And one of the places which least fits the bill is the very place they're trying to replicate: Silicon Valley, where the blocks are long, the population sparse, the buildings mostly from the last few decades, and the whole area ain't nothin' but high-tech.
Now I'd say that Silicon Valley succeeded despite its lousy geography rather than because of it (most people I know who work there hate it and commute from San Francisco) though there's one important exception: the sparse population means that big companies can build those huge campus-like HQs which you just couldn't do in a denser city.
Let me guess - Ms Jacobs wants to "encourage" those factors by various means.
What would the Portugese rather have, a "flourishing city area" or a job and technology producing area?
In other news, black families are leaving "flourishing cities" http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-08-10/bay-area/17121007_1_af... . See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%20flight .
In that, black families are like other families - http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/03/san-francisco-becomi... .
Some people prefer urban. However, a lot of people don't. The urbanists are merely one group who hasn't figured out that when an argument suggests/implies behavior that doesn't happen, the argument is wrong, no matter how appealing the proponents find the conclusion or proposals.
Jacobs' work directly contributed to the decline of the urban superblock (that mainstay of 1960s urbanism and blight on 21st century cities) and a rebirth of the mixed use development. The later is especially popular in inner suburbs going through phases of new growth looking for an antidote to their original strip-mall and subdevelopment plans (usually lack of plans).
All of which they could design in or design around without having to have old buildings, say.
But it sounds like they are designing for the administration of the city, not for the end users. I wouldn't want to live there for a few revisions at least...