Everyday Law on the Street: City Governance in an Age of Diversity

By Mariana Valverde

Toronto prides itself on being “the world’s most diverse city,” and its officials seek to support this diversity through programs and policies designed to promote social inclusion. Yet this progressive vision of law often falls short in practice, limited by problems inherent in the political culture itself. In Everyday Law on the Street, Mariana Valverde brings to light the often unexpected ways that the development and implementation of policies shape everyday urban life.
 
Drawing on four years spent participating in council hearings and civic association meetings and shadowing housing inspectors and law enforcement officials as they went about their day-to-day work, Valverde reveals a telling transformation between law on the books and law on the streets. She finds, for example, that some of the democratic governing mechanisms generally applauded—public meetings, for instance—actually create disadvantages for marginalized groups, whose members are less likely to attend or articulate their concerns. As a result, both officials and citizens fail to see problems outside the point of view of their own needs and neighborhood.
 
Taking issue with Jane Jacobs and many others, Valverde ultimately argues that Toronto and other diverse cities must reevaluate their allegiance to strictly local solutions. If urban diversity is to be truly inclusive—of tenants as well as homeowners, and recent immigrants as well as longtime residents—cities must move beyond micro-local planning and embrace a more expansive, citywide approach to planning and regulation.

• Language: English
• Publisher: University of Chicago Press
• Release date: Oct 22, 2012
• ISBN: 9780226921914

Mariana Valverde

Mariana Valverde is the author of several books and the director of the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. She lives in Toronto, Ontario.

Book preview

MARIANA VALVERDE is professor in and director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto. She is the author of several books, including Law’s Dream of a Common Knowledge.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637

The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London

© 2012 by The University of Chicago

All rights reserved. Published 2012.

Printed in the United States of America

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12   1 2 3 4 5

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-92189-1 (cloth)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-92190-7 (paper)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-92191-4 (e-book)

ISBN-10: 0-226-92189-1 (cloth)

ISBN-10: 0-226-92190-5 (paper)

ISBN-10: 0-226-92191-3 (e-book)

All photographs are by Greg Duke.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Valverde, Mariana, 1955–

Everyday law on the street : city governance in an age of diversity / Mariana Valverde.

pages ; cm. — (The Chicago series in law and society)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-92189-1 (cloth: alkaline paper)

ISBN-10: 0-226-92189-1 (cloth : alkaline paper)

ISBN-13: 978-0-226-92190-7 (paperback : alkaline paper)

ISBN-10: 0-226-92190-5 (paperback : alkaline paper)

[etc.]

1. Municipal government. 2. Municipal corporations. 3. City planning and redevelopment law. I. Title. II. Series: Chicago series in law and society.

k3431.v35 2012

320.8'5—dc23

2012007985

This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48–1992 (Permanence of Paper).

Everyday Law on the Street

City Governance in an Age of Diversity

MARIANA VALVERDE

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

CHICAGO AND LONDON

THE CHICAGO SERIES IN LAW AND SOCIETY

Edited by John M. Conley and Lynn Mather

Also in the series:

THIS IS NOT CIVIL RIGHTS: DISCOVERING RIGHTS TALK IN 1939 AMERICA

by George I. Lovell

LAWYERS IN PRACTICE: ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN CONTEXT

Edited by Leslie C. Levin and Lynn Mather

COLLATERAL KNOWLEDGE: LEGAL REASONING IN THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL MARKETS

by Annelise Riles

SPECIALIZING THE COURTS

by Lawrence Baum

ASIAN LEGAL REVIVALS: LAWYER-COMPRADORS AND COLONIAL STRATEGIES IN THE RESHAPING OF ASIAN STATES

by Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth

THE LANGUAGE OF STATUTES: LAWS AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

by Lawrence M. Solan

INVITATION TO LAW AND SOCIETY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF REAL LAW

