I related to this particular post by Michael Lewyn at Planetizen, Why I fight:
Occasionally, someone familiar with my scholarship asks me: why do you care about walkability and sprawl and cities? Why is this cause more important to you than twenty other worthy causes you might be involved in?
The answer: Freedom.
Now, the article doesn’t discuss freedom from a property rights or free-market point of view, but from a mobility point of view. As a former “carless teenager” in suburbia (well, carless until 16), I can relate to that. I think my yearning for freedom is what sparked my interest in the city too.
Of course, some people equate driving to freedom. For some its walkability, transit, or silent star filled skies. Freedom means different things to everyone, and I found my freedom in the diverse experiences and opportunities only available in the city.
I still don’t know how to drive (though I’m a lot younger than you). At first it was a laziness thing (delayed gratification makes it easy to procrastinate – you don’t actually get to drive alone in PA until six months after you pass the test), but now it’s become sort of a matter of principle. That and there’s something eery about being a 20 degree wheel-turn away from death.
I still don’t know how to drive (though I’m a lot younger than you). At first it was a laziness thing (delayed gratification makes it easy to procrastinate – you don’t actually get to drive alone in PA until six months after you pass the test), but now it’s become sort of a matter of principle. That and there’s something eery about being a 20 degree wheel-turn away from death.
wow! Although, in the city I meet people all the time who never drove, it still shocks me. Growing up where I did, nobody didn’t drive…
wow! Although, in the city I meet people all the time who never drove, it still shocks me. Growing up where I did, nobody didn’t drive…
wow! Although, in the city I meet people all the time who never drove, it still shocks me. Growing up where I did, nobody didn’t drive…
wow! Although, in the city I meet people all the time who never drove, it still shocks me. Growing up where I did, nobody didn’t drive…
I grew up on the Main Line, suburbs of Philadelphia. The place had relatively good mass transit – the most used regional rail line in the Philadelphia metro region (which has one of the biggest suburban rail networks in America) ran through by my town, so you could get by without even having to negotiate buses (though they didn’t really run during the hours that a teenager would want to use them). But nevertheless, it was pretty rare to not know how to drive.
I grew up on the Main Line, suburbs of Philadelphia. The place had relatively good mass transit – the most used regional rail line in the Philadelphia metro region (which has one of the biggest suburban rail networks in America) ran through by my town, so you could get by without even having to negotiate buses (though they didn’t really run during the hours that a teenager would want to use them). But nevertheless, it was pretty rare to not know how to drive.
While everybody is entitled, of course, to his or her own reasons for being in favor of walkability, I don’t think one’s personal likes and dislikes is, in the long run, a really good reason for advocating for walkable cities. Such an approach makes the issues of walkable cities largely a matter of personal taste and essentially transforms the issue into a battle of the “culture wars” (“my taste is better than your taste”) where one side tries to impose its own preferences on others.
I prefer what I see as the Jane Jacobs approach instead. As I see it, although Jacobs herself, of course, preferred walkability, she advocated walkability for cities not merely because she preferred it but because she (correctly) saw that protecting and expanding the walkabilty of cities was the only practical way for cities to survive post WWII suburbanization and thrive once again (“Death and Life . . . “) — and that healthy cities are essentially for healthy economies (“Cities and the Wealth of Nations”) and even for healthy, resilient civilizations (“Stop: Dark Age Ahead”).
Jacobs, so it seems to me, was NOT against fishing villages, small agricultural towns, company towns, etc. — or even Garden Cities or non-walkable suburbs, per se. What she was against was the idea that such places could replace cities and that cities should try and emulate such places to become healthy once again (after post-WWII suburbanization).
While everybody is entitled, of course, to his or her own reasons for being in favor of walkability, I don’t think one’s personal likes and dislikes is, in the long run, a really good reason for advocating for walkable cities. Such an approach makes the issues of walkable cities largely a matter of personal taste and essentially transforms the issue into a battle of the “culture wars” (“my taste is better than your taste”) where one side tries to impose its own preferences on others.
