St. Lawrence and Crosbie ParkDylan Reid in his most recent NOW Magazine's article "Car-free Streets may drive out the Poor" describes a process where "pedestrian-oriented street projects promot[e] gentrification, a consequence of foot-friendly zones being almost too successful."
At a session about making the economic case for walking, Adrian Bell of England's Transport for London notes that pedestrian-friendly streets reliably increase property values and rents on shopping streets. The argument is an important one to make to property owners worried about change, but it's a problem for those concerned about maintaining affordable housing and preserving established communities.
Even Shamez Amlani, one of the organizers of Kensington Market's Pedestrian Sundays, admits at a pre-conference workshop that he no longer favours a permanent pedestrian-only zone in the Market, for fear that it would become no more than a hollow tourist attraction.
This particular argument was raised at the recent Walk21 Conference in Toronto. I think it's worthwhile for a moment tackle this argument in support of people like myself who are pushing for pedestrian and bike friendly streets. If someone argues that we shouldn't put in bike lanes or car-free streets because it will exclude the poor you can take their logic to the extreme, much as I do below. (I don't want to make it seem that this is actually Dylan's argument, which isn't clear from the article)
It's a largely pointless argument. In its essence it means any improvement to our neighbourhoods is actually detrimental to the poor because it raises property values and drives the poor out to more affordable, if car-centric, neighbourhoods. Trees, water fountains, narrow streets, working electricity and running water - all of these "amenities" raise property values. The reverse is also true: by making streets more miserable and choked full of cars, stinking garbage and full of potholes, streets become more affordable for the poor.
I'm not sure where urban planners got the idea that they alone had the power to create affordable communities! It seems that co-operative and affordable housing have been largely forgotten. Why can't planners build pedestrian and bike friendly cities and also encourage a healthy profusion of housing co-operatives and public housing? The St. Lawrence Market community is a fine case in point: it is a livable, beautiful streetscape and still eminently affordable simply because there's a mix of co-operatives, public housing and at-market housing (read this interesting report on the St. Lawrence (pdf)).
Things may come to pass that they only way we can have our cake and eat it to is if there is a substantial move away from speculative property values and towards building healthy communities.
Comments
Dr. Steph
Moot point
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 16:25I think that the urban spaces (Market area aside) where people are more likely to cycle/walk/ttc are mostly already too expensive for the poor who have to travel farther to work and may be less likely to walk/cycle. Any of these people check out the affordable housing options in Toronto lately? While I know there is evidence against the suburbs being cheaper (if you consider car use for commuting along with house prices) homes are less expensive outside the core of the city. Rents too.
It's a red herring and like you, I don't like the tone it's setting. Or the idea that we shouldn't work towards better cities for everyone which includes less focus on roads AND more focus on mixed income communities.
Charles S. (not verified)
This is silly. If the
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 18:30This is silly. If the market is going to become a gentrified tourist attraction, it will happen whether or not they pedestrianize it. It's close to employment centres and transit and has a special urban fabric that is unique in Toronto. That is what creates rising property values, not the placement of a few bollards to block traffic.
The specific danger in pedestrianization simply lies in making it more difficult for the businesses there to operate due to lack of access. I suspect the market streets would do quite well as a woonerf, where cars and trucks are permitted but barely tolerated (erase the distinction between street and sidewalk, replace the asphalt and concrete with pavers, add barriers in the street that interrupt the flow of traffic but can be negotiated), rather than an exclusive ped zone. It practically works that way now anyway.
Dylan Reid (not verified)
Clarification
Thu, 10/18/2007 - 21:23I don't think the headline given to my NOW article fully captured what I was discussing, so it's good to have an opportunity to clarify where I was coming from.
I am very much in favour of initiatives to make streets more pedestrian and cycling friendly. The article was intended to bring attention to some of the ways this could be done, including shared streets concepts.
But I also wanted to bring to the fore some of the concerns I heard expressed at the conference about pedestrian initiatives. I do think that, if done in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, there is a danger that pedestrianization initiatives can accelerate gentrification - especially if they are focused on limited retail districts. But there are lots of ways to avoid this danger. In the last three paragraphs of my article I talk about one of these solutions - distributing pedestrian initiatives across the city. If several different parts of the city are given pedestrian makeovers (of whatever kind), then it is no longer something "special" that singles a particular area out for special value. Ideally, eventually pedestrian-oriented streets will be routine.
Herb mentions another viable solution, which is to make sure that there are varied kinds of residential accommodations in place before or as part of the pedestrian work. I think, too, that such a solution should include mixed forms of commercial property - for example, co-op or non-profit commercial properties aimed at community organizations.
The point is that the gentrification concern is something to bear in mind, but that there are lots of different ways to take care of it while still creating walking and cycling-friendly streets.