Urbanists
promptly weighed in with their thoughts on the plan,
offering cogent analyses of the strengths and weaknesses.
I find myself
holding an opinion that is contrary to both sides. Regardless of the planning issues, regardless
of the foreign capital, regardless of the jobs and economic activity that the
project would create, I hope the project goes away. My reason is that it’s a monolithic project.
Jane Jacobs
argued that cities should be fine-grained, by which she meant that development
should occur in small, discrete chunks, constructed by different developers for
different uses using different architects at different times. One of her primary arguments is that a
neighborhood needs a supply of older buildings with lower rents to act as
incubator space for new businesses.
There are
other arguments that can be added to hers.
A friend recently wrote that he and his wife had chosen a fine-grained
residential neighborhood (which usually means pre-World War II) because they hoped
it would lead to a heterogeneous group of neighbors. Their expectation was met.
I’ve often
made the argument that a fine-grained neighborhood encourages
reinvestment. At a residential level, consider
a homeowner who lives in a housing tract from the 2000s and who wishes to
remodel his kitchen. He’d better enjoy
cooking because it’ll be hard to capture the value of a remodel when his resale
competes directly with nearly identical homes up and down the street.
But put the
homeowner in a fine-grained neighborhood where the homes are all different, and
it will be easier to recapture the value of the remodel. The fine-grained neighborhood encourages
reinvestment and continual revitalization.
And now we
have a further reason to support Jacobs’ theory. Eric Jaffe of Atlantic Cities reports that Duke sociologist Katherine King
studied Chicago neighborhoods to find if a fine-grained development pattern improved
the social ties in the neighborhood.
Interestingly, she inverted my friend’s assumption about a fine-grained
neighborhood leading to a heterogeneous group of residents. She used age diversity as a proxy for
fine-grained development.
King found what
Jacobs would have expected fifty years ago.
Fine-grained development, as represented by age diversity, leads to
stronger social ties.
Which brings
us back to Brooklyn Basin. I’m
supportive of developing the site as a mixed-use project. But under the current planning concept, I
think the mostly likely results in fifty years are “gracefully aging but
economically stagnant neighborhood” or “slum”.
Neither is acceptable. But the
uniform, undifferentiated nature of the plan will constrain the possibilities
for adjusted visions and reinvestment as the project ages. Plus it appears that it will also lack good
social ties.
To me, the
preferred fifty-year future is “economically active with constant reinvention
and new uses”. To achieve that goal
under a single developer is difficult and unusual. The better way to achieve it is to incorporate
multiple developers.
There are large
projects for a single developer is required to implement overall site planning
or infrastructure needs before allowing individual developers to tackle
individual parcels within the project.
The master developer concept works well for this situation and I would
have favored it for Brooklyn Basin.
But I also
understand why the master developer concept is infrequently used. Under the current land-use paradigm in which
more and more infrastructure is required while cities are less and less able to
participate in the infrastructure costs, a developer must often fully build-out
the site himself to recapture his infrastructure investment. It’s an unfortunate situation, but there’s no
obvious solution in sight.
And so
Brooklyn Basin moves ahead and we once again fail to leave to the next
generation what we should, land-use patterns that are conceived to regenerate
and to renew themselves for a century or more.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
(Note: Rendering is from Signature Development.)
On a recent tour of TOD sites, I got to see your point clearly: the unfortunate result of single large developer seems to be same/same/same appearance despite little changes in facades, colors, etc. Your analysis shows me why I was drawn to Petaluma many years ago: the residential heterogeneity, at least on the westside, is tremendously appealing, even beyond the rich aesthetics — a diversity of ages, incomes, lifestyles and ethnicity.
ReplyDeleteBarry, thanks for the comment. I think the key point on Petaluma isn't that it had a secret formula for heterogeneity, but that much of it, particularly on the westside as you note, was built pre-World War II. The pre-WW II land-use approach resulted in development that many of us find appealing today. Indeed, the core of urbanism is capturing the essence of that land-use paradigm and bringing into the 21st century.
Delete