# data[].attributes.body
In her book "The Death and Life of American Cities", Jane Jacobs critizes the planning of diverse American cities, using examples and analogies to support her arguments. She claims that a set of modern city planning principles have been established, which architects and city planners blindly follow without questioning their authenticity and intentions. But that doesn't mean architects are ignorant. Instead, her criticism is directed at educational insititutions that push these modern theories, which results in a lack of critical thinking in architects.(p.8) They promote these modern principles and persuade the politicians and the public to see them as unquestionable truths. For instance, an ongoing planning of a building can be sold as healthy and modern to the public, as long as a green space is placed next to it. Another example mentioned is how architects and planners will solve the traffic problem and think they have solved the problem of an entire city, but in reality cities are much more complex than that and traffic is just one of the many issues a city poses. (p.7) Her main point is that, top-down planners simply don't take real-life examples into account and instead apply principles of abstract and utopic theories, that don't consider the needs, lifestyles and incomes of their citizens.

Another point she made was that massive clearance projects arent effective and the best investment for citie are small-scale, diverse growth projects. One principle she introduces is "the need of cities for a most intricate and close-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially" (p.14). She demonstrates this with the example of North End in Boston (p.9), which I find personally very illustrative. In this "slum", where people from different backgrounds, living in all kinds of different buildings, in a city of diverse working places and commerce; the citizens were able to rehabilitate many buildings, open up new shops and promote social interactions. I personally like this example, because it shows how a bottom-up, collective approach positively impacted not only the infrastructure of the city, but also the social life. For me, as a future architect, it shows that the financial factor is not solely responsible for the planning of a successful city.

For me, the most valuable takeaway from the text, is that we, as future architects, should not only focus on how cities are built and planned, but also on how they are lived in, how people communicate with each other and interact with public spaces. Observation is a crucial part of the planning process, and we as architects aren't just designers, but we should create a bridge between citizens and planners.

# data[].attributes.headline
Helena Pivaljevic + hpivaljevic@ethz.ch 

# data[].attributes.subject
Helena Pivaljevic + hpivaljevic@ethz.ch 

# data[].attributes.body
In the 'life and death of american cities', Jane Jacobs makes a lot of arguments and suggestions that were seen as controversial and scandalous at the time. Firstly she expresses a radical critique of modern city planning, which she sees as destructive (not reiterative). She beliefs that modern planning is based on misguided and abstract theories, rather than than on an observation of how real cities function. She claims that modern architecture is responsible for the production of sterile, dangerous and lifeless environments.

She criticises the 'radiant city' by le corbusier as well as the garden city models. She finds these models to be utopian and anti- urban, which ignore how real cities function. She deems these 'urban renewal' projects as architecture built for ideals, not people, as economically irrational and socially damaging.

Jacobs advocates for cities that embrace diversity and complexity, which include mixed use buildings in the same area and high density urban environments, where old and new buildings co-exist. She insists that urban planning should be observational and reality- based urban design. it must start off with close empirical observations, and then evolve from bottom- up community insights, not top- down planning. according to jacobs, urban planning should be organic, incremental development. she is the first advocate for tactical urbanism.

From her text, I could learn how important it is to design for real life, and not ideals. It is crucial to observe how people interact and use space, and it should be susceptible for adaptation, not perfection. on the same note, this text teaches me that human scale should be favoured, opposed to large spaces, such as superblocks, unused lawns and wide boulevards.

Embracing complexity and respecting community knowledge is key to tactical urbanism, to be able to find solutions to urban problems, that benefit all, not just the selected few. Understanding that cities are dynamic, and its design systems and buildings can evolve over time is key for sustainable design.

# data[].attributes.body
In the introduction of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs argues that cities should be understood as laboratories. She emphasizes the importance of curiosity, of testing ideas in practice, and of carefully observing the results rather than relying on rigid theories. I understood it as a responsibility to ask the city questions and then wait for its answers, accepting both successes and failures with openness.

She critiques the process of erasing nonconforming uses in the search for an ideal sense of order. In her view, many planners and teachers have fallen for the collective imaginary of dream cities, failing to develop a truly critical standpoint and overlooking the complexity of urban life.

Although Jacobs’ position is convincing, I would argue that her rejection of theory is too absolute. Theory, while often misused, can provide valuable tools for understanding and interpreting the complexity of cities. If it remains flexible and is continuously tested against reality, it can coexist with observation rather than stand in opposition to it.