I prefer what I see as the Jane Jacobs approach instead. As I see it, although Jacobs herself, of course, preferred walkability, she advocated walkability for cities not merely because she preferred it but because she (correctly) saw that protecting and expanding the walkabilty of cities was the only practical way for cities to survive post WWII suburbanization and thrive once again (“Death and Life . . . “) — and that healthy cities are essentially for healthy economies (“Cities and the Wealth of Nations”) and even for healthy, resilient civilizations (“Stop: Dark Age Ahead”).
Jacobs, so it seems to me, was NOT against fishing villages, small agricultural towns, company towns, etc. — or even Garden Cities or non-walkable suburbs, per se. What she was against was the idea that such places could replace cities and that cities should try and emulate such places to become healthy once again (after post-WWII suburbanization).
While everybody is entitled, of course, to his or her own reasons for being in favor of walkability, I don’t think one’s personal likes and dislikes is, in the long run, a really good reason for advocating for walkable cities. Such an approach makes the issues of walkable cities largely a matter of personal taste and essentially transforms the issue into a battle of the “culture wars” (“my taste is better than your taste”) where one side tries to impose its own preferences on others.
I prefer what I see as the Jane Jacobs approach instead. As I see it, although Jacobs herself, of course, preferred walkability, she advocated walkability for cities not merely because she preferred it but because she (correctly) saw that protecting and expanding the walkabilty of cities was the only practical way for cities to survive post WWII suburbanization and thrive once again (“Death and Life . . . “) — and that healthy cities are essentially for healthy economies (“Cities and the Wealth of Nations”) and even for healthy, resilient civilizations (“Stop: Dark Age Ahead”).
Jacobs, so it seems to me, was NOT against fishing villages, small agricultural towns, company towns, etc. — or even Garden Cities or non-walkable suburbs, per se. What she was against was the idea that such places could replace cities and that cities should try and emulate such places to become healthy once again (after post-WWII suburbanization).
While everybody is entitled, of course, to his or her own reasons for being in favor of walkability, I don’t think one’s personal likes and dislikes is, in the long run, a really good reason for advocating for walkable cities. Such an approach makes the issues of walkable cities largely a matter of personal taste and essentially transforms the issue into a battle of the “culture wars” (“my taste is better than your taste”) where one side tries to impose its own preferences on others.
I prefer what I see as the Jane Jacobs approach instead. As I see it, although Jacobs herself, of course, preferred walkability, she advocated walkability for cities not merely because she preferred it but because she (correctly) saw that protecting and expanding the walkabilty of cities was the only practical way for cities to survive post WWII suburbanization and thrive once again (“Death and Life . . . “) — and that healthy cities are essentially for healthy economies (“Cities and the Wealth of Nations”) and even for healthy, resilient civilizations (“Stop: Dark Age Ahead”).
Jacobs, so it seems to me, was NOT against fishing villages, small agricultural towns, company towns, etc. — or even Garden Cities or non-walkable suburbs, per se. What she was against was the idea that such places could replace cities and that cities should try and emulate such places to become healthy once again (after post-WWII suburbanization).
I think the differences between Jacobs and other urban advocates is further seen in her beliefs about cars and transit. Jacobs has made it plain that she is not against cars per se — and she actually eloquently defends autos in “Death and Life . . .” Instead she is against the damage that an over emphasis on “cars” can do — and has done — to cities. (Jacobs has, for example, also criticized poorly thought out mass transit.)
So for Jacobs the walkablity, bikes, public transit are not merely personal preferences but a matter of urban health.
In contrast, it seems to me, that other urban advocates are often advocating walkability, bikes, public transit as battles in a culture war pitting them (the good guys) against them (the bad guys).
