When we think of a particular place we tend to think about the structure of the area. We think about the attractions, the buildings, and most importantly the streets. In Jane Jacob’s book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she explores the “orthodox planning” of city architects and attacks their way of building cities (Jacobs 41). While observing cities and safety, Jacobs points out blatant problems regarding cities especially delving into sidewalk safety. She also discusses solutions to these obvious errors of the city planners. Just as Jacobs has done, I observed a few places in the cities I live in and have connected my observations with Jacobs’ analysis. Jane Jacobs starts off by pointing out the fact that streets and sidewalks are by “itself…nothing” but an “abstraction” (Jacobs 29). These streets and sidewalks are only considered to be an integral part of the buildings and attractions that are a part of the city. They become something of value only when people start to use them to conduct daily business and extracurricular activities. As I have observed in Wedgewood Drive, Lansdale during the early hours of the morning the streets are deserted except for a few people getting up to go to the mosque for prayer. As the day progresses the local residents start to make use of the streets and conduct their activities and that is when Jacobs’ solution to city safety and peace are brought forth. Jane Jacobs suggests that solution for sidewalk and city safety. In her book she states that “public peace…is not kept primarily by the police. It is kept primarily by an intricate, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the people themselves” (Jacobs 32). In short, Jacobs says that the people themselves take charge of their own safety. The more people there, the more sets of eyes there are. The more eyes there are patrolling the streets the safer they will be. As I have observed on Broad Street and Main Street in Lansdale, more people start coming out and about during noon time. As more people come out there are more eyes to “watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers” (Jacobs 35). Jacobs’ solution to sidewalk safety is to add more sets of eyes to watch over the pedestrians and other citizens. But how should the people be enticed to come out and keep watch? Jacobs lists and explains a few solutions to draw the populace out and make use of the sidewalks. She says “the basic requisite for such surveillance is a substantial quantity of stores and other public places sprinkled along the sidewalks of a district; enterprises and public places that are used by evening and night must be among them especially. Stores, bars and restaurants as the chief examples, work in server different and complex ways to abet sidewalk safety (Jacobs 36). I have discovered that on Broad Street and Main Street there are several of the bars and restaurants that Jacobs has mentioned. These attractions draw the citizens out even to the late hours of the night. People are always milling about to have lunch or drinks or dinner. I have also seen that on Main Street there is a train station, something that Jane Jacobs does not mention in her book. There are always people there waiting for a train or taking a smoke break. Because there are more people out, there are more sets of eyes watching the area. Jacobs mentions that these attractions serve several purposes. One is that “they give people…concrete reasons for using the sidewalks on which these enterprises face” (Jacobs 36). The establishments draw the citizens out which in turn increases the sets of eyes on the streets. These buildings also give people a reason to “crisscross paths” (Jacobs 36). During the time I watched Main Street I saw a few people go to a restaurant to have lunch and then cross the street to go to the bar. The owners of these establishments are also string advocates of safety because they do not want bad publicity because of an incident occurring in their vicinity (Jacobs 36). . That would result to decreased business. Lastly, the people who are walking around and going from store to store attracts other people. Jacobs says that city planners find this fact “incomprehensible” (Jacobs 37). She contradicts the city planners by saying that “people’s love of watching activity and other people is constantly evident in cities everywhere” (Jacobs 37). She is explaining that when there is activity on the streets and there are people walking about conducting their business, other people are attracted to it. Even if it may be to only watch the people. I witnessed the people waiting at the train station watching people as they traveled the streets and in and out of the different shops. Although Jacobs presents a thorough solution for sidewalk safety, she complicates and clouds her book in a few ways. One way is her use of the word stranger. She does not clearly define what a stranger is, but at different places in the text Jacobs portrays strangers as being a positive force contributing to sidewalk safety. She also puts them in a negative point of view. Jacobs says that “cities, by definition, are full of strangers” (Jacobs 30). She goes on to say that in cities even people who live in close vicinity of each other may be strangers to each other. She says that a successful city districts must feel safe amongst these strangers (Jacobs 30). Jacobs is portraying them to be dangerous people who are perceived as a threat by the general public. She goes on to say that cities such as Los Angeles are full of “strangers not all of whom are nice” (Jacobs 32). But later on in her book Jane Jacobs says that these dangerous strangers can go on to become a “safety asset” to the city (Jacobs 35). Even further on in her reading Jacobs says that in order for a city to be successful it must protect its citizens and also these threatening strangers. It is clear that the author is complicating her work by not clearly defining the definition of a stranger. Is a stranger dangerous or are they assets to the safety and well-being of the city streets? She contradicts herself when she says “the streets must not only defend the city against predatory strangers, they must also protect…many peaceable and well-meaning strangers who use them” (Jacobs 36). That statement is contradictory because there is no way to tell which category a stranger falls into. Are they predatory strangers or well-meaning strangers? Unless we get to know them, in which case they will no longer be strangers to us, there is not a definite way to distinguish the two types of strangers. Another way Jacobs complicates her argument is the fact that she misses the point of racism entirely, except for one incident. She mentions a city guard telling tow Puerto Rican boys to get off of a public city bench. The fact that she mentions this incident itself complicates her paper because it might not have been racially motivated. Jacobs was an observer and did not know the entire story of the guard telling the boys to get off the bench. Before mentioning the occasion Jacobs discusses sections of New York as being “turfs” that were controlled by different gangs. It could have very well been that the guard was telling the children to move from the bench in order to protect them from gang violence. Racism is prevalent is many areas and in other places it is a melting pot where people of different ethnicities mix together well. Jacobs mentions New York City being divided into “turfs”, and if one person from the other turf goes into another gangs territory there is usually violence. When that occurs Jacobs’ solution to having safer streets and cities will fall apart. It will not matter how many people are watching if there are people fighting to protect their turfs. A person by himself or herself cannot stop the deep rooted problems of gang violence by himself or herself. Because Jane Jacobs scarcely mentions racism any of my observations regarding racism or racial harmony will complicate her argument. In Wedgewood Drive I have witnessed a diverse range of people from different ethnic backgrounds working together harmoniously. The area has people from China, Cambodia, India, and Bangladesh, and many other backgrounds working together to create a better neighborhood. I have seen children play together, share the same food, and go to the same park, without and regard to their background. Ethnicity is a difference, but in this neighborhood it does not hinder peoples’ acceptance of one another. In conclusion, Jane Jacobs examines aspects of cities and streets that make them dangerous. In response to those dangers Jacobs attacks city planner and gives solutions that she believes will abet safety in cities. She lists thorough solutions such as having different establishments and stores from her own observations of different cities such as New York and her own neighborhood. She mentions that having a variety of shops such as bars and restaurants, and people taking charge of their own safety will provide the safety and well-being of the residents. All of her solutions lead to one conclusion. For a place to achieve true safety and harmony there must be a constant flow of eyes patrolling the area with “brains behind those eyes” (Jacobs 42).

Bibliography
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York. Random House Inc, 1961. Print.