passions of an observer of life...

For references sited, please post a comment below and I'll be sure to forward them to you.

Recently the High Line rail track that runs from Gansevoort Street to 33^rd Street has gained much popularity. What started out as a preservation effort has led to a revival of the entire community surrounding the High Line structure. Friends of the High Line, the non-profit organization behind the rescue of the High Line itself, chose Diller Scofidio + Renfro (DS+R) to design the renovation of the High Line into a park. The promise of a new park on the High Line has caught the eyes of several developers, who have now begun to snatch up property along it. Due to the rising popularity of the High Line, developers seek to maximize their profits in the area by building high-end condominiums, restaurants and hotels; these constructions will doubtless have an effect on surrounding communities. In fact, a great percentage of those affected fall outside of this circle, into the group of those who neither commissioned these projects nor propose to pay for them; these include local business owners and tenants in existing buildings. With growing interests in the area surrounding the High Line come rising property values, followed by rising rents, which many in the community feel will ultimately lead to their displacement.

Such urban revitalization and subsequent gentrification have become regular features of New York City’s urban life; the goal of this paper is not call for a stalling of either. However, the negative effects should not be ignored simply because of their regularity. Gentrification in this part of Manhattan is absolutely inescapable. Through ongoing developments in the area, previously unused, or under-used, land will be maximized, making full use of what little developable land we have left in Manhattan. Also, as a result of these developments, a vibrant community will be established that will provide a steady clientele for the businesses surrounding it. However, we cannot ignore the somewhat destructive effects of this gentrification. Therefore the question becomes, how can we revitalize an area without creating overwhelmingly troublesome circumstances for those already in the area? If developers and city officials considered ahead of time the disadvantages that may arise in the process of revitalizing a region, they might find ways to prevent some of these, while also learning to see the revitalization of the area as a tool in creating environments that would be attractive and beneficial not only to the new occupants of the area, but also to those already living and working there. Taking a closer look at the revitalization of the High Line and its surroundings will allow us to investigate these issues further.

The effect the High Line has on its surroundings has always been a concern. Many have lost their lives traversing the streets by the railroad that was constructed at grade during the late nineteenth century. This railroad served mostly wholesale manufacturers in the area (Farricker, 14). The High Line was built during the 1930s as a solution to the dangers of the existing railroad at street level, as well as a way to fuel the growing urban economy and create more public open areas and streets. Its construction became a visual symbol of modernity and safety and was built on the assumption that the freight industry would continue to grow. Unfortunately just as its construction was nearing completion freight transportation began to become obsolete as air travel and the use of trucks and highways became more prevalent. Between the dwindling of freight travel and the effects of the Great Depression, the High Line’s value declined until its use was completely discontinued in the 1980s (David, 8-12). Since then, the High Line has existed as an artifact of a lost time, a skeleton revealing the history of Manhattan’s business and industry.

From the time when the High Line ceased to be used by shipping and manufacturing companies, local property owners have sought to have this slice of urban infrastructure demolished, maintaining that the High Line is a blighted object, one that creates hazardous conditions and detains property values from rising to their market potential. Most of the property owners holding land directly beneath or around the High Line have allied themselves to form the private landowners’ group Chelsea Property Owners (CPO) (David, 14). CPO has persistently appealed to the New York City officials as well as to CSX, the company who held ownership of the High Line, to enact said demolition. However, demolition costs exceeding $35 million have discouraged anyone involved to actually partake in the project (Farricker, 38-40). As of 2000, ownership of the High Line has been transferred to the City of New York, but, once again, due to the steep cost of demolition, the High Line has not been declared “abandoned” and no further construction has proceeded until recently.

In 1999, a non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and reuse of the High Line was formed entitled Friends of the High Line (FHL) (David, 14). Since its formation, the organization has led several studies, held competitions, and proposed several designs for the re-habilitation and re-use of the High Line, seeking to preserve it while also restore its value to the City of New York (thehighline.org). FHL echoes the sentiments of many supporters of the rehabilitation of the High Line, namely that such rehabilitation would serve to revitalize the area, raise property values, create much needed open green space, and create a safe, more respectable, diverse environment, while also serving as a support to existing manufacturers, artists, and other business owners of the area (David, 18).

