Category: Downtown Revitalization (Page 1 of 2)

Conceptual Design of Olde Richmond, Philadelphia: Olde Richmond Waterfront District

May 20, 2020 / odrozd

By Jo Kwon and Mariah Wozniak

Introduction

The Delaware River has played a vital role in Philadelphia’s economic development since the City’s inception as goods were transported via the River’s piers, wharfs, and canals to faraway places (Philadelphia2035 2011, 4). Access to the River provided an avenue to establish trade routes and enable the manufacturing economies that propelled Philadelphia into manufacturing prominence. However, Philadelphia neighborhoods that once prospered alongside their booming industries, and the Delaware River, declined as manufacturing slowed following WWII (Adams 1991, 14). As a result, many working-class neighborhoods in North Philadelphia, including Olde Richmond, experienced disinvestment, abandonment, and increased crime rates.

Construction of the Vine Street Expressway in the late 1950s greatly disrupted connectivity between Center City and North Philadelphia (Philadelphia2035 2011). Additionally, as seen in Figure 1 below, construction of the Delaware Expressway (I-95) bisected Olde Richmond and directly contributed to disconnectivity within the neighborhood itself. Despite Olde Richmond’s location adjacent to the Delaware River, its waterfront remains largely undeveloped. At present, the area consists of mostly vacant land dotted with scant commercial buildings and privately held areas such as Graffiti Pier. In contrast to the existing land use, we propose a conceptual redesign for Olde Richmond, in an area we termed Olde Richmond Waterfront District (ORWD), that offers a connected city-dwelling experience.

*Figure 1: Olde Richmond Neighborhood, Philadelphia, PA Photo Credit: Google Maps*

Challenges & Opportunities

The Delaware Expressway (I-95) exists as a present challenge for development in Olde Richmond. The heavily traveled highway impedes pedestrian mobility within the neighborhood and poses significant threats to pedestrian safety. In addition, the existence and positioning of I-95 has limited redevelopment projects in Olde Richmond beyond the multi-lane roadway. This is due, at least in part, to the disruption it causes to the urban fabric and classic grid street pattern (Condon 2010, 28).

In recent years, Philadelphia has redeveloped several of its public and open spaces near Center City including Love Park, Dilworth Plaza, and Franklin Square. The City has also focused efforts on revitalizing its waterfronts into viable pedestrian uses. Although North Philadelphia contains ample available riverfront along the Delaware River, there are few designated waterfront amenities available to residents in this area of the City. However, in recognition of this disparity, within its Philadelphia2035 CityWide Vision Plan, Philadelphia outlined the need to increase equitable access to open-space resources and complete, expand, and connect watershed parks and trails along the Delaware River (Philadelphia2035 2011, 136-137). Philadelphia2035 specifically outlines Olde Richmond’s waterfront as a target area for redevelopment and completion of a “Delaware Waterfront Trail” as part of a citywide network of trails (Philadelphia2035 2011, 136-140).

In addition to Philadelphia2035’s vision to expand access to waterfronts and neighborhood parks and recreation, and in order to achieve the plan’s goal to elevate public demand for good design in the public realm, our chosen site rectifies its largely abandoned and disconnected state by improving its connectivity and implementing an interconnected street system similar to that of greater Philadelphia (Condon 2010, 39). In addition to the area’s tendency toward a linked system of natural areas and parks, because the selected site is largely vacant, there is vast opportunity to implement Condon’s rules for sustainable design including mixed use development, diversifying housing types, co-location of jobs and homes, and green infrastructure (Condon 2010, 14-15).

Proposed Solution

*Figure 2: Proposed Design Solution for Olde Richmond Waterfront District*

Connectivity & Complete Streets

To address the disconnectivity and lack of infrastructure that presently plague the area proposed for the ORWD, we emphasized human-scaled development within our design. Our conceptual design is predicated on “burying” the Delaware Expressway (I-95) and establishing an interconnected grid pattern, with a heavy emphasis on small blocks, for the ORWD. As Leon Krier states, “[t]he building block is either the instrument to form streets and squares, or it results from a pattern of streets and squares” (Krier 1984, 44). Careful consideration of the building blocks, and their orientation served as the foundation of our design. As seen in Figure 2 above, the overall, streets, squares, buildings, and public spaces were situated according to our proposed urban grid arrangement.

Drawing inspiration from the urban fabric of other areas of Philadelphia, the block dimensions on the west side of the design are similar in size and pattern to the Washington Square West neighborhood. The block dimensions on the east side of the proposed ORWD are reminiscent of the northwest portion of Olde Richmond that borders I-95 and the adjacent Fishtown neighborhood. The building sizes are varied with a mixture of housing types including Philadelphia’s notable row houses and sizable high-density apartment developments. The proposed ORWD boasts 45 ft complete streets which include a one-way car lane, a parking lane, sidewalks, and a bike lane. The car and parking lanes are each 8-foot, bike lanes are 5-foot, and sidewalks are a minimum of 12-foot in width throughout the entire district.

Mixed-Use Neighborhood

There are three primary types of housing stock in Olde Richmond Waterfront District: mixed-use buildings with residential areas from second to the fifth floor, row houses, and large high-density apartment buildings. Although the entire district is intended for mixed-use, the west side of the district consists of slightly larger blocks apt for business and commercial spaces. The east side of ORWD offers smaller lots with traditional residential row houses. The west side includes urban blocks with buildings similar to those in Center City with first floor commercial spaces, like restaurants and retail shops, and residential uses claiming the second to fifth floors. In addition, the high-density apartment buildings are designed to help alleviate Philadelphia’s shortage of affordable housing. We strongly suggest at least 50% of the units within these buildings are designated as affordable. The emphasis on mixed-use buildings and varying housing types throughout the district propels social and cultural complexity within ORWD.

Parks and ORWD Perimeter Trail

*Figure 3: Aerial View of Graffiti Pier and Surrounding Public & Greenspaces*

As seen in Figure 3 above, the Olde Richmond Waterfront District has various parks, including large squares, pocket parks incorporated into many blocks, and parks near the greenway. The large parks include fountains and recreational space in alignment with Philadelphia’s original Franklin, Logan, Penn, Washington, and Rittenhouse squares. The pocket parks in the blocks are situated throughout the district serve as “the web of green spaces and green links (Bacon 1976, 1733)” to create a pattern of connectivity with larger parks and the district’s perimeter trail. The ORWD Perimeter Trail is a key component in the ORWD, as it encompasses the entirety of the proposed district’s area. This 20-foot wide multi-use trail is made of sustainable and environmentally friendly material and serves as one of the main recreational amenities the ORWD. This trail is designed to meet the goals of developing a system of trails connecting across Philadelphia while providing interconnectivity to outdoor recreational spaces (Philadelphia2035 2011, 136-140). Various public and greenspaces, including ballparks, dog parks, apple tree parks, etc. are situated along the trail. The trail is elevated on the northern perimeter to provide for pedestrian safety and traffic flow of the underlying streets.

Natural Preservation & Stormwater Management

Consideration of the natural environment is necessary when redeveloping an area near a resource such as the Delaware River. The southwest portion of the ORWD, denoted in a brownish-green hue, along the Delaware River, maintains the natural area for ecological purposes and wildlife preservation. Creating a space to support biodiversity connects the urbanized area to the natural environment. Aside from transforming the southeast portion into ballparks and sport courts, which are specifically designed to capture and hold rainwater and serve as stormwater management within the ORWD, the rest of this portion of the proposed development is designated for natural preservation. The green buffer exists adjacent to the river to prevent flooding and for sustainable management of regional water resources (Farr 2008, 175). The inclusion of these natural preservation areas and unique BMPs help manage runoff from impermeable surfaces within the district and limit pollutants entering the waterways to the river.

Public Spaces

Thoughtful provision of public spaces is an integral component of the placemaking within the Olde Richmond Waterfront District. As seen in Figure 4 below, specific attention to Carmona’s objectives for public space, including character, ease of movement, and adaptability, influenced the public spaces within the district (Carmona et al. 2003, 9). The public spaces within the ORWD contain unique and colorful mural-type graffiti designs as a homage to the history and cultural significance of Graffiti Pier to Philadelphia and the people of the surrounding neighborhoods. Not only does this provide aesthetic appeal and linkages throughout, but it also contributes to the district’s past and present identity. In addition, public spaces are creatively integrated into the interconnected street network of the district. The ORWD perimeter trail is also designed to be accessible from virtually any point in the district. Lastly, areas across the district denoted in pink designate areas intended for pop-up shops, snack stands, bars, and other semi-permanent establishments. This type of planning and design allows for such spaces to change seasonally with ease. This also provides flexibility as retail and commercial landscape changes across the United States.

To facilitate human interaction and experiences within the district, we integrated Graffiti Pier, the Balboa Building, and ORWD Amphitheater into ORWD’s design. Graffiti Pier incorporates several attractions that contribute to the quality of the public realm within the Olde Richmond Waterfront District (Carmona et al. 2003, 9). Such attractions include another Robert Indiana “LOVE” statue to add to Philadelphia’s collection. This statue is similar in size and scale to the existing statue in Center City’s Love Park. Graffiti Pier also boasts one of the large fountains within the district as well as unique hard and soft scaping. Drawing inspiration from Philadelphia’s Race Street Pier, Graffiti Pier provides ample space for public gatherings such as outdoor yoga or summer movie programs, all interconnected with 20-foot walking paths. The pinnacle of Graffiti Pier, however, is a 70-foot solar-powered Ferris wheel ideal for taking in views of the Delaware River, Ben Franklin Bridge, the Philadelphia Skyline, and Olde Richmond.

*Figure 5: Detailed Illustration of Graffiti Pier*

The Balboa Building is an ode to the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Rocky Steps. The building serves as administrative offices for the district as well as an event venue for weddings and galas. Inclusion of this building, and its familiar elements, provide interesting imagery within the district as well as multi-level spaces for visitors to enjoy and interact with. The building contributes to the diversity of the overall district as it offers pedestrians and visitors with variety and choice. The ORWD Amphitheater not only provides a public gathering area for concerts and other entertainment, but it also doubles as a public amenity when events are not scheduled. The amphitheater includes several softscape areas and designated hard-scape areas for pop-up commercial shops and offerings.

Conclusion

Olde Richmond Waterfront District offers Philadelphians a space to live, work, and enjoy leisure time. Our proposed design offers an equilibrium of work and living and aligns with several of Philadelphia2035’s goals (Krier 1984). This is made possible by continuing Philadelphia’s classic grid pattern into the ORWD area, encouraging mixed-use development, prioritizing natural resource preservation and stormwater management, and thoughtful provision of public spaces. Mixed-use neighborhoods help address housing issues within the City and create an environment for thriving commerce while newly re-imagined green and public spaces promote viable, healthy neighborhoods for the City’s long-term.

About the Authors:

Jo Kwon is a second-year Ph.D. student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. She hopes to interweave various data sets and narratives of housing and communities with new digital technologies. With a background in Statistics and English Literature, she received her M.A. in Computational Media at Duke University. In her free time, she enjoys watching indie movies, and going to live performances.

Mariah Wozniak is a second-year master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning, specializing in land use and environmental planning. Her research interests include historic preservation, urban design, and the intersection of planning and public education provision. She received her undergraduate degree in Political Science and Public & Urban Affairs from Virginia Tech. She enjoys spending time at the beach, cooking, and admiring residential architecture.

Adams, C.1991. Philadelphia: Neighborhoods, Division, and Conflict in a Postindustrial City. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.

Carmona, Matthew et al. 2003. Public Places – Urban Spaces Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Condon, Patrick M. 2010. Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities. Washington: Island Press.

Krier, Leon. July/August 1984. “Urban Components.” Architectural Design 54: 43-49.

Melanie Simmons, Kathy Baughmann McLeod, and Jason Hight, “Healthy Neighborhoods;” Jim Patchett and Tom Price “Stormwater Systems” in Douglas Farr, Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature (Wiley & Sons, 2008): 148-150, 175-181.

“Philadelphia2035: Citywide Vision.” 2011. Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Philadelphia, PA. https://www.phila2035.org/citywide-vision.

Featured Image: Proposed Design Solution for Olde Richmond Waterfront District

The Case for Public Space in Porthole Alley

February 24, 2020 / odrozd

By Luke Lowry

Franklin Street is undeniably the heart of Chapel Hill. It is where students rush after sports victories, where people socialize over food and drink, and where alumni reminisce about their college years. While UNC is many things to many different people, there is one area where it objectively falls short—providing adequate public space. However, a recent proposal by UNC to redevelop Porthole Alley has the potential to change that.

Porthole Alley is a popular pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare from Franklin Street to the UNC campus (pictured below). The redevelopment plan centers on the alley and the buildings on either side (128 E. Franklin St., 134 E. Franklin St, Hill Commercial Building, and the Porthole Building). The university has plans to maintain ground floor retail while building an Undergraduate Admissions Center, a Visitors Center, and other university office space. However, the plans are not finalized. In January of this year, the university and the contracted architectural firm KieranTimberlake held four community engagement workshops to solicit input on the proposed designs and to determine other possible uses. This spring, a complete concept design will be released. Since the university is still deliberating on potential uses, the possibility of incorporating public space remains.

Hill Commercial Building, Porthole Alley, and 134 E. Franklin St (via The News & Observer)

Chapel Hill does have a plethora of great public spaces (see CPJ contributor Brandon Tubby’s piece on the Top 10 Best Public Places in Chapel Hill). However, for a variety of reasons, these places don’t optimally serve those who live near downtown Chapel Hill. For starters, several of these places are difficult and time-costly to access from downtown. The Chapel Hill Public Library is the quintessential public space; it offers a space to gather and additional resources such as media, workshops, and events. With beautiful architecture and ample natural light, it’s also a joy to be in it. However, it’s location is disconnected from downtown Chapel Hill and disproportionately favors vehicular access. The library is a tremendous community asset, but downtown Chapel Hill lacks a comparable facility.

