Let me say, briefly, to my many diverse friends this morning (from my hotel room in Ohio), that where we find ourselves today is what our constitution was specifically constructed to address. Our government was organized not to be a vehicle for effective public administration (much to the frustration of Alexander Hamilton), but to protect the rights of individuals and political (and religious) minorities and to constrain the power of “factions.” Their great concern was the disappropriation of property of the few by the many — to constrain the tyranny of the demagogue and the majority. At the same time, living in a democracy means what it is about — rule by the majority. The power of that majority has to be respected in order to produce lasting social change. Gandhi and Dr. King understood this. In order to make political progress the hearts and minds of that majority must be moved. The politics of divisiveness produced the political result we now face. The way forward is not more division. It is to persuade, to appeal to agape — our connections as people. A very large number of people in this country have demonstrated that they resent having their values and culture belittled. While it is true that a cynical politics appealing to people’s worst instincts for decades have persuaded them that they are far worse off than they actually are, both politically and economically; more fundamentally, they consider themselves hard-working and decent; and have lashed out at being indicted as racists, homophobes and misogynists by coastal elites — people they regard themselves as being different from. As hard as it may be to imagine, we need to work to appeal to their humanity and move them — not to plot how to beat them politically the next time because of our moral and intellectual superiority. It is that kind of thinking that got us where we are. The republic will survive.
Going Beyond Safe and Clean
The number of Business Improvement Districts has expanded greatly over the last twenty years, both in New York City and nationally. There are now close to 1,000 BIDs in the US, with over 60 in New York, and more in the pipeline. The focus of most BIDs is what’s been labeled “Clean & Safe.” Following the model we set up at Grand Central Partnership, they provide staff to sweep the sidewalks and curbs and empty trash baskets. Larger BIDs also tend to provide unarmed private security services on sidewalks within the district, and often those staff members are trained to provide directions and other tourist information. While at GCP, as well as in Bryant Park and 34th Street Partnership we hired and trained our own staff to provide these services, many small BIDs, and even some larger ones contract out to third-party providers for this work.
Data from the Furman Center indicate that while larger BIDs have a significant effect on commercial property values, smaller BIDs in New York City lack sufficient resources to make much of an impact (http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/FurmanCenterBIDsBrief.pdf ). The Furman Report questions the efficacy of the creation of small organizations, much of whose budgets is necessarily spent on administration, and in recent years, it has been smaller BIDs that have been started in New York. This was certainly my experience in Downtown Jamaica, Queens, which has three BIDS, two of which are quite small. None of the three can afford to maintain a security program, and even the largest of them finds itself with very limited resources, given the magnitude of the challenges with which it has been tasked. Continue reading
Make American Downtowns Great Again
Cutting edge thinking among urbanists and the progressive development community is that American consumers are tired of the covered shopping mall and are seeking a return to the walkable downtown retail experience – or that’s what one hears at the Urban Land Institute and the International Downtown Association (David Milder’s blog analyzing retail trends on medium and small-sized city downtowns is required reading towards this end: http://www.ndavidmilder.com/blog). But, what makes the experience of being on Main Street great? What would make it better? What do we enjoy about being there? What opportunities does this create for aging Downtowns across the country? Continue reading
Race, Class, Equality and Public Space
A serious challenge facing public space managers is people living in and engaging in antisocial behavior in public spaces. This seems to be a particular issue for cities on the west coast, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Eugene, Oregon. The situation is raising a raft of crosscutting concerns about individual rights, the causes of economic disadvantage in our country today, the sensitivities of upper-middle class urbanites and our society’s stubborn unwillingness to assist those suffering from serious mental health issues, including substance abuse. Conflicting interests and ideologies play out in policy discussions about how public spaces are governed and managed.
Successful restoration of social control to public spaces is not about enforcement. The apparent decline in the quality of the public space experience in the second half of the 20th century was driven almost entirely by how safe people felt they were on sidewalks and in parks. Many felt that the public realm of shared space was out of social control, and as a result, they feared for their physical safety. Some of this fear may have been exaggerated or even incorrect, driven by race- and class-bound assumptions and stereotypes. But even if the threat was not real, the perception of it kept people from visiting, working, shopping in or investing in public places perceived to be unsafe. Much of the success of improved public spaces over the last two decades has been based on improving those perceptions – making public spaces feel safer by employing “broken-windows” management (discouraging low-level disorder and providing high-quality, detail-oriented maintenance) and placemaking practice. Continue reading
and yes I said yes I will Yes
Like Yogi Berra, Holly Whyte is often remembered for his tautological aphorisms: “People tend to sit where there are places to sit,” “What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people,” and “If you want to seed a place with activity, put out food.” I have one of my own to add “You can generate activity in a public space by allowing activity in a public space.”
I’ve noticed over the years that the first reaction from people who control public spaces to requests to use the space is generally an emphatic “No.” There appear to be two motivations for this automatic reaction. The first is a fear of risk and the liability that might arise from it. The second is a desire not to lose control over the space. People seem to be empowered by control over space and enjoy asserting that power. Resist the urge! In retrospect, one of the most important unplanned reasons for the success of Bryant Park is that in the early years I said “Yes” to just about everyone who wanted to do something in the park. Activity in the park created a virtuous cycle. The more stuff we had going on in the space, the more people came to use it and the more other people wanted to use it and be there or be associated with it. I believe my colleague, Bob Gregory, at Campus Martius in Detroit has had the same experience. Continue reading
There is No Free Lunch (or Breakfast)
We’ve come a long way in our view of the impact of restaurants in public space. When I began working in Bryant Park in 1991, most park and community advocates viewed restaurants as anathema. They were seen as commercial activity and therefore as forbidden from public space. We’ve now learned that some kinds of commercial activity are actually invaluable in animating public spaces – including restaurants, food kiosks, food trucks, craft markets and most recently, night markets. In fact, in many public space (and downtown) revitalization projects, food service is seen as something of a silver bullet.
Unfortunately, it isn’t. Restaurants are difficult and expensive to develop. Most restaurants are unsuccessful. In my experience, even the most successful restaurants in formerly under-invested places take years to be cashflow positive. Food kiosks are even more difficult to make work. Continue reading
In Defense of BIDs
The September 19th issue of Crain’s New York Business carries a broadside attack on business improvement districts on its front page, featuring a photo of Dan Biederman the founder of Bryant Park Restoration Corporation (“BPRC”), Grand Central Partnership (“GCP”) and 34th Street Partnership (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160918/REAL_ESTATE/160919896/shaping-a-neighborhoods-destiny-from-the-shadows). The article rehashes a range of charges that were the subject of dozens of newspaper articles published in the 1990s, as well as a half-dozen government inquiries, including those by the New York City Council, the City’s Comptroller’s office, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a forensic audit commissioned by City Hall. Given New York’s tabloid culture, many casual (and even some well-informed) observers assumed that where there was journalist smoke, there must be fire, but in fact, the BIDs under Biederman’s direction were shown to be models of good not-for-profit governance and transparency, and none of the negative policy arguments have been shown to be of any merit. BIDs work, and Biederman’s BIDs work better than most. They provide essential services without compromise of any important democratic principles. (BIDs Really Work, City Journal, Spring 1996 http://www.city-journal.org/html/bids-really-work-11853.html).
In fact, I would argue that the downtown renaissance, which began in the early 1990s, was catalyzed by the work of Biederman’s BIDs (of which I was a staff member), and particularly by the success of BPRC. The reopening of Bryant Park in 1992, following philosophies articulated by William H Whyte and George Kelling, demonstrated that social control could be reasserted in the urban core. GCP created “clean and safe” programs for the blocks around Grand Central Terminal in a successful effort to reverse what was feared to be the hollowing out of the city center and its occupation by the violent and homeless. Bryant Park and GCP proved that through high quality maintenance (“fixing broken windows”) and active programming, public spaces previously perceived as being dangerous could be made inviting and attractive. Cities all over the country, from Detroit to Houston, and around the world copied and continue to copy the model. Continue reading
The View from Vancouver
The Placemaking Leadership Forum of Project for Public Spaces held last week in Vancouver, British Columbia brought together hundreds of people who are involved in one aspect or another of placemaking. Having never been to Vancouver before, I found it a beautiful setting with a well managed downtown. The attendees were not only attentive and social, but in my interactions with dozens of people with whom I was not previously acquainted, they proved to be dedicated, intelligent, caring and humble about their work. It was a thoroughly pleasant experience – and a tribute to the folks at PPS who conceived of and organized it.
What was most interesting to me about the substance of the programs was the evidence of a number of diverse streams of thought among those present. Most obvious was the contrast between the outcome-oriented, utilitarian placemakers (which included a number of us who have been around for a while) and process-oriented practitioners, to whom community-building and giving voice to citizens about the future of urban places is paramount. Many of the latter group appeared to me to be newer to placemaking – although by no means was this exclusively the case. Attendees also expressed deep concern about issues of inclusion and social/economic equity. Continue reading
Say It With Flowers
Nothing gives you more bang for your public space improvement dollars than plants. When people ask me what the one thing they should do to improve public space, my response is always to institute a horticulture program. Improving the perception of public space is about providing visual cues to users that the space is under social control. Colorful, well-maintained plants send that message in a number of ways. The physical material isn’t very expensive and the skills to maintain horticultural materials are widespread and easy to find. Putting plantings in places where people don’t expect them sends a powerful message.
I knew absolutely nothing about gardening when I went to work for Bryant Park Restoration Corporation in 1991. My father grew some terrific tomatoes in the yard when I was growing up (it was New Jersey, after all) and for some reason there was always mint growing outside the backdoor of the house that we put into iced tea. And that was the sum total of my agricultural experience when I arrived in the Park. From that day to this, I haven’t had a personal garden or even a yard. Continue reading
MAKE NO GRAND PLANS
Daniel Burnham was wrong. I learned this from making a $600,000 decision that turned out to be a mistake. Placemaking/tactical urbanism is an iterative process. You need to learn as you go. It is essential to effectively improving public space to take risks – but those risks ought to be small, manageable ones; ones you can back out of with minimal damage. When ideas don’t work out, for example when they aren’t effective in drawing people into the space, then you need to bite the proverbial bullet and reverse course. That is an important part of listening to the community – admitting that what you’ve done isn’t working when they are voting with their feet (in the wrong direction).
At Grand Central and 34th Street Partnerships in the 90’s we created a sidewalk horticulture program. Our President, Dan Biederman, came back from a vacation France where he saw sidewalk planters and hanging baskets and decided that replicating that experience in Midtown Manhattan would improve the streetscape and the pedestrian experience. Our horticultural team, led by Lyndon B. Miller had already scored a great success with the perennial gardens in Bryant Park. So we went to work trying to figure out how to extend that success to the streets around Grand Central and Penn Station. We were furrowing new ground here because, while some smaller American towns had hanging baskets (like Cooperstown, N.Y.), we weren’t aware of any large city where baskets and planters had been implemented on a large-scale. It was several years before Mayor Daley (who sent his staff to spend time with us in Bryant Park to take notes) implemented the spectacular Chicago State Street streetscape redesign, with its beautiful horticulture program – which eventually expanded all over the Loop. Continue reading