She moved here (Canada) because she didn't want her sons to get drafted. Her husband was an architecht, and I think that Toronto was a place with lots of job possibilities.

I believed she lived in the Annex. I remember reading Life and Death of Great American Cities and absolutely being changed by it. I think that book is half the reason why I do so many of the things I do now. This city was lucky to have her.

Spacing Wire has her address in the comments section of their jacobs post.

http://spacing.ca/wire

ah, then there's joe. what would a large city be without its fair share of imbeciles? we should be proud he learned to operate a computer machine.

I live in the neighbourhood just a few blocks over from Jane Jacobs' house in The Annex.

Because a few of us got to speaking in front of her Albany Street home, we decided to begin a Book of Condolence where you can sign and leave messages or share some memories in person.

The book is at Dooney's cafe and the details are here:

http://www.JaneJacobs.TYO.ca

If you can't make it down in person, you can also leave messages online at the above website. Either way, your words will be forwarded the Jacobs' family.

As Jane told the CBC's Hana Gartner in 1997, she didn't say she wanted Canada to break up. She said that the question of whether Quebec should or should not separate is a question that should be fair to ask. She wasn't advocating for it one way or another; she said that it was up to the people of Quebec to decide. She also mentioned such relatively non-acrimonous separations such as Norway from Sweden and the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. In the book, I believe she posited that both Quebec and Canada would be economically stronger if Quebec were to separate -- although I haven't read it myself. Jane Jacobs may have been born in America, but she divorced herself from the USA in the 60s, much like Hurricane Carter who went on to found the Association for the Defense of the Wrongly Convicted. For everything she's done for urban thinking, in my books Jane Jacobs DID stand up for Canada.

Chris,

I saw the interview in question (or at least the part regarding Quebec separation), but I wasn’t sold on Jacobs’ answer.

It sounded to me (and keep in mind I haven’t read the book at issue) as if she was merely appeasing the English-Canadian audience.

By taking a stance on such issues as the economics of separation and, most importantly, the likely-hood of hostile sentiment between Canada and a theoretically sovereign Quebec, Jacobs was addressing two key, reoccurring issues of the sovereignty debate. It’d be one thing if she settled on making broad, feel-good statements such as ‘Quebec’s future is Quebec’s too decide’ and saying that the question is a fair one. Heck, I think most sane observers, federalist or sovereigntist, can agree on that. However it sounds to me as if Jacobs was doing more than that; it sounds to me as if she had jumped right into the heart of the debate. I mean really, who publishes a book on a single issue, yet in the process of writing that book fails to take a stance? Unless it’s a biographical work, I find it pretty unlikely.

Given this, I felt her comments were somewhat patronizing. If she wants to take a supportive stance on Quebec sovereignty, that’s fine. It may not be popular in English Canada, and on a personal level I may not like it, but I’d much rather she just be honest with us than to insult our intelligence by offering up the lame excuse that it’s not her place to decide Quebec’s future. Well duh! But that doesn’t mean you can’t take a stance. That’s like any Canadian who opposes Bush’s imperialistic policy saying that, despite their critique of the Bush administration, their argument actually doesn’t amount to a stance against the President since they aren’t an American citizen and have no right to determine the future direction of the country. Those of us in English Canada may not have a vote in any future referendum, but that doesn’t mean we can’t hold an opinion on the issue and take a stance. I think Jacobs knew this, but instead tried to avoid saying so in order (I suppose) to save face.

In this sense, on the issue of Quebec separation, I’d have to disagree with your statement – I don’t think she was standing up for Canada.

Also, going by your post, the examples she cites as proof that separation would not result in hostile relations aren’t convincing. What about examples that do prove hostile relations are possible? One example is the case of Singapore separating from Malaysia. As far as I know, this secession did result in hostile relations, and supposedly these relations did have an impact on the post-sovereignty economics of both countries.

I don’t know much about the cases she cites, but I’d also imagine there are issues at play in the case of Canada and Quebec that were not at play in the cases involving Norway and Sweden and Czechoslovakia. Specifically issues of national identity.

Because of Quebec’s integral role in the formation of Canadian confederation, as well as its geographical position in the middle of Canada (meaning its political separation would leave a huge hole in the middle of the Canadian map, bringing up serious questions of national legitimacy in the minds of Canadians and putting to rest more than a century of “from sea to sea” rhetoric) I think there’s the potential for feelings of ill-will and bitterness that might not have been present in the examples she cites.

Also important is the issue of the Clarity Act. Even today, the Federal government and the Quebec government can still not find common ground and this is evident in the constant sniping that goes on between the two, as recently as this year after Bosclair was elected leader of the PQ. Quebec doesn’t recognize Canada’s (read: the Clarity Act’s) authority in the area and Canada is hesitant to recognize the legitimacy any referendum question holds that does not abide by the Act. This issue has already bred bitterness, how can one say that it won’t have an effect on post-sovereignty relations?