Continuing my reading of Root Shock by Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MD, I've reached the critical point where she sums up her observations into principles for approaching urban planning. She offers four principles, and it's easy to see how Jane Jacobs, who is quoted and referenced in multiple places through the book, has influenced her thoughts. What follows is a comparison between Fullilove's "Aesthetics of Equity" principles and Jacobs' "Four Generators of Diversity."Â
Aesthetics of Equity Principles (Root Shock, Fullilove, Pages 199 to 205)
Respect the Common Life the Way You Would an Individual Life
Treasure the Buildings History Has Given Us
Break the Cycle of Disinvestment
Ensure Freedom of Movement
Generators of Diversity (Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs, Pages 150 to 151)
The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must insure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common.
Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent.
The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield that they must produce. This mingling must be fairly close-grained.
There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence.
Superficially, we can credit Fullilove for her concision, but it's useful to acknowledge where the two sets of commandments converge and where they diverge. To my mind, the most obvious parallel is between Fullilove’s second (on treasuring historic buildings) and Jacobs’ third (on mingling the age of buildings). Both contradict the popular conception that a building past its prime has no use. In fact, as both authors make clear, aged buildings provide sentimental homes and affordable living. Fullilove elides the mention of newer buildings, as she sees no end to our habit of new construction.Â
We can also acknowledge that the intentions of Fullilove’s fourth principle (on freedom of movement) and Jacobs’ second generator (on short blocks) are the same. While Fullilove’s version focuses on connection with the greater city, both seek to provide opportunities and liveliness to neighborhoods. If movement is free, nonresidents will enter the area and increase diversity, as well as foot traffic and revenue. If blocks are short, residents and nonresidents alike will feel free and well-inclined to explore the areas that have opened up to their vision, again increasing the foot traffic through the area.
Finally, there is a similar thread running through Fullilove’s first principle (on respecting common life) and Jacobs’ fourth. Each hold that the presence of others should not be feared or discouraged but celebrated for the ways in which it creates a safety net for the entire community. Examples of neighbors watching out for neighborhood children, providing support in the way of tradesmanship or loans, and simply offering a friendly face to greet permeate both books. This net, both books argue, can only be created by a dense neighborhood, uninterrupted by displacement.Â
Then we come to the commandments unique to each set. Fullilove has not included in her principles the notion of mixed primary uses, though there are hints in the book when former residents remember fondly how everything they could need was found within the neighborhood. But these neighborhoods that she investigates have larger problems. They have not been allowed to exist, let alone flourish with a multitude of uses. Their barbershops, grocery stores, residences, and houses of worship could not stop condemnation from uncaring urban planners. Thus, the principle fell.Â
Likewise, Jacobs does not include a generator concerning the cycle of disinvestment because, at the time, it was not clear that such a cycle existed. While she discusses blacklisting areas, she does so from the perspective of someone who has not seen the worst of it yet. She has not witnessed the decades of persistent economic abandonment of particular areas, even after formal reforms are made at the government level. Likewise, she has not yet seen how eminent domain and urban renewal have caused entire groups to allow their property to decay, as they cannot be sure of keeping it for long. To Jacobs, blacklisting is a problem that will cease once we have convinced the world to appreciate and recognize true vitality in neighborhoods. However, the damage done by misguided attempts at fighting “blight” has not been ameliorated over the four decades separating the two books.
As such a game changer to urban planning in the second half of the twentieth century and beyond, Jacobs' influence is almost impossible to avoid. To Fullilove's credit, her work mimics Jacobs' ideas where she sees the evidence and necessity and prioritizes new ideas where she does not. Â
