Was Jane Jacobs a gentrifier and a NIMBY?

Jane Jacobs's most famous book is The Death and Life of Great American Cities. During the decade following publication in 1961, the book revolutionized the discussion of massive urban renewal projects and highway development in urban areas, influencing much of our thinking about cities today.

Urban planners and urbanists generally regard Mrs. Jacobs as a trailblazing urbanist who reshaped our understanding of how cities thrive. She wasn't merely theorizing from an ivory tower; she was on the ground, fighting for the soul of urban neighborhoods.

A recent article in The Atlantic magazine by Yoni Applebaum[2] led me to consider whether Jane Jacobs might have been a gentrifier and NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) advocate even before those terms became part of the urban planning dialogue.

Was she a gentrifier?

Jacobs championed the vibrancy of mixed-use neighborhoods like Greenwich Village in New York City, advocating for their preservation at a time when urban renewal threatened to bulldoze them. While her celebration of these areas might have made them more attractive to outsiders, her core mission was about protecting communities from displacement, not causing it. She advocated for policies that supported affordable housing and local businesses, aiming to keep neighborhoods accessible to their residents.

Was she a NIMBY?

Jacobs famously opposed the Lower Manhattan Expressway, a project that would have demolished entire neighborhoods. However, her struggle wasn't just about preserving her backyard; she also defended the essential fabric of urban life against top-down planning that overlooked the people it affected. She advocated for community-centric development, where residents had a voice in decision-making.

Digging Deeper

Jacobs saw cities as living organisms that thrive on diversity, density, and human interaction. She opposed practices that dehumanized urban spaces, such as massive highways cutting through communities or monolithic housing projects isolating residents. Her ideas were about fostering environments where everyone could flourish.

The Modern Connection

Today, discussions about gentrification and NIMBY advocacy are complex. While Jacob expressed no intent to exclude or displace individuals, the removal of a storefront in her West Village building reduced mixed-use options in her neighborhood, and she firmly opposed the development of new housing there.

Conversion of the Storefront

Jacobs and her husband bought a building at 555 Hudson Street in Manhattan's Greenwich Village. They transformed a ground-floor storefront into a residential space, effectively diminishing the block's mixed-use nature. This decision contradicts her strong advocacy for mixed-use developments, which she viewed as essential for vibrant, healthy urban environments.

By eliminating a commercial space, they potentially decreased the "eyes on the street"—a concept she famously promoted to enhance neighborhood safety and community interaction. The presence of diverse businesses at street level contributes to the continuous activity and social engagement that Jacobs celebrated.

Opposition to New Housing Developments

Jacobs was also known for her staunch opposition to housing projects in her neighborhood. She fought against developments she perceived as threats to the community fabric, even if those projects included much-needed new housing. Mr. Applebaum argues correctly that Jacobs' resistance to higher-density developments contributed to limited housing supply thereby increasing property values, factors often associated with gentrification and NIMBY attitudes.

Jane Jacobs' advocacy was not solely focused on preserving buildings; it also sought to uphold the status quo of her neighborhood, often at the expense of broader urban housing needs. This resistance favored the interests of existing residents over newcomers in search of affordable housing options in the city.

It is undeniable that Jacobs' advocacy, along with that of those inspired by her, has obstructed much-needed housing. In many urban and suburban neighborhoods, a key question remains: to what extent should existing residents hold what has often become a strong veto power against nearly all new developments to preserve the status quo?

[1] Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.

[2] Applebaum, Y. (2025, February 10). How Progressives Froze the American Dream. The Atlantic.