Currently in Jamaica, it appears that opportunism and myopia has overtaken the urban planning community, with only suggestions about high density housing and mixed land use developments, being offered to treat with the housing crisis. However the arguments being advanced are fraught with inconsistencies, flawed information flows and in most cases are incomplete at best.
In Part 1, the impact of mixed use developments on real estate pricing and effective demand was discussed, coupled with the difficulties involving a crumbling infrastructure in the face of a lopsided planning strategy. However the issue of the infrastructure requirements in the face of higher population densities and mixed land-use developments bears repetition, as the challenges are significant.
The matter of the inadequacy of water supplies is particularly daunting as there are no discernible plans in the immediate future to increase supplies to those areas already being targeted for high density accommodations. Further, if the problems already exist in the residential communities such as Seymour Lands, Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston, they are likely to grow exponentially with the onset of commercial demand, which would necessarily come with mixed use developments. Also with this strategy of urban concentration that is being advocated, what of the provisions for additional schools of all types, hospitals, fire services, police stations among other requirements and more importantly where are they likely to be housed?
Further, this new planning paradigm in Jamaica of mixed land use, is also founded on a premise of increased “development pressure” from the commercial entities. However, in truth, what it reflects is the willingness of at least some of the state regulatory agencies, to facilitate the indolent actions of a favoured few, with no regard to other issues which also guide the process of urban planning. Indeed, the most recent argument is that there is a need to increase the density of Kingston and St Andrew, with examples of what obtains in New York City being heralded as the guidepost to development. However, in looking at the facts what are the densities that obtain in some of the main cities in the developed countries? New York City has a density of 27,203/ sq. mile; London – 12,331/ sq. mile and Kingston - 3,727 /sq. mile. However, the community of East Hampton in New York City which has been dubbed, “the playground of the rich” has a population density of 280.3/ sq. mile. In other words, within the same examples that are being offered to justify and add a sense of legitimacy to the arguments being promoted are examples of exclusive residential use.
Further at Jamaica’s stage of development there is no need to promote this level of urban concentration and to be seeking to destroy the character of traditional residential neighbourhoods. All this as only a polite banter can be heard of rehabilitating, the traditional commercial zone of Downtown Kingston. Also what of the notion of “inner-city redevelopment”? This as it is apparent that the notion of higher density living is now focused on the more affluent neighbourhoods in Kingston 5, 6, 8 and 10 whereas in the inner-cities you have the twin difficulties of both over-development (with concentrated spontaneous settlements) and numerous abandoned houses and lots, as the owners are driven from the communities by fear of criminal activity.
However, there are some oft expressed concerns about this notion of mixed land use within traditional residential communities globally, which are just as applicable in Jamaica:
1. It would introduce flows of pedestrians and traffic within the traditional business hours of 8 am and 5 pm, excepting where the nature of the business approved, namely nightclubs attract clientele particularly during the evenings and nights;
2. It would introduce a concentration of traffic into the immediate vicinity of the commercial development;
3. Given that the infrastructure did not conceive of commercial developments there are likely to be issues of illegal on-street parking;
4. Pressure would result in a need to erect signage to the premises and change the character of the neighbourhood forever;
5. The establishment of a commercial entity in a residential neighbourhood would likely result in “dead” frontage in the evenings when other residential properties would be seen as occupied;
6. The front of the property could be paved without any permission being required, thereby affecting the setting of the building;
7. The mixed use renders community initiatives such as neighbourhood watches ineffective;
8. There is also the introduction of social problems such as prostitution, drug peddling and an increased likelihood of other serious crimes such as robbery, rape and murder;
9. Dependent on the nature of the development approved and its proximity to a residential facility (5 feet per floor from the boundary wall according to the planning authorities), the residence will be adversely affected by over-looking and shadowing coupled with a loss of privacy and deterioration in the property’s value.
These are just a few of the issues governing mixed use developments and therefore within the current context, any such planning strategy is likely to undermine property values and irreparably damage the character of once beautiful residential communities
In Part 1, the impact of mixed use developments on real estate pricing and effective demand was discussed, coupled with the difficulties involving a crumbling infrastructure in the face of a lopsided planning strategy. However the issue of the infrastructure requirements in the face of higher population densities and mixed land-use developments bears repetition, as the challenges are significant.