I think I saw an example of this last summer when I attended a meeting of an anti-car organization where representatives for NYU presented their plans for redevelopment of their properties in Greenwich Village. Part of their plan entails essentially “demapping” two streets from pedestrians and creating (actually solidifying) two “superblocks” — something that would be, I think it’s fair to assume, very alarming to Jacobs. However, the leader of the anti-car group, who later in the meeting presented his own plans for developing more car free streets in Greenwich Village, was not alarmed by this “demapping.” It seems to me that this because his reasons for being anti-car are very different from Jacobs’.
I think the differences between Jacobs and other urban advocates is further seen in her beliefs about cars and transit. Jacobs has made it plain that she is not against cars per se — and she actually eloquently defends autos in “Death and Life . . .” Instead she is against the damage that an over emphasis on “cars” can do — and has done — to cities. (Jacobs has, for example, also criticized poorly thought out mass transit.)
So for Jacobs the walkablity, bikes, public transit are not merely personal preferences but a matter of urban health.
In contrast, it seems to me, that other urban advocates are often advocating walkability, bikes, public transit as battles in a culture war pitting them (the good guys) against them (the bad guys).
I think I saw an example of this last summer when I attended a meeting of an anti-car organization where representatives for NYU presented their plans for redevelopment of their properties in Greenwich Village. Part of their plan entails essentially “demapping” two streets from pedestrians and creating (actually solidifying) two “superblocks” — something that would be, I think it’s fair to assume, very alarming to Jacobs. However, the leader of the anti-car group, who later in the meeting presented his own plans for developing more car free streets in Greenwich Village, was not alarmed by this “demapping.” It seems to me that this because his reasons for being anti-car are very different from Jacobs’.
I think the differences between Jacobs and other urban advocates is further seen in her beliefs about cars and transit. Jacobs has made it plain that she is not against cars per se — and she actually eloquently defends autos in “Death and Life . . .” Instead she is against the damage that an over emphasis on “cars” can do — and has done — to cities. (Jacobs has, for example, also criticized poorly thought out mass transit.)
So for Jacobs the walkablity, bikes, public transit are not merely personal preferences but a matter of urban health.
In contrast, it seems to me, that other urban advocates are often advocating walkability, bikes, public transit as battles in a culture war pitting them (the good guys) against them (the bad guys).
I think I saw an example of this last summer when I attended a meeting of an anti-car organization where representatives for NYU presented their plans for redevelopment of their properties in Greenwich Village. Part of their plan entails essentially “demapping” two streets from pedestrians and creating (actually solidifying) two “superblocks” — something that would be, I think it’s fair to assume, very alarming to Jacobs. However, the leader of the anti-car group, who later in the meeting presented his own plans for developing more car free streets in Greenwich Village, was not alarmed by this “demapping.” It seems to me that this because his reasons for being anti-car are very different from Jacobs’.
I think the differences between Jacobs and other urban advocates is further seen in her beliefs about cars and transit. Jacobs has made it plain that she is not against cars per se — and she actually eloquently defends autos in “Death and Life . . .” Instead she is against the damage that an over emphasis on “cars” can do — and has done — to cities. (Jacobs has, for example, also criticized poorly thought out mass transit.)
So for Jacobs the walkablity, bikes, public transit are not merely personal preferences but a matter of urban health.
In contrast, it seems to me, that other urban advocates are often advocating walkability, bikes, public transit as battles in a culture war pitting them (the good guys) against them (the bad guys).
I think I saw an example of this last summer when I attended a meeting of an anti-car organization where representatives for NYU presented their plans for redevelopment of their properties in Greenwich Village. Part of their plan entails essentially “demapping” two streets from pedestrians and creating (actually solidifying) two “superblocks” — something that would be, I think it’s fair to assume, very alarming to Jacobs. However, the leader of the anti-car group, who later in the meeting presented his own plans for developing more car free streets in Greenwich Village, was not alarmed by this “demapping.” It seems to me that this because his reasons for being anti-car are very different from Jacobs’.
