Robbie Whelan’s got a column in today’s Wall Street Journal on Brooklyn’s Fourth Avenue, which is something I’ve been thinking a lot about since I moved to Brooklyn earlier this year. If you don’t recall, last year the City Council passed a zoning amendment to require new residential developments on the transit-rich, pedestrian-unfriendly avenue in South Brooklyn to include a certain amount of ground-level retail, to appease the ghost of Jane Jacobs and to stop burning the souls of all who walk the avenue.
Robbie’s column is outwardly critical of the city (he blames “bad decisions by Amanda Burden’s City Planning Department”), but on another level, he’s just cheering on what DCP already did (“the city finally got wise and passed another zoning change last year”).
But walking down Fourth Avenue, and seeing all the vacant retail storefronts in apartment buildings sprinkled around the neighborhood from the last development cycle, it seems obvious that the real problem is a lack of demand, which Robbie derides as “the profit-above-all-else motive of some developers” (“some”…ha!).
Namely: the neighborhoods around Fourth Avenue are too auto-bound and not dense enough to support the retail and pedestrian traffic that would make Fourth Avenue a vibrant place. (The lots bordering Fourth Avenue may one day grow dense enough to support retail without the help of their side streets. But for now, only mid-rise development is allowed, so I don’t see Fourth Avenue being self-sustaining any time soon.)
Perhaps the biggest problem is the industrial zoning around the Gowanus Canal and Bay, a few avenues over from Fourth Avenue. Capital has replaced labor in U.S. non-service-sector jobs over the last century, and the only business that can take advantage of the zoning around Third Avenue are auto-oriented (manufacturers these days ship their goods by highways, not canals!). The “pedestrian shed” of Fourth Avenue retail is therefore limited on its west side to basically one avenue’s worth of housing.
And on both the east and west sides of Fourth Avenue, not only are the two- an three-story rowhomes relatively small, but they’re actually getting smaller! (…in terms of retail demand.) Two-story homes that used to hold six or eight people now only hold half that, and as gentrification gives way to aristocratization, the average number of people per house is only going to get smaller. There are a ton of streets that border on Fourth Avenue whose two-story, vinyl-covered homes would be ripe for redevelopment, but won’t be touched because of a planning mentality that refuses to look more than 100 feet past Fourth Avenue for solutions.
Furthermore, because the neighborhoods around Fourth Avenue are so sparsely populated and there’s less competition for street parking, it’s easier to keep a car, which many people in the neighborhood do. And rather than walk to Fourth Avenue and buy something in a store, they’re going to drive their Volvos to the new Whole Foods in Gowanus.
Essentially what the residents of South Brooklyn want – and what Robbie and the Department of City Planning think they can get – is all the amenities of density without the actual density. A handful of seven-story buildings on one street are simply not going to support the kind of vibrant retail that they want, and that Brooklyn deserves. Forcing developers to build retail that won’t rent in a neighborhood that continues to be auto-dominated isn’t going to change that.
Terrific analysis. I do see patches of life along 4th Avenue — as I drive past them on my way to and from Home Depot. They’re too far to be readily walkable from where we are, and there’s not enough of a “draw”. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg — we’ll happily walk that far to do something in Fort Greene, which has achieved critical mass in a way that 4th Avenue is quite far from doing.
Given the lifespan of buildings though, I think it would be shortsighted to allow the “blank faced parking garage” streetfront trend to continue, even if demand is not there yet. Because I do think that there will eventually be rezoning of the areas you indicate (in particular Gowanus). Because if that trend continues, there will _never_ be vibrant retail, even if the factors you cite change.
PART ONE (of three)
Interesting topic!
– – – – – – – – –
Stephen Smith wrote [added emphasis is mine – BH]:
If you don’t recall, last year the City Council passed a zoning amendment to require new residential developments on the transit-rich, pedestrian-unfriendly avenue in South Brooklyn to include a certain amount of ground-level retail, TO APPEASE THE GHOST OF JANE JACOBS . . . .
Benjamin Hemric writes:
While I realize that this may only be a casual remark, I think it’s important to note that in her writings Jane Jacobs, herself (as opposed to the mythical Jacobs) has often been against impractical theoretical “improvements” (even those that might seem to be inspired by her writings) when such “improvements” would be before their time – and thus impractical and/or counterproductive.