Chapel Hill Public Library (via Chapel Hill Public Library)

The public spaces in closer proximity to downtown Chapel Hill are still suboptimal. Many of the “public” spaces on Franklin Street are not truly public because they require a financial investment to utilize the space. The prime example of this is coffee shops, which are regularly used as a place for people to do work, meet with friends, conduct business meetings, or other random tasks. Starbucks has famously capitalized on this latent demand for public space— CEO Howard Schulz has routinely marketed the brand as a third-place (places outside of home and work where people can gather). These places usually function well because the investment to use the space is fairly cheap—a cup of coffee. However, the cost—however small—is still prohibitive to many people. For a place to be truly public, it should be free to access. In addition, because these third places are under private control, they can be unreliable. Starbucks has been in the headlines frequently over controversial cases where certain customers were forced from the store, such as when two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks minutes after arriving for being “non-paying customers.” This is not meant to disparage the important role of these private-public spaces for downtown Chapel Hill; however, there is still unmet demand for truly free public space.

Even further, these private-public spaces on Franklin Street are geared towards a specific demographic—college students and young adults. Franklin Street is known for its restaurants, retail, and entertainment, but these establishments are often one-dimensional and provide no utility for younger or older crowds. Chapel Hill can’t be blamed for this; businesses are catering to the most prevalent customer base. However, Porthole Alley offers a rare opportunity to supply that which the market would never provide—a space useful for all ages. Sometimes, public spaces will be useful primarily to only a subset of the population by necessity—for example, a teen center. However, public spaces should generally have some practical functions for all types of people, including all ages of people. As the popular public space advocacy group 880 Cities puts it, “If everything we do in our cities is great for an eight-year-old and an 80-year-old, then it will be great for everyone”.

While there is a demonstrated need for better public spaces in downtown Chapel Hill, many would argue that UNC has no obligation to provide it—and those people are correct. While the symbiosis between UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill is undeniable, the university ultimately holds no responsibility to provide this space. However, it would be acting against its own principles if it didn’t. The basis for the Porthole Redevelopment Project is the recently published 2019 University Master Plan, a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the campus. The plan establishes several overarching principles; one of them, Look Outward, says this: “UNC-Chapel Hill is of and for the public… The campus will be broadly welcoming and connected to its surroundings”. Clearly, there is a call for something which directly serves the public; the redevelopment needs something more than the Undergraduate Admissions Center and Visitors Center, which serve university objectives exclusively.

By failing to include public space, the university would also miss an opportunity for personal benefit. UNC has discussed Porthole Alley as the potential nexus of an innovation district, a concept that has been highly popularized in recent years. To this end, the redevelopment would include a facility for collaboration in the arts, sciences, or other fields. However, incorporating public space would be one of the best ways to foster innovation. In a joint study between Project for Public Spaces and the Brookings Institute, eight principles for successful innovation districts were determined; the first was to Make Innovation Visible and Public, the idea being that random interaction in an open environment is more innovative than purposeful interaction in a closed environment. Thus, providing public space in Porthole Alley could be complementary to broader university goals.

This public space could take many forms, but the specific function is less important than whether it is conveniently accessible, free, and as useful for as many people as possible. If UNC were to build a space in Porthole Alley which accomplished these things, it would benefit itself and improve downtown Chapel Hill as a place to be enjoyed by all for generations to come.

About the Author: Luke Lowry is a first-year master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning with a specialization in Transportation. He is particularly interested in pedestrian and bicycle planning as a means to increase equity and create vibrant communities. A lifelong resident of North Carolina, he enjoys spending time in the mountains near his hometown.

The Untold Story of Amazon’s Arrival to Hudson Yards

January 11, 2020 / odrozd

By Brandon Tubby

In March 2019, an assortment of politicians, businessmen, and architects gathered in Manhattan’s Far West Side to celebrate the grand opening of Hudson Yards, New York’s newest neighborhood. The city’s mayor, Bill de Blasio, though, was notably absent. Make no mistake – the event was certainly worthy of mayoral attention. With its soaring towers, expertly-engineered 26-acre platform, and $25 billion price tag, the development of Hudson Yards has been dubbed the largest private real estate project in U.S. history. As such, Mayor de Blasio’s decision to forgo the event was peculiar. An aide for de Blasio claimed that the Mayor couldn’t fit the event into his schedule, although other high-profile politicians like Senator Chuck Schumer carved out time to attend and deliver a speech. But in the wake of the Amazon HQ2 fall-out, his absence quietly underscores a growing philosophical predicament for progressives as to what is ‘good’ economic development.

The HQ2 Dilemma

Just one month before the grand opening of Hudson Yards, Mayor de Blasio penned an op-ed in the New York Times scorching Amazon for abruptly pulling out of an agreement to locate its second headquarters (HQ2) in Queens, taking with it promises of over 25,000 jobs. De Blasio attributed local political opposition against HQ2 to growing frustration with flagrant corporate greed and increasing wealth inequality, as the deal with Amazon had included nearly $3 billion in financial assistance from the city and the state.

The endowing of taxpayer money to Amazon raised important questions over how public dollars should be spent. It also ignited a debate among progressives resistant to subsidizing massive corporations but still eager to champion economic development, foster job creation, and bring in cutting-edge industries. So when the news broke that Amazon was quietly bringing over 1,500 jobs to the Hudson Yards neighborhood in December 2019, just months after the HQ2 fall-out, progressives opposed to the original deal felt validated.

Representative Ocasio-Cortez was among progressives opposed to the original HQ2 deal who celebrated Amazon’s move to Hudson Yards (via Twitter).

Behind the Curtain

The real story of Amazon’s new New York office, though, is not so simple. The sleek neighborhood would itself not exist without lenient tax policies and significant financial assistance from the city and state of New York. The Hudson Yards project caught momentum post-9/11, as the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg sought to create a state-of-the-art mixed-use district to increase the city’s supply of both high-end office space and housing. The Bloomberg administration also felt that connecting the development to public transit was a necessity for the neighborhood’s vitality. However, the Far West Side had no subway or train station at the time; thus, building an extension of the number 7 subway line became imperative. One problem: the subway extension came with $2 billion price tag. Anyone familiar with the state of the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s financials knew that the subway project would take years of capital planning and lobbying before ever receiving the green light.

So, in an unusual maneuver in New York City economic policy, the Bloomberg administration proposed paying for the entire subway project through tax increment financing (TIF), a public financing method which calls upon future tax revenue generated by a development to fund associated development costs. In 2007, the city authorized the issuance of $2 billion in bonds to raise capital for the subway extension, wagering that future tax revenue captured from Hudson Yards would generate enough money to pay back their debts. Essentially, the Bloomberg administration put the city on the line for Hudson Yards in an unprecedented fashion.

