It is fascinating to see attempts to use the ideas of Jane Jacobs to justify New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ City of Yes proposal. Even when her ideas are misapplied, the desire to embrace those ideas is almost heartwarming. It wasn’t always so. Jane was amused that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all embraced her thinking and tried to put their label on it. But she was not amused when people tried to use her ideas to endorse things she would not have approved of. Most often, people would take a piece of her thought about an issue to endorse an issue in a way she would not have done.

Take, for example, cars. “People think I hate cars, but I don’t,” Jane once said to me. “If people want to get around in a thousand-pound cocoon, that’s fine, but they just can’t expect the city to be remade for their convenience. It’s too easy to get around this city by one form of mass transit or another.” In other words, with opposition to the car must come frequent and efficient mass transit, something Robert Moses made sure to take away from the city. The Second Avenue subway was his promise to replace the East Side Els.

The City of Yes proposal doesn’t argue for improved mass transit to go with its expanded development, which would be consistent with Jane’s thinking. And diminishing parking requirements for new buildings? Well, fortunately, the Planning Commission already started doing that, even if belatedly. No new legislation is needed. It would be great if the density in some of the city’s single-family districts could be increased. But if those locations are more than a 10- to 15-minute walk from a frequent, efficient form of transit, one has to understand resident objections. Moreover, in all of those neighborhoods, parking should be allowed on the street. If that were permitted, they might be more accepting of two-family zoning.

Today, many people ask, “What would Jane Jacobs do?” No one should try to figure that out. It’s a question with no answer. She was much too unpredictable. I knew her well for more than 30 years and would never do such a thing. I could say what she was for or against based on an extensive knowledge of her writing and thinking, but I could never predict. 

It is a mistake to think Jane was writing in direct opposition to Moses. She was writing about wrong-headed development, whoever was promoting it. Her thinking and writing were based on observation—“Observe, observe, observe,” she wrote—of what works and what doesn’t. 

Quite often, the opposition to the City of Yes has been perceived as primarily from single-family neighborhoods and Greenwich Village. But the opposition is strong in many neighborhoods around New York. City of Yes would permit developers to build at heights well out of scale to any neighborhood. It is an accepted fact that a new luxury 14- or 20-story building in a seven-story neighborhood is cataclysmic. It causes rents to increase throughout the neighborhood. Displacements follow. This has happened in several neighborhoods, from Long Island City to Brooklyn. A study commissioned by the Municipal Art Society, A Tale of Two Rezonings/Taking a Closer Look at CEQR, looked at two upzoned neighborhoods and came to the same damning conclusion.  

No one promoting the City of Yes wants to acknowledge that some of the highest rents are in the newest highly developed neighborhoods with new housing towers. Proponents invoke the theory that, if the unit supply is stronger than the demand, prices come down. However, “trickle down” development has never worked, even though it continues to be promoted by the Real Estate Board of N.Y. (REBNY). It is worth repeating that studies have shown that allowing new, large-scale, market-rate development doesn’t advance affordability. As Jane would say, “Observe, observe, observe.” For some arguments, it is best not to look. 

A study years ago by the Historic Districts Council showed that landmarking reinforces neighborhood character, keeps rent increases proportionately lower than new development and preserves affordable units. It stands to reason: less upheaval can maintain an area’s stabilization. Again: observe, observe, observe.

Nothing in the 1,200-plus-page City of Yes document advocates preserving existing affordable units. For good reason: REBNY has long sought the demolition of remaining rent stabilized units.

In fact, there is nothing in the City of Yes that aims to preserve existing affordable units. Let me repeat: Nothing in the 1,200-plus-page City of Yes document advocates preserving existing affordable units. For good reason: REBNY has long sought the demolition of remaining rent stabilized units. The city loses thousands of affordable units each year to demolition. Hypocrisy runs throughout the City of Yes.

