OBE 1-Jacobs more appealing than Wirth
While Jane Jacobs is not necessarily an urban sociologist, nor a scholar at the level of Louis Wirth, her first hand view and description of city life in “...Sidwalks: Contact” is as accurate, if not more, than “Urbanism as a Way of Life” where Wirth expresses his theory on density, heterogeneity, and their contributions to urbanism. An increase in population does not necessarily mean an increase in heterogeneity, as Wirth assumes. Jacobs understands the truly important aspects of city life that make it great, though it doesn’t have to reflect the type of heterogeneity Wirth infatuates. Lastly, Wirth tries to maintain a broad description of social organization in urban life, but Jacobs depicts the social organization that takes place with specific examples from city life she knows.
Jane Jacobs does not really mention anything about population size or density in her writing on contact, privacy, and public characters. Wirth explains these things to lead to an increase in heterogeneity, but Jacobs, living in a city, doesn’t even think in terms of heterogeneity. In fact, to the contrary of Wirth’s argument, Jacob’s talks about neighborhoods in cities consisting of people of middle to upper class, as being extremely homogenous (Jacobs 64). This isn’t to say Jacobs’ finds this desirable, because her ideal city would surely include some difference. Other cities she describes may very well be heterogenous, but in terms of living there, it’s importance is insignificant.
The important aspect of quality cities to her is the way in which social contact takes form. These forms include the issue of trust, separation of private and public concerns, the ready accessibility of inter-mingling social enterprises and public spaces, and the relationships city people have with neighbors as well as public characters. Jacobs see’s these types of things as the essence of city life, as the thing that keeps cities people friendly and habitable. Wirth, however, in trying to keep a broadness and universality to his writing, leaves out mentioning specific details about daily life in the city that Jacobs shows to be the most significant.
Perhaps Wirth was writing in a time before the line between public and private became so important, a time when the stoops, sidewalks, bars, stores, restaurants, and any other place to gather were so plentiful, he took it for granted, but he doesn’t even mention how people are meeting and mingling. To me, and Jacobs, this breeding ground for interaction in a cohesive manner, needs mentioning. These locations are so important to Jane Jacobs because this is where people of a city spend their time, interact with others of the city, run errands, and where the social definition of a city develops. It is also what separates a city from suburbia, and rural areas as well. Any form of social organization, formal or informal, cannot come forth if people don’t cross paths, communicate, or share a common ground, and that is what these public places are to cities. In turn, I think Wirth’s lack of discussion of city layout and attempt to make his statements as sociologically universal as possible cause him to leave out examples, examples Jacobs gives that don’t necessarily coincide with Wirth’s argument.