As part of their lead-up to the mayoral primary, The Times yesterday ran one of their faux-debate segments called Room for Debate on either infrastructure or “livable city” issues. The pieces’s permalink hints at the former while the current headline broadcasts the latter. Either way, there’s no debating going on in this room as five experts sound off on five issues the next mayor should confront.
Julia Vitullo-Martin, a senior fellow with the RPA, drew the transportation straw, and her segment is on transit-oriented development. It’s always struck me as funny to talk about TOD in New York City. The entire city is one giant example of transit-oriented development, and TOD in such a dense urban area clearly doesn’t mean the same as TOD surrounding a commuter rail station in the ‘burbs does. In fact, based on the way Vitullo-Martin describes it, her TOD is heavy on the D and lacking in concrete ideas surrounding the T.
Here’s her proposal to, as she puts it, “increase the supply of space, and do it by using the strategy New York virtually invented, transit-oriented development, which encourages the massing of businesses and residences near public transit hubs:”
The Bloomberg administration correctly rezoned large sections of the city, particularly the formerly derelict waterfront. But there’s much more to be done by the next mayor, who should direct the department of city planning to produce a map ranking neighborhoods by concentration of transit and suitability for development, with analyses of which areas can absorb the most new development.
The next mayor would be wise to couple these zoning changes with mandatory payments into an amenity fund to mitigate the effects of development — similar to the district improvement bonus proposed for East Midtown Rezoning. That bonus was criticized for being too generous, but that’s not the point. The point is to create a device to capture part of the profits of development to improve the neighborhood being developed, and to relieve pressure elsewhere, even helping to save historic sections of the city.
Some would say there is another solution to excessive demand: don’t let the newcomers in. But in an age of global innovation and competitiveness, do we really want to do that? Newcomers not only bring more money to the city, they have also — as Dan Doctoroff, the former deputy mayor, noted at a recent Next New York forum — been essential to paying for the “compassionate city we pride ourselves on.” But to pay for the compassion as well as the public services that have helped propel New York back to its position as a global leader, the city needs the tax revenue that only new development brings. Just make sure new development is close to public transportation.
If this mini-essay does nothing else, it certainly wins the urbanist buzzword bingo game. But what Vitullo-Martin advocates for is half of a solution. We certainly want to encourage building tall and ever upward near key transit hubs (and just about any subway station), and rezoning can be a prime mover in adding to housing stock while alleviating some of the skyrocketing housing costs in New York City. But if we’re going to call for transit-oriented development, it’s imperative to make sure the transit system can sustain development.
One of the obstacles facing the Midtown East rezoning concerns its impact, perceived or real, on the transit system. The Lexington Ave. is from the north is at capacity, and the Second Ave. Subway won’t reach midtown for a decade or two at best. Although East Side Access will bring more people in the Grand Central area and the Lex lines can handle northbound commuters from Brooklyn, politicians and community activists think the transit won’t meet demand, and in many places, that very well might be true.
So as urban policy makers advocate for more development in NYC, they can’t ignore transit. It’s not about improving neighborhoods or saving historic districts, as Vitullo-Martin claims it is. Rather, it’s about making sure the transit network can support the development she wants to see spring up around it. And that, much like Big Ideas, isn’t discussed nearly as much as it should be.
38 comments
Transit is not always the most important factor when it comes to Development (see the “Meatpacking” District” as Exhibit A). In fact, going forward, Parks and the Waterfront may be bigger (the “High Line Effect”) and we are seeing this same thing with Brooklyn Bridge Park (DUMBO) and now Greenpoint (just wait until the Newtown Creek is cleaned up, the New Kosciuszko Bridge is erected (in 2018), Box Street Park and (eventually) Bushwick Inlet Park are completed, and Hallets Point (Astoria)). I believe another area that could one day be huge for Development could be Hunts Point, because of the Waterfront views, and cheap land (the big questions of course, is will low cost housing be erected there instead, and what happens to the Sheridan Expressway?). Whatever happens it will be interesting.
Actually, in a place like New York City, it pretty much is. Most of the places you mention have reasonable transit access that would be the envy of most cities, and are near other TOD-oriented districts. The ones that don’t and won’t are pretty much the less believable examples of prime development spots.
Hell, I might go out on a limb and say, the most wildly successful parks are near transit. And, hitching your wagon to the waterfront development horse is just idiotic. Those are the places that are going to be pummeled by every Sandy that comes through, even if they don’t end up permanently underwater.