In fact, it appears that Adams administration supports demolition of existing affordable units and more displacement. How else to explain why it has decreased the funding for the pro bono lawyers assigned to defend tenants who can’t afford expensive attorneys? 

Again, it is worth observing, as Jane would, that the borough of Brooklyn has seen the largest increase in new buildings built between 2010 and 2020. It also has seen the highest rent increases, the highest loss of Black and Hispanic residents, and the highest increase in white non-Hispanic residents. This is not just a New York City phenomenon. Of the cities in the country with the most new housing units per capita, Austin, Texas, reportedly ranks highest. At the same time, it has become one of the least-affordable cities in the country with the steepest increases in housing prices. Then there is Jersey City, a supposed poster child for YIMBYism. Once considered a reasonably affordable city—build, build, build it did. As of last year, it has become one of the most expensive cities in the U.S. to rent a home or apartment.

Jacobs’ Greenwich Village is a favorite whipping boy for promoters of the mistaken idea that historic district designation raises prices and causes gentrification, yet studies prove this is not true. First of all, the Village became more expensive as the rest of the city did. It is not a Greenwich-only phenomenon. Its designation as a historic district came in 1969; since 1972, the Landmarks Commission has approved 45 new buildings in the Village. Not bad for a “frozen” district.

So the build, build, build approach of YIMBY offers a false promise few will admit to. In that case, what are some realistic approaches to the housing and development crisis that might be consistent with the thinking Jacobs espoused?

First, there is nothing in the City of Yes that calls for the protection of existing affordable units. This is anathema to the real estate industry, which has been successfully working hard in recent years to eliminate rent-regulated units. Some 500,000 affordable units have been wiped out in recent decades. If they cared about affordable housing, YIMBYs and City of Yes proponents should oppose demolition of a full block of at least 60 affordable units that would then be replaced by a single luxury-apartment tower. Supporting the erasure of those units contradicts every principle they’re supposed to stand for. Existing affordable units need protection.

Private equity ownership should be taxed at a higher rate than individual owner-occupied units. Some cities are considering this, but not here, not yet.

Second, a serious study is necessary to understand the impact of private equity. Across the country, from Montana to Charlotte, North Carolina, to NYC, private equity is buying up housing units, jacking up rents, and profiting nicely. Those units could otherwise be bought and occupied by homeowners. What’s the point of building thousands of new units if private equity will buy up many and set a higher rent for its own profit? Private equity ownership should be taxed at a higher rate than individual owner-occupied units. Some cities are considering this, but not here, not yet. Jane warned about private equity home buying decades ago.

Third, one solution to more affordable housing would be to offer large bonuses to encourage the conversion of office buildings to housing. The city has a surplus of empty office buildings, and conversions are complicated and expensive. These conversions would hurt no one and benefit many. Additionally, it has been reported that defunct hotels often remain empty because the hotel workers union blocks conversion to apartments. A deal needs to be struck with that union to stop preventing the logical, beneficial conversion of once-thriving hotel space to housing.

Finally, tread carefully when you dub all opponents of any development as NIMBYs. As I’ve written before, most opponents are not against all development; they would support development, if they participated in the approval process of that development and if the benefits would be apparent. Watch what happens with Housing, Not High Rises in Brooklyn’s Windsor Terrace/South Slope neighborhood. This is a community group proposing a 250-unit, all-affordable mid-rise development. There is a willing developer on board, instead of a developer offering luxury development with a few questionably affordable units. Here, the neighborhood is proposing a truly affordable development. The agreeing parties are in place. Let’s watch how the City Planning Commission responds. This is a proactive community proposed development. Will the pro-development group, Open New York, get behind this initiative? Or, because this proposal does not favor conventional Big Development, will it and other promoters of City of Yes remain silent? Will hypocrisy prevail yet again? Time will reveal whether Jane Jacobs’ vision will be invoked, again, in name only.

Featured image: Jacobs at the White Horse Tavern, in 1962.