Jane Jacobs'
The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) is probably the most important book ever written on urban planning. It marked a sea change in how people think about cities and redevelopment. She has a lot to say that is relevant to Jack London Square, which I'll be highlighting from time to time.
Chapter 14 in her book is entitled "Border Vacuums," and deals with "edge" or "border" areas: places like railroad tracks, waterfronts, campuses, civic centers, and large parks. She clarifies that "we shall not be concerned not with the social connotations of areas demarcated by borders, but rather with the physical and functional effects of borders on their immediate city surroundings."
She begins her analysis by looking at areas around railroad tracks: "The blight-proneness of zones along the tracks has usually been explained as a result of the noise, the soot of steam locomotive days, and the general undesirability of railroad tracks as an environment. However, I think these disadvantages are only part of the cause, and perhaps a minor part. Why did they not discourage development in the first place?" In other words, something other than noise and dirtiness must be a major factor in why areas around railroad tracks are prone to blight. She shows how the same goes for waterfronts, and even areas near expressways. So what is the cause of blight in these zones?
Jacobs shows that as different as all these "border" areas are, they each immediately adjoin massive single uses. That is, they abut area that are used for only one purpose, whether transportation (railroad), storage (warehouse district), or recreation (large parks). She continues:
The root trouble with borders, as city neighbors, is that they are apt to form dead ends for most user of city streets. They represent, for most people, most of the time, barriers. Consequently, the street that adjoins a border is a terminus of generalized use. If this street, which is the end of the line for people in the area of "ordinary" city, also gets little or no use from people inside the single use border-forming territory, it is bound to be a deadened place, with scant users. This deadness can have further repercussions. Because few people use the immediate border street, the side streets (and in some cases the parallel street) adjoining it are also less used as a result. They fail to get a by-the-way circulation of people going beyond them in the direction of the border, because feew are going to that Beyond. If those adjoining streets, therefore, become too empty and therefore in turn are shunned, their adjoining streets may also be less used. And so it goes, until the forces of heavy use from an area of strong attraction can come into counterplay.
Thus, single use areas attract fewer people, with fewer destinations, and fewer different purposes.
This this serious, because literal and continuous mingling of people, present because of different purposes, is the only device that keeps streets safe. It is the only device that cultivates secondary diversity [restaurants, shopping, cultural attractions]. It is the only device that encourages districts [a politically engaged neighborhood] to form in place of fragmented, self-isolated neighborhoods or backwaters.
Now, as you can see, this chapter illustrates some of the handicaps the Jack London District faces in becoming a vibrant neighborhood. We are surrounded by several borders: railroad tracks, the waterfront, and the 880 freeway. We are prone to lag in attracting a diversity of uses and the concomitant activity that enlivens neighborhoods. Evidence of this is all around: notice all the empty storefronts at the Allegro, the emptiness of Jack London Square most of the time, the emptiness of the streets. We can change this, but it won't change itself. What does Jacobs recommend?
She says we need to figure out a way to create uses in the borders that attract people. Hopefully the Jack London Square redevelopment will be part of this. Recreational uses on the waterfront would help. The "public" greenspace between the Landing and the water is an absolute abomination, as it attracts no one and wastes valuable space. Such handouts to developers should be resisted.
She also says we need to make the barrier less imposing -- visually and psychologically. We need to convert barriers into seams. I think a good example of this is where Telegraph meets UC Berkeley's campus. The campus boundary could form a real barrier, but there it is integrated into the neighborhood to create a connection between the campus and the commercial strip on Telegraph. In our neighborhood, we need to figure out how to connect us to the neighborhoods that lie north of the 880. We need to turn Oak, Madison, and Broadway into well-used connections that penetrate the 880 and turn it into a seam rather than a barrier. Views of the waterfront need to be preserved, so that it attracts people to use it -- for boating, fishing, site-seeing - rather than it becoming a dead barrier.
Finally, Jacobs says that in tough cases (like Jack London, in my opinion), it is especially important to have population density. On this score, I think we can be optimistic, as we see five new building under construction, which will add to the several hundred new units built in the last few years. As long as the growth is handled carefully (quality construction, parking sensitivity, space set aside that is easily utilized by commercial entities), the JL district should develop beneficially.
Now we probably won't ever be Jacobs' beloved Greenwich Village, but we can become much more diverse, active, interesting, and safe than we are right now.