Sandy was a storm of such severity, that was extremely rare (in fact, the last time we had something like it was the “Long Island Express” of 1938). As far as “reasonable transit access that would be the envy of most cities” is concerned, we are talking about NEW YORK development not comparing things to other Cities. As it relates to CURRENT Transportation options, there is an area in Brooklyn that has some of the BEST Transportation choices in Brooklyn (certainly better than Greenpoint or DUMBO): It has a Major Subway Hub with (3) lines going through it, a LIRR Station, a Large Bus Depot, a parkway (the Jackie Robinson), and two major Avenues (Fulton & Jamaica), and it still sucks. I mean of course, East New York. But what doesn’t it have? Waterfront property. For that reason alone, I will bet on at least one (or perhaps more) of the following: 1: Hunts Point. 2: Willets Point. 3: Aqueduct (read today’s Daily News Editorial Page), being built up to its potential before it happens to East New York.
Based on your history of idiotic comments here, it’s hardly worth arguing with you, but this one truly takes the cake. Have you ever even been to East New York?
Higher global temperatures have pretty well guaranteed the risk of Sandy-like storms is higher.
East New York actually has all the ingredients we’re talking about: transit (albeit disjointed at best), park, and waterfront access. It’s a big neighborhood, and Broadway Junction is its northern extreme, not its center. Maybe the transit hasn’t saved it, but neither has the waterfront or the parks.
It is different from other inner Brooklyn in that it also ghettoized by modernists, who were themselves parks ideologues, suffers from poor walkability, is located near a cemetery, has little economy, and is far enough away from other neighborhoods that reversed themselves to be a poor candidate for gentrification any time soon. If East New York’s fortunes change, it’s probably some years in the future.
(I’m not sure why a bus depot is supposed to be a good thing. Isn’t that kind of a bad thing?)
I am very pro Development, and look at Transit from a Development, economic and growth perspective. I grew up not far from East New York (Woodhaven, Queens) and that area and the even worse, Cypress Hills)have simply not improved the way they should have. Lets compare it to Bushwick. The term “Straight out of Bushwick” was like “Straight out of Compton.” Now, who would have guessed that Myrtle Ave aka “Murder Ave” who be Hipster? Or the Knickerbocker Ave that was almost nothing but drugs and prostitution would be upscale? I will take the hipsters and their families over criminals everyday of the week. I also see the improvement of the Bowery and “Meatpacking” District and am happy to see the drug addicts and prostitutes gone. I do not think a Bus Depot is a bad thing (because there are plenty of busses are available when you need one, and the people who work they have a decent discretionary income to spend on local business). The key of course, is how it looks and blends in (the New Mother Hale compared to say Jamaica Terminal which (along with the Mall Across the Street looks like Skank Ville)).
If you’re still trying to defend the notion that transit matters less than parks or waterfront, Bushwick doesn’t seem like a good example for you to parade. East New York has parks and waterfront, Woodhaven/Cypress Hills at least have parks/green space, and Bushwick is about as park-starved as you can get.
What Bushwick does have is great access to Manhattan and Williamsburg…by transit.
A location on the Atlantic Branch isn’t much to boast about since the trains that stop at ENY don’t come by very often.
We just spent millions of dollars on a food distribution center in Hunts Point, which is still heavily utilized industrial.
Willets Point is pretty much the closest thing the five boroughs has to an actual slum – no paved roads or sewers.
Aqueduct is extremely far from the city and serviced by a branch of the (A) that only sees fifteen minute service midday.
Why these neighborhoods would stand out to you instead of more obvious choices such as Flushing, Jamaica, or Fordham is beyond me.
Also, a hurricane of Sandy’s category was definitely not a 1-in-100 event (1-in-100-years is an incorrect interpretation of the probability of hurricanes or storms often used by news media.) That would be a Category 3 hurricane (1938). When Hurricane Sandy made landfall, it was 5MPH over the minimum for a Category 1 hurricane. All the areas you mentioned are steadfastly in Zones A and B and suffered from flooding during a category 1 storm, and would probably flood the next time a hurricane comes.
NYC is crowded. Parks and the waterfront are nice…but how is anyone going to get there?
R u doing “the next stop is” today ben?
I think TOD around additional transit hubs such as LIC, Downtown Brooklyn, etc is really what we should be going for, but the RPA doesnt care about that. The planners in Jersey City clearly figured it out though, and they are one of those hubs.
Still not sure the use of the phrase TOD is appropriate here, and it definitely isnt in Manhattan. If we want to talk about the Babylon LIRR line on the other hand….
The problem with TOD is that the people in charge (politicians and developers) drive or get driven everywhere. To them, more roads and parking *is* the T in TOD. We still have politicians who live in 1955 and think the only way to travel is by car and that public transport is for the poors.
