She teaches that the key to getting rid of traffic is getting rid of roads. Not everyone buys this theory, but in LA's case, why not try dynamiting the freeways and let's just see if things get better? It's not like they can get any worse.
The account in the book says traffic improved in the neighborhood where they removed the roads. It was a small-scale experiment. Subsequently NYC built a bunch more roads and traffic got worse. True believers point to a cause-and-effect relationship, but cities are complicated so it's hard to be sure.
The ideal plan for Jacobs might be Amsterdam. No cars, no traffic. It's so simple.
Yeah. A lot of people on here tend to elevate Jabobs (who I admire). But her objective wasn't to fit more people in or move more traffic through a space. It was to create a more vibrant city even if that meant that more people couldn't live or work there.
A lot of people who remember Jacobs' preference for cities that don't require cars to get around ignore the fact that she didn't necessarily favor central planning and high rises either.
Traffic may not have improved, but that's measuring the wrong thing. What is important is whether people and goods are moving effectively regardless of the transportation mode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...
She teaches that the key to getting rid of traffic is getting rid of roads. Not everyone buys this theory, but in LA's case, why not try dynamiting the freeways and let's just see if things get better? It's not like they can get any worse.