The Newly Opened 34-Street Hudson Yards Subway Station (via Curbed New York)

For the funding scheme to succeed, the city needed Hudson Yards properties to quickly generate tax revenue. The Hudson Yards Financing District (HYFD) was mapped out along the Far West Side to designate which sites would have their property tax revenue directed towards fulfilling the city’s bond obligations. Crucially, property tax discounts – 25% for 15 years compared to the average Midtown tax bill per square foot – were also offered to developers to swiftly attract tenants. Amazon’s new office, along with new offices for JPMorgan, Blackrock, and L’Oreal, all opened within the boundaries of the HYFD and are, thus, eligible for a substantial tax discount.

Despite these tax incentives, an analysis done by The New School showed that revenue gains fell gravely short of projections, partially due to the economic uncertainty posed by the Great Recession. The city expected to contribute $7.4 million from 2007 to 2015 to make up for the potential revenue mismatch between property tax revenue and debt payments, but ended up spending 40 times more – a whopping total of $359 million. Many see TIF as a “self-financing” funding mechanism, but it proved to be anything but for New York taxpayers. In terms of job creation and economic development, many of the commercial tenants in Hudson Yards simply relocated from other parts of the city due to the generous tax breaks made available. Clearly, the full story of Amazon’s move to Hudson Yards and the financing scheme that made the move possible, reflects the complex, sometimes shady, relationship between government and the world’s wealthiest corporations.

Left, New York City Bill de Blasio and right, state Governor Andrew Cuomo (via Spencer Platt/Getty Images and New York Observer)

An “Unexplained” Absence?

Some politicians like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez celebrated how Amazon, in the aftermath of the HQ2 fall-out, quietly moved to New York, seemingly without public financing and tax-breaks. But, as the overseer of the city’s debt obligations, Mayor de Blasio better grasped the full story. He sees how the city’s financials are now intricately tied to the success of the luxury Hudson Yards neighborhood. He was aware of the complex subsidy schemes, financial loopholes, and tax incentives that made Hudson Yards, including Amazon’s new offices there, possible. So he understood well the optics of celebrating the project’s opening. Hudson Yards is, in fact, the antithesis of what progressives like de Blasio believe urban development should look like: exclusive, gaudy, and subsidy-heavy. But the realization of the project under his administration (though the vision for Hudson Yards is unmistakably a product of the Bloomberg era) reflects the challenges facing the city today as it strives to balance economic development with what is best for residents, economically, socially, and culturally. It epitomizes New York’s ongoing tilt towards private gain over inclusive urban design and underscores how cities are increasingly boxed-in by superagency hegemonies and corporations like Amazon.

In light of these challenges, what de Blasio and future mayoral administrations can, and must, do is sit out of bidding (and building) wars and instead focus on investments in affordable housing, green-collar job creation, education, and infrastructure. In the short-run, there may be no star-studded ribbon cutting ceremonies or sleek new skyscrapers on the skyline. But, in the long-run, they will help create a more resilient, economically just, and inclusive New York for the benefit of all. Hopefully de Blasio understood this when he missed the Hudson Yards grand opening. Perhaps, in fact, the Mayor’s absence was not so peculiar at all.

Feature Image: Hudson Yards New York Press Images

References:

AP Archive. 15 March 2019. $25 billion NYC Hudson Yards development opens. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW1rUjgiWE8

Barro, Josh. 13 November 2018. Here’s Why New York Is Resorting to Paying Amazon $3 Billion for What Google Will Do for Free. NY Mag. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/why-new-york-is-paying-amazon-usd3-billion.html

de Blasio, Bill. 16 February 2019. The Path Amazon Rejected. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/amazon-new-york-bill-de-blasio.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

Feiner, Lauren. 9 December 2019. Amazon will open a new office in New York, less than a year after dropping plans for HQ2. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/amazon-to-lease-space-in-manhattan-less-than-a-year-after-hq2-fallout.html

Fisher, Bridget and Flávia Leite. 2018. The Cost of New York City’s Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project. The New School. https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/political_economy/Cost_of_Hudson_Yards_WP_11.5.18.pdf

Ghaffary, Shirin. 30 January 2019. Amazon’s HQ2 was supposed to be a win for New York City. Instead it has become a huge political battle. VOX. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/30/18202825/amazon-hq2-new-york-city-political-battle-de-blasio-queens

Urban, Rob; Levitt, David; and Christopher Cannon 14 May 2018. Wall Street Is Moving, and It’s Reshaping New York. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-manhattan-office-migrations/?srnd=real-estate-and-home

About the Author: Brandon Tubby is a senior undergraduate at UNC-Chapel Hill majoring in public policy with a minor in urban studies and planning. Brandon competes for the Tar Heels as a distance runner on the varsity cross country and track teams, specializing in the mile.

How Immigrants Can Revitalize Rural Communities

August 2, 2019 / odrozd

For much of its history, Siler City, North Carolina was mostly white; now, due to jobs in poultry processing, the town is 40% Latinx. Driving through downtown, the demographic change is marked by the tiendas, beauty salons, and evangelical churches with signs en español that line the streets. Like many towns across the state, Siler City suffered when the furniture and textile industries moved elsewhere. Though the poultry processing plants remained, the workforce changed as native-born workers no longer wanted low-paying, dangerous jobs.¹ Immigrants not only filled job shortages at the poultry plant and storefronts downtown: this new population also brought new life to a dying industrial town.

Siler City is not an isolated example. Across the South and Midwest, rural communities are experiencing an influx of Latinxs in search of economic opportunity. Latinxs accounted for more than half of the rural population gain in this decade.² Initially drawn to work in agriculture or meat processing, many choose to settle in these places, some opening small businesses. In fact, immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses as their native-born counterparts.³ These businesses contribute to economic development and community building in a number of ways including paying taxes, creating jobs, reducing commercial vacancy downtown, and providing spaces for cultural interaction.⁴ Often, they are launched without technical assistance or formal loans which demonstrate entrepreneurs’ resourcefulness and tenacity but also highlights the need for more institutionalized support.

Providing support for Latinx entrepreneurship can be a promising strategy for economic development in rural communities; however, this approach requires an understanding of the unique barriers and needs of Latinx entrepreneurs. Latinxs are more likely to finance their businesses with personal savings or informal loans from families and friends and are less likely to seek loans from financial institutions.⁵ Due to language or cultural barriers, they may not be able to access technical assistance or understand the processes for starting a business. To effectively engage Latinx business owners, local institutions will need to develop greater cultural competency as well as more targeted and inclusive approaches to outreach.

Mural in Downtown Siler City. Mural and Photo Credit: JR Butler, Siler City Mural Society.

Some organizations and institutions have already begun integrating these concepts into their programs. The Iowa State University Extension and Outreach office, for example, has a dedicated facilitator who works closely with Latinx business owners to navigate the start-up process and facilitate community forums with existing residents.⁶ The office also created “A Citizen’s Guide for Change” that offers lessons from four Iowa communities that have experienced an influx of Latinx immigrants. More and more, communities are recognizing the existing contributions and untapped potential of immigrants.

