The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces - William H. Whyte

This is a seminal work in plaza design and a really great and funny film thanks for posting
 
ROFL. I posted this a couple months ago.

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=3912
The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces
- William Whyte, 1980

Every architecture student and architect alike should watch this fascinating film about what makes urban plazas work and not work.

It outlines such simple facts and principles that many of the worlds greatest architects forgot/forget, even today. Set mainly in NYC in 1980, the study primarily focuses on NYC plazas and parks such as Seagram and Paley Park, but nationwide examples are used, even Faneuil Hall Marketplace. City Hall Plaza is interestingly never mentioned as a failed public space. He really rags on Houston about the gerbil tubes and connected parking, no streetwall etc. Even San Fran's Westin Bonaventure gets mentioned because of its brutal, unfriendly streetwall with no retail. Street-level retail is stressed heavily and is also the basis for the suggestion of cafes (which lead to NYC's 20% zoning for cafes in urban spaces). Even the subtle details such as the functionality of seating is discussed - too high, too low, obstructions, scale, etc.

It is dated in nature and quite humorous at times, planned and unplanned, but it is surprisingly not-dry for typically dry content.

Enough with the description, just go watch it.

http://vimeo.com/5298850
Click to expand...

But yes, it's a phenomenal video and really humorous both intentionally and unintentionally.
 
A confluence (wrong word?) of two threads.

The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces video ^^^ above makes mention of zoning regulations passed in the early 1960's which encouraged the building of public plazas by developers in exchange for allowing them to build taller towers.

Zuccotti Park, where the Occupy Wall Street protesters are camping out, is one such park. It's a private park, but open to the public.

The New York Times has an article about it, today.

The park was established in a wave of development that spurred corporate plazas after changes were made to the city’s zoning laws in the early 1960s. The laws generally give real estate developers zoning concessions in exchange for public space. There are now at least 520 such parks, arcades and plazas in New York City, both indoors and out, with a total of 3.5 million square feet of space.

Zuccotti is unusual in that it does not adjoin the 54-story office tower, 1 Liberty Plaza, that spawned it. Rather, it is bounded on all four sides by streets: Broadway, Trinity Place, and Cedar and Liberty Streets.

And while the developer did not win the right to build a larger structure in exchange for the park, it was given leeway on certain height and setback restrictions, according to Jerold S. Kayden, a lawyer and professor of urban planning and design at Harvard University.

Perhaps most important, from the perspective of a long-term protest like Occupy Wall Street, Zuccotti Park — unlike city-owned parks — is open 24 hours a day. Private parks and plazas that were developed under the original zoning rules governing them are generally open around the clock, while those created under more recent rules may close from dusk to dawn. About half of the privately owned plazas are required to be open 24 hours a day, according to the Department of City Planning.

By contrast, the city’s parks all have curfews: the latest is 1 a.m.; a number close much earlier. All playgrounds close at dusk, and some parks in Queens have curfews as early as 9 p.m. So an encampment like the one at Zuccotti Park would be impossible in a city park, where structures like tents are prohibited without a permit.
Click to expand...

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/n...s-privately-owned-but-open-to-the-public.html
 
In order to require something like a park as a condition of development, today there would have to be an "essential nexus" between the requirement and the public detriment sought to be avoided. So, if the extra height of a building would cause wind tunnels, or decrease exposure to sunlight, an "exaction" from the developer in return for the right to build taller anyway would probably not include a public park. A public park is nice, but it has nothing to do with the need to regulate building height. Of course, an argument could be made that it does, but it goes against commonsense. They are trying to do something like this in Portland right now. There is an ugly public plaza in front of a 10 story building. The developer wants to add some floors to the structure, and the Planning Board is considering requiring that he dedicate the park to the city, or promise to forever keep it open space, as a condition of approval (because they are concerned about his other plans to build restaurant space in the plaza). In my opinion, this wouldn't work, and I'm surprised it worked for so many plazas in NYC--although that was before the Supreme Court issued the rule above (the Nollan "essential nexus" requirement). Thanks again for posting the link.
 
also, the industry term for such plazas and other spaces is "POPOs" for privately owned public open spaces....which I thought was kind of funny. To me, a popo is a cop.
 