I think the differences between Jacobs and other urban advocates is further seen in her beliefs about cars and transit. Jacobs has made it plain that she is not against cars per se — and she actually eloquently defends autos in “Death and Life . . .” Instead she is against the damage that an over emphasis on “cars” can do — and has done — to cities. (Jacobs has, for example, also criticized poorly thought out mass transit.)
So for Jacobs the walkablity, bikes, public transit are not merely personal preferences but a matter of urban health.
In contrast, it seems to me, that other urban advocates are often advocating walkability, bikes, public transit as battles in a culture war pitting them (the good guys) against them (the bad guys).
I think I saw an example of this last summer when I attended a meeting of an anti-car organization where representatives for NYU presented their plans for redevelopment of their properties in Greenwich Village. Part of their plan entails essentially “demapping” two streets from pedestrians and creating (actually solidifying) two “superblocks” — something that would be, I think it’s fair to assume, very alarming to Jacobs. However, the leader of the anti-car group, who later in the meeting presented his own plans for developing more car free streets in Greenwich Village, was not alarmed by this “demapping.” It seems to me that this because his reasons for being anti-car are very different from Jacobs’.
@Benjamin I think often the discussion is taken as “anti-car” whereas it really is about finding a balance. Of course people will have cars and we need to make some space for them, but the problem is that for 50 years all urban design has been focused on cars and not people. It is time to find a balance.
@Benjamin I think often the discussion is taken as “anti-car” whereas it really is about finding a balance. Of course people will have cars and we need to make some space for them, but the problem is that for 50 years all urban design has been focused on cars and not people. It is time to find a balance.
@Benjamin I think often the discussion is taken as “anti-car” whereas it really is about finding a balance. Of course people will have cars and we need to make some space for them, but the problem is that for 50 years all urban design has been focused on cars and not people. It is time to find a balance.
@Benjamin I think often the discussion is taken as “anti-car” whereas it really is about finding a balance. Of course people will have cars and we need to make some space for them, but the problem is that for 50 years all urban design has been focused on cars and not people. It is time to find a balance.
One thing I’m trying to reconcile about Jacobs is walkability vs streets. Couldn’t demapped streets work in a pedestrian grid? Must there be a street with cars for vibrant pedestrian activity? Is a pedestrian-friendly superblock possible? Jacobs mentions Rockefeller Center as an example of a successful superblock.
Some carless European pathways are fabulous places to walk and shop. Can that type of experience be created by a developer who uses “demapping”?
One thing I’m trying to reconcile about Jacobs is walkability vs streets. Couldn’t demapped streets work in a pedestrian grid? Must there be a street with cars for vibrant pedestrian activity? Is a pedestrian-friendly superblock possible? Jacobs mentions Rockefeller Center as an example of a successful superblock.
Some carless European pathways are fabulous places to walk and shop. Can that type of experience be created by a developer who uses “demapping”?
To discuss a bit more Jacobs’ point of view and how I see it as differing from many who are anti-car . . .
I think anti-car people are largely interested in “balancing” (in general and in the abstract) the PERSONAL PREFERENCES of one group against those of another (those who like cars against those who don’t). They feel that the car people have been favored by the government for too long and now it’s their turn to be favored by the government. Jacobs is more interested, however, in what actually makes urban districts and cities grow and thrive or stagnate and decay. For her, it isn’t so much an abstract question of who’s been getting the goodies over the years but of concrete instances where cars can either help cities or hurt them.
In terms of the streets of Greenwich Village, it seems to me that the anti-car leader is more interested in fighting cars in the abstract, because they are “the enemy” (and have been getting too many goodies in general over the years), than in actually increasing pedestrian mobility, connectivity, cross use, etc., in Greenwich Village — which is the interest of Jane Jacobs.
To discuss a bit more Jacobs’ point of view and how I see it as differing from many who are anti-car . . .
