by Robert Lane, Director, Regional Design Programs
If you look at the dense apartment buildings being constructed around the new light rail line in Charlotte, NC, the contrast between those buildings and the big suburban homes on large lots that are the modus operandi in the rest of Charlotte is startling.
Here in New York City, the contrasts aren't so great. Even out in Queens and Brooklyn, the townhouses and apartments built close to the subway line, say in Sunset Park, may be a bit denser than the duplexes and even single family homes a mile away, but the contrast does not leap out at you.
Nevertheless, the concept of developing specifically around transit lines with a set of coordinated land-use and development policies, something known as Transit Oriented Development, does have applicability in New York City. TOD, it's fair to say, is a hot concept right now in the rest of the country. It's been slow to be introduced here as a specific tool and vision, precisely because there was some uncertainty in whether it was needed. Isn't New York City already one big transit-oriented development?
In reality, the city has taken its massive transit system for granted. Much of the land use around our subway, bus and commuter rail system is of high density, but many stations are surrounded by vacant or underutilized land. Many valuable TOD concepts could in fact be applied in New York City, and they would help the city and region get even more value from its subway, bus and commuter rail system, the largest and best in the country. (Many of these policies fit in with Mayor Michael Bloomberg's PlaNYC, which is in part a kind of manifesto for an urban version of Transit Oriented Development.) Then again, urban TODs do require slightly different strategies and guidelines than their suburban counterparts.
Complete Communities
In Charlotte and other suburban cities, the development of "complete communities" around transit stops help make sure people can walk or bike to stores, offices, schools, churches and other destinations without needing to drive.
Urban TODs, by contrast, are usually more about amplifying the existing fabric, or filling in the gaps in the urban fabric, rather than creating one from scratch. In New York, City the half-mile radius around a subway stop that is often the benchmark for the geographic boundary of a TOD, will likely include areas that are already dense, already mixed-use, and already walkable. Making these areas more transit oriented means creating overlapping concentrations of activity and density, as well as inserting both highly individualistic and idiosyncratic patterns of urban fabric. Because urban TODs need to recognize and build on existing elements, the laws and regulations that govern urban TODs should allow for flexibility and varied approaches.
In places that are already relatively dense and include a mix of uses, new streetscape improvements and pedestrian connections may be all that needs to be built for a district to become a TOD. For example, the redesign of the open spaces around a "tower in the park" superblock housing project could increase the accessibility of a subway station not only for the housing project but for a larger neighborhood that thinks of the superblock as a barrier to transit. In another TOD location, a new park may have to be built to relieve significant amounts of new residential density. Yet another TOD location may need new mixed-use buildings that include live-work space or new retail on the ground floor.
Even in transit-oriented New York City, things have been done - or not done - that limit the potential of development around transit stops. TODs, for example, should always be designed and operated to maximize intermodal activity. This means that TODs should include bus stops that facilitate transfers, as well as bike-rental, bike-sharing and bike-parking facilities. In each case, the test should be not just how much residential density can be created around a station, but whether a complete neighborhood has been created.
From an implementation perspective, the city will need new tools. Borrowing primarily from the suburbs, the city could develop a TOD overlay zone. (There is a precedent in the city's Transit Land Use Special District, but this was written with a fairly narrow intent.) A more comprehensive TOD overlay zone would allow a density bonus calibrated to proximity to the station, and would be linked to station improvements and pedestrian amenities. It would also allow more flexibility in terms of uses, and reduce or eliminate off-street parking requirements. Right now, developers of apartment buildings a block from a subway stop have to provide the same amount of parking as a building without access to transit, a policy that is expensive and counter-productive.
One of the important themes in PlaNYC is the need to do more with what we have: by allowing school facilities to double as community facilities; by adapting outdated buildings to new uses; by finding co-locations for housing and government. A subtext to this theme is the need to think about mixed-use as being more than just stacking different uses in a single building; it's using the same buildings and spaces in different ways at different times of the day. In other words, it's "mixed-use" in time as well as space.
This concept of flexibility could include flexible live/work arrangements, such as even combining housing with clean, high-performance manufacturing and assembly. This has been done in cities in Europe, Canada and the United States.
Apartments could also be more easily subdivided or recombined - as they once were. Those once-large apartments in the classic pre-war buildings have often, over time, been cut up into smaller units, or more recently been recombined into larger homes again. Loft conversions have also demonstrated this kind of adaptability. Unfortunately, the way luxury high-rise apartment buildings constructed over the last twenty years makes it extremely difficult to subdivide or combine units. Small adjustments in building plans, particularly in the location of mechanical chases, could create flexibility for the future.
If flexibility is needed, then "performance-based zoning" may be the way to manage the complex patchwork of activities and building types that is the urban TOD. Performance-based zoning is based on outcomes, for example whether a place is "walkable," and this contrasts with standard zoning practice which is based on proscriptive lists of land uses and fixed standards for building form.
There are precedents for this type of performance-based zoning in New York City, including the "Quality Housing" regulations which allow architects and developers to find their own solutions to goals relating to better housing design. But in general, "performance" is narrowly conceived around measuring nuisances like noises and odors that are quantifiable, enabling what is basically administrative review.
Of course, with this flexibility comes a greatly increased administrative burden, especially if the performance issues become more complex and less quantitative, because someone has to judge whether the objectives are being met. As is also true with other goals the city has, New York will have to increase the staff capacity and tools of the City Planning Department.
(The author would like to acknowledge Ernest Hutton, FAICP Assoc AIA, Co-Chair of New York New Visions, for sharing his ideas. A more complete report by NYNV on this and other topics relating to PlaNYC is in process.)
@RegionalPlan