4 ms·

That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not

That's a good point. I've spent almost no time near the building base. Maybe that was what Kimmelman was getting at? His writing is so roundabout that it's not really clear what exactly he's complaining about.

wlesieutre 12y ago
It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points: >Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee. So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker." Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.
- lpsz 12y ago
  And it's a shame, especially because Manhattan is likely one of the few U.S. localities with sufficient population density to make mixed-use areas thrive. When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function. [1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
  - ghaff 12y ago
    In all fairness, large parts of Manhattan do thrive as mixed use to greater or lesser degrees. The financial district is something of an exception.
- logn 12y ago
  I learned when buying a condo that mixed commercial/residential buildings are hard to get loans for because Fannie/Freddie won't buy them from banks. NYC is probably its own beast, but in the rest of the US it's a problem. People claim it's due to historical racism as Blacks tended to be the ones living above commercial spaces. In my own city, historical mixed-use buildings were run as apartments by slumlords until vouchers allowed low-income people to move out. Then they were vacant, bought up, and redeveloped. And the banks funding the redevelopment loaned to home buyers (in an attempt to make their original investment pay off) and the subprime lending spree also helped many people get financing. After the credit crash, most of the new developments were as apartments. Anyhow, were this not a historical district, any new development would have probably followed single-use zoning.

wlesieutre 12y ago

It's a bit buried in the article, but I think that's one of his main points: >Stripped of prospective cultural institutions, as well as of street life and housing, the plan soon turned into something akin to an old-school office park, destined to die at night — the last thing a young generation of New Yorkers wanted. America has something of an obsession with single-use areas. Everyone lives in one zone. Commerce goes on in a different zone. Industry somewhere else. It's a big contributing factor in why a lot of places have ended up as dangerous wastelands at night; no one lives there, no one shops there, no shopkeepers keeping an eye on the street, no one out walking the dog or going out for coffee. So when a new landmark building goes up on a piece of valuable real estate in Manhattan, it's a bit disappointing that the conversation ended up along the lines of "You know what'd be nice here?" "What, a coffee shop and a neighborhood grocery store?" "Nah, a giant bunker." Not to say it's the worst thing ever, but we could have done so much better.

lpsz 12y ago
And it's a shame, especially because Manhattan is likely one of the few U.S. localities with sufficient population density to make mixed-use areas thrive. When I spend time in Asia, I find it remarkable how well cities like Tokyo [1] and Taipei function. [1] http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html http://urbankchoze.blogspot.tw/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
- ghaff 12y ago
  In all fairness, large parts of Manhattan do thrive as mixed use to greater or lesser degrees. The financial district is something of an exception.
logn 12y ago
I learned when buying a condo that mixed commercial/residential buildings are hard to get loans for because Fannie/Freddie won't buy them from banks. NYC is probably its own beast, but in the rest of the US it's a problem. People claim it's due to historical racism as Blacks tended to be the ones living above commercial spaces. In my own city, historical mixed-use buildings were run as apartments by slumlords until vouchers allowed low-income people to move out. Then they were vacant, bought up, and redeveloped. And the banks funding the redevelopment loaned to home buyers (in an attempt to make their original investment pay off) and the subprime lending spree also helped many people get financing. After the credit crash, most of the new developments were as apartments. Anyhow, were this not a historical district, any new development would have probably followed single-use zoning.