Patrick, tell me more about this "essential nexus". How would this relate to us here in Boston, where the Mayor dictates (appropriate choice of words) that developers designated up to 13% of new residential units as "affordable" in any new construction? That's not a law, it's just something he tells them they have to do. Either that, or put money into a jar from which the city can spend the money elsewhere.

Building housing doesn't inconvenience anyone who lives around the housing, it doesn't inconvenience anyone who lives in the city, so how can he demand they do this, other than he's the one in charge of giving out permits?
 
I clicked on this thread too late and can't seem to find the full video anywhere. I found a minute-long clip on vimeo but it looks like the full copies have been removed by the copyright holder. Is this it? Only $95 for the DVD!
 
JohnAKeith said:
Patrick, tell me more about this "essential nexus". How would this relate to us here in Boston, where the Mayor dictates (appropriate choice of words) that developers designated up to 13% of new residential units as "affordable" in any new construction? That's not a law, it's just something he tells them they have to do. Either that, or put money into a jar from which the city can spend the money elsewhere.

Building housing doesn't inconvenience anyone who lives around the housing, it doesn't inconvenience anyone who lives in the city, so how can he demand they do this, other than he's the one in charge of giving out permits?
Click to expand...

Quick disclaimer -- this is not legal advice (sorry, had to include that)

Sometimes towns and cities require a builder to give something in return for approval of their project. This "something" can be required by the ordinance itself (say, minimum parking), or it can be on a case by case basis (like a new park to make up for developed open space). Either way, the courts have said that in order to NOT be a constitutional taking of private property (which the city would have to pay for), the exaction must have (a) an essential nexus to the development (meaning it must be related to the burdens imposed by the project) and (b) it must be roughly proportional to those burdens. In other words, you minimum parking requirements exist because new development increases traffic, and the minimum parking requirements for a convenience store can't be a new parking garage (which would not be roughly proportional to the increased need).

Other types of exactions include an "in lieu of" fee. So for example, in Portland, we have the ability for developers to reduce minimum parking fees if they instead pay into a trust fund "in lieu of" providing them. The proceeds of that fund must be spent on sustainable transportation (to reduce traffic, the need for the spots in the first place) and cannot be spent on the other side of town from the development (because that would not be related to the development's impact). This is an impact fee of sorts.

Another type of exaction/impact fee is known as the "linkage" system, in which a community links downtown development to broader community goals, including affordable housing. Boston has been doing this for years, since the 1981, well before mumbles (he is still the mayor, right?). In fact, it was a pioneer in the field, being one of the first three major cities to adopt this. It is arguable that, as you said, new development is not really related to displacing the poor (although in many cases, that is its exact effect). So I see your frustration (especially because the added costs are passed on to the consumers, and this makes the project less viable). However, remember that overall a city as a whole is probably better off with its poor integrated throughout, rather than all placed in DOT or wherever the poor neighborhoods are.

Also, if a developer were to challenge an ordinance in place for such a linkage system, what would they look like in the public eye? They would be labeled the profit hungry corporate folks from "out of town" who want to make a buck and beat their feet. It might not be worth the legal fees (this would be a precedent setting legal issue, so chances are both sides would go all out, and it might just be worth it to pay for the moderate income units and get on with it...just like paying off the mayor, which is how its done overseas). Also, the developer usually places these units in the lower levels, and recoups costs by having higher units with better views. Moreover, these days "affordable" might be occupied by attorneys and other well educated college grads (most of whom don't have jobs).

Lastly, some states have requirements that a zoning ordinance be consistent with a comprehensive plan, and some states require an aspirational goal of 10% for new housing. If the plan adopts this goal, the zoning must be consistent with it. I don't know what Massachusetts is like, however, so if you are really interested in it, I would consult an attorney (and I can recommend a few good ones in real estate and planning from Boston if you would like their contact info).
 
Corey said:
I clicked on this thread too late and can't seem to find the full video anywhere. I found a minute-long clip on vimeo but it looks like the full copies have been removed by the copyright holder. Is this it? Only $95 for the DVD!
Click to expand...

^ also, Corey, well worth the money if you are interested in this stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top