Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

Applying Jane Jacobs Tenets of Vibrant Neighborhoods to Car-Based Cities by Tory Gattis

[ Tory Gattis is a former McKinsey consultant who writes about urbanism for the Houston Chronicle, in his blog Houston Strategies, and elsewhere. He’s an unabashed and articulate proponent of the “Houston model” of urbanism. In this post, he applies Jane Jacobs’ views of the virtues of density to a car-based city like Houston. While I realize many won’t appreciate this point of view, I want to continue to present a variety of well-argued positions that challenge the thinking of all of my readers at some point along the way. Next week, Tory applies the insights of this piece to Houston vs. Manhattan – Aaron. ]

Jane Jacobs four tenets of vibrant neighborhoods are, in short form:

  1. Mixed primary uses that create traffic/vibrancy throughout the day
  2. Short blocks to make neighborhoods more walkable
  3. Mixed age and overhead buildings to enable a diversity of businesses
  4. Population density

To put them in context, it’s important to understand that Ms. Jacobs formed these tenets while observing her Greenwich Village NYC neighborhood (and similar ones) during the 1950s (the book came out in 1961). It was an urban world in the midst of a major transitional upheaval, as the car moved from a luxury to a standard household item for the middle classes. Cities at the time had been built around walking and mass transit, and accommodating the car was traumatic: too narrow streets, not enough parking, and freeways plowing through neighborhoods. Today, the vast majority of us live in an urban/suburban landscape built around the car – with accommodations for parking and major arterials and freeways – which makes the tenets seem almost quaint and disconnected from our modern world.

The problem as I see it is that these four principles have hardened into dogma in the urban planning community without really understanding the meaning and philosophy behind them. To some extent, I even think Jane Jacobs herself suffered from this too-narrow understanding of her own insight. Let’s see if we can get to the true essence of these principles, and then talk about how they might apply to modern car-based cities.

The goal is a very subjective concept called “vibrancy.” What is vibrancy? To put it simply, vibrancy means a buzz of people interacting and transacting in win-win exchanges – both economic and social. Vibrancy was very visible in Jane’s world: people on the street and sidewalks, jostling and bumping as they went about their daily businesses, often in street-level retail establishments just off the sidewalk. In the car-based world, that vibrancy is more hidden. Sure, you can see the cars (sometimes way, way too many cars in congested traffic), but you don’t really see the people or the interactions as they hide inside the cars, strip centers, and office buildings. They’re there, but we don’t “feel” them as much as we do in a classic Jane Jacobs walkable neighborhood.

Vibrancy starts with a very simple decision: is there some interesting or necessary activity that draws me out of my home? Work? Shopping? Socializing? Whether I’m in a walk-up apartment in New York or a house in the suburbs, the question is the same. More options increases the likelihood of drawing me out. And I have to weigh-up those interesting options against the barriers to going out, particularly mobility: how much time, effort, and money is required to go do this activity? A good, cheap restaurant is an easy choice when it’s right down the street, but a harder one in heavy traffic with unpredictable parking or with some long walks and subway rides in possibly unpleasant weather. There’s always leftovers in the fridge and something on TV, the mortal enemies of “vibrancy”.

The flip-side perspective is that of the business owner: what kind of reasonable customer base will I be able to draw on? The more barriers between me and them, the less likely they are to patronize my business. What is my “draw zone”? The more people – and the more money – in that draw zone, the better my prospects. That means a larger diversity of businesses can be supported.

Looked at through these lenses, Ms. Jacobs’ four tenets make instant sense. If you assume walking as the primary mobility mode, distance becomes a major barrier to vibrancy. Taxis are expensive – not to mention a major pain to flag down, even in NYC – and transit is generally a hassle, slow, and loses time in waiting and transfers. Thus we need as many interesting activities and options as possible within as short a distance as possible to get vibrancy. Mixed-use and mixed-cost buildings increase the variety of options within that short distance – and more options increases the likelihood that one or more of them will be attractive enough to draw you out on a given day, evening, or weekend. Short blocks make walking routes more direct, and put more options within the same travel-time range. And density provides the raw fuel of consumers to keep all those interesting street shops economically viable. The more eclectic a business, the larger the draw zone – in size and population – it needs to stay viable: convenience stores and dry cleaners are easy – offbeat bookstores and sushi restaurants are harder to support. The mobility zones are so limited in this world, that the only way a neighborhood reaches critical mass for vibrancy is to stack as many people as possible right on top of the businesses: mixed-use and density.

In the car-based world, distance becomes far less of an impediment. Speed determines the “mobility/draw zone” – fast arterials and freeways with minimal congestion. Short blocks and mixed-use become somewhat irrelevant because the pertinent geography now spreads over miles instead of blocks. Mixed age/cost buildings are still important, but over a much larger area. Harsh zoning and permitting can limit commercial space availability, increasing scarcity and prices and driving out lower value uses, thus limiting commercial diversity (see yesterday’s post on Opportunity City vs. Pleasantville). Density still matters somewhat, but far less than before. Generally speaking, in Jane’s world, mobility is relatively fixed and slow (walking, transit), but density is variable – therefore the key to vibrancy is to pump up density. In the car-based city, density tends to stay in a reasonably narrow and low range because of the need to accommodate cars and parking – plus consumer preferences for stand-alone homes – but mobility is variable: average trip speed is very dependent on the availability of high-capacity, smoothly-running arterials and freeways. I would go so far as to call the freeway the “short block” of the car-based city because of its similar relative improvement to the size of the mobility/draw zone.