Efforts are already underway in Siler City, North Carolina to better integrate Latinxs and leverage their potential for entrepreneurship. In 2017, Siler City underwent a multi-year community planning process to identify issues affecting the immigrant population and generate public policies. Part of the Building Integrated Communities Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the process involved a community assessment and a series of stakeholder workshops. Over 75 residents representing a diverse sample of immigrants in Chatham County participated, along with town officials and service providers. As a result of these workshops, town officials and service providers have a better sense of what immigrants need and how they can support integration.⁷ In the next year, the town will work toward implementing aspects of the Building Integrated Communities action plan, including having the planning department visit existing Latinx businesses and hosting a starting a business seminar in Spanish.

The extent to which rural communities adapt to change or welcome newcomers could potentially determine their future. At a time when decline and despair are the dominant narratives of rural America, Latinx immigrants are a source of renewal and hope. By welcoming diversity, small towns can demonstrate to the rest of the country how to embrace inclusiveness and collaborate as a community.

About the Author: Lucia Constantine is a recent graduate of DCRP, interested in immigrant integration and inclusive economic development. Prior to coming to UNC, Lucia worked in higher education and nonprofits. She lives in Durham and enjoys taking her dog to the Eno.

Featured image: A family from Siler City enjoying the playground. Photo credit: Siler City, http://www.silercity.org/

Alexander, C. S. (2012). Explaining Peripheral Labor * A Poultry Industry Case Study. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 33(2), 353–399.
Johnson, K. M. (2012). Rural Demographic Change in the New Century. Carsey Institute, Winter(44), 1–12.
Fairlie, R. (2012). Open for business: How Immigrants Are Driving Small Business Creation in the United States.
Mathema, S., Svajlenka, N. P., & Hermann, A. (2018). Revival and Opportunity Immigrants in Rural America.
Bates, T., & Robb, A. (2015). Impacts of Owner Race and Geographic Context on Access to Small-Business Financing. Economic Development Quarterly, 30 (2), 159–170.https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242415620484
McDaniel, P. (2014). Revitalization in the Heartland of America: Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs for Economic Development.
The Latino Migration Project. (2019) Building Integrated Communities in Siler City: Action Plan for Immigrant Integration.

Why Planners Should Study Finance

June 28, 2019 / odrozd

In 2016, Oregon planners hoped to take advantage of a new light-rail line between Portland and Gresham, a suburban city towards the east, by developing a mixed-use community around Gresham’s rail station. The project would be a walkable transit-hub in a city otherwise dominated by single-family homes and automobiles. But Metro – Portland’s regional government that purchased the land – faced a problem. Nearly all developers rely on loans to pay the costs of construction, and very rarely have enough cash on hand to finance projects themselves. And lenders in Portland were unwilling to finance a transit-oriented development that would be the first of its kind in the region.

This issue is part of a larger pattern that prioritizes existing models of car-based development.Just as some zoning codes can make developments less pedestrian-friendly by demanding minimum parking requirements, banks often have their own set of parking criteria that can sometimes supersede that of local zoning rules. As a Street Blogs article put it: “In many parts of America, efforts to build transit-oriented, walkable communities are foiled because financing can’t be secured for projects that differ from the templates lenders have become used to since World War II.”

The Crossings at Gresham. Photo credit: Myhre Group Architects

To get buy-in from financial groups, the community had to first prove the value of the project. It was only after a coordinated education campaign by regional leaders showing the viability of transit-oriented developments without large amounts of parking that lenders eventually financed the project. The development ended up being a success with 100% occupancy and long wait lists, and has provided a valuable template for financing other projects in the region that have less stringent parking requirements or none at all.

As planners, we often interact with zoning codes, ordinances, and other public tools to (ideally) create healthier, safer, and more sustainable communities. While these tools are essential, we sometimes overlook how economic or financial systems create barriers to achieving those goals. By studying how financial markets work and understanding how banks, lenders, or other parties think, planners can have a better understanding of the barriers for good policy.

This summer, I’m working as a graduate fellow with the Development Finance Initiative in UNC’s School of Government. The group supports local governments across the state with economic and real estate development decisions. One of our current projects is to facilitate the development of affordable housing eastern North Carolina communities ravaged by hurricanes over the past few years.

Today, nearly all affordable housing developments are financed using a federal program called the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), a program that has been around since 1987 and has helped produce an estimated 2.3 million affordable units. Developers rarely use these credits themselves, and instead sell them to investors or companies who wish to reduce their tax bills while using the proceeds to finance the project. But credits are rarely sold at a 1-to-1 value, and the price often fluctuates in response to investor demand. For example, after President Trump passed his tax reform bill in 2017, the corporate tax rate was cut from 35 to 21 percent. Suddenly corporations weren’t in need of tax credits, and the price of LIHTC dropped. For developers, that means less investment to cover the costs of construction. Some industry experts predict passage of Trump’s tax reform will reduce the supply of affordable units by nearly 235,000 over the next 10 years.

While subtle shifts in financial markets can have large consequences at the local level, economically distressed communities have increasingly turned to these same credit systems to spur economic development. Federal and state governments are turning towards tax credits as a way to preserve historic structures or to incentivize investment in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Luckily, a number of towns are using these tools to their advantage. James and Deborah Fallows, in their series on American Small Towns, documented the role that tax credit policies played in the revitalization of downtown Danville, Va. Like North Carolina, Virginia’s small towns have an abundance of vacant or underutilized textile mills and tobacco warehouses. Similar to the LIHTC program, Virginia and the federal government provide tax credits for the rehabilitation costs of redeveloping old structures that retain their historic aesthetic. In this case, Danville’s historic character was what made revitalization possible.

Main Street Plaza. Photo credit: City of Danville

For better or for worse, every community in the nation is increasingly affected by capital markets and the faraway investors who operate in them. Just this month, the New York Times reported that an estimated 1 in 5 starter homes are bought up by investors, leaving local families facing stiff competition in buying their first homes. As local leadership grapples with these new realities, planners should learn how to take advantage of financial and tax policies to create economic opportunity, and develop policies to protect local residents from the worst effects of global capital. Understanding how the assortment of carrots and sticks that developers and bankers used to finance projects, gives planners a better understanding of the forces that drive their communities.

Featured Image: A rendering of a redevelopment plan relying on public-private partnerships for the City of Kannapolis, NC, as developed in partnership with the Development Finance Initiative.

About the Author: Frank Muraca is a rising second-year master’s student in the UNC Department of City and Regional Planning. His interests include neighborhood change, displacement, and disaster housing. Prior to graduate school, he lived and worked in Jiangsu Province, China, writing about migrants and how changing city borders affect outlying farm communities. He’s originally from Charlottesville, Virginia, and earned his bachelor’s degree in economics at George Mason University.

