The Death and Life of Great American Cities
By Jane Jacobs
Project by:
Sherise Smith
Markie McBryer
Nick Petschek
Jane Jacobs: Biography
Jane Butzner was born in Scranton, PA, in 1916. From an early age she began a career as a
journalist, moving to New York City after high school where she took on a wide variety of
writing and editing positions. She studied a broad array of disciplines at Barnard College, a
tribute to her multidisciplinary approach to urban planning and architecture. She married an
architect in 1944, and taking his name became the more known 'Jane Jacobs'. Increasingly
discontent with commonly held beliefs during her time, her alternate view of planning and
communities was first presented to the world in large format first in a speech given at
Harvard in 1956, and shortly afterwards in The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
She would go on to refine her ideas of urban planning and cities, and continue advocating
for communities and neighborhoods into the next century (PPS, Wikipedia).
The Death and Life of Great American Cities: Historical Context
During the time that Jane Jacobs wrote her book entitled, The Death and Life of Great American
Cities, the United States was going through several major political changes. For one thing, in
1961 when the book was first published, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was leaving
office, and President John F. Kennedy was coming into office in January of that year. As a
result, America was making the transition from being run by a Republican presidency to a
Democratic one. Also during that time, America was involved in the continuing Cold War,
which included the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War (especially during the
1960s). Furthermore, despite dealing with problems abroad, the United States was also
tackling problems domestically with the Civil Rights Movement. Thus, Jacobs’s book came
during a time of heavy political conflict in America, both in its domestic affairs, and
internationally.
Death and Life: Theme
The Death and Life of Great American Cities was largely a response to and critique of urban
renewal projects of the 1950s. Jacobs feels that city planners oversimplify the complexity and
diversity of cities. These diversities are the foundations of cities, and these
oversimplifications manifest themselves in slum clearance, highway projects, and zoning,
which in turn destroy the vibrancy and culture of cities. Jacobs states that this movement in
urban planning focuses on the aesthetics and appearance of city functions, rather than the
individuals that make the city function.
Jane Jacobs: Political Stance
Jane Jacobs appears to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. Many of the solutions she
proposes highlight great reductions in costs, compared to modern urban renewal projects,
while maintaining or even improving the social impacts. The Death and Life of Great
American Cities does advocate for more free-market solutions, yet Jacobs seems more
focused on the interests of citizens and their participation than on politics itself. As seen in
Kunstler’s interview with Jacobs, she detested the McCarthyism of the 1950s, as it
discouraged political involvement. Citizens were afraid to sign petitions and publicly
advocate for issues because it might have had deleterious results. Ultimately, Jacobs’ intent is
to shift focus from political movements and initiatives towards the organized complexity of
citizen participation.
Death and Life: Core Arguments
I – The Nature of Cities. Jacobs lays out the uses and functions of cities, as seen with
sidewalks, neighborhood parks, and finally the uses of neighborhoods.
1. Sidewalks: First, sidewalks are the best form of security in a mixed use
neighborhood. The concept of social capital (specifically bonding social capital) is
the most effective manner to preserve a neighborhood and keep it free of ills. Jacobs'
concept of "street eyes" is a primary example where a strong sense of belonging and
intervention on part of residents keeps the peace. Second, sidewalks provide social
contact---a contact that lends itself to friendliness with the underlying necessity of
privacy. Third, sidewalks lend themselves to rearing children trough the previously
mentioned "street eyes" watching their behavior or, in some cases, misbehavior,
while maintaining their safety.
2. Neighborhood Parks: Jacobs does not look favorably upon neighborhood parks.
She identifies them as immense successes or immense failures. They must be an area
where people will travel through in order to maintain their safety.
II – Conditions for diversity. Diversity is what allows a city to obtain the benefits pointed
out in part 1. Jacobs enumerates four conditions that allow for this diversity.
1. Mixed Use: Jacobs identifies two types of uses, primary - housing, commercial,
industrial, which attract people to the area - and secondary - uses that spring from
demand created by the primary use (grocery stores for housing, lunch places for
commercial/office space), somewhat similar to the concept of backward linkages.
