This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The Criticism section states: "One of the recurring criticisms of Jacobs is that her work is impractical and does not reflect the reality of urban politics". On a related note, my reading of The Nature of Economies led me to feel that Jacobs placed too much importance on the theoretical negative feedback effect of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand, mentioning that it can be upset by taxes and subsidies, but not recognizing the much greater debilitating distortions caused in practice by large corporations and by externalities, as discussed for example in David Korten's work. Can anyone cite specific published criticism? JimR 07:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The criticisms section is weak and POV; I have tried to deal with the latter, but really these criticisms should be sourced or deleted. seglea 00:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I would agree...in reality I would hope to see these comments deleted. Even a casual glance by a knowing reader would explain why-

"Toronto traffic planners often fault Jacobs for preventing them from considering expressways..."

This and its following comments are issues that she herself deals with...her books like Death and Life and Dark Age Ahead contain criticisms of these "criticisms," which deal with more than just Jane Jacobs herself anyway...are her policies, her books, her character, her activism being criticized?

"In the 1970s, many businesses disliked the implementation of Jacob's new urban-reform measures which were seen as anti-development policies and began to migrate towards Peel Region and York Region..."

Unbelievable...I`m missing any suggestion of what sort of power that Jane wields upon the unsuspecting citizens of Toronto...this list of "criticism" is almost implicating her as an autocratic ruler of Toronto...the problem with this is simply that it is unsubstantiated. "many businesses", "new urban-reform measures", "anti-development"!!!!!(?) C`mon. This is almost inflammatory...was this section written by an angry realtor?

"Peel and York Regions have stayed mostly debt free while Toronto, which has followed Jacobs' policies to a greater extent, has slowly fallen into debt."

No, no, and no. To suggest that Toronto`s problems with debt are resultant on Jacobs` "policies" borders on the absurd. Which she has written about.

[Above comments by Markmtl, 10 October 2005]

If these criticisms have really been levelled at Jacobs, it may be valid to represent them in the article, so as to show what other points of view exist, even though as you say they seem absurd. Maybe you could quote briefly from her writings and/or give references to show how she rebuts the criticisms. However, it's also true that Seglea's point that the criticisms are unsourced still stands. -- JimR 10:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point...I think it just comes down to referencing these criticims. The "absurdity" comment comes from the idea that (1) Jacobs' policies have been "to a greater extent" followed (not quite sure what that even means) and (2) This course of action has led to the city of Toronto falling into debt. The absurdity is generated by such a simplified cause-and-effect correlation being posted, unsourced, un-referenced, and unsupported. Debt is more complex and of course has to do with more than a cities urban planning policies. Now, that's my unsourced, un-referenced, and unsupported side...I would be interested in reconsidering this perhaps if I had more information about these criticisms. I'll start looking for some quotations from her writing that might be interesting or informative to add to this section (often she directly addresses her critics in her books). Markmtl 17:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, good — thanks! It's also worth having a look at the articles David Crombie, Municipal expressways in Toronto, and Spadina Expressway, where similar criticisms appear. -- JimR 11:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just read these articles on the surface. Thanks for referencing them. However, I have trouble seeing how they necessarily support the criticisms raised in this article. (A lot of weird things on Wikipedia seem to be referenced to other weird things on Wikipedia) Are we to list as a criticism that: Jane jacobs was one amongst many who was part of efforts to keep more expressways from being built? Does that automatically qualify as a criticism?

Is one councillor who was inspired by Jacobs' writing mean that Toronto mostly followed Jane Jacobs' provisions? (Jacobs is not some block ethic...more than any planner she seems to have encouraged change where it is needed). Does the Spadina expressway controversy also mean (as the article is implying) that the Lower manhattan expressway, that would have obliterated most of SoHo and Greenwich Village should have been built? Anyway, let me read into those articles a little bit more. I'm still not convinced that this articles' "criticisms" are as relevant to Jane Jacobs biography as they are pro-expressway justifications based on misconceptions of Jacobs' writing. For example: How has Jane Jacobs' influence been perceived of as being 'anti-development?' Especially after considering that most of her books on cities describe development or development-encouraging ideas?

[Above comments by Markmtl 22 October 2005 without tildes]

I quite agree that the other articles do not necessarily support the criticisms in Jane Jacobs: they merely repeat them. My aim in pointing them out was to indicate that if the Jacobs article is to be improved, the other articles could also be amended.

Under NPOV I think it's reasonable that these articles should indicate that there are different points of view on whether or not the consequences of the cancellation of the expressways were all positive. Your plan of responding to the criticisms in Jacob's own terms by finding suitable quotations from her later books may be the best answer to this.

On "development", the controversy may be in the interpretation of the term. I think Jacobs uses it to mean a deepening in complexity and richness of economic activity, while exponents of expressways may be thinking of a simplification of what they see as a transport problem. -- JimR 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC) -- JimR 06:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right that the other articles ought to be amended; I completely misunderstood why you linked them! Also, thank you for the NPOV reminder! With that in mind, I think in this case when talking about criticisms of Jane Jacobs it might be best to stick to academic criticisms of her writings as opposed to presupposing ideologic differences (I don't understand the current criticisms in this way). If things like freeway construction are to be discussed, I think the least contentious way to do that would be in reference to the body of work she has produced; i.e. "This is what Jane thought about freeways" rather than "Jane's thoughts on freeways meant X" or "Jane's thoughts on freeways, through Y, resulted in Z."

Also on "development," of course the controversy is in the interpretation of the term. If we can label "Jane Jacobs" and her "opposition" as both PRO and ANTI-development, is such an ambiguous label due ommission or at least qualification? Your interpretation touch on some key points (meaning I agree with you) but is this a debate that we should be bringing up in an article about somebody who is already notoriously controversial? Or, rather, is there a way that we can say this clearer and with both sides shown?

Thanks for your encouragement and continuing to share your knowledge! -- Markmtl 09:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I agree with your critique of the criticisms. I couldn't find an "unreferenced section" template, so I've added a POV-section template to the Criticisms section, in the hope it will attract other people to comment and contribute to achieving balance.

You are also quite right about " development": the meanings of "economic development" and "business development" are not always in tune. I've attempted to make the last paragraph of the Criticisms section reflect the distinction. But like you I'm still not happy with the whole section, principally because of the lack of sources, references or quotations. -- JimR 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, JimR, for drawing my attention to this ongoing attempts to sort this one out. I think both you and Markmtl deserve a lot of credit for trying to achieve insight and balance from what I suspect are opposed points of view - this is how Wikipedia progresses from the weird to the not so weird (probably the most we can hope for in an uncertain world). But the brute fact remains that no-one has even said who is making these criticisms and where they are making them, and until we have that information they are just useless. So my modest proposal is to dump the whole section, perserve it and explain why in this discussion page, and see whether anyone comes back with a properly sourced rewrite. But this really isn't my field, so I hesitate to do it myself - I only got here because I found Systems of Survival incredibly useful in understanding a peculiar job I was doing, which was a desperate hybrid of her two systems. seglea 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If that is not just the worst proposal i have ever seen. With the resources available to challenge content, the removal of text in which the main challenge is on sources with out given the challenge or appropriate tagging is nothing less then vandalism, considering that that person that added them, while the addition rings of a POV, seems to have been in good faith and has be worked upon. To say that your proposal is modest is misleading; it is radical to the point that it smells of a POV pusher. If you have such a problem with the text maybe you should do some independent research and try to find some of the criticism your self and see how they match up with the txt given. -- Boothy443 | comhrá 21:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

While certainly the place to discuss criticism of Jacobs' ideas & works without becoming original research (the critics being abundant), this section of the main article needs alot of work just to reach NPOV. The section can be revamped, expanded and improved without becoming a syncophantic fanzine. --- JC Shepard 21:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Citizens Transportation Alliance

It's a curious argument that admitted unsourced POV argument is to be protected, while removing it is rejected because seen as POV. However, let's see how far we can get with Boothy443's suggestion. A Google search leads to a Citizens Transportation Alliance of Toronto web page which criticises Jacobs, saying for example: "Toronto’s socialist planning based on Jane Jacobs’ unprofessional ideas have completely failed the city." I suggest that following Boothy443's reasoning, we should rewrite the Criticism section based on and referring to this page. Can anyone find any other similar pages to incorporate as well? -- JimR 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Citizens Transportation Alliance of Toronto; I don't think we should reference it however. Here's a couple thoughts:

1) "Toronto’s socialist planning based on Jane Jacobs’ unprofessional ideas have completely failed the city." - This is at best, an uninformed opinion. At worst it is inflammatory (Jane Jacobs is certainly not a "socialist," though what this article means by "socialist" is left ambiguous; additionally, it is a FACT that Jane Jacobs is a professional. Contentious, yes, but with numerous books and papers in print across the globe. What do they mean by "unprofessional?"). In many ways Toronto's planning decisions have been celebrated internationally. Hard to believe that the city has been "completely failed," especially when the details behind these words are murky.

2) "It was dreamed up by mostly downtowners who felt that people in the suburbs must have the downtowner way of life with close boxed-in development and use of public transit." - A useful dichotomy, perhaps, but uses rather strange, unqualified terms. What makes a person a "downtowner" or a "suburbanite?" Does geographic location equate to ideological indoctrination? What do they mean by "close boxed-in development?" Are they referring to human densities or dwelling densities? Or, as I suspect, is this reducing the entire argument of sustainable or efficient development down to land coverage? In addition, Toronto, though it has its share of problems, has based its planning decision on actual studies, available to those interested, and surely not dreams (like many CIAM planners in the 50s and 60s or "Garden City" idealists after Ebenezer Howard, who are in no small part responsible for suburban conventions and are admitted "dreamers")

3) "They fail to recognize that suburbanites live there by choice. The majority of people want a greener, more spread out low density development with lots of space for their children to play." - This is debatable, and an unsupported opinion. It is not clear if they are talking about planning or design. Is it assuming that people dwelling in the suburbs have children, and that children do not know how or cannot play in areas with more intensive development? What is the "majority" and of what "people" is this article addressing? Is it 51%? 60%? 75%? Are we talking about white middle and upper class families? Single professionals? Low-income or fixed-income families? This opinion is well contrasted by academic writings, such as Alan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard's "Towards an Urban Design Manifesto," which would conclude quite the opposite.

4) "People also enjoy driving their cars, which is the preferred choice of more than 70% of Torontonians." - Again, an unsupported and unreasearched opinion. I shouldn't have to explain why. This figure of 70% is not precise, it is not clear if "Torontonians" includes people in the municipality or the metropolitan agglomeration (this makes a difference), and it is a remarkable interpretation to say that driving is a "preferred choice" if one does drive. Is it a choice if you are living in an auto-oriented environment?

5) "Jobs, once mostly in the downtown, are now becoming more spread out, so people are even living and working in the suburbs, or living downtown and working in the suburbs. Commuting is now going in all directions." - How or what this means to their argument in favor of building more expressways and encouraging suburban development (which is somehow supposed to leave "downtowners" with a realistic choice) is unclear. Much has been written on splintering urbanism in North American city forms (the "edge city" or "technoburb") and even its influence on cities in Europe, Australia, and the developing world. Much of what is written spends its time documenting and studying and analyzing potential mitigation for problems that are quite clear with this trend in city development. (Read Knox and McCarthy's Urbanization or Saskia Sassen's "The Global City" or Hall's The Human Sustainable City or the UN-HABITAT's State of the World's Cities.)

6) "Toronto needs a new and realistic plan which gives downtowners their way of life in their part of the city and gives suburbanites their way of life in their part of the city without imposing one on the other. It must recognize that transportation planning must accommodate the choices of the people and not try to force a change of habits on the people, as socialist planning tries and failed to do." - Many planners (such as the New Urban Congress) are now acknowledging that on the whole, traditional urban planning and suburban planning (à la CIAM and Howard) are simply not compatible with modern trends (in that a new form is required). I still haven't found anything on this site or within this diatribe that suggests how, and in fact a lot of its "information" on environmental problems are directly associated with what this line is suggesting. And it ignores so much (ex: what will more expressways do to the quality of life for these supposed "downtowners?")

Anyway, that's just the last part of the web page. I think the majority of it contains enough problems, errors, value judgements, illusory correlations, bizarre generalizations, and non-sequiturs to compromise its ability to stand as a source, academic or otherwise, for this entry.

Examples:

1) This bizarre and illogical conclusion from the "Policies" page: "[Traffic] has increased everyone’s travel time, which in turn has added to unnecessary air pollution and it makes the use or enjoyment of our community streets for commercial and residential/recreational activities, much more difficult. . . A needed national highway construction programme along the lines of the US Interstate system does not exist, and none is yet proposed."

2) Unsupported information followed by an unresearched and potentially erroneous conclusion that ignores current debate: "Largely oblivious to Toronto-bred theories, Quebec's chief cities are very well served by diverse transportation facilities, with Quebec City having perhaps the world's highest expressway density, with no apparent urban-decay effect." Useful to note that Montréal is planning to remove and re-route several kilometers of expressway and is in the midst of much debate over a ring-road project. Also, I'm curious about this alleged ("perhaps!") figure of Québec having the world's highest expressway density, especially considering that they have contributed to considerable urban-decay.