Edited by Nora Louise Schwaller

The Impacts of Defining and Classifying Brownfields

February 23, 2019 / odrozd

This piece was originally written by Ben Berolzheimer for Planning Methods (PLAN 720) in November 2018.

What are brownfields and why should planners care about them? The United States EPA (1) defines a brownfield as “a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” Brownfields are located in just about every community around the U.S., but are most prevalent in cities that have a history of industrial manufacturing followed by economic decline (2). Brownfields present the communities in which they are located with a variety of complex issues varying from chemical exposure to reduced property values. The ill effects of brownfields can disproportionately burden some groups, as minority populations are more likely to live near a brownfield or contaminated site (3).

Redeveloping brownfields can reduce these community issues while minimizing urban sprawl development. When it comes to development, brownfields offer an alternative to undeveloped land, also known as greenfields. By redeveloping brownfields, there is a reduction of waste as sites are often already fitted with supporting infrastructure, which promotes the reuse of building materials. Utilizing brownfields for redevelopment aims to increase more compact urban design through infill, and conserve more green space. While there is no definitive count of the total number of brownfield sites in the United States, estimates range anywhere from 450,000 to one million total sites (4). One of the major issues that planners, developers, and communities are confronted with when trying to remediate and redevelop brownfields is the difficulty in defining exactly what is a brownfield.

Photo of Zemědělský brownfield taken by Petr Vilgus (2007) from Creative Commons

By lacking a brownfield definition, municipalities might be unaware that such a site exists in their community. By being able to define and identify a brownfield site, only then can local governments determine the suitability of and prioritize a brownfield for redevelopment. Counting and characterizing the total number of brownfield sites in the U.S. is no easy task. Much of the difficulty can be attributed to the lack of a clear and standard definition of brownfields. The EPA (5) previously defined a brownfield as any “abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.” Inclusion of the word “perceived” indicates that just about anywhere could be classified as a brownfield. Without clearly defined characteristics and boundaries of brownfields, governments have an uphill battle in identifying, characterizing, counting, and prioritizing them for redevelopment.

Another factor that makes counting and characterizing the total number of brownfields so difficult, is the perception that comes with a property being labeled as a brownfield. Since the brownfield definition is not clear, the ramifications of being labeled as such are not clear either. There are no legal implications, but a brownfield classification can often influence public perception that a site is contaminated, unclean, and unsafe. Because of this perception problem, property owners have no incentive to self-report or cooperate with counting efforts.

Planners can play a role in how brownfields are defined and targeted for redevelopment. Proactively identifying potential brownfields before they are actually classified is one approach. It is advantageous to get ahead of a classification perception problem than have to mitigate the effects post-classification. One method for predicting and identifying potential brownfields has been using tax delinquency data and industrial classification codes (6). Another potential approach to defining brownfield sites could be one of increased inclusivity. If a property is not posing a direct risk to communities then it might be more beneficial for neighboring citizen properties if the site is not classified. Labeling a property as a brownfield gives a site a scary name and adds a negative perception to something that is not clearly defined. When considering infill redevelopment of underused property, local governments and communities should look at all potential properties, not just brownfields. While the importance of evaluating property for potential contaminants and associated health risks should not be overlooked, the vague definition of a brownfield can cause more harm than good when it comes to governments and communities being able to redevelop underused properties.

Finally, when redeveloping brownfields, local governments should be cognizant of the potential for gentrification, and should take strides to ensure revitalization without displacement. Brownfield infill development in urban areas has often been associated with an increase in displacement of residents, which as mentioned early, are often minority communities. For this reason, is could be beneficial for a community based approach to redevelopment. The American Planning Association (APA) has developed a report to help planners with this process,“Creating community-based brownfield redevelopment strategies” (7). The APA report provides a step-by-step roadmap for community based organizations to take control of the redevelopment process and co-produce desired outcomes of the communities in which these properties are located. Local governments can also employee community residents in the revitalization of a brownfield through the EPA’s Environmental and Workforce Development Job Training Program Grant, which focuses on the underemployed surrounding a brownfield by providing training and employment opportunities to redevelop the site (8).

Equipped with the knowledge about brownfield classification, redevelopment prioritization, and importance of community involvement during redevelopment, local governments, planners, and communities are better prepared to utilize brownfield sites. Through brownfield infill, municipalities can conserve precious greenfields while efficiently using land within the build environment.

Photo of St James’s Park Lake taken by Colin (6 October 2012) from Flickr.com

About the author: Ben Berolzheimer is a first-year master’s student in UNC’s Department of City and Regional Planning specializing in land use and environmental planning. He works part time as an ORISE Research Fellow at the U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development for the Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program, where he creates strategies and frameworks to make research more impactful and user-focused. As a happily married newlywed, Ben enjoys spending his free time exploring the North Carolina mountains with his wife Carley.

References:

US EPA, 2018. Brownfields Definition. US EPA Brownfields Homepage http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/glossary.htm.
Simons, Robert A. “How Many Urban Brownfields Are Out There?: An Economic Base Contraction Analysis of 31 U.S. Cities.” Public Works Management & Police 2, No 3 (1998): 267-73.
Byrne, Jason, Jennifer Wolch, and Jin Zhang. “Planning for Environmental Justice in an Urban National Park.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52, No.3 (2009): 365-92.
U.S. General Account Office (GAO). 1987. Superfund: Extent of Nation’s Potential Hazardous Waste Problem Still Unknown. GAO/RCED-88-44. Washington, DC: GAO
US EPA, 1997. Brownfields Definition. US EPA Brownfields Homepage http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/glossary.htm.
Cheng, Fangfang, Stan Geertman, Monika Kuffer, and Qingming Zhan. “An Integrative Methodology to Improve Brownfield Redevelopment Planning in Chinese Cities: A Case Study of Futian, Shenzhen.” Computers, Environment and Urban System 35, No. 5 (2011): 388-98.
Hersh, Robert, David Morley, James Schwab and Laura Solitare. “Creating community-based brownfield redevelopment strategies.” American Planning Association. 2010.
US EPA, 2019. Types of Brownfields Grant Funding. US EPA Brownfields https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/types-brownfields-grant-funding

Now Available Online – Just Creativity: Planning for Inclusive Prosperity

March 1, 2017 / odrozd

Volume 41 of the Carolina Planning Journal is now available for free on the Carolina Planning Journal webpage. Just scroll to the bottom and click on the link!

“Planning for creativity must focus not only on maximizing revenues or attracting capital, it must also address the way that the arts contribute to more equitable, livable, and inclusive cities for all.”

From Brownfields to Goldfields

January 16, 2017 / odrozd

“Potential site contamination. Remediation required.”

This phrase strikes fear into the hearts of investors and developers looking to finance their next project. An already strenuous process of site evaluation, plan development, and investment soliciting grinds to a halt as developers question whether clean-up efforts and future liabilities are worth further investment of time and resources. It is usually at this point where developers opt for a lower risk route, continuing the site’s cyclical process of abandonment and untapped revitalization.