Placed in its historical context, the text becomes even more significant. Written in 1961, it emerged during a time when urban renewal, automobile infrastructure, and suburban expansion were transforming American cities. Jacobs’ critique stands as a radical counter to the dominant planning practices of the period, which prioritized order and large-scale schemes over the lived realities of communities.

I think as an architecture student, Jacobs’ arguments remain very relevant. The text addresses the need to unlearn familiar suppositions and oversimplifications, encouraging curiosity about how spaces are truly used and experienced. Her point is that cities should be approached critically and humbly, with design understood as a dialogue with reality rather than as the realization of abstract ideals.

# data[].attributes.body
"There is a quality even meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be served." states Jane Jacobs on page 15 of her introduction to "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". I find this quote to be a sharp synthesis of what Jacobs is calling out throughout her introduction : the superficiality with which her contemporary urban planners are claiming to transform our cities into better serving environments. Out of touch, without even approaching the reality of what citizens need, these planners attempt to merely improve the external appearance of the city with a few patches of grass here and there, whether it be real or fake, as long as it's green. Jacobs shows how this creates a conflict between tenants and planners with the example of  New York City's East Harlem neighborhood. Developers naively proposed to include a large green lawn as part of a new project, as proof of considering the inhabitants' desired environment. But contrary to expectations, the tenants rebuffed this project, claiming that a piece of landscape would not compensate for how these housing projects replaced their previous ones without any concern for their actual necessities : places of exchange and community. This example echoes and demonstrates an earlier quote of Jacobs on page 5 : “"The economics of city rebuilding do not rest soundly on reasoned investment of public tax subsidies, as urban renewal theory proclaims, but also on vast, involuntary subsidies wrung out of helpless site victims." She thus encourages urban planners to step down from their theoretical utopias and observe and learn from the practical lives of everyday users of the city.

# data[].attributes.body
Jacobs argues that cities are complex, living systems that cannot be understood through rigid planning ideals. She criticizes urban renewal for destroying the everyday life of neighborhoods and stresses the importance of observing how people actually use streets and spaces. While I agree with her emphasis on lived experience, I think she sometimes dismisses planners too broadly. In her historical context, though, this critique was important, since many mid-century projects caused real harm. For me as a future architect, her reminder to ground design in the realities of daily life is the most valuable takeaway.

# data[].attributes.body
The main point of Jacobs’ text is her criticism of “modern city planning.” She says that the way people planned cities in the 20th century was too abstract, like moving things around on a model without thinking about how they really affect each other. For Jacobs, a city works more like an organism: it only functions when many parts connect and support each other. Things like density, social interaction, and spontaneous order are what bring real life into a city.

In the end, she’s not only talking about planning, but also about how people actually live in cities. Cities happen through human activity, architecture, chance encounters, slow moments, but also hectic and fast rhythms. If planning is too uniform, life gets sucked out of the area and what’s left is monotony. I especially like her idea of small blocks with high density, because that makes space for variety and creates a richer kind of urban life.

The part where I’m not fully convinced is her idea of the “self-destruction of diversity.” I see what she means, but I think gentrification is not just caused by individuals improving places. The real issue is the institutions and systems that push people out. Everyday people might take part in the upgrading, but the displacement comes mainly from larger structures.

For me, Jacobs’ way of thinking is very practical. She doesn’t care much for abstract ideals but looks at what actually happens in real city life. That’s interesting, because it changes how we think about planning: it’s not just about theories or the “perfect” house model, but about the people who live with and in our plans. If planners don’t talk with people and understand their needs, cities risk becoming monotone or, in the worst case, lifeless.

# data[].attributes.body
“Nobody cared what we need. But the big men come and look at that grass and say, ‘Isn’t it wonderful! Now the poor have everything!’” (p. 15) Jane Jacobs denounces the lost connection to inhabitants by the city planning authorities. On paper, contemporary city planning follows to the ideals of the theory of its profession, but in reality, appears to be far from a functioning structure, as Jacobs argues, paradoxically, and even worse, with the larger amount of capacities and thought of city planning available today. In contrast, Jacobs says that a principle stays a principle, unless always being critically questioned and adopted to the specific analysed requirements of a situation.

On paper, Boston North End is said to be a slum, but Jacobs came to a totally different result, closely investigating the space and looking through the eye of the inhabitants, not her own ones, as she argues that the innate functioning structure of a place is uniquely bound to the place and has to be understood.

For me, this raises the question, what, if not money, as in the example of North End Boston, are the factors of successful city planning? What does make an area liveable? And for whom?

