great urban areas
Richard Aleksander
I composed this post for the austrans-roads listserv. It deals with
walkable areas, shopping, residential developments, parking, alternate
commuting via rail, and vehicular prohibition in the name of pedestrian
safety
These ideas are universal and can and should be adapted
for other places as well.
AUSTRANS-ROADS is provided by ROUTE for concerned Austinites.
------------------------------------------------------------
I just returned from a brief visit (2 days 3 nights) to see my mother in
West Palm Beach.
I made it a goal to visit two pedestrian areas that have gotten some
national press: Clematis Street, downtown West Palm Beach; and Las Olas
Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale.
Clematis is in the historic downtown near the bay front and had been in
disrepair until local merchants hired a design group that included
retail-landscape consultant Robert Gibbs of Birmingham Michigan, a
contemporary of urban visionary / developer Andres Duany.
There was a story about Clematis in Atlantic Monthly in 1995. It cited
vehicular traffic "flowing like syrup" through the area. The area was said
to use approaches that mall management uses; that is, careful attention
paid to streetscapes, furniture and colors; landscaping that doesn't
obscure storefronts; use of simple streetscape materials not to distract
pedestrians from display windows; filling windows of even vacant stores
with merchandise so as not to short circuit pedestrians from walking an
entire area; having a desirable mix of commercial tenants; and recruiting
desirable tenants for the ends of the blocks.
It's about four blocks long with on street parking. Traffic is two way;
one lane each. Sidewalks are eleven feet wide.
There are about the same number of restaurants (most all with sidewalk
seating) as stores. A theater which used to belong to Burt Reynolds'
school for acting, is waiting to be a performing arts center. It's
katty-corner from an outdoor plaza (under construction) in front of the
public library, whose far side faces the intracoastal waterway. A hair
salon owned by Hollywood stylist Pete Mangone does double duty as an art
gallery. A real big classy place sells drapes, sheets, towels. Smaller
boutique type stores sell niche merchandise like throw pillows and
cosmetics. Two large corner buildings are advertised as live-work lofts.
It's still being worked on and more than one storefront is not rented,
though neighboring stores have their wares displayed in them. Lots of
construction and remodeling is ongoing.
The street is indeed lively with pedestrians. The surrounding streets have
offices at street level, and multistory buildings. I have found very
little of web resources for Clematis.
The next day my destination was in Fort Lauderdale, 70 miles south.
I-95 is a fourteen lane freeway between the two cities. It has a High
Occupant Vehicle (bus and carpool lane. The road is, like I-35, frequently
at a standstill. Here in Austin, a commuter rail proposal is pending.
Florida already has one.
There is a commuter rail (Tri-Rail) originating in Palm Beach and ending in
Miami, some 150 miles later. It runs at intervals from 1/2 to 1-1/2 hourly
starting at 4:30 AM and finishing at 9:00 PM. Round trip fare was $7.75.
Double decker coaches had lounge seating (pairs facing each other). There
are no restrooms. About five cars are pulled by locos that look like
freight diesels. There are about eighteen stations enroute; the train is
supposed to stop only for about a minute. They specifically stop at most
of the airports along the line. We were passing the autos on I-95 which
was adjacent. I estimate the speed at about 60+ mph because we arrived in
about an hour. A really good ride.
A free shuttle bus was provided to a public bus station at which we waited
with street-type persons minutes 10-20 minutes for another shuttle to the
federal-state-municipal offices and thence to Las Olas. I'd say the bus
service is the weak part of the operation.
Tri Rail is about 8 years old and they've got a web site
http://www.tri-rail.com/
Las Olas Boulevard is a long, major arterial paralleling a river (that has
yachts moored everywhere; the 2-boat collision that killed six persons and
injured two others last Sunday occurred here) that crosses the intracostal
waterway and terminates at the beach.
It's a four-lane boulevard with a median. Sidewalks are fifteen feet wide.
For some years the street at the shopping district had been closed to
vehicular traffic to encourage pedestrianism. It must have played hell
with the vehicular traffic. I know that it played hell with the
businesses, most of whom went under as the street degenerated. It was
decided about three years ago to restreet it and the experience is really
joyful. Very cosmopolitan and old worldly, reminiscent of Spain and
France. Crossing in the middle of the block is encouraged; there are even
designated mid block crosswalks. Stores are rarely empty. It seems like a
mature version of Clematis Street.
The place could use some kind of speed control for the through traffic,
however. Some trucks were observed to barrel through at 40 mph. If I were
in charge I would raise the crosswalks several inches to let the drivers
know the type of area they're crossing.
There's a lot of www resources about las olas. Here's one for starters
http://www.lasolasonline.com/v1.1/
I took pictures of most of the places I visited. I missed photographing
the train, though.
For those who may be interested in visiting: Southwest Airlines flies to
Ft. Lauderdale.
Best Regards
Richard Aleksander
r.alek...@worldnet.att.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe austrans-roads" to:
majo...@lists.realtime.net
APPSINC
>It's still being worked on and more than one storefront is not rented,
>though neighboring stores have their wares displayed in them. Lots of
>construction and remodeling is ongoing.
I only quoted the part of the previous post that I am repsonding to, so please
don't flame me for snipping...
I am interested in the use of vacant stores to display merchandise from
neighboring stores. In downtown revitalization projects, I often come acoss the
sticky issue of vacancies. Until the vacanies are filled, the area looked
uninviting. However, it is hard to fill vacant stores in an univiting area -
sort of a catch-22.
Does anyone have any other ideas? Some places have used vacant storefronts for
displaying kids artwork or annoucement of upcoming community events. The
challenge there is to keep changing the displays - there is nothing quite as
depressing as a yellowed poster announcing an event that took place several
months ago...
- Sarah
Colin R. Leech
APPSINC (app...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> I am interested in the use of vacant stores to display merchandise from
> neighboring stores. In downtown revitalization projects, I often come acoss the
> sticky issue of vacancies. Until the vacanies are filled, the area looked
> uninviting. However, it is hard to fill vacant stores in an univiting area -
> sort of a catch-22.
>
> Does anyone have any other ideas? Some places have used vacant storefronts for
> displaying kids artwork or annoucement of upcoming community events. The
> challenge there is to keep changing the displays - there is nothing quite as
> depressing as a yellowed poster announcing an event that took place several
> months ago...
In the early 1990s, the economy was down here in Ottawa, and various
suburban shopping centres were faced with this dilemma. They solved it in
various ways, including the ones you've mentioned. Other ideas included:
- Non-traditional tenants such as a community policing station, the
(temporary) ticket and souvenir office for a new professional sports team,
a Santa's Workshop, a childrens' play area, or a tourist info/mall info
centre.
- In the Rideau Centre (the main large downtown mall), the primary anchor
tenant, the Eaton's department store, set up little boutiques with their
name in some of the empty storefronts. One sold luggage, another
flowers, etc.
- Some existing tenants were given good lease terms to expand their
stores, with the provision that they could be evicted from the new space
or downsized on short notice if "real" tenants were to move in. The
amount of aisle space between displays was noticeably greater than normal
in some stores (less densely packed with merchandise, although the desire to
minimize the amount of inventory was also at play in some cases).
- There was a proliferation of book clearance outlets and "dollar stores",
again usually with short-term leases.
My favourite was the tactics employed by the St. Laurent Mall, which was
undergoing a significant renovation and expansion in the middle of this
period. They used the construction very effectively to hide empty stores.
They didn't just have hoarding across the front of empty stores, or
exhibits of the finished product to cover an empty store front, or a
"Store XX coming soon" promo billboard, although they did these things as
well. They actually hid large areas of the mall from view! For example:
- The old food court was in one corner of the mall above the theatres
(which are in the basement). When they moved to an expanded food court
elsewhere, they added a blank wall to close off the old area from view.
This created/enhanced a corridor out to a particular doorway, and looked
very natural. (It doesn't sound natural from this description, but only
people where were knowledgeable about the geometry would notice that
something was missing.) They later rented this space to a private career
college, and dentists' chairs and hair salon dryers now show through the
windows into the mall where this blank wall used to be.
- In the area where the new food court was built on the upper level, the
food outlets didn't actually go to the back walls of the building - there
was a big open space behind them! The only reaosn I noticed this was in
riding the escalators, I happened to notice that the corridor on the
ground floor leading out to the parking lot exit was much longer than the
depth of the food court area on the upper level. I believe this area is
now leased out as office space (some sort of telephone call centre or
something - I'm not sure).
- They were also changing the geometry of the mall corridors as part of the
renovation, so for a while they had more corridor space than necessary as
they blasted through stores for the new corridors, while not filling in
the old corridors quickly.
Of course, the fact of having ongoing construction provided a convenient
excuse to have various stores boarded up without leaving a derelict
appearance behind.
I know of former downtown department stores in a couple of cities which
were converted into pseudo-malls and subdivided into smaller boutiques
inside.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
APPSINC
>>I am interested in the use of vacant stores to display merchandise from
>>neighboring stores. In downtown revitalization projects, I often come acoss
>the
>>sticky issue of vacancies. Until the vacanies are filled, the area looked
>>uninviting. However, it is hard to fill vacant stores in an univiting area -
>>sort of a catch-22.
>
>other non-retail and entertainment uses. These uses are typically hard to
>get rid of when they're put into place, and really don't add to foot
>traffic in the downtown area. Restaurants, bars and retail are what
>brings life to the street, making the place look inviting, and thus
>attracting more such businesses. Most folks won't go downtown to window
>shop surveyor's offices, storefront churches, and social service agencies.
>
>
>Here's a worst-case scenario - one city in the southwest
>(coughLasCrucescough) closed off their main streeet and built a pedestrian
>mall in the early 1970s. Retail uses eventually dried up, and many were
>replaced with government offices and storefront churches. Unfortunately,
>it's next to impossible to revitalize the district without getting rid of
>the churches - state law requires that extablishments that serve alcohol
>be a certain district from a church - rendering the entire downtown area
>off-limits to new bars, pubs and restaurants. In addition, state laws
>treat liquor licenses like real estate - there's a limited number for the
>entire state, and to get one means you have to buy it from someone else.
>The only time there's life on the pedestrian mall is when there's a
>farmer's market, or during the occasional festival. It seems like the
>only solution would be to put Main Street back in, and have savvy
>developer buy all the land property adjacent to the former mall, tear
>everything down, and start from scratch by building a new urbanist-type
>mixed use development. On-line design charette, anyone?
>
I've seen quite a few pedestrian malls, and only two that really work: Boulder,
CO and Burlington, VT. These two towns have several things in common - a large
student population, a large outdoorsy contingent, and a good deal of housing
within walking distance of the mall. In most situations, however, it seems
that pedestrianizing a street is actually bad for business because the stores
no longer are visible to passers-by. (Making a busy street one-way has the same
effect, only to a lesser extent : businesses on one-way streets are seen by
half the people that would pass by if the street were two-way. )
In Charlottesville, Virginia, the pedestrian mall was suffering to the point
where there was serious talk of opening some of the cross-streets to traffic in
order to make it less isolated and invisible. Right before I left, a major
developer was considering a large development on one end of the mall, and I
believe a condition was that at least one cross-street was open to traffic. I
think the development happened, but haven't been back. Perhaps someone who is
still at UVa (I think someone on this newsgroup has a virginia.edu address...)
could enlighten us.
Overall, I think pedestrian malls were generally failures. In Las Cruces, I
would consider taking out the mall, getting the government offices out (that
shouldn't be to hard if the government is in favor of revitalizing the area),
and marketing the "new" street to destination retail and to coffee places and
cafes (i.e., restaurants that don't serve alcohol). Perhaps landlords will then
see that they can get much higher rents from uses other than store-front
churches and will not renew the leases. (Note that all of this comes with the
caveat that I have never been to Las Cruces, and so may be entirely off the
mark).
George Conklin
In article <real-address-0...@port63.verinet.com>,
Dan Tasman <real-a...@in-my.signatu.re> wrote:
>In article <19971202154...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>app...@aol.com (APPSINC) wrote:
>
>>I am interested in the use of vacant stores to display merchandise from
>>neighboring stores. In downtown revitalization projects, I often come acoss the
>>sticky issue of vacancies. Until the vacanies are filled, the area looked
>>uninviting. However, it is hard to fill vacant stores in an univiting area -
>>sort of a catch-22.
>
>Just don't use them for churches, government and business offices, and
>other non-retail and entertainment uses. These uses are typically hard to
>get rid of when they're put into place, and really don't add to foot
>traffic in the downtown area.
That is good. Downtown areas are already congested, hard
to park in, and inconvenient.
Mark
Waco, Texas put in a pedestrian mall area in the 70's to save downtown,
then tore it out in the 90's to save downtown.... I think both projects
were largely irrelevant and didn't do much to affect what was going on
in the community.
Mark
Colin R. Leech
Mark (mdw...@removethis.myriad.net) wrote:
> Waco, Texas put in a pedestrian mall area in the 70's to save downtown,
> then tore it out in the 90's to save downtown.... I think both projects
> were largely irrelevant and didn't do much to affect what was going on
> in the community.
I think this indicates the problem: governments are looking for that one
"quick fix", when the problems are really quite a bit more complex. A
pedestrian mall in itself will not make or break the area, but may be one
component of much larger issues.
George Conklin
In article <668ec9$s...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>Mark (mdw...@removethis.myriad.net) wrote:
>> Waco, Texas put in a pedestrian mall area in the 70's to save downtown,
>> then tore it out in the 90's to save downtown.... I think both projects
>> were largely irrelevant and didn't do much to affect what was going on
>> in the community.
>
>I think this indicates the problem: governments are looking for that one
>"quick fix", when the problems are really quite a bit more complex. A
>pedestrian mall in itself will not make or break the area, but may be one
>component of much larger issues.
>
An area is vital if it serves a need. Downtowns must
develop as regional shopping areas for those who may or may
not be living nearby. To try to make people give up malls,
buy expensive products downtown, and in addition give up
their cars to shop there is the reason downtowns failed.
Further, those famous 'department stores' offered HIGH
prices to the carriage trade. But ladies no longer put on
white gloves to go shopping, cannot stay home all day to
receive their 'packages' from the downtown shop, and cannot
take all day to shop with inefficient mass transit.
APPSINC
>>> Waco, Texas put in a pedestrian mall area in the 70's to save downtown,
>>> then tore it out in the 90's to save downtown.... I think both projects
>>> were largely irrelevant and didn't do much to affect what was going on
>>> in the community.
>>
>>I think this indicates the problem: governments are looking for that one
>>"quick fix", when the problems are really quite a bit more complex. A
>>pedestrian mall in itself will not make or break the area, but may be one
>>component of much larger issues.
>>
>
> An area is vital if it serves a need. Downtowns must
>develop as regional shopping areas for those who may or may
>not be living nearby.
Not always. The goal must depend on the location and size of the downtown in
question. Some smaller downtowns function almost exclusively (and quite
successfully) as shopping areas for nearby residents.
> To try to make people give up malls,
>buy expensive products downtown, and in addition give up
>their cars to shop there is the reason downtowns failed.
People will not give up malls for some items, but in my experience working in
downtowns, people are not able to satisfy all their needs in malls and larger
stores, and want the choice of shopping elsewhere (i.e., downtown). The point
is that people are absolutely not going to give up malls, but do want other
options as well.
>Further, those famous 'department stores' offered HIGH
>prices to the carriage trade.
Not entirely true. In the more past, department stores have served a much
broader audience. May's was an inexpensive department store, as was Alexanders,
and an older MY chain whose name escapes me at the moment. Macy's continues to
be a moderately-priced store.
> But ladies no longer put on
>white gloves to go shopping, cannot stay home all day to
>receive their 'packages' from the downtown shop, and cannot
>take all day to shop with inefficient mass transit.
>
Sometimes mass transit is efficient, but we've had that debate already, so I'll
leave the mass transit issue to the side.
But, you apparently haven't been to Madison Avenue in a while. Perhaps the
gloves are black, but the "ladies" are still shopping. And they are traveling
in limos and cabs, not mass transit.
- Sarah
George Conklin
In article <19971205175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
APPSINC <app...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Waco, Texas put in a pedestrian mall area in the 70's to save downtown,
>>>> then tore it out in the 90's to save downtown.... I think both projects
>>>> were largely irrelevant and didn't do much to affect what was going on
>>>> in the community.
>>>
>>>I think this indicates the problem: governments are looking for that one
>>>"quick fix", when the problems are really quite a bit more complex. A
>>>pedestrian mall in itself will not make or break the area, but may be one
>>>component of much larger issues.
>>>
>>
>> An area is vital if it serves a need. Downtowns must
>>develop as regional shopping areas for those who may or may
>>not be living nearby.
>
>Not always. The goal must depend on the location and size of the downtown in
>question. Some smaller downtowns function almost exclusively (and quite
>successfully) as shopping areas for nearby residents.
If an old downtown does serve needs of local residents,
it will survive. If it hopes to become a shopping mecca
like it was in 1920, then you will find empty stores, vacant
lots and other signs of non-need subsidized by Federal tax
law whereby leaving the land unused in more profitable
than using it for an economic purpose.
>> To try to make people give up malls,
>>buy expensive products downtown, and in addition give up
>>their cars to shop there is the reason downtowns failed.
>
>People will not give up malls for some items, but in my experience working in
>downtowns, people are not able to satisfy all their needs in malls and larger
>stores, and want the choice of shopping elsewhere (i.e., downtown). The point
>is that people are absolutely not going to give up malls, but do want other
>options as well.