These sites, known as brownfields, are former industrial or commercial sites suspected of environmental contamination. Brownfields can include places like gas stations, dry cleaning operations, and chemical factories. They can be contaminated with anything from crude oil to lead, and a host of hazardous materials to the environment and human health that enter a site’s soil and groundwater. Over 450,000 brownfield sites are estimated to currently exist in the United States.

Brownfield site in Cambridge, MA. Photo Credit: Engineering at Cambridge.

In North Carolina, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) offers incentives for developers to invest in brownfields. The DEQ creates ‘brownfield agreements’ with potential developers, allowing the state to negotiate clean up requirements for developers in exchange for granting ‘not to sue’ covenants to prospective developers. Sharon Eckard of DEQ noted a substantial rise in the number of brownfield agreement applications submitted; almost 90 brownfield agreement applications were submitted in 2015 compared to just 63 in 2014. North Carolina’s Brownfields Program also provides property tax incentives, granting five years of partial exclusion from taxes following the completion of state mandated improvements to brownfield conditions. While participating in the program may cost developers over $30,000, the amount saved over a five year period has proven to entice developers in the state, especially for large-scale commercial projects in downtown areas.

If a developer decides to partake in a brownfield redevelopment process, the site undergoes a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to determine whether contaminants actually exist on the property. If no contaminants are found on the site, development may proceed. However, if the results of the Phase I assessment are inconclusive, a Phase II assessment would be required. While federal funding can be acquired for assessments, evaluation costs can be as high as $20,000. If contaminants are found during Phase II, remediation would be required in order to repurpose the land for uses suitable for humans. While the cost for remediation strategies varies, it is estimated that the average cost of brownfield remediation totals $600,000.

Despite the steep costs of remediations, redeveloped brownfield sites result in an average benefit value of almost $4 million. Many developers across North Carolina have taken advantage of the state’s Brownfield Program incentives. The redevelopment of the American Tobacco Campus in Durham currently serves as the embodiment of how brownfield redevelopment can reignite a city’s economy.

American Tobacco Campus. Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons.

Raleigh Union Station is a current brownfield redevelopment project occurring in western Raleigh. Union Station will be a multimodal transit station for Amtrak and the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) trains, and will be housed in an adaptive reuse of the Viaduct Building, a relic of the city’s industrial past. Once completed in 2018, Union Station will serve not only as a regional transportation hub for the state and the southeastern United States, but also as a civic hall for public events and commercial rental spaces. The alternative for this brownfield site would result in “no revenue for the city” as mentioned by Eckard. She has been involved in revitalizing many of the brownfield sites surrounding the new Union Station. The Contemporary Art Museum of Raleigh, which opened in 2011, and the Dillion, an ambitious seventeen-story mixed used project located at the site of the historic Dillon Supply Company, are both indicators of the untapped potential of brownfields in West Raleigh and other urban centers.

Model of Raleigh Union Station presented by John Gallagher. Photo Credit: Pasan Perera.

Though it serves as a tool in combating urban sprawl and economic decline, brownfield redevelopment continues to face an uphill battle. John Gallagher, a former partner of Cherokee Investment Partners, believes one of the major issues he faced when soliciting investors is the negative connotation surrounding brownfields. Rather than referring to these sites as ‘brownfield,’ Gallagher suggests using ‘goldfields’ to indicate an opportunity for growth in investment. This simple change in terminology is believed to make all the difference in swaying community opinions on brownfield redevelopment.

A word of caution from brownfield remediation relates to post-redevelopment results. Often times, remediation and redevelopment increase the property values of former brownfield sites and neighboring areas, which in many cases leads to gentrification and related socioeconomic issues. Northeast Central Durham, a historically African-American neighborhood, currently contains thirteen vacant brownfield sites. Though brownfield redevelopment in this neighborhood may prove to be lucrative, we must remember that the residents lived through the economic hardships embodied by the abandoned building and endured the health and environmental impacts. As planners, we must realize that as new life comes to abandoned sites, those who survived the adverse impacts of these sites must also be able to reap its benefits.

Featured Image: Exterior view of Raleigh Union Station’s main entrance. Photo Credit: NCDOT Communications.

About the Author: Pasan Perera is a first year Master’s student at UNC’s City and Regional Planning Department. He is a native of Carrboro, NC. His interests lie in brownfield remediation and redevelopment, and how these processes impact marginalized communities in the surrounding areas. Outside of school, Pasan enjoys boxing, Law & Order marathons, and frequenting food trucks in the Triangle area.

Reviving Wasted Pavement

September 29, 2016 / odrozd

How should we use public space in downtown cores? What is the social role of parks? What form can community action take?

Angles sat down with environmental studies and city planning student Caroline Lindquist, a senior undergraduate at UNC-Chapel Hill, to find out. We discuss the parklet she and her friends designed, built, and enjoyed on September 16th, known fondly by guerrilla urbanists throughout as “PARK(ing) Day”.

Angles: What is PARK(ing) Day?

Caroline Lindquist: PARK(ing) Day is an “annual open-source global event” where citizens transform parking spaces into temporary public spaces or parklets for the day. The event began in 2005 in San Francisco with a design studio called Rebar, that created its own parklet for a day. The mission of PARK(ing) Day is “to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated.”

A: How did you set up the park? Did you need permission to use the space?

CL: To build the Chapel Hill parklet, we gathered our group of friends who studied sustainable community design through the Burch Study Abroad Seminar in Spain and Germany in 2015. We all brought different items from our houses such as carpets, plants, chairs, sofas, tables, anything that we thought could help make a fun public space. We then bought two big rolls of astroturf and rolled them out to lay the groundwork for the parklet (because what’s a park without some green?) After arranging basic seating, we drew a checkerboard on the pavement with chalk and added a little putt-putt green to encourage activity in the space.

The parklet on Franklin Street in downtown Chapel Hill, NC. The park included household furniture, a putt-putt green, and potted plants. Photo: Caroline Lindquist

Did we need permission? Technically no. The original creators of Parking Day, looked at the zoning code in San Francisco and other cities and saw that as long as you pay the parking meter, you can use the space however you want. The Director of the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, Meg McGurk, was extremely supportive and encouraging of PARK(ing) Day. Meg went out of her way to reserve parking spots for us, pay the meter, and even provide Starbucks gift cards for anyone who visited the park to use.

A: Who were some of the people who visited the park?

CL: The type of people who used the park varied throughout the day. In the morning, the parklet was mainly occupied by our set-up crew, some folks experiencing homelessness who helped us set up the parklet the year before, moms with young kids, and coffee shop patrons.

Sidewalk chalk entertained younger parklet visitors. Photo: Caroline Lindquist

In the afternoon, our friends stopped by, along with other UNC students, and those who heard about the event through social media or word of mouth.

By the evening, the sidewalks were heavily populated, since there was a home football game the next day. That was when more families and adults visited the parklet.

