You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘NYC’ category.
[I’ve been meaning to post this for months.]
During our group project for the CRP New York City workshop, we specifically studied the neighborhood around the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, an old industrial area around a historically-working waterfront, now becoming a mix of warehouse space, unfinished office and craft spaces, a few residential units (in addition to the large housing project on its edge), and an influx of creative activity like artists, performance venues, trendy bars, and randomly a Holiday Inn Express.
Being generally unfamiliar with New York City and very familiar with Chicago, it struck me that the Gowanus area looks and feels (perhaps smells) a lot like the Clybourn/Goose Island industrial corridor two miles northwest of the Loop. Both have a lot of old, messy industrial uses – some of which still exist, others which have left only brownfields – along a formerly working waterfront, in Clybourn’s case the Chicago River.
The forces of gentrification and redevelopment have been at work longer in Clybourn, however, perhaps in part because the river is not a heavily, notoriously polluted Superfund site. While Finkl Steel and a few others have held on in the area, by and large the area along North Avenue and Goose Island has flipped to become retail (and a bit of housing), especially home furnishings like Restoration Hardware, Design Within Reach, and Crate & Barrel. The two most buzzworthy developments were the flagship Whole Foods (May 2009) right along the river on Kingsbury, and the Apple Store and renovated Red Line stop (Winter 2010) at the edge of the industrial development.
Comparing aerial views of the two highlights their similar scale, location near a highway, and situation between two dense residential neighborhoods – Wicker Park and Lincoln Park in Chicago, Carroll Gardens/Boerum Hill and Park Slope in Brooklyn.
Clybourn Corridor and Goose Island, Chicago, view at 1000 ft
Gowanus Canal and Brooklyn, New York City, 1000 ft
More interesting than their shared history and layout, however, is their possibly shared future – specifically, the degree to which the changes in Clybourn portend how Gowanus will develop as the Superfund cleanup moves forward. Both already have a large Home Depot, both will soon have a large Whole Foods with several yuppie-friendly gimmicks: the Chicago store has a lovely riverside patio, a huge food court, and a demonstration kitchen which gets regular use. The Brooklyn store will have a rooftop garden for ultra-local produce, possibly waterfront access, and likely many WF amenities which are possible when building on such a large lot. Both also have a kayaking presence, though the Gowanus Dredgers certainly take on more risk than the rental places along the Chicago River!
While neither area had a large residential community per se, both were home to many industrial jobs, probably for over a century in both cases. And both have those who have some degree of fondness, or at least tolerance, for the messy, smelly, bustling, “wild west” they used to be. In Chicago’s case, the legacy of shady activity along Weed Street comes to mind; in Gowanus’ case, the area still struggles with some drug activity and prostitution, though probably not the “roving gangs of hookers and drug dealers” claimed to exist by one resident. The influx of trendy stores and office lofts represents real change, however, and what Clybourn is now, Gowanus likely will be.
What lessons for Gowanus can be drawn from Clybourn?
First, that change is inevitable – even its reputation as one of the most polluted sites in America will, with the help of the federal cleanup, likely not stop development in the long run. The recession has slowed development city-wide, but New York is an aggressive real estate market, to put it mildly.
Second, that unless told otherwise, developers will probably bring big-box retail as the natural successor to large industrial spaces. While Clybourn is now cleaner and probably safer, it is not very walkable – big parking lots separate building from street, and North Avenue has narrow sidewalks and fast-moving cars (when they aren’t clogged with traffic). Given Gowanus’ proximity to dense and growing Brooklyn residential neighborhoods, more work should be done to make it a natural bridge between the two, not a barrier, by keeping some of the large-format stores from building replicas of what we have in the suburbs.
Third, that it is possible to keep some vestiges of the area’s past life, if only symbolic. Chicago recently finished restoring a small railroad bridge which connects North Avenue with Goose Island, now a pedestrian walking path (but with “Live Rail” signs, which I’m not sure actually mean anything). The Whole Foods and kayak rental places allow access to the water, but the height of the bank makes it clear that this is not another North Avenue Beach. The Goose Island brewery, Smith & Hawken, and several other stores occupy old industrial warehouses which have been retrofitted, though many of the retail buildings (and certainly the NoHo residential tower) are new. Although most of Gowanus’ old industrial buildings might not be worth saving for public health or financial reasons, keeping as much as possible of the old brick and stone buildings can at least maintain the area’s character, which is what has attracted much of the new activity in the first place.
