Jane at 100

4 thoughts on “Jane at 100”

1. I’ve never read her book, but I’ve read quite a number of things about her over the years that I often found contradictory.

   I read another 100th birthday post this morning that explains the confusion:

   “Jacobs made two points, one of them right[…], and one of them wrong. Her correct point is in recognizing that urban planners don’t understand the cities they claim to be designing. Jacobs wrong point, which is celebrated by many urban planners today, was in thinking that she did understand cities.”

   http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11814

2. There are legitimate criticisms of Jacobs’s data gathering methods, writings, and findings, which I’ll expand on later when I have more time. May I suggest, though, that the Cato Institute’s connection to this particular post tends to call its objectivity (and agenda) into question, at least in my book.

   Again, more later. Bed now.

   1. I wear a tin foil hat, so Cato is OK in my book! 🙂 Cato made mention of Jacobs in their daily commentary:

      http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-daily-podcast/jane-jacobs-100

3. Everyone has an agenda, but I’m not sure if urban development/affairs is Cato’s primary area of interest. They wouldn’t be my “go to” on this, sort of like the Green party might not be my default source for investment tips 🙂

Comments are closed.