Jane is such a Karen
After reading Jane Jacob’s “The Uses of Sidewalks: Safety”,
I have concluded that Jacobs is a city-loving girl who just wants some respect
for the streets! I totally agree with her logic and understand where her logic
is coming from, but what I do not agree with is her attack on the design
profession. Jacobs is putting blame on the designers who planned cities and who
have created theories of best practice, while their intention was to create
safe places. While some of these practices may not work as a safety aspect, their
intentions were not to create places that were unsafe and feared by residents.
Let’s not forget Jane that the districting and design of streets came from someone…
Architects should be valued, and our profession is a necessity for the progression
and success of cities. Let us believe the good in people and their vigilante qualities,
but let’s also believe the good in the designers too.
The title caught my attention haha. And yes, that might be her ugly side.
ReplyDeleteTitle caught my eye as well. Interesting outlook on Jane Jacobs. I believe she is very much on the outside looking in (on our profession) - seemingly unappreciative of the role of the architect/urban planner. Of course she is looking at cities planned many years ago, but if we were to redesign these cities at the time she was writing, or maybe in modern day, I think many urban designers would agree with her stance. Hard topic to argue as I see both sides!
ReplyDeleteVery True Marissa. And the context in which she wrotes the book has been altered as society shifted.
DeleteI think Jane Jacobs is the healthy critic the design profession needs. Designers can have many thoughtful considerations but can still be oblivious to the implications of their 'good intentions'. Sure, it is easy to pick a part theories and urban planning long after the work is complete so I see how her views seem sour. But we should be critical of the profession and where city planning has interfered with healthy city development. We also need to evaluate the work that we do and admit we can be wrong, even if we didn't intend to be, and face the criticism.
ReplyDeleteHaha yes Jane is for sure a Karen. I did really enjoy, however, her analysis on cities feeling safe based on whether or not the sidewalks and streets feel safe, and kind of her criteria a city must meet.
ReplyDeleteFirst off great title. Secondly I find it funny how she blames the architect for the problems and unsafety that occurs in the street. Why not blame the individuals who are doing these crimes or the poor policing of these individuals, why target the architect so emphatically?
ReplyDeleteI love this second image. And yes, I completely agree. It is easy to place the blame on the designer/architect when things don't work out, whether in the specific building or the context of the city. Though architects can very intentionally design for specific interactions, events, or experiences to take place within a space, there is often no guarantee that people will use the space for its intended purpose. But bashing the architect is not the solution. Because if designers/architects are not willing to at least make the attempt to create better spaces (whether successful or not), then who will?
ReplyDeleteLol ... I find this amusing. And the first thing came to my mind is Professor David's comment to my understanding of Jane Jacob's as Marxist activitst——"Don't tell this to Professor Peter Laurence."
ReplyDelete