The planner is, of course, going to conclude that Gowanus needs better planning. But in this case, and based on what has already happened along the Clybourn Corridor in Chicago, it seems to be true. Change will happen, and the area will likely not remain industrial, except perhaps at its south end toward the Gowanus Bay. Once the Canal itself becomes a water amenity rather than an environmental liability, it will become a desirable place to be; the large, underused lots are rare in New York and will become prime locations for suburban-style retail, unless more guidelines are put into place ahead of time to create denser, more walkable development which benefits the neighborhood. Taking the good aspects of Clybourn and learning from the bad, Gowanus can perhaps become the same, only better.
Gosh, it’s been a while and I’ve neglected this site (not least those food links I promised!). In honor of the new year, I decided to start by sprucing the page up with a fresher photo and a couple of other tweaks. I’ve also posted an updated resume on my About page, as I’m officially in the home stretch and graduating in May!
Please also note that I’ve added many new photos to my Flickr page, and will be adding more from my research trip this month. I’m currently in the writing stage of my capstone report, focusing on the relocation in 2000 of the Chicago South Water Market, now the Chicago International Produce Market, one of the few remaining wholesale produce market facilities in the U.S. I’ll post some cool history, interview tidbits, and other things as I work through the project this semester. And of course, photos of the market.
More to come soon. In the meantime, do you like the new header image? Below are the runners up, photos from Chicago and elsewhere I’ve seen in the past year. Should I have chosen a different one? Which one do you like best?
Header 1, "Urbs in Horto" (Chicago)
Header 2, "Times Square" (NYC)
Header 3, "Windows" (Chicago)
Header 4, "Long Island City" (NYC)
Header 5, "Getty Museum" (LA)
William H. Whyte is awesome.
His 1988 classic, City: Rediscovering the Center, is a big book with big ideas–he discusses everything from the use and user-friendly design of plazas to the history of zoning in New York City to the emergence of company campuses (PRE-Garreau’s Edge Cities!) to pretty much everything we think of as contemporary urban design issues.
After so many keen observations, insights, and pronouncements about property city form, however, he concludes with a little bit of self-awareness. Perhaps pointing out his own hubris is in fact a device which further contributes to it, but it is nevertheless an interesting statement on the role of the researcher in observing human behavior. The perception of objectivity breaks itself down.
Here’s the final page, and a neat way to end a book:
“Let me append a methodological note.
“I have tried to be objective in this book, but I must confess a bias. In comparing notes with fellow observers, I find that I share with them a secret vice: hubris.
“Observation is entrapping. It is like the scale models architects beguile you with; start lifting off the roofs and you gain the sense of power. So it is with the observation of a place: once you start making little maps of it, charting where people come and go, you begin to possess the place. You do not possess it, of course. The reality continues to exist quite independent of you or any thoughts you may project onto it. But you feel you possess it, and you can develop such a proprietary regard for it as to become pettily jealous if anyone else arrogates it.
“A further temptation beckons us. As time goes on, you become familiar with the rhythms of the various street encounters: 100 percent conversations, prolonged goodbye, reciprocal gestures, straight man and principal. Now you can predict how they are likely to develop and, by predicting them, get the sense that you are somehow causing them as well. They are your people out there. Sheer delusion, of course, but there is nothing so satisfying as to see them all out there on the street doing what you expect they should be doing.
“Three men on the corner are in a prolonged goodbye. One of them is slowly rocking back and forth on his heels. No one else is. At length, the man stops rocking back and forth. I chuckle to myself. I know that in a few moments another of the men will take up the rocking motion. Time passes. More time passes. No one budges. More time passes. At length, one of the men shifts his weight; slowly, he begins walking back and forth. I am very pleased with myself.”
William H. Whyte. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1988 (1991).
“City” is a noun.
A noun is a person, place, thing, or idea.
Which is a city?
Is it all of the above?
Consider the following, moving from the intimate to the abstract and back again.
The city is a person. Those who love cities most, or a particular city, will speak fondly (or bitterly) of their relationship with it. A familiar friend, an exciting object of desire, a partner in crime. Or a constant pest, a worst enemy, a bully or a flirt. Being in a new city therefore means becoming acquainted, learning who, not what, that city really is. A desire to see the city in its brighest colors, from its best side, to mutually impress.
