Advertise here with Carbon Ads

This site is made possible by member support. 💞

Big thanks to Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support.

When you buy through links on kottke.org, I may earn an affiliate commission. Thanks for supporting the site!

kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998.

🍔  💀  📸  😭  🕳️  🤠  🎬  🥔

Eyes on the Street

I ran across this story from Vanessa Guerrero on Instagram recently. She originally posted it to Twitter a few years ago; here’s the full text:

Living in LA, I’ve lived in many a neighborhood in which police helicopters circle all day and they don’t do anything except be loud an annoying. You know what improved the morale and safety of my neighborhood in less than two weeks?

A new taco stand. I’m 1000% serious.

In general street food vendors on a block means more pedestrian foot traffic round the clock, if they’re open late, that’s more eyes in a neighborhood. Additionally in an area with many dark empty storefronts, literally adds light and vitality to the area.

More of the neighborhood is meeting each other waiting in line for nearby tacos. I met people three houses down I didn’t know. It feels like we’re all only now getting to know each other, over a torta and some soda.

They also posted up at a bus stop and out open until 2am. Meaning people waiting for a bus stop are not longer waiting alone in the dark. There’s a noticiable air of camaraderie, safety and enthusiasm.

Street vendors did more for our neighborhood than the city ever did.

City planners had left the area in disrepair. The vendors literally CLEANED THE BLOCK. THEY PICKED UP TRASH THE CITY NEGLECTS.

I’m serious when I say in the area they posted up, it’s markedly cleaner. This is not the work of the local waste removal services. This is taqueros.

I love this. In her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs wrote about the importance of “having eyes on the street” and foot traffic to building successful neighborhoods:

A city street equipped to handle strangers, and to make a safety asset, in itself, out of the presence of strangers, as the streets of successful city neighborhoods always do, must have three main qualities:

First, there must be a clear demarcation between what is public space and what is private space. Public and private spaces cannot ooze into each other as they do typically in suburban settings or in projects.

Second, there must be eyes upon the street, eyes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers, must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind.

And third, the sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers. Nobody enjoys sitting on a stoop or looking out a window at an empty street. Almost nobody does such a thing. Large numbers of people entertain themselves, off and on, by watching street activity.

Comments  4

Sort by: thread — thread . latest . faves

Peter Morgan

I love this, and love the Jane Jacobs connection. Have you noticed how the emerging slate of pro-development, YIMBY thinkers (Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson, Yoni Appelbaum) have started to villainize Jacobs? From a recent New Yorker piece "Do Democrats Need to Learn How to Build?": "In “Stuck” (Random House), by Yoni Appelbaum, of The Atlantic, a chief villain is Jane Jacobs, the standard-bearer of Greenwich Village and a left-wing theorist of neighborhood living." I find so much misguided and shortsighted in this emerging line of thinking

Bill Amstutz

Idk Peter, I wouldn't characterize these POVs as villainizing Jacobs. Rather, they are reassessing how her ideas have been misused by NIMBYs to block necessary housing development.

Peter Morgan

I hear that. But it feels like an over-correction. Villainizing Jane Jacobs while overlooking or discounting the forces—the Robert Moseses—that she was responding to. Those forces are still there, still ready to exploit any loosening of oversight. We need more building, yes. But not at the expense of the type of community and culture championed by Jacobs and highlighted by Guerrero.

Reply in this thread

Joey Mullaney

Do we need to characterize the argument in such stark opposition of city = bad, taco truck = good? The city has certain tools and incentives at their disposal, and it feels like a mischaracterization of waste removal services in order to make a point. I love the proliferation of food trucks in my city and I feel like there has been support of them from local businesses and the government. In order for progress to be made on structural issues underpinned by decades of government = bad and business = good, we should appreciate how those two work in tandem, even when making the argument for ostensibly leftist ends.

Hello! In order to leave a comment, you need to be a current kottke.org member. If you'd like to sign up for a membership to support the site and join the conversation, you can explore your options here.

Existing members can sign in here. If you're a former member, you can renew your membership.

Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions that you have installed on your browser...sometimes they can interfere with the Memberful links. Still having trouble? Email me!