The aspect I found most interesting diving into, was the idea of “intricate mutual support”. “This ubiquitous principle is the need of cities for a most intricate and close-grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support, both economically and socially.” (p. 14)

Sadly, and I compared it to todays’ city planning while reading the text, the “Flash”-like (p. 23) bold symbolism of planning ideas that simplify complex situations, are tempting and appear convincible, even today.

How can the city planner even participate in the planning, if it is always an imitation from functioning examples that have emerged by themselves, as North End Bosten, not by the hand of city planner? How can the city planner adopt the ideas in such a way that it doesn’t induce a certain way of how to use the area, instead enable the people to plan it themselves? I have the opinion that it also is dependent of the people living in this area, and, as a result, also dependent on the political system and if people with lower income have the capacity to take part at the life surrounding them.

In its historical context, the 50s mark the end of the unbroken belief in modernism and its idealism. Thus, Jane Jacobs text is relevant, even though unfashionable at that time.

Compared to reconstruction strategies of German cities for example, they differ from city to city: Munich has high degree of rebuilding of buildings in their pre-war city structure, its existing complexity and overlay of uses. At that time, this perspective was largely criticised as unmodern, and being criticised for making the city look like it was before WW2. This again is a reference to the critique of the ‘City Beautiful’.

When does the image divide from its context, when is a recollection and the view towards the existing denying the contemporary problems to solve, as supposedly proposed by Le Corbusier and the Garden City? I think it is a small degree in which we argue, and worth investigating closely.

# data[].attributes.body
The conflict between planning theory and what actually needs to be done.

Jacobs uses Boston’s North End as an example, showing how residents themselves found ways to maintain and improve their spaces. They rehabilitated buildings, invested their own earnings, and bartered skilled work, all without support from banks or public funds.
She describes how MIT and Harvard students were trained through paper exercises (pp. 8–9) to redesign the neighborhood, treating it as a “slum” that needed to be cleared and rebuilt according to orthodox planning ideas.
What I found particularly interesting, and what is still relevant in todays time, is her conversation with a Boston city planner.

The dialogue reveals a contradiction: the statistics (such as the low death rate and low delinquency in the North End) show that the area does not match the theoretical image of a slum.
Even the planner himself admits he enjoys walking through its lively, cheerful streets. Yet despite the evidence, he remains convinced that the neighborhood must eventually be rebuilt, because that is what planning theory dictates about super-dense, low-income areas.
This example highlights how planning theory, taught in schools and accepted as the “correct” approach, should be questioned before being blindly followed. Jacobs Theory that working with existing structures and supporting people’s actual needs leads to vitality, whereas ignoring these realities and imposing large-scale, costly redevelopment often produces lifeless results.

# data[].attributes.body
The author brings up interesting points that I would categorize into two groups. For example, the sentiment that improvement of the well-being of people living in cities requires more money is, to me, a problem of complexity. Especially in a country like the USA, there is enough money to go around; the problem is the distribution of the money. Similarly, simply building a library will not make more people read. The location as well as other interdisciplinary observations must be included. For example, building a new school will do nothing without a simultaneous change of the educational system. The second group of arguments was about the discrepancy between what city planners believe ought to be done and reality. The conversation with a city planner about the North End district is a good example of it. In my opinion, city planning should always also consult the people who will live there as an important actor in the process of design. My worry is that the proposals by city planners must be attractive to investors and developers, and so they try to appease the people whose goals are not aligned with those of the inhabitants.

# data[].attributes.body
Jane Jacobs argues in her text that since the end of WW2, in the USA, there has been an issue, threatening vibrant and lively cities due to the methods their planners use.

She argues that city planners have essentialy lost connection to what is functional and what may be idealistic but illusionary. Furthermore, she states that this illusionary way of planning amongst planners is not being stopped but rather contineud. It struck many cities in the USA, she claims. One example she gives is Morningside Heights. Here, once the planners accomplished their vision, the crime rate spiked and commerce dwindled. Jacobs argues this to be due to merely large institutions being present. This hinders liveliness entering the district. While I do not starkly disagree with her ideas, I have a somewhat different opinion regarding her disdain for large institutions in some occasions. I belive, in certain cases - for instance, flood protection - large instutitions may be essential, becasue they are easier to organise and direct... but that same centralisation can very quickly turn destructive.

Something, I can certainly take out of her text, is that buildings are objects which must be carefully integrated into their surrounding context to harmonise well and behave organically. This means buildings must not be treated as copy-paste items, but rather be crafter with care and precision according to their individual requirements.

