NYC and the Self-Destruction of Diversity

There's been quite a bit of publicity Sharon Zukin’s recently-published book called Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places.

Obviously, the title takes a swipe at Jane Jacob’s iconic book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961. In Death and Life, Jacobs argued that her neighborhood (Greenwich Village) was an excellent example of well-functioning, vibrant, diverse neighborhood—the type of place in which people of different races and economic positions lived, worked and recreated together.

The problem, according to Zukin, is that places such as Greenwich Village (now one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the United States) no longer enjoy such diversity. Or, more to the point, Zukin argues that Jacobs failed to anticipate that bustling urban neighborhoods would experience rapid gentrification—and would lose much of the vibrancy which made them attractive.

But here’s the thing: Jacobs understood this quite well.

Central to her writing was the idea of “self-destruction of diversity”—a concept which incorporated many types of diversity (e.g. unusual or eccentric businesses). In a nutshell, places such as Wicker Park (Chicago), North Beach (San Francisco) and the Back Bay (Boston) are very rare, and many people like them. When many people like something which is rare, the supply exceeds the demand. For that reason, they become very expensive. When neighborhoods become expensive, many people and businesses are displaced. Long-time residents, immigrant families, and artists are forced to leave, and much of the original character (which initially made the area attractive) is destroyed.

Jacobs was not the first person to observe this; one need not be profoundly astute to observe gentrification. But Jacobs did have a solution: allow the supply to meet the demand. According to Jacobs, government policies in core areas of large cities should encourage (or at least not discourage) mixed uses, reasonably high densities, short blocks, and the preservation of many older buildings.

Unfortunately, her advice was not heeded. For decades, government policies have essentially treated good urbanism (as defined by Jacobs) as a nuisance. For example, mixing of residential and commercial uses is illegal almost everywhere in the United States—and often discouraged even in the most urban neighborhoods.

While urban planning theory has largely shifted in Jacobs’ favor, most of the practice is still rooted in the past. the bulk of land use codes still discourage (or forbid) the implementation of her principles. Today, the demand for urban neighborhoods is far higher than it was when Death and Life was published in 1961, and the problem is more acute than ever. Perhaps we should all be reminded that there is no inherent reason that an apartment in Greenwich Village should cost $3000 a month. Our public policies have helped to make great city neighborhoods an extraordinary rare commodity—and one which can only be enjoyed by the elite.