Book Review: The Urban Archetypes of Jane Jacobs and Ebenezer Howard: Contradiction and Meaning in City Form by Abraham Akkerman

The Urban Archetypes of Jane Jacobs and Ebenezer Howard: Contradiction and meaning in city form present a nuanced analysis of the history of urban planning in the past two centuries, focusing on North America. In the recent century, two scholars stand out, who were instrumental in popularizing urban planning and articulating the need for a coherent city design but were also contrasted by ideas that appeared polarizing to each other. Akkerman traces the lives and works of the two scholars: Ebenezer Howard (1850–1928) and Jane Jacobs (1926–2006), who did not cross paths in their lifetimes, but their ideas, set in two different timelines in the United States and abroad, form the foundational theories of urban planning of the modern world. The author takes us through a rich, historical journey of urban planning throughout the centuries. Akkerman’s book consists of eight distinct chapters. He has written each chapter with a deep understanding of the mechanism of city planning and interpretations of the mechanisms. One can divide the book’s content into three parts – historical background of urban planning, career trajectories and influences on Howard and Jacobs, and finally, summarizing practical outcomes and impacts of both stalwarts. The first part of the book is dedicated to discussing urban planning as a field and the role of urban planners who contributed to progress in the subject. The timelines move between relatively recent works by Howard and Jacobs of the past century and historic city planning practices as far as a few thousand years ago. To understand the beginnings of Howard’s Garden City Movement and Jacobs’ city planning ideas, Akkerman discusses Frederick Olmsted’s design for a Central Park, the works of Raymond Unwin, Barry Parker, and Joseph Paxton in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The City Beautiful movement, started in Chicago by Olmsted, was an influential predecessor to the Garden City movement by Howard in later years. Jacobs was resolute in creating a city that developed organically, was citizen-inclusive, and took a bottom-up planning approach. Akkerman analyzes several differences between Jacobs’ and Howard’s planning principles. Howard championed the radial or circular plan, intersected by straight lines. Jacobs championed an irregular rectangular grid, more organic and less guided by a forceful pattern overlay. The other difference is Howard’s idea of a home garden that acts “as the emissary of nature in the city” (p.25), which found success in heavily industrialized areas of the city. In the late 19th century, the idea of a private green space found popularity amongst the rich and the upper-middle classes, who wanted to distance themselves from the “dirt” of the inner city. Over time, with the rise of privately-owned automobiles, people preferred homes with private gardens, far from inner-city humdrum. On the other hand, Jacobs vehemently rejected the idea of suburban living and observed that private home gardens contributed to sprawl, increased commute times, and brought more vehicles to the core city, affecting the lives of people who lived in the city. Howard championed isolation; Jacobs championed connection. Howard and Jacobs both advocated the inclusion of nature within residential areas; however, they dueled on the nature of nature in a city. There is a socio-psychological angle in the narration of the book. Akkerman references psychologist Carl Jung’s theories on the collective unconscious. Following Jung’s clinical observations, the author explains that the “basic geometric forms in ancient ideal-city plans are the circle and square, reach deep into human consciousness” (p.59). Akkerman concludes that a circle within a square, or a square within a circle, also known as a “mandala,” are basic geometric shapes in city design. Jacobs and Howard sparred on the ideal dominant geometry in a city configuration while looking at two sides of the same coin. However, explanations about the synergy of patterns fall short in some places. Akkerman’s writing style is verbose; nevertheless, the socio-psychological mechanisms of geometry need deeper discussion to be a compelling explanation for planning principles. On this note, Akkerman talks about the influences on both scholars. Howard had a career that spanned the United States and the United Kingdom as a stenographer and urban theorist. Howard’s design principles were deeply influenced by the mythical city of Atlantis as described in holy Christian texts. Taking a cue from sacred texts that asked followers to “flatten earth, make way for roads,” Howard’s design often led to ignoring the land’s natural topography, as he created strong, almost ritualistic patterns for new cities. Jacobs’ work as an editor, and later as an advocate for her neighborhood Greenwich Village in Book Review