Seth Pinsky’s ears are ringing.
Room for Debate is probably NYT’s plot to capitalize on the bland TED demographic, people who want to be smart without ever having to think. RfD finds stakeholders with boring, pedantic opinions masquerading as pithy scholarship and throw them into this faux debate arena. Except they don’t address each other. Look at the RfD piece by Adrian Benepe, the ex-parks commissioner who thinks it’s a Really Good Idea to steal a transit line in an inaccessible, park-rich neighborhood and turn it into a…park. It’s not like the transit line could bring people to the parks that are already over there. It would be silly to think that, especially for an ex-parks comissioner!
Not sure I agree with this one. Bit of an extreme counterexample, but this is in NYC too. And that’s ignoring this.
Regardless, there is certainly room in NYC for making sure new development focuses on transit accessibility, even in Manhattan! TOD is a relevant topic here.
To be fairly honest, Forest Hills Gardens is all a short walk from Forest Hills proper (and the commercial and transit hub), and is more like a few blocks square. It’s also not cul-de-sacs, which are very rare in the city.
Jamaica Estates, on the other hand…
Does it matter? Does that look “transit-oriented” to you?
TOD is about developing to encourage transit use. You can have transit without TOD, and New York City manages that a lot.
FHG has numerous round about streets to prevent most through traffic. As a neighborhood though it’s a fantastic place to get around on foot or on transit. Now some will ask – what about the hassle that is Queens Boulevard? And the answer is simple – instead of crossing the street, you cross under it. I’m there on a farely regular basis, so I’ve become aware of the tricks of the trade around there.
Walkscore ranks Forest Hills as the 84th most walkable neighborhood with a score of 84, but personally it should be ranked higher do to the ease of access to everything within 1.5 miles.
The problem is we ignore transit when developing. Cases in point. New economic development to replace municipal parking lots with high rise development n Flushing, replacing the parking with less unaffordable private parking (like was done on Kings Highway) with no attempt to move the buses off street to relieve congestion only a plan to turn Man Street and Union Street into one way pairs, increasing traffic and double paking.
Another case, eliminating municipal parking near Brooklyn College where there existed a possibility to build an off-street transit center for six local bus lines and where instead the City chose to build another shopping center doing nothing for transit once again.
To be fairly honest, Union St is not a through route through Flushing (whereas Kissena and Main are), so you’d need to do a lot of time consuming turns to get onto Union. That would also be one of the farthest one way pairs in the city, so that’s a big minus.
Perhaps the city should assert itself more and gain more control over its transit network. Currently, development is managed by the city, however transit is controlled by Albany, and the 2 have different priorities and different time lines. And it’s more than just the city throwing $ at a subway extension. Under more city control, transit can be better included in a wholistic approach to neghborhood development. As we see in Williamsburg, the waterfront is getting a bus line years later, and also increased L service years later.
TOD is different in the urban setting as compared to the suburban one, but the funtimentles are the same regardless of wich area you look at.
Some sites worth viewing…
http://www.walkscore.com As the name suggests, by entering an adress or neighborhood, the site calculates a walkability score. If a transit agency uses google transit or open sources it’s transit data, you’ll be able to obtain a transit score as well. Most recently bike score were added.
http://www.vtpi.org The Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Victoria BC, has a lot of research worth reading on transportation, TOD & other topics in it’s TDM encyclopedia.
I know full well what TOD is in various environments and areas. I’ll still maintain that talking about TOD in New York City is largely a waste of breath and that talking about TOD without talking about transit development is beyond short-sighted. That’s my post in a nutshell.
Ben,
Have you visited the two sites I linked to above? If not, I strongly erge you & other readers to do so, it’s eye opening.
Really? After the onslaught of car-oriented development the past 12 years? A lot can be done to develop areas near transit stations without building new transit.
Are you referring to the plague of parking minimums or other development projects? Perhaps waste of breath is too strong a dismissal, but the new developments are all within TOD-acceptable distances from transit. That doesn’t mean we can’t up-build near transit though.
NYC just hasn’t been adding much pedestrian-oriented development near transit. The stuff that does get built close to transit has way too much parking than it should. It’s a huge problem for a number of reasons, not least of which is that car-oriented growth degrades the entire surface transit system.
My idea of TOD in NYC is to allow tall apartment buildings
within half a mile of a subway station, WITHOUT ANY
minimum parking requirements.
