By Jon Glasco and ChatGPT.
If Jane Jacobs was alive today and actively engaging with the smart city community, her sharp critique of urban planning trends would likely provide a fresh and insightful perspective on today’s transportation challenges and opportunities. Here’s how she might address some of the major issues in a hypothetical interview:
Car dependence in the era of the smart cities
Question: What do you think about America’s continued car dependence and the resulting traffic congestion, despite the rise of smart city technologies?
Jane Jacobs: “America’s car dependence is a clear failure of urban planning. We designed cities for cars, not people. This obsession with car infrastructure leads to traffic congestion that no amount of technology can truly solve unless we shift our priorities. Traffic isn’t just a transportation issue—it’s a symptom of poor urban design that favors private vehicles over public life. We need to create spaces where people want to walk, bike, and use public transit. Right now, cars are still treated as the kings of our cities, and until that changes, traffic congestion will continue to choke urban vitality.”
Q: Consumer demand for larger vehicles, like SUVs, continues to rise, which has implications for pedestrian safety. How do you view this trend?
JJ: “The popularity of SUVs reflects more than just a transportation choice; it’s about culture and status. Unfortunately, these larger vehicles are a real threat to pedestrian safety. Many modern urban streets, already designed with cars in mind, weren’t made to accommodate these behemoths. The scale of SUVs on narrow streets, and their poor visibility for drivers in relation to pedestrians, turns our public spaces into dangerous zones for anyone not encased in metal. We have to ask ourselves: are our cities for people or for machines? A continued rise in SUVs undermines any progress we make towards creating livable, walkable neighborhoods.”
Street design and mobility for the 15-minute city
Q: How can cities tackle issues related to urban street design and the need for multimodal and active transport strategies?
JJ: “Street design is crucial. The best cities are those with streets that are alive with a mix of people on foot, on bikes, in buses, and yes, even in cars. But for too long, planners have only designed for the car. We need a paradigm shift—cities should actively encourage multimodal transport. Streets should be designed to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists, with cars being secondary. The space allocated to cars must shrink. Make walking and cycling the most convenient and pleasant options, and you’ll see active transport flourish. Design streets for encounters, for spontaneity, for life—not just to move vehicles.”
Q: The concept of the 15-minute city is gaining popularity, where residents can meet most of their daily needs within a short walk or bike ride. What do you think of this idea?
JJ: “I’ve always championed diverse, mixed-use neighborhoods, so I’m thrilled to see the 15-minute city gaining traction. It’s about creating places where everything is accessible, where you don’t need a car to live well. This idea aligns with my belief that cities should foster community, not isolate people. But for this to work, it’s essential that we don’t just impose the concept from the top down. Local communities must shape their own neighborhoods, determining what they need close by—whether it’s schools, parks, or grocery stores. A cookie-cutter approach won’t work, but the core idea is sound: less car dependence, more human-scale living.”
Public and private innovation around urban mobility
Q: Why does public transport adoption remain low in many American cities, and how can we change that?
JJ: “Public transport remains underused in America because it’s often designed poorly, underfunded, and treated as an afterthought. In many cities, buses and trains are seen as the last resort, rather than the best option. This is a systemic issue. To change it, we need to make public transit appealing—fast, reliable, safe, and comfortable. And it has to be integrated into the fabric of city life. It can’t just be an alternative to driving; it must become the preferred way to travel. Cities should prioritize transit hubs, make connections seamless, and make public transport the quickest and easiest way to move through the city.”
Q: What’s your take on the “Uber phenomenon” and how it’s affected urban transport?
JJ: “Uber and similar services have upended the transportation landscape in ways that are both fascinating and troubling. On one hand, they’ve introduced a new layer of convenience, offering flexible, on-demand transport. But they’ve also flooded streets with more cars, adding to congestion and undermining public transport. The most concerning aspect is how they’ve become a substitute for investing in public transit. Cities should be focusing on improving mass transit, not encouraging more private car trips through these apps. If we’re not careful, Uber and its ilk could worsen the very problems they claim to solve.”
Q: How should cities balance transportation regulations with the need for innovation in urban mobility?
JJ: “Regulation is critical, but it has to be smart and adaptable. Innovation can’t happen in a vacuum, and without some guiding principles, new technologies and services can cause more harm than good. However, over-regulation can stifle creativity. Cities need to strike a balance: set clear goals for urban mobility—reducing congestion, increasing safety, cutting emissions—and then allow room for innovation that helps achieve those goals. And regulations must always prioritize the public good over private profit. The key is flexibility and vigilance, ensuring that new technologies serve people, not the other way around.”
The need for a holistic, bottom-up approach on mobility design
Q: Regarding new mobility strategies and trends in cities, do you think that addressing them solely from the mobility perspective is enough?
JJ: “Well, I think it would be a mistake to treat mobility as something separate from the broader life of the city. Transportation is not an isolated service—it shapes how neighborhoods grow, how public spaces are used, and how communities connect with one another. You can’t introduce something like Uber or new transit schemes without asking what kind of city they will help create. I’ve always believed that the most vibrant cities are those where people engage with their streets—walking, gathering, living, and working within close proximity. When you focus solely on mobility, you risk overlooking the essential question of whether these services strengthen that kind of street life or undermine it. Take a ridesharing service, for example. Does it make the city more accessible for everyone, or does it primarily serve wealthier neighborhoods while neglecting others? Does it encourage sprawl, or does it support the kind of dense, mixed-use neighborhoods where life thrives? These are not just mobility questions—they’re questions of urban design, equity, and planning. Cities are complex, living systems. We have to think about how each new piece fits into the whole. Mobility solutions should complement public transit, prioritize pedestrians, and ensure that streets remain active and safe places, not just thoroughfares for vehicles. If we let the engineers and tech companies dictate the terms without input from the people who actually live in these neighborhoods, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past—disrupting communities rather than serving them. The best urban planning always begins with the people and the street. That’s where the real life of the city happens, and that’s where the solutions should start.”
