Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.

Links

By

1. NYT A-1 headline! Number of new single-family homes sold in February was at its lowest point since data was first collected in 1963, but multi-unit sales are up.

2. Lydia DePillis with an example of some abhorrent NIMBYism from DC.

3. Anti-laneway housing propaganda from Vancouver. It looks like some are bucking the requirement that you have one parking spot per lot and are “putting in large windows and heated flooring in the garage of their laneway homes.”

4. A Toronto developer on “podiumism,” or skyscraper form that zoning rules force architects to build. New York City’s first zoning code in 1916 had setbacks that had a similar effect, though it formed more of a ziggurat – a much bulkier shape than is allowed today.

5. The Overhead Wire and The Transport Politic criticize new surburban-oriented low-ridership American commuter rail lines.

  • Rhywun

    4. All well and good, except his park will be directly across King Street from acres of open space oozing around Roy Thompson Hall. In such cases you *want* the “podium”, to help enclose the other space.

    5. I am in complete agreement, and I would toss in the great majority of recent LRT projects, which tend to be low-ridership commuter lines too.

  • Benjamin Hemric

    Regarding “Breaking free of ‘podiumism’” by John Bentley Mays, “Globe and Mail,” 3/24/11

    1) Stephen wrote [the capitalization for emphasis and the added text between brackets is mine — BH]:

    A Toronto developer on “podiumism,” or [a] skyscraper form that zoning rules FORCE architects to build. New York City’s first zoning code in 1916 had setbacks that had a similar effect, though it FORMED more of a ziggurat – a much bulkier shape THAN IS ALLOWED today.

    Benjamin writes:

    I’m not familiar with Toronto’s zoning regulations, but judging from the article, and judging from what I do know about NYC’s zoning regulations, Stephen’s comment, while not actually “wrong,” are somewhat misleading and “offbase” in my opinion. In other words, the situation is a bit more complicated, especially as it relates to “market” urbanism.

    Basically speaking, height and setback zoning regulations, which are the kind of regulations that we seem to be discussing here, don’t “force” a builder to build anything. Rather, they set an outside limit or envelope. So in the case of NYC’s 1916 zoning, if a builder wanted to built the maximum he/she could build, the building would take a, more or less, ziggurat shape. BUT, in a number of instances (the Seagram Building is the most famous one) the developer chose NOT to build the maximum space allowed but to build a small “park” or “plaza” instead.

    In 1961, NYC’s zoning regulations were changed to ENCOURAGE the development of buildings along the lines of the Seagram Building. To do this developers were given a bonus of extra floor space in order to create “parks” and “plazas.” Ziggurat shaped buildings weren’t disallowed, but they were made more economically disadvantagous — the reverse of the situation before 1961.

    At first the 1961 zoning rules were popular, but then in the 1970s after New Yorkers began to experience the result of the change the zoning regulations were highly criticized — most especically because most of the “parks” and “plazas” created were terrible and not nearly as nice as the Seagram one. The zoning rules were changed to do away with the worst case scenarios, and thus the controversy has, unfortunately in my opinion, died down a great deal.

    However, for a variety of reasons I think it’s a very bad idea for zoning to “bonus” these “parks” and “plazas” (although I seem to be in a small minority in this regard). One reason is I think, as Jane Jacobs has said about regular neighborhood parks, such “parks” and “plazas” also benefit from a certain rarity value. And when you allow — nay, encourage — them to proliferate all over the place, you really don’t have much of a real “loveable” city anymore. It’s kind of a back door way to create Le Corbusier’s “Radiant City.”

    NYC has a number of podium buildings, but since I’m not that familiar with more recent changes to the NYC zoning resolution, I’m not sure how they relate to the regulations. But, basically speaking, it seems to me that podiums are an improvement over tower-in-the-park bonuses.

    – – – – – – – – – —

    2) Mr. Lamb is quoted as saying:

    “There’s tremendous pressure from the planning department to create podiumism . . . ”

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    As mentioned, I’m not familiar with Toronto’s zoning rules, so I wonder if the rules are like NYC’s 1916 rules, which would allow ziggurats, towers-in-the-park or podium buildings, or if they are specifically written to disallow tower-in-the-park towers?

    – – – – – – – – – – – –

    3) John Mays wrote:

    In fairness to the city planners Mr. Lamb complains about, it’s worth remembering the reasons why tall-building podiums and set-back towers are popular among the public defenders of high-density downtowns such as the one Toronto’s got.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I favor NYC’s 1916 zoning regulations that allow anything. It seems to me that under a “marketplace” system that just creates an outside envelope, developers will create the right mixture of ziggurats, towers and podiums.

    But, if a city is going to actually favor one form over another, I think it’s generally a good thing to favor podiums over towers-in-the-parks. So I’m happy to see that one city appears to be getting it right.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    4) Mr. Lamb is quoted as saying:

    “For my part, I can’t think of anything wrong with having such an open spot in the core, so long as it’s set down in our midst with great care.”

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    I can see a lot of things wrong with such a spot, and others have mentioned many of them. But I think there are more too — but don’t have time to get into it now. However, a few such spots, here or there (especially if they are well-designed), can be good too.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    5) Mr. Lamb is quoted as saying:

    “When I bought the property,” Mr. Lamb said, “I went to Peter Clewes and told him: I want to build a crazy tower here, I want to build something I can remember until the day I die. But not just for me. We knew we had to offer something to the city, some social benefit.”

    Part of the benefit offered by the development is the park. Another part is Mr. Lamb’s donation of more than $1.5-million to community projects, the price exacted by city council for its support of Theatre Park.

    Benjamin Hemric writes:

    If this is what I think it is, generally speaking I think such negotiated zoning is bad for zoning and bad for cities.

    – – – – – – – – –

    Sunday, April 24, 2011, 11:55 p.m.

    P.S. — Nice to see “Rhywun’s” more detailed information on this situation.

    P.P.S. — As usual, I hope people won’t mind if any future posts of mine in this thread, if there are any, are done as independent comments (i.e., outside the nesting feature).

Meta