2. Small Blocks: Small blocks allow for diversity in walking patterns, and promote
contact between people, but more importantly, allow for more viable economic
space, as with increased routes available to pedestrians, there are more corners with
higher foot traffic. This also helps not create use groupings (a whole street of
stores), which form where it is most economically vialbe (and with superblocks, the
foot traffic is channeled to only certain spaces).
3. Old Buildings: New buildings (ie, new construction) exclude businesses that are
not high-profit or subsidized, as the cost of construction needs to be accounted for.
There is no room for experimental or creative uses, as investors want something that
is tried and true, to make sure they don't lose money invested in the project. Old
buildings can serve as "incubators" for new enterprises and experimental uses.
These benefits of old buildings can only be obtained with time, as clearly they were
once new buildings commanding (demanding) high rents.
4. Density: Without density, minority economic or cultural uses are impossible, for
lack of effective demand. High density has a bad reputation due to its confusion
with overcrowding: high density refers to the number of dwellings per acre, while
overcrowding to the number of people per room (1.5 people per room was/is the
census definition of overcrowding). Low density is dull and does not create what
Jacobs lists in part 1 as good city characteristics, but is acceptable for suburbs so long
as they are not incorporated into the core city. Sufficient density is reached when a
district can sustain secondary use diversity (which assumes primary use diversity).
Density is too high when standardization is needed to accommodate the population,
as this means losing building diversity (which leads to losing demographic and
business diversity).
III – Diversity. Jacobs continues with her discussion of the importance of diversity, and
identifies four conditions that can hinder diversity.
1. Success: Jacobs states that diversity in an area happens because that area is
successful and brings in different users. However, she also states that if one user
obtains success in a particular area, others who want to use the area for the same
purpose will also come in and try to gain some of that success. This results in a
decrease in diversity because the area will no longer be used for different purposes.
2. Borders: Jacobs states that borders can dampen diversity because they create a
barrier between two neighborhoods in a city, thus resulting in areas being used for a
single purpose. She further states that borders also limit the interaction between
people living on either side of the border. She states that people may cross from side
A of the border to side B for work, shopping, etc., but that the people that live on
side B may never cross to side A, which furthers her point about the area being used
for a single purpose.
3. Population: Jacobs states that changes in population can limit diversity in an area.
She states that people move out of slums as their earnings increase, and this leaves
the poorest families in the slums. She further adds that diversity can be maintained if
people stay in their communities as they make more money instead of moving out.
4. Money: Jacobs argues that there are three kinds of money, all of which have
contributed to the decay of cities, and the diversity within cities. She states that not
only is it a matter of how much money is available, but also how the money is
available (i.e.: credit, loans, etc.), and for what purposes it is designated for. She adds
that money has been used both in the decline of the city, and in the city's
regeneration.
IV – Solutions. Jacobs discusses the role of private enterprise in urban development and the
complicated urban fabric that the state has been interfering with.
1. Subsidizing Dwellings: Jacobs recognizes the need for affordable housing, but
offers solutions that resemble the free market. The government would provide rent
subsidies for residents requiring this low-income housing, but the landowners would
be private owners. The rent would be based on a sliding scale based on income, and
people may stay in these private complexes as long as they please.
2. The Harm of Automobiles: Jacobs does not suggest that cars and roads be
removed, but rather expanding sidewalks and decreasing road space. She states that
these cars can be a great advantage for cities. They were able to get the incredibly
problematic horse and buggy off the road. However, she recognizes the need for
balance between cars, public transport, and pedestrians.
3. The Limitation of Visual Order: Jacobs believes that urban renewal projects are
relying too much on buildings and too little on people to solve problems. If
experiencing problems, an area should examine what it may be missing visually or
functionally. For example, too many new, commercial buildings may require an old,
civic building to lend balance to the area. She even recommends unique street layouts
e.g. a curved street in the middle of the grid pattern. Ultimately, visual order should
not be relied upon to fix social ills, but unique strategies could be put in place to lend
diversity to the area.
4. Salvaging projects: She recognizes that projects must be seen as a cog in the
machinery of a city. The whole system must be examined before a large alien project
enters an area. She argues that these projects are seen as isolated with little regard of
the effect on other parts and functions of the area.
