...cities need people, okay?

So, after reading the two essays, I'd say both are saying that the people make or break an area. That's more obvious in "The Use of Sidewalks--Safety", but it shows up in the other one too. More on that later, though. In all the examples Jacobs brings up, the people who care for their neighborhood--and the people in it, friend or stranger--are the ones who win out in the end. Of course, she would put in the examples that support her point, because that's how people write, even while trying to be objective--which I think is impossible, but moving on. I've absorbed the idea that the more passion for something you have, the better it'll be, which probably can apply to streets too. Also, here it's the normal people who make the area good or bad. There's not much more beyond that; it's just examples, really.

For the other essay, it's the other way around. The government destroys the areas for people who can't fight back, but still it's people that do it, not say weather or happenstance. At least, they can't fight bac directly and have to resort to things such as this essay to devote people to the cause. This didn't get my attention as much as the other essay did, possibly because I don't know Atlanta. I've never seen the places mentioned, and I don't know the whole story--which the author almost certainly doesn't give--and coming up with an opinion might be a little risky.

Still, the design has something to do with it, to the extent that it attracts people who put an interest into the area. That's what needed first, but the people pick up from there.