I think anti-car people are largely interested in “balancing” (in general and in the abstract) the PERSONAL PREFERENCES of one group against those of another (those who like cars against those who don’t). They feel that the car people have been favored by the government for too long and now it’s their turn to be favored by the government. Jacobs is more interested, however, in what actually makes urban districts and cities grow and thrive or stagnate and decay. For her, it isn’t so much an abstract question of who’s been getting the goodies over the years but of concrete instances where cars can either help cities or hurt them.
In terms of the streets of Greenwich Village, it seems to me that the anti-car leader is more interested in fighting cars in the abstract, because they are “the enemy” (and have been getting too many goodies in general over the years), than in actually increasing pedestrian mobility, connectivity, cross use, etc., in Greenwich Village — which is the interest of Jane Jacobs.
To discuss a bit more Jacobs’ point of view and how I see it as differing from many who are anti-car . . .
I think anti-car people are largely interested in “balancing” (in general and in the abstract) the PERSONAL PREFERENCES of one group against those of another (those who like cars against those who don’t). They feel that the car people have been favored by the government for too long and now it’s their turn to be favored by the government. Jacobs is more interested, however, in what actually makes urban districts and cities grow and thrive or stagnate and decay. For her, it isn’t so much an abstract question of who’s been getting the goodies over the years but of concrete instances where cars can either help cities or hurt them.
In terms of the streets of Greenwich Village, it seems to me that the anti-car leader is more interested in fighting cars in the abstract, because they are “the enemy” (and have been getting too many goodies in general over the years), than in actually increasing pedestrian mobility, connectivity, cross use, etc., in Greenwich Village — which is the interest of Jane Jacobs.
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
One thing I’m trying to reconcile about Jacobs is walkability vs streets.
Benjamin writes:
Adam, you asked a number of great questions! (See more further below.)
Actually, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Jacobs is NOT as anti-superblock as people make her out to be, and this is something that I’ve been trying to tell people (in vain!) again and again over the last seven years — mostly in connection with the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site! (In interviews, Jacobs has actually said that it might be a good idea to retain the World Trade Center superblock.)
– – – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Couldn’t demapped streets work in a pedestrian grid?
Benjamin writes:
Absolutely!
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Must there be a street with cars for vibrant pedestrian activity?
Benjamin writes:
No, cars are NOT necessary for vibrant pedestrian activity — but Jacobs does caution that unless there is a way for people to get to such pedestrianized streets without parking their cars on surrounding streets and unless there is a way for stores on such pedestrianized streets to get deliveries, etc., a city district with pedestrianized streets, etc. is likely to wind up “dead” or like a suburban shopping mall that is surrounded by a parking lot.
In the case of the World Trade Center site, pedestrian streets (as I’ve been vainly trying to tell people for the last seven years) could (and in some instances DID) work fine — the WTC site sits atop an impressive system of underground loading docks and atop one of the world’s greatest concentrations of mass transit. Getting people and goods to the site was never a problem. The problem was that the entrances to the pedestrian streets were poorly placed and the streets themselves were poorly laid out — two problems that would have been a cinch to fix in a rebuilt WTC.
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Is a pedestrian-friendly superblock possible?
Benjamin writes:
ABSOLUTELY. Grand Central Terminal is a great example of a pedestrian friendly superblock — with 43rd St., 44th St. and Park Avenue having been “removed.” (Strictly speaking they were never there in the first place, as the site was originally a railyard.)
(As I’ve been trying to tell people, in many ways, the original WTC superblock was a cousin — in topography and concept — to the GCT superblock.)
Another successful superblock in NYC is the World Financial Center complex in Battery Park City. (Although, again, strictly speaking some may question whether it is truly a superblock as it never contained individual blocks that were later combined.)
By the way, one of the reasons it seems to me that people have had such a fetish about putting streets through the WTC superblock is because creating the original WTC superblock involved the destruction of a number of existing city blocks. (In other words, they are still trying to fight yesterday’s war.) These blocks, however, existed in a environment that was TOTALLY different from today’s environment. When the WTC was built, for example, there were working ship piers all along the other side of West Street, while today there is a three-block, essentially blank, wall that is the “backside” of the WFC.
