continuities” (121). The main function of the third type of neighborhood, the district, is “to mediate between the indispensable, but inherently politically powerless, street neighborhoods and the inherently powerful city as a whole” (121). Districts bring resources from the city to street neighborhoods, they translate lived experience into policy, and they maintain an area for their citizens, as well as for workers and visitors from other parts of the city.

Many planning policies harm cities. Clearing slums not only tears down dilapidated buildings, but also uproots people and damages social bonds. Similarly, renewal planning aims to save buildings, not populations, and private development results in destabilization. Although a good city neighborhood can accommodate newcomers and transients, the displacements must be gradual. Continuity in neighborhood networks is key to self-government. As Jacobs observes, these networks are “a city’s irreplaceable social capital” (138).

Ethnic cohesiveness is not necessary for a strong city neighborhood, though it sometimes plays a role in their formation. According to Jacobs, stability matters more than a shared ethnic identity. Effective city neighborhood planning should aim to create lively, interesting streets; to make streets “as continuous a network as possible throughout a district” (129); “to use parks and squares and public buildings as part of the street fabric” (129); and to “emphasize the functional identity of areas large enough to work as districts” (129).