# data[].attributes.body
"(...) people who are interested in only how a city 'ought' to look and uninterested in how it works (...)" This fraction of a sentence holds the essence of what Jane Jacobs aims to convey in this text for me. By introducing the example of the North End in Boston it becomes really evident that theorising city planning to become an utopia is missing a completely other and equally, or even more important and real side of the story. Jane Jacobs finds that planners and architects alike tend try to conform to these theories way too rigidly. What is experienced as a lively neighbourhood where people enjoy being - is in theory a horrible slum. After identifying these "slums" they get rebuilt, but at the cost of the real inhabitants desires. Jacobs stresses us to build cities around people and connection, as opposed to theoretical utopias. There is crucial dialogue missing between planners and tenants. A city is much more than a rigid machine that can be planned in one system.

Her text kept reminding me of the Viadukte in Zurich, when they were used as creative spaces and then got rebuilt, not because of malicious intentions, but because it was genuinely believed to help - improvements. But not asking or understanding is as much of an act as asking the tenants. "There is a quality meaner than outright ugliness or disorder, and this meaner quality is the dishonest mask of pretended order, achieved by ignoring or suppressing the real order that is struggling to exist and to be observed."

# data[].attributes.body
For me, Jane Jacobs book seems like a sharp contrast to the “traditional urban planning” that is still often advocated today. Jacobs mentions a kind of pseudoscience in which planners ignore important urban realities and work with models based on idealized suburbs. This ignorance of real day-to-day problems has done more harm than good. One of Jacobs' points that strikes me is that many redevelopment projects destroy the very things that make cities vibrant, such as highway systems that uproot beautiful cities.

In contrast, Jacobs calls for new principles for genuine dynamics that will ensure a strong social fabric, such as mixed uses, the juxtaposition of old and new buildings, and sufficient density.

I interpret Jane Jacobs text as a call not only to design cities, but also to see and understand how people really live there in order to create realistic and sustainable designs. I agree with Jane Jacobs on many things, but not everything. Jacobs is not enthusiastic about large-scale planning, but without it, public transportation, for example, would hardly be possible. In addition, social problems such as poverty and inequality cannot really be solved through precise urban design, as these issues must especially be addressed politically.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Jane Jacobs makes some quite remarkable points. Even though the book was written in 1961, the things she criticizes are still happening around us. What she calls the “sacking of cities” - the rebuilding of buildings or even whole neighborhoods from a very top-down perspective - often leads to dead places. What was so “carefully planned” to become a center, a lively place, loses all its charm. What works on paper does not always work in reality.

I think you cannot simply force life into a neighborhood; it has to come from the citizens themselves. It reminds me a lot of the villes nouvelles around Paris or also the "urban aesthetic" of Zürich Nord. I think it is really important to always look at theories as theories, and not take everything as a universal truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though Jane Jacobs' text dates back to the 1960s, it is alarming how relevant it seems in the context of current debates. The example of Boston's North End, which is considered a slum by the majority of the population, clearly shows that, in addition to an economic perspective, an empathetic perspective is just as important. Only in this way can an environment be created in which residents feel heard and understood. Unfortunately, this is often still not the case. After all, it is easier to prescribe uses in top-down planning as the Decentrists already showed with their utopia of the garden city. However, participatory planning procedures are increasingly being used. In principle, this is to be welcomed for the reasons mentioned above. However, it should be noted that participation remains participation and does not develop into a moral cover. Sham participation should be rejected because it gives those affected the impression of inclusion without them actually having any influence. This also speaks against the diversity demanded by Jacobs, which is one of the most valuable characteristics of a city from my point of view.

# data[].attributes.headline
Reading Response 01 - Caspar Halbeisen, chalbeisen@ethz.ch

# data[].attributes.subject
Reading Response 01 - Caspar Halbeisen, chalbeisen@ethz.ch

# data[].attributes.body
The introduction to Jane Jacob's book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" showed an interesting take on where city planning went wrong based on idealized vision without a concrete relationship to how cities work in real life. I was able to relate to her arguments because they are brought to the reader through a practical approach and a logical and clear formulation. This was clearly shown by her walk through Boston's North End, the city's "slum". The region works as the clearest contrary to modern day approaches.

Jacob's seems to be very convinced of high density cities with small blocks. This might be one of the aspects where I would disagree with her. In my opinion we have come to value privacy and space. Higher densities solve certain problems when it comes to mass housing but on the other hand they seem to enhance chaos, bring noise and make it easier for illnesses to spread. Her point of view seems to be based on one hand on her times period which was totally different from our every day life and on the other hand on American cities, which are known to have widespread suburbs and coming from those points of view I agree with her take on higher densities in housing.

