Question 1:
Based on what you have experienced and learned in the program so far this semester, can Jane Jacobs be considered a designer? Justify your answer using concrete examples from your own personal understanding along with evidence from the film.
Yes, we believe that Jane Jacobs can be considered a designer because designing is not only about making things on paper, but instead about understanding the people who will utilize the designs. In the movie (documentary?) She challenges Moses’s plans to build highways through established neighborhoods in New York City, and believes that the cities should be designed around the people who live in them rather than just the buildings. Compared to Moses she has a much more environmental, residential and community friendly approach, making a plan about the people for the people. Contrasting Moses who focused more on a modernistic and economical approach, and placed the concerns of the people in the back of his mind saying “You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.” Additionally, she also designed non-violent responses with the community to add community involvement to influence how the cities were designed.
Question 2:
Quote one passage from Learned Hand (1944) or Lincoln Caplan (2024) that highlights the dangers of political certainty.
“ the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias” Learned Hand (1944)
Identify a specific scene in Citizen Jane (include an approximate timestamp) where Jacobs acts with absolute certainty.
“To me and to many others, we were outraged about a road going through Washington Square and we were going to save Washington Square Park.” (45:00-45:15)
Compare and contrast these two examples. Can these two approaches work together or are they inherently at odds with one and other within the context of a participatory democracy?
The two examples are at odds because the Learned Hand references a concept of support without bias, while Jane builds her arguments using bias to her advantage. She uses personal prejudice as her main reasoning towards these design changes is her love for NYC. Washington Park was an important landmark for her and other New Yorkers, and she used preconceived notions to appeal to the community and make her points heard.
