Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Year 2012

TRD: Bushwick is staying industrial – no residential rezoning for East Williamsburg!

The Real Deal says that Bushwick, a neighborhood on the L that’s seeing a lot of housing demand spill over from Williamsburg, is not getting a residential rezoning. TRD describes how the “sought-after northwestern area […] is zoned for manufacturing, so residential building is largely banned there,” but then buries the lede deep down: And while the city passed a high-profile rezoning for the Williamsburg and Greenpoint waterfront in 2005 — paving the way for high-density housing in formerly industrial sites — no such rezoning is on the horizon in Bushwick, the department of City Planning said. The North Brooklyn Industrial Business Zone, which encompasses a portion of Bushwick, was created in 2005 by Mayor Michael Bloomberg as “a sort of policy statement: ‘Hey, these are industrial and are currently used for manufacturing — and should stay that way,’?” explained Mitchell Korbey, head of the land-use department at law firm Herrick Feinstein. The Bloomberg administration has done a record number of rezonings, but sources said the mayor, along with Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz, wants to keep Bushwick’s zoning predominantly industrial to preserve the city’s manufacturing base. Dolgin, for example, said he recently sold a 46,000-square-foot parcel at McKibbon and Bogart streets for $4.37 million, and the site will be used as storage for scaffolds. In some southern portions of Bushwick, a mixed-use building can be redeveloped as residential, but a variance is required to do that in most of the popular East Williamsburg area, and they are rarely granted, Dolgin said. The article says that the SoHo loft law is occasionally being used to convert existing structures, and that hotels and hostels are being built since they’re allowed by zoning. Then again, Bloomberg’s rezoning days are over after the Midtown East upzoning, so his opinion on rezoning Bushwick isn’t […]

The High Cost of Free Parking Chapters 1-4

Here’s the first installation of Market Urbanism Book Club, covering the first four chapters of Donald Shoup’s The High Cost of Free Parking. If you’ve read the book previously or are reading along, please share your thoughts and questions in the comments. Chapter 1: Shoup outlines the unusual view that we take toward parking. Rather than assuming that demand for parking, like any other good, is a function of its price, urban planners typically assume that parking is a zero-price good and require building owners to provide enough parking to meet demand given a zero price. Imagine that this was the way we treated other goods… This Friday afternoon I’m thinking of a municipality that requires bars to provide their customers with as much beer as they’d like at a zero monetary cost. Shoup points out that of course we pay for the cost of all this parking, only drivers do not pay this price in their role as drivers. We pay for it as a tax on housing, retail goods, and in the form of lower wages as workers. Those who pay the highest tax are of course non-drivers. Some drivers are subsidized under this system with the highest subsidy going to drivers who make frequent, short car trips. He explains that off-street parking requirements developed as the demand for zero-price curb parking outpaced supply. This is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons. Because no one had property rights of street parking, it was overused. Rather than charging for this scarce resource, or allowing building owners to provide their customers with parking at profit-maximizing prices, city governments turned to regulations. Chapter 2: In this chapter, Shoup really gets to the core of the problems that government employees face when they try to provide consumer goods. Some […]

Randal O’Toole: “If you didn’t have those suburban restrictions, you wouldn’t have that pressure for density in DC”

Earlier today I posted the video of the Cato discussion on housing with Randal O’Toole, Ryan Avent, Adam Gordon, and Matt Yglesias, but I wanted to transcribe one segment towards the end. (Like I said, it’s hard to skip to the end of the streaming video because you can’t scroll beyond what’s already been downloaded.). For the last question, someone from the audience says he’s a fan of Randal’s who lives in DC, and asks Randal, and the rest of the panelists, what they about the recent calls to lift the city’s height limit in response to development pressures. Randal responds first: Well this is where I think the policy questions [and the difference between Randal and the other panelists] come in on density. I think we ‘ve got Maryland, which has all these restrictions on supposedly protecting agricultural land, we have Loudoun County and other counties in Virginia that have zoned most of their land for 20-acre large lot sizes, those have restricted the ability of people to live in single-family, to build new single-family homes in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. And so it’s created a pressure for more density in Washington, DC, but if you didn’t have those suburban restrictions, you wouldn’t have that pressure for density in Washington, DC. So I’d say, let’s get rid of the suburban restrictions, and then see if there really is a demand for high-density high-rise in Washington. If there really was a demand, there’s a lot of three-story buildings that could be redeveloped to be six and seven stories if you wanted to. Matt: “You’re not allowed to!” Ryan: “You should try to do that – if you can make it happen, then that would be a great profit opportunity.” Randal: “Well, I’ve seen streets of row houses here [in DC] […]