Malls sell only the most popular items, correct. They
have gotten to the point where they will sell (in this area
anyway) on D width shoes for men....even the upscale shops
like Lord and Taylor. But getting variety is not even
possible 'downtown,' where NO stores are left.
>>Further, those famous 'department stores' offered HIGH
>>prices to the carriage trade.
>
>Not entirely true. In the more past, department stores have served a much
>broader audience. May's was an inexpensive department store, as was Alexanders,
>and an older MY chain whose name escapes me at the moment. Macy's continues to
>be a moderately-priced store.
S Klein's was downtown, and it was the K-Mart of the era.
To get good prices, you had to go to warehouses in funny
little places in NYC. Macy's is not a moderate priced store
outside NYC...and only high NYC prices make it look
'moderate.'
>> But ladies no longer put on
>>white gloves to go shopping, cannot stay home all day to
>>receive their 'packages' from the downtown shop, and cannot
>>take all day to shop with inefficient mass transit.
>>
>
>Sometimes mass transit is efficient, but we've had that debate already, so I'll
>leave the mass transit issue to the side.
Downtowns were a creation of mass transit, Sarah, and did
not exist as we know them until the electric trolley car.
They eliminated a lot of local stores as retail and
professional services were concentrated. The cellular city
of old days declined as downtowns decimated neighborhoods.
The decline of downtowns has meant the old cellar pattern of
cities has come back, although on a larger scale, since the
height of downtowns coincided with 50% of the population
still rural and farming. Once only 1-2% of our people need
to farm to feed us (and a lot of the world too), the old
city organization was out-of-date.
>But, you apparently haven't been to Madison Avenue in a while. Perhaps the
>gloves are black, but the "ladies" are still shopping. And they are traveling
>in limos and cabs, not mass transit.
>
>- Sarah
Yes, I have commented before that even the textbooks
remark on New York City's
'feudal' patterns and their continuation. You merely
confirm the usual textbook material.....
Texas Highway Man
Europe, especially Germany, has had great success with pedestrian malls.
Every city of any size has a "Fussgaengerzone" lined with shops, cafes, and
restaurants. It's usually a pretty busy place.
-Brian Purcell
"The Texas Highway Man"
Internet: brian....@internetmci.com
Web: http://www.GeoCities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/1618
<!> Remove the *KEEPYOURSPAM* when replying by e-mail.
ad...@interlog.com
George Conklin wrote:
> Malls sell only the most popular items, correct. They
> have gotten to the point where they will sell (in this area
> anyway) on D width shoes for men....even the upscale shops
> like Lord and Taylor. But getting variety is not even
> possible 'downtown,' where NO stores are left.
All downtowns? (Are they all deserted wastelands?)
And one problem is the inprecise definition of "downtown"--is it the absolute core
only (frequently strictly 9-to-5), or does it encompass other older-city but not
absolutely integral areas of commerce or entertainment and other activity not
available in on the suburban strip (eg "university zones", often the most vital
parts of town)? There's a lot of subtle distinctions among individual "downtowns"
and "cores" and "older business districts".
craig sweet
We have just the opposite here...downtown has variety, great prices, and energy. The
malls are boring, sterile, congested with autos and not exactly inexpensive. In fact
this very evening, a lovely Montana December evening, I joined thousands of my fellow
Missoulians downtown as the art galleries had their monthly "first friday" opennings
and receptions. Most of the stores were open as were all the resturants and cafe's.
Tomorrow is the traditional seasonal Downtown Stroll....all the stores are looking
good for the holidays, Santa will be out and about, the city has their X-Mas
decorations up, the Carousal down in the riverfront park will be operating(rides are
.25 cents)...NO MALL can offer so much, and so much community spirit. Downtown dead
or dying??? I think not!
Amos
George Conklin <hen...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote in article
<669k0v$kpe$1...@nina.pagesz.net>...
[severe snippage]
> Malls sell only the most popular items, correct. They
> have gotten to the point where they will sell (in this area
> anyway) on D width shoes for men....even the upscale shops
> like Lord and Taylor. But getting variety is not even
> possible 'downtown,' where NO stores are left.
Sad but true, even in towns that are GROWING. I live in a small town where
the pop has increased by over 1,000 people in the last seven years yet most
downtown storefronts are vacant or used as offices. It pains me to see the
sidewalks devoid of people and the streets clogged with traffic at 5pm. The
locals travel 15 miles to the nearest regional mall, which is incredibly
crowded this time of year. There are signs of hope, though. A new
restaurant opened up downtown and appears to do pretty well, and a library
is moving in next year. But there's still plenty of empty retail space and
it amazes me that this town can't turn itself into a mini shopping mecca
with all the traffic that passes by it every day. And yes, there's plenty
of parking.
George Conklin
In article <01bd0226$4bb4e100$a5182ccf@default>,
People just like malls. You can wander around and not
freeze in the winter or, around here, roast in the summer.
Very small towns, such as Boone, NC, with a university in
the center, keep a few stores going in the old 'downtown,'
but they cater to tourists looking for old-fashioned stuff.
The Belk's store (local department store chain) is now an
antique mall, and Belk's is, naturally, in the mall. An old
locally-owned store closed and is now open catering to
tourists with 'old fashioned' outdooor stuff (called Mast
General Store). They tried that format in Chapel Hill and
no one got near the place.
George Conklin
In article <3488E01A...@ism.net>, craig sweet <fly...@ism.net> wrote:
>We have just the opposite here...downtown has variety, great prices, and energy. The
>malls are boring, sterile, congested with autos and not exactly inexpensive.
University towns are supported by massive taxpayer
dollars to subsidize every money-losing scheme in the world.
George Conklin
>> have gotten to the point where they will sell (in this area
>> anyway) on D width shoes for men....even the upscale shops
>> like Lord and Taylor. But getting variety is not even
>> possible 'downtown,' where NO stores are left.
>
In this part of the world, yes, they are deserted after 5
pm when government closes. The latest idea is to move
government to where the people live, i.e. away from the old
downtowns.
>And one problem is the inprecise definition of "downtown"--is it the absolute core
>only (frequently strictly 9-to-5), or does it encompass other older-city but not
>absolutely integral areas of commerce or entertainment and other activity not
>available in on the suburban strip (eg "university zones", often the most vital
>parts of town)? There's a lot of subtle distinctions among individual "downtowns"
>and "cores" and "older business districts".
>
I guess it would depend mostly on the size of the city.
The old port cities which have kept about 18% of the local
business trade downtowns have a few stores left. People
will point to NYC and Boston here, and the rents which go
with such population concentration. The New York Times had
a nice article this week on someone in a bidding war for a
300 square foot apartment costing $1,200 a month, three
times more money and for 1/3 the space of her previous digs
in AZ. This to my mind is a real 'quality of life' issue
where living in Manhattan reduces anyone but the super-rich
to hovel status of living in a broom closet and being poor
for the right so to do.
George Conklin
In article <real-address-0...@port42.verinet.com>,
Dan Tasman <real-a...@in-my.signatu.re> wrote:
>In article <XnZh.5$cJ.6...@news.internetMCI.com>, "Texas Highway Man"
><brian.purcell@*KEEPYOURSPAM*internetmci.com> wrote:
>
>>Europe, especially Germany, has had great success with pedestrian malls.
>>Every city of any size has a "Fussgaengerzone" lined with shops, cafes, and
>>restaurants. It's usually a pretty busy place.
>
>end of the pond set them up. Again, many ped malls failed because -
>
>* They used a critical traffic artery for the mall. (Let's block off Main
> Street!)
>
>* Main entrances and parking were often moved to the backs of the buildings,
> defeating the purpose of the mall.
>
>* American streets are much wider than European streets. A narrow German
> Fussgaengerzone feels much "quainter," and thus more comfortable, than a
> very wide US street turned pedestrian mall.
>
>* The malls were just too long. (Buffalo's is about 2 km long - it's moderately
> successful as public space, but didn't stem the decline of retail business
> there.)
>
Excuses don't hack it. Why stay outdoors when an indoor
mall gives you all the advantages of a street with none of
the disadvantages? Mall of America even has bars,
restaurants, street cafes and stores all built around a
carnival middle.
Adam Weiss
There are values to outdoor malls. First -- they are much less costly
(you don't pay for rooves over public space). Second -- they can be
inserted without too much trouble into an existing urban fabric.
The problem with indoor malls is that they are all basically the same --
the Hudson Valley Mall in Kingston NY looks just like the Maine Mall in
Portland, ME; the Poughkeepsie Galleria is exactly the same as the West
Farms Mall in Connecticut. While this is fine for suburbanites like
yourself (who live surrounded by monotonous communities that would be
the same if they were in New York, Illinois, or Texas), it is not for
everyone. City dwellers like myself, and country dwellers, have a sense
of place that suburbanites have lost.
OTOH, indoor malls do have their values. In a Northeastern climate,
they can be life savers in the winter -- I for one don't enjoy walking
outdoors when it's 0 degrees and blowing sleet in my face. Furthermore,
and this is also a problem for malls, they have huge parking lots.
While parking lots are basically huge ugly streches of grey pavement,
they make people in cars happy, and people in cars (90% of the US
population) shop where they can park. (of course, you still have to
walk OUTSIDE to get from your car to the indoor mall and back when
you're done shopping -- a case for indoor parking garages in malls)
--
Adam Weiss
aw...@erols.com
--
On a Sailing Ship to Nowhere
Leaving any Place
If the Summer Turns to Winter
Yours is no Disgrace
--
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
> In this part of the world, yes, they are deserted after 5
> pm when government closes. The latest idea is to move
> government to where the people live, i.e. away from the old
> downtowns.
Or move people into former 9 to 5 downtowns. The Alliance for Downtown
in NYC, the world's largest BID, is on a crusade to convert older
(prewar) office buildings into apartments and condos, due to the fact
that they suffer vacancy rates 3 to 5 times the ones in newer buildings
(because they contain spaces that are no longer conducive to current
forms of business).
(interestingly, the old INDUSTRIAL buildings of SoHo and lower Midtown
are more condusive to modern COMMERCIAL needs than old office buildings
downtown)
>
> >And one problem is the inprecise definition of "downtown"--is it the absolute core
> >only (frequently strictly 9-to-5), or does it encompass other older-city but not
> >absolutely integral areas of commerce or entertainment and other activity not
> >available in on the suburban strip (eg "university zones", often the most vital
> >parts of town)? There's a lot of subtle distinctions among individual "downtowns"
> >and "cores" and "older business districts".
> >
>
>
> I guess it would depend mostly on the size of the city.
> The old port cities which have kept about 18% of the local
> business trade downtowns have a few stores left. People
> will point to NYC and Boston here, and the rents which go
> with such population concentration. The New York Times had
> a nice article this week on someone in a bidding war for a
> 300 square foot apartment costing $1,200 a month, three
> times more money and for 1/3 the space of her previous digs
> in AZ. This to my mind is a real 'quality of life' issue
> where living in Manhattan reduces anyone but the super-rich
> to hovel status of living in a broom closet and being poor
> for the right so to do.
I work for an architect that was recently designing a 1,500 square foot
apartment to be sold for $1.5 million (even if you cound the $1 million
view of Central Park, it's still overpriced). You could get a 1,500
square foot house in Maine with a view that's at least as good for
around $100,000.
Large cities will always have vital downtowns simply because commuting
times are so great that people will forgo space and trees to avoid
spending 2 to 3 hours a day getting to and from work (as I've mentioned
before, not all jobs are in the 'burbs, and people aren't so stupid as
to say 'I won't take a job that isn't within 2 miles of my house' when
they're unemployed).
I think the key for smaller cities is to adapt to modern tendencies and
link themselves to their suburbs in the same way that malls do. In most
cases this means parking. The city of Waterville, ME (popl. 20,000)
tore down numerous buildings downtown to construct a large parking lot.
Result: Waterville has stores. Augusta, ME, on the other hand (popl.
20,000) has no parking downtown. While an office building constructed 2
years ago has brought some commerce back to Main Street, but it pales in
comparison to Waterville.
I can think of other cities that have adapted, and survive, and more
that have failed to adapt, and are thus dead. Another that has
succeeded: Kingston New York (managed to successfully court IBM and
other computer industries in the '80s and continues to do so). Another
that has failed: New Britain Connecticut -- when Stanley Works moved out
they sat on their duff and did nothing -- they should have worked to
bring insurance companies in from Hartford (commuting times from
Hartford's western suburbs are the same to New Britain as they are to
downtown Hartford).
George Conklin
In article <348B5D...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> In this part of the world, yes, they are deserted after 5
>> pm when government closes. The latest idea is to move
>> government to where the people live, i.e. away from the old
>> downtowns.
>
>Or move people into former 9 to 5 downtowns. The Alliance for Downtown
>in NYC, the world's largest BID, is on a crusade to convert older
>(prewar) office buildings into apartments and condos, due to the fact
>that they suffer vacancy rates 3 to 5 times the ones in newer buildings
>(because they contain spaces that are no longer conducive to current
>forms of business).
Those old downtowns were not places people lived. They
were not designed for it. Putting people there simply means
you have to waste even more money with transit getting them
out and away from the area to find employment.
And then there is the question of rent. With crappy
apartments of 300 sq feet in Manhattan going for $1,200 a
month, it is quite clear that running subways and the other
things needed for that kind of density simply lowers
the standard of living.
>
>--
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <348B5D...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >> In this part of the world, yes, they are deserted after 5
> >> pm when government closes. The latest idea is to move
> >> government to where the people live, i.e. away from the old
> >> downtowns.
> >
> >Or move people into former 9 to 5 downtowns. The Alliance for Downtown
> >in NYC, the world's largest BID, is on a crusade to convert older
> >(prewar) office buildings into apartments and condos, due to the fact
> >that they suffer vacancy rates 3 to 5 times the ones in newer buildings
> >(because they contain spaces that are no longer conducive to current
> >forms of business).
>
> Those old downtowns were not places people lived. They
> were not designed for it. Putting people there simply means
> you have to waste even more money with transit getting them
> out and away from the area to find employment.
Downtown Manhattan has more subways in a smaller area than any other
part of New York City. Just look at a NYC subway map. They certainly
don't have to add any more. It's just a question of getting people to
put the money in to convert old offices into apartments (a form that
will make them much more saleable and rentable) and thus make downtown a
better place to be (with more restaurants and shops) at any time of the
day.
>
> And then there is the question of rent. With crappy
> apartments of 300 sq feet in Manhattan going for $1,200 a
> month, it is quite clear that running subways and the other
> things needed for that kind of density simply lowers
> the standard of living.
There are more jobs in downtown than anywhere else in the city, aside
from perhaps midtown. People (rich Wall Street stockbrokers) will be
able to afford the $1,800 rents for downtown apartments, and will want
to live there in order to be within walking distance of work. There are
already many who live in Battery Park City (where Co-0ps cost $250,000
for a 300 square foot studio).
>
> >
> >--
ad...@interlog.com
George Conklin wrote:
> In article <348B5D...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >> In this part of the world, yes, they are deserted after 5
> >> pm when government closes. The latest idea is to move
> >> government to where the people live, i.e. away from the old
> >> downtowns.
> >
> >Or move people into former 9 to 5 downtowns. The Alliance for Downtown
> >in NYC, the world's largest BID, is on a crusade to convert older
> >(prewar) office buildings into apartments and condos, due to the fact
> >that they suffer vacancy rates 3 to 5 times the ones in newer buildings
> >(because they contain spaces that are no longer conducive to current
> >forms of business).
>
> Those old downtowns were not places people lived. They
> were not designed for it. Putting people there simply means
> you have to waste even more money with transit getting them
> out and away from the area to find employment.
>
> And then there is the question of rent. With crappy
> apartments of 300 sq feet in Manhattan going for $1,200 a
> month, it is quite clear that running subways and the other
> things needed for that kind of density simply lowers
> the standard of living.
I'm still waiting for your opinion on "alternative lifestyles", George...
George Conklin
Paying $1,200 a month for a 300 sq ft apartment leads to
the alternative lifestyle of full-time employment poverty.
Mark
Adam Weiss wrote:
> OTOH, indoor malls do have their values. In a Northeastern climate,
> they can be life savers in the winter -- I for one don't enjoy walking
> outdoors when it's 0 degrees and blowing sleet in my face.
And in the South indoor malls can be very nice in the summer--not too
many takers on those outdoor tables when it's 90 degrees with high
humidity at 9 pm--the norm through most of the summer here (speaking of
College Station, TX where there's no pedestrian mall at all). Waiting
until later doesn't help much when the sun comes up and it's 85 degrees
still....
Mark
George Conklin
In article <348B9A...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <348B5D...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >George Conklin wrote:
>> >
>> >> In this part of the world, yes, they are deserted after 5
>> >> pm when government closes. The latest idea is to move
>> >> government to where the people live, i.e. away from the old
>> >> downtowns.
>> >
>> >Or move people into former 9 to 5 downtowns. The Alliance for Downtown
>> >in NYC, the world's largest BID, is on a crusade to convert older
>> >(prewar) office buildings into apartments and condos, due to the fact
>> >that they suffer vacancy rates 3 to 5 times the ones in newer buildings
>> >(because they contain spaces that are no longer conducive to current
>> >forms of business).
>>
>> Those old downtowns were not places people lived. They
>> were not designed for it. Putting people there simply means
>> you have to waste even more money with transit getting them
>> out and away from the area to find employment.
>
>part of New York City. Just look at a NYC subway map. They certainly
>don't have to add any more. It's just a question of getting people to
>put the money in to convert old offices into apartments (a form that
>will make them much more saleable and rentable) and thus make downtown a
>better place to be (with more restaurants and shops) at any time of the
>day.
I wonder why 'restaurants' and 'bars' are what so money
people think make life worthwhile? If you are thinking that
$1,200 a month for a 300 square foot apartment leaves you
any money for fancy bars and restaurants, I think you are
mistaken.
Adam Weiss
This is very true. Being a northeasterner I equate winter with
discomfort and summer with comfort, but in the South the opposite is
true.
The question, then, is how to mesh indoor shopping malls with their
urban centers. Perhaps double fronted stores -- with one front on the
street and the sidewalk, and the other on an indoor mall -- in the more
comfortable season (summer up north, winter down south) people come in
mostly from the sidewalk; in the less comfortable season, the indoor
mall takes over.
This is not to say that this plan would necessarily work, and what about
cars and parking -- underground parking is expensive and the alternative
(a parking lot around the mall) causes a mall to be unfriendly to the
pedestrian.
Any ideas on how shopping malls can work downtown?
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> I wonder why 'restaurants' and 'bars' are what so money
> people think make life worthwhile? If you are thinking that
> $1,200 a month for a 300 square foot apartment leaves you
> any money for fancy bars and restaurants, I think you are
> mistaken.
The issue here does not concern restaurants and bars (why you put those
words in quotations is a mystery to me), but rather commuting times.
While smaller cities do not suffer this problem, commuting plays a major
role in the lives of people who live in large cities. In New York,
Chicago, Houston, and especially LA, suburbs can be over 1 1/2 hours
from downtown. People who don't want to spend four hours getting to
work each day will want to live close to work (in many cases downtown).
Let me ask you, George. If you worked downtown would you rather live in
a nice house and have to wake up at 5:30 every morning to get to work on
time, or would you rather live near work in a small (or shall I say,
compact) apartment but be able to wake up at 8:45 and still get to work
on time? And this is not even mentioning the fact that suburbanites who
work downtown don't get home until 7:30 or 8:00 PM on a good day.
The fact is that the rail versus automobile argument that keeps coming
up on this NG doesn't mean jack to people who live within walking
distance of work.
--
George Conklin
In article <348C52...@removethis.myriad.net>,
Mark <mdw...@removethis.myriad.net> wrote:
>Adam Weiss wrote:
>
>> OTOH, indoor malls do have their values. In a Northeastern climate,
>> they can be life savers in the winter -- I for one don't enjoy walking
>> outdoors when it's 0 degrees and blowing sleet in my face.
>
>
>And in the South indoor malls can be very nice in the summer--not too
>many takers on those outdoor tables when it's 90 degrees with high
>humidity at 9 pm--the norm through most of the summer here (speaking of
>College Station, TX where there's no pedestrian mall at all). Waiting
>until later doesn't help much when the sun comes up and it's 85 degrees
>still....
>
>Mark
That pretty well describes it. I note that some Canadian
universities have underground tunnels connecting the various
buildings to keep students and faculty away from the weather
in the winter. Even as far north as NC you find summer
evenings still very, very hot.
George Conklin
In article <348E42...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder why 'restaurants' and 'bars' are what so money
>> people think make life worthwhile? If you are thinking that
>> $1,200 a month for a 300 square foot apartment leaves you
>> any money for fancy bars and restaurants, I think you are
>> mistaken.
>
>The issue here does not concern restaurants and bars (why you put those
>words in quotations is a mystery to me), but rather commuting times.
I put the the word 'resaturant'
into quotes because planners always push the high-end
deluxe restaurant as what should go downtown. It is not a
place the average person could eat in.
Commuting times in major cities? I sure do remember my 3
mph door-to-door commuting time as a student from
kindergarten to age 18. Getting away from NYC I suddenly
found two new hours a day I had which I had never seen
before.
>While smaller cities do not suffer this problem, commuting plays a major
>role in the lives of people who live in large cities. In New York,
>Chicago, Houston, and especially LA, suburbs can be over 1 1/2 hours
>from downtown. People who don't want to spend four hours getting to
>work each day will want to live close to work (in many cases downtown).
How can 18% be defined as 'many'? Jobs have moved from
the downtown locations as industry and business have moved
away. And how can you ignore the fact that people are now
moving even outside the metro areas to escape city life?
That is the latest demographic trend. Overly dense cities
cost a lot because of the cost of maintaining the density.
>Let me ask you, George. If you worked downtown would you rather live in
>a nice house and have to wake up at 5:30 every morning to get to work on
>time, or would you rather live near work in a small (or shall I say,
>compact) apartment but be able to wake up at 8:45 and still get to work
>on time? And this is not even mentioning the fact that suburbanites who
>work downtown don't get home until 7:30 or 8:00 PM on a good day.
What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
miserable life.
>The fact is that the rail versus automobile argument that keeps coming
>up on this NG doesn't mean jack to people who live within walking
>distance of work.
>
That massive subway system in NYC is proof that most
people are NOT within walking distance of work in NYC. They
may not be far from work in miles, but they are very, very
far from work in TIME.
George Conklin
In article <348E3F...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>>
>> Adam Weiss wrote:
>>
>> > OTOH, indoor malls do have their values. In a Northeastern climate,
>> > they can be life savers in the winter -- I for one don't enjoy walking
>> > outdoors when it's 0 degrees and blowing sleet in my face.
>>
>> And in the South indoor malls can be very nice in the summer--not too
>> many takers on those outdoor tables when it's 90 degrees with high
>> humidity at 9 pm--the norm through most of the summer here (speaking of
>> College Station, TX where there's no pedestrian mall at all). Waiting
>> until later doesn't help much when the sun comes up and it's 85 degrees
>> still....
>>
>> Mark
>
>discomfort and summer with comfort, but in the South the opposite is
>true.
>
>The question, then, is how to mesh indoor shopping malls with their
>urban centers.
Are not most malls quite a ways away from the old urban
centers? Those centers were there because of fixed-rail
transit, and that is not the issue any more.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <348E42...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I wonder why 'restaurants' and 'bars' are what so money
> >> people think make life worthwhile? If you are thinking that
> >> $1,200 a month for a 300 square foot apartment leaves you
> >> any money for fancy bars and restaurants, I think you are
> >> mistaken.
> >
> >The issue here does not concern restaurants and bars (why you put those
> >words in quotations is a mystery to me), but rather commuting times.
>
> I put the the word 'resaturant'
> into quotes because planners always push the high-end
> deluxe restaurant as what should go downtown. It is not a
> place the average person could eat in.
>
> Commuting times in major cities? I sure do remember my 3
> mph door-to-door commuting time as a student from
> kindergarten to age 18. Getting away from NYC I suddenly
> found two new hours a day I had which I had never seen
> before.
I have that same problem where I live now. But I'm arguing for living
near work. If you live in the Village, or the East Village (more
affordable), it'll take a maximum of 1/2 hour to get to work if you work
somewhere in Manhattan.
>
> >While smaller cities do not suffer this problem, commuting plays a major
> >role in the lives of people who live in large cities. In New York,
> >Chicago, Houston, and especially LA, suburbs can be over 1 1/2 hours
> >from downtown. People who don't want to spend four hours getting to
> >work each day will want to live close to work (in many cases downtown).
>
> How can 18% be defined as 'many'? Jobs have moved from
> the downtown locations as industry and business have moved
> away. And how can you ignore the fact that people are now
> moving even outside the metro areas to escape city life?
> That is the latest demographic trend. Overly dense cities
> cost a lot because of the cost of maintaining the density.
Well. Lets see here. 18% of 10 million. 1.8 million. That's alot of
people, George, even if it isn't the "majority". And while it may be
true that the majority of the jobs are not downtown, downtown can still
have the single largest conglomeration of jobs (no other single area
will have more than 18% of the jobs in a metropolitain area).
>
> >Let me ask you, George. If you worked downtown would you rather live in
> >a nice house and have to wake up at 5:30 every morning to get to work on
> >time, or would you rather live near work in a small (or shall I say,
> >compact) apartment but be able to wake up at 8:45 and still get to work
> >on time? And this is not even mentioning the fact that suburbanites who
> >work downtown don't get home until 7:30 or 8:00 PM on a good day.
>
> What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
> and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
> was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
> hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
> who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
> 1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
> too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
> Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
> miserable life.
Trust me, I live that miserable life. And I plan to get the hell out of
it as soon as I can. But for me that's going to mean finding a pad in
the Village or (more likely since it's cheaper) the East Village. I
need to be within walking distance of at least one good bar, and there
aren't any out here in Astoria Queens.
>
> >The fact is that the rail versus automobile argument that keeps coming
> >up on this NG doesn't mean jack to people who live within walking
> >distance of work.
> >
>
> That massive subway system in NYC is proof that most
> people are NOT within walking distance of work in NYC. They
> may not be far from work in miles, but they are very, very
> far from work in TIME.
It may be true that most people do not live within walking distance of
work. But it cannot be argued that the ideal situation is to do so. A
lady who works in my office lives only 300 yards from her workplace -- I
envy her. This is why it is worth revitilizing downtown and bringing
apartments to it. People who are single or married with no children,
working downtown, and are not caught on the American Dream of house
ownership (and numbers of these in a city as large as New York are
great), WANT to live within walking distance of work, and that means
living downtown.
Adam Weiss
Tina or Adam Szymczak wrote:
>
> On 10-Dec-97 02:08:40, Adam Weiss (aw...@erols.com) wrote:
>
> > The question, then, is how to mesh indoor shopping malls with their
> > street and the sidewalk, and the other on an indoor mall -- in the more
> > comfortable season (summer up north, winter down south) people come in
> > mostly from the sidewalk; in the less comfortable season, the indoor
> > mall takes over.
>
> in an enclosed shopping mall, but during a rain storm you'll likely need an
> umbrella when walking between the car and the mall, or in the winter,
> you'll need a winter coat and you'll either have to wear (and possible get
> hot), lug it around with you, or find a coin locker (unless your shopping
> mall has a free coat check).
>
> > This is not to say that this plan would necessarily work, and what about
> > cars and parking -- underground parking is expensive and the alternative
> > (a parking lot around the mall) causes a mall to be unfriendly to the
> > pedestrian.
>
> > Any ideas on how shopping malls can work downtown?
>
> reasons.
>
> 1. There is not a critical mass of people (residents, workers,
> visitors/tourists) in the central area/downtown/etc to support a downtown
> mall.
That seems strange to me. A critical mass of people would seem to be
present -- even exceeded, in a downtown area (as long as it's not a
blighted downtown area). I classify downtown as a place of high
density; not necessarily somewhere that people go to at 9 AM and leave
at 5 PM.
>
> 2. Build it and they will come. The downtown mall as an attraction. People
> will travel to the downtown to shop. Maybe, if there are no other shopping
> malls (or strip malls) within 40 or 50 km. If there are suburban malls, the
> store mix between the suburban and downtown malls, will likely be similar -
> how will this attract people?
Perhaps it would not attract people from outside the downtown area. But
what about people who live downtown? They would certainly shop there.
Speaking of which. Does anyone here have an idea of how the malls in
Co-Op City New York are doing. Are they thriving or are they white
elephants? I don't know and I'm curious.
>
> 3. Parking. Location and cost. It's "free" at suburban shopping malls,
> typically not free in downtown malls. Another problem is building huge
> parking structures some distance away from the downtown or on the fringe of
> the main commerical area. For some reason that cannot be explained, people
> hate walking long distance between their car and where ever they will be
> shopping (despite the fact that will be doing plenty of walking in the
> mall).
>
This I can aggree with.
> Also linked to the huge parking structure, is that often, the garage is
> municipally owned, and in order to force people to use it, the municipality
> may eliminate or reduce the number of on-stree parking spots, and/or
> increase the cost, and/or reduce the time of on-street parking.
This is a shame. But I can see how it is true.
>
> 4. Malls are built to face inward. Mall are built with strategically
> located entrances. Downtown retail is typically made up with seperate
> stores facing the street each with their own entrance. Malls suck people of
> the street. Also most malls are usually built with a loading bay, and
> regardless of the location, the entrance/exit, usually has a big ugly door.
But does a mall have to be built to face inward? Perhaps I am mistaken,
but I classify Rockefeller Center in New York as one of the great urban
malls. It is not a 1970s mall with a huge parking lot and a big generic
indoor corridor, but is rather an outdoor subdivision of the existing
urban grid, with stores facing pedestrian "streets". It is a 'mall'
because it contains stores all set within a planned area.
>
> There are probably other reasons why they won't work, but I believe that
> these are the primary ones.
>
> Now I'm not saying that all downtown mall will not work. The Eaton Centre
> in Toronto, is an example of a downtown mall that works. But, then again it
> has two important things going for it that many cities do not have.
>
> 1. Accessibility: two parking garages are built right into the mall; it is
> totally surrounded by public transit - two subway stops, two streetcar
> lines and a bus route; it has those strategically located exits plus
> connections to the underground pedestrian system.
This has always gotten me. Why do cars get the streets and people get
put underground. Wouldn't it make more sense if it were the other way
around.
>
> 2. Critical Mass: Three office buildings and a hotel are part/connected to
> the mall. Then add all the other office buildings, hotels, City Hall,
> Courthouse, condos, aparments and houses, two universities, all within a 45
> minute walk. I've often heard that the Eaton Centre is the number one
> tourist attraction in Metro Toronto.
It's the same way with Rockefeller Center.
>
> I've seen the trend across Ontario and Canada, of cities encouraging the
> building of downtown malls as a mean to revitalize the downtown.
> Unfortunately, many downtown malls have become hollow shells.
So it is a question of design, then. Any more advice on how downtown
malls would work (and warnings on why they wouldn't work).
>
> --
> Adam Szymczak Team AMIGA
>
> The Wastebasket Newsletter - http://home.ican.net/~szymczak
> --
> Please Captain, not in front of the Klingons. * Spock
In any case, I'd like to raise another question as well: how can
suburban strip malls and indoor malls be made into some sort of designed
urban setting, instead of this hodge-podge springing up everywhere and
spreading like cancer to Europe?
Why are malls always built towards the rear of their sites instead of
towards the front with parking in back? Certainly they could figure out
a new place to put loading docks so that they could avoid glorifying
parking lots.
George Conklin
In article <348F75...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <348E42...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >George Conklin wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I wonder why 'restaurants' and 'bars' are what so money
>> >> people think make life worthwhile? If you are thinking that
>> >> $1,200 a month for a 300 square foot apartment leaves you
>> >> any money for fancy bars and restaurants, I think you are
>> >> mistaken.
>> >
>> >The issue here does not concern restaurants and bars (why you put those
>> >words in quotations is a mystery to me), but rather commuting times.
>>
>> I put the the word 'resaturant'
>> into quotes because planners always push the high-end
>> deluxe restaurant as what should go downtown. It is not a
>> place the average person could eat in.
>>
>> Commuting times in major cities? I sure do remember my 3
>> mph door-to-door commuting time as a student from
>> kindergarten to age 18. Getting away from NYC I suddenly
>> found two new hours a day I had which I had never seen
>> before.
>
>I have that same problem where I live now. But I'm arguing for living
>near work. If you live in the Village, or the East Village (more
>affordable), it'll take a maximum of 1/2 hour to get to work if you work
>somewhere in Manhattan.
I think people have forgotten that NYC grew by putting
the subways out into empty land, as in New Lots, a name
which is still there 75 years later on the street. That
enabled the city to grow, and for people to commute to work.
In 1910, the subways were 'fast' and the 'advantage' of
living in the city was access to electricity, telegraphs and
yes street cars and subways. So commutes in the city were
always long, and that is why the elaborate subway system was
developed.
Human ecologist Amos Hawley showed that in Chicago before
the electric street car most of the population was within 1
hours walking distance of the center of the city. As soon as
the electric street car came in, people have the chance to
move 1 hour out to about 12 miles, and cities have been
decentralizing since then. The subway in NYC was just one
example of decentralization.
But times have moved on. The center is not needed in
more now that we no longer have fixed rail transportation.
George Conklin
In article <4287.283T2...@ican.net>,
Tina or Adam Szymczak <szym...@ican.net> wrote:
>In Ontario there are two rents for each apartment, the market rent which
>the tenant agrees to pay, and the maximum rent, the market rent paid in a
>base year increased each year by the maximum allowable rent increase. One
>rent increase is permitted each year - the landlord can increase the rent
>by x percent up to the maximum percentage increase OR if the market rent is
>below the maximum rent, charge the maximum rent, regardless of the
>percentage increase.
>
>The Ontario government will be switching to a vacancy decontrol regime in
>which the landlord can raise the rent to whatever level while the unit is
>vacant, but is under rent control when the unit is leased.
>
>--
>Adam Szymczak Team AMIGA
If housing were not artifically limited, then you would
not need rent controls.
George Conklin
>That seems strange to me. A critical mass of people would seem to be
>present -- even exceeded, in a downtown area (as long as it's not a
>blighted downtown area). I classify downtown as a place of high
>density; not necessarily somewhere that people go to at 9 AM and leave
>
at 5 PM.
The old downtown factory situation was just that. No one
much lived near the factory, except maybe the boss. Workers
lived on radials going away from the factory. Shopping was
after work and emptied out rather quickly. Remember
locally-owned stores were not open Wenesday afternoons, nor
after 6pm except at Xmas or sometimes 9pm on Friday or
Saturday.
Bob Nelson
Dan Tasman wrote in message ...
>Yeah, but they don't really work in the US, at least the way folks on this
>end of the pond set them up. Again, many ped malls failed because -
...American downtowns are failures. Ped mall or no ped mall -- it doesn't
matter, almost *all* American downtowns are ghost towns.
The exceptions are the college towns (Madison, Ann Arbor, Boulder, etc.) and
suburbs (Highland Park IL, Ardmore PA, Ridgewood NJ, etc.) So, the question
is: What do these places have in common? The answer is NOT "Ped malls" or
"No ped malls". The answer IS: People *live* in and near these downtowns.
So, why don't people live in and near downtowns of most cities? At this
point, many downtowns have become lonely and dangerous places, so people may
no longer want to live there. But even before the downtowns emptied out,
people were *prohibited* from living in downtowns by the planners and zoning
boards who used their coercive powers to make downtowns off-limits for
residential uses.
Downtown used to be a destination by virtue of its regional retail monopoly.
When the suburban malls sprouted, there was less of a reason to go downtown.
And with people prohibited from living there, there was no reason for anyone
to *be* there.
APPSINC
>
> What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
>and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
>was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
>hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
>who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
>1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
>too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
>Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
>miserable life.
I have a new policy not to respond to George, but I can't resist responding to
this as it hits so close to home.
I live in Brooklyn, in a one bedroom apartment that is "cozy" but certainly
much larger than 300 square feet. To pre-empt criticism that I (1) pay too
much rent, and (2) live an elitist area, I live in a solid working class
neighborhood - no Wall Streeters in my neck of the woods! And, I pay a very
reasonable rent. No, I am not going to write exactly what I pay - that is none
of anyone's business. However, I will tell you that it is well under the
numbers that people have been throwing around on this NG. And now, to my point:
My daily commute, from my door in Brooklyn to my desk chair in Manhattan, is 30
minutes (sometimes less). That includes the walk on each end, the wait on the
subway platform, and the *long* elevator ride (out elevator is extremely old).
George had not lived in NYC for a long time, and obviously has childhood issues
that go way beyond his subway ride to school - these two factors must be the
explanation for his unfounding and silly rantings.
- Sarah
APPSINC
>An alternative that is often popular is to break up the parking area near
>the street (and often the least used parking, save for the holidays) into
>pads and built fast-food restaurants, banks, and the such, each with its
>own "pad". This enables the landlord to maximize their return on land that
>is often under-utilized, creates a facade to a point, and attracts more
>clientele.
There was some discussion of requiring such uses for new big box stores in NYC
- it was refered to by some as the "Mandatory McDonald's" : )
- Sarah
Adam Weiss
Tina or Adam Szymczak wrote:
>
> > Tina or Adam Szymczak wrote:
>
> >> 1. There is not a critical mass of people (residents, workers,
> >> visitors/tourists) in the central area/downtown/etc to support a downtown
> >> mall.
>
> > That seems strange to me. A critical mass of people would seem to be
> > present -- even exceeded, in a downtown area (as long as it's not a
> > blighted downtown area). I classify downtown as a place of high
> > density; not necessarily somewhere that people go to at 9 AM and leave
> > at 5 PM.
>
> cities with large populations (over 500,000 or so, not sure on this). And
> this is one of the fundamental flaws, IMO, in placing a mall downtown - the
> belief that a criticial mass exisits, when in reality it does not. I know
> that is the case for many cities in Canada, and probably in the US.
The issue as I see it is this: cities with more than 1 million residents
will have vital downtowns -- they always have universities (due to their
size), and will always have people who want to live downtown because the
suburbs are so far away (New York to Bay Shore Long Island takes 1
hour. Boston to Belmont takes 45 minutes.)
Cities with under 100,000 people are often suburbs themselves, or are
small enough to remain linked to a great degree with surrounding
residential areas (some suburbs; some residential portions of the
city). These cities, in my opinion, are where downtown malls could work
best. If it takes only 10 or 15 minutes to get from the suburbs to
downtown, malls built downtown would be effective.
Cities with between 100,000 and 1 million citizens have the biggest
problems. They are too small to have inevitable downtown residents, and
too large to be inextricably linked to their suburbs.
So, malls would work in very large cities or very small cities better
than they would in medium sized cities.
>
> >> 2. Build it and they will come. The downtown mall as an attraction. People
> >> will travel to the downtown to shop. Maybe, if there are no other shopping
> >> malls (or strip malls) within 40 or 50 km. If there are suburban malls, the
> >> store mix between the suburban and downtown malls, will likely be similar -
> >> how will this attract people?
>
> > Perhaps it would not attract people from outside the downtown area. But
> > what about people who live downtown? They would certainly shop there.
>
> Possibly true. But there may not be enough people to support that amount of
> retail. It is the laws of supply and demand at work.
I can see this. But as I said, I think that smaller cities and larger
cities do not have the same problems with their downtowns as medium
sized cities do.
>
> >> Also linked to the huge parking structure, is that often, the garage is
> >> municipally owned, and in order to force people to use it, the municipality
> >> may eliminate or reduce the number of on-stree parking spots, and/or
> >> increase the cost, and/or reduce the time of on-street parking.
>
> > This is a shame. But I can see how it is true.
>
> It happened in Brantford, Ontario. A mall was built downtown. As part of
> the development package, the city built a multilevel parking garage about a
> block and half away from the mall. They removed literally all on-street
> parking on several streets, in order to encourage people to park at the
> garage. Problem was that is "deadened" the streets. It was simple through-
> traffic. Eventaully on-street parking was reinstated.
It happened in downtown Manhattan, to -- with the World Trade Center.
The street is reserved for moving cars only. Parking is underground.
The stores open inward to a central mall. Two mammouth office towers
provide people to pass through the mall every rush hour (and, it is
hoped, to buy something there).
>
>
> > But does a mall have to be built to face inward? Perhaps I am mistaken,
> > but I classify Rockefeller Center in New York as one of the great urban
> > malls. It is not a 1970s mall with a huge parking lot and a big generic
> > indoor corridor, but is rather an outdoor subdivision of the existing
> > urban grid, with stores facing pedestrian "streets". It is a 'mall'
> > because it contains stores all set within a planned area.
>
> By your definition, Fanueil Hall (sp?) in Boston would be considered a
> mall. Still the stores in your example face towards a pedestrian street -
> which sounds inward to me. I am not familar with Rockerfeller Center - are
> these pedestrian streets actual streets that have been closed off or are
> they "artificial" streets mimicking those found in a mall?
I would say yes, Faneul Hall is a mall. A mall in its most rudementary
form is nothing more than a market in a fixed place that is open every
day. But to define a mall is of the utmost importance to this
argument. I define a mall as a place where shops are set in an
architecturally planned setting. This makes Faneul Hall, Rockefeller
Center, etc.... malls.
As for Rockefeller Center, the reason why I think it works
architecturally (as in, it is a place that people want to go to, rather
than just winding up at because it's convenient) is that it is permeable
to the city. There are no doors to pass through to get into the mall.
Just walk right in from one sidewalk onto another. In plan Rockefeller
Center looks like a subdivision of the urban grid of Manhattan. The
'streets' within it are streets in the mall sense -- pedestrian
corridors. But because of how Rockefeller Center is designed, the
person experiences it walks in from Manhattan without knowing that he
has entered a mall. He exits in the same way.
However, because Rockefeller Center was built in the 1940s, it lacks
adequate parking for modern times. To rebuild a center like it would
mean solving the parking problem.
>
> A mall, in modern terms and IMO, is an enclosed structure in which stores
> and services are entered from the inside the mall.
So the first malls, then, were the Passages in France and Italy in the
18th century, right?
>
> But then, the example you use - Rockerfeller Center - is located in an area
> that has a huge critical mass, excellent accessibility, and so forth, and
> that is why it works.
>
That's true. And there are many more malls in Manhattan. The Trump
Tower has a unique one -- a mall where you can't buy anything for less
than $200. There's Rockefeller Center, the World Trade Center and World
Financial Center each have malls in them. There are far more malls
downtown than one would think.
> >> There are probably other reasons why they won't work, but I believe that
> >> these are the primary ones.
> >>
> >> Now I'm not saying that all downtown mall will not work. The Eaton Centre
> >> in Toronto, is an example of a downtown mall that works. But, then again it
> >> has two important things going for it that many cities do not have.
> >>
> >> 1. Accessibility: two parking garages are built right into the mall; it is
> >> totally surrounded by public transit - two subway stops, two streetcar
> >> lines and a bus route; it has those strategically located exits plus
> >> connections to the underground pedestrian system.
>
> > This has always gotten me. Why do cars get the streets and people get
> > put underground. Wouldn't it make more sense if it were the other way
> > around.
>
> No people still get the streets. The underground (and above ground in some
> cases) ped system I was talking is just a bunch of tunnels/walkways) that
> connect just about all the major office buildings, several hotels, the
> Eaton Center, the train and bus stations, and City Hall, several subway
> stations, convention center and the SkyDome. Sidewalks still exist ;)
But you yourself have asserted that parking garages often cause parking
to be restricted on surrounding streets. This means that people are
effectively told "keep driving; don't bother becoming a pedestrian by
parking here".
Of course, there will be people who arrive by bus, but not many. More
people arrive by subway -- underground (at least, this is how it works
in New York -- buses are used more in outlying areas to shuttle people
to subway stations from their homes).
>
> Besides, the sidewalks around the Eaton Centre are wide and spacious.
> Pedestrians arriving be streetcar or bus, enter at street level. Actually
> this brings up a clever design point about the Eaton Center. Due to a
> gradual incline in the street, the top and middle floors of the main mall
> have street entrances, whereas the bottom floor handles pedestrian traffic
> from the subway and the underground pedestrian system. This ensures that
> each floor receives a certain amount of pedestrian traffic - dead floors or
> spots are eliminated or minimized.
I am unfamiliar with Eaton Center. But I am curious -- do the stores
turn their back on the street -- is their one entrance to the mall and
entrances from the mall corridors to the stores, or do stores have
entrances both onto the sidewalk around the mall and onto the
corridors? The latter to me is what would make malls the most friendly
to their cities if they are built downtown.
>
> >> I've seen the trend across Ontario and Canada, of cities encouraging the
> >> building of downtown malls as a mean to revitalize the downtown.
> >> Unfortunately, many downtown malls have become hollow shells.
>
> > So it is a question of design, then. Any more advice on how downtown
> > malls would work (and warnings on why they wouldn't work).
>
> Actually, I believe the biggest problem is the belief or notion that a
> downtown has to somehow remain the primary commercial, make that, retail
> area in the municipality. This is similar to the problem with vacant
> industrial lands near or in downtowns. An industry dies, yet politicians
> seem to believe that by maintaining the industrial zoning, that some
> different industry (factories, warehouses, etc) will be come back. Well,
> the truth is that is unlikely. The land could be used for other uses. The
> same could be said for downtowns.
We aggree here. Downtown should never remain stagnant. Manhattan
certainly has not. Downtown was formerly purely commercial. Midtown
was devoted to light industry. Uptown was where people lived.
(Admittedly this is a simplification). Now the light industrial lofts
of midtown have been found to be very attractive to commercial needs,
and often to residential needs as well. Downtown is working to maintain
commerce while at the same time converting old office buildings to
residential usese (because they are no longer attractive to modern
commerce). Uptown remains residential, but because of Fordham,
Columbia, Teachers College, Hunter, et. al. noone's complaining.
>
> Toronto believed this for the longest time, and only recently removed the
> industrial development only policy from two large areas east and west of
> the downtown. Instead, they favour mixed development using development
> guidelines and noise requirements to encourage redevelopment.
>
> Declining downtowns may be depressing, but the solution, IMO, does not lie
> with large redevelopment schemes or holding on to outdated notions that
> retail necessarily belongs downtown.
We aggree for the most part. That cities can redevelop themselves and
maintain a changing face through zoning -- demolishing and rebuilding
isn't a good idea; nor is maintaining buildings exactly the way they
were in what is called 'museification'.
But what about dead cities? I'll use New Britain Connecticut as an
example. Simply put, New Britain has no downtown. Well, it has
buildings and a mainstreet, but there are no stores. Noone shops
there. The Federal Government maintains a post office, and I think
there are one or two branch banks, but that's about it.
New Britain has potential. First, the West Farms Mall is getting
dated. It's still popular, but a dazzling new mall could be very
popular. Downtown New Britain has enough condemned buildings, low enough
land values, and a good enough infrastructure (easily accessible from
both West Hartford as well as New Britain) for a mall to work there
IMO.
But a better bet would be to re-zone the city commercial (meaning that
the old industrial buildings could be converted to offices -- which is a
very popular thing to do nowadays), and marketed to Hartford companies
with lower rents and taxes and easy access from West Hartford. With a
better tax base from commerce, the schools could be improved, and
residences in New Britain could be marketed for less than West Hartford.
This, of course, is just from my personal observations.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
> I think people have forgotten that NYC grew by putting
> the subways out into empty land, as in New Lots, a name
> which is still there 75 years later on the street. That
> enabled the city to grow, and for people to commute to work.
> In 1910, the subways were 'fast' and the 'advantage' of
> living in the city was access to electricity, telegraphs and
> yes street cars and subways. So commutes in the city were
> always long, and that is why the elaborate subway system was
> developed.
This is true. But New York was also the first city to develop
apartments. There's a reason why New Yorkers are often refered to as
"Cliff Dwellers". The issue in New York from 1850 to the 1920s (and
many would argue that it's still occuring today) was this: houses in
the city are too expensive. Houses in the suburbs (those empty areas
that you're talking about) are affordable, but commuting is a bitch.
What's the alternative. Back then it was apartments downtown. Of
course, now with even apartments overpriced downtown the problem
persists and we don't have as simple a solution as we did a century ago.
>
> Human ecologist Amos Hawley showed that in Chicago before
> the electric street car most of the population was within 1
> hours walking distance of the center of the city. As soon as
> the electric street car came in, people have the chance to
> move 1 hour out to about 12 miles, and cities have been
> decentralizing since then. The subway in NYC was just one
> example of decentralization.
>
> But times have moved on. The center is not needed in
> more now that we no longer have fixed rail transportation.
Geez. You sound just like Frank Lloyd Wright. Here's some news for
you, though. FLW died 40 years ago.
I'm believing more and more, however, that this newsgroup aggrees with
you. Downtown in its old form is no longer needed. But the fact is
that downtown exists (in the sense that the buildings are still there,
as is the infrastructure) -- it's here to stay. The question is what to
do with it. You appear to advocate the complete demolition of downtown
and the conversion of every city into a Silicon Valley California.
How about some other opinions?
Adam Weiss
APPSINC wrote:
>
> >
> > What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
> >and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
> >was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
> >hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
> >who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
> >1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
> >too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
> >Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
> >miserable life.
>
> I have a new policy not to respond to George, but I can't resist responding to
> this as it hits so close to home.
Why not. I'm here for the arguments, and George always gives me a good
one.
>
> I live in Brooklyn, in a one bedroom apartment that is "cozy" but certainly
> much larger than 300 square feet. To pre-empt criticism that I (1) pay too
> much rent, and (2) live an elitist area, I live in a solid working class
> neighborhood - no Wall Streeters in my neck of the woods! And, I pay a very
> reasonable rent. No, I am not going to write exactly what I pay - that is none
> of anyone's business. However, I will tell you that it is well under the
> numbers that people have been throwing around on this NG. And now, to my point:
Ditto. I live in Astoria, Queens. A great neighborhood of hard-working
Greek people that are so friendly I think I've died and gone to heaven
when I get back from Manhattan. My apartment is 'compact', but it's
also $300 cheaper (per month) than an equivalent apartment in
Manhattan.
It's great to be spared from walking by window displays full of things
you could never hope to afford isn't it?
>
> My daily commute, from my door in Brooklyn to my desk chair in Manhattan, is 30
> minutes (sometimes less). That includes the walk on each end, the wait on the
> subway platform, and the *long* elevator ride (out elevator is extremely old).
For me it's 45 minutes. (If the MTA really wanted to make me happy,
they'd use that surplus they like to talk about to put express trains on
the N/R line, and get me home after 5 or 6 stops instead of 12.) This
includes the 10 minute walk to the Ditmars station, the 30 to 35 minute
ride to work, and the elevators.
When I get money I'm moving to Manhattan, though. The bars out here in
Astoria really suck. ;)
>
> George had not lived in NYC for a long time, and obviously has childhood issues
> that go way beyond his subway ride to school - these two factors must be the
> explanation for his unfounding and silly rantings.
And I'm convinced that he doesn't realize that Frank Lloyd Wright is
dead. :)
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Weiss wrote:
> I'm believing more and more, however, that this newsgroup aggrees with
> you. Downtown in its old form is no longer needed. But the fact is
> that downtown exists (in the sense that the buildings are still there,
> as is the infrastructure) -- it's here to stay. The question is what to
> do with it. You appear to advocate the complete demolition of downtown
> and the conversion of every city into a Silicon Valley California.
>
> How about some other opinions?
Conklin APPEARS to advocate. Oddly enough, he refrains from answering that
question (what to do with existing downtowns) in his extremely dryly
hypothetical posts. We can only ASSUME he suggests that they should be
demolished or left as rotting dinosaurs--but, he doesn't say that! All he's
saying is that old downtowns are obsolescent and useless in the proper
functioning of modern culture. Is he just being a provocateur, or is he
ducking the issue, because he knows he might effectively do himself in?
Ed L. Pulliam
I will not quote any of the original post or response.
