Jacobs’ prototypical
mixed-use neighborhood was remarkably well-suited to mixed use. As she looked from the window of her
Greenwich Village townhouse during the writing of “The Death and Life of Great
American Cities”, she gazed upon a setting that was a residential neighborhood
by day, with a good mixture of streetfront retail. In the evening, a convivial neighborhood bar defined
the neighborhood, with longshoremen unwinding after late shifts along the
nearby Hudson River and an early Bob Dylan doing occasional sets. It was an unusual confluence of uses and jobs
that few places can match.
But the fact
that Jacobs’ neighborhood was remarkable shouldn’t deter us from trying to
emulate it as best we can. Instead, we
seem to have forgotten that mixed use remains a desirable goal. Indeed, we seem to have forgotten what mixed
use even means. Instead, we often describe
a drivable suburban shopping center bundled with a small dental office as mixed
use. It’s emphatically not the mixed use of Jane
Jacobs.
A pair of
recent events reminded me of our growing lack of respect for the goal of mixed
use.
I’ve been involved
with a proposed mixed use project. With
a location near downtown and with residential units over streetfront retail, it
legitimately met the local standard for mixed use. But it only began to really feel like Jane Jacobs’
mixed use when the developer made two key decisions. He dedicated one of the buildings to senior
housing. And instead of paying the in
lieu fee for affordable housing, he decided to include affordable units within his
project, mingling them with the market rate units.
With those
two changes, the potential sidewalk life went way up. The market rates units were likely to create
an evening presence on the sidewalks. Seniors
were more likely to be out and about during the midday hours. And the affordable unit people were more
likely to work shifts other than eight-to-five, filling the sidewalks during
other parts of the day. Although seniors
plus affordable plus market rate wasn’t Jacobs’ original example, the developer
had created the potential for an effective mixed use setting. I was eager to see it come to fruition
However, the
unconventional nature of the project worked against it in the financial
market. With the recession in full
swing, the developer couldn’t secure construction funds. Potential investors were interested, but were
uncomfortable with the senior housing and affordable elements of the project.
Several
possible investors asked city hall about eliminating the senior living and the
affordable units. In a perfect world, I
would have expected the city planners to have looked for ways to preserve the
mixed use opportunities of the approved project, exploring alternatives that
would have motivated the investors to participate in the project while still
retaining the best aspects of the approved project.
Instead, the
planners assured the investors that the senior living and the affordable units
could be easily removed from the entitlements.
Presumably, the planners were trying to encourage immediate investment
in the community. But they were
effectively throwing away a potentially thriving mixed use neighborhood in
exchange for near-term construction dollars.
It was a trade that Jacobs would have denounced.
As it turned
out, even with the city’s surrender, funding remained difficult. The project remains unbuilt. It’s still possible that the initial vision
will be followed. But if that is to
happen, it will apparently need to be despite city hall rather than because of
it. And that’s a shame.
In a similar
story, I recently attended a public meeting at which a proposed project was
discussed. It was a nondescript project,
a medium-sized chain retail store with a second building of small offices for
rent. Few folks would be able to walk to
the project from their homes. It was a
prime example of drivable suburban development, although the project was more
the result of drivable suburbia than the cause.
When the
city planner described the project status to the committee, he noted that the
General Plan designation had to be changed from Business Park to Mixed Use
before entitlement. Think about
that. A project that has absolutely
nothing in common with the Jane Jacobs’ vision of mixed use must be designated
as mixed use in order to be approved. It
was proof that the zoning code and general plan had lost all sense of what should
be meant by mixed use.
And yet nobody
on the committee even blinked. The upside
down use of the term “mixed use” seemed to mean nothing to any of the committee
members.
To be fair
to the committee, their interest was only a peripheral element of the project,
not the entitlement process itself. But
the story nonetheless shows that the Jane Jacobs’ vision of mixed use, which
should be a guiding light in the 21st century land use world, has been lost. And that bothers me deeply.
There is a
little bit of good news on the mixed use front.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), in a move that is far too late
and still not enough, but at least in the right direction, has made FHA funding for mixed use buildings somewhat less
restrictive. After eighty years of
public policies that suppressed mixed use through the aptly-named “form follows
finance” mechanism, it’s a good change.
But much more is needed. Bob
Dylan would probably agree.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment