Hello! I just read Roger Scruton's essay, "Jane Jacobs (1916-2006): Cities for Living" and I would like to comment on it. Since I'm new to this forum, I hope I am posting my comments in the right location. Although in his essay Mr. Scruton apparently meant to be complimentary to the recently deceased Jacobs, it seems to me that he has significantly mis-characterized her work and thereby does Jacobs an enormous disservice! In the first of her seven books, "Death and Life of Great American Cities" (which is presumably the book that Mr. Scruton is discussing in his essay), Jacobs wrote about what makes modern American cities succeed or fail over time. While Jacobs argued against the planning of cities by government bureaucrats, she was certainly not advocating instead for "spontaneity" at the expense of needed rules and regulations! (To put Jacobs' thoughts in perspective, would one say that present day conservative economists are advocating for "spontaneity" at the expense of needed rules and regulations because they are against the planning of national economies, instead of the planning of cities?!) In fact, Jacobs was in favor of just the kind of rules and regulations offered up by Mr. Scruton in his essay, and a good portion of "Death and Life of Great American Cities" is actually a discussion of Jacobs' ideas for more useful rules and regulations. With regard to the aesthetics of cities (which seems to be Mr. Scruton's primary concern, although it was not Jacobs'), it seems to me that Jacobs again favored basic rules and regulations (e.g., high ground coverage, basic height and set-back regulations, etc.) over total "spontaneity." But such rules and regulations -- probably far fewer and less restrictive than those favored by Mr. Scruton -- favor an aesthetic that is compatible with the dynamic, lively jumble that is American cities at their best. And I, for one, would hardly characterize the cities compatible with such an aesthetic -- New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. -- as "shanty towns."