Quantifying Urban Diversity: Multiple Spatial Measures of Physical, Social, and Economic Characteristics - Computational Approaches for Urban Environments - page 146

try to transfer my observations into guides as to what goes on in towns, or little
cities, or in suburbs which still are suburban. Towns, suburbs, and even little cities
are totally different organisms from great cities :::to try to understand towns in
terms of big cities will only compound confusion” (Jacobs 1992 , p. 16). This chapter
seeks to apply Jacobs' four generators of diversity to a truly urban environment at a
fine-grained level.
This research does not seek to prove or disprove Jacobs' four generators, but
rather to create a methodology that allows for their examination. More importantly,
it allows for the investigation and targeted investment by policy-makers toward the
success of city neighborhoods. Whether Jacobs' ideas are ultimately validated or
not is not the issue here; they have, in fact, been incorporated into the tenets of
New Urbanism, Smart Growth, and Transit-Oriented Design. Given the popularity
of these ideas among modern planners, it is important to create useful methods for
their examination.
The following section presents a review of previous research in the area of
livability, followed by a description of the data used to conduct this case study.
Next, a detailed description of the methodology is presented, followed by the results
of the case study, the conclusions that can be drawn from this case study, as well as
possible future research. Please note that the quotations from The Death and Life of
Great American Cities presented in this paper are from the 1992 edition of the topic,
although the original was published in 1961.

7.2 Background and Literature Review

When The Death and Life of Great American Cities was first published, it was
rightfully seen as an unfavorable critique of modern city planning. In the first
sentence of the topic, Jacobs states explicitly, “This topic is an attack on current
city planning and rebuilding” ( 1992 , p. 3). Throughout the topic, Jacobs names
not only the planning concepts to which she objects but also those that she sees
as their proponents. Among the parties she identifies on numerous occasions as
having had a detrimental effect on the city is Lewis Mumford, a contemporary
of hers and a respected planner to this day. Perhaps due in part to inflammatory
statements by Jacobs, the level of discord between Jacobs and Mumford has been
somewhat exaggerated. In reviewing the relationship between Jacobs and Mumford,
Mellon ( 2009 ) found that while Jacobs' and Mumford's ideas for what constituted
a healthy, diverse, livable urban environment differed, they both strove for the same
goal; Mumford is even noted as having encouraged Jacobs to write Death and Life .
While the friction between Mumford and Jacobs may have been embellished by
history, there is no doubt that she saw futility in the city planning efforts of the time.
However, the critique that she presented in Death and Life was not considered by
many to be objective (Laurence 2006 ), especially when compared to the physical
sciences being studied at the time. However, in the final chapter of Death and Life ,
Jacobs discusses the scientific theories of Warren Waver and notes that cities are