The Jolly Contrarian

The Death and Life of Great American Cities: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

The Death and Life of Great American Cities (view source)

Revision as of 11:39, 27 January 2021

447 bytes added ,  27 January 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 11: Line 11:
This contrarian, “bottom-up” thesis is simple: those on the ground generally understand their own predicament better, and are better placed, motivated and incentivised to make appropriate, quick, and proportionate decisions to improve it for themselves; that ''homo sapiens'' are naturally adapted to co-operate in unexpected ways if only given the chance and not presented with direct disincentives to doing so, and will go out of their way to do so if incentives run that way.
This contrarian, “bottom-up” thesis is simple: those on the ground generally understand their own predicament better, and are better placed, motivated and incentivised to make appropriate, quick, and proportionate decisions to improve it for themselves; that ''homo sapiens'' are naturally adapted to co-operate in unexpected ways if only given the chance and not presented with direct disincentives to doing so, and will go out of their way to do so if incentives run that way.


yet in much modern management theory, regardless of how putatively liberal, the same conditions for disastrous central planning that {{author|James C. Scott}} recognises in {{br|Seeing Like a State}} are present: an unrealistic faith in simplistic organisational models that only make sense from 30,000 feet; an unshakable conviction that human relations are homogeneous and predictable and can be can be described without loss of fidelity by the these simplistic models; central authorities with the authority and capacity to impose their simplified designs on on the population; and a supine population without the will or faculty to resist them.
Yet in much modern management theory, regardless of how putatively liberal, the same conditions for disastrous central planning that {{author|James C. Scott}} recognises in {{br|Seeing Like a State}} are present: an unrealistic faith in simplistic organisational models that only make sense from 30,000 feet; an unshakable conviction that human relations are homogeneous and predictable and can be can be described without loss of fidelity by the these simplistic models; central authorities with the authority and capacity to impose their simplified designs on on the population; and a supine population without the will or faculty to resist them.


The self-direction that [[Emergence|emerges]] from the aggregation of micro-decisions individuals with “skin in the game” can hardly ''fail'' to be more effective than a future state imagined by a public-spirited homunculus sitting in a corner office pulling levers. It is no bloody wonder that high-modernist incentive structures don’t work.  
The self-direction that [[Emergence|emerges]] from the aggregation of micro-decisions individuals with “skin in the game” can hardly ''fail'' to be more effective than a future state imagined by a public-spirited homunculus sitting in a corner office pulling levers. It is no bloody wonder that high-modernist incentive structures don’t work.  
Line 24: Line 24:
*The modernist disposition to organise, make efficient and eradicate redundancy and disorganisation in the organic community necessarily prioritises homogeneity and, at the limit, monopoly, and these accentuate ''fragility''.
*The modernist disposition to organise, make efficient and eradicate redundancy and disorganisation in the organic community necessarily prioritises homogeneity and, at the limit, monopoly, and these accentuate ''fragility''.


The “city” is comprised of people when and where you can see them, and not when they’re behind closed doors and, as far as the city dynamic is concerned, out of circulation. This is a profound, but obvious, observation. It is hard not to analogise to our modern corporate sufferance. Are our carefully demarcated, siloed, ring-fenced and security-controlled sub-teams, where specialists and different functions are penned together in separate “housing projects” optimised for a richness, diversity, and agility? It doesn’t really feel like it. And what does Jacobs’ observation we naturally seek out humanity, and thrive most the more we have of it — that the sight of people in the street ''attracts'' people, and does not, as the modernists suppose, repel them — tell us about our modern(ist) obsession with secrecy, confidentiality, and proprietary information?
The “city” is comprised of people when and where you can see them, and they can see each other, and not when they’re behind closed doors and, as far as the city dynamic is concerned, out of circulation. This is a profound, but obvious, observation. It is hard not to analogise to our modern corporate sufferance. Are our carefully demarcated, siloed, ring-fenced and security-controlled sub-teams, where specialists in strictly demarcated functional units are penned together, away from other units, in separate “housing projects” optimised for a richness, diversity, and agility? It doesn’t really feel like it. And what does Jacobs’ observation that we naturally seek out humanity, and thrive most the more we have of it — that the sight of people in the street ''attracts'' people, and does not, as the modernists suppose, repel them — tell us about our modern(ist) obsession with secrecy, confidentiality, and proprietary information?