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Jacobs mentions Rockefeller Center as an example of a successful superblock.
Benjamin writes:
Strictly speaking, this isn’t correct, as “Rockefeller Plaza” (which is the name of the three block long street) actually breaks up a long existing city block (like those directly to the south and north of Rockefeller Center. A superblock is really a combination of existing city blocks.
But Rockefeller Plaza is, nevertheless, a good example of how pedestrianized streets on a superblock could indeed work well in a city — since Rockefeller Center sits above a subway line and it’s near lots of transit and it has a magnificent, extensive underground freight delivery area. (I was once in the underground freight delivery area, and I found it amazing.)
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Some carless European pathways are fabulous places to walk and shop. [5]Can that type of experience be created by a developer who uses “demapping”?
Benjamin writes:
I would think so. (See my previous comments.) Maybe Milan’s Galleria is another good example?
I think I should explain that in my comment in my second post in this thread: I was referring to the Silver Towers and Washington Square Village complexes in Greenwich Village, where Wooster and Greene Streets have already been officially demapped (and have beceome vestigial, and little used pedestrian streets that are hostile to the general public). In NYU’s plans, however, these streets are to be made EVEN LESS street like and EVEN LESS hospitable to the general pubiic. (That’s what I meant when I used the word demapped and put quotes around it — the streets have already been demapped but NYU’s plan will pretty much totally destroy them as even vestigial streets.)
For instance, on the Silver Towers superblock a skyscraper is to be plunked right down in the middle of what remains of Wooster Street — blocking it off and making it even more difficult for the public get across the Silver Towers superblock. And on the Washington Square Village site, both Wooster and Greene are to become indoor corridors! And if that’s not bad enough, given today’s security measures, these indoor corridors are likely going to be accessible only to those with an NYU ID!
So while the two superblocks now have one east-west street (Bleecker St.) and two vestigial north-south streets (Wooster and Greene) cutting across them, with NYU’s plan there will essentially be only one east-west street (Bleecker St.) cutting across this six block area (with a three-block superblock to the south and a three-block superblock to the north)!
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
One thing I’m trying to reconcile about Jacobs is walkability vs streets.
Benjamin writes:
Adam, you asked a number of great questions! (See more further below.)
Actually, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Jacobs is NOT as anti-superblock as people make her out to be, and this is something that I’ve been trying to tell people (in vain!) again and again over the last seven years — mostly in connection with the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site! (In interviews, Jacobs has actually said that it might be a good idea to retain the World Trade Center superblock.)
– – – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Couldn’t demapped streets work in a pedestrian grid?
Benjamin writes:
Absolutely!
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Must there be a street with cars for vibrant pedestrian activity?
Benjamin writes:
No, cars are NOT necessary for vibrant pedestrian activity — but Jacobs does caution that unless there is a way for people to get to such pedestrianized streets without parking their cars on surrounding streets and unless there is a way for stores on such pedestrianized streets to get deliveries, etc., a city district with pedestrianized streets, etc. is likely to wind up “dead” or like a suburban shopping mall that is surrounded by a parking lot.
In the case of the World Trade Center site, pedestrian streets (as I’ve been vainly trying to tell people for the last seven years) could (and in some instances DID) work fine — the WTC site sits atop an impressive system of underground loading docks and atop one of the world’s greatest concentrations of mass transit. Getting people and goods to the site was never a problem. The problem was that the entrances to the pedestrian streets were poorly placed and the streets themselves were poorly laid out — two problems that would have been a cinch to fix in a rebuilt WTC.
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Is a pedestrian-friendly superblock possible?
Benjamin writes:
ABSOLUTELY. Grand Central Terminal is a great example of a pedestrian friendly superblock — with 43rd St., 44th St. and Park Avenue having been “removed.” (Strictly speaking they were never there in the first place, as the site was originally a railyard.)
(As I’ve been trying to tell people, in many ways, the original WTC superblock was a cousin — in topography and concept — to the GCT superblock.)
