![]()
MY BOOK ![]() ARTICLES Peak Freaks Hurricane NYC From Grief to Action (pdf) The Coming Energy Crunch Auto Asphyxiation Alarmingly Useless LINKS Kunstler Oil Drum NYC NoLandGrab.org Starts & Fits Dope on the Slope Brooklyn Views Polis Atlantic Yards Report Transportation Alternatives Rushkoff Planetizen Global Public Media Laid Off Dad Bird to the North Auto-Free NY Gothamist Gotham Gazette Mom Previous Life Winds READING Catastrophe Notes Small Urban Spaces High Tide Powerdown Rendezvous With Rama Ancient Sunlight Geography of Nowhere The Power Broker Resource Wars Invisible Heroes Nothing Sacred ARCHIVES June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 January 2010
|
![]()
Stone Free
In the neighborhood, there appear to be two clear reactions to Kozerawski's idea. If you've lived in Williamsburg for more than 25 years, then chances are you think the idea is insane. The owner of an old bakery insists that most of his customers drive, and if cars weren't allowed on Bedford it would destroy his business. (Where these customers all park is a mystery.) A hairdresser doesn't like the idea because she dreams of one day owning a car, and when that day comes she wants to be able to drive and park on Bedford. A fellow named George, living in the area for 52 years, has been leaving vitriolic posts on Kozerawski's online message board. He believes that, "If you want car-free areas you're living in the wrong city." George wouldn't say, however, where he thinks one should go to live their car-free life. Long Island? New Jersey? Los Angeles? The second reaction comes from the new generation of young Williamsburgers. Between N. 4th and N. 9th, the stretch that Kozerawski wants to make car-free, this group appears to be the majority. Their opinion is neatly summed up by a real estate agent sitting on a bench in front of The Read Café. "I'd love to see it happen," she says. "But it's never going to happen. Have you ever been to a community board meeting?" Kozerawski is clearly a notch less pessimistic than his peers. With a nearly imperceptible sigh he goes on to explain, yet again, the benefits and possibilities of a pedestrianized Bedford. Regardless of whether Community Board crustaceans and DOT traffic movers take Car-Free Bedford seriously, his idea is clearly worth looking at. Car-free streets can work well in New York City. The proof is Stone Street, one of those ancient, crooked alleys at the very southern end of Manhattan. Built by the Dutch, Stone Street is said to have been the first paved street in the New World. But by the early 1990s, it had become blighted. Stores were shuttered and buildings empty, cars were parked all over the sidewalk, and petty drug dealing was the only activity on the block. In the mid 1990s, Lower Manhattan's business improvement group the Downtown Alliance got together with the city's Landmarks Commission, hired consultants, and began putting together a new master plan for Stone Street. Despite the protests of building owners, the Alliance managed to get Stone Street designated a historic landmarks district. This enabled the Landmarks Commission to apply for $800,000 in federal transportation dollars. The Alliance chipped in another $150,000 and the city paid the rest. Ultimately, the car-free public space they envisioned took five years, $1.8 million and a ton of perseverance and political willpower to become reality. Stone Street has been car-free since 2000; today, it is thriving. "It's a miracle. It's beautiful really," says Harry Poulakakis, the owner of Ulysses and a few of the other restaurants on the block. Having owned restaurants on and around Stone Street for 32 years, Poulakakis knows as well as anyone how beneficial the changes have been. "The big thing is not to have cars. People feel they have nothing to worry about. They sit outside. It makes them happy." As Kozerawski has by now discovered in Williamsburg, when you talk about the idea of car-free streets in New York, entrenched interests jump up and scream that restricting automobiles will create economic and transportation meltdowns. Needless to say, these catastrophes haven't materialized in Lower Manhattan. Stone Street has successfully "created a backdrop for economic development," says Suzanne O'Keefe, vice president of design for the Downtown Alliance. "Owners of other buildings are now saying we want a Stone Street." Williamsburg wants one too.
Comments
I like the idea of car-free areas in New York- the 42nd street proposal seems interesting particularly because of the addition of light rail. But 'Car-free Bedford' does not seem like a serious proposal to me.
I say this because his website (at the time I saw it) said nothing about the effects on business. Anyone- even the greenest politico- should recognize that local business owners are going to be the most vocal opponent. (Northside Car Service is sure to complain...) I was also unimpressed by any mention of the B61 bus that runs down Bedford. Allowing this Bus to continue might assuage business owners (and retain a right-of-way that is sure to be demanded by the Fire Department.) I think allowing one bus every 5-15 minutes will help keep a bit of 'action' on the street to prevent the neighborhood from getting that lifeless 'pedestrian zone' feeling. But alas it would prevent those cool bands from playing on Bedford. I also feel that stopping traffic from 5th street, a small residential street, to 9th street, another residential street, is unrealistic. The obvious effect of the plan is to direct a great deal of traffic onto currently quiet streets. Unfortunately, the nearest large street that could handle the increased traffic- Metropolitan- is blocks away from the N. 7th L train station, through a subdued, residential part of Bedford that wouldn't particularly benefit from a lack of traffic. He complains about Bedford receiving more traffic than adjacent streets- but that's because it's a major thoroughfare! Bedford runs the length of Brooklyn- you need a pretty good reason to block it. Honestly- I think that a much easier proposal would be to increase the size of the sidewalks into the current parking lanes in the area that he has identified. This could encourage sidewalk cafes and reduce the overcrowding every night as the L rolls in without the headaches of re-routing traffic. Additional street trees and furniture could provide a buffer from the moving traffic. It's not as glamorous as 'Car-free Bedford' perhaps but it seems do-able.
When I interviewed Emil he said the same thing about widening sidewalks. He would like to see a lane of parking taken away and converted to sidewalk.
While a number of business owners are certain to oppose a proposal like this, it is hard to make a rational argument that a pedestrianized Bedford would ultimately be bad for business. Going car-free would almost certainly increase economic activity on the street. It would likely be a huge boon for business. In fact, in European cities they are finding that pedestrian streets are a little too good for business. Car-free areas tend to gentrify faster and make real estate significantly more valuable. I think this would likely be the biggest problem of a Car-Free Bedford. Regarding traffic: Most likely, this proposal would serve to reduce traffic on the streets around Bedford, not increase it. We see this phenomenon all around the world when major traffic arteries are taken out of service. *All* of the traffic doesn't just re-route to the next adjacent street. A lot of traffic just goes away. People choose not to drive in the area anymore because it is no longer convenient. Also, Emil's boundaries are clearly not set in stone. As you say, the propsal is not yet "serious." It's still just an idea. Certainly you could figure out a way to do this without hurting a particular residential street. Regarding the bus: Light rail works really well on many pedestrianized streets. Buese don't work as well. See Fulton Street in Brooklyn. It wouldn't be hard to re-route the bus for a few blocks. Light rail would be great.
I don't think (down town) European models or Stone Street are appropriate when considering the effects. Stone Street seems rather small and European capitals often have a steady draw of pedestrians independent of car traffic. Unfortunately, I think the model may be more like the Pedestrian Malls popularized in the 60's and 70's (I think of Kalamazoo MI). These were, in fact, bad for business not only because they removed transportation to the area. But they also created a sterile quality in the area. Granted there is and will be a good amount of pedestrian traffic due to the subway.
The studies I've seen on the 42nd street proposal doesn't- in my memory- conform to your dipiction of traffic displacement. There was, indeed, a drop in total traffic, but adjacent streets showed increases. My concern is not Berry or Driggs- parallel streets- which can handle the increased traffic but 5th street and 9th street- relatively quiet residential streets that will become major as traffic detours around the pedestrian zone. Light rail doesn't seem realistic- the B61 goes to Downtown Brooklyn and Red Hook- I'm sure the MTA would prioritize other lines if it had _any_ desire to convert buses to light rail. In what way is Fulton Mall not successful? It's hard to argue with its popularity (I understand it is among the city's most valuable retail space). The shopping isn't Club Monaco- but it has its supporters. But in any case I wouldn't attempt to duplicate Fulton Mall- Bedford only needs one lane of traffic. I think removing the bus line might hurt business if the pedestrian mall didn't offset the customer loss. In the end, I guess I'm arguing that cars- in their place- often provide a component to a dynamic city. I would love to see the Bedford/ N. 7th area benefit from traffic-calming measures but I don't know if an outright ban on cars is the right route.
Stone Street and European models are, I belive, much closer to Bedford Avenue than anything that happened in Kalamazoo. Many of those 1960s and 70s pedestrian malls were being built at a time when retail, residents, and jobs were fleeing to the suburbs and downtowns were dying. They were last ditch attempts to save downtwn. They were largely dependent on people getting in their cars and driving to the pedestrian zone. The only one that I know that really works is the one in Santa Monica, CA.
New York City is much more analgous to a typical European city than and American one. As you note, Bedford Ave has a steady stream of foot traffic due to the subway. People also live on it and all around it. Foot traffic is only likely to increase in the coming years with the upzoning and gentrification of Williamsburg. Meanwhile, Bedford Avenue itself is pretty lousy for motorists. It chokes down to one lane as it curves through the neighborhood commercial district. Truckers and motorists can frequenly be seen and heard going bonkers there. They don't seem to be particularly happy with the current state of affairs. Getting them off that street might be doing them a favor. Yes -- I think you're right about the Vision 42 traffic numbers. Taking Bedford out of service would likely create a net reduction in neighborhood traffic while somewhat increasing traffic on the parallel north-south streets, from Kent to the BQE. Probably the best way to protect the bordering east-west residential streets would be to start the ped zone at Metropolitan Avenue (turning that triangle of land that's now a parking lot into a park and public space), and run it all the way to N.12th Street to McCarren Park. I bet this would be a huge boon for business along Bedford and real estate would go even crazier than it already is on the adjacent residential blocks. You could also create a parking structure somewhere near Metropolitan if you were really concerned that motorists are such an integral part of the local economy. I doubt that they are. I agree that there's a place for cars in the city. But my strong feeling is that over the last 60 years we've basically give them the WHOLE place. It's time to start identifying some places we can take back from cars. Cars and trucks don't make Williamsburg feel "lively" or "dynamic" to me. Increasingly, they make that neighborhood's outdoor space feel hostile, congested, and dangerous. Re: the bus route -- if it really is generating so much business for Bedford Avenue, perhaps running it along Driggs and Wythe would help reinvigorate those two streets, no? Re: Fulton Mall -- You're right that it is successful in many ways. People shop there. It serves a real need for discount retail near the downtown core. Personally, I just think that having all those bus lines running through it makes it a kind of unpleasant, polluted, noisy environment, especially in the summer when it's hot. I hate walking around down there. But many other discount shoppers clearly do not. For the record, Fulton Street is unsuccessful in some significant ways. If you look above the groundfloor retail, you see that most of above-ground floors are boarded up and dead. There could be a lot more happening there.
Exactly. Stone Street is open for deliveries and any other vehicular uses from 2am to 10am. The businessman I interviewed there says that it works great. If a delivery absolutely can't be scheduled before 10am then the delivery driver parks on another street and uses a handtruck to make the delivery. It's really not a big deal.
Post a Comment (You'll be taken to Blogger's site and then returned back to this page.) |