So the four tenets of vibrancy transformed for the car-based city get reduced to two:

  1. Loose zoning/permitting constraints to enable both a wide diversity of businesses as well as population density where there is consumer demand (apartments, condos, townhomes)
  2. Maximized mobility with a well-designed, high-capacity arterial and freeway network

These two principles maximize the population within the largest possible mobility/draw zone, which gives vibrancy its best chance of reaching critical mass and flourishing.

All of this is not to say that car-based cities like Houston don’t need mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods – but they’re not required for us to be a vibrant city/metro. A “nice-to-have” amenity, if you will. What’s going on in downtown, uptown, midtown, and The Village (among others) are good, healthy developments – and I think Jane would approve – but they’re not the end-all/be-all of vibrancy.

Next week, we’ll go into more depth on density vs. mobility by comparing Manhattan and Houston trip scenarios, and what that means for vibrancy, “suburban monotony”, frontage/feeder roads, and Jane Jacobs’ “dead zones”.

This post originally appeared in Houston Strategies on May 3, 2006.

Topics: Public Policy, Strategic Planning, Transportation

61 Responses to “Applying Jane Jacobs Tenets of Vibrant Neighborhoods to Car-Based Cities by Tory Gattis”

  1. kantor says:

    “’ll say it again: if you think oil scarcity or climate change concerns will shift us away from personal vehicles in any meaningful way, you’re underestimating the adaptive potential of technology: hybrid-gas (Prius), hybrid-electric (Volt), tiny cars (Europe), pure electric, natural gas, biofuel – there are so many possibilities, and economics will sort out the winners. ”

    Mmm.. I happen to be European and to have a Ph.D. in Mathematics; so neither tiny cars (and gas at about 9$ per gallon) or technology are a mystery to me.

    In fact I am afraid that you do not have a clear grasp of the real energy problems you will have to face in the coming decades. For instance, natural gas is going to peak soon (or it has peaked already) and I think that you’d better use what you have left for other purposes (like heating for instance); as far as electric cars are concerned I hope you are joking. If you are not then let me tell you that electricity has an obvious problem of scale; no way you can have a situation in which you can power the entire fleet of cars you are pushing around.

    Your trust in technology is admirable and a little naive; but it is a form of religion. And, like any other good agnostic, I do not feel comfortable in challenging other people’s religious beliefs.

  2. John Morris says:

    I’m not commonly in that area but there is a lot more than 13 square miles of swamp/ estuary along the waterfront of NJ.

  3. John Morris says:

    It hasn’t stopped development that much but a large chunk of north Central New Jersey suffers from huge flooding problems.



  4. Tory says:

    With fracking, it is estimated that the U.S. has more than 100 year supply of natural gas, possibly much more. Prices keep hitting new lows because of all the supply. It is certainly a viable vehicle fuel, although it does have a cost. The Volt model is also perfectly valid (albeit modestly more expensive) and can use no gas at all if you keep your total driving under 25-50 miles/day. But it hasn’t been too popular when there are cars at half the cost that can get north of 40mpg. And Prius cars continue to sell in droves. The technology is already adapting, and it will adapt much more if gasoline prices keep rising. We’re not even half of European prices in the U.S., and there are certainly still plenty of cars in Europe, so we have lots of room for price growth without mass abandonment of cars.

  5. John Morris says:

    Wasn’t too long ago–the US was supposed to have a “gas bubble” and 100 year supplies with no need for fracking. Then lots of power plants and industrial users shift to gas and –oops, they say the estimates were wrong.

    I think the safe bet is that we just don’t know what the real supplies are.

  6. Emelen says:

    Shopping malls, the retail centers for the car-oriented population, are redesigning themselves to create the pedestrian experience. They include pedestrian-friendly sidewalks with businesses on the ground floor, outdoor seating for restaurants, etc. This is a stark change from the enclosed food courts and novelty kiosks of the familiar shopping mall. Essentially, they are refashioning the “main street” experience, and attempting to foster the diversity of businesses and eyes on the street. So, a traditionally car-oriented development is gearing itself towards the pedestrian-oriented main street (eg.Bay Street in Emeryville). How does your observation address this?

  7. Tory says:

    Emelen: that fits exactly with what I’ve been saying in the comments. See above (back in the first 50). Dense, walkable districts woven into a larger car and freeway based city. Note that those districts still have tons of parking – any residential they offer is nowhere near enough to support all the shops and restaurants by itself.

  8. Alon Levy says:

    Have hybrids finally crossed 10% of new car sales in the US?

  9. Tory says:

    I seriously doubt it, but they will very quickly if the economics becoming compelling enough (i.e. gas prices rise substantially enough to reduce the breakeven period vs. the extra cost of the vehicle). Of course they have to compete with diesels and just plain small cars with high gas mileage. I’d expect to see a flood of tiny cars from Europe and Japan if gas prices rise enough.

  10. Alon Levy says:

    European and Japanese cars are illegal in the US without modifications. The safety regulations are different, and mandate more buff strength. The same rules that make $5,000/rider rail impossible in the US make freeways and cars unaffordable.

    To say nothing of how the effect of persistently high gas prices is to both depress driving and raise fuel economy. To take France as an example, it has 2/3 the number of vehicles per capita of the US, 2/3 the distance driven per vehicle, and 2/3 the emission-efficiency per VMT (less, if you pretend a gallon of diesel is equivalent to a gallon of gas rather than to a bit more).

  11. AIM says:

    Pure hybrids may not have hit 10% yet but more of the technology used by first generation hybrids like regenerative braking and electric assist motors are finding their way into a wider range of vehicles. That’s helped the automakers boost their mileage for non-hybrid vehicles without having to take on the price increases that come with full hybrid technology.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile


Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio


Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.


Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures