4 ms·
NYC supposedly fixed some of their problems in the 50s if you believe Jane Jacobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities ht
by m-j-fox 10y ago
NYC supposedly fixed some of their problems in the 50s if you believe Jane Jacobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...
She teaches that the key to getting rid of traffic is getting rid of roads. Not everyone buys this theory, but in LA's case, why not try dynamiting the freeways and let's just see if things get better? It's not like they can get any worse.
- ghaff 10y agoYeah, but Manhattan traffic hasn't actually improved has it? The volume wasn't allowed to grow indefinitely but that's a different matter.
- m-j-fox 10y agoThe account in the book says traffic improved in the neighborhood where they removed the roads. It was a small-scale experiment. Subsequently NYC built a bunch more roads and traffic got worse. True believers point to a cause-and-effect relationship, but cities are complicated so it's hard to be sure. The ideal plan for Jacobs might be Amsterdam. No cars, no traffic. It's so simple.
- ghaff 10y agoYeah. A lot of people on here tend to elevate Jabobs (who I admire). But her objective wasn't to fit more people in or move more traffic through a space. It was to create a more vibrant city even if that meant that more people couldn't live or work there. A lot of people who remember Jacobs' preference for cities that don't require cars to get around ignore the fact that she didn't necessarily favor central planning and high rises either.
- Tiktaalik 10y agoTraffic may not have improved, but that's measuring the wrong thing. What is important is whether people and goods are moving effectively regardless of the transportation mode.