3) problematic, though purported revolutionary idea that in one breath sweeps aside hundreds of planners' studies and debates for the last century: "Whereas many here in Canada have been falsely led to believe that the urban decay in the U.S.A. was the result of constructing expressways, the Canadian situation suggests an opposite and more plausible conclusion, that the lack of expressways leads to urban decay."

Basically, this organization has doomed itself by forgetting that the correlation between urban decay and expressways is complex and involves more than expressways, and by forgetting that just saying things does not make them true. You have to actually look at things to find that out.

We can do much better than this. I'll keep looking. Markmtl 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree that the Citizens Transportation Alliance critique is weak, and you have done a great job of arguing against it. I still think this could be incorporated into the article (briefly), together with the counter-argument, in place of the existing hypothetical unsourced criticism. But do go ahead looking for a "better" criticism reference ( [1] may give an idea). Of course if you find a really good one, it will be harder to refute :-) -- JimR 06:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a useful section (BTW I know and have collaborated with Mrs. Jacobs since the Washington Square resitence of 1958/59) - but I would like to suggest that the author put it in the form of either Q&A, or maybe Challenge and Response. I find the challenges interesting and quite representative of those who don't much like her or her approacn - and I am absolutey certain that Mrs.Jabos would have fun with this as well. She has never shied away from criticism. ericbritton 16:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The following informative list has been deleted without any clear justification. I would like to solicit opinions on retaining this list. If this list hinders the flow of the article, then a separate Wikipedia article could be made.

MORAL SYNDROME A (COMMERCIAL MORAL SYNDROME)

Shun force

Come to voluntary agreements

Be honest

Collaborate easily with strangers and aliens

Compete

Respect contracts

Use initiative and enterprise

Be open to inventiveness and novelty

Be efficient

Promote comfort and convenience

Dissent for the sake of the task

Invest for productive purposes

Be industrious

Be thrifty

Be optimistic

MORAL SYNDROME B (GUARDIAN MORAL SYNDROME)

Shun trading

Exert prowess

Be obedient and discplined

Adhere to tradition

Respect hierarchy

Be loyal

Take vengeance

Deceive for the sake of the task

Make rich use of leisure

Be ostentatious

Dispense largesse

Be exclusive

Show fortitude

Be fatalistic

Treasure honor

WpZurp 17:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed these lists because they were not adequately explained and because its too much detail for a biographical article, especially considering that most people looking up Jane Jacobs are interested in her urban planning work, not necessarily her philosophical writings. They would not be out of place in a separate article on Systems of Survival. I haven't read this book so I wouldn't be the one to create this article. Any volunteers? -- Polynova 19:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As someone who read these lists in law school a while back and was actually looking to remember them, I think it's useful that they're there (somewhere - i agree they might need some explanation, though. I am not the one to give it). -- Kalanchoe77 18:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph at the bottom that mentioned an obscure voice actor by the same name. I don't think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia, but if anyone disagrees, then they can make a different entry for her and create a disambiguation page. 24.84.41.147 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to the authors of this article, there's little higher praise than this: "Jane Jacobs died this week. There are many online resources devoted to the woman perhaps most responsible for keeping our cities as livable as they are, but her Wikipedia entry may be the best place to start to learn about her." [2]. Good work! — Catherine\ ^talk 21:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Jacobs continues to tell it like it is" Srnec 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The {{cleanup-spam}} tag was added to the External links section on 12 May 2006. As far as I can see from this diff, the external links haven't changed since then. So no one seems to have found actual spam links. Can the tag now be removed? If not, which of the links are the dubious ones, and is there agreement to get rid of those? -- JimR 11:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No one has commented, either that the tag shouldn't be removed, or to point out dubious links. I'll now remove the tag. -- JimR 06:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a non-working link in the article to the topic of The Jane Jacobs Prize. There is an excellent website, maintained by the adminsitrators of the prize, at Ideas that Matter. There are specific pages relating to the Prize itself at People that Matter and The Jane Jacobs Prize. Would it be desirable to obtain permission from the copyright holders to "lift" their text and place it here, or should the reference in the article just be an external link to some or all of these pages? There is already a link to Ideas that Matter in the External links / Websites section. I don't know what the best / usual practice is in these situations; there's always the possibility that the other website will go away. It seems it would be better to get permission to quote the site as needed and incorporate the material into an article here. -- Chidom 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Requesting permission to quote copyright pages verbatim is an option, but it's a laborious process. An alternative is to paraphrase — write a summary in your own words of the material in question (thus avoiding a breach of copyright, which is ownership of literal text, not ideas); then cite the sources as references, using <ref> to get footnotes. -- JimR 06:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just spent some time eliminating instances on this Talk page where the word "development" linked to the Development disambiguation page. If a link is created on the word "development" alone ([[development]]), that's where it points. The goal is to have links point to the article that is specific to the usage of the word. I (hopefully) changed them to more appropriate links such as Economic development, Urban development, Corporate development, Subdivision (land), etc. There were some instances where I added links that didn't previously exist. If you care to, please review the changes I've made and if you feel that a link now points to the wrong article, or that another instance of the word "development" needs to link somewhere, please go ahead and make the edits you feel are appropriate. I tried to limit the use of each of the unique links to one or two places in the text here, but that may not have been the best methodology, either. Thoughts / comments / edits are welcome. Thanks!-- Chidom 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)— Chidom 21:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chidom. I know your intentions are good, but this is contrary to WP:TPG#Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia which states:

As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting.

The trouble is that by disambiguating links, or even more so by adding links that didn't exist, you distort the historical record of what other people said on the talk page. My view is that the Talk Page Guidelines are correct and do apply here, and that the changes you have made would best be reverted (which needs to be done manually). -- JimR 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies; I completely misread the directions in item 4 of the Disambiguation pages with links—How to help and did exactly the opposite of what was listed there. All my edits have been undone. Thanks.— Chidom

Tremendously influential Lewis Mumford's lifespan overlapped with Jacobs', and he also wrote insightfully and critically about cities, technology, and history. Very many thoughtful people involved with urban and technological issues read Mumford. Values (as proved out by history) were the central concern of both Mumford and Jacobs. Is there something obvious being missed in this Wikipedia article about Jacobs? What might she have drawn from his thinking, what might she have disagreed with or reacted against?-- Joel Russ 21:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[I've moved Joel's new posting to the end here in line with WP:TPG#Layout.] You are right that Mumford is not mentioned in the Jacobs article at present, nor vice versa. A Google search gives a number of references about their disagreement. Perhaps there's enough available to construct an addition to the article from if you're so inclined. -- JimR 11:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions her support of ecologist Tooker Gomberg in the Toronto mayoral election of 2000, stating that Gomberg won. I know nothing about the man, but according to his page he lost that election by a wide margin. 148.166.86.83 ( talk) 18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The article had said for some time that Jacobs was of Jewish background, but these edits changed that to Protestant, and removed two categories, Jewish American writers and Jewish Canadians. Is the new version correct? -- JimR 07:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been a history of anonymous contributors changing or removing her religion without comment. I don't know why. I did some Googling, and I couldn't find anything that supports the article's current claims. I did find her included in the Jewish Women's Archive, though. - EurekaLott 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This really bothers me. I have no idea why people are trying to hide her Jewish ethnicity. I have edited the page to reflect the reality of the situation. There is ABSOLUTELY no dispute she was Jewish.

Jane Jacobs: Urban Visionary, by Alice Sparberg Alexiou, says her family was of an "old line Protestant stock", and dusputes specifically the notion that she came from a Jewish background. I don't know what other sources say. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

At least one other source (the London Independent) said in June 2006 that Jacobs' family was "middle-class" and Jewish. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a public (and it appears secular) memorial at Trinity St Paul's Curch in Toronto, which was in Jacobs' neighborhood. I am not convinced that she was a congregant, and I am also not convinced that she adhered to any one religion, save that of defense of urbanity and urban populations, and spontaniety, fun, and folks in general. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you one thing. Mrs. Jacobs would be exasperated by this discussion. She is, she told me often, defined by her work and not her person. So out with the labels! A bit of respect for this wonderful person and her wishes. ericbritton 07:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As it reads now, identifying her as a Protestant and as a 'minority' in a majority-Catholic town is a bit of a throwaway line, as there's no context for why it's important. (Had she been, say, a religious organizer, it might be relevant.) A discussion of her religious background might be relevant in a full biography. But is her religion relevant at all for the limited purposes of a Wikipedia entry? MariaMitchell ( talk) 18:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Given conflicting sources, either mention the conflicts in sources or mention nothing. Carol Moore 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}

Here's a longer quote from the above mentioned book by Alice Sparberg Alexiou (p. 9):

People sometimes assume that Jane Jacobs, the former Greenwich Village activist and passionate lover of cities, is Jewish. But she comes from old Protestant stock, born Jane Isabel Butzner in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the heart of coal-mining country, in 1916. Some of her ancestors arrived before the American Revolution. They came from Bavaria, Holland, England, and Scotland, settling in Pennsylvania and Virginia. An ancestor on her mother's side, Robert Boyd, arrived in America in 1738 from England, and served as a captain in the French and Indian War. A paternal ancestor fought in the Revolutionary War and was killed in the battle of Bunker Hill. Her maternal grandfather, James Boyd Robison, was a Union captain in the Civil War and a survivor of Libby Prison in Richmond, one of the Confederacy's notorious prisoner-of-war camps.