5. Governing and planning districts: Jacobs feels that these government entities have
become too bureaucratic, top-down, and complex for people to actually participate
in government. She advocates for small horizontal agencies throughout the cities to
handle a specific area’s issues. These issues will be better able to handle the
complexity of citizens and their roles and functions in cities. She elaborates by stating
that planners have oversimplified the functions and needs of cities and their citizens,
and as a result, many neighborhoods have suffered. Jacobs then identifies cities as
organized complexities: something which must be studied like the life sciences.
Death and Life: Criticisims
 Kaufman (Deputy Director of Cuyahoga County Regional Planning Commission)


points to Jacobs lack of treatment of the roots of delinquency, the role of prejudice,
her interest in what he sees as sacrificing macro gains for lesser micro gains, and the
lack of sufficient small businesses to populate her desired city landscape. He agrees
planning needs a more social approach, as well as her interest in creating more
accessible political institutions.
Many (including Scrunton) argue that Jacobs' ideas call for limited government
intervention in city (and economic) life.
Crompton states that Jacobs' book is irritating in that it doesn't acknowledge the
reality of compromise in urban planning. He elaborates by stating that it only



presents her personal views without covering the details and justifications of urban
renewal initiatives. It's very much a one-sided piece of literature, and it would be
difficult to use in practice as a consequence. Crompton concludes with admitting
that Jacobs' work has brought up interesting questions in the field of planning.
Hoppenfeld made a similar critique to the one that Crompton made of Jacobs’s
book. He too stated that her book was one-sided, and that Jacobs ignored other
options. Hoppenfeld elaborates by stating that “the biggest fault of her book is that
she doesn’t accept the existence or desirability of other styles of urbanity as well as
her own and, therefore, falls into the same pattern of single-minded thinker that she
loves to condemn” (p. 136-137).
Row, being one of her more vitriolic critics, claims that the diversity and complexity
she describes is not a new discovery. In fact, Jacobs is the one who does not
comprehend the structure and organization of cities, as well as the redevelopment
projects. The review then turns to her proposed solutions, describing them as
unrealistic "panaceas" (1600). Ultimately, Row completely disregards Jacobs' book by
reducing it to "pamphleteering" (1602).
Rodwin states that Jacobs does not consider that many of the things she says
contributes to the decline of cities has to do with people earning more money and
thus wanting bigger things and more space for their families. He elaborates by stating
that she does not consider what the people want; instead, she only considers what
she thinks people should want.
References
Crompton, D.H. (1962, July). Review: [untitled] [Review of the book The death and life of great
American cities]. The Town planning Review, 33(2). Retrieved November 22, 2009, from
JStor.
Hoppenfeld, M. (1962). The death and life of great American cities, by Jane Jacobs [Review
of the book The death and life of great American cities]. Journal of the American Institute of
Planners, 28(2), 136-137.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House, Inc.
Kaufman, S. (1962). Book review: the death and life of great american cities. Humanist, 22(23), 98-100.
Kunstler, J. (2000, September 6). Jane Jacobs Interviewed by Jim Kuntsler. Metropolis
Magazine March 2001. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from kunstler.com.
Montgomery, R. (1998). Is there still life in The Death and Life? Journal of the American
Planning Association, 64(3), 269-274. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from
ABI/INFORM Global.
Prescott, O. (1961, November 3). Books of the times [Review of The death and life of great
American cities]. New York Times (1857-Current file),p. 33. Retrieved November 15,
2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times (1851-2006) w/
Index (1851-1993).
Project for Public Spaces (PPS). (2009). Jane jacobs. Retrieved from
http://www.pps.org/info/placemakingtools /placemakers/jjacobs
Rodwin, L. (1961, November 5). Neighbors are needed [Review of the book The death and life
of great American cities]. New York Times (1857-Current file), BR10. Retrieved
November 22, 2009, from ProQuest Historical Newspapers New York Times (1851-
2006) w/ Index (1851-1993).
Row, A. (1962, July). Review: [Untitled] [Review of the book The death and life of great American
cities]. The Yale Law Journal, 71(8), 1596-1602. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from
JStor.
Scruton, R. (2006, October). Jane Jacobs and the American city. The American
Spectator, 39(8), 54,56-57. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from Alt-Press Watch
(APW).
(n.d.). Jane Jacobs. Wikipedia. Retrieved (2009, November 21) from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs