Her books are not stocked by online booksellers in the UK, but they sell for a couple of quid second-hand on Amazon.co.uk...

The Guardian: Obituary: Jane Jacobs (April 28 2006)

Influential fantasies about the perfect urban settlement had aggregated in the US over the previous 75 years into the dominant planning concept that she mocked as the "Radiant Garden City Beautiful", RGCB. "Cataclysmic money" was spent razing extant if tatty inner city zones, with their diverse uses, their self-generated social and economic energy vibrating on crowded sidewalks. They were to be replaced with RGCB public projects, segregated by income (therefore by colour: Jacobs was a fierce civil rights activist), with dwelling towers soaring above ornamental planting; by isolated civic and cultural precincts; by shopping malls dominated by retail cartels; by car parks linked by expressways. Together, these would aggregate into the city as a work of art, the vision of heroic egotists in generational revolt against the 19th century.

Everything would be provided: Jacobs thought everything "was the worst thing we can provide" and cited a preacher's prophecy that there would be gnashing of teeth in hell. A child asked: "What if you don't have teeth?" "Teeth will be provided." "That's it," Jacobs said, "the spirit of the designed city: Teeth Will Be Provided for You."

...

Jacobs met her arch-enemy, New York City master-planner and builder Robert Moses, who overrode residents to obliterate entire districts for automobile access to Manhattan. She recalled him, in a fury at her attempt to thwart his grand designs, yelling, "There is nobody against this - NOBODY, NOBODY, NOBODY, but a bunch of ... a bunch of MOTHERS!" and stomping out. She protested against his expressway ambitions through the 1960s, and was arrested on charges of riot and criminal mischief. The Janeites won that battle, too; Roger Starr, NYC housing administrator, acknowledged that despite Jacobs's homespun manner, "What a dear, sweet character she isn't."

No excellent answer pops into my head, which means I have to look into it more deeply.

One might think that 70+ years after the emergence of a General Theory apparently adequate to the task of explaining a complex economy, and which, by extension, should serve as the foundation of computer based models of the economy, that the failure of the field of economics to provide such an updated theory says something fundamental about the nature of the discipline and the great majority of its practitioners---and that what it says is not flattering.

Three questions present themselves:

1.) Were an updated General Theory capable of making verifiable predictions about the international economy developed and written so that it stands alone, without requiring prior understanding of Keynes's General Theory, generally be used as a text for macroeconomics in undergraduate and graduate courses?   (i.e., would it be commercially viable?)

2.) Could such an updated General Theory be used, (or have such updated theories been used), to generate computer based economic models with significantly more predictive and explanatory power?

3.) If, as seems likely, both 1. & 2. could be done, what does the fact that they have not been done show?

Historian Christopher Hill, in describing the reluctance of the Puritans to execute Charles I, proposed that there had been a "mind stop" in place that made a necessary step unthinkable.  Is that what is happening here?  Would production of such a theory and creation of such a model make the author such a pariah that no one is willing to do it?

Just asking? :-)

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."