Summary of the Core Content
This article discusses the “Jacobs Paradox” in urban planning: Jane Jacobs, who opposed widespread demolition and advocated for the vitality of city streets, made cities more human-friendly. However, the neighborhoods she cherished have become too expensive due to their popularity, driving out the artists and small businesses that once contributed to their vitality. At the same time, community autonomy has evolved into “nepotism,” preventing cities from building more affordable housing and transportation infrastructure, resulting in areas becoming wealthy while the rest of the city becomes poorer. The article uses examples from New York and Chinese cities to explore how to find a balance between preserving vitality, inclusivity, and urban development.
I. Jacobs’ “Sidewalk Revolution”: Bringing Cities Back to People’s Everyday Lives
Jane Jacobs was a rebel in urban planning during the last century. Mainstream planners like Le Corbusier favored “modernist blueprints” that involved dividing cities into large sections and constructing high-rise buildings, wide roads, and large supermarkets, viewing cities as machines that could be rebuilt from scratch. But Jacobs argued otherwise. She focused on the importance of sidewalks:
- Short blocks: Narrow streets in places like West Village, New York, allow people to reach shops in just five minutes, making them more inviting than wide roads.
- Mixed use: Small restaurants and grocery stores below, with residences above, ensure that the areas are lively day and night and do not become deserted.
- Old buildings: Low rents in old houses make them affordable for emerging artists and small businesses (such as tailors and bookstores), which are the source of neighborhood vitality.
- Community interaction: Shop owners, residents, and passersby know each other, creating a sense of safety (for example, a convenience store owner might help if they see a crying child).
Her ideas helped people realize that cities are not machines but ecosystems composed of countless everyday interactions (like chatting with neighbors while buying breakfast). Protecting these details is essential to maintaining a human touch in cities.
II. The Paradox of Success: Why Do Popular Neighbors Become Exclusive to the Wealthy?
Jacobs’ ideas revitalized many neighborhoods, but 60 years later, a problem emerged: the more vibrant an area becomes, the more expensive it becomes, making it unaffordable for most people.
Take West Village, New York, for example. Its narrow streets and old trees, along with independent shops, are charming, but a salad can cost $30 (about 200 RMB), out of reach for ordinary workers. The logic behind this is as follows:
1. The poor create vitality: Artists, immigrants, and small businesses gather due to low rents, fostering unique cultures (such as street art and niche cafes).
2. Capital recognizes value: Media coverage and tourist attraction turn the area into a hot spot, attracting capital that invests in high-end restaurants and boutiques, driving up rents.
3. Original residents are driven out: Small businesses can’t afford the increased rents and close, and artists move to other places, leaving only the wealthy to afford the high-priced homes.
This is like the question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg”: The neighborhood develops a culture because of its low-cost housing, and then it becomes wealthy, losing its cultural identity as a result of its success.
III. Nepotism: How Does Community Autonomy Turn into “My Land, My Rules”?
Jacobs advocated for community participation, but now some communities use autonomy as a tool for vetoing proposals (such as building a rail line or affordable housing). Residents may have valid concerns (like noise from the rail line), but if every local objection is allowed, cities cannot build enough housing and infrastructure for the general population.
More importantly, those who can voice their opinions often have the time and resources (such as retirees and property owners), while people who need affordable housing (like night shift workers and new immigrants) lack the means to attend hearings. As a result, the purpose of these procedures—to restrain power—actually protects the interests of the established elite, making the most livable areas even more expensive and the city as a whole poorer (for example, making it harder for young people to afford housing and increasing commute times).
IV. The Reflection in Chinese Cities: What Lies Behind the “Vitality” of Wutong Districts and Hutongs?
This issue is equally relevant in Chinese cities. The old Western-style buildings in Wutong District, Shanghai, and the quadrangle houses in Beijing’s hutongs do have a lively atmosphere, but terms like “historical preservation” and “small-scale renewal” are sometimes used for two purposes:
1. Raising rents: Old houses are converted into high-end accommodations and tourist attractions, forcing small businesses to move out.
2. Resistance to densification: The argument of “preserving the appearance” prevents the construction of high-rise affordable housing, driving up nearby housing prices and making it unaffordable for ordinary families.
To determine whether these policies are good or bad, we need to ask three questions:
- Who gets to stay, and who is forced to leave? (For example, can old residents afford the increased rents?)
- Who makes the money, and who bears the costs? (For example, property owners benefit from rising property values, while tenants face higher rents.)
- Which groups are excluded? (For example, can recent graduates and new immigrants also live there?)
V. The Art of Balancing: How Should Urban Planning Be “Calibrated”?
The article does not claim that Jacobs was wrong or that demolition is always wrong; rather, it argues that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, only a continuous process of balancing various interests. The key lies in defining the roles of three key stakeholders:
- The government: It must have the capacity to build infrastructure (such as affordable housing and subways) while avoiding unnecessary demolition and accepting community oversight.
- Communities: They should have a voice but not monopolize the future (for example, they shouldn’t prevent the construction of affordable housing just because they don’t want to see it).
- Capital: It can invest in neighborhoods but must also take responsibility (for example, by providing low-rent spaces for small businesses and allowing original residents to stay).
The ideal city is one that is both vibrant (with small businesses and a lively atmosphere) and inclusive (where ordinary people can afford to live and have opportunities). The answer lies not in the theories of a single expert but in a comprehensive debate that allows diverse perspectives to be heard and a balance to be found.
In the end, this article raises an essential question: Who does the city belong to? Does it belong to the wealthy who already live there, or to everyone who wants to live there? The ultimate goal of urban planning should be to enable as many people as possible to “live” in the city, not just to provide a comfortable place for a few.