Early in the day, the parklet was hosted a variety of activities. People conversed, played music, and read. Photo: Caroline Lindquist

A: How was the space used throughout the day? What was the space like at 9am compared to 5 in the afternoon?

CL: Throughout the day, the space changed based on the sun orientation and the people who used the parklet. At 9am, the space was very basic with a few spots for seating, a picnic table, some couches, a bench. At mid-morning, we added balloons on the ‘No Parking’ cones to make the space more celebratory and inviting. We also added sidewalk chalk, which attracted some of the younger children walking by. In the afternoon, a friend brought by a foosball table and a soccer ball. We turned the astroturf section of the parklet into a mini soccer field using the ‘No Parking’ cones for goals.

A: What do you hope creating the parklet accomplished?

CL: I think this parklet showed people how much public space is devoted to the automobile (the sheer size of a parking spot is statement enough). Many people could not believe that all the parklet space was just two parking spots.

The parklet was a testament how public spaces strengthen community by encouraging interaction between different members of society (students, children, professionals, homeless, elderly) that may otherwise never meet.

The park also encouraged people to take more ownership of their city by transforming spaces to better reflect community values.

By the evening, the parklet truly evolved into a social space. Photo: Brian Vaughn

A: What urban designers inspire you?

CL: Though she’s not a designer, Jane Jacobs is one of my greatest inspirations. She was a journalist, author, and activist who criticized urban designs of the day, saying that they did not reflect the needs of city dwellers. The urban realm should be designed to the human scale to encourage ‘eyes on the street.’

Ghigo DiTomasso, a professor of mine at Berkeley is another major source of inspiration. He works for Gehl Studios, a world-renowned urban design firm, on activating public spaces and using tactical urbanism.

Lastly, Thomas Woltz, a landscape architect has inspired me with is urban design projects (such as the Hudson Yards project in New York City) because of the way he focuses on revealing the intersection between landscape ecology and cultural history with his work.

A: What projects are you working on right now?

CL: Right now, I am doing an independent study on the psychology of biophilic urban design. My work is focused on understanding the mental health benefits of integrating nature into cities as well as the psychology behind designing successful public spaces. I am using Dix Park in Raleigh as my case study, which was a mental health hospital before the land was bought by the City in 2015. I am also serving on the Dix Park Master Plan Advisory Committee, where I have the opportunity to help with the planning process and design of the new park.

Dix Park in Raleigh. Credit: City of Raleigh Parks & Recreation

About the Author

Caroline Lindquist is a senior at UNC majoring in Environmental Studies and minoring in City and Regional Planning. Her primary interests are biophilic design, tactical urbanism, and landscape architecture. She has spent the past two summers studying renewable energy in Spain and Germany and studying Urban Design at UC Berkeley. Caroline currently serves on the Dix Park Master Plan Advisory Committee for the City of Raleigh.

Feature Photo: Caroline Lindquist

Durham’s Crisis of Priorities: Parking and Housing

June 30, 2016 / odrozd

A version of the following piece was originally published in the Triangle-based Indy in response to an article about the downtown Durham parking “crisis”. The article mentions that the city of Durham will soon begin charging for on-street parking and that local leaders are debating whether to use two county-owned downtown parcels for parking or affordable housing.

A large surface-level parking lot in the Brightleaf area of Durham. Another surface-level parking lot (not pictured) occupies a city block just across the street. Credit: William Moose

The assumption that plenty of parking should be easily available to all who wish to park downtown is deeply flawed.The fact that there is more demand for parking than spaces is an indicator of a healthy downtown and a downtown with employment and desirable destinations. Most large and thriving cities do not come close to meeting the demand for parking, and many have stopped trying with good reason.

More driving, more traffic, and more car-oriented development are the result of free and/or cheap parking. These effects bring negative social, health, and environmental impacts. If parking is easy and readily available, people will choose to drive individually to work or to eat or shop. If a city wants to encourage the use of public transportation, walking, biking, and carpooling, there is no better way than restricting the overall number of parking spaces or charging for access to those spaces. Doing so encourages people to make healthier and more environmentally-friendly travel choices such as biking or taking transit.

Attempting to meet the ever-growing demand for parking leads cities to cede valuable downtown real estate to one of the least productive uses of land: parking. Parking decks and parking lots require large amounts of space and are generally dead zones in the urban landscape. Whether it’s a surface lot or parking decks, these features kill the pedestrian vitality of an urban space. People tend to find walking by a parking lot or a massive parking deck unpleasant, and parking creates areas that people generally avoid at night. Ultimately, placing a priority on parking prioritizes space in the city for cars over space in the city for people and precludes the use of those spaces for other more economically or socially beneficial uses that could enhance the city’s vitality.

Ultimately, placing a priority on parking prioritizes space in the city for cars over space in the city for people and precludes the use of those spaces for other more economically or socially beneficial uses that could enhance the city’s vitality.

Durham has a far greater need for transit improvements, bike lanes, sidewalks, and affordable housing than for additional parking. Many bus stops in Durham have no bus shelter, no sidewalks, and no safe places to cross the street. I have seen unfortunate bus riders who presumably have no other choice, standing by a sign along a highway with no sidewalks on a muddy patch of ground in the rain waiting on the bus. I have seen pregnant women with small children hurrying across multiple lanes of traffic from a bus stop where there is no safe place for them to cross. Or consider the state of Durham’s streets for cyclists or pedestrians. Many of our streets are dangerous spaces for the people who, whether out of choice or out of necessity, are making the most socially and environmentally responsible choices on how to travel. For every worker who feels entitled to a parking space downtown, there is somebody who is deserving of the dignity of having a proper bus shelter, or a cyclist who deserves the safety of a bike lane, or a walker who deserves quality sidewalks and safe crossings.

A parking deck dominates a prominent corner in downtown Durham. It is one of seven parking decks currently in existence in the downtown. Credit: William Moose

Let’s also not forget that just a few decades ago, Durham destroyed much of its urban form by constructing highways through the heart of the city in the name of convenience for automobile users, decimating and dividing communities of color and contributing to the city’s precipitous decline. Urban renewal highway projects like the Downtown Loop are now widely accepted as major planning blunders and the tragedy that befell the Hayti neighborhood when the Durham Freeway was built on top of it is infamous. Let’s not repeat these mistakes by putting cars before people once again.

Let’s not repeat these mistakes by putting cars before people once again.

I understand that with the growth of both population and businesses in downtown Durham there will be a desire for greater access to parking. This is particularly understandable when quality alternatives to driving are often unavailable. If the city of Durham is serious about being a great city, it must invest in transit, it must invest in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and it must invest in affordable housing. Quite simply, the progressive and thriving cities of the future are not prioritizing parking; instead, they’re investing in transit and in pedestrian and bicycle improvements, all of which are measures that the city of Durham should take more seriously.

William Moose is a graduate of the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC, Class of 2016. His specialization was transportation and he is currently working at the UNC Highway Safety Research Center. When not railing against parking, he enjoys playing the guitar, listening to music, studying languages, traveling, and cooking.