-- Victor Chmara ( talk) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Added link to freelance writer Greenopedia ( talk) 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)greenopedia 1/29/10

The article reads "She became a Canadian citizen in 1974, and she later told writer James Howard Kunstler that dual citizenship was not possible at the time, implying that her US citizenship was lost."

But this is clearly untrue! Any American who immigrated to Canada in the 1960s or 1970s would know that this is absolute nonsense.

Why would she say something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardiste ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This section misrepresents the ideas of Jacobs and it misrepresents the ideas of Childe, Maisels, and others. The simple fact is that Jacobs was very wrong in suggesting that cities preceded agriculture. There is voluminous, clear archaeological evidence from several areas of the world that support my claim (this is my professional specialty). I would re-edit the entry to correct the errors, but when I made this very change in the entry under "cities" some Jacobs fanatics quickly erased my edits and restored the erroneous information (claiming that Jacobs's ideas are not in error). This kind of things give a bad name to Wikipedia. Michael E. Smith ( talk) 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if your thesis regarding the primacy of agriculture before cities were correct (and having read her book, I very much doubt that it is), the article, being about the book itself, wouldn't be the place to assert it. You could start a new sub-section on the book's published dissenters, and that might pass muster; or provide some links in the External Links section. BruceSwanson ( talk) 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph was attached to the summary of The Economy of Cities:

Another interpretation of history, generally and erroneously considered to be contradictory to Jacobs' is supported by Marxist archaeologist Vere Gordon Childe and in recent times by another historical materialist Charles Keith Maisels. ^{[1] [2]} These writers argue that agriculture preceded cities. The apparent oppostion between Childe and Jacobs theories rests in their definition of 'city,' 'civilization,' or 'urban.' Childe, like other materialists like Maisels or Henri Lefevre defines 'urban' or 'civilization' as Synoecism--as a literate, socially stratified, monolithic political community, ^[3] whereas, as one can see from The Economy of Cities or from Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Jacobs defines city purely along the lines of geographically dense trade giving way to entrepreneurial discovery and subsequent improvements in the division of labor. Without the requirements of literacy, monumental building, or the signs of specialized civil and armed forces, 'cities' can be accurately be interpreted to exists thousands of years before when Childe and Maisels place them.

I moved it into the Criticism section, as it's not part of the actual book and doesn't belong in a book summary.

However, it smells like original research to me. Should it be removed entirely?

Lpetrazickis ( talk) 15:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It should go. It's original research, and addresses one point in one of her books. I doubt that there is any generally recognized school of opposition to Jacobs' ideas outside the government/developer camp. BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[Moved from my talk page]: Hi Carol. Jane Jacobs is described as "proto-radical middle" on page 30 of Mark Satin's book Radical Middle (Westview Press and Basic Books, 2004). As you well know, she is a hero to many of those whose radicalism is grounded in careful research, creative thinking, and hands-on activism. How I wish all radical centrists were like that! But some of us are, and we loved her. - Babel41 ( talk) 07:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was a neologism, but should have seen there was an article. I actually find 113 sources that say "radical centrist" and "Jane Jacobs" in same ref, though how many actually say she is one I don't know. A few should be in the article. I also find 1600 that say "decentralist" and "Jane Jacobs", and I'm sure there are more that say she is one in the same article. So we'll have to have a paragraph on who claims her. (Is secession and "multiplication of sovereignties" part of radical centralism? In which case maybe it belongs in a to-be-created category on decentralism.

Working on that topic now so systematically will go through several articles adding ref'd material and appropriate new categories. I personally was influenced by Satin in 1979 when he was a decentralist, before I got into Kohr, Sale, Schumacher and Jacobs. CarolMooreDC 12:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I appeciate this note Carol, and will restore the category in a couple of days unless you do it first. The category was not intended to definitively claim J.J. for radical centrism; like many grest thinkers, she can be understood in a variety of ways. I am sure that, as time goes on, Wikipedians will add ever-more categoories to her bio page.