Some years back a new building was planned for the
corner of 6th Av @ 23rd St. I happened to be near
a planning official at a meeting. I asked him if they
would waive the parking requirements. Since the
new high-rise would be within two blocks of the
8th Ave, 7th Ave, 6th Ave, and Broadway trains,
it would be a good place to live for people who
don’t want or need cars. He was dumbstruck and
flailed around for a reply. Well, now “everybody”
is talking abut lower parking requirements, but
it still hasn’t happened in Manhattan at all.
Manhattan has parking maximums. Not sure what you’re talkin bout here.
Talking north of 110th Street, where the parking maximums do not apply.
Quite a lot of sites appear to be ripe for development Uptown. Many are close to the #1 on Broadway, the A,B,C, and D train along 8th Av/St Nicholas, the #2 and #3 on Lenox Ave, MetroNorth at Park Ave, and the #4, #5, and #6 lines on Lexington Ave (and in the sweet diddy wah diddy, the SAS too).
I favor adding parking maximums here, but at least removing any parking minimums. That’s what I’m talk about.
Okay, because you used the general term “Manhattan” and also mentioned 23rd and 6th, which is definitely covered by minimums. Just wanted to clear things up.
Yes, I should have emphasized that I want all the parking maximums in Manhattan to be reduced, and all parking minimums abolished. Especially around 23rd and 7th. But the way Harlem is targeted for redevelopment, we should seek to end all parking minimums Uptown.
The conundrum for transportation in New York City is that we have both places that are difficult to access by car (Manhattan), and places that are difficult to access by transit (pick any location not near a train station). This means that, if you want full access to the world around you, you need to live in a place that has both good transit access and good car access. Having one without the other means having large areas that you cannot easily get to.
To this end, transit development is very important to the future of the city. Expanding subway access to underserved neighborhoods is a must for enabling future growth. But building apartments without providing parking for your tenants is shooting them in the foot. If you do it right, people will have most of their transportation needs served by transit and will not use their cars on a daily basis (I usually only use mine on the weekend, to go to places outside of the five boroughs). But the expectation that people will make the leap from that to simply not owning a car is something that I just can’t see as an ideal to strive for. You surrender A LOT of freedom of mobility by doing so.
No one is arguing for the banning of parking spaces in transit-oriented development. People are arguing to remove the mandatory requirement to build a certain amount of parking. Developers will still be able to build parking, but will only build as much as they think they will need for daily requirements. Let the free market decide is much better than an arbitrary minimum.
Somehow the majority of New York City households have surrendered A LOT of their freedom of mobility. Since we still claim to be a democracy, perhaps we should put the needs of the majority first.
For most of us, housing comes before parking. Having our government require parking spaces (that a developer thinks will not be needed) simply adds hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a new building.
Of course, for some of us car-less elitists, if we got the money, honey, we can get around. Like, taxies. Or, back when I was cute, I used to rent a car to take myself and my cute friends to Riis Beach every summer weekend. (It was cheaper to rent than to pay insurance and parking fees, never mind the cost of the car.) Now that I’m older and cope with diabetes, my bicycle exercise efforts take me to far reaches of Queens, the Bronx, into Yonkers, etc. from my base on 96th in Manhattan.
The strip of buildings along Columbus Ave, from 97th down to 87th, have underground parking garages. And MOST of them rent their surplus spaces to non-residents. Why you think it’s good policy to require residential buildings in Manhattan to have parking spaces to be used for suburbanites driving into my neighborhood … are you sure you’ve thought this thru?
I’m not talking about buildings which are highly transit accessible, such as those on Columbus Avenue. Nor am I saying that requiring developers add more spaces than their tenants need is healthy policy (it’s not).
What I’m talking about is new buildings I see going up in places that are a significant distance from the nearest subway station (i.e., outside of what qualifies as “good transit access”) that provide ZERO parking spaces on site. This is problematic because of the strain it puts on on-street parking resources in the area.
And while I will grant you that there are ways to use a car without owning one, they are extra hassle, and can’t really fulfill every possible purpose the way a car you own can (I wouldn’t attempt to drive to Canada with a rental, for example).
“What I’m talking about is new buildings I see going up in places that are a significant distance from the nearest subway station … that provide ZERO parking spaces on site.”
Where are these buildings? I’d like to get on my bike and go see them for myself. And I’d like to see the nearby bus stops.
But if you think the majority of NYC households that do not have a car now lie in bed unable to sleep wondering how on earth they will be able to get to Canada … then you’re deeply confused about their wants and needs and unable to relate to them.
Why do you think rental cars can’t make the trip from New York to Canada?
Because they cant drive on the other side of the road, EH? LOL
Sarcasm.