Another successful superblock in NYC is the World Financial Center complex in Battery Park City. (Although, again, strictly speaking some may question whether it is truly a superblock as it never contained individual blocks that were later combined.)
By the way, one of the reasons it seems to me that people have had such a fetish about putting streets through the WTC superblock is because creating the original WTC superblock involved the destruction of a number of existing city blocks. (In other words, they are still trying to fight yesterday’s war.) These blocks, however, existed in a environment that was TOTALLY different from today’s environment. When the WTC was built, for example, there were working ship piers all along the other side of West Street, while today there is a three-block, essentially blank, wall that is the “backside” of the WFC.
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Jacobs mentions Rockefeller Center as an example of a successful superblock.
Benjamin writes:
Strictly speaking, this isn’t correct, as “Rockefeller Plaza” (which is the name of the three block long street) actually breaks up a long existing city block (like those directly to the south and north of Rockefeller Center. A superblock is really a combination of existing city blocks.
But Rockefeller Plaza is, nevertheless, a good example of how pedestrianized streets on a superblock could indeed work well in a city — since Rockefeller Center sits above a subway line and it’s near lots of transit and it has a magnificent, extensive underground freight delivery area. (I was once in the underground freight delivery area, and I found it amazing.)
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Some carless European pathways are fabulous places to walk and shop. [5]Can that type of experience be created by a developer who uses “demapping”?
Benjamin writes:
I would think so. (See my previous comments.) Maybe Milan’s Galleria is another good example?
I think I should explain that in my comment in my second post in this thread: I was referring to the Silver Towers and Washington Square Village complexes in Greenwich Village, where Wooster and Greene Streets have already been officially demapped (and have beceome vestigial, and little used pedestrian streets that are hostile to the general public). In NYU’s plans, however, these streets are to be made EVEN LESS street like and EVEN LESS hospitable to the general pubiic. (That’s what I meant when I used the word demapped and put quotes around it — the streets have already been demapped but NYU’s plan will pretty much totally destroy them as even vestigial streets.)
For instance, on the Silver Towers superblock a skyscraper is to be plunked right down in the middle of what remains of Wooster Street — blocking it off and making it even more difficult for the public get across the Silver Towers superblock. And on the Washington Square Village site, both Wooster and Greene are to become indoor corridors! And if that’s not bad enough, given today’s security measures, these indoor corridors are likely going to be accessible only to those with an NYU ID!
So while the two superblocks now have one east-west street (Bleecker St.) and two vestigial north-south streets (Wooster and Greene) cutting across them, with NYU’s plan there will essentially be only one east-west street (Bleecker St.) cutting across this six block area (with a three-block superblock to the south and a three-block superblock to the north)!
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
One thing I’m trying to reconcile about Jacobs is walkability vs streets.
Benjamin writes:
Adam, you asked a number of great questions! (See more further below.)
Actually, contrary to the conventional wisdom, Jacobs is NOT as anti-superblock as people make her out to be, and this is something that I’ve been trying to tell people (in vain!) again and again over the last seven years — mostly in connection with the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site! (In interviews, Jacobs has actually said that it might be a good idea to retain the World Trade Center superblock.)
– – – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Couldn’t demapped streets work in a pedestrian grid?
Benjamin writes:
Absolutely!
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Must there be a street with cars for vibrant pedestrian activity?
Benjamin writes:
No, cars are NOT necessary for vibrant pedestrian activity — but Jacobs does caution that unless there is a way for people to get to such pedestrianized streets without parking their cars on surrounding streets and unless there is a way for stores on such pedestrianized streets to get deliveries, etc., a city district with pedestrianized streets, etc. is likely to wind up “dead” or like a suburban shopping mall that is surrounded by a parking lot.