To make my non-imperialist impulse clear to others, I have rewritten the introduction to the "WP Category:Radical centrist writers" page. Hopefully now no writers in that category will feel that too much is being claimed about them. - Babel41 ( talk) 03:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, our purpose is to educate, not confuse, readers. If you don't have your reasons for putting this category in the article, then people will wonder what the heck you are talking about. CarolMooreDC 22:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

After talking this over with others, and getting a little fresh air, I have come to believe that you are right, and that I should not put people into "Category:Radical centrist writers" without adding to their bios to make it clear why they are being put into that Category.

Becuse I feel that making those additions would create imbalance on many of the bio pages (and even if I wanted to make them I do not have the time), I will simply eliminate "Category:Radical centrist writers" (which I created a couple of days ago) and remove everyone from it. I have some unbreakable obligations tomorrow, but the Category will be down by the end of this weekend.

Thank you for engaging in this dialogue with me. - Babel41 ( talk) 09:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for observing an important policy in an important topic area. Per my comments on another page. CarolMooreDC 16:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see my update at Talk:John Naisbitt. - Babel41 ( talk) 06:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just did some extensive editing of this section.

1. I reinserted the para. (with some tweaks) about Toronto planners faulting her (and Bill Davis, for that matter) for blocking expressway development. Yes, the para. needs a citation (need duly noted), but I have heard several planners say that (yes, I know about WP:NOR), so let's look for the citation rather than delete.

2. I toned down the next para which started off blaming Jacobs for Toronto's businesses' move to the suburbs. I had several reasons.

(a) The writers of this para. then shoot down this strawperson in the remainder of this para. (as well they should)

(b) The writers also point out that provincial tax policy is a key player in urban-suburban differential.

(c) A similar move from city to suburb is happening across North America (and I would guess Europe). The availability of greefield expanses for construction have always been the case.

3. I also toned down a bit the over-assertions about how her policies always lead to yuppie-dom. I'm in my 60s myself, as are my neighbours in downtown Toronto.

As Jane would never say, YMMV. Bellagio9913:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jbacu1985 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Suburbanization is a widespread phenomenon in North American cities since the end of WWII - but there is plenty of evidence that Toronto (as a overall urban agglomeration) is one of the most suburban. Toronto has the highest proportion In Canada of office space outside the business center/downtown (Colliers publishes the square footage of various classes of commercial space in the different cities in N.A. and globally. )

If you look at Statistics Canada on types of commute, Toronto has by far the fastest rate of job movement to the suburbs - as measured by where people travel to/from work. From 1981 to 2001 the proportion of commutes in the city core dropped in Toronto in absolute numbers - and by far the most in terms of percentages of Canadian cities. Toronto's percentage fell from 63% in 1981 to 42.2% in 2001. [3]

It's thus hard to find evidence in contributing to the stopping of the Spadina Expressway, that Jacobs helped stave of suburbanization. Montreal's parallel project - the Decarie Expressway - was completed. Montreal does have suburbs - but not to the extent of Toronto's. While impossible to prove, the evidence suggests that Toronto's suburbanization sped up following the demise of the municipal expressways.

The role of provincial tax policy is debatable. Toronto's disadvantage in business property tax rates goes back many years - well before the restructuring of services financing in the 1990's. Toronto has a higher Business Education Tax than competing municipalities because the rate reflects the rate in place before the province introduced equity in education funding. Following the Local Services Relalignment (LSR), municipalities were given the opportunity to have the BET rate reduced in exchange for parallel reductions in the municipal rate. For example. Hamilton saved its ratepayers about $10 million annually by agreeing to the restructuring (this is documented in the Ontario Ministry of Finance website.) Toronto never negotiated such an agreement with the Province.

The comparison of Toronto and Montreal is apples and oranges. The Toronto area (and Ontario) has been growing much more rapidly than the Montreal area. The vacancy rate for offices and homes has been greater in the Montreal area. This means less demand for new space in Montreal, and hence, less suburban sprawl. Bellagio99 00:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

