The Nib's recent comic about Jane Jacobs vs. The Power Brokers (i.e. Robert Moses) is a good little overview of her lessons and legacy. But I don't understand the claim that developers co-opted her ideals in order to exploit and gentrify urban neighborhoods. According to the comic, gentrification is always a top-down affair by developers, and never a spontaneous emergence as a result of other humans and/or industry wanting to be in a particular place.

I can think of many neighborhoods that have seen investment from groups other than traditional developers, including from individual homeowners. Take, for example, Cabbagetown in Toronto. There was never a top-down developer moment. It was individuals who saw beauty (and also opportunity) at a time when others were scared of the area. Is that acceptable? Perhaps more importantly, did these people wear black suits?

The other missing piece is the fact that desirable urban neighborhoods are, today, in incredibly short supply. During the reign of Robert Moses, Jane Jacobs had a view of cities that was in opposition to the planning zeitgeist of the time. But over time, she went from controversial to enlightened, and alongside this we saw a return to cities.

Combined with strict land use policies, this rising demand for Jacobian-style neighborhoods has meant that many/most dense urban centers operate with a perpetual housing supply deficit. There's not enough cool urban housing to go around. Add in the current low interest rate environment, and you then have even more money searching for that perfect home in the West Village. That tends to do things to prices.

Image: The Nib

The New York Times ran an interesting piece this past week about the rise and fall of Bleecker Street in the West Village. 

The synopsis of the story is as follows: 

Bleecker was once a quaint West Village street. Then the yuppy cupcake shop and big brands (Marc Jacobs) came in to cater to the “Black Card-wielding 1-percenters”. But eventually rents got so out of hand that even the big brands started closing up shop. Now the street is filled with empty storefronts.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Bleecker Street, Mr. Moss said, is a prime example of high-rent blight, a symptom of late-stage gentrification. “These stores open as billboards for the brand,” he said. “Then they leave because the rents become untenable. Landlords hold out. And you’re left with storefronts that will sit vacant for a year, two years, three years.”

Nobody likes vacant storefronts. But it is a perfect example of the kind of cycles that neighborhoods and cities can and will continue to go through. Understandably though, there is a real concern that New York could be losing its soul. And really that’s a question and challenge for all global cities.

What happened to the New York where the artist Donald Judd was able to buy a five-story cast-iron building in Soho for under $70,000 (1968)? It’s gone.