Jane Jacobs pointed out that urban diversity is one of the driving strengths of any great city.1
The need to support diversity is greater than ever, as one can plainly see by looking around in their own cities, homes, and gardens.
Picture a beautiful garden. Do you see what I see?
Homogeneity is for mass production. Endless rows of corn be relegated to the plains of Nebraska and Iowa – I want depth and detail that beckons fascination.
My mother’s garden is beautiful. Visual variegation in size of oak leaves against delicate petals of flowering basil, in the colors of royal eggplant and cherry tomatoes and mustard greens. Auditory depth as bees buzz, cicadas click, and worms roil in the earth.
Blissful pleasure is allowing one’s self to be drawn into the elegant chaos of this dance.
Hudson street, in New York City at the end of the 1950s appears to have been a vibrant place indeed. Jacobs describes the ballet of economic motion on her street as comprised of “workers from laboratories, meat packing plants, warehouses, plus those from a bewildering variety of small manufacturers, printers, and other little industries and offices.”
Looking around my own city I can see places where this is working well (24th street, 20th and Bryant, Hayes Valley) and places which are very wanting (Civic Center, the Financial District, Outer Sunset).
One thing feels really different to me about Jacobs’ description; it feels like the America that I learned about in history classes, and by watching the Fantasia 2000 Rhapsody In Blue animation. I can’t help but think of what I’ve learned from Benn Jordan about the American postwar period prosperity and the exodus of manufacturing out of America which it enabled.2
The life I am used to living is far more homogenous; large portions of people commute in the morning, work in a distant office for more than eight hours, and then commute home. Groceries and household goods are delivered to our doors, affording us the opportunity to work harder longer without need to venture into the world and cross paths with others.
I’m not prepared right now to get into the complex issue of whether America should reintegrate manufacturing as a domestic capability – let’s just say that pollution and political power are highly at stake in that arena – however it is clear to me that more variety of occupation in my city would be a benefit for the social and cultural life that I have come to appreciate.
(Note; I have never lived in New York City but I have visited from time to time and I do get the sense that there really is some extra magic there. I wonder how people would say that feeling has grown or diminished since the sixties when Jane Jacobs published her book.)
Urban diversity applies at home as well, for the cultivation of a rich social, cultural, and intellectual life.
In Michigan I noticed that some of Jacobs’ conditions for urban diversity could apply to improve the quality of life at the family cottage. Let’s begin with the conditions for urban diversity as presented by Jane Jacobs:
Mixed primary uses The district, and indeed as many of it’s internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must insure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common.
Short blocks Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent.
Aged buildings The district must mingle buildings that vary in age an condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield they must produce. This mingling must be fairly close–grained.
Concentration There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence.
Taking some liberties to map this onto cottage life (and without having read the detailed description of her intent for each condition) I can rate cottage life as follows.
| condition | notes |
|---|---|
| Mixed primary uses | Mid rating. The cottage is mostly for liesure. Sometimes people can remote work here, but generally spending time at the cottage is a departure from normal life. However, there are a number of different reasons why we visit the cottage, such as to visit distant family, as a resort from daily life in our respective homes, as a chance to be immersed in beautiful and powerful nature. This mixed usage redeems the primarily vacationing usage earnestly. |
| Short blocks | Without having read the details, I am taking “short blocks” to mean the opportunity for self-direction and curiosity following. The cottage ranks well here with games, instruments, watersports, nature hiking, astronomy, coooking, reading, and more to choose from. (For instance, a pottery studio down the road or the wood shop and power tools at grandpa's house). Expanding the activities available at the cottage much further would require city-like common resources, such as a dance hall. In this category the cottage rates highly! |
| Aged buildings | Fairly good. The cottage often hosts people of all ages with all kinds of expected economic output. As I grew up my father spent days at the living room desk working remotely before it was cool. Now my grandfather is nearly ninety years old and my mother and I work together to prepare meals for the whole family. The cottage supports a range of economic output and if anyone ever feels too idle there is sand to shovel! |
| Concentration | Concentration could be better. Often I feel torn between spending time at the cottage or two miles south at my grandfather's house. If only we were all under one roof it would be so much easier to know where dinner will be, and nobody would have to decline joining in a trip to the beach because of the ten minute drive from one place to another. It would be even better if Tristan and Holly would live here too, as that faction creates an additional tension in trying to decide where and with whom to spend time. |
“The Death and Life of Great American Cities,” Jane Jacobs, 1961 ↩︎
“The Richest Country is Pretty Mid Now,” Benn Jordan, 2026 ↩︎