After several competitions, some hypothetical and others with real intent, FHL and representatives from the City of New York chose Diller Scofidio + Renfro (DS+R) and Field Operations to re-design the park that would go on the High Line. Field Operations would care for the landscaping while DS+R designed the actual space, program, and concepts the new High Line would incarnate. This design is limited strictly to the High Line and does not involve any surrounding construction that may be proposed or occurring at the moment. DS+R/Field Operation’s plan for the High Line includes changes that seek to maintain the High Line’s rural, pastoral feel while also inviting social and community activities on board, 30 feet above the ground into the air. The design is basically one for a public promenade in the air, delivering open space, fresh air and a tranquil atmosphere. Completely unaffected by the traffic below, it will be a continuous linear space that will run from Gansevoort Street up to the Hudson Rail yards area (highline.org).

The High Line’s unique environment and evolution while in its abandoned, remote state has been an inspiration to the design. Seeds drifting in the air settled on the rough terrain of the rails and have actually flourished, to everyone’s surprise. Irises, grape hyacinths, and other flowers have become part of the indigenous “High Line” plant life. Residents have also played their part, planting daffodil bulbs and even inserting a tiny Christmas tree (Subramanian, 2). The park designers seek to maintain this spirit of a private, personal setting, natural and untamed. Therefore the park will include an array of low-maintenance plant life, which will be paired with meandering, transparent walkways and some commerce below (de Kay, 1).

To further preserve the feeling of serenity and displacement from the hustle and bustle of the city, the city has revised its zoning regulations for the area. The new zoning requires a minimum amount of setbacks to protect lines of vision through and from the High Line. The city has also limited the width of connections to the High Line from any neighboring structures so that any entry that might proceed from a building to the High Line will act more as a bridge than a direct access point. (Maximum distance will be 5’-6” from the High Line to the building.) These decisions complement the designer’s intentions. Ricardo Scofidio mentioned that “[they] don’t want hotels putting wicker chairs and tables all over the garden. [They, the designers] want it to feel that it belongs to everybody.” In accordance with the desire to maintain this peaceful atmosphere, the city has also limited the quantity of access points from the street to no more than four public stairways along the section of the park running from Gansevoort Street to 20^th Street (Ouroussoff, 1-2). The High Line itself is still very much about privacy, peace, nature, about a rugged, unruly terrain amidst the concrete austerity of Manhattan.

What began as a seemingly impossible project has suddenly become one of the most exciting events of the time, and the restoration of the High Line has attracted much attention and support from politicians, celebrities, and developers not only to the High Line but also to its surrounding areas. Previously disregarded as wasteland, the High Line and its surrounding areas are being transformed into one of the most valuable real estate areas in Manhattan. With the promise of a new park, and a new atmosphere, comes the prospect of new developments, which come accompanied by investors. In fact, so many developments have been propping up around the High Line, and so many more have been proposed, that some fear the original intent behind this serene urban garden is at risk of being destroyed (Ouroussoff, 1). Still, plans for construction proceed.

Alf Naman, of Alf Naman Real Estate Advisors, has already planned four projects alongside the High Line and is considering taking on more. One of his projects includes a 20-story residential tower designed by celebrity architect Jean Nouvel. Bishop’s Court Realty proposes an 11-story residential tower designed by another famous architect, Annabelle Seldorf. Tamarkin Architects P.C. has been commissioned to design a condo tower on the corner of 10^th Avenue and 19^th Street that will rise to 12 stories. General Theological Seminary proposes a 17-story residential complex on 21^st and 9^th. Some residential towers proposed will have commercial use at street level, such as one by developer Leviev Boymelgreen, while others will house gallery space as well as other commercial activities, such as one project by Alf Naman (which will rise to 12 stories). The Chelsea Arts Tower, a commercial/residential tower, rises to 20 stories (Wilson, 1-3). Other developers, such as Clodagh, Gwathmey Siegel, Lindy Roy, and Neil Denari seek to follow in these footsteps by building condominium towers along the High Line (Lange, 2).