Of Chicago, Carl Sandburg wrote: “Stormy, husky, brawling, / City of the Big Shoulders: / Come and show me another city with lifted head singing / so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning.” Chicago seems now to be that aging worker with an inferiority complex, “Second City,” second-best to its neighbor(s) to the East.
Of New York, the New York Times’ Christopher Solomon, on leaving the city, confessed “You are that red-haired girl who welcomed me here and then did not want me. And like her, I still love you, and even now I miss you.” LCD Soundsystem’s James Murphy sang “New York, I love you, but you’re bringing me down.” New York is famous for its ego and vitality, and is loved fiercely.
Does a city have a gender? What gender does your city have? If you can answer that question, maybe your city is a person.
The city is a place. Leaving the realm of relationships, a city becomes a place. A dot on a map, a place to call home, an environment in which to interact, a backdrop for life. Landmarks, wayfinding, and distances become the important descriptors by which the city is understood: origin, journey, destination.
Transit maps are especially good at placing a city: where am I? Where am I going? What path do I take? Bill Bryson wrote of the whimsical quality of the London Underground, including places like “Finster Bush” and “Swiss Cottage” which brought you to who knows what fairy-tale land. The city becomes not one place but many, a network of discrete destinations that may be measured as much in time as in geography.
When you leave your own city, it becomes even more “place-ified” to you. Answer the question: “Where are you from?” “I’m from here.” Or “I’m from another place.”
The city is a thing. Zoom out once more from emotional groundedness – the city becomes a thing, an entity, a unit of analysis. Social science research is especially good at this, poking and prodding at the city organism to study its systems, properties and functions from all angles. Census data and infrastructure diagrams render it inert for a moment in time, under glass for further study.
Those frustrated by politics may also reify the city, forgetting its council is a collection of people and instead referring to The City as its own autonomous entity. The City tows your car, raises your taxes, leaves you bus-less in the middle of the night. It becomes an it, a faceless opponent, an Other.
Ask yourself: it’s Christmas morning, the municipal offices are closed, and every single city official and employee is not coming in. Is there still something in City Hall?
The city is an idea. With this, we arrive at both the edge and the center: what is more abstract than an idea? Or more private?
Perhaps the city exists most of all in our own minds, our desperate attempt to make sense of its chaos and complexity. Thought of a city we know can trigger nostalgia, love, fear, sadness, a particular good or bad memory. T.S. Eliot wrote, of course, “And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time.” We create the city in our own minds, or perhaps even a new one every time.
Even more abstract is the very idea of “city” itself. How else would we know exactly what Petula Clark’s song “Downtown” means, and that Downtown could make us feel better? The word City, with no geographical referent, conjures a concept web of diversity, density, crowding, anonymity, loneliness, activity, happiness, culture, violence, enterprise, wealth, poverty, history and future.
For those of us who love cities, they always elude definition because they are all of these things.
I’m working on – or rather, not working on because I’m blogging – a paper about parking policy. In it I intend to talk a little bit about Columbus’ proposed zoning ordinance changes regarding required off-street parking, which is exciting. I also pulled a couple images from Google Earth for illustrative purpose, specifically one which shows how much of downtown Columbus is now parking lots.
From what I understand, Columbus underwent a great deal of urban renewal in the 50s and 60s, hence why most of the buildings are not that old and/or became surface parking lots. The result is that the center of Columbus, the capital of Ohio, one of the largest states in the Union, has a handful of skyscrapers surrounded by a bunch of parking lots.
You can’t really tell this from looking at the skyline from a distance on the ground, but it’s pretty visible in this Google aerial image (had to use the Flight Simulator to get a bird’s eye angle). Disclaimer: the 3D buildings, produced by the Planning Department, may not be a complete inventory of all the buildings downtown, so this image may be somewhat misleading in that it does not show all the buildings at their proper height. Nevertheless, the images of parked cars on so many of the properties makes it pretty clear that it’s almost all parking lot once you go a few streets east (bottom-right) of the river. I annotated the map with some key landmarks and an approximate outline of all the parking lots I could see (red lines):
Downtown Columbus: Parking Galore (Source: Google Earth, 2010)
And I checked the approximate area of downtown Columbus – the section pictured is roughly a square mile (maybe more to the north and south). Think how much fits in a square mile in New York. Or Chicago. The Loop, strictly speaking (within and immediately surrounding the El tracks), pretty much fits in less than a square mile.