Central to her argument is the inestimable, practical value of ''[[diversity]]'' — not just the cosmetic facsimile it has become today, but ''real'' diversity, an essential foundational quality of any live community. The richness and variety of everyday life — the durability and vitality afforded by a great mix of different people of different ages, different backgrounds, different perspectives, different ways and means — this is the heartbeat of Jacobs’s observations. This collective — as long as it really is diverse — can adapt to anything. The city is an ecosystem. It depends on the caprice, slack, redundancy, oddness, idiosyncrasy and multiple facets to respond to the unexpected vicissitudes, and opportunities, that life presents us.  
Central to her argument is the inestimable, practical value of ''[[diversity]]'' — not just the cosmetic facsimile it has become today, but ''real'' diversity, an essential foundational quality of any live community. The richness and variety of everyday life — the durability and vitality afforded by a great mix of different people of different ages, different backgrounds, different perspectives, different ways and means — this is the heartbeat of Jacobs’s observations. This collective — as long as it really is diverse — can adapt to anything. The city is an ecosystem. It depends on the caprice, slack, redundancy, oddness, idiosyncrasy and multiple facets to respond to the unexpected vicissitudes, and opportunities, that life presents us.  


The very thoughts that we should leave it to sort itself out is horrifying for the [[high-modernist]]s, of course. The prevailing [[dogma]] of business today, above all else, is ''scale''. [[Scale]] afforded by technology, processing power and the amplifying effect of the [[distributed network]]. Scale emphasises ''efficiency'' and ''speed'' and the removal of cost, [[waste]] and [[redundancy]]: tightening margins, aggregating categories, standardising, commoditising, offshoring, compartmentalising, just-in-time producing, straight-through processing. These are exactly the dispositions advance by Le Corbusier, Robert Moses, and the brutalists of the post war accord.  
The very thought that we should leave the great unwashed to sort themselves horrifies the [[high-modernist]]s, of course. Partly because it would leave them with so little to do. And this perspective infuses the prevailing [[dogma]] of modern business that, above all else, values ''scale''. [[Scale]] afforded by technology, processing power and the amplifying effect of the [[distributed network]]. Scale emphasises ''efficiency'' and ''speed'' and the removal of cost, [[waste]] and [[redundancy]]: tightening margins, aggregating categories, standardising, commoditising, offshoring, compartmentalising, just-in-time producing, straight-through processing. These are exactly the dispositions advance by Le Corbusier, Robert Moses and the brutalist administrators of the post war accord.  


Jacobs observes that diversity and efficiency are, at some level, ''mutually exclusive''. You can’t move with infinite economy ''and'' have a multiplicity of viewpoints. You can’t have everyone housed in homogenous boxes ''and'' cater for every shape and size. You do one or the other. That is another profound idea. And so obvious, that it beggars belief no-one is harping on about it today. You ''can’t'' homogenise, economise, compartmentalise, rationalise, standardise ''and'' embrace caprice, idiosyncrasy and divergence. The [[high-modernist]] who claims commitment to [[diversity]] — and they all seem to — ''is lying''.  
Jacobs observes that diversity and efficiency are, at some level, ''mutually exclusive''. You can’t move with infinite economy ''and'' have a multiplicity of viewpoints. You can’t have everyone housed in homogenous boxes ''and'' cater for every shape and size. You do one or the other. That is another profound idea. And so obvious, that it beggars belief no-one is harping on about it today. You ''can’t'' homogenise, economise, compartmentalise, rationalise, standardise ''and'' embrace caprice, idiosyncrasy and divergence. The [[high-modernist]] who claims commitment to [[diversity]] — and they all seem to — is ''lying''.  


This is the great, huge irony of our modernist diversity agenda: it’s so ''homogenous'' — so ''[[legible]]''. We all wear the same badges, signal the same virtues, declare ourselves each others allies as if we are Stepford wives. That is not what Jacobs is talking about at all. She is talking about a variety, a serendipitous, redundant, overlapping, scattershot fripperousness that generates all kinds of unexpected opportunities and challenges. ''This'' is the richness of city.
This is the great, huge irony of our modernist diversity agenda: it’s so ''homogenous'' — so ''[[legible]]''. We are expected to wear the same badges, [[virtue signalling|signal the same virtues]], declare ourselves each others’ allies as if there is a war on, or we are Stepford wives. That is not what Jacobs is talking about at all. She is talking about a variety, a serendipitous, redundant, overlapping, scattershot fripperousness that generates all kinds of unexpected opportunities and challenges. ''This'' is the richness of city.
 
That it was laid out with such clarity so long ago and with so little lasting effect has to make you a little pessimistic as to whether we will ever get there, but we can but battle on on in hope.


If, like me, you prefer your books on the go, buy with confidence, by the way: Penguin’s 50th anniversary audiobook is beautifully narrated by Donna Rawlins.
If, like me, you prefer your books on the go, buy with confidence, by the way: Penguin’s 50th anniversary audiobook is beautifully narrated by Donna Rawlins.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/53267"