sha_week6

The idea of emergence [and cities] has always fascinated me, so it was interesting to read Jane Jacobs’ article and have this idea slowly emerge as if we were afraid to ever think about cities in such a way. Even the title refuses normal capitalization. Much of the theory is introduced by narrating and parsing the ideas of Dr. Weaver. The extensive italics that appear show the focus [and in some sense, excitement] of the author on this idea of complex systems, where the Jacobs has deemed it necessary to place even more emphasis — kind, disorganized complexity, organized complexity, organic whole, subtly interconnected ways, etc…It is an odd shift when Jacobs, having lead the reader through Dr. Weaver’s impressive theories and impressing upon the reader how impressive these ideas of organized complexity are, she begins to lead this reader into critiquing current planning practices and the disrespect of cities in general. This notion of disrespect was very interesting, because of the tie in she uses later with nature and sentimentality. Jacobs says there “are dangers in sentimentalizing nature. Most sentimental ideas imply, at bottom, a deep if unacknowledged disrespect…” It reminded me somewhat of taking photographs, something I struggle with in my trips to China. By taking a photograph, you acknowledge to some degree the event or scene’s ability to become an image — the scene dies a little when you agree to that assumption. What Jacobs proposes, then, is a refusal to sentimentalize nature and deny real nature from intruding upon cities; Jacobs suggests that the vital city [along with its own biological descriptions] is capable of being active, not diseased, because of their complexity. This then raises an interesting challenge to planners, and is perhaps why planners have always seen cities as either “disorganized complexity” or “irrational.” Jacobs critiques planners and designers but does not suggest ways to create lively, diverse cities — vital cities. It is implied that vital cities exist, but how can we learn from them? Are planners an obsolete idea?