--How are some of these charges against Jacobs, criticism of Jacobs herself and not at some other larger issue? So she was influental in stopping the Spadina, does that mean she is responsible for the end of highway construction all over North America? I believe she was never outright against suburbs and freeways, she just prefered cities and didnt want suburban-population-serving freeways plowing through the heart of cities at the expense of urban residents. The cost comparision and efficiency of freeways and transit does not belong as a criticism of Jacobs, there is a place elsewhere on wikipedia for that. i really dont see what toronto business opinion, suburban growth and toronto tax rate has to do with jacobs she was not mayor of toronto. there are valid criticisms of jacobs but the ones listed i think are quite weak and have little relevance to jacobs. she could be criticized for not writing more about suburbs in death and life at a time when auto-suburbs were the new thing (although suburbs are not her expertise). she could be criticized for being against large scale urban renewal projects that might be viewed as necessary. she could be criticized for leaving the US and moving to Canada in response to the vietnam war. she could be criticized for being a rebel against power and authority. these to me are valid criticisms of jacobs, the growth rate of the toronto to its suburbs has nothing to do with jacobs. Pdxstreetcar 18:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover there is no distinction between how others have treated her work, and what she actually said herself. For example the question of universality--it's important to distinguish between the universality of the process and philosophies she propounded (people-first planning, challenge status quo, check the reality on the ground with the assumptions being made etc) and the specific recommendations she makes. She very clearly states that people should not take the book to be a universal prescription for planning and cities everywhere. 115.110.7.201 ( talk) 07:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Jbacu1985 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Those are excellent questions. It's certainly not fair to assign Jacobs' blame for all of Toronto's crises. However, most Torontonians - whether they are on one side or the other - give Jacobs a good portion of the credit in stopping the Spadina Expressway's construction. Hence when Torontonians experience crippling transportation problems (which is usually) many trace the state of affairs back to Jacobs. I don't think this is exactly fair to Jacobs. We can't blame Jacob's for Toronto's not building the 3rd/4th etc. subway lines that would have provided arterial people-moving capacity in lieu of the Expressway. I'm not sure if Jacobs proposed alternatives to Spadina - or was simply bent on stopping it and letting others figure that out. If the latter is true, I think this is a basis for criticism.

In terms of 'apples and oranges' arguments, these are commonplace place in the discussions of urban planning. Montreal and Toronto are different - but have many similarities that make them a logical pair for comparison purposes.

Folks, let's not deify or villify Jane. I was there too, helping to stop the Spadina (albeit in a less central way). But really central were the late Alan Powell, head of the Stop Spadina movement, and David & Nadine Nowland, who wrote The Bad Trip, questioning the transportation planning and economics. This was truly a mass movement, right or wrong. (And in the fullness of time, I'd still say, "right".) YMMV (altho the literal translation of that phrase seems truly ironic here). Bellagio99 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is doing research in this general field, be sure to check out Urban Villagers by Herbert J. Gans about Boston's West End. I believe there are a few more books of that "type" (sociological studies of various cities during urban renewal) for other cities. AdderUser ( talk) 08:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

How do we add the template on the main page of this article stating that this is today's Google Logo?? Ilikeguys21 ( talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added citation needed tags to the claim that Jane Jacobs stopped the Lower Manhattan expressway from going through Washington Square park. I've never seen any reference that shows that this was the route of the expressway. The point is not that she didn't stop a large road from being built there (I believe that, although I don't see a citation). The question is whether it was the same as the Lower Manhattan Expressway. After reading the relevant section of Hillary Ballon and Kenneth Jackson's book, Robert Moses and the Modern City, I think it is fairly clear that this road might have been mean to "connect" to the Lower Manhattan Expressway, but was never actually a part of the proposed plan. Nonetheless the "battle for Washington Square park" is an important turning point in city planning... Fixifex ( talk) 15:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very plain from photographic documentation that the LOMEX was not to go through Washington Square Park... . I am looking through The Power Broker to see if we can find a better way to describe the fight against a road through Washington Square Park-- 130.132.173.241 ( talk) 02:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the same issue -- The article for Lower Manhattan Expressway shows a map of the proposed highway segment not running through Washington Square Park. Does anyone know which is correct? ask123 ( talk) 13:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the subject heading "America" be changed to the magazine's title, "Amerika"?

Also, wouldn't the first sentence of the next section ("Architectural Forum") -- "Jacobs left America in 1952 ..." -- be clearer if it read instead as "Jacobs left the staff of Amerika magazine in 1952 ... "? On first reading, I thought it was describing when she left the U.S. for Canada. If AF was published in NYC at that time, then the second sentence in this section might be improved to read: "She found a well-paying job at Architectural Forum, published in New York City by Henry Luce of Time Inc."

Almadenmike ( talk) 14:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Jane Jacobs has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A documentary film examining Jane Jacobs’ work, legacy and her battles with Robert Moses is currently slated for release in Fall 2016. The film is directed by Matt Tyrnauer, director of Valentino: The Last Emperor, and produced by Robert Hammond, co-creator of The High Line in New York City.

^[1] Grahamhigh ( talk) 03:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. clpo13_{( talk)} 17:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)