It was Sir Christopher Wren, not 'Robert' , and it is probable that his draughtsman, later an architect in his own right, Nicholas Hawksmoor, designed the western towers. The cathedral itself is part of a larget complexity, the other 52 City of Londonchurches built or rebuilt after the Great Fire, their steeple designs rising above the streetscape and interacting with one another spatially.

Are you serious? Simply sit back on your kiester and "let a slum happen?" That's one of the more moronic ideas I've heard in a long time.

Demolishing areas where few live seems stupid to me. It only costs the city money to mow the grass... but if that's too much, why not give plots to land to those who live in the city already, and let them farm it? You'd instantly help many people who are economically struggling and lower costs for the city to keep mowing grass on un-used plots.
Over the years, the city would become known for urban farming, independent /community brands would emerge - branding the food with clever brand identities that would play on the cities tough reputation and history, AND would eventually change some of what Detroit is known for (ghettos/cars/freeways)... into a not-so-tough place that's truly diverse in lifestyles (city/burbs/rural all mixed).

In London, they have a 'green-belt' of protected land around Greater London. This means the city's sprawl is limited, which forces people to move into areas that might not be their first choice, then make it better.

For many US cities, these methods would not go over well with the public, although they should... But for Detroit, farm land is better than forests.
Forests have crime and policing issues... and some maintance issues that all cost the local government money - forever. But giving the land to people that will use it to better their lives is another thing all together!

Just my thoughts!
Terry

the reviewers quibble about global population (is it 6.6bn or 6.7bn) does it matter when it's probably too many for sustainability by a factor of 10. And of course reviewer - we would need to cover the entire planet with solar panels and the seas with wind turbines. Im sure the reviewer would prefer little solar lights lighting up their garden than solar power panels doing something useful - ie. reducing oil, coal, nuclear demand. And let me get this straight... the reviewer argues that releasing methane (a greenhouse gas 24x worse than CO2) we should 'let happen' because we don't know if it's consequences would be good / or would be bad? So basically we can't trust scientists that say it's a tipping point and would send global temperatures up by degrees instead of fractions of a degree?

Thanks for this entry. I too think there's a great deal more to be talked about in Jane Jacobs' books than the scholarly world has done so far. But I also think most people don't realise how serious she actually was. Reading about her now, it seems she's often portrayed as a character, feisty older woman. And as such, she seems to speak to various urban actiontakers. But it really isn't just about neighbourhood rallies and painting flowers in asphalt.

I have actually yet to read her final (and as you said, darkest) book, which I'm certainly going to do next.

I enjoy this, the houses on the South Kensington Street

But I hAVE A QUESTION /Which is the name of the street?

Excellent criticism!!! I watched the film with some friends, all of us industrial ecologists, and we all had the same reaction as you "watch Home, be inspired by it, but do yourself a favor and turn the sound off". You nail it in the best way in your article.

I propose this clip from George Carlin. I think it is the best way to put it, in the most non-scientific, simple, and straight-forward way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

I did a slow read through Death and Life over the past couple of months. Three weeks of that was while on a 12,000km road trip around Canada and the US, including numerous cities. I have been an active proponent and student of complexity theory for some years but I was totally shocked to see such strong implied alignment with Jacobs and complexity. I had to keep reminding myself as I read that she published the book in 1961, well before the current formality and level of interest around complexity theory arose (as you point out above).

I have yet to track down the Warren Weaver document she references on page 429 but I'm looking forward to digging through that as well. My complexity theory work has focussed on how we might improve organizational adaptability and what adaptive leadership looks like. Though I had organizations and institutions in mind for this kind of work, it's spot on for cities as collections of these types of things. The fractal nature of human organization also means there are aptitudes that are important at all scales with specific applications being infinitely variable depending on context.

Social network theory has some interesting things to say about city vitality and is really a nuanced aspect of complexity science turned toward the nature of our human relational networks, social capital, and how it grows and changes over time. I'm currently working down this line as a way of understanding things like persistent urban poverty.

As a fellow Canadian (Hamilton), are there places where these ideas are being embraced and explored here in Canada? I visited 401 Richmond Street West (http://www.401richmond.net/) in Toronto recently and there is a strong Jane Jacobs imprint there - and a large portrait in the main stairwell.

I'll subscribe so I can stay more up-to-date on what you are writing.

Milton

What do you mean turn the sound off! Are you crazy! They have a totally valid message to deliver. Uncontrolled growth is what got us in this mess in the first place. Yes I do believe in their argument. We need sustainable systems. So according to you we should ignore what is happening because you did not provide any alternative solutions, and just grow ourselves into oblivion. That is what the Chinese are doing. God help us if China becomes the new America.

Funny argument really! And calling this propaganda is surprising too. All day long you are surrounded by commercials on the streets, on radio, on tv, on the internet and even hidden in movies that try to brainwash you to consume more. And that seems ok with you? Then you see ONE movie citing scientific realities and you say it is propaganda? My intuition is that you have been brainwashed long ago and refuse to face reality by admitting that your lifestyle isn't sustainable.

You refer to social disasters caused by fighting global warming? Well I'd love some examples of those! I don't have to give you social disasters of problems caused by over exploiting nature as the movies is packed with examples. If you want others, look up the Aral sea disaster, Haiti, all the major rivers running dry,...

And I don't understand why you focus only on global warming since this is only one problem the movie pinpoints. What about deforestation, water pollution, air pollution, excessive water exploitation,... Should we just continue doing that too?

Lastly you say: "Green politics fails not because it relies on facts that are incorrect, but because it relies on facts that are inherently unknowable". So what do you know about the situation if we would just continue business as usual? Do you know better than all scientists brought together?