Transparent Zoning

Mitch Korbey, Partner, Herrick's Land Use Group | July 17, 2012 in Trends,Zoning | Comments (1)

 

As a pedestrian, we want to see a lively street-scape at eye-level; we want buildings to have a “street life”, not a blank face.  A recent goal of new zoning for commercial strips is to mandate retail use and “building transparency” at the ground floor — see new zoning requirements for Park Slope.  (This follows long-standing rules prohibiting “pedestrian-unfriendly” uses – such as banks – along 5th Avenue in Midtown and Madison Avenue in the Upper East Side.)

Is it “proper” to use zoning on certain streets to achieve a design goal of avoiding a blank wall of dentist’s offices – or worse, interior parking – when such uses are otherwise allowed?  Is this an aesthetic issue – avoiding a solid wall along the street (where a building essentially “turns its back” to the pedestrian)?  Or, is it a question of enlivening the street with retail activity?

The photo here of Canal Street just East of Broadway, is transparency to the extreme.  All of Canal Street is a carnival of activity – where each building’s ground floor engulfs the pedestrian – practically sucking shoppers off the sidewalk.   Canal doesn’t need zoning to force owners to place retail at the ground floor.  But, other streets – particularly those in the Other Boroughs – would be barren without rules to mandate that buildings embrace the sidewalk traffic.

Aggressive use of the ‘zoning power’ to bring about the presumed public benefit of ground floor retail life is good public policy.  No?

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

One Response to “Transparent Zoning”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

  1. Comment by Manuel SantiagoJuly 18, 2012 at 9:28 am  

    As always, and I expect no less, your articles are insightful, informative and thought provoking. I don’t know if there is any one answer to the questions posed in your article. But it does bring to question the limits of government to regulate what we can experience or what is deemed “good” for the general public. At one time it was thought that open green spaces were needed in order for people to have a less stressful urban experience; that is until such urban green spaces became areas of crime. The concept was good but the execution was ill conceived in attempting a cookie cutter approach. Balance, a little this and a little that, variety, liveliness, useful and practical should be the guiding words when it comes to urban design.

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree Plugin