Off hand, I don’t remember particular instances with regard to mixed uses – what comes immediately to mind are passages where she cautions against pedestrianization where it isn’t useful. But, generally speaking, Jacobs wrote that urban districts are usually healthier if they ALLOW (not mandate) a mix of uses – AND this mix of uses does not only include a mix of retail with residential but, more controversially, a mix of commercial and industrial uses with residential use, as well.
– – – – – – – – – –
Stephen Smith wrote:
But walking down Fourth Avenue, and seeing all the vacant retail storefronts in apartment buildings sprinkled around the neighborhood from the last development cycle, it seems obvious that the real problem is a lack of demand . . . the neighborhoods around Fourth Avenue are too auto-bound and not dense enough to support the retail and pedestrian traffic that would make Fourth Avenue a vibrant place.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
If I remember correctly from what I read about this zoning change last year, not only is it impractical (i.e., incapable of fostering the kind of development it wants to foster, since the district lacks the appropriate density) but, by forbidding certain street-level uses (e.g., street-level parking and residential atriums) and mandating other street-level uses (e.g., retail), it may also be discouraging new construction, “organic” development, and the kind of density that would eventually make such retail practical.
(To be continued.)
Benjamin Hemric
Tues., June 19, 2012, 5:00 p.m.
PART TWO (of three)
Stephen Smith writes:
Perhaps the biggest problem is the industrial zoning around the Gowanus Canal and Bay, a few avenues over from Fourth Avenue. Capital has replaced labor in U.S. non-service-sector jobs over the last century, and the only business that can take advantage of the zoning around Third Avenue are auto-oriented (manufacturers these days ship their goods by highways, not canals!). The “pedestrian shed” of Fourth Avenue retail is therefore limited on its west side to basically one avenue’s worth of housing.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
If I understand this comment correctly (and perhaps I don’t), it should be pointed out that commercial and industrial uses can also be beneficial components of mixed use districts. (This is especially true, obviously, when the commercial and industrial uses are dense, but even less dense commercial and industrial uses can be beneficial.) So the problem might not be zoning for non-residential uses per se, but rather “single-use” zoning that is limited to a too narrow type of commercial / industrial use, and which thus strait jackets and discourages development that would be beneficial down the road, but which doesn’t fit into the planner’s mindset of good uses.
– – – – – –
Stephen Smith writes:
And on both the east and west sides of Fourth Avenue, not only are the two- and three-story rowhomes relatively small, but they’re actually getting smaller! (…in terms of retail demand.) Two-story homes that used to hold six or eight people now only hold half that, and as gentrification gives way to aristocratization, the average number of people per house is only going to get smaller.
writes:
Good point! An interesting illustration, I think, is the South Village in Manhattan. When it was an Italian “slum” teaming with people, there was plenty of retail. As the area became “unslummed” and less dense, a lot of the retail died out (with many storefronts used as apartments, for storage or otherwise underutilized).
But, then again, if an area becomes VERY affluent, it can support healthy retail even at low densities. I don’t say this is a good thing to aim for, especially since denser development can do the same thing and more, but it should be noted that it is possible.
(To be continued.)
Benjamin Hemric
Tues., June 19, 2012, 5:05 p.m.
PART THREE
Stephen Smith wrote:
There are a ton of streets that border on Fourth Avenue whose two-story, vinyl-covered homes would be ripe for redevelopment, but won’t be touched because of a planning mentality that refuses to look more than 100 feet past Fourth Avenue for solutions.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
Possibly another good example of the problems with orthodox micro “planning” – sometimes beneficial development is forbidden because it doesn’t fit into the micro planning mindset.
– – – – – – –
Stephen Smith wrote:
Furthermore, because the neighborhoods around Fourth Avenue are so sparsely populated and there’s less competition for street parking, it’s easier to keep a car, which many people in the neighborhood do. And rather than walk to Fourth Avenue and buy something in a store, they’re going to drive their Volvos to the new Whole Foods in Gowanus.
Benjamin Hemric writes:
This is a good illustration of what life is like in the “outer boroughs” (or similar areas in other cities) – where it is not only easier to own a car, but where car ownership is often “necessary” for a decent life style. (Jane Jacobs writes about a similar area in Baltimore.)
In such areas, market based densification could (at least in the short run) make car ownership more difficult. But if done “properly” (along the lines suggested by Jane Jacobs), it also would (particularly in the long run) make car ownership less necessary – and provide other benefits to the health of the district (and the City) as well.
(End.)
Benjamin Hemric
Tues., June 19, 2012, 5:10 p.m.
if an area becomes VERY affluent, it can support healthy retail even at low densities.
I have a hard time thinking of an example. Do you have any?
A few examples come to my mind — some are “classic” low density areas and some are “relative” low density areas:
The first example (likely “numerous” examples across the county) are very affluent low density auto-centric suburbs where there are high-end restaurants, high-end retail, interesting specialty stores, etc. Perhaps, Great Neck, New York, might be a good example.
Less “classic” examples are those urban areas which are relatively low density and used to be poor retail environments, but are now vibrant retail areas — without a significant upward change in density (and perhaps even with a downward change).
One example is the far north end of Bleecker St. in Greenwich Village (and also the nearby stretch of W. 4th St.) — where the density is pretty low by Greenwich Village standards. In the 1960s, this part of Bleecker St. had noticeably weak retail — the stores that were there were “backwater” type stores and storefronts were often empty (or converted to apartments) and there was high turnover. Now, it’s unbelievable — very high end retail, etc. In the interval of time, the area didn’t get significantly denser (and may even have become less dense), but the area became more affluent.
Other less “classic” examples are a number of relatively low density brownstone areas of Brooklyn which at one time had weak retail (e.g., could support only a narrow variety of stores, etc.), but can now support a variety of stores, including high-end restaurants, boutiques, etc. Thirty, twenty years ago, the retail was pretty weak, now the retail is pretty strong. What happened in between? Again there didn’t seem to be a significant upward change in density, and there could very well have been a downward change – but mostly the wealth of the population changed.
Benjamin Hemric
Wed., June 20, 2012, 9:10 a.m.
Exactly. The key piece here (and a legit use of zoning powers for building form purposes, I would add) is to ensure that retail uses are possible in the future. To do that, the space needs to be designed in a way that’s conducive to retail – level grade with the sidewalk, etc.
The key is in providing that space that’s available for conversion, but also allowing more flexibility in use at present.
The problem with this is that cars are already not necessary for the kind of living standards Jacobs was imagining. Neighborhood kvetchers are rarely concerned with their retail access options or what not; they’re concerned with class status. Jacobs-style planning tells people, “Calm down, letting in people who are not like you is not going to kill you.” Now go convince the average person with power to part with that power.
Alon Levy wrote [additional text within brackets is mine — BH]:
The problem with this [I’m not sure what “this” refers to] is that cars are already not necessary for the kind of living standards Jacobs was imagining. Neighborhood kvetchers . . . .
Benjamin Hemric writes:
Hi Alon! I’m not sure I understand your comment, but I suspect that you’ve misunderstood mine.
In “Death and Life . . . ” Jacobs discusses many “failed” urban neighborhoods — neighborhoods that suffer from the “great blight of dullness,” particularly lthose in a city’s “grey belt.” Within this context she talks about the “failed” neighborhood of her friend Penny Kostrinsky — why it’s a failure and various manifestations of its being a failure.
And one of the things she says ( in the Chapter, “Erosion of Cities or Attrition of Automobiles,” pgs. 464-465 of Modern Library edition) is this [added text and added emphasis is mine — BH]:
Much the same need, both for automobiles as a constant necessity and for duplicated parking, can occur in cities where conditions for city diversity — including sufficiently high densities — are lacking. “I am the one who commutes in this family,” explains my friend Mrs. Kostritsky. The Kostritskys live in inner Baltimore, where they are close to Mr. Kostrisky’s work. But his wife, using a car (nothing elese is practical), must “commute” to get her children to school, to do any shopping more extensive than that involving a loaf of bread, a can of soup and a head of withered lettuce, to use a library, to see a show, to attend meetings; and, like any mother already out in the suburbs, this ininer-city mother too must drive to a suburban shoppingcengter to buy childfren’s clothing. Not only are there no such stores near her home, but the downtown stores no longer have enough demand to carry a good range of children’s clothing. [In 1961!] . . . The district’s thinness, moreover, cannot justify tolerable public transportation, either within the district itself or to other parts of the city, and this would be so whether or not automobiles existed.
