Blueprint

Founded at NYU Schack Institute Of Real Estate

Urban Planning

Keeping The Amazon Green

by 1 Comment

Jeff Bezos’ Amazon has unveiled its plans for a new headquarters located in Northern Virginia. The plans shared show a master planned development unlike anything the United States has seen before both in sustainability and uniqueness. This Amazon campus will host three 22-story office buildings, a retail center, & parking for 950 bicyclers. At the center of the three office buildings will be a 350-foot building known as the Helix given its distinctive design. The Helix will be covered in plants and trees, making it blend into the nature surrounding it.

Not only will the building be covered in greenery but also, people will find plants and trees throughout the insides of all buildings on the campus. A study conducted by Harvard University’s Chan School of Public Health proves that the indoor built environment plays a critical role in the overall well-being of its customers. Through the study, it was found that buildings with more natural light, more plants, and the use of non-toxic / non-VOC systems enhanced worker cognitive function and productivity by 101%. Bezos undoubtedly wants to keep his future Northern Virginia workers happy and healthy for decades to come.

Discussion Question: Will we be seeing more environmentally-friendly master planned developments throughout the United States?

Solving the Skilled Construction Labor Shortage

by 1 Comment

Across the nation, a shortage of skilled construction labor has been a growing issue in the construction and development industries. After the Great Recession led to the layoffs of 1.5 million construction workers, many of these experienced construction workers never returned to the construction workforce. In the following years, the construction industry has not been able to recruit new workers to fill the workforce gap left behind by the Great Recession.  

One of the primary effects of the skilled labor shortage is increased construction costs, which can result in reduced economic growth when proposed development projects no longer pencil.  In San Francisco, the rise in construction costs have contributed to the continuing dearth of new housing supply, which had already been constrained by drawn-out entitlement processes and restrictive zoning laws.  

With education currently undergoing significant change during the pandemic, perhaps we can re-envision a future where trade schools are positioned as strong career options for high school students.

How can industry and the government attract new workers to join the construction trades for a long-term career? 

Rethinking Car Culture

by 1 Comment

When weary soldiers returned home following WWII, Uncle Sam was pleased to extend a welcoming hand. The creation of the Federal Housing Administration and the passing of the G.I. Bill enabled veterans to acquire low-interest mortgages with small down payments. Population growth and the roaring war-tuned manufacturing industry created a huge demand for homeownership as the middle class grew. The Interstate Highway System was built, and the proliferation of zoning laws restricted density and promoted sprawl. Flourishing families in unsanitary and crowded cities saw an opportunity to have more space at a reasonable price – all they needed was means of fleeing to the burgeoning suburbs. The car served as that means of escape from the noise and chaos of public life and gave the freedom of travel to anywhere.

Car culture has been established as dominant through decades of consumer trends and political movements. Now it is inextricably linked to the almighty American sentiment of rugged individualism, in which we operate with a perception of full autonomy and with little regard for our neighbors. Legislation indirectly subsidizing car usage persists today, ensuring that the automobile serves as the primary mode of transportation in the U.S.

First, many costs that should be associated with road usage – such as costs of construction, maintenance, and operation – are instead distributed evenly across the general taxpayer populace. Rather than being based on how often one uses a car, these particular expenses fall equally on both those who are spending eight or more hours driving daily and the more than one-hundred million Americans who do not have a driver’s license. Distributing such road usage costs over all Americans thus acts as a subsidy for cars by reducing the relative cost of automobile ownership.

Next, restrictive zoning limits dense development and necessitates sprawl. When low density is enforced, public transit ridership cannot be as high as it ought to be and becomes impractical. Instead, the resulting wide distances between population hubs and commercial centers makes the car a necessity. In an effort to satisfy perceived demand, zoning has also mandated the creation of massive amounts of parking in our urban areas. Parking comes at the expense of green land, open space, or other more productive uses. Approximately 14% of Los Angeles County’s total land area is currently dedicated to parking. As many as 2 billion parking spots exist for the 250 million cars in the United States.

Additionally, on-street parking is often free to use and reserved exclusively for car usage. Unlike other public services, one does not have to be a resident of a municipality to benefit from such parking. Free parking generates higher demand for private vehicles than would otherwise exist. In short, all these political and regulatory decisions combine to lower the relative costs of car ownership. Households are encouraged to become more dependent on cars, and car-centered planning is thus rationalized.

If the benefits of car culture outweigh the costs, then the subsidies which cars receive would be sensible. Unfortunately, when we choose a car-dominated world, we subject ourselves to several negative side-effects that exceed the benefits of convenience. Traffic and urban sprawl create congested cities, collectively wasting hours and hours of time as we wait. This issue is partly due to private vehicles occupying so much space in comparison with other modes of transportation:

Road use

Suburbanization also leads to a loss of vitality in urban centers. Once bustling downtowns no longer have denizens walking around as people simply get in their car and go all the way from point A to point B. There is a resultant dearth of interaction between diverse groups of people, preventing knowledge sharing, encouraging a stratification of society, and contributing to a feeling of disconnection from one another.

Cars contribute to killing our planet via pollution, non-renewable fuel consumption, and climate change. They are one of the leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Indeed, no public transportation is energy free. But, for instance, a ride with New York City’s MTA emits a tenth of the carbon dioxide that the average trip in a car does. The frequency and carelessness with which we utilize cars is irresponsible to our environment.

Lastly and perhaps most reprehensibly, cars simply hurt us. Indirectly, sedentary lifestyles have contributed to high obesity rates in the United States. Women and men in rural areas are 24% and 33% more likely to be obese than their city-dwelling counterparts, respectively. More directly, over 40,000 traffic deaths occur per year in the U.S. alone, as well as countless injuries.

Thus, I am urging us to reconsider our dependency on cars and to improve our health, safety, and quality of life. Our political leaders can make several changes right now to both benefit Americans and set an example to the rest of the world, as many countries currently seem to be following the American model of heavy car usage as industrialization occurs.

The most immediately apparent solution is greater public transport subsidies. Since public transit is truly public – one does not require a driver’s license to take a bus – it makes more sense to spread the cost of the service to the general taxpayer that it does to spread road costs to the general taxpayer. Rather than being viewed in a lens of profitability, public transportation should be perceived as serving the common interest, akin to public universities or libraries. Additionally, increasing subsidies for public transit is sensible as the fare for users per trip has increased over time relative to income, whereas the relative cost of car usage has decreased.

A second option is revising land use regulation, especially in urban areas, to encourage higher density dwelling, to deemphasize parking space, and to regulate speed more strictly (via speed limits, speed bumps, and extended curbs). Such changes would gradually make urban areas more pedestrian-friendly and make car usage unnecessary. Focusing on pedestrians in development and land use could help realize the ’15-minute city’, an urban planning model where everything that residents need, from housing to venues, stores, offices, and parks, is within 15 minutes on foot.

Simple alternatives exist for cities wanting to reduce congestion. Local authorities can partner with companies such as VIA Transportation, a ride-share service offering demand-responsive carpooling. Government can also promote bike usage by reserving existing car lanes for cyclists only, as Mayor de Blasio has recently done on both the Brooklyn and Queensboro Bridges. Additionally, the rise of autonomous vehicles will serve a great benefit by reducing parking demand, easing congestion, and perhaps discouraging car ownership completely.

Finally, taxes can be implemented that appropriately charge cars for the costs they induce. A carbon tax, applied to gasoline prices, would reduce demand for cars and incentivize alternative energy options. Demand-responsive pricing for parking spots and highways would appropriately tax cars for causing excessive congestion. In 2011, after incorporating demand-responsive pricing in certain areas of San Francisco, the city noticed a rise in sales tax revenue, a reduction in average meter rates, and a 30% decrease in vehicle miles traveled.

A car-dominated future is not guaranteed if policymakers are willing to courageously veer away from car culture. If we build our public policy to emphasize the pedestrian, a greener and safer future is achievable.

About the author: Andrew is a graduate student at NYU SPS Schack Institute of Real Estate. He is pursuing a Master’s in Real Estate and has a background in structural engineering. He is dedicated to improving our built environment and aspