New York planning chief offers tips

[M II A II R II K]

New York planning chief offers tips


Mar 28 2010

Vanessa Lu

Read More: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/786756--new-york-planning-chief-offers-tips

################################

Imagine sidewalk cafes everywhere. Add trees and greenery at parking lots. Mix in seating in both the sun and shade along the waterfront. Those are just some of the changes Amanda Burden has made since 2002 as chief of New York City’s planning commission, overseeing vast redevelopment from the Lower East Side in Manhattan to the Brooklyn waterfront to revitalizing 125th Street in Harlem — home to the famed Apollo Theater.

- “We want people not just to come to New York, but to stay in New York,†Burden told an audience at the University of Toronto on Friday that included politicians, planning students and community activists. The way to ensure people stay in New York, Burden said, is providing affordable housing, local retail, jobs throughout the city and public spaces like playgrounds for kids.

- “We direct development of the city by shaping its neighbourhoods, its business districts, its waterfront and its industrial areas,†she said. “New Yorkers judge us by how a street feels.†That’s why Burden has focused attention on making her city of nearly 8.4 million more pedestrian friendly, less gritty and more economically vibrant. Much of her success, she credits to strong political leadership in Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has given her the freedom to do what she believes is right.

- As well, New York has used a bonus system with developers — where maximum heights are determined but are set at a lower level — where developers are permitted to build automatically, known as “as of right.†If they want to build to the maximum, they are permitted only if they add affordable housing or a public plaza or non-profit arts venue. “Everybody knows what the actual height limit is,†she said. “(Given) the value of those apartments way up high, everybody builds to the full height limit. And we know we’re going to get the low-income housing.â€

################################

 

[WillC]

- “We direct development of the city by shaping its neighbourhoods, its business districts, its waterfront and its industrial areas,†she said. “New Yorkers judge us by how a street feels.†That’s why Burden has focused attention on making her city of nearly 8.4 million more pedestrian friendly, less gritty and more economically vibrant. Much of her success, she credits to strong political leadership in Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has given her the freedom to do what she believes is right.

- As well, New York has used a bonus system with developers — where maximum heights are determined but are set at a lower level — where developers are permitted to build automatically, known as “as of right.†If they want to build to the maximum, they are permitted only if they add affordable housing or a public plaza or non-profit arts venue. “Everybody knows what the actual height limit is,†she said. “(Given) the value of those apartments way up high, everybody builds to the full height limit. And we know we’re going to get the low-income housing.â€

This shows us for the hick town we are. When any developer wants to build a high rise here, the only response we come up with is,"Build it higher." Never mind about the quality of life in the city, the public housing, parks, pedestrian friendly areas.

We don't seem to have many rules at all, and allow any developer to exploit us for all the profits they can make, providing only jobs for a few construction workers whose families must live n the outer, car-dependant suburbs, and some great views for millionairs to enjoy.

 

[ganjavih]

I have to agree, WillC. There seems to be little in terms of requirements for developers to make real meaningful contributions to the city at street level for pedestrians. Just lifeless podiums with shiny glass towers on top.

 

[gristle]

Actually, the city does often try to impose changes on developer plans. However, the developer can merely turn to the OMB to get a decision that overrides city planning aims. For example, what would be the point of a design panel if a provincial body with little or no interest in context or neighbourhoods casually pushes aside any issue raised by the city's planning or design processes? How can city planning mature when there is always a paternalistic body above ready to overturn local planning concerns?

Having lived through such a process I can tell you that it is depressing to see the best efforts of a councillor and planner undermined and swept aside by a visit to the OMB. That is what actually turns the city into a hick town. Why should we ever expect to see the planning process become more nuanced if there is always a means to undermine the best of intentions?

 

[MisterF]

lol hick town? Somebody's turning the dramatics to 11.

This shows us for the hick town we are. When any developer wants to build a high rise here, the only response we come up with is,"Build it higher." Never mind about the quality of life in the city, the public housing, parks, pedestrian friendly areas.

We don't seem to have many rules at all, and allow any developer to exploit us for all the profits they can make, providing only jobs for a few construction workers whose families must live n the outer, car-dependant suburbs, and some great views for millionairs to enjoy.

It works exactly the same way here. The city can approve more height or density than what's permitted "as of right" in return for amenities like affordable housing, improved parkland, etc. It's in Section 37 of the Planning Act.

 

[WillC]

lol hick town? Somebody's turning the dramatics to 11.


It works exactly the same way here. The city can approve more height or density than what's permitted "as of right" in return for amenities like affordable housing, improved parkland, etc. It's in Section 37 of the Planning Act.

See the post above yours. We can also judge whether it is really working by the amount of affordable housing, improved parkland, etc. developers have provided. Obviously not much.

Apparently it's once again the Province of Ontario that puts us in the position of a hick town, through appointing the members of the OMB who run the city with more attention paid to the profits for the developers, then the qualilties that would make this a great city.

 

[Ervin]

I hope people are paying attention to her. New York isn't just that city you always see in the movies, it's hugely successful, and for a reason.

 

[MisterF]

See the post above yours. We can also judge whether it is really working by the amount of affordable housing, improved parkland, etc. developers have provided. Obviously not much.

Apparently it's once again the Province of Ontario that puts us in the position of a hick town, through appointing the members of the OMB who run the city with more attention paid to the profits for the developers, then the qualilties that would make this a great city.

Have you studied developments and how many Section 37 contributions they've made? Have you compared them so similar contributions in New York? Do you actually know that it's more successful there or is it just "grass is greener" syndrome? I've also been involved with several OMB cases and have reviewed many more; it has turned down plenty of developments (see the Giraffe thread in P&C). The suggestion that it's mainly concerned with developer profits is ridiculous.

Seriously guys, New York and other cities have lots to teach Toronto but you're picking the wrong targets.

 

[Tewder]

... and yet the city is so beautiful, filled with affordable housing, parkland and an inviting public realm? Clearly not. Without endlessly splitting hairs WillC's point is fair.

 

[MisterF]

... and yet the city is so beautiful, filled with affordable housing, parkland and an inviting public realm? Clearly not. Without endlessly splitting hairs WillC's point is fair.

The thing is, no matter how many contributions developers make to the parks, affordable housing, streetscaping, community centres, etc., that's still a small amount compared to the total city-wide. The public realm is one of Toronto's weaknesses compared to many other cities, and no amount of developer contributions will make a big difference. And that's one of the lessons that other cities can teach - taking proper care of public spaces instead of neglecting them and counting on developers to fix them up.

 

[Archivist]

I agree with MisterF - not enough info here for me to make a call. I would need to see statistics on what is gained through the two cities' programs, which frankly seem quite similar to me.

When I think of New York, I also think of their incredibly retarded restrictions on rent increases that completely distort the market for little purpose. It's hardly the epitome of affordable housing or a defensible rental regime.

 

[Tewder]

The thing is, no matter how many contributions developers make to the parks, affordable housing, streetscaping, community centres, etc., that's still a small amount compared to the total city-wide. The public realm is one of Toronto's weaknesses compared to many other cities, and no amount of developer contributions will make a big difference. And that's one of the lessons that other cities can teach - taking proper care of public spaces instead of neglecting them and counting on developers to fix them up.

While I agree that the public realm is a weakness of Toronto and that we have to adopt many different ways to improve it I disagree that we cannot harness the resources of a robust development industry in Toronto in better ways. The city should have at the ready an overall plan for improvement to the public realm that includes the very basics such as standards of design and quality for furniture, pavings and plantings etc., as well as streetscaping plans for major thoroughfares. Developers should be made to contribute a certain percentage to this so that little by little the realm is being improved at their cost. Imagine if a plan had been established for the improvement of Bay Street north of Queen? The contributions of all the new condos going up along Bay, including perhaps College Park, may have gone a long way to the beautification of that street, even if the city had to top up funds. Art contributions are fine in specific locations but do we really need light installations everywhere?

 

[Roy G Biv]

Agreed. Toronto has FAR too many, "wtf were they thinking" developments to think otherwise. There are hundreds of developments where it is obvious that the city was just happy to get some money for the land.

 

[MisterF]

While I agree that the public realm is a weakness of Toronto and that we have to adopt many different ways to improve it I disagree that we cannot harness the resources of a robust development industry in Toronto in better ways. The city should have at the ready an overall plan for improvement to the public realm that includes the very basics such as standards of design and quality for furniture, pavings and plantings etc., as well as streetscaping plans for major thoroughfares. Developers should be made to contribute a certain percentage to this so that little by little the realm is being improved at their cost. Imagine if a plan had been established for the improvement of Bay Street north of Queen? The contributions of all the new condos going up along Bay, including perhaps College Park, may have gone a long way to the beautification of that street, even if the city had to top up funds. Art contributions are fine in specific locations but do we really need light installations everywhere?

The city is harnessing the resources of the development industry to improve streetscapes. And not just through Section 37 and light installations. Every development is expected to meet certain standards through the site plan process, including streetscape improvements. A new condo tower will generally involve a complete rebuilding of the sidewalk and/or improving the streetscaping. That's exactly what's happening with every new building on Bay St - the Ryerson building, Murano, ROCP, etc. This is all paid for by the developer. And the city does have design standards for streetscaping around new buildings.

If you're arguing that the standards aren't high enough or that implementation can fall short then I agree - I think there's far too much concrete in those wide new sidewalks on Bay for example, and why the Bay frontage of the Ryerson building doesn't have street trees is beyond me.

 

[Tewder]

... but I sort of expect those things such as repairing sidewalks after they probably destroyed them while building to start with etc. That's pretty basic. In my last post I talk about a bigger plan involving greater vision where the city actually controls urban development in terms of a blueprint for streetscaping and infrastructure etc but gets the developers to contribute to it in an incremental way. Not that this would cover all the cost but it would make the balance of cost more affordable. Just an idea anyway.