by Kitty Calavita

BELONGING IN AN ADOPTED WORLD

by Barbara Yngvesson

MAKING RIGHTS REAL: ACTIVISTS, BUREAUCRATS, AND THE CREATION OF THE LEGALISTIC STATE

by Charles R. Epp

LAWYERS ON THE RIGHT: PROFESSIONALIZING THE CONSERVATIVE COALITION

by Ann Southworth

ARGUING WITH TRADITION: THE LANGUAGE OF LAW IN HOPI TRIBAL COURT

by Justin B. Richland

SPEAKING OF CRIME: THE LANGUAGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

by Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma

HUMAN RIGHTS AND GENDER VIOLENCE: TRANSLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW INTO SOCIAL JUSTICE

by Sally Engle Merry

JUST WORDS, SECOND EDITION: LAW, LANGUAGE, AND POWER

by John M. Conley and William M. O’Barr

DISTORTING THE LAW: POLITICS, MEDIA, AND THE LITIGATION CRISIS

by William Haltom and Michael McCann

JUSTICE IN THE BALKANS: PROSECUTING WAR CRIMES IN THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL

by John Hagan

RIGHTS OF INCLUSION: LAW AND IDENTITY IN THE LIFE STORIES OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES

by David M. Engel and Frank W. Munger

THE INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PALACE WARS: LAWYERS, ECONOMISTS, AND THE CONTEST TO TRANSFORM LATIN AMERICAN STATES

by Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth

FREE TO DIE FOR THEIR COUNTRY: THE STORY OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN DRAFT RESISTERS IN WORLD WAR II

by Eric L. Muller

OVERSEERS OF THE POOR: SURVEILLANCE, RESISTANCE, AND THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY

by John Gilliom

PRONOUNCING AND PERSEVERING: GENDER AND THE DISCOURSES OF DISPUTING IN AN AFRICAN ISLAMIC COURT

by Susan F. Hirsch

THE COMMON PLACE OF LAW: STORIES FROM EVERYDAY LIFE

by Patricia Ewick and Susan S. Silbey

THE STRUGGLE FOR WATER: POLITICS, RATIONALITY, AND IDENTITY IN THE AMERICAN SOUTHWEST

by Wendy Nelson Espeland

DEALING IN VIRTUE: INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER

by Yves Dezalay and Bryant G. Garth

RIGHTS AT WORK: PAY EQUITY REFORM AND THE POLITICS OF LEGAL MOBILIZATION

by Michael W. McCann

THE LANGUAGE OF JUDGES

by Lawrence M. Solan

REPRODUCING RAPE: DOMINATION THROUGH TALK IN THE COURTROOM

by Gregory M. Matoesian

GETTING JUSTICE AND GETTING EVEN: LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AMONG WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS

by Sally Engle Merry

RULES VERSUS RELATIONSHIPS: THE ETHNOGRAPHY OF LEGAL DISCOURSE

by John M. Conley and William M. O’Barr

Contents

Acknowledgments

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

CHAPTER 2. The Law of the Street Corner

CHAPTER 3. The Legal Regulation of Taste: Annoying Noises, Unkempt Yards, and the Quality and Tranquility of Life

CHAPTER 4. City Bureaucrats and Village Elders: The Dysfunctional Dance of Local Governance

CHAPTER 5. Law without Rights: Zoning, Poverty, and the Normative Family Home

CHAPTER 6. Putting Diversity on the Menu: The Municipal Corporation and the Micromanagement of Street Life

CHAPTER 7. Driving a Taxi: City Fathers’ Myth of Immigrant Self-Employment

CHAPTER 8. From Local to Global and Back Again: Mosques and the Politics of Local Planning

CHAPTER 9. The Death of Planning and the Challenges of Diversity: Concluding Reflections

Notes

Index

Photo gallery

Acknowledgments

I came to urban studies relatively late in life and could not have made such a significant turn in my scholarly journey without a great deal of support and help. Evelyn Ruppert and Engin Isin’s generosity toward a rank amateur was essential in the early days. Later on, I became indebted to Nick Blomley, Davina Cooper, Dave Cowan, and Peer Zumbanssen, as well as colleagues at the University of Toronto’s Cities Centre, especially Larry Bourne, Philippa Campsie, Paul Hess, Michael Shapcott, Richard Stren, and Richard White. But taking up urban studies has not made me abandon other interests: Xiaobei Chen, Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Franca Iacovetta, Audrey Macklin, Paula Maurutto, Renisa Mawani, Pat O’Malley, Kunal Parker, Annelise Riles, Nikolas Rose, and Chris Tomlins have been and I hope will remain important interlocutors as well as valued friends.

My colleagues at the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies have over the years built a wonderful work environment, and, in relation to this book, showed a touching faith that something worthwhile would emerge from a messy and protracted research project. Tony Doob and Ron Levi deserve particular thanks for not shutting their office doors whenever I barged in with half-baked ideas. Jessica Cheblowski, Rita Donelan, and Lori Wells’s administrative competence and good humor made it possible for me to serve as director while writing this book.

Several current and former doctoral students played important roles in the project—some as research assistants in the field (Dena Demos, Mike Mopas, Karrie Sandford, and Rashmee Singh) and some by sharing information and ideas (Brenna Keatinge, Karrie Sandford, and especially Lisa Freeman). Brenna Keatinge and Jordana Wright did some crucial documentary research in the late stages and shared their own enthusiasm for researching urban issues. Research assistants’ excellent notes are cited only occasionally, but they were tremendously important in shaping questions and themes.

Initial funding for a related project on municipal law (carried out with Ron Levi) was given by the late lamented Law Commission of Canada. The bulk of the funding, however, was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. A standard research grant was used to do most of the empirical research for the project, from 2003 to 2007. Another grant (2007–11) with a much broader historical and geographical scope allowed me to place the empirical findings in a larger context, and to produce related historical and/or theoretical publications. The continued willingness of the government of Canada to provide a funding stream that avoids micromanaging the research process, the budget, and the deliverables is close to miraculous, given current trends; I hope that civic leaders who read this book and find it useful will support the continuation of funding for basic social science research when the time comes.

The empirical research on municipal practices of inspection and dispute resolution was facilitated by two senior city managers who gave my assistants and me full access to the everyday work of officials. Their openness is exemplary and gives the lie to popular images of the bureaucracy. I am sorry that research ethics rules make it impossible for me to thank them by name, or to acknowledge those inspectors who generously agreed to have their work scrutinized. Similar restrictions apply to acknowledging most of the numerous current and former city politicians and staff who agreed to be interviewed, and who often gave me insightful analyses, not just information. But many others answered questions and gave me information, and I want to especially thank the late Bill Bosworth, Hongmei Cai, Joy Connelly, Paul Dowling, Diane Dyson, Tim Groves, Marianne Maroney, Katie Rabinowitz, former mayor John Sewell, Michael Shapcott, Paul Young, Councillor Paula Fletcher and her staff, Councillor Adam Vaughan and his staff, the Homecoming group and the East Toronto Community Coalition. Last but not least, I want to thank my partner Maggi Redmonds, whose own long experience in community and city agencies—and the wisdom gained through reflecting on the experiences—is not directly cited, but has greatly influenced the book. She and our son Nick Valverde also gave editing advice upon request. Finally, Nick, our daughter Ming Redmonds, and their teenage friends, who as a group embody the most hopeful aspects of Toronto’s urban diversity, served as a constant source of inspiration. As I worked on the book I kept in mind that it is their generation that will pay the price if we middle-aged folks fail to address the governance problems on which this book, I hope, sheds some new light.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Why is the word urban so often followed by the word problems? The countryside, after all, is hardly a haven of stability: the swallowing up of family farms by corporations and the prospect of catastrophic climate change are only some of the tremendous challenges faced by rural populations around the world. But people of all classes tend to think of the country and the small town as good places to live. By contrast, ever since the discovery of new forms of misery in the industrializing cities of mid-nineteenth-century Europe, the urban has been regarded as a symbolic space as well as a physical place that is by nature full of all manner of dangers and risks.

An important reason for the traditional association of urban with problems is that cities have always contained more social diversity than the surrounding countryside. Cities in the Roman empire welcomed merchants and settlers from diverse ethnic, language, and religious groups: today, cities remain the primary magnet for permanent migrants as well as short-term travelers. That the cities of the 21st century will increasingly be characterized by the challenges of multiculturalism,¹ as one British scholar puts it, is now an almost trite remark. But multiculturalism and diversity have acquired different meanings. While in the 1950s and 1960s, cultural and racial diversity were regarded as inherently problematic, there has been a shift in numerous city regions around the world toward regarding diversity as a good thing, even as a resource.

Whether accompanied by fears or by hopes, however, diversity does pose new challenges for governance, since the existing governance structures were developed during far less diverse times. To compound cities’ difficulties, these challenges are taking place in a global context in which central governments have downloaded many responsibilities to local governments and local community agencies, without a concomitant increase in fiscal capacity and politico-legal resources. From the extreme pressures faced by American municipalities in states that are nearly bankrupt, to the sudden loss of central government funding experienced by British local communities in the postfinancial crash period, to the complete abdication by the Canadian federal government of such issues as housing and public transportation, city officials, politicians, and civic leaders have been abandoned by senior levels of government just when greater resources are needed. And these resources are not only monetary. Cities are also in great need of what in industry would be called R & D—that is, the people and the mechanisms needed to learn from collective experience, creatively devise innovative solutions, and ensure that legal powers are flexible enough to allow cities to tackle new problems. If this book helps both citizens and leaders to think creatively about the governance challenges of today, it will have served its purpose.

While this study began as an open-ended look at the mundane details of how cities regulate space, settle disputes, and interpret ordinances and regulations, without any single theme being chosen beforehand, it became clear that the issue of diversity, while rarely explicitly addressed, was always hovering in the background. People rarely stopped to think about just what diversity means, however. Nearly everyone whose work was studied expressed a sincere commitment to the idea of diversity if the topic came up (though neither my research assistants nor I asked, since the focus of the study was how things are done, not what people say about what they’re doing). Diversity is our strength is Toronto’s motto; and unlike in many parts of Europe, in Toronto one is hard-pressed to find anybody who explicitly opposes diversity as such. But in practice, certain dimensions of diversity were more valued than others, in different ways depending on the context. This is hardly surprising, since activists as well as scholars have long noted that there’s a tendency for institutions and individuals to imagine they’re promoting equality or diversity in general when in fact they’re only addressing a single factor (gender, say, or race). It was thus not unexpected to find that certain vectors of diversity—socioeconomic status, most glaringly, but also housing tenure—were often trampled in the collective rush to express pride in Toronto’s cultural/racial diversity.

The shortcomings of what one could call diversity in practice, diversity on the ground, could be studied by the use of aggregate data, as has been done in important reports replete with discouraging graphs showing that like many other global cities, Toronto is becoming more unequal and poverty is increasingly racialized.² These studies have certainly informed my analysis, since to correctly interpret microlevel interactions, it is important to have a good grasp of the underlying structural trends.³ However, this book is concerned mainly with processes that are not visible to those who work with aggregate data—the everyday interactions that make up the ever-shifting dynamics of urban governance on the ground.

Detailed studies of the dynamics of local governance are extremely scarce; but there are some precedents. Notably, many years ago Michael Lipsky carried out a study entitled Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Like the present book, Lipsky’s influential study focused on the microdetails of the governance process, rather than on the big-picture outcomes.⁴ However, his study included officials from a variety of levels of government, and so he was unable to shed light on the specificity of governance at the local level. In addition, it was limited to bureaucrat-client interactions, whereas I include civil-society groups, city councillors, planners, and a variety of other actors in my purview. Thus, my study paints a broader picture than Lipsky’s; but more important, it shows that city governance, urban governance, has its own dynamics. Cities are not simply smaller versions of states: there is such a thing as seeing like a city, as distinct from seeing like a state, as this book demonstrates.⁵

If multiculturalism and diversity are the key governance challenges for today’s cities, Toronto is an appropriate site for the empirical study of street-level urban governance, since it has distinguished itself for warmly embracing the idea (and to some extent the practice) of diversity. It is significant that in the late 1990s, many people came to believe that UNESCO had officially declared that Toronto was the world’s most diverse city. This claim proved to be an urban legend,⁶ not surprisingly given that there are many different measures of diversity, and no consensus about which variables are most important. The most diverse claim was thus eventually revised: the Equity, Diversity and Human Rights web page within the city of Toronto’s website stated (in 2010) that it’s one of the most diverse cities. The Tourism Toronto website, however, still claims Toronto as the world’s most ethnically diverse city. And in the course of my research I encountered many savvy civic actors who believed that some UN agency had in fact given Toronto the most diverse award. Clearly, Torontonians passionately want to believe that they/we live in the most diverse city in the world, and a nerdy social scientist pointing out that there is no agreed-upon measure of diversity in general cannot dent that pride.

In the United States there are cities that pride themselves on diversity as well, but, with the partial exception of multicultural New York City (which is significantly whiter than Toronto), American cities of diversity are Hispanic cities. Miami is 65 percent Latino, while in Los Angeles, the Hispanic/Latino population is now 48 percent of the LA total, and it’s projected to soon rise to 60 percent. In Toronto, the 2006 census showed that the city, once almost completely white, is now almost majority nonwhite: 47 percent of Torontonians said they were visible minorities, in the city, while 42 percent of the larger census metropolitan area fell in that category. But there is no equivalent to Miami’s or LA’s Latino blocs. South Asians make up 12 percent of the Toronto total, closely followed by people of Chinese descent (11.4 percent), blacks (8.4 percent), and Filipinos (4.1 percent). In addition, there are dozens of ethnic and language groups with significant representation—for instance, Somalis, whose Toronto community is the largest in the world outside of Somalia. These demographic facts make Toronto a wonderful urban studies laboratory.

A factor that makes this study particularly relevant elsewhere is that it does not focus on the official bureaus specifically devoted to promoting diversity. Instead, it studies a wide array of low-level governance processes and analyzes them in an open-ended manner. Studying how the local ethic of diversity works in everyday governance processes that do not come with diversity labels already attached gives us great insight into basic questions of urban governance.

So what exactly was studied for this book? Clearly, no one person could study the whole field of urban governance, even in one city; such an enterprise would require a team of experts.⁷ I was limited both by the time and the research funding available and by my own background. Other scholars have worked with large data sets to shed light on a variety of crucial policy issues. But while reading such studies has been crucial in sketching for me the social and economic context, and thus indirectly shaping this book, I decided to draw on my sociolegal studies background and contribute to urban studies through a detailed qualitative study of everyday law in the law-and-society tradition.⁸

This multiyear project had several parts. First I worked with a legally trained colleague, Ron Levi, to study the formal law, including the mind-numbing details of the 2003 Ontario Municipal Act and the 2006 City of Toronto Act.⁹ As we shall see throughout the book, even after the supposed empowering of Canadian cities in recent legislation and court decisions, cities have very limited powers to shape their own destiny. But while cities in the United States generally have more legal autonomy than cities in Canada, the basic legal architecture is the same across North America. Just as important, municipal inspectors go about their work in a similar manner, as far as one can judge from the scarce empirical studies available.¹⁰ Therefore, despite the differences in formal law across borders, the dynamics of urban governance documented here are by no means limited to either Toronto or Canada.

After concluding the formal law research, I devised a four-part empirical study. Planning decisions at the lowest level were studied by a systematic observation of Toronto’s four Committees of Adjustment (the local equivalent of boards of zoning appeals). Simultaneously, I and another research assistant studied the work of the licensing tribunal, which handles disputes between the city and licensed businesses. Thirdly, with the generous support of two senior city officials (who unfortunately cannot be thanked by name due to research ethics rules), I was able to place two doctoral students in ride-alongs with the so-called generalist officers from Municipal Licensing and Standards who respond to citizen complaints about such matters as unsightly yards and noise. Finally, I participated in planning consultations going on in the city and in my own neighborhood, focusing not only on citizen-city interactions but also on the division of labor between politicians and bureaucrats, which turned out to be different than what textbooks suggest. The study began in mid-2003. Most of the research, and all of the research-assistant work, was concluded by 2007, but I continued to attend meetings and to follow various issues. The book is thus reasonably up-to-date through October 2010, when sending the first draft to the publisher coincided with a municipal election that unexpectedly brought to power a mayor and a council majority with Tea Party tendencies. Given that my research found that politics in the big P sense plays a relatively small role in the legal and enforcement matters I studied, however, the research presented here should remain timely for a while, just as it should prove relevant to cities with different political alignments.

Having explained the scope of the project, I will proceed in the rest of the introduction as follows. First I will delve a little more into the question of law’s role in urban governance, in a section that takes the life and work of Toronto-based urban guru Jane Jacobs as an occasion to reflect on the distorted view of law that characterizes urban studies today. Next comes a section focusing on governance more than law. Here I show that the Jacobs ideal of a city of villages, which sounded so good when first put forward, in the sixties, has turned out to have serious defects when used as a model to govern large and very heterogeneous cities. Developing the city-village theme, this section will introduce the idea of scales of governance and will reflect on how the study’s own chosen scale, which is somewhat ant-like,¹¹ limits what I have been able to discover.

The final section of this introductory chapter will ask some probing questions about the various meanings of the ubiquitous term diversity. In keeping with findings of research elsewhere, such as John and Jean Comaroff’s Ethnicity, Inc.,¹² I find that the capitalist quest for global competitiveness has been able to absorb and use a notion that had been originally democratic and antiestablishment; but I also document the persistence of the older, more inclusive and democratic meaning of diversity, which in the city of Toronto, and I expect elsewhere as well, has not disappeared. This is followed by an overview of the chapters that follow.

Law versus the Street? The Legacy of Jane Jacobs

It would be silly to claim that legal mechanisms are the golden key to understanding how urban life is organized. The politicking that goes on in city councils; the machinations of real estate moguls; the engineering expertise that channels people and vehicles like so many ants along streets and highways; the cultural preferences that draw people with money to certain spots and away from others; the aesthetic ideas of architects and planners; the electronic transfers that keep global capital going—all of these processes shape urban life. Law is only one of the many dimensions of the fabric of our cities.

But without exaggerating law’s importance, the everyday experience of living in cities, whether in the global South or in the global North, suggests that law does matter. Of course, many laws are not enforced, or are enforced very unevenly. And local law is often powerless to prevent environmental calamities or to control such things as capital flows. But anyone who is familiar with the host of everyday interactions that involve urban law—from the rigors of parking fines to the red tape needed to open a small business—will agree that the little-understood agglomerations of laws, ordinances, bylaws, rules, policies, inspection practices, and regulatory fines that cities have, and which do not seem to be known, in their totality, by anyone, do in fact shape the experience of urban life to a great extent. The most striking feature of law at the local level is its heterogeneity and lack of clear organizing rationales.

In addition, local law is different from most other spheres or scales of law in that in many cases we have to ask for permission to do all manner of mainly private things—renovating one’s own house, for instance, or letting one’s own front yard revert to nature. Studying urban law, one cannot but be struck by the fact that the lofty constitutional principles of individual freedom that guide national-scale law have very little bite at the local level. Cities will tell us we can’t sleep in parks even though that’s a breach of individual rights. And it’s not just homeless citizens who experience the city as a kind of feudal lord: just try arguing your way out of a parking ticket by claiming that citizens have already paid for the streets and so the streets belong to them.

Despite the obvious importance of local legal and regulatory mechanisms in daily life, and despite the fact that local law is not understood by those who only study state law, when one casts an eye over the vast literature that describes how city life works, in the present and in the past, it is surprising to find that law has been systematically neglected. An important anthology notes in its introduction that most urban research takes the legal phenomenon for granted. While some high-profile ordinances (say, banning panhandlers) have drawn much attention from both activists and scholars, the mundane operation of lower-profile laws that don’t look political remains invisible as one reads the latest in urban sociology or urban geography.¹³

The failure to analyze, and even to see, the legal dimensions of routine urban life is a product of systematic biases among writers on things urban. Many amateurs of things urban take an aesthetic perspective, focusing on the latest waterfront design improvements while neglecting the drab reality of run-of-the-mill streets.¹⁴ Urban geographers and qualitative sociologists, on their part, study sociocultural processes, sometimes through quantitative analyses of aggregate data, and, less frequently, by means of anthropological studies of the everyday interactions of citizens—but these studies tend to focus exclusively on marginal groups. Law here appears in a distorted manner; it appears only as it bears down coercively on the impoverished or the racialized, and, in addition, it is studied usually only in relation to particular campaigns or crises, not over a period of several years. The much larger areas of law that work without fanfare and without police—paving roads, maintaining parks, dictating the size of yards, inspecting homes and public buildings, regulating city traffic, and issuing marriage licenses, taxi plates, and building permits—remain wholly invisible in these studies.¹⁵

While what one could call culturalism is arguably the key reason for the neglect of law in urban studies writing, many urban sociologists do pay attention to economic and demographic change as well as culture; but they too pay scant attention to legal and regulatory mechanisms. Focusing on aggregate data and time series, American urban sociology renders law largely invisible—it is not a variable. On their part, critical urban writers in all disciplines who are influenced by the Marxist tradition tend to share Marxism’s narrow view of law as a mere superstructure that does not need to be closely analyzed because it is a reflection of and explained by class interests.¹⁶ For a variety of reasons, then, the main scholarly literatures on the urban either ignore law’s power or show it only as an exceptional force or a set of antiquated rules.¹⁷

Jane Jacobs’s tremendously influential study of street life in the Greenwich Village of the 1950s, the most important urban studies work of the twentieth century, shares this general neglect of the power of law. The Death and Life of Great American Cities (the 1961 book that made her famous, several years before she and her family left New York for Toronto) pays little attention to law. But the main problem is not the absence of law but rather its distorted portrayal. In keeping with the ethos of the sixties, insofar as law is discussed, legal mechanisms appear as bureaucratic obstacles to the flourishing of spontaneous civic interaction. In one place Jacobs does look at law more constructively, famously advocating zoning for diversity¹⁸—a planning idea that has now become commonplace in regeneration projects but which was then quite revolutionary. But that is an exceptional and undeveloped passage.

Jacobs’s work paid little attention to the fact that legal mechanisms matter not only when they are moralistic or archaic and thus highly noticeable but even—perhaps especially—when they quietly facilitate the complex array of interactions that urban life involves (though often the interactions facilitated are not the ones that were originally targeted). Admittedly, the specific laws found in municipal law books are to a large extent outdated and/or dysfunctional. However, if one’s engagement with law is limited to ridiculing silly rules, as is ritually done by lovers of edgy urban life (often invoking Jacobs), one misses a great deal. That Jacobs’s account idealized spontaneous interactions, largely ignoring the fact that large cities cannot be run like preindustrial villages, or even like federations of villages, is an insight which slowly came to prominence as I witnessed countless unproductive well-meaning efforts by self-appointed village elders to get people together or consult the community.

Jacobs’s idealization of civic spontaneity was part and parcel of the same sixties ethos that gave us self-help groups, women’s consciousnessraising, and cooperatives, which is probably why it remained uncriticized. Jacobs and her family moved to Toronto in 1968, mainly in protest against the Vietnam War, as she and her husband were very concerned about their boys being eventually drafted. In hindsight we can see that the same ethos that gave us the peace movement and the myriad cooperative experiments of that generation also undergirded her well-known praise for the spontaneous ballet of sidewalk life—a phrase that in retrospect seems more than a little naive. The ideals that she shared with her contemporaries gave her a very sharp eye for any abuse of state power; but they also led her to idealize street life. For example, if African-Americans and racialized immigrants had formed a significant proportion of the population of Jacobs’s beloved Greenwich Village then, as they do now, her rosy-colored account of how neighbors look after each other might have had to be substantially modified (as Mitchell Duneier pointed out in his own study of sidewalk life in the Greenwich Village of the late 1990s).¹⁹

Settling in the Annex neighborhood—a then-bohemian, now-bourgeois area near the university, with largish older homes lining leafy streets—Jacobs instantly became the patron saint of Toronto urban design and urban politics. She soon decided to put the skills she had learned fighting New York’s development czar Robert Moses and his proposed Manhattan freeways locally in fighting