What to do with empty lots?

I caught an article in the San Francisco Chronicle today that I thought was interesting. The article asks the question, “What can we do with all the empty lots around town where big developments have been canceled?”

At least a dozen large development sites in the city’s South of Market district now sit empty or covered by asphalt because of the recession. If history is any guide, developers will either leave them fenced off or use them as parking lots.

But there’s another alternative – one that, if successful, could influence cities across the nation.

With ingenuity and a modest investment, San Francisco could breathe life into these voids until the demand for development returns. Some could be landscaped with fast-growing trees and shrubs that offer environmental benefits. Others could display art or offer casual spots for social interaction.

There are no clear models to follow: Any initiative must be acceptable to landowners, with details worked out in advance regarding such issues as maintenance and security. Done well, though, the payoff could far exceed the cost – creating short-term showcases rather than blight that drags its neighbors down.

This is an interesting idea, one that I like a lot. There are certainly areas in Houston where we have this exact situation: in Midtown there are a number of prime locations that are practically begging to be turned into a park, not least of which is the infamous “Super Block“.

The article suggests that a number of cities have experimented with different approaches…

In other cities, you’ll find more novel efforts to fill in the blanks.

– In New York, sculpture exhibitions may adorn a large downtown site. The concept is the brainchild of owner Trinity Real Estate and the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, though details are still being worked out.

– In Miami, elected Commissioner Marc Sarnoff has offered developers a deal: The city will rent empty sites at $1 a year to create temporary parks. The developers would help fund the landscaping, but their entitlements would remain for the life of the lease.

– After the recession stalled a hotel one block from Seattle’s Pike Place Market, developer Urban Visions let food vendors use a portion of the parking lot to serve up barbecued pork in May.

“This is a horizontal canvas we’re playing with,” said Urban Visions’ Greg Smith. “Someday the highest and best use of this corner is a more urban development. In the meantime, this is a way to bring energy and life without a 20-year investment.”

This is a really interesting concept, but I see two major obstacles.

First, I would suspect that most developers would be wary of entering into this kind of agreement, even with the City footing the bill. The reason is simple: once the public has the idea that a lot is a park, they’re going to raise hell when the market recovers and the developer wants to move forward with construction. This is already a major problem, even for developers whose vacant lots are barely maintained. People tend to be very averse to change, and tend to be emotionally invested in any large open space near their residence. They see it as a soccer field, or the future neighborhood pool, or whatever – and they become emotionally invested in that idea. Unfortunately neighborhoods are rarely willing to financially invest in their emotional attachments, they want  someone else (the city or the developer) to do that for them.

So there’s a huge risk to a developer if he allows the city to use a vacant lot as a ‘temporary’ park that it will in fact end up being a permanent park.

Second, and this is the more important issue, small parks are condition multipliers. This means that whatever the strengths or weaknesses a neighborhood possesses currently will be magnified by the presence of a park. In a good neighborhood the park becomes a cherished gathering place. In a struggling neighborhood the park can become a loitering space for vagrants and criminals. The city would have to be careful not to accept this type of arrangement casually. An over-abundance of “park space” in an underdeveloped area could be an even greater magnet for crime than vacant lots with fences surrounding them.

The design of the park also helps determine what it’s neighborhood impact will be, but if the park isn’t large enough to generate critical mass then it will not be able to shift from a condition multiplier to a radiant attractant.

The conclusion? I think there’s merit to the idea of using vacant lots for temporary public space in limited circumstances.

In particular I think the opportunity exists for the city to identify (or for developers to suggest) locations that would make sense for a long term park or public space in addition to a future development. The super-block is a perfect example of this kind of site: an area large enough that it could hold both a great park and a huge development. Smaller “pocket parks” could work in a number of a places as well.

The challenge would be to somehow keep it clear during the entire lifespan of the project what portions of the site are going to remain as a park or plaza and what portions are going to be redeveloped in the future. It’s important to prevent the neighborhood from getting emotionally invested in the entire property as a park. Developers would also need to know that they already had the entitelements necessary to build whatever it is they have in mind for the future before they enter into any kind of agreement to let the public make use of their site.

Like most things in life, the important thing here is discretion and moderation.

So, is there a vacant lot’s begging for a new temporary use near you? Leave your comments and let us know!