Commercial spaces are springing up along the High Line as well. André Balazs is cashing in on the area, erecting the Standard Hotel, a 330-room, 18-story hotel, to be erected near the former Dia: Chelsea museum. On 14^th Street and 10^th Avenue High Line Development LLC is proposing a commercial space. At 16^th Street Stephan Zoukis is exploring the idea of adding residential units over the existing Chelsea Market. Mario Batali, the celebrity chef, is joining forces with Joseph and Lidia Bastianich to open a new restaurant, Del Posto, on 10^th Avenue. Other restaurants opening, or already opened, along the High Line include Cookshop, D’or Ahn, Stephen Starr’s Buddakan, and Craftsteak, all high-end establishments. On the block between 10^th and 11^th Avenues and 17^th and 18^th Streets, two mixed-use buildings (commercial and residential) are proposed, designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects; the buildings will reach heights of between 25 and 40 stories. On 11^th Avenue, a nine-story office building, designed by Frank Gehry, for IAC/InterActiveCorp was just completed (Wilson, 1-3).

From the beginning of this redevelopment process, it was foreseen by many involved that zoning, or rather rezoning, the area would become necessary. In their publication documenting some of the winning contest entries from the 2003 competition (Public Space Makers: the future of the High Line) the Friends of the High Line panelists stated that “this current transformation of a formerly industrial swath … (with or without the structure) begs for rezoning…. They [the panelists] would like to see comprehensive planning result in the creation of a High Line zone which could establish height restrictions and make possible the transfer of air rights along the length of the structure (4-5).” This call for re-zoning was made before any realistic plans for the High Line had been developed, calling attention to the foresight of the panelists, as well as other professionals monitoring the area. In June 2005, a zoning report of the High Line area was issued. Some of its regulations were discussed above. In addition to these, the zoning report states that residential buildings can now be constructed along the High Line from 16^th to 30^th Streets. These zoning restrictions are meant to ensure that adequate air and light reach the park, as well as the surrounding existing and proposed buildings (Ulam, 1).

Interestingly, the rezoning does not require a continuous street-wall, another measure intended to ensure adequate lighting into the spaces between the High Line and the buildings (Ulam, 1). However, there are points along the High Line where developers are allowed to build to extreme heights, and in other occasions the Department of City Planning has made allowances, or has approved variances, if they judge the developer’s site to be particularly difficult, or irregular. For example, one of Neil Denari’s residential towers was allowed to cantilever several feet over the High Line because of the site’s small footprint (Ouroussoff, 1-2). These facts leave many living near the High Line feeling uncertain of the effectiveness of these regulations.

For many who have striven to not only prevent the High Line from destruction but also to restore it, all of the above news comes as a relief as well as a reward. In July 2003, in an interview by ArchitectureWeek, New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller not only announced that the city would commit $15.75 million for the planning and construction of the park, but also declared that such an endeavor would yield invaluable public space which would undoubtedly “create value and catalyze growth (AW, 2).” Today we see that his predictions have most certainly come true. Earlier this year Faith Hope Consolo, a local retail specialist, predicted that the entire neighborhood, including retail, commercial, and residential spaces, would experience a 12 to 15 percent increase in market value. In fact, prices in the neighborhood have gone up 30 percent in the last year, and many owners have consequently sold their lots. The majority of the most valuable real estate has already been sold and now even some mid-block areas are coming into the market. Some lots are known to be going for over $500 a developable square foot (Sternbergh, 6-7).

Clearly, the High Line restoration has been a benefit to the area, creating the atmosphere for promising financial and social projects to spring up. Big name developers are hiring big name architects to design buildings, lending popularity and, hopefully, good design to the area. The proximity of the High Line area to downtown financial and other business districts will provide a convenient housing market for many working in lower Manhattan, as well as others interested in the area. With increased population come increased goods and services: more retail, more restaurants, and more businesses. Some conscientious developers have shown a degree of wisdom in their projects, refraining from building only single-use structures. There are buildings which will incorporate gallery spaces in an effort to maintain the artistic character of the area. Other buildings will have stores, while several will house restaurants as well. Such measures guarantee a diverse and multi-use community.

Yet, current tenants and business owners express substantial concern over this revitalization. Small art galleries, restaurants, and other businesses fear their presence in the neighborhood will become obsolete. In an effort to relieve some of the anxiety over the changes, the Department of City Planning allowed landowners to transfer their development rights to properties elsewhere in the area. After they had done so, the Department rezoned West Chelsea to allow for larger developments closer to the High Line. These measures were taken in an effort to prevent local galleries from being run out by the new, high-end retail and residences that will be emerging in the future. Such measures have not allayed the fears of local business-owners who rent their space, however. One restaurant-owner who’s established her business in the area for close to twenty years fears that her proximity to the new park, residences, and proposed retail will do little to benefit her. As she explains, “People say to me, ‘You’re going to be so busy, the restaurant will be full of people all the time.’ But I don’t really think these will be the kind of people who are going to walk out of their fancy buildings to come over here and have an omelet.” (Sternbergh, 7-10) Gallery owner Magda Sawon, of the Postmasters Gallery on 10^th Avenue, has been at Chelsea for eight years, but the gallery has existed for over 20. Although she sees potential viewers and clients in the affluent residents who will be moving into the area, she worries about the effect the increasing rents will have on galleries in the area (Wilson, 4). Further adding to local tenants’ concerns are the attitudes of many of the area’s incoming developers, such as André Balazs, who told New York Magazine: “The galleries which are now in Chelsea will once again relocate, chasing the need for reasonable rents. There are still dead midtown areas. Maybe they will slowly get a life force back to them (Lange, 2).”

The situation for residents is not very promising either. As prices in the area go up, many will inevitably be forced to relocate. Nearly a half-dozen developers plan to contribute to the easing of this value adjustment by designating 20 percent of their combined proposed 6,000 apartments into low- and moderate-income residences, but such plans remain to be seen (Bagli, 1). Whole sites designated for affordable-housing units have not been determined by the city either, which is disconcerting. Considering the rate at which these properties are selling, one wonders if such sites will ever exist at all. The character of the neighborhood is quickly changing as many people are forced out, and those who remain are isolated, without much hope of acquiring another residence in the area (Freeman, 127). Local condos have been selling for $750 to $1,200 a square foot, averaging about $3 million a unit. At the Tate, on 23^rd Street, monthly rents range from $2,300 to $6,500. Lee Compton, chairman of Community Board 4, expressed his concerns on the gentrification process that is occurring: “We were a blue-collar neighborhood where people had lived for 40 or 50 years. We wanted to preserve the opportunity for them and their children to stay in the community. We didn’t want it to become completely gentrified.” (Wilson, 3) This process seems, however, inevitable at this point.

Clearly the changes brought on by gentrification are not entirely detrimental to the city, local neighborhoods, or those who will inhabit the area. As mentioned above, such changes will bring about much needed attention to this plot of Manhattan, taking parking lots and vacant property and turning them into profit-producing sites. However, during this process of revival, a divide has undoubtedly been established between the neighborhood of the High Line before its renovation, and the neighborhood being created right now. Most, if not all, of the upcoming retail, businesses, and residences will not be immediately available to those who live in the area, and have lived in it, for decades. As Mr. Compton stated, this is expected up to some extent, but in the High Line area the process of gentrification is being hurried, exploited to its maximum to garner fast profits. Although immediately satisfactory to those currently investing, such a sudden shift in the neighborhoods’ characters can have detrimental social consequences in the future, not to mention the many livelihoods that are being eradicated immediately. Jane Jacob’s warned about these effects in her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961):

The winners in the competition for space will represent only a narrow segment of the many uses that together created success. Whichever one or few uses have emerged as the most profitable in the locality will be repeated and repeated, crowding out and overwhelming less profitable forms of use. If tremendous numbers of people, attracted by convenience and interest, or charmed by vigor and excitement, choose to live or work in the area, again the winners of the competition will form a narrow segment of population of users. Since so many want to get in, those who get in or stay in will be self-sorted by the expense. (243)

The people and places that once characterized West Chelsea and formed its character can no longer exist under these circumstances; a new character and a new neighborhood must be created. However, so much of the High Line area is still under development, up in the air if you will, and so this characterization of the neighborhood is stalled. In addition, because all the developments are being brought in artificially, rather than having grown in the area progressively, there is no one character to these other than to produce profit quickly for the developers. What will the character of the area be after all the property is filled and herds of people, mainly wealthy people, crowd these sites?

In addition to the eradication of neighborhood character, such extensive and rapid gentrification creates further problems in the immediate urban surroundings. With most rents and leases now exceeding the amount residents and businesses can pay, people will have to move out of West Chelsea and into other areas that proffer similar rents and leases. This will greatly increase pressures on New York’s housing and rents. Also, the expansion of commercial uses in the area requires that land use change. What was mostly residential at one time will now become business, and what residential areas do remain will raise their rents and leases due to shortage of residences at the original prices. Sadly those most affected by these changes are those that are least equipped to handle them, the poor (Marcuse, 154-55). In New York City this pattern of displacement is already prevalent, with more than 100,000 persons being displaced in Manhattan alone every year, most losing their homes to business districts propping up in their place (Marcuse, 172).

Here the argument lies not in a stark defense against gentrification and a call for all things to remain as they are. That would be anti-progressive, as well as anti-realistic. Rather, the call is for those who are involved in the development to be conscious of the effects of their actions on the neighborhood. If such consciousness is fomented amongst those in power, the process of gentrification can be less painful, albeit ever-present. All change brings about success, as well as failure, for those living and working in the area. And vast development of a certain area is indeed a sign of progress and financial growth and security. Therefore, the issue lies in how developers and city officials can utilize their means to not only produce profitable, successful urban areas for themselves but also respect and value the lives and livelihoods of those already living or working there. An effort to create a diverse environment at West Chelsea is somewhat evident in the projects the developers are building. They have invested in not only towering condos but also in restaurants, retail spaces, museums, and even some high-end galleries. (An homage to those now existing which will become extinct?) There is no question of the diversity of the amenities the new neighborhood will offer. Rather, it is the question of who will be enjoying such amenities and what their interest in the rest of the area will be. The economic divide between those coming into West Chelsea and those in it has been heavily marked by the projects proposed, or built.

It is unrealistic to expect developers to design for low- or middle-income consumers at the market value of the property in the area. Therefore we are left with the city as our last hope then, to curb the control and effect the developers and their designs will have on the existing urban fabric. One way for the city to guide construction and development has been to establish zoning areas and limits on those areas. The City of New York has already exercised their right to rezone the area, allowing for new types of construction to take place in the High Line’s previously industrial zone. It was in this stage the City could’ve used their knowledge of previous urban renewal strategies and examples to foresee the perils that were to ensue. Rather than limiting themselves to certain height restrictions in the area, the City should have assessed the current character of the neighborhood, its demographics, its residents’ incomes, its thriving (and dwindling) business areas and rezoned to not only ensure ease of developers’ construction but also to guide the construction of the area so that the developers, in their projects, could target unused areas while simultaneously building with sensitivity to the neighborhood.

Firstly, the City’s rezoning should have encouraged developers to initially seek mostly undeveloped or unused parcels of land, such as vacant lots and abandoned buildings. This would ensure that any space that was already unused by the existing neighborhood would be built upon and enliven the area. Secondly, if developers were to acquire a residential building inhabited mostly by low- or middle-income dwellers, the City should require that the developer make accommodations for these, mostly by guaranteeing a residence in his new building at equal rent, or at rent that would increase slowly, but steadily (no more than a 5% annual increase). This aspect of zoning has been utilized since some developers are including low-income units in their buildings. However, I propose that the City require the developers to offer at least as many units as are being replaced, or at least aid in the relocation of those who choose to relocate elsewhere.

Thirdly, in addition to designing high-end restaurants and hotels, the city should require that a large percentage of the area, perhaps 15 to 25%, be dedicated to public use, whether it be a library, a free museum, or movie theaters, to name a few. To encourage developers to build these types of public spaces, the city could offer subsidies or reduce the cost of building in some other way for the developers. This would not only create an even larger assortment of entertainment for the locals, but would also provide types of entertainment and shopping that would be accessible to all, regardless of their financial situation. In line with this thought, a fourth suggestion would be to create, as Jacobs suggests, “the sheer supply of diversified, lively, economically viable city localities (255).” Therefore the city should offer certain additional benefits, or discounts, for developers who may not be able to invest as greatly in an area as their high-end counterparts. Through tax-breaks, subsidies, and other means, the City could encourage developers who would cater to low- or middle-income clients to also be able to take interest in the area, thus promoting commercial and residential endeavors of different socio-economic character, accommodating the existing residents and clients into the new scheme.

These suggestions are not meant to be final solutions, or to completely solve the issues at hand. Even these have certain limitations attached to them. Yet raising them may be a way to encourage developers and city officials to use the gentrification which will occur in the area as a means to create a socio-economically diverse area for New York City. Doing so will assist in the transition necessary through gentrification, as well as create a truly eclectic community, one fully revitalized an truly open to all of New York City’s public, much like the High Line park aims to be.