In this section (ch. 13-14), Jacobs identifies destructive and helpful powers towards killing or enlivening a city.
On destructive force is the continual shifting of a city's center. This happens because a popular locale will become a fad and be reproduced, but will lose its luster with time, as what was once original becomes the norm. As Jane writes, "Diversity is crowded out by the duplication of success" (247). What's needed to protect city vitality, then, are ordinaces that defend against excessive dupication of restuarants, or whatever the thing was that caused the inital economic boom for that prospering areas.
A second source of city decline are the deadening border zones used to separate different areas - i.e., the most classic example being railroad tracks. Also, Morningside Heights Park in NYC is a boarder, with sidewalk use there deadened by the perception of them as insecure areas. Another boarder zone can be a place with one-way traffic - people on one side going and coming, but people on the other side never crossing out of their own side. Borders are active, she argues; they are infertile, unused areas, usually, leading to an "unbuilding, or running-down process" (259). The insightful point here is that running-down is an active movement in a particular direction---even though, true enough, entropy takes less energy than building an area up. I was curious to see what Jane would suggest as a remedy for this problem.
At this point, Jane finally discusses Cetnral Park - you may recall I've been awaiting her view on it. She suggests turning barriers into seams; moving attractions of intensive use to the perimeter, such as zoos, mueums, ponds, rinks, cafes, chess houses, carousels. If the border isn't along a park, relying on counterforces, such as intentionally large and diverse populations, can protect city vitality. Finally, Jacobs argues against pedestrian street schemes if they create borders.
Speaking of walkways reminds me of T.'s recent comment, as we drove down State Steet, that he thinks college campuses ought to hold off on sidewalk construction at first, see where students themselves want to walk, then pave those routes. T. and Jacobs would get along; both see orthodox planning efforts as cou terproductive. When I mentioned to T. that I've noticed heavy use of an outdoor public space - med students and nurses and patients who sit cross-legged near the crosswalk along State Street - I said that I thought a bench should be put there. He disagreed, saying that he thinks it would chase the initial users there, who like it for the fact that they can sit in grass. The users of the space - as unplanned of a socail space as it could possibly be - have already defined it in terms they like and utilize routinely. Why mess with it? Why interfere with organic success?
No comments:
Post a Comment