 |
||
 Jan. 11, 2008 | Vol 6, No. 23 |
||
|
|
||
|
In This Issue: – Oil & Water – The Superblock Lives. Unfortunately. Climate change, which brings the need to recalibrate the carbon cycle that accelerates that change, has reinforced those visions. Indeed this unpredictable future leads us to consider our use of two critical and driving resources: Oil and Water. How do we most effectively adapt to the finite nature of these resources while maintaining economic competitiveness? This spring, leaders from the metropolitan region and beyond will explore this question at RPA’s 18th annual Regional Assembly on April 18th at the Waldorf=Astoria. As the presidential election looms on the horizon, discussing pressing topics of national significance in our region can help lay the groundwork for an enlightened vision of sustainability both regionally and nationally. The truth is, we must adapt. We must take steps to protect regional resources like water, while building a new economy less reliant on resources from outside of the region - namely, oil. Such opportunities are abundant in the region and critical to explore. While we live in a water-rich region, scientists project that rising summer temperatures associated with climate change, coupled with little change in summer rainfall and a smaller snow pack, will increase the frequency of short-term (1-3 month) droughts. With over 21 million residents demanding around 1.5 billion gallons of water per day, ensuring adequate protection of water supply for a growing population must be a priority. The sources of our clean water include large region-shaping landscapes including the New York/New Jersey Highlands and the Catskill Mountains. The imperative to conserve natural resources in these landscapes has spawned national models for regional planning and landscape preservation. To ensure clean and bountiful supplies of water into the future, these models need to be evaluated for their successes and shortcomings as development pressures increase around them. Our region – and our entire nation – is at the end of the era of cheap oil, say many analysts. In the meantime, we find we rely on energy and mobility systems designed for $10-a-barrel oil that now costs 10 times that amount. Moving away from oil dependence, and meeting our greenhouse gas emission goals, will mean encouraging more energy efficient communities. This in turn will affect everything from the design of our transportation systems to the design of our streets. At the heart of this shift towards sustainability will be a new “green collar” economy that embraces clean energy innovation, creates new jobs in urban centers and builds green buildings. We look forward to exploring these issues in-depth at this year’s Regional Assembly, “Oil & Water.” Be sure to mark you calendars for April 18th, and come help us address these critical issues. A downloadable and distributable save-the-date card can be found here. Anne from Brooklyn noted the section of Lexington between 57th and 60th was, "so narrow that pedestrians walking in opposite directions have to squeeze by each other. There is the constant din of trucks and cars. In addition, that area desperately needs seating, greenery, and places to get a quick snack or cup of coffee." She went on to say, "Imagine how much more money New Yorkers and visitors would spend (and how much more fun they would have) if Lexington Avenue was designated for people instead of cars." This was a running theme in our responses: how business should be interested in exploring increasing foot traffic. More than one respondent was bullish about closing larger parts of Broadway entirely. Paul offered, "Broadway from Columbus Circle (or at least 49th Street and 42nd Street from Lexington Ave. to 8th Ave.) should be a Midtown pedestrian-only zone. Broadway is an oddball in the Manhattan grid, while 42nd St. could be a transit way, bus only (no cars or taxis) or even (gasp!) light rail." Others targeted the section of Broadway from Houston to Canal as "horrendous" and "inhumane," a judgment with which I personally agree. After seeing someone knocked off a curb into Prince Street traffic three weeks ago, I question the use of cars there as well. Another Brooklyn reader, Ursula, said, "the need to close narrow Montague Street, the main shopping street in Brooklyn Heights, is particularly acute. Traffic flow along the entire length of the street is impeded more often than not." She guessed that "restaurateurs would lick their fingers and be the first to take the opportunity to expand their outdoor cafes and restaurants and thereby create a welcoming ambience." Other responders questioned why some streets had been previously closed in other cities and were now reopened to traffic. "While I lived in Chicago,” said a reader named Bruce, “State Street was converted from a pedestrian-bus-cab street back to all traffic after 18 years or so. I would encourage research as to why the transfer back." Following Bruce’s suggestion, we looked into this and discovered State Street was closed from 1979 to 1996 and reopened to private car traffic by the Chicago Department of Planning’s State Street Redevelopment Project. At that time, sidewalks were narrowed from 44 to 22 feet, which was intended to bring foot traffic back towards the storefronts. Remembering back to my childhood in Los Angeles, we used to walk around Westwood Village on Friday and Saturday nights when it was closed to cars. Since then, it too has been shifted back to car traffic because of market forces. There are many other examples from around the country and world of pedestrianizing roadways. A good list can be found here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carfree_places). While some might think New York is far off from realizing any form of street pedestrianization, Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC initiative issues a mandate which directs City DOT to “reimagine the public realm.” This is happening, we’ve been told, and includes agency officials looking at the London model. So, maybe not so far off, after all. Thanks to our readers for their thoughtful responses. The Superblock Lives. Unfortunately. Jane Jacobs put a stake in its heart 47 years ago, with her convincing analysis that large blocks decrease street life and are less versatile than smaller blocks that provide a finer-grained network of connections. While her analysis was once a dissident point of view, it is now that of the establishment, at least in academic circles. Today it would be difficult to find a prominent urban designer that would speak in favor of the Superblock. It’s a relic, most urbanists say, a leftover of Modernist urban planning that celebrated separating uses, showcasing the car, and denigrating the old-fashioned street. So if that’s the case, why is the Superblock very much alive and well here in New York City and around the region when it comes to designing new projects? Let’s look at a few here in New York City, Jacob’s old stomping ground. One of the most prominent examples is the planned Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. The rail yards to be built upon now separate the neighborhoods of Prospect Heights and Fort Greene like a giant moat. But rather than extend some of the smaller streets in Fort Greene across the site and Atlantic Avenue, the current plans actually demaps a major roadway, Pacific Street. This helps create several superblocks, one of them particularly enormous. Connectivity will actually be reduced by the new development. The Hudson Yards Development on the Far West Side of Manhattan is still evolving and it’s far from clear what exactly will emerge there. But most of the proposed plans submitted by developers for the new area atop the West Side Rail Yards show towers set in parks or plazas. They seem more appropriate to an Edge City outside Dallas than in a dense urban city. Only the Brookfield plan, in its words, “honors the Manhattan street grid” by drawing several new streets across the site, and puts an emphasis on urban style buildings that front on streets. At the World Trade Center site, designers to their credit have made plans to reinsert Greenwich and Fulton as full streets, and have made pedestrian streets of Cortland and Dey Streets. But the resulting blocks are not comparable to the smaller blocks that once defined the area before the original Trade Center was constructed, nor is it entirely clear what will emerge from the planning and development process once complete. To be sure, there are physical and engineering obstacles that may make it more difficult to put through streets on some sites, such as the changes in elevation over the Hudson Yards. This is also not to say that all superblocks are bad. Columbia University’s Upper West Side campus on 116th Street is an example of one of the most successful superblocks of all time. It is both enclosed and yet open at the same time. It illustrates how specialized needs sometimes require superblocks. A large urban park like Bryant Park, for example, is a superblock, and we are better off for it. There have always been some “super blocks” in cities, even prior to the wide spread adoption of the grid system, for things like prisons, military installations or zoos. The problem comes when superblocks start being used for more conventional activities, like office buildings or residential apartments. In short, the superblock should be the exception, not the rule. Why do working developers haul out the superblock so quickly when designing current projects, despite its near death in academic circles? One partial answer is all the emphasis in the last few years on protecting against terrorism. Setbacks for more prominent buildings are often larger now, to allow for the placement of bollards and other protective measures. But there is a certain lack of logic here. After all, most New York City buildings do not have enormous setbacks from the street, so pushing that for newer buildings hardly deprives a terrorist of potential targets. A stronger explanation lies in finance and issues of political power, I’m convinced. Large concentrations of money affect development here disproportionately, and such large concentrations of money often favor having large concentrations of land to work with. While it may be a disservice to the city to have a large, island-like superblock – traffic flow is disrupted, walking and bicycling trips are made more difficult – to the developer, a superblock allows for wide floor plates and campus-like settings that would not otherwise be possible. And since the government sector is weak, large developers often end up doing what suits them first, not the public. One relatively easy way to promote the creation of fewer new superblocks is to make the promotion of a finer-grained street grid one of the specific criteria by which a project is judged when under development review. I sense this is not now the case. – Alex Marshall, Editor, Spotlight on the Region Questions or comments on what’s in this issue? Send them to the editor of Spotlight On The Region, Alex Marshall at alex@rpa.org
|
|
|
January 12 January 14 January 16 January 16 January 17 January 23 January 23 January 24 January 28 January 29 January 31 February 7 February 8 February 29 April 18 |
|
|
||
|
Spotlight on The Region A publication of Regional Plan Association, Robert Yaro, President / Alex Marshall, Senior Editor 212-253-2727, x360 alex@rpa.org www.rpa.org |
|
