As our study of Jane Jacobs has continued the true goals of her work has become more and more clear. Anirban Adhya in, “Jane Jacobs and the Theory of Placemaking in Debates of Sustainable Urbanism,” summarizes her work as a battle in favor of, “a new a radical lens in which to view the urban world: the lens of empirical observation and community intuition.” Adhya is partially right in his interpretation of her message. It is important not to forget, however that Jacobs presented a dynamic solution to the premise that many city planners had been initiating their thought process with. There was no one solution to the question, “how do we build a city?’ Instead is you apply this empirical lens to your process of thought then you understand that major changes with have to be made as time goes on. She proposes a fundamental shift of thought process.
That being said it is vital to consider the individual historical narrative of the location in order to understand how to apply Jane Jacob’s strategy and any attempts at successful placemaking to a city. This is confirmed in, “What is Placemaking?” and “26 Ways to Make Great Places” where each describes how personally and emotionally connected the process has to be to the respective cities constituents. In order for a project of city improvement to be successful community involvement and desire is necessary.
Therefore as our class builds towards a decision as to how we want to execute out desire to placemake I believe that the Perugian narrative should be in the forefront of conversation. After receiving the streamlined history of the city in class I believe that Perugian’s went from being a very proud people to a very proud yet oppressed people. My question becomes, how can we address these generationally percolating sentiments of oppression?