Well, at least Columbus has plenty of parking.
I had to write a short memo summing of this week’s readings in my Transportation Planning (really Economics) class … and I thought the result was a couple of pretty good points and questions about how to look at driving in the U.S. So I decided to recycle it here.
The readings are only casually cited (though I added footnotes), but they aren’t the main focus anyway. I also added live links for the freely-available online content.
Memo: Does the Car Pay Its Way?
February 19, 2010
Driving is too cheap, and the current system externalizes many of its costs. New technology and pricing policies may help quantify these costs, making drivers more aware of their decisions’ economic impacts. New strategies are being tested in London and other cities, but it remains to be seen whether they make feasible or effective transportation improvements.
Overview
Car ownership is ultimately a consumer choice, not a right. This fact remains, despite growing indications that our land use choices have made the car a necessity for most American households. Because it is a choice, we may think of it as a commodity, purchased and consumed at certain costs [1]. It is difficult, however, for either a transportation expert or the average driver to accurately calculate those costs. Cars require an extensive infrastructure network to function: roads, parking, gas stations, and repair shops. Some costs, such as fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, are directly related to per-mile usage. Others, most notably congestion, are generated by intensity of use in certain places at certain times. Time lost sitting in traffic is a problem to which every driver on the road contributes.
These costs are generally externalized, not paid upfront for each trip. This encourages over-usage of the commodity and leaves many social, environmental, and other costs unpaid. Transportation policymakers therefore face the difficult task of quantifying external costs, then allocating the burden accurately and fairly on those responsible. As Kenneth Small suggests, pricing would make drivers more aware of and accountable for their behavior, which may in turn reduce driving and perhaps channel some people toward other modes of transportation [2]. Having fewer cars on the road, it is argued, has environmental benefits (less pollution), economic benefits (less congestion and lost time), and social benefits (more leisure time, less car traffic on city streets, and more trips made by walking or public transit). All of these factors may improve quality of life in a community, as noted in the PlaNYC Transportation section, by lessening the car’s dominance in the everyday lives of drivers and non-drivers alike [3].
Proposed Strategies
Solutions to the problem of underpriced automobile usage may be grouped into two general categories: (1) better pricing of individual drivers’ trips, and (2) new technologies which make vehicles more fuel-efficient, more accurately tracks car usage, and creates intelligent road infrastructure to manage traffic demand and performance [4]. These strategies notably intersect in getting accurate micro-level data about each driver in order to quantify the cost of individual trips. While neither can be pursued in isolation, we may briefly consider the demonstrated and proposed effects of each strategy, and whether it furthers the goal of improving our collective quality of life.
Strategy 1: Better Pricing
As technology (see below) makes driving behavior easier to measure and road access easier to control, it is increasingly possible to implement sophisticated pricing policies. These may include: automatic tolling, peak-demand fees in city centers, insurance fees based on VMT, or fee structures based on vehicle type and efficiency [1]. London is a prominent example of congestion pricing, using cameras and an easy payment system to enforce charging a daily fee for most vehicles that enter the city’s central zone [5]. Based on the success of this program, New York City proposed a similar policy for vehicle commuters into central Manhattan, arguing that this fee would help fund public transit improvements and provide a disincentive to drive, reducing congestion for those who still choose to do so [3]. Political opposition defeated the proposal, and the program was not implemented.
Pros:
- Per-car or per-trip pricing internalizes the cost of driving for individual drivers.
- If the price of driving increases to approach its real cost, people will re-calculate the cost of their behavior and, in theory, may choose other modes or forgo discretionary trips.
- Reducing congestion through pricing will improve the experience for drivers who remain on the road, accruing further benefits of re-gained time and fuel efficiency.
Cons:
- The technology investment required to enforce this system offsets some of its revenue.
- Depending on the price structure, the new fees may unfairly burden some drivers—those who must drive from home to work, and those whose income barely meets cost of living.
- If not implemented properly, people may shift to non-priced routes and create new congestion problems elsewhere.
