I get the bend against central planning but I don't know anything about the rigor of urban planning so I wouldn't conclude it's pointless. When people give their life to studying something, I tend to believe they uncover at least something of value even if it doesn't amount to much absolute value.
I find it hard to believe a market of auto workers who were making excellent salaries in unionized low skill jobs would have chosen different lifestyles or vocations before the collapse or were going to suddenly build and flourish in a diverse services based economy after the collapse if only the land had been used differently.
Me too which is why I'm interested in reading a book that claims otherwise.
305 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 7 Feb
Update:
  • the book is actually about how "planning theory" is dead wrong about everything and her examples of good neighborhoods are those that lacked planning and were bottom-up
  • Jacobs never went to college
  • Jacobs has lived in big cities and everyone of her arguments so far is supported by that kind of direct empiricism
  • I'm only a chapter in but she sounds like the Mises of Urban Planning
I suspect she'd argue that Detroit fell into a wasteland on top of losing most of its economic activity because it was excessively planned.
reply