4 ms·
This article illustrates a key problem with our city infrastructure. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the first few floors of buildings should
by jamespitts 11y ago
This article illustrates a key problem with our city infrastructure. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the first few floors of buildings should be "public infrastructure". Much in the way that farmer's markets, sidewalks, and small streets are governed, building bases could be controlled by local institutions.
In this approach, new construction would build a standard base structure of several levels. This base would have an open layout and the owners would only control enough space necessary to provide access to parking and the upper levels.
The building base would then assume the same ecological role as a set of small, traditional buildings having store fronts.
If this were to come into effect, community institutions could then govern how the base of a building structurally and aesthetically interfaces with the public. I don't think a central city government should take on this role though. Legally, the governing institution might simply lease the space out to management companies over very long terms, periodically upgrading or changing the allocation of commercial and public space as the needs emerge.
Or we could just continue to leave it up to faraway owners and builders to comply with code during construction and improvements. But it is actually quite obtuse to let law govern issues of human use in shorter time frames. Needs arise faster than concrete sets.
For example, in the current setup, what if a need arises that requires major reconstruction? An example: reducing crime by adding smaller shops with later hours to a building front that is not used at all after "work hours". That change would require prodding the owner to modify the base of their building, and that could take a very long time. Meanwhile, the community suffers economic damage (and the building owner may not care because they make their money off of tenants high up in the building).
Imagine how hard it would be to add pedestrian and bike infrastructure if every block of street were owned by a different corporation?
Another benefit to a community-run building base is that locals can be empowered to define the street level, mitigating the ill social and economic effects (perceived or actual) of larger-scale building development. If the neighborhood folks see that there will be several levels of familiar, local shops and community space, and these amenities have traditional architecture, they might not so strongly oppose that the upper levels are dense and modern.
- tjbiddle 11y agoWhen visiting Singapore I noticed something similar in a lot of areas (No where near all - but noticeable) where a lot of residential buildings would have the first floor as shops, markets, etc. It made it very community centric which was neat.
- imgabe 11y ago> Or we could just continue to leave it up to faraway owners and builders to comply with code during construction and improvements. But it is actually quite obtuse to let law govern issues of human use in shorter time frames. Needs arise faster than concrete sets. Um, we do leave it up to them to comply with local codes. I'm not sure what the objection is. They don't get an option to comply with codes or not. You aren't building anything in a major downtown area without a permit, which means complying with all local codes. If a community wanted to mandate that x% of a building's lower level had to be dedicated to street level retail, they could easily do that. Builders would either decide if it were worthwhile or not. For the most part, developers/owners do not need much encouragement to increase rentable square footage in a building.