The matter of the inadequacy of water supplies is particularly daunting as there are no discernible plans in the immediate future to increase supplies to those areas already being targeted for high density accommodations. Further, if the problems already exist in the residential communities such as Seymour Lands, Trafalgar Park and the residential sections of New Kingston, they are likely to grow exponentially with the onset of commercial demand, which would necessarily come with mixed use developments. Also with this strategy of urban concentration that is being advocated, what of the provisions for additional schools of all types, hospitals, fire services, police stations among other requirements and more importantly where are they likely to be housed?
Further, this new planning paradigm in Jamaica of mixed land use, is also founded on a premise of increased “development pressure” from the commercial entities. However, in truth, what it reflects is the willingness of at least some of the state regulatory agencies, to facilitate the indolent actions of a favoured few, with no regard to other issues which also guide the process of urban planning. Indeed, the most recent argument is that there is a need to increase the density of Kingston and St Andrew, with examples of what obtains in New York City being heralded as the guidepost to development. However, in looking at the facts what are the densities that obtain in some of the main cities in the developed countries? New York City has a density of 27,203/ sq. mile; London – 12,331/ sq. mile and Kingston - 3,727 /sq. mile. However, the community of East Hampton in New York City which has been dubbed, “the playground of the rich” has a population density of 280.3/ sq. mile. In other words, within the same examples that are being offered to justify and add a sense of legitimacy to the arguments being promoted are examples of exclusive residential use.
Further at Jamaica’s stage of development there is no need to promote this level of urban concentration and to be seeking to destroy the character of traditional residential neighbourhoods. All this as only a polite banter can be heard of rehabilitating, the traditional commercial zone of Downtown Kingston. Also what of the notion of “inner-city redevelopment”? This as it is apparent that the notion of higher density living is now focused on the more affluent neighbourhoods in Kingston 5, 6, 8 and 10 whereas in the inner-cities you have the twin difficulties of both over-development (with concentrated spontaneous settlements) and numerous abandoned houses and lots, as the owners are driven from the communities by fear of criminal activity.
However, there are some oft expressed concerns about this notion of mixed land use within traditional residential communities globally, which are just as applicable in Jamaica:
1. It would introduce flows of pedestrians and traffic within the traditional business hours of 8 am and 5 pm, excepting where the nature of the business approved, namely nightclubs attract clientele particularly during the evenings and nights;
2. It would introduce a concentration of traffic into the immediate vicinity of the commercial development;
3. Given that the infrastructure did not conceive of commercial developments there are likely to be issues of illegal on-street parking;
4. Pressure would result in a need to erect signage to the premises and change the character of the neighbourhood forever;
5. The establishment of a commercial entity in a residential neighbourhood would likely result in “dead” frontage in the evenings when other residential properties would be seen as occupied;
6. The front of the property could be paved without any permission being required, thereby affecting the setting of the building;
7. The mixed use renders community initiatives such as neighbourhood watches ineffective;
8. There is also the introduction of social problems such as prostitution, drug peddling and an increased likelihood of other serious crimes such as robbery, rape and murder;
9. Dependent on the nature of the development approved and its proximity to a residential facility (5 feet per floor from the boundary wall according to the planning authorities), the residence will be adversely affected by over-looking and shadowing coupled with a loss of privacy and deterioration in the property’s value.
These are just a few of the issues governing mixed use developments and therefore within the current context, any such planning strategy is likely to undermine property values and irreparably damage the character of once beautiful residential communities
1 comment:
I have been following your battle against encroachment and being an Urban Planner who once supported mixed use I now share your sympathies as my fear is that mixed use can also create hasten the transition from residential to commercial by accelerating the transition process. That is, when a house becomes vacant and is up for sale, it is more likely to be bought by a company and used for commercial purposes than by a prospective home owner, who may be reluctant to move into an area that is seen as being in transition, unless the land is being bought as a future business opportunity i.e land speculation. In other words as home owners move out, businesses or speculators will move in and over time the transition will be complete, with only those who are unable to move, remaining. This could lead to a local form of urban blight. If homeowners are unable to move and also unable to pay the increases in property tax, houses will become run down and eventually even these holdouts will be forced to sell.
This scenario needs not happen however, if residents do more than simply object but offer counter proposals such as agreeing to create open, green spaces, community parks for children or venues where other community activities can take place. Creating a land bank, that is forming an association and purchasing or leasing vacant lands and having control over how these lands are to be used is another option. This could be costly but in time if the community agrees to sell the lands it will be on their terms with their conditions. To simply call for a halt to the commercialisation without offering viable alternatives will not address the problem. The process should be object and present, as objecting without viable alternatives will not generate support from the policymakers or even old Urban Planners such as I am, even if we agree with you.
Post a Comment