Market Urbanism vs. Market Suburbanism smackdown at Cato: “The Death and Life of Affordable Housing”

The debate you’ve been waiting for! Randal O’Toole, Matt Yglesias, Ryan Avent, and Adam Gordon participated yesterday in a discussion at the Cato Institute moderated by Diana Lind from Next American City/Forefront. (How had this never happened before??) Randal O’Toole did not disappoint, arriving in top form in his shoestring necktie and armed with a surprisingly interesting Powerpoint, but I think New Jersey-based attorney Adam Gordon stole the show with his discussion of inclusionary zoning and the Mt. Laurel doctrine (probably because he was on the only one on stage who hasn’t already spewed hundreds of thousands of words on the subject). You can download the 90-minute discussion as an MP3 from Cato (much easier to scroll through), or watch the video streaming:

APA California hints (strongly) at opposition to parking minimum reform bill

Minimum parking requirement reform bills have been floating around the California legislature for a while – last year it was AB 710, and this year it’s AB 904, both authored by East Bay Asm. Nancy Skinner. This email blast to members from the American Planning Association’s California chapter doesn’t take an official position and does ask at the end for input, but their feelings on the bill are kind of hard to miss (all emphasis theirs, edited slightly for clarity): AB 904 [.pdf], sponsored by the Infill Builder Association and authored again by Assembly Member Skinner, is a gut and amend that is now similar to AB 710 (Skinner). This bill requires restrictive parking standards similar to those included in AB 710, which you’ll recall died on the Senate floor at the end of last year. AB 904, in a different form, already passed the Assembly, and is now awaiting hearing in the Senate. APA California is not opposed to the concept of lower parking requirements near transit when a community decides it is right for them – the issue is that a one-sized-fits-all statewide standard is not appropriate. AB 904, on and after January 1, 2014, would prohibit a city or county (including charter cities) from requiring minimum parking requirements in transit-intensive areas greater than the following: • One parking space per 1000 square feet for nonresidential projects (including commercial, industrial, institutional, or any other nonresidential projects regardless of type of use). • One parking space per unit for non-income-restricted residential projects. • 75/100ths parking spaces per unit for projects that include both income restricted and non-income restricted units. • 5/10ths parking spaces per unit for units that are deed restricted at least 55 years to rents or prices affordable to persons and families making less than 60% of area […]

In Defense of Chicago

First of all, I should start out by saying that I’ve only ever been to Chicago once, and I really don’t remember anything but the inside of my aunt’s house. I remember asking them if there was good mass transit, and they said Metra is good, but the L, which is near them, is not something they’d ride. My aunt, who led the family, was a financial services executive in Chicago, but they moved to the Research Triangle in North Carolina when she went into tech/healthcare. I imagine just the people Aaron Renn has in mind when he wrote “The Second-Rate City?” for City Journal. That anecdote aside, I think Aaron Renn is being a little too hard on Chicago. I’m sure my view of the city unduly weights its land use and transportation policies, but I do think it’s got more potential than Aaron gives it credit for. A lot of his article is based on this grim demographic observation, which I admit, is hard to stomach: Begin with Chicago’s population decline during the 2000s, an exodus of more than 200,000 people that wiped out the previous decade’s gains. Of the 15 largest cities in the United States in 2010, Chicago was the only one that lost population; indeed, it suffered the second-highest total loss of any city, sandwiched between first-place Detroit and third-place, hurricane-wrecked New Orleans. While New York’s and L.A.’s populations clocked in at record highs in 2010, Chicago’s dropped to a level not seen since 1910. Chicago is also being “Europeanized,” with poorer minorities leaving the center of the city and forced to its inner suburbs: 175,000 of those 200,000 lost people were black. Poor minorities abandoning the center to wealthy whites, while it has a lot of unfortunate aspects, doesn’t seem to me to be an altogether bad […]