In the case of the World Trade Center site, pedestrian streets (as I’ve been vainly trying to tell people for the last seven years) could (and in some instances DID) work fine — the WTC site sits atop an impressive system of underground loading docks and atop one of the world’s greatest concentrations of mass transit. Getting people and goods to the site was never a problem. The problem was that the entrances to the pedestrian streets were poorly placed and the streets themselves were poorly laid out — two problems that would have been a cinch to fix in a rebuilt WTC.
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Is a pedestrian-friendly superblock possible?
Benjamin writes:
ABSOLUTELY. Grand Central Terminal is a great example of a pedestrian friendly superblock — with 43rd St., 44th St. and Park Avenue having been “removed.” (Strictly speaking they were never there in the first place, as the site was originally a railyard.)
(As I’ve been trying to tell people, in many ways, the original WTC superblock was a cousin — in topography and concept — to the GCT superblock.)
Another successful superblock in NYC is the World Financial Center complex in Battery Park City. (Although, again, strictly speaking some may question whether it is truly a superblock as it never contained individual blocks that were later combined.)
By the way, one of the reasons it seems to me that people have had such a fetish about putting streets through the WTC superblock is because creating the original WTC superblock involved the destruction of a number of existing city blocks. (In other words, they are still trying to fight yesterday’s war.) These blocks, however, existed in a environment that was TOTALLY different from today’s environment. When the WTC was built, for example, there were working ship piers all along the other side of West Street, while today there is a three-block, essentially blank, wall that is the “backside” of the WFC.
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Jacobs mentions Rockefeller Center as an example of a successful superblock.
Benjamin writes:
Strictly speaking, this isn’t correct, as “Rockefeller Plaza” (which is the name of the three block long street) actually breaks up a long existing city block (like those directly to the south and north of Rockefeller Center. A superblock is really a combination of existing city blocks.
But Rockefeller Plaza is, nevertheless, a good example of how pedestrianized streets on a superblock could indeed work well in a city — since Rockefeller Center sits above a subway line and it’s near lots of transit and it has a magnificent, extensive underground freight delivery area. (I was once in the underground freight delivery area, and I found it amazing.)
– – – – – –
Adam (Market Urbanism) wrote:
Some carless European pathways are fabulous places to walk and shop. [5]Can that type of experience be created by a developer who uses “demapping”?
Benjamin writes:
I would think so. (See my previous comments.) Maybe Milan’s Galleria is another good example?
I think I should explain that in my comment in my second post in this thread: I was referring to the Silver Towers and Washington Square Village complexes in Greenwich Village, where Wooster and Greene Streets have already been officially demapped (and have beceome vestigial, and little used pedestrian streets that are hostile to the general public). In NYU’s plans, however, these streets are to be made EVEN LESS street like and EVEN LESS hospitable to the general pubiic. (That’s what I meant when I used the word demapped and put quotes around it — the streets have already been demapped but NYU’s plan will pretty much totally destroy them as even vestigial streets.)
For instance, on the Silver Towers superblock a skyscraper is to be plunked right down in the middle of what remains of Wooster Street — blocking it off and making it even more difficult for the public get across the Silver Towers superblock. And on the Washington Square Village site, both Wooster and Greene are to become indoor corridors! And if that’s not bad enough, given today’s security measures, these indoor corridors are likely going to be accessible only to those with an NYU ID!
So while the two superblocks now have one east-west street (Bleecker St.) and two vestigial north-south streets (Wooster and Greene) cutting across them, with NYU’s plan there will essentially be only one east-west street (Bleecker St.) cutting across this six block area (with a three-block superblock to the south and a three-block superblock to the north)!
Thanks Benjamin. Your insights are very helpful in understanding Jacobs – seems she wasn’t as rigid on those topics as some people make her out to be. As long as it enlivened the city.
Thanks Benjamin. Your insights are very helpful in understanding Jacobs – seems she wasn’t as rigid on those topics as some people make her out to be. As long as it enlivened the city.
Thanks Benjamin. Your insights are very helpful in understanding Jacobs – seems she wasn’t as rigid on those topics as some people make her out to be. As long as it enlivened the city.