As a 25 year shopping center manager, Ill offer the folowing
refollowingp planners in general. How can you continue to argue with
30+ years of success. Quit reading the (outdated) academic texts, and
look at what works. A planner that told me a lot had a quote that still
rings true today, "the market will decide".
There are, in some instances, downtown malls that will succeed. They
will require a residential or office based population that can support
the retail. They will, however, require close, convenient and FREE
parking for the customer.
(background: no, I am not just a damn mall manager, I am also a six year
member of a city planning commission, six year community development
agency member, and six year city council member - not all served
concurrently)
--
- Ed L. Pulliam pul...@shopping4u.com
George Conklin
In article <3490D4...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> I think people have forgotten that NYC grew by putting
>> the subways out into empty land, as in New Lots, a name
>> which is still there 75 years later on the street. That
>> enabled the city to grow, and for people to commute to work.
>> In 1910, the subways were 'fast' and the 'advantage' of
>> living in the city was access to electricity, telegraphs and
>> yes street cars and subways. So commutes in the city were
>> always long, and that is why the elaborate subway system was
>> developed.
>
>This is true. But New York was also the first city to develop
>apartments. There's a reason why New Yorkers are often refered to as
>"Cliff Dwellers". The issue in New York from 1850 to the 1920s (and
>many would argue that it's still occuring today) was this: houses in
>the city are too expensive. Houses in the suburbs (those empty areas
>that you're talking about) are affordable, but commuting is a bitch.
>What's the alternative. Back then it was apartments downtown. Of
>course, now with even apartments overpriced downtown the problem
>persists and we don't have as simple a solution as we did a century ago.
Commuting from the outer parts of Brooklyn take longer
than a train from Penn Station to NJ. If you take the
subway to the 'New Lots Avenue' area, you have over 1 hour
to Manhattan, and longer door-to-door. But those apartments
are what people got out of when they had the chance.
>> Human ecologist Amos Hawley showed that in Chicago before
>> the electric street car most of the population was within 1
>> hours walking distance of the center of the city. As soon as
>> the electric street car came in, people have the chance to
>> move 1 hour out to about 12 miles, and cities have been
>> decentralizing since then. The subway in NYC was just one
>> example of decentralization.
>>
>> But times have moved on. The center is not needed in
>> more now that we no longer have fixed rail transportation.
>
>Geez. You sound just like Frank Lloyd Wright. Here's some news for
>you, though. FLW died 40 years ago.
Hawley is still publishing.
>I'm believing more and more, however, that this newsgroup aggrees with
>you. Downtown in its old form is no longer needed. But the fact is
>that downtown exists (in the sense that the buildings are still there,
>as is the infrastructure) -- it's here to stay. The question is what to
>do with it. You appear to advocate the complete demolition of downtown
>and the conversion of every city into a Silicon Valley California.
>
>How about some other opinions?
>
>--
Adam, I am not sure downtown buildings, which are usually
quite old, still exist in a viable economic form. They are
obsolete, and really are beyond their designed life. This
causes very high maintenance problems for anyone using them.
To keep our local downtown main building going, the state
had to pass special laws exempting it from fire codes.
Otherwise, it would have had to been torn down or limited to
just the first 5 floors.
So downtowns with old buildings is not 'here to stay.'
Most are featuring buildings beyond their designed life.
George Conklin
In article <3490D7...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>APPSINC wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
>> >and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
>> >was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
>> >hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
>> >who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
>> >1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
>> >too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
>> >Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
>> >miserable life.
>>
>> I have a new policy not to respond to George, but I can't resist responding to
>> this as it hits so close to home.
>
>Why not. I'm here for the arguments, and George always gives me a good
>one.
Actually I simply support what the average person wants:
a decent house on a lot. I am puzzled why the average urban
planner thinks this is horrible.
>> I live in Brooklyn, in a one bedroom apartment that is "cozy" but certainly
>> much larger than 300 square feet. To pre-empt criticism that I (1) pay too
>> much rent, and (2) live an elitist area, I live in a solid working class
>> neighborhood - no Wall Streeters in my neck of the woods! And, I pay a very
>> reasonable rent. No, I am not going to write exactly what I pay - that is none
>> of anyone's business. However, I will tell you that it is well under the
>> numbers that people have been throwing around on this NG. And now, to my point:
>
>Ditto. I live in Astoria, Queens. A great neighborhood of hard-working
>Greek people that are so friendly I think I've died and gone to heaven
>when I get back from Manhattan. My apartment is 'compact', but it's
>also $300 cheaper (per month) than an equivalent apartment in
>Manhattan.
A minority of people like apartments. But you cannot
explain the falling density of American cities by looking at
those who like 'compact' apartments.
ab...@tiac.net
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:16:28 -0500, "Bob Nelson" <tw...@ohio-state.com>
wrote:
>
>Dan Tasman wrote in message ...
>
>>Yeah, but they don't really work in the US, at least the way folks on this
>>end of the pond set them up. Again, many ped malls failed because -
>
>...American downtowns are failures. Ped mall or no ped mall -- it doesn't
>matter, almost *all* American downtowns are ghost towns.
>
>The exceptions are the college towns (Madison, Ann Arbor, Boulder, etc.) and
>suburbs (Highland Park IL, Ardmore PA, Ridgewood NJ, etc.) So, the question
>is: What do these places have in common? The answer is NOT "Ped malls" or
>"No ped malls". The answer IS: People *live* in and near these downtowns.
Ahem, I beg to differ. Downtown NYC, downtown Boston, sections of DC,
downtown Chicago, downtown Pittsburgh, etc. All these areas have
active central city commercial districts. Have you checked out the sq
ft rents in Soho lately? Or TriBeCa or Chelsea for that matter?
Contrary to what some have posted here, high urban commercial rents
are NOT a primary function of overegulation or big government, but of
basic demand/supply theory operating. And in some of these areas,
such Wall Street and Chelsea, developers are converting old commercial
office buildings into residential space. Seems people are willing to
pay good money to live near where they work, shop and play. Real
estate in urban locations that follow the 24 hour city concept (i.e. a
Boston, San Francisco, etc.) are, the least, in the "buy" column, or,
at minimum, a "hold."
ab...@tiac.net
On 12 Dec 1997 07:40:30 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
wrote:
>In article <3490D7...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>>APPSINC wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
>>> >and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
>>> >was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
>>> >hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
>>> >who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
>>> >1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
>>> >too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
>>> >Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
>>> >miserable life.
>>>
>>> I have a new policy not to respond to George, but I can't resist responding to
>>> this as it hits so close to home.
>>
>>Why not. I'm here for the arguments, and George always gives me a good
>>one.
>
> Actually I simply support what the average person wants:
>a decent house on a lot. I am puzzled why the average urban
>planner thinks this is horrible.
>
The average person has one tit and one ball.
'Nuff said.
Best regards and a jolly ho-ho-ho,
Dave Dologite
Adam Weiss
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
>
> Adam Weiss wrote:
>
> > I'm believing more and more, however, that this newsgroup aggrees with
> > you. Downtown in its old form is no longer needed. But the fact is
> > that downtown exists (in the sense that the buildings are still there,
> > as is the infrastructure) -- it's here to stay. The question is what to
> > do with it. You appear to advocate the complete demolition of downtown
> > and the conversion of every city into a Silicon Valley California.
> >
> > How about some other opinions?
>
> question (what to do with existing downtowns) in his extremely dryly
> hypothetical posts. We can only ASSUME he suggests that they should be
> demolished or left as rotting dinosaurs--but, he doesn't say that! All he's
> saying is that old downtowns are obsolescent and useless in the proper
> functioning of modern culture. Is he just being a provocateur, or is he
> ducking the issue, because he knows he might effectively do himself in?
I think he just made a point in response to my last post, though. It
seems that he believes that old downtowns are obsolete and are already
rotting dinosaurs.
Adam Weiss
Brooklyn were constructed themselves as suburbs. As were the inner
parts on Brooklyn, all of Queens, and every part of Manhattan from
Greenwich Village (New York's premier suburb of the 1820s) north. The
fact that people would rather live in suburbs rather than those outlying
portions of New York City has little to do with those not being good
places to live, but more to do with fads in styles of living -- the row
houses of the 19th century and early 20th century are not suited to the
postwar 'suburban' lifestyle.
However, personally, while I'm dying to move into an apartment downtown
and be closer to everything, I'd rather live in an outer borough (like I
do now) than in the suburbs. Why? Well, lets say I need a carton of
milk at 7:30 PM. In the 'burbs I'd have to get in my car and drive to a
supermarket. Here I can just walk down to the corner delli to get it.
I grew up in a rapidly suburbanizing part of Maine, where noone worked
in the town they lived in and where going anywhere other than next door
required a car. I know what suburban life is all about -- it's dull,
and if you don't have a car you're dead (yes, dead, because you can't
get to the supermarket to buy food).
> >> Human ecologist Amos Hawley showed that in Chicago before
> >> the electric street car most of the population was within 1
> >> hours walking distance of the center of the city. As soon as
> >> the electric street car came in, people have the chance to
> >> move 1 hour out to about 12 miles, and cities have been
> >> decentralizing since then. The subway in NYC was just one
> >> example of decentralization.
> >>
> >> But times have moved on. The center is not needed in
> >> more now that we no longer have fixed rail transportation.
> >
> >Geez. You sound just like Frank Lloyd Wright. Here's some news for
> >you, though. FLW died 40 years ago.
>
> Hawley is still publishing.
>
> >I'm believing more and more, however, that this newsgroup aggrees with
> >you. Downtown in its old form is no longer needed. But the fact is
> >that downtown exists (in the sense that the buildings are still there,
> >as is the infrastructure) -- it's here to stay. The question is what to
> >do with it. You appear to advocate the complete demolition of downtown
> >and the conversion of every city into a Silicon Valley California.
> >
> >How about some other opinions?
> >
> >--
> Adam, I am not sure downtown buildings, which are usually
> quite old, still exist in a viable economic form. They are
> obsolete, and really are beyond their designed life. This
> causes very high maintenance problems for anyone using them.
> To keep our local downtown main building going, the state
> had to pass special laws exempting it from fire codes.
> Otherwise, it would have had to been torn down or limited to
> just the first 5 floors.
I am sure they do. There are certainly obsolete buildings downtown.
However, there are many old buildings that have been adapted to new
uses. I work in a circa 1910 building that was constructed as lofts
(for light industry) but works very well as a commercial building. In
fact, almost all of the old loft buildings in Manhattan have been
converted to either offices (which they are very well suited to), or
apartments (it's at least as sheik to live in a 'loft' as it is to live
in a luxury highrise or prewar building).
Don't base your entire opinion of old buildings on the one that you see
collapsing near 125th Street Station on Metro North, George.
>
> So downtowns with old buildings is not 'here to stay.'
> Most are featuring buildings beyond their designed life.
But they are here to stay. Old buildings do get replaced, but the fact
is that they get replaced, and thus downtown is here to stay.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <3490D7...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >APPSINC wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
> >> >and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
> >> >was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
> >> >hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
> >> >who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
> >> >1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
> >> >too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
> >> >Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
> >> >miserable life.
> >>
> >> I have a new policy not to respond to George, but I can't resist responding to
> >> this as it hits so close to home.
> >
> >Why not. I'm here for the arguments, and George always gives me a good
> >one.
>
> Actually I simply support what the average person wants:
> a decent house on a lot. I am puzzled why the average urban
> planner thinks this is horrible.
I'm not an urban planner. I'm just a guy who grew up in a suburb (or
whatever the hell you'd call that town) and hated not being able to go
anywhere without borrowing my parents car.
I wouldn't wish being a prisoner in their house on any teenager in the
world.
I'm glad as hell to be in the city (even if I'm far away from downtown)
and to be able to get to stores and bars without a car. And I'll add
that, because I grew up in a suburb and hate them, I'd sooner spend
$1,800 for an apartment than spend $800 for a mortgage and $1000 for a
car.
>
> >> I live in Brooklyn, in a one bedroom apartment that is "cozy" but certainly
> >> much larger than 300 square feet. To pre-empt criticism that I (1) pay too
> >> much rent, and (2) live an elitist area, I live in a solid working class
> >> neighborhood - no Wall Streeters in my neck of the woods! And, I pay a very
> >> reasonable rent. No, I am not going to write exactly what I pay - that is none
> >> of anyone's business. However, I will tell you that it is well under the
> >> numbers that people have been throwing around on this NG. And now, to my point:
> >
> >Ditto. I live in Astoria, Queens. A great neighborhood of hard-working
> >Greek people that are so friendly I think I've died and gone to heaven
> >when I get back from Manhattan. My apartment is 'compact', but it's
> >also $300 cheaper (per month) than an equivalent apartment in
> >Manhattan.
>
> A minority of people like apartments. But you cannot
> explain the falling density of American cities by looking at
> those who like 'compact' apartments.
No. You can't.
So I'm the minority.
Well. If you figure out how many people are in the world, you'll find
that the numbers of people who are minorities (of any kind) is very
significant. Like I said, even if only 18 percent of New Yorkers work
downtown, there are still 1.8 million of them. Suppose 15 percent of
metropolitain area citizens want apartments downtown -- that's 1.5
million people in the New York City area alone. At 10 percent it'd be 1
million. Say 15 percent of the people in Portland, ME want to live or
work downtown -- that's almost 10,000 people.
Whether there are 1 million people downtown or 10,000, they deserve to
live in decent, clean cities. That's why cities should be well-planned.
George Conklin
Ok, but for travel time, downtown Brooklyn (A&S by my
defintion) was only a very short hop from Manhattan and Wall
Street. Boro Hall was only 1 stop from Hoyt Street, then
Clark Street and from there under the river.
George Conklin
>> >APPSINC wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > What about living in a closet (which 300 sqare feet is)
>> >> >and then spending 1 hour getting to work or to school? That
>> >> >was my situation: crammed into a small apartment and then 1
>> >> >hour to travel 3 miles to school using the subway. People
>> >> >who live in Brooklyn and commute to Manhattan have that
>> >> >1-1.5 hour commute AND all the disadvantages of city living
>> >> >too. It is the worst of all worlds. And that is why
>> >> >Levittown developed....people were sick and tired of that
>> >> >miserable life.
>> >>
>> >> I have a new policy not to respond to George, but I can't resist responding to
>> >> this as it hits so close to home.
>> >
>> >Why not. I'm here for the arguments, and George always gives me a good
>> >one.
>>
>> Actually I simply support what the average person wants:
>> a decent house on a lot. I am puzzled why the average urban
>> planner thinks this is horrible.
>
>I'm not an urban planner. I'm just a guy who grew up in a suburb (or
>whatever the hell you'd call that town) and hated not being able to go
>anywhere without borrowing my parents car.
>
>I wouldn't wish being a prisoner in their house on any teenager in the
>world.
You mean you are STILL a teenager?
I had the run of the subways as a teenager. In fact, from
age 8 or 9, I could go anywhere on them, and still could, I
guess, if I wanted to live in an apartment and spent a
fortune on an apartment. As for cars, you have a really
funny cost idea.
>I'm glad as hell to be in the city (even if I'm far away from downtown)
>and to be able to get to stores and bars without a car. And I'll add
>that, because I grew up in a suburb and hate them, I'd sooner spend
>$1,800 for an apartment than spend $800 for a mortgage and $1000 for a
>car.
What about a monthly car payment of $189 (Plymouth
Sundance) and insurance of $50 a month and gas about $25?
After the car is paid, you can drive it for another 10 years
(as I did my last car....15 years and 225,000 miles). Trade
in value at that time: $100.
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Weiss wrote:
> > Conklin APPEARS to advocate. Oddly enough, he refrains from answering that
> > question (what to do with existing downtowns) in his extremely dryly
> > hypothetical posts. We can only ASSUME he suggests that they should be
> > demolished or left as rotting dinosaurs--but, he doesn't say that! All he's
> > saying is that old downtowns are obsolescent and useless in the proper
> > functioning of modern culture. Is he just being a provocateur, or is he
> > ducking the issue, because he knows he might effectively do himself in?
>
> I think he just made a point in response to my last post, though. It
> seems that he believes that old downtowns are obsolete and are already
> rotting dinosaurs.
Yes, many already are "rotting dinosaurs" by (not merely) Conklinian definition.
But that's what they've become up until now. Other than PERHAPS implying a
"let'em rot" message (not unlike that visionary who a few years ago proposed that
downtown Detroit should be allowed to decay into sublime ruinousness, a sort of
conceptual-art contemporary Pompeii), he says nothing about what should, in the
future, be done with the physical (and otherwise) fact of these dinosaurs. At
least not as far as I've seen, so far.
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Weiss wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > Adam, I am not sure downtown buildings, which are usually
> > quite old, still exist in a viable economic form. They are
> > obsolete, and really are beyond their designed life. This
> > causes very high maintenance problems for anyone using them.
> > To keep our local downtown main building going, the state
> > had to pass special laws exempting it from fire codes.
> > Otherwise, it would have had to been torn down or limited to
> > just the first 5 floors.
>
> I am sure they do. There are certainly obsolete buildings downtown.
> However, there are many old buildings that have been adapted to new
> uses. I work in a circa 1910 building that was constructed as lofts
> (for light industry) but works very well as a commercial building. In
> fact, almost all of the old loft buildings in Manhattan have been
> converted to either offices (which they are very well suited to), or
> apartments (it's at least as sheik to live in a 'loft' as it is to live
> in a luxury highrise or prewar building).
>
> Don't base your entire opinion of old buildings on the one that you see
> collapsing near 125th Street Station on Metro North, George.
> >
> > So downtowns with old buildings is not 'here to stay.'
> > Most are featuring buildings beyond their designed life.
>
> But they are here to stay. Old buildings do get replaced, but the fact
> is that they get replaced, and thus downtown is here to stay.
Okay Adam I get the drift of what you were talking about w/Conklin (my server is
acting up--sorry, not all messages are coming to me regularly). But he speaks
in such dryly hypothetical terms that even there, I'd rather use the word
"allusion" than direct suggestion. (Yeah, by modern high-tech terms, old
buildings are obsolete; so what else is new.)
Where would you all rather live and work and exist--Paris, or La Defense?
George Conklin
Those old downtown buildings have exceeded their life
expectancy and need to be torn down for safety reasons. The
land of course can be reused for something else, but Federal
tax law makes it profitable to leave lots empty as tax
writeoffs for big banks.
Locally our CCB building had to get an exemption from
state fire laws to continue to be open beyond 5 floors,
since there is only one stair and in a fire occupants would
simply die. They allowed the dangerous situation to
continue to support the 'downtown.' But the workers could
be roasted alive due to the decision.
Adam Weiss
> >
> > > Adam, I am not sure downtown buildings, which are usually
> > > quite old, still exist in a viable economic form. They are
> > > obsolete, and really are beyond their designed life. This
> > > causes very high maintenance problems for anyone using them.
> > > To keep our local downtown main building going, the state
> > > had to pass special laws exempting it from fire codes.
> > > Otherwise, it would have had to been torn down or limited to
> > > just the first 5 floors.
> >
> > I am sure they do. There are certainly obsolete buildings downtown.
> > However, there are many old buildings that have been adapted to new
> > uses. I work in a circa 1910 building that was constructed as lofts
> > (for light industry) but works very well as a commercial building. In
> > fact, almost all of the old loft buildings in Manhattan have been
> > converted to either offices (which they are very well suited to), or
> > apartments (it's at least as sheik to live in a 'loft' as it is to live
> > in a luxury highrise or prewar building).
> >
> > Don't base your entire opinion of old buildings on the one that you see
> > collapsing near 125th Street Station on Metro North, George.
> > >
> > > So downtowns with old buildings is not 'here to stay.'
> > > Most are featuring buildings beyond their designed life.
> >
> > But they are here to stay. Old buildings do get replaced, but the fact
> > is that they get replaced, and thus downtown is here to stay.
>
> acting up--sorry, not all messages are coming to me regularly). But he speaks
> in such dryly hypothetical terms that even there, I'd rather use the word
> "allusion" than direct suggestion. (Yeah, by modern high-tech terms, old
> buildings are obsolete; so what else is new.)
>
sais. Sure, they lack the high tech fibre-optic wiring found in
buildings built in the late '80s and '90s, but that serves to make them
more affordable for companies that can't afford expensive first rate
offices. I've yet to see an architect working in an office in a brand
new building downtown -- most of them have their offices in older, 2nd
rate office buildings.
> Where would you all rather live and work and exist--Paris, or La Defense?
Well. That's an interesting question. I'd much rather live in the
center of Paris (the inner arrondissements) than in La Defense. In
fact, I have lived there -- for 5 months I lived on the Rue De Rennes in
the 6e. But I think that living in La Defense would be better than
living in one of the other outer arrondissements, like the 14e or the
20e; perhaps not the 17e or up near MontMartre, though..
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
> >This may well be true. But bear in mind that the outer parts of
> >Brooklyn were constructed themselves as suburbs.
>
> Ok, but for travel time, downtown Brooklyn (A&S by my
> defintion) was only a very short hop from Manhattan and Wall
> Street. Boro Hall was only 1 stop from Hoyt Street, then
> Clark Street and from there under the river.
First off, what is "A&S"?
Second. When the Brooklyn Bridge was built in the 1880s, and when the
subways were constructed around the turn of the century, Brooklyn did
become much more accessible (you can walk from Manhattan to Brooklyn).
But it wasn't always so. Brooklyn got its start as a suburb of New York
in the early part of the 19th century. Until the Brooklyn Bridge,
suburbanites from Brooklyn had to commute by ferry to the city, and
those ferries were notoriously slow and unreliable.
Adam Weiss
No I never said or meant anything to that effect. I'm 22. I'm not a
teenager but the memories of how hellish it is to live in the suburbs as
a teenager is still burned in my mind.
>
> I had the run of the subways as a teenager. In fact, from
> age 8 or 9, I could go anywhere on them, and still could, I
> guess, if I wanted to live in an apartment and spent a
> fortune on an apartment. As for cars, you have a really
> funny cost idea.
OK. So I did overstate the cost of owning a car a little. But even so,
I'd rather spend $1,100 for an apartment than $800 for a mortgage and
$300 a month for a car.
>
> >I'm glad as hell to be in the city (even if I'm far away from downtown)
> >and to be able to get to stores and bars without a car. And I'll add
> >that, because I grew up in a suburb and hate them, I'd sooner spend
> >$1,800 for an apartment than spend $800 for a mortgage and $1000 for a
> >car.
>
> What about a monthly car payment of $189 (Plymouth
> Sundance) and insurance of $50 a month and gas about $25?
> After the car is paid, you can drive it for another 10 years
> (as I did my last car....15 years and 225,000 miles). Trade
> in value at that time: $100.
But if you plan to drive your car into the city (especially if you work
there), you're going to spend $3 to $4 in tolls each day, in addition to
$9 for parking. You could, of course, leave your car at the train
station and ride in, but that wouldn't be much cheaper once you count
the cost of a train ticket. Subway commuting from anywhere in the city
costs $3 total a day.
Furthermore, past 100,000 miles most cars (excluding perhaps Bimmers,
Volvos, and Mercedes -- cars you're not going to get for $189 a month)
tend to need alot more maintenance, and that costs alot of money.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
> >> > question (what to do with existing downtowns) in his extremely dryly
> >> > hypothetical posts. We can only ASSUME he suggests that they should be
> >> > demolished or left as rotting dinosaurs--but, he doesn't say that! All he's
> >> > saying is that old downtowns are obsolescent and useless in the proper
> >> > functioning of modern culture. Is he just being a provocateur, or is he
> >> > ducking the issue, because he knows he might effectively do himself in?
> >>
> >> I think he just made a point in response to my last post, though. It
> >> seems that he believes that old downtowns are obsolete and are already
> >> rotting dinosaurs.
> >
> >Yes, many already are "rotting dinosaurs" by (not merely) Conklinian definition.
> >But that's what they've become up until now. Other than PERHAPS implying a
> >"let'em rot" message (not unlike that visionary who a few years ago proposed that
> >downtown Detroit should be allowed to decay into sublime ruinousness, a sort of
> >conceptual-art contemporary Pompeii), he says nothing about what should, in the
> >future, be done with the physical (and otherwise) fact of these dinosaurs. At
> >least not as far as I've seen, so far.
> >
>
> Those old downtown buildings have exceeded their life
> expectancy and need to be torn down for safety reasons. The
> land of course can be reused for something else, but Federal
> tax law makes it profitable to leave lots empty as tax
> writeoffs for big banks.
That's simply not true in most cases. I'll use a building we're working
on in my office as an example. The building is a 12 story former
industrial building on Broadway that is being converted to apartments.
The structure of the building was in excellent shape -- nothing really
needed to be done (load bearing walls and steel construction lasts
forever). We had to add an elevator, and bring other things up to code,
but the end result was much cheaper than knocking the thing down and
constructing a whole new building.
>
> Locally our CCB building had to get an exemption from
> state fire laws to continue to be open beyond 5 floors,
> since there is only one stair and in a fire occupants would
> simply die. They allowed the dangerous situation to
> continue to support the 'downtown.' But the workers could
> be roasted alive due to the decision.
The fact is, old buildings are going to either be destroyed or
renovated. There's no way around that. When buildings are renovated,
however, they need to be brought up to code. Perhaps some cases might
be made for 6 story buildings not needing elevators (even though the law
states that anything over 5 stories must have one), but buildings with
8, 10, or 12 stories need to have elevators added to them when they are
renovated.
And I must add, that adding an elevator for a total cost of $100,000 or
a complete renovation of $6 or $7 million is much cheaper than new
construction, which could cost $10 or $12 million.
George Conklin
>> You mean you are STILL a teenager?
>
>No I never said or meant anything to that effect. I'm 22. I'm not a
>teenager but the memories of how hellish it is to live in the suburbs as
>a teenager is still burned in my mind.
Well, after you get over your parents, you will discover
they were not as dumb as you now think.
>> I had the run of the subways as a teenager. In fact, from
>> age 8 or 9, I could go anywhere on them, and still could, I
>> guess, if I wanted to live in an apartment and spent a
>> fortune on an apartment. As for cars, you have a really
>> funny cost idea.
>
>OK. So I did overstate the cost of owning a car a little. But even so,
>I'd rather spend $1,100 for an apartment than $800 for a mortgage and
>$300 a month for a car.
Well, speaking as somoene who had the 'freedom' of the
subway system, I can say without hesitation that the
'freedom' was only freedom to go from high density area to
another. It was slow going and took a lot of time, and
allowed little freedom in terms of time spent. If your date
did not live on the particular subway line you were on, it
would take hours to go a few miles. Not much fun.
>> >I'm glad as hell to be in the city (even if I'm far away from downtown)
>> >and to be able to get to stores and bars without a car. And I'll add
>> >that, because I grew up in a suburb and hate them, I'd sooner spend
>> >$1,800 for an apartment than spend $800 for a mortgage and $1000 for a
>> >car.
>>
>> What about a monthly car payment of $189 (Plymouth
>> Sundance) and insurance of $50 a month and gas about $25?
>> After the car is paid, you can drive it for another 10 years
>> (as I did my last car....15 years and 225,000 miles). Trade
>> in value at that time: $100.
>
>But if you plan to drive your car into the city (especially if you work
>there), you're going to spend $3 to $4 in tolls each day, in addition to
>$9 for parking. You could, of course, leave your car at the train
>station and ride in, but that wouldn't be much cheaper once you count
>the cost of a train ticket. Subway commuting from anywhere in the city
>costs $3 total a day.
>
>Furthermore, past 100,000 miles most cars (excluding perhaps Bimmers,
>Volvos, and Mercedes -- cars you're not going to get for $189 a month)
>tend to need alot more maintenance, and that costs alot of money.
>
George Conklin
In article <3492E4...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> >This may well be true. But bear in mind that the outer parts of
>> >Brooklyn were constructed themselves as suburbs.
>>
>> defintion) was only a very short hop from Manhattan and Wall
>> Street. Boro Hall was only 1 stop from Hoyt Street, then
>> Clark Street and from there under the river.
>
>First off, what is "A&S"?
I thought you were from New York. Where are you posting
from anyway? California?
>Second. When the Brooklyn Bridge was built in the 1880s, and when the
>subways were constructed around the turn of the century, Brooklyn did
>become much more accessible (you can walk from Manhattan to Brooklyn).
>But it wasn't always so. Brooklyn got its start as a suburb of New York
>in the early part of the 19th century. Until the Brooklyn Bridge,
>suburbanites from Brooklyn had to commute by ferry to the city, and
>those ferries were notoriously slow and unreliable.
>
>--
>
>Adam Weiss
>aw...@erols.com
So? Brooklyn was built out only when the subways were
put into "New Lots" and made the place accessible.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <3492E4...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >> >This may well be true. But bear in mind that the outer parts of
> >> >Brooklyn were constructed themselves as suburbs.
> >>
> >> defintion) was only a very short hop from Manhattan and Wall
> >> Street. Boro Hall was only 1 stop from Hoyt Street, then
> >> Clark Street and from there under the river.
> >
> >First off, what is "A&S"?
>
> I thought you were from New York. Where are you posting
> from anyway? California?
No. I'm posting from New York. You're the expat posting from
California. And what is A&S, anyway. Sorry if I'm not the anachronism
wizard that you are George.
>
> >Second. When the Brooklyn Bridge was built in the 1880s, and when the
> >subways were constructed around the turn of the century, Brooklyn did
> >become much more accessible (you can walk from Manhattan to Brooklyn).
> >But it wasn't always so. Brooklyn got its start as a suburb of New York
> >in the early part of the 19th century. Until the Brooklyn Bridge,
> >suburbanites from Brooklyn had to commute by ferry to the city, and
> >those ferries were notoriously slow and unreliable.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Adam Weiss
> >aw...@erols.com
>
> So? Brooklyn was built out only when the subways were
> put into "New Lots" and made the place accessible.
Wrong there, buddy. By the time New York annexed Brooklyn in the 1890s,
Brooklyn was already the 5th largest city in the United States. It was
already New York's premier suburb before the subways were built, and was
already a very large city by the time the Brooklyn Bridge was built.
And as I said, before that people took slow, unreliable ferries to get
to and from work.
Robert Coe
On 3 Dec 1997 13:46:51 GMT, app...@aol.com (APPSINC) wrote:
: I've seen quite a few pedestrian malls, and only two that really work: Boulder,
: CO and Burlington, VT. These two towns have several things in common - a large
: student population, a large outdoorsy contingent, and a good deal of housing
: within walking distance of the mall. In most situations, however, it seems
: that pedestrianizing a street is actually bad for business because the stores
: no longer are visible to passers-by. (Making a busy street one-way has the same
: effect, only to a lesser extent : businesses on one-way streets are seen by
: half the people that would pass by if the street were two-way. )
The one in Boston (Washington St) works too. But it may be a bit of a special
case. The street is narrow and winding and had been one-way for as long as
anyone could remember. It was usually choked with very slow-moving traffic,
so the cars were pretty much in the way. There were few, if any, busses,
since most public transportation in the immediate area was (and is)
underground. Not all businesses in the area have done well, but I think
they've all done at least as well as they would have if the street had
remained open to vehicular traffic.
--
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_____________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, MA 01776-2120 USA ** 978-443-3265
Colin R. Leech
(ad...@interlog.com) wrote:
> Okay Adam I get the drift of what you were talking about w/Conklin (my server is
> acting up--sorry, not all messages are coming to me regularly). But he speaks
> in such dryly hypothetical terms that even there, I'd rather use the word
> "allusion" than direct suggestion.
"illusion" would be a better description for most of what he writes.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
BBReynolds
IN a follow-up there was a question about George using "A&S"
Abraham & Straus...big time NYC area department store that died
not too long after attempting to create big box stores in the suburbs
(the world's largest work or art on the A&S store at Route 4 and Route 17 in
Paramus NJ)
--
Bruce B. Reynolds, Systems Consultant:
Founder (and Chief Bottle-Washer) of Trailing Edge Technologies---
Sweeping Up Behind Data Processing Dinosaurs (and Creating New Monsters)
ad...@interlog.com
BBReynolds wrote:
> IN a follow-up there was a question about George using "A&S"
> Abraham & Straus...big time NYC area department store that died
> not too long after attempting to create big box stores in the suburbs
> (the world's largest work or art on the A&S store at Route 4 and Route 17 in
> Paramus NJ)
That was Alexanders, wasn't it (the Paramus store, not the chain)? It made for
an intriguing contemporary highwayside ruin when I passed by in 1994.
George Conklin
In article <349359...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> In article <3492E4...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >George Conklin wrote:
>> >
>> >> >This may well be true. But bear in mind that the outer parts of
>> >> >Brooklyn were constructed themselves as suburbs.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, but for travel time, downtown Brooklyn (A&S by my
>> >> defintion) was only a very short hop from Manhattan and Wall
>> >> Street. Boro Hall was only 1 stop from Hoyt Street, then
>> >> Clark Street and from there under the river.
>> >
>> >First off, what is "A&S"?
>>
>> I thought you were from New York. Where are you posting
>> from anyway? California?
>
>No. I'm posting from New York. You're the expat posting from
>California. And what is A&S, anyway. Sorry if I'm not the anachronism
>wizard that you are George.
You know it its funny. Even the clerks in Lord and
Taylors here in Raleigh, NC know about A&S. The full name
was Abraham and Straus, and it was the downtown department
store in Brooklyn's downtown area. It even had a window in
the Hoyt Street subway station.
George Conklin
In article <66v9rl$4...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
> (ad...@interlog.com) wrote:
>
>> Okay Adam I get the drift of what you were talking about w/Conklin (my server is
>> acting up--sorry, not all messages are coming to me regularly). But he speaks
>> in such dryly hypothetical terms that even there, I'd rather use the word
>> "allusion" than direct suggestion.
>
>"illusion" would be a better description for most of what he writes.
>
alt.lionel.colin will come to life like some Xmas display,
and that happy people will move back to urban apartments to
support 30-50 cent per mile transit on trains so you can
have you retro dreams fulfilled.
ad...@interlog.com
George Conklin wrote:
> In article <349210...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm not an urban planner. I'm just a guy who grew up in a suburb (or
> >whatever the hell you'd call that town) and hated not being able to go
> >anywhere thout borrowing my parents car.
> >
> >I wouldn't wish being a prisoner in their house on any teenager in the
> >world.
>
> You mean you are STILL a teenager?
Excuse me for sounding pop-psychological-cum-Deweyan, but why mustn't we keep in touch
with our inner youth--is youth and teendom merely an obstacle on the route to "proper"
adulthood? Youth can teach us a lot--at best, they're the great reclaimers of the
detritus of old urbanity which George Conklin would rather sweep away as obsolete.
(That's how a great deal of exciting urban bohemia started up.) I am no longer a
teenager, but I remember being a teenager, and I empathize with their situation.