Through the reading I realized how little this "utopian city" of the Radiant Garden City Beautiful has changed. Only in the past years the focus seems to have started to shift toward a more social utopia with a clearer consciousness of mixed uses and higher diversities in the city fabric. It is fascinating how we still debate over topics and issues that were already relevant half a century ago.

# data[].attributes.body
I liked reading the introduction. What stuck with me most is how she pushes back against the idea that cities are machines you can just plan and fix. She describes them more like living systems where all the little street level interactions matter. Her points about mixed use, short blocks, density felt true to me. I also liked how she values the knowledge of the people who actually live in a neighborhood.

I don’t really disagree with her. The only thing I would be a bit careful about is density. I see how it brings life to a place, but if it’s pushed too far it can make living conditions worse. Still, overall, her arguments make a lot of sense.

Thinking about when she was writing makes it even clearer. After the war, many cities were rebuilt with highways and big housing projects, but those often turned out cold and empty.

For me as a future architect, her ideas are really useful. I find the call for diversity in buildings and uses especially important, because it makes neighborhoods more adaptable. And I like her view of cities as complex systems, it makes me think less about total control and more about creating spaces where life can grow naturally.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed reading Jane Jacob's description of the Boston North End. She recounts how she felt walking through the neighbourhood and the interactions she has. I could follow her train of thought about how she was confused that it was considered the city's worst slum: too dense, too many mixed shops, too many immigrants. In her description I could feel how it felt full of life: people tallking to her or to each other, the kids playing and buildings that look like the residents actually want to upkeep them. To put love into their homes and their neighbourhood. Even the statistics show that the neighbourhood had low crime and low mortality rates. But the neighbourhood doesn't fit into the theories of the city planners and hence the banks that don't want to offer mortgages and the future looked like they would wipe out the neighbourhood and rebuild it "correctly". Sometimes I feel the same discrepancy with Zurich North. This new part of Zurich that they try to plan perfectly but it turns out to be sterile and cold, the warmth and liveliness missing which actually contributes to a healthy and welcoming city life.

# data[].attributes.body
The most striking argument to me is the lack of dialogue between the „planners“ and the actual inhabitants of a city or community, which Jacobs stresses a lot with her argumentation and examples. The idea, that planners — to this day! — fail and refuse to study what works and continue to cling to their ideals and ideologies amazes me. Something Jacobs highlights as well, is the blatant assumptions of peoples needs by the planners. If peoples homes aren’t taken away from them - or vice versa - they’re given so called improvements they never asked for or been asked about. Jane Jacobs Text proved to me once more, how important the dialogue between architect (planner) or recipient of our planning really is. Historically I find this ideal of a utopian city quite interesting; no struggles, no responsibilities, but also, as Jacob adds, no dreams. I feel as though this idea of a utopia has changed, whereas the dream of a utopia hasn’t. While I’d argue that we are much more aware of the need of diversity in cities and communities and strive for a (more) social city, planners still have this ideal of a clean, pretty city, with parks and green spaces that doesn’t allow much choice of lifestyle and diversity as it claims to do.

# data[].attributes.body
The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961)

Introduction, pp. 3-25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jacobs1961_Death and Life of Great American Cities

# data[].attributes.body
Post your reading response to the text until 25.09.25 13:00 on this Padlet

Suggestions for the Reading Response:

-What are the most important arguments and suggestions that you can take away from the text?

-Which arguments would you disagree with the author on, and why?

-How do you evaluate the text in light of its historical context?

-Which arguments do you consider significant for your future work as an architect?

# data[].attributes.body
Jane Jacobs argues that urban planners and architects tend to rely on theories or ideals that are detached from what actually works in a city.

She makes an example where she introduces the motif of the sidewalks. For her sidewalks do more than just move people, but are crucial to social life in cities. This in a bottom-up or organic way and not imposed top-down. She sais that planners should observe actual neighborhoods, how people use sidewalks, parks and streets, rather than impose abstract aesthetic or ideals. With that she challenges the Garden City / Decentrists. In my opinion that is not completely right. For me a dense and vibrant city is also very exhausting and a bit of green and more quiet helps me to mange my day to day life. The Central Park for example provides New York with a place to escape and it was planned more top down than bottom up. Today, I guess that the parks “work” because it was integrated with the city fabric. It attracts all kind of visitors and is continuously cared for. Same for the Emerald Necklace around Boston.

As a take away from what Janes Jacobs writes is that a design with the real, messy life of the street in mind is very important. Looking at the people that live there where I want to build, transform or intervene.