Massive Urban Development Projects Put in Question the Necessity of Easy Transit Connections
New York’s New Domino Waterfront Plan Credit: New Domino
In recent years, urbanists have developed a rough consensus about how to build cities, inspired by early 20th-century growth patterns: Plan for most new construction in areas a quarter to half-mile from transit stations, and ensure that neighborhoods are walkable and include a mix of uses. Because of the political and economic difficulties of implementing improved bus and rail transit, the latter two guidelines have been simpler to follow than the first.
This has resulted in the construction of a number of “New Urbanist” communities in the far suburbs that, while emphasizing walking through density and the inclusion of retail and office space adjacent to homes, are ultimately only accessible from elsewhere by car. It’s been easier to build communities that look like they should have good transit connections than to actually implement those transportation connections. There have been some notable exceptions, such as along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Arlington, Virginia just outside Washington, where the construction of Metrorail led to the densification of a massive section of the community.
For the most part, big cities in the U.S. have been able to avoid this problem because they have been able to capitalize on existing transportation systems; the redevelopment and infill growth experienced over the past twenty years in many urban cores has in fact often been located near urban transit station sites. This has led not only to an increase in urban development in formerly underpopulated neighborhoods but also an increase in public transportation mode share in many center cities.
Yet three major developments recently approved in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco put in doubt how serious America’s big cities really are about encouraging new developments to be premised on access to alternative transportation. If these cities—already known for their density and walkability—can’t do it right, can anyone?
Most ambitious, and furthest away from completion, is Chicago’s South Works plan, which would begin construction in 2012 at the earliest. It was approved by the aldermanic council earlier this month. The hugely ambitious project, which would reuse the site of a former steel plant on Lake Michigan, takes up 400 acres, almost the same size as Chicago’s entire downtown Loop.
Though the project’s developers have yet to assemble adequate financing, they are confident that it will reshape the look of working-class South Chicago by bringing in thousands of new residents and jobs. Yet one must question how effectively it will be connected to either the nearby community or the city as a whole. Not only will parts of the neighborhood be more than a mile in walking distance from the closest commuter rail station, but a train ride from there takes a full thirty minutes to get downtown. Won’t most people living there choose to drive to work instead?
In New York City, redevelopers of an old Domino Sugar factory along the Williamsburg waterfront in Brooklyn want to bring 2,200 apartment units to a site that is almost a mile from the closest subway stations. The builders understand that this distance from transit will require most people to drive to do their daily tasks, and originally planned to include 1,700 parking spaces in the project, though they reduced that to 1,428 as part of a deal to get approval for the program. Yet the message is still clear: Even in a dense city like New York, if you build too far from transit, people will drive to and from their apartments.
It’s a similar situation in San Francisco, where the Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment would take a forgotten section of one of the city’s only poor neighborhoods and transform it into a massive new community with 10,500 apartments, only about a third of which would be affordable. The complex may also include a new football station for the 49ers, depending on how the owner of the team decides to move ahead.
The developer, Lennar, has created a transportation plan that they say would ensure higher-than-average transit ridership in a city that already has some of the highest public transportation use in the nation. This seems desperately needed because the community is more than a mile from the nearest light rail station. The developer has committed to helping sponsor a bus rapid transit line to the light rail as well as the BART and Caltrain regional rail systems, in addition to a frequent express bus downtown. This is a reasonable answer to the difficulty of connecting people to transit, but it’s unclear how effective it will actually be.
Indeed, one wonders whether it would make more sense for cities to restrict major developments such as these to areas directly adjacent to public transportation. If a city like Chicago is interested in pushing the redevelopment of a forlorn area of town, that’s perfectly acceptable, but it should find ways to fund new transit lines to and from the development so as to ensure that the new community doesn’t simply become an enclave of automobile-dependent residents.
Yonah Freemark is an Urban Leaders Fellow, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. He writes the Grassroutes column for Next American City. He also writes The Transport Politic blog. Contact him at yonah@americancity.org
We Keep Riding Transit, Despite the Risks
Rio 2016: The Next ‘Coming Out Party’?
Getting to Yes on Open Data
Evan on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:12pm
Isn’t it more of a chicken-before-the-egg question? Areas get transit because they demand it. Well, they won’t get transit if there’s no one there to use it (the new T-Third line in SF, though is an exception to this rule, where they’re building before much of the neighborhood has been built in). In SF, there isn’t much room for big development, and most infill housing comes piecemeal.
Think about it this way. Would we Bay Area residents have 10,000 new units in SF, the most-transit friendly place in the Bay Area, or out in Livermore or Lodi, where you better believe just about no one will be using transit. You put that development into SF, even if it’s not in a central location to transit, and the Bay Area will be better off. And hopefully the strong, existing web of transit in SF spreads to Hunters Point as well.
mulad in Saint Paul, MN on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:15pm
I think it’s best to continue building with New Urbanist ideals, whether there’s going to be an immediate transit connection or not. As more and more nodes of mixed-use development appear, it becomes easier to build bus and rail networks that make sense and have the density around those nodes to properly support them without requiring acres of asphalt for park-and-ride lots. If you have neighborhood businesses or plazas, it also provides a much more pleasant and interesting place to wait for the bus than just a chunk of concrete and a signpost…
mulad in Saint Paul, MN on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:16pm
But certainly, closer-in development should be encouraged.
Walter in CT on Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:25pm
For San Francisco’s sake, let’s hope they don’t pay for a new stadium for the 49ers in that neighborhood. Not only would it cost the city hundreds of millions to subsidize the team, massive parking garages would be built to handle the cars of 80,000 people (less those who actually take transit to the games) and would plant a giant black hole in the middle of the neighborhood.
Just look at how the city of New York got swindled by the Yankees, and how the new stadium has actually hurt businesses in the area.
Peter Smith on Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:01am
if any development creates a place that is accessible by bicycle—truly accessible by bicycle (which necessarily includes walkability)—then 90% of that area’s transit issues are solved, instantaneously/inherently/automatically.
that said, most cities are not yet being serious about allowing bikes to ride their streets, but hopefully that is starting to change, however slowly. (The 49ers stadium at Hunters Point is super-close to the city, but the streets leading there are absolutely impenetrable by bicycle.) i don’t know of any actual evidence that things are changing in planning these new, unsustainable megadevelopments, but i feel like, eventually, maybe 20 years from now, someone like…me, will be in charge of transportation planning for a new development, and i’ll make sure bikes are treated with the respect they deserve.
Toronto is planning its first condo with no private car parking, and only a few car-sharing spaces—so i’m convinced that anything is possible.
Bill on Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:48pm
Do an article on the development of Philadelphia’s waterfront and naval yard development!
Ted in Chicago on Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:51pm
Yonah, two weeks ago you lauded the Chicago South Shore development as one that “leverages existing transit assets” (http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2372/) and now you’re worried it’s too far from downtown for people to use transit? For one, there’s already a movement from the local residents there now to convert that commuter rail line into a higher frequency mass transit line. Second, there are two major bus lines that currently end at the edge of the development, both of which will almost certainly be extended once there’s demand.
Finally, Chicago’s a big city! South Shore is as far from the Loop as the city’s northern border at Howard is. A ride on the Red Line from Howard takes the same half hour, and yet a ton of people take transit to commute from there.
AlexB on Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 10:14pm
I understand the point of this essay, but we can’t always plan big developments and transit at the same time. The most important thing is high density. I am only familiar with the Domino project, and I find it hard to believe that most of the residents of that project would drive everywhere. Driving is very inconvenient in that part of Brooklyn, and the nearest train line isn’t really that far away. If enough people move there, existing bus lines will get better service and perhaps new routes will be implemented.
Strannik in Chicago, IL on Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 8:09pm
The SouthWorks site is within walking distance of Metra Electric Line’s South Shore branch. Plus, there are buses on every artery street. I don’t think transit accessibility is an issue here.