What I notice is that Conklin seems utterly oblivious to, if not contemptuous of, the
freewheeling and instructive energy of youth. The excitement of young (in fact and in
heart) urban bohemia--his eyes do not see, because these youngsters are exceptional, and
exceptionally callow, and do not properly fit his definition of "average". Bohemia, I
guess, is but an elitist plot in its own right. Conklin has a point, as he always
has--planners have long been too obsessed with the so-called "magic" of such bohemias to
have proper regard for Joe Average's requirements, which all too frequently is but the
plain house on the plain lot, thoroughly up-to-date and with ample auto flexibility (and
who needs those overpriced Starbucks latte's, anyway). But we need not make a tyranny
out of such "normal"-adult averageness; sometime I wonder if that's Conklin's aim.
That's why my problems with him have sometimes taken on a personal nature.
I'd like to know where he sided himself during the student revolts of '68.
ad...@interlog.com
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
Also, for all that Conklin "bugs" a lot of us, I can appreciate his archaic
reference points, being something of a creative archaist myself. Abraham & Straus
was the great "anchor" store in downtown Brooklyn--a true Brooklyn icon, much like
Gage & Tollner's and, of course, the Dodgers. ALL true-blue Brooklynites know what
"A&S" is.
I last visited Brooklyn in early '92, before A&S was absorbed by I-forgot-who
(Macys? Help me someone). It was a great old-fashioned architectural
conglomeration, by then looking a little forlorn along the Fulton Street Mall (one
of those classic well-meaning postwar main
streets-turned-malls-turned-tawdry-hangouts-for-derelicts; a exotic experience by
Manhattan standards, like a real Conklinesque wan Middle-American downtown
transplanted to the Big Apple). But it was still open. Someone tell me if it
remains open to this day (under a different name, perhaps?), or if it (if not the
premises) has been euthanized by kamikaze contemporary retailing realities.
George Conklin
I went by the Hoyt Street station last year but forgot to
notice if the windows indicated the store was open.
Everything else has merged over the years and the other
great stores in the area all closed in the 1950s.
Bill Kinkaid
>>
>> 2. Critical Mass: Three office buildings and a hotel are part/connected to
>> the mall. Then add all the other office buildings, hotels, City Hall,
>> Courthouse, condos, aparments and houses, two universities, all within a 45
>> minute walk. I've often heard that the Eaton Centre is the number one
>> tourist attraction in Metro Toronto.
>
Likewise Pacific Centre in Vancouver and Victoria's Eaton Centre; let's not
even discuss West Edmonton VaccuuMall. Not to begrudge the truckloads of
bucks USians drop up here, but don't US cities have malls? or are USian
tourists that desperate to shop in a "safe and clean" environment (with all
that funny coloured money).
Toronto has culture, ethnic life, interesting neighbourhoods and history
(or at least used to). Also attractions like the CN Tower, the Science
Centre and the Zoo (though it ain't what it used to be). Vancouver also has
a stunning natural setting with the ocean, mountains, and rain forest. It's
depressing that the majority of visitors (and not just from down south)
come here with only one thing on their mind.
Bill in Vancouver
(delete EAT-SPAM-AND-DIE
from e-mail address to respond)
Herc Wad
George Conklin wrote:
> Adam, I am not sure downtown buildings, which are usually
>quite old, still exist in a viable economic form. They are
>obsolete, and really are beyond their designed life. This
>causes very high maintenance problems for anyone using them.
>To keep our local downtown main building going, the state
>had to pass special laws exempting it from fire codes.
>Otherwise, it would have had to been torn down or limited to
>just the first 5 floors.
George, the above is a very good paragraph about old buildings. Downtown L.A.
and I am sure New York City (and others) have problems of abandoned buildings,
especially multistory buildings.
It would be very expensive to fix. In Downtown L.A., you can walk down on
Broadway, Spring, and Main and see these buildings, which were offices or
apartments in their former lives. Renovating them is prohibitively expensive,
often millions of dollars per building. Combine that with several buildings
that need renovation and you'd see why they'd be abandoned. There are several
reasons why these buildings would be so hard to fix up, but I am only giving a
thumbnail here. Time, weather, and earthquakes have pounded these buildings for
decades at a time.
The other choice is to tear them down. This can't be done, because over the
years, merchants opened up stores at street level. Downtown is one of the most
popular shopping destinations for L.A.'s Latino community, offering clothing,
electronics, etc. at discount prices. Those storefronts are very profitable.
Demolishing a building without having to demolish the storefronts would be
expensive if not impossible. Construction of a new building on top would be
even trickier. What about the complexities of these buildings (most built
between the two world wars) having common walls? Many cans of worms here.
SoCalTIP, Southern California's Comprehensive Transportation Information Page:
<http://socaltip.lerctr.org>
Colin R. Leech
"Tina or Adam Szymczak" (szym...@ican.net) wrote:
>
>> There are, in some instances, downtown malls that will succeed. They
>> will require a residential or office based population that can support
>> the retail. They will, however, require close, convenient and FREE
>> parking for the customer.
>
> If there is a resident and/or office based population to support the mall,
> the issue of parking seems to be secondary. The issue of parking comes into
> play when a downtown mall relies on non-downtown population for customers
> and/or there is poor public transit service. The Eaton Centre in Toronto
> charges for parking, but it can do that since on-street parking is
> essentially non-existant. Doesn't seem to hurt business charging for
> parking.
Parking is not so much an issue for a downtown mall if there is a large
concentration of employment nearby. This is the case for the Eaton Centre
in Toronto and the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Most of the traffic comes in
by transit or on foot, as is the case for the downtown core as a whole.
They are not community shopping centres that survive on local residential
traffic - they are major traffic generators in their own rights attracting
customers from all over the region. Monthly passes for the transit systems
make a big difference as many people will stop off to do their shopping on
the way home from work. As mentioned, the Eaton Centre is also one of the
larger tourist attractions in Toronto, while the Rideau Centre is linked
in to major tourist areas of downtown Ottawa. Both malls charge for parking,
and they certainly do have to provide parking, but auto is not the major
mode of access.
Colin R. Leech
"Tina or Adam Szymczak" (szym...@ican.net) wrote:
> On 12-Dec-97 00:27:55, Adam Weiss (aw...@erols.com) wrote:
>
>> I am unfamiliar with Eaton Center. But I am curious -- do the stores
>> turn their back on the street -- is their one entrance to the mall and
>> entrances from the mall corridors to the stores, or do stores have
>> entrances both onto the sidewalk around the mall and onto the
>> corridors? The latter to me is what would make malls the most friendly
>> to their cities if they are built downtown.
>
> For the most part, most stores face inward. There are several entrances to
> the mall from both street level (at least 7 or 8 maybe more) and subway
> level (at least 3) plus direct access from the three office towers and two
> parking garages. Now several stores and restaurants have in addition to the
> mall entrance, an entrance off Yonge street (main north-south street). For
> the most part these aren't used that much.
The inward-facing orientation of the Eaton Centre was one of the major
factors in the decline of Yonge St. itself in the 1970s. The traditional
outdoor stores along Yonge St. (it was a traditional downtown street)
couldn't compete with the climate control and convenience of the indoor
Eaton Centre. The same pattern repeated itself in several other cities,
including Ottawa, when large indoor malls were built in downtowns. Yonge
St. became known for it s sex shops and sleeze, among other things.
Eventually the street did recover, and now has thriving retail activity.
The "red light strip" stigma is gone, replaced with many superstores such
as the original Sam the Record Man store (which held on through the
years), some clones of Sam's, jean warehouses, World's Biggest Bookstore
(half a block off Yonge St.), etc.
Much of this upheaval could have been avoided IMHO if the Eaton Centre had
been designed to integrate with the surrounding streetscape better,
instead of being this fortress that mostly presents a blank wall to the
outside street.
> [On New Britain Conn.'s dead retail downtown:]
>> But a better bet would be to re-zone the city commercial (meaning that
>> the old industrial buildings could be converted to offices -- which is a
>> very popular thing to do nowadays), and marketed to Hartford companies
>> with lower rents and taxes and easy access from West Hartford. With a
>> better tax base from commerce, the schools could be improved, and
>> residences in New Britain could be marketed for less than West Hartford.
In other words, create a clone of downtown Hartford's downtown instead,
where they roll up the sidewalks at 5:00 pm as all the office workers
head home to the suburbs (including New Britain)? Bringing
non-9-to-5-office life to downtown was one of the reasons why the business
community sponsored the Hartford Whalers NHL team for so many years, with
some success.
> Go one step further and rezone it mixed residential/commercial/light
> industrial.
Mixed uses seem to bring the most life overall.
>Use noise and odour guidelines to eliminate potential conflicts
> between uses.
George Conklin
In article <19971215085...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Start by tearing down abandoned buildings and putting
stores in there. That is what most cities do.
BBReynolds
In article <3493CEB8...@interlog.com>, ad...@interlog.com writes:
>Subject: Re: great urban areas
From: ad...@interlog.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997
>07:19:04 -0500
BBReynolds wrote:
> IN a follow-up there was a question
>about George using "A&S"
> Abraham & Straus...big time NYC area department
>store that died
> not too long after attempting to create big box stores in
>the suburbs
> (the world's largest work or art on the A&S store at Route 4
>and Route 17 in
> Paramus NJ)
That was Alexanders, wasn't it (the Paramus
>store, not the chain)? It made for
an intriguing contemporary highwayside
>ruin when I passed by in 1994.
I stand corrected (well, sit anyway); it was Alexanders I was thinking of in
Paramus.
The painting is the ultimate piece of New York abstract art, done in enameled
steel;
I haven't been near it myself in maybe ten years.
ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu
In article <349359...@erols.com>,
aw...@erols.com wrote:
> > >First off, what is "A&S"?
> >
> > I thought you were from New York. Where are you posting
> > from anyway? California?
>
> No. I'm posting from New York. You're the expat posting from
> California. And what is A&S, anyway. Sorry if I'm not the anachronism
> wizard that you are George.
A&S was Abraham and Straus, the Downtown Brooklyn based department store.
It's at Fulton and Hoyt. This is a chain with a lot of history. Nathan
Straus's name is quite a few NYC philanthropic works. The Israeli city of
Natania is named in his honor. Jesse Isidor Straus, also made Macy's what
it is (as its manager.) He and his wife went down on the Titanic. There's
a monument in their memory at Broadway and 106 in Manhattan. A&S later
became a unit of Federated Stores (Bloomingdales, Filenes, others.) When
Federated bought Macy's in the early 90s, it folded A&S into Macy's. The
store is there under its new name.
Isaac Brumer
ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu
P.S. Hello George!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu
hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
> Data-based is the word. You live in the dream world that
> alt.lionel.colin will come to life like some Xmas display,
> and that happy people will move back to urban apartments to
> support 30-50 cent per mile transit on trains so you can
> have you retro dreams fulfilled.
Uh George;
Why do you think city apartments (in cities that are thriving, that is)
cost so much. Haven't you heard of "supply and demand." Could it be
possible that they cost so much because in fact, people *are* moving in?
Isaac Brumer
ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu
ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu
ad...@interlog.com wrote:
>
> I last visited Brooklyn in early '92, before A&S was absorbed by I-forgot-who
> (Macys? Help me someone). It was a great old-fashioned architectural
> conglomeration, by then looking a little forlorn along the Fulton Street Mall
(one
> of those classic well-meaning postwar main
> streets-turned-malls-turned-tawdry-hangouts-for-derelicts; a exotic experience
by
> Manhattan standards, like a real Conklinesque wan Middle-American downtown
> transplanted to the Big Apple). But it was still open. Someone tell me if it
> remains open to this day (under a different name, perhaps?), or if it (if not
the
> premises) has been euthanized by kamikaze contemporary retailing realities.
A&S is now Macy's and is open. As I explained in an earlier post,
Federated which owned A&S, folded it into Macy's when it acquired that
chain.
Adam Weiss
That is a good point.
In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
Columbia University).
When areas undergo a rebirth (like 42nd Street in New York City has in
the past few years, or the streets between 96th and 110th on the Upper
West Side), old buildings are renovated. Why? Because people see
economic opportunities in the construction of buildings. Sometimes it
makes more sense to renovate older buildings (as it has in most of SoHo)
-- other times it makes more sense to demolish the old buildings and
construct new ones on their site (a client of my firm said outright --
"in a few years I'll be knocking these buildings down and constructing
something major on the site" -- the land is worth more than the
buildings).
But sometimes this progress is hindered by landmarks issues. In Harlem
(right next to the 125th Street Station, actually) there's an old
building (in terrible shape), with commerce on the floor but collapsing
upper floors. It might make sense to demolish the upper floors, and
build a store on the site. It may well make sense to build a whole
building on the site. But the building can't be demolished because it's
a landmark, and it can't be renovated because that isn't economically
viable.
So now the issue is -- if a landmark building is falling down at its own
right, does it make sense to keep it as a landmark?
George Conklin
I thought it was form follows function.
>When areas undergo a rebirth (like 42nd Street in New York City has in
>the past few years, or the streets between 96th and 110th on the Upper
>West Side), old buildings are renovated. Why? Because people see
>economic opportunities in the construction of buildings. Sometimes it
>makes more sense to renovate older buildings (as it has in most of SoHo)
>-- other times it makes more sense to demolish the old buildings and
>construct new ones on their site (a client of my firm said outright --
>"in a few years I'll be knocking these buildings down and constructing
>something major on the site" -- the land is worth more than the
>buildings).
>
>But sometimes this progress is hindered by landmarks issues. In Harlem
>(right next to the 125th Street Station, actually) there's an old
>building (in terrible shape), with commerce on the floor but collapsing
>upper floors. It might make sense to demolish the upper floors, and
>build a store on the site. It may well make sense to build a whole
>building on the site. But the building can't be demolished because it's
>a landmark, and it can't be renovated because that isn't economically
>viable.
>
>So now the issue is -- if a landmark building is falling down at its own
>right, does it make sense to keep it as a landmark?
>
>--
>
>Adam Weiss
>aw...@erols.com
>
Given the rather falling-down nature of most cities these
days, it is hard to think we need to have so many
'landmarks.'
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
> >In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
> >title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
> >Columbia University).
>
> I thought it was form follows function.
>
It was. If I had said "form follows function" however, I would have
cited Mies Van De Rohe (I think he was the one who coined that
statement). But I meant "form follows finance", an interesting point
that Ms. Willis found in her research on New York and Chicago
skyscrapers.
>
> Given the rather falling-down nature of most cities these
> days, it is hard to think we need to have so many
> 'landmarks.'
Sadly they are necessary. Perhaps you lived in New York when the old
Penn Station (the one based on the Roman Thermae) was still in use? New
York's landmarks commission came into existence when Penn Station was
demolished (and reconstructed to look like a 1960s era shopping mall).
There are buildings that are so beautiful, important to the city (who
could imagine New York without the Empire State Building?), or
architecturally important, that they should remain. In Penn Station's
case, it was the both that the building was beautiful (show of virtual
hands -- who would rather come into New York in a beautiful space like
Grand Central than into a dreary shopping mall space like the current
Penn Station?), and that it was one of the great Beaux Arts buildings in
New York (i.e. it was architecturally important).
But the issue I was bringing up is this: when a building is at risk of
being either torn down if its landmark status is lifted, or falling down
at its own accord if it remains a landmark, what can be done? This is
the issue of the 125th Street building.
Herc Wad
Adam Weiss wrote:
>Any ideas on how shopping malls can work downtown?
Check Horton Plaza in Downtown San Diego.
Or even the Santa Monica Place in Santa Monica, Ca.
Want to know how one fails? Check all of the ones in Downtown L.A. You have the
Arco Plaza, 7th Marketplace, Macy's Plaza, and even the L.A. Mall, and none of
them do well.
Herc Wad
George Conklin wrote:
> Start by tearing down abandoned buildings and putting
>stores in there. That is what most cities do.
That is the problem. There are stores at street level. It is really the empty
office spaces/apartments above those stores that cause the problem.
Renovation will be expensive. There might not even be the motivation to
renovate. L.A.'s planning department actually assessed the cost for a plan if
the space were ever to be used. It would have been around $300 million to redo
the abandoned parts of Downtown.
Demolition would be hard. How would demolition be possible of all the floors,
except the stores at the lobby? Certainly the possibility would be tricky, if
not impossible to do. Then construction will be another added challenge, to
build another building on top of what has already been demolished.
Demolition of the entire building is also possible. But what about those
businesspeople that refuse to sell out to developers? Also, the Latino
community patronizing this area full of abandoned buildings has made the area
profitable to the merchants. Considering this is L.A. and our local media
(mainstream and alternatives) will quickly pander to racism/classism which will
involve working class Latinos and predominantly Latino merchants against more
affluent, predominantly white developers and the planning bureaucracy. If the
merchants go, where will they relocate?
I can also see this as a reality...the conservancy community will quickly come
out and try to declare the whole area a historic zone. Despite these buildings
being abandoned and battered over the years, the facades and architecture is
pretty impressive. Most of these buildings were built between World War I and
II, so the conservancy might take their age into historical account. This would
either 1) not allow the buildings to be touched (much as now), but once a fire
or quake does more damage to the building, public funds would be used to fund a
non-functioning building, or 2) allow reuse of the offices and apartments, but
renovations may not alter anything historic such as the facades, boosting the
cost up even more. The conservancy in L.A. is widely criticized as being
"architectural gourmets...trying to impress pseudo-intellectuals on the
Westside", as was once said by a letter in the L.A. Times, this over the
conservancy desiring to preserve the battered St. Vibiana cathedral.
