Business Improvement Districts & Street Width

The reading I did for this week came out of two urban planning books. There were a couple of different topics that I wanted to read up on, and I've provided brief summaries about each of them below. The books are: The American City: What Works, What Doesn't by Alexander Garvin, and The Practice of Local Government Planning, Municipal Management Series. Business Improvement Districts: The Garvin book is a big supporter of BIDs and examines how they can work to reinvigorate existing downtown areas. The general idea is to create a non-profit (but government supported) organization or agency to act as a "manager" for improving a specific area of a city. BIDs are financially supported by a surcharge on real estate taxes, and the mission tends to be something along the lines of: "to create a clean, safe, attractive and well-managed public environment" (NYC Bryant Park BID). To achieve these missions, BIDs create a more attractive streetscape (trees, lighting, parks, benches, etc.) and typically pay police or security for additional eyes on the street. They also generally organize events in the business district, such as holiday fairs or pedestrian events. Garvin analyzes three successful BIDs - Denver's 16th street BID, NYC's Bryant Park BID and Philadelphia's Center City BID. From the web, it appears that Downtown Berkeley has a BID, but it seems to be more a part of the City Planning department than an independent agency. I wonder if this is something that we should explore more. Street Width: After your comment tonight, I wanted to look at design guidelines for street width. I know that in NYC the first zoning code was explicitly linked to street width - building heights could be a multiplier of of street width, leading to taller buildings on wider streets ( i.e. avenues) and shorter buildings on side streets (i.e. streets). I don't know if this is at all the case with the Berkeley zoning code (it's something I want to look more closely at later in the class), but the Municipal Management Series offer some suggestions for reducing the perceived width of overly wide streets: providing a generous median with "sanctuary" for pedestrians, as well as greenery, designing a boulevard with separate service lanes, and increasing the width of the sidewalk. I know some of these are already in effect on Shattuck - there is a median, though perhaps we should look at whether or not it is effective, and there are "separate service lanes" of a sort - the on-street parking lots provided along most of Shattuck. Increasing the sidewalk width is an interesting idea that Patrick mentioned. "Reviving Urban Retail Districts:" I found this section in Garvin's book to be less helpful that the title would suggest. Garvin argues that what has caused the decline of urban retail areas is the proliferation of suburban shopping malls. People like the convenience of driving and parking to malls, knowing the stores they'll be able to find, and not worrying about their safety. Based on this, Garvin argues that successful revitalization of downtown areas have brought the mall elements to the urban area - including places like Ghiradelli Square, Quincy Market in Boston HarborPlace in Baltimore. I don't think his argument is necessarily persuasive, particularly in the bay area where driving and parking can be such a big inconvenience even in places designed for that. Additionally, I don't think that people in Berkeley really want their downtown to feel like a mall, but they do perhaps want the elements of safety and security that are found in malls but lacking here. I also had a question about the proposed Charles Hotel. Patrick made it seem like the proposed height wasn't the issue in the entitlement process, so I'm wondering what the hang-up is? Is it just a decision about whether or not to give the tax abatement? Or is there more to the rezoning than just changing the current height limit? I'm not sure if you know anything else, but I couldn't find much in a quick search.

Sara Clark