Strategy 2: Better Technology
Time and again, we repeat the mantra that “technology will save the world,” with optimism evident in two articles entitled “Highway of the Future,” published in 1938 [6] and 2006 [7]. Self-driving cars, for example, would increase road capacity by allowing cars to travel closer together, and would have quicker reaction times in avoiding accidents. The repetition of ideas in both articles, however, clearly indicates that the availability of these technologies, if and when they are ever available, is not enough to induce real change. Widespread investment, adoption, and collaboration with transportation policy are required for these technologies to be useful.
Pros:
- Innovative uses of GPS tracking systems and “smart” highway and street grids will help policymakers better quantify drivers’ behavior and fine-tune pricing structures.
- More efficient engines and cleaner fuel can reduce vehicles’ environmental impact.
- Improving technology that reinforces consumer preferences may produce more immediate, politically feasible, and effective results than attempts to change behavior.
Cons:
- Relying on technological improvements to vehicles reinforces the existing separation in drivers’ consciousness between the price and actual cost of their choices.
- New technology requires significant investment, both in innovation and adoption, by private firms and individuals. It cannot simply be mandated by policymakers.
- Technology alone has never been sufficient to make large-scale improvements; it is only successful in the context of cultural adoption and change.
Further Questions
1) Can we pay and/or innovate our way toward more a sustainable transportation system?
2) Automobile usage is an underpriced commodity, but many of its costs are difficult to determine per driver. How can we ensure that drivers pay the true price of their choice to drive?
References
[1] Stephen J. Dubner and Steven Levitt, “Not So Free Ride,” Freakonomics blog. New York Times, April 20, 2008.
[2] Kenneth A. Small, “The Real Costs of Transportation and Influence of Pricing Policies.” UCTC Working Paper, No. 187.
[3] PlaNYC, “Transportation.” City of New York Planning Department, April 2007.
[4] Susan Hanson and Genevieve Giuliano, eds., The Geography of Urban Transportation, 3rd ed. Guildford Press, 2004.
[5] Todd Litman, “London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, January 2006.
[6] E.W. Murtfeldt, “Highways of the Future.” Popular Science, May 1938. Reprinted on Modern Mechanix Blog.
[7] Jonathan Gromer and Logan Ward, “Highway of the Future: Interstate Intelligence.” Popular Mechanics, July 2006.
In going through my New York photos, I found a couple other shots worth posting.
The first is from across the tracks at Williamsburg’s Marcy Avenue station. An old man and a hipster waiting for the train.
Williamsburg, Marcy Avenue Station
The second is a view from the High Line, of new condos going up along the (river? harbor? whatever it’s called there?).
Sunset, from the High Line
Gotten a lot of photo mileage out of those three days … will post photos of other things soon, I promise!
The final installment of my NYC photos. It was especially hard to choose for this set, as it includes shots of Williamsburg/Brooklyn, the High Line, AND Central Park. I’ve chosen a mix of detail shots and, in the case of Central Park, some interesting pictures of actual people (rare for me, I know!) I encountered.
Back to writing soon. As well as a brief discussion of how to do easy and successful LEGO photography.
Elevated Train to Williamsburg
Williamsburg, Bicycle
Williamsburg, Art Studio
Williamsburg, Glass Mosaic
High Line Park
High Line Park
High Line Park
High Line Park
Central Park
Central Park, Dog Walker
Central Park, Fountain
Central Park
Central Park, Boats
Central Park
Central Park, Boat
Central Park, Ties for Sale
Central Park, Parenting
Park Avenue, French Defenses
Parade Woman
AHHHHH ITS DECEMBER ALREADY AHHHHHH
This would be less of an issue if I didn’t have, oh, all of the semester’s work to finish in about two weeks.
Plus, the snow is coming.
In honor of the fact that we won’t see these for a while….
Fall mums, Central Park
And speaking of Central Park – saw this plaque on a bench near one of the playgrounds on the southeast border (no idea what the cross street was). Yes, it’s that Madoff.
Saul Alpern bench, Central Park
Awkward!
On Saturday (last month) I spent a lot of time in Midtown Manhattan, seeing the big sites, and some smaller ones as well. More photos from the trip.
Plaster Detail, Manhattan
Graffiti, Manhattan
Hot Dog Vendor
Palm Room, Some Bar
Madison Avenue and 42nd Street
Grand Central Station
Grand Central Station
Grand Central Station
Buildings in Midtown
Times Square
Times Square
Vogue Covers
Chrysler Building, Lobby
Chrysler Building
City Forward 