The reality is changes need to be made, but all of them will carry large costs.
The buildings need to be brought up to code, and the land needs to be used more
efficiently. The land should not be used as luxury apartments or condos.
Downtown L.A. is not that great of a place to live in. Offices seeking to have
a simplified operation without having to work in the splendid towers a few
blocks away that enshadow these buildings may have a great opportunity. Then
again, with L.A.'s homeless problem, low income housing would work in Downtown,
with the affordable stores downstairs.
George Conklin
In article <349630...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> >In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
>> >title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
>> >Columbia University).
>>
>> I thought it was form follows function.
>>
>It was. If I had said "form follows function" however, I would have
>cited Mies Van De Rohe (I think he was the one who coined that
>statement). But I meant "form follows finance", an interesting point
>that Ms. Willis found in her research on New York and Chicago
>skyscrapers.
>>
>> Given the rather falling-down nature of most cities these
>> days, it is hard to think we need to have so many
>> 'landmarks.'
>
>Sadly they are necessary. Perhaps you lived in New York when the old
>Penn Station (the one based on the Roman Thermae) was still in use? New
>York's landmarks commission came into existence when Penn Station was
>demolished (and reconstructed to look like a 1960s era shopping mall).
I was in the building before, during and after its
removal. They put steel beams across the large open dome
about where the current ceiling is. It was amazing to
watch.
BUT keep in mind that was only a 1920-1930s building. It
had no historic value, except for the fact it was expensive
to build, operate and maintain, and was thus a white
elephant to the owners. How many inefficient buildings do
we have to maintain for 'cultural' reasons when the cost
goes to the private industry. Amtrak has enough problems
without trying to maintain white elephants.
And historic? Is someting 30-40 years-old 'historic' or
merely something to worry about if you want to 'do
something' for culture but lack the interest to do something
real?
>There are buildings that are so beautiful, important to the city (who
>could imagine New York without the Empire State Building?)
I can easily imagine NYC without the Empire State
Building. The city got along fine without it before 1930,
and it was an economic bomb for many years, called the Empty
State Building by my parents to this very day.
ad...@interlog.com
Adam Weiss wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > >In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
> > >title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
> > >Columbia University).
> >
> > I thought it was form follows function.
> >
> It was. If I had said "form follows function" however, I would have
> cited Mies Van De Rohe (I think he was the one who coined that
> statement). But I meant "form follows finance", an interesting point
> that Ms. Willis found in her research on New York and Chicago
> skyscrapers.
> >
> > Given the rather falling-down nature of most cities these
> > days, it is hard to think we need to have so many
> > 'landmarks.'
>
> Sadly they are necessary. Perhaps you lived in New York when the old
> Penn Station (the one based on the Roman Thermae) was still in use? New
> York's landmarks commission came into existence when Penn Station was
> demolished (and reconstructed to look like a 1960s era shopping mall).
> There are buildings that are so beautiful, important to the city (who
> could imagine New York without the Empire State Building?), or
> architecturally important, that they should remain. In Penn Station's
> case, it was the both that the building was beautiful (show of virtual
> hands -- who would rather come into New York in a beautiful space like
> Grand Central than into a dreary shopping mall space like the current
> Penn Station?), and that it was one of the great Beaux Arts buildings in
> New York (i.e. it was architecturally important).
>
> But the issue I was bringing up is this: when a building is at risk of
> being either torn down if its landmark status is lifted, or falling down
> at its own accord if it remains a landmark, what can be done? This is
> the issue of the 125th Street building.
Dare say, I'm pleased at ANYBODY who raises the issue of Penn Station to needle
Conklin.
George Conklin
Penn Station was not an old building when it was torn
down. It was a rather recent addition to the city, only big
and impractical. It saddled the railroads with something
they built for prestige, and did not need. The Pan Am
building was a monument to failure, as was the Sears Tower.
At some time a city cannot continue to exist on impractical
buildings which some preservation society wants kept going
at private loss.
James Guthrie
Form Follows Function was Louis Sullivan; Frank Lloyd Wright's mentor. A
British writer (name forgotton but Mr. Conklin would like him) said Form
Follows Fiasco in a derivation much like your professor..
Less is More, and God is in the Details were Mies van der Rohe.
Nothing is Best of All was Phillip Johnson.
Adam Weiss wrote in message <349630...@erols.com>...
>George Conklin wrote:
>
>> >In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
>> >title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
>> >Columbia University).
>>
>> I thought it was form follows function.
>>
>It was. If I had said "form follows function" however, I would have
>cited Mies Van De Rohe (I think he was the one who coined that
>statement). But I meant "form follows finance", an interesting point
>that Ms. Willis found in her research on New York and Chicago
>skyscrapers.
snip
Isaac Brumer
> Penn Station (the one based on the Roman Thermae) was still in use? New
> York's landmarks commission came into existence when Penn Station was
> demolished (and reconstructed to look like a 1960s era shopping mall).
> There are buildings that are so beautiful, important to the city (who
> could imagine New York without the Empire State Building?), or
> architecturally important, that they should remain. In Penn Station's
> case, it was the both that the building was beautiful (show of virtual
> hands -- who would rather come into New York in a beautiful space like
> Grand Central than into a dreary shopping mall space like the current
> Penn Station?), and that it was one of the great Beaux Arts buildings in
> New York (i.e. it was architecturally important).
>
> But the issue I was bringing up is this: when a building is at risk of
> being either torn down if its landmark status is lifted, or falling down
> at its own accord if it remains a landmark, what can be done? This is
> the issue of the 125th Street building.
This illustrates a dilemma I've always had regarding "landmarking." I
appreciate the intent and esthetic result. I think that a city is
enriched by its significant historic buildings, but how do we compensate
their owners for this public good they are forced to provide? I mourn
Penn Station too, but as they say, "hindsight is 20-20." When it was torn
down, passenger rail was on its last legs, the Pennsy was desperate and
someone came along with an alternate use for the site. What if the PRR
had offered the station for sale to the public or to a "conservancy" for
a price equal to that offered by the builders of Madison Square Garden?
And if we just "force" landmarking, without providing some incentive or
support, aren't we asking for situations like your building on 125 st?
PS. I know it's hard to imagine NYC without the ESB, but we lost the old
Waldorf-Astoria to make room for it, and in turn that supplanted the
Waldorf and Astor Mansion. This to say that change "is". Not all good,
not all bad. Can we channel change so that it produces more ESBs and less
MSGs? Maybe.
Isaac Brumer
ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu
George Conklin
In article <882306726...@dejanews.com>,
Isaac Brumer <ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu> wrote:
>aw...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>Penn Station too, but as they say, "hindsight is 20-20." When it was torn
>down, passenger rail was on its last legs, the Pennsy was desperate and
>someone came along with an alternate use for the site. What if the PRR
>had offered the station for sale to the public or to a "conservancy" for
>a price equal to that offered by the builders of Madison Square Garden?
The original purpose of the ornate stations was not just
to serve passengers; it was advertising. The Woolworth
building was never built to make money, but to advertise the
stores, all in for-profit commercial buildings.
Penn Station was not an old building, but it was
spectacular in an era when the owner was going bankrupt.
The citizens who cry for preservation just don't want to pay
the bills.
ab...@tiac.net
On 16 Dec 1997 09:25:06 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
wrote:
>In article <3496833D...@interlog.com>, <ad...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>Adam Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>> > >In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
>>> > >title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
>>> > >Columbia University).
>>> >
>>> > I thought it was form follows function.
>>> >
>>> It was. If I had said "form follows function" however, I would have
>>> cited Mies Van De Rohe (I think he was the one who coined that
>>> statement). But I meant "form follows finance", an interesting point
>>> that Ms. Willis found in her research on New York and Chicago
>>> skyscrapers.
>>> >
>>> > Given the rather falling-down nature of most cities these
>>> > days, it is hard to think we need to have so many
>>> > 'landmarks.'
>>>
>>> Sadly they are necessary. Perhaps you lived in New York when the old
>>> Penn Station (the one based on the Roman Thermae) was still in use? New
>>> York's landmarks commission came into existence when Penn Station was
>>> demolished (and reconstructed to look like a 1960s era shopping mall).
>>> There are buildings that are so beautiful, important to the city (who
>>> could imagine New York without the Empire State Building?), or
>>> architecturally important, that they should remain. In Penn Station's
>>> case, it was the both that the building was beautiful (show of virtual
>>> hands -- who would rather come into New York in a beautiful space like
>>> Grand Central than into a dreary shopping mall space like the current
>>> Penn Station?), and that it was one of the great Beaux Arts buildings in
>>> New York (i.e. it was architecturally important).
>>>
>>> But the issue I was bringing up is this: when a building is at risk of
>>> being either torn down if its landmark status is lifted, or falling down
>>> at its own accord if it remains a landmark, what can be done? This is
>>> the issue of the 125th Street building.
>>
>>Dare say, I'm pleased at ANYBODY who raises the issue of Penn Station to needle
>>Conklin.
>>
>
> Penn Station was not an old building when it was torn
>down. It was a rather recent addition to the city, only big
>and impractical. It saddled the railroads with something
>they built for prestige, and did not need. The Pan Am
>building was a monument to failure, as was the Sears Tower.
>At some time a city cannot continue to exist on impractical
>buildings which some preservation society wants kept going
>at private loss.
>
>
>
If the Romans, the Venetians, Florentines, Parisians, et al. followed
George's advice, any building that wasn't "architecturallly
signifigant" could (or should) be torn down. What would Florence be
without the total effect of its historic urban fabric. If you keep
tearing buildings down after 20-30 years, they'' never get a chance to
BE historic. (Hmm...maybe that's agenda...)
Best regards,
Dave Dologite
ab...@tiac.net
On 16 Dec 1997 16:37:26 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
wrote:
>In article <882306726...@dejanews.com>,
>Isaac Brumer <ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu> wrote:
>>aw...@erols.com wrote:
>>>
>
>>Penn Station too, but as they say, "hindsight is 20-20." When it was torn
>>down, passenger rail was on its last legs, the Pennsy was desperate and
>>someone came along with an alternate use for the site. What if the PRR
>>had offered the station for sale to the public or to a "conservancy" for
>>a price equal to that offered by the builders of Madison Square Garden?
>
> The original purpose of the ornate stations was not just
>to serve passengers; it was advertising. The Woolworth
>building was never built to make money, but to advertise the
>stores, all in for-profit commercial buildings.
I just love it when academics with no background in private sector
business, finance, banking or real estate pull out that old "in the
private, for-profit sector blah-blah-blah." It just gives me the
giggles.
ab...@tiac.net
>This illustrates a dilemma I've always had regarding "landmarking." I
>appreciate the intent and esthetic result. I think that a city is
>enriched by its significant historic buildings, but how do we compensate
>their owners for this public good they are forced to provide? I mourn
>Penn Station too, but as they say, "hindsight is 20-20." When it was torn
>down, passenger rail was on its last legs, the Pennsy was desperate and
>someone came along with an alternate use for the site. What if the PRR
>had offered the station for sale to the public or to a "conservancy" for
>a price equal to that offered by the builders of Madison Square Garden?
>And if we just "force" landmarking, without providing some incentive or
>support, aren't we asking for situations like your building on 125 st?
You've hit the nail on the head, at least in part. I do think it is
important to exercise caution in demolishing parts of our urban
fabric, without careful, disinterested consideration. Its this
historic fabric that contributes to the quality of such cities as
Rome, Florence, Paris, London, Madrid, Barcelona, and so forth. And
you are right, if society wants to preserve its history, then it
should support the endeavor financially. CNN did a piece recently
comparing Paris to Washington DC. The City of Paris spends something
like 1/8 of its budget just to keep its streets and monuments clean!
They line the streets with cobblestones because they last longer and
look better, even if it costs more. Having been to both cities, all I
can say is that my impression of Paris was overwhelmingly positive. As
for DC, well, my mother told me, if you can't say something nice, say
nothing...
George Conklin
In article <34970a49...@news.tiac.net>, <ab...@tiac.net> wrote:
>On 16 Dec 1997 09:25:06 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>wrote:
>
Its citizens would have a higher standard of living.
That means nothing to urban planners, however, as you so
amply show.
George Conklin
In article <34970b3f...@news.tiac.net>, <ab...@tiac.net> wrote:
>On 16 Dec 1997 16:37:26 -0500, hen...@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin)
>wrote:
>
>I just love it when academics with no background in private sector
>business, finance, banking or real estate pull out that old "in the
>private, for-profit sector blah-blah-blah." It just gives me the
>giggles.
>
>> Penn Station was not an old building, but it was
>>spectacular in an era when the owner was going bankrupt.
>>The citizens who cry for preservation just don't want to pay
>>the bills.
>>
>>
>>
>
Giggle all you want. Commercial buildings which outlive
their usefulness need to be torn down so they don't become a
tax burden like you want.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <882306726...@dejanews.com>,
> Isaac Brumer <ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >aw...@erols.com wrote:
> >>
>
> >down, passenger rail was on its last legs, the Pennsy was desperate and
> >someone came along with an alternate use for the site. What if the PRR
> >had offered the station for sale to the public or to a "conservancy" for
> >a price equal to that offered by the builders of Madison Square Garden?
>
> to serve passengers; it was advertising. The Woolworth
> building was never built to make money, but to advertise the
> stores, all in for-profit commercial buildings.
>
> spectacular in an era when the owner was going bankrupt.
> The citizens who cry for preservation just don't want to pay
> the bills.
You fail to mention the single building that would best illustrate your
point: the Singer Building. Constructed in the 1900s, it was built as
a symbol to the Singer Sewing Machine Company. The building lost money
from the day it was built, and was torn down in the 1960s to make way
for the US Steel black box, which, despite being another black box in a
sea of black boxes, has made money.
Adam Weiss
George Conklin wrote:
>
> In article <349630...@erols.com>, Adam Weiss <aw...@erols.com> wrote:
> >George Conklin wrote:
> >
> >> >In urban areas form follows finance (and I'm stealing this from the
> >> >title of a book written by a former professor of mine -- Carol Willis of
> >> >Columbia University).
> >>
> >> I thought it was form follows function.
> >>
> >It was. If I had said "form follows function" however, I would have
> >cited Mies Van De Rohe (I think he was the one who coined that
> >statement). But I meant "form follows finance", an interesting point
> >that Ms. Willis found in her research on New York and Chicago
> >skyscrapers.
> >>
> >> Given the rather falling-down nature of most cities these
> >> days, it is hard to think we need to have so many
> >> 'landmarks.'
> >
> >Sadly they are necessary. Perhaps you lived in New York when the old
> >Penn Station (the one based on the Roman Thermae) was still in use? New
> >York's landmarks commission came into existence when Penn Station was
> >demolished (and reconstructed to look like a 1960s era shopping mall).
>
> removal. They put steel beams across the large open dome
> about where the current ceiling is. It was amazing to
> watch.
>
> BUT keep in mind that was only a 1920-1930s building. It
> had no historic value, except for the fact it was expensive
> to build, operate and maintain, and was thus a white
> elephant to the owners. How many inefficient buildings do
> we have to maintain for 'cultural' reasons when the cost
> goes to the private industry. Amtrak has enough problems
> without trying to maintain white elephants.
I would like to ask you a question. Is Grand Central Station
ineffecient? It is a building that has, according to your methodology,
outlived its useful life, but are there any studies that prove you would
be right in saying so?
>
> And historic? Is someting 30-40 years-old 'historic' or
> merely something to worry about if you want to 'do
> something' for culture but lack the interest to do something
> real?
>
I would say yes. The Lever House deserves to be a landmark. It is one
of the great modernist buildings in New York. As does Mies
Van-de-Rohe's Seagram Building, another great modernist building in New
York.
> >There are buildings that are so beautiful, important to the city (who
> >could imagine New York without the Empire State Building?)
>
> I can easily imagine NYC without the Empire State
> Building. The city got along fine without it before 1930,
> and it was an economic bomb for many years, called the Empty
> State Building by my parents to this very day.
The Empire State Building got the nickname "The Empty State Building"
because it was constructed just before, and marketed at first during the
depression. People in the 1930s just didn't have enough money to move
into new offices, and so the building went vacant until after the war.
Read up a little on history, George.
George Conklin
>> Isaac Brumer <ib...@newton.baruch.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> >aw...@erols.com wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> >Penn Station too, but as they say, "hindsight is 20-20." When it was torn
>> >down, passenger rail was on its last legs, the Pennsy was desperate and
>> >someone came along with an alternate use for the site. What if the PRR
>> >had offered the station for sale to the public or to a "conservancy" for
>> >a price equal to that offered by the builders of Madison Square Garden?
>>
>> The original purpose of the ornate stations was not just
>> to serve passengers; it was advertising. The Woolworth
>> building was never built to make money, but to advertise the
>> stores, all in for-profit commercial buildings.
>>
>> Penn Station was not an old building, but it was
>> spectacular in an era when the owner was going bankrupt.
>> The citizens who cry for preservation just don't want to pay
>> the bills.
>
>
>You fail to mention the single building that would best illustrate your
>point: the Singer Building. Constructed in the 1900s, it was built as
>a symbol to the Singer Sewing Machine Company. The building lost money
>from the day it was built, and was torn down in the 1960s to make way
>for the US Steel black box, which, despite being another black box in a
>sea of black boxes, has made money.
came along and declared it a 'landmark' which needed public
tax money to 'preserve.' Barrons mentioned that a company
today is known by its WWW site, not its first class
building!!!