Such city districts are like suburbs in requiring constant automobile use . . .
Benjamin Hemric
Wed., June 20, 2012, 10:40 p.m.
JANE JACOBS ON FOURTH AVENUE IN BKLYN IN 2012 (OR BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, CIRCA 1961)?
While searching for the quote about the necessity of cars in neighborhoods that suffer from the “Great Blight of Dullness,” I ran across a nice quote that could almost be Jacobs’ comment on the original subject of this thread — and one that helps illustrate the idea that the City’s rezoning of Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn does not “appease the ghost of Jane Jacobs” but rather ignores it and (unintentionally) patronizes and insults it, instead. Admittedly, it’s not a silver bullet quote — Jacobs writing is too indirect and diffuse for that. But I think when one reads the whole chapter and the whole book, one gets quite a few examples of Jacobs dismissing impractical applications of her ideas.
This quote is from pages 188-189 (Modern Library Edition) of “Death and Life of Great American Cities” (Chapter 7, “The Generators of Diversity”):
“A mixture of uses, if it is to be sufficiently complex to sustain city safety, public contact and cross-use, needs an enormous diversity of ingredients. So the first question — and I think by far the most important question — about planning cities is this: How can cities generate enough mixture among uses — enough diversity — throughout enough of their territories, to sustain their own civilization?
It is all very well to castigate the Great Blight of Dullness and to understand why it is destructive to city life, but in itself this does not get us far . . . consider the problem posed by the street with the pretty sidewalk park in Baltimore. My friend from the street, Mrs. Kostritsky, is quite right when she reasons that it needs some commerce for its users’ convenience . . . .
But having said this, then what? The missing diversity, convenience, interest and vitality do not spring forth because the area needs their benefits. Anybody who started a retail enterprise here, for example, would be stupid. He could not make a living. To wish a vital urban life might somehow spring up here is to play with daydreams. The place is an economic desert.”
Benjamin Hemric
Thurs., June 21, 2012, 10:20 p.m.
Stephen, I don’t know which section of 4th Avenue you’re talking about. The low-density side streets you describe are mostly south of 9th Street. But the northern end of 4th Avenue, between Flatbush and approximately 5th Street, is where most of the first wave of redevelopment, after the first rezoning, occurred. (This includes the hideously anti-pedestrian, but very nice inside, Hotel Le Bleu, the Novo, and a few even less distinguished buildings.) Though almost no ground-floor retail space was built in the first wave of condos, I noticed something happen almost at the same time as the rezoning: a trickle, then a stream of new businesses started opening. These include some great bars, two taco joints (one hip, one cheap), and a smattering of upscale bodegas and coffee-and-sandwich delis. This is one reason that DCP (and the Park Slope Civic Council) were so keen to require ground-floor retail.
What do these businesses have in common? They’re all in old, medium-density buildings with small retail spaces. This makes sense; they’re the first new stores on this part of 4th Ave in a long time, and it makes sense to start small. The big new spaces in the newly mandated ground-floor spaces in new buildings will eventually fill up with drugstores, discount wine supermarkets, and other places that Brooklynites can’t help but shop at. Maybe even some large restaurants, which are rare in Brooklyn. 4th will find its niche.
4th Avenue has a subway line, fairly high residential density (with 3-4 story rowhouses on both adjoining side streets, in this northern section), new condos, and not much ground-floor retail space. (Most of the old stores were converted to residential use when it went downhill as a retail corridor sometime last century.)
As for the South Slope and Sunset Park sections you describe? I’m sure they will eventually command Gowanus-level rents, and generate enough demand for denser apartment buildings, but for now even the side-streets (south of the rezoned area) are built at considerably lower density than existing zoning allows. The fact that development hasn’t leapfrogged down to Sunset Park means that DCP did the right thing: they channelled development into the underbuilt 4th Avenue corridor without threatening the stable neighborhood life of the side streets.