Kate Yourke has answered my plea, and provided this account of the Broadway Triangle charette that was held earlier this month:

I was at the charrette, and intended to write some kind of report, but life overtook that intention and now I’m not sure what is the news except that the charrette must be made legitimate to give the rest of a community a chance at involvement in the development of the broadway triangle. The guest list was impressive, and the event was first class. The ideas were balanced and there was an easy consensus:

Environmental sustainability, community input in the planning process, maximized low-income housing, developments to allow for a mix of incomes within buildings and sites, integration in all aspects of the development, developments attractive to families, limited large scale and extensive small-scale retail business & entertainment opportunities, loads of underground parking, slower traffic on Flushing, small-town feel through plenty of trees, walkable streets, pleasant corridors leading to public transportation, maximize use of potential green space, including green roofs… There was the suggestion that a fund be created and an inventory of industrial and manufacturing businesses be done, with the businesses evaluated to see if they could co-exist with residential use, if not, adaptations paid out of the fund, and if necessary, subsidized relocation.

The Pfizer building was imagined as a multi-generational sports, arts, entertainment, and recreational center with space for artisan workshops and residential use.

I am sorry that I couldn’t make to this month’s “alternative” charette. I did attend the Autumn, 2007 community charette, and there were a lot of similarities to what Kate describes in this month’s forum. Like this one, last year’s charette resulted in a lot of very creative and thoughtful ideas about what a community should look like. Issues such as building heights, location of retail corridors and through streets and like all came up, as did sustainability, open space,community character and other hard to quantify ideas about neighborhood and smart growth.

The Eagle article (linked to below) about today’s clown time on Kent Avenue also includes some substance, which deserves some comment beyond a quick link.

Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives is quoted extensively in the article, starting with this:

“[The city is] no longer treating parking as sacred. Newer designs are treating parking as any other space on the street. Kent is one of only half a dozen streets in New York City where the bike lane affected parking by more than one space … When safety is up against convenience, safety wins.”

Dead-on correct. Parking should not be driving this discussion; there is no inalienable right to parking in NYC. (On a related note, I am told that CM Yassky is working to get Shaefer Landing to change its ridiculous exclusionary access regulations, so that all residents can use the driveway there.

Additionally, the lost parking spaces could potentially be compensated. The DOT’s Kent Avenue plan, available online, says there would be a high availability of curbside parking on side streets off Kent if “outdated, overly restrictive regulations” are removed.

However, Scott Gastel of the DOT told the Eagle that the potential parking changes on these side streets, running from Clymer to North 14th streets, are still “under review.” He could give no timeframe for how long the review process would take. “We are continuing to discuss the changes with the community,” he said.

This is the whole problem with the DOT’s Kent Avenue implementation – a complete lack of a comprehensive approach. Rather that piss off half the neighborhood and pretty much guarantee that the community will never, ever, support another bike lane initiative, why not do the parking study before you take away dozens of parking spots? When the plan was presented to the community last Spring, we were told that the lost parking would be made up on adjacent streets. That hasn’t happened and the fact that it hasn’t is indicative of DOT’s shortsightedness in this whole process.

“It was always a part of the DOT plan to accommodate businesses on Kent by adjusting the parking restrictions on side streets,” says Norvell. “We would have liked to have seen that done before, but sometimes the order gets messed up.”

Why didn’t they “accommodate” those businesses beforehand? I find this statement pretty hard to swallow given all the scrambling DOT has undertaken to make up for the lost access to businesses (and, DOT’s solution of side street loading zones takes away more on-street parking).

“The blocks on Kent are very short, so that to park on a side street makes a difference of about 10 or 15 feet. Most retailers’ needs can be met with these measures,” [Norvell] says.

The blocks along Kent are, on average, 200′ long – just as long as the north/south (avenue) blocks in Manhattan (and those on the Southside/Northside). For a business that is loading heavy goods (like, say, a printing press), that means the loading zone is around the corner and as much as 125′ feet away. These remote loading zones are a stop gap measure at best.

For businesses with loading bays and deliveries that take hours due to the quantity, DOT can “maybe cut into the buffers of the bike lane to the outside of the loading zone,” Norvell said.

Again, why didn’t DOT think this through before they installed the bike lanes? And why is Wiley Norvell forced to be defend DOT’s botched implementation – shouldn’t DOT speak for themselves?

Hopefully, DOT is taking a very careful look at Kent Avenue and coming up with solutions that address the business and economic issues in a meaningful way. That starts with having a plan that recognizes that Kent Avenue can only do so much. It probably includes some actual traffic control measures, like stop lights. It also probably includes actually rescinding outdated parking regulations on the side streets and on Wythe Avenue (there are plenty of opportunities for this). Hopefully, this great new plan will rescue the Greenway and make it work.

Let’s face it, a can of paint is not a comprehensive transportation planning solution.

Councilmember Yassky and others have sent a letter to DOT asking for changes to the Kent Avenue bike lanes. The basic thrust is not too different from what I have said in the past – bike lanes are important and therefore its important that DOT implement them well. They haven’t done that on Kent Avenue, and it is hurting Kent Avenue business owners.

Yassky et al are proposing that DOT eliminate (paint over) the northbound bike lane until “DOT and the community have developed a collaborative plan”. That is a bad idea, in that once the bike lane is gone, it will be difficult to get it back. If DOT is going to do any repainting, it should repaint the street right – shift all the lanes to the west side of Kent, or install parking on the east side while retaining a northbound bike lane, or do something else that fixes the problem. (Parking is not the problem – economic viability of businesses is. That’s one problem – fix it.)

Also, it should be noted that even though the letter is signed by Evan Thies of CB1, it does not represent official CB1 position. The Board already voted (twice) to support the Greenway, and (once) to ask that DOT come up with a solution that makes both bike traffic and vehicular traffic work on Kent Avenue.

BSA has apparently voted to allow the Finger Building to go forward, in all its 200′ glory. Details as they become available…

(I mistakenly reported that the hearing was yesterday; it was this morning.)

An update to the Ismael Leyva designed tower on West Street, and their application to increase the tower height from 30 to 39 stories. CB1 voted overwhelmingly in favor of the project at last nights board meeting. I was truant, but understand there was no drama.

Tomorrow evening, NAG will be holding a working meeting to further develop their organizing agenda for 2009. Based on ideas generated by the community at the Oct 2, 2008 Town Hall Organizing Meeting and on feedback from a survey completed by community members, the working meeting will start to develop the following issues as NAG’s priority organizing issues for 2009:

Preserving Affordable Housing Options for Residents
Improving Open Space and Access to the Waterfront
Offering Safe and Quick Transportation Options For the Neighborhood
Improving our Quality of Life and Preserving Community Character

This is an opportunity for folks to help develop the priorities for the coming year(s) for this important neighborhood advocacy group.

What: Kicking off NAG’s 2009 Organizing Agenda

When: Thursday December 4, 2008 at 7pm

Where: Holy Ghost Church Hall Basement, 160 North 5th Street (between Bedford and Driggs)