Photos and renderings of buildings going up across New York

In honor of my new home (as of this February), New York City, here are some new towers going up in Midtown Manhattan! All photos from (where else?) the SkyscraperCity forums…click for source. The first is the International Gem Tower in the Diamond District (which looks to me like textured steel rather than precious metals), then there are three recent shots of One57, a bright blue residential skyscraper going up on West 57th Street, and then there’re a few renderings of Rafael Viñoly’s skinny modernist 432 Park (Ave?). The Gem Tower and One57 are by Extell, and 423 Park is CIM/Harry Macklowe. All are as-of-right, I believe. Plus, a video of Christian Portzamparc talking about about One57. And here’s a bonus: an old rendering of Rafael Viñoly’s plans for Williamsburg’s old Domino Sugar site, which may by given life again now that Two Trees, creator of Dumbo, owns it. (Most definitely not as-of-right!)  

Montgomery County’s loss is Calgary’s gain: Rollin Stanley escapes from the coven to Canada

Not sure how this escaped me, but it seems that a few weeks ago, Rollin Stanley was announced as Calgary’s new chief planner. Rollin Stanley, you’ll recall, was the very vocal pro-urban growth planner in Maryland’s Montgomery County, north of Washington, DC, who resigned after these four sentences appeared in Bethesda Magazine: He has little patience with dissenters. Stanley goes so far as to accuse them of being “rich, white women…spreading fear.” He says they stalk his appearances before community groups, sowing discord. He claims they refer to themselves as “the coven.” Most Americans still don’t think of Calgary as a very urban place, but it’s been holding its own against Vancouver and Toronto lately when it comes to urbanism in Canada (which is generally much more advanced than urbanism in the US), even without true rapid transit (the C-Train, while impressive as light rail, still has to cross streets). Calgary’s skyline’s been booming, and as the Calgary Herald writes, the city also has an urbanist mayor: Stanley’s approach somewhat resembles that of Mayor Naheed Nenshi, and beyond his unconventionally frank yet also high-reaching rhetoric. Nenshi, too, deplores suburban sprawl and the financial challenges it brings for government, and praises more walkable districts and transit. While Nenshi avidly uses social-media site Twitter, Stanley blogs prolifically with long rhapsodies on everything from master plans and neighbourhood walkabouts to census data and criticism. Here’s his old Montgomery County blog – does anyone know if he’s keeping one in Calgary? Or if maybe we could lure him to Twitter? There appears to be a general political consensus – that thing Alon Levy’s always talking about – towards urbanism in Calgary, so Calgary will likely get good urbanism: While the developer sector in Calgary is well-organized, there’s not as professionalized and unified community movement against […]

Were NYU and Chelsea Market’s hotels just stalking horses?

An item from Crain’s NY Business, behind a paywall (I think?): Sacrificial hotels Two hotel developments in Manhattan were effectively killed last week. The City Planning Commission cut a proposed 190-room property from New York University‘s expansion plan, and Community Board 4 rejected Chelsea Market‘s proposal for a 12-story boutique hotel next to its historic building. That was no surprise to one insider, who suggested the hotels merely served as smoke screens to provide cover for controversial developments. “It seems like there’s a new strategy out there,” the source said. “Add a hotel to any large-scale development. And when the community comes running and screaming, you sacrifice it.”

Market Urbanism Book Club

I’m very excited that some of you expressed interest in doing a book club this summer. I think we should start with The High Cost of Free Parking. It’s the longer of the two books, but it looks like the relative beach read. I am thinking that what makes the most sense is for me to post some brief thoughts on sections of the book here on the blog that we can discuss in the comments. Other options for the book club would be doing a Google Group which is basically an email chain, or we could do a Google Hangout or Skype discussion live. Please let me know if you have strong preferences for one of these methods. Otherwise, I’ll plan to do a first post on the first four chapters of the book late next week.

Trending now

gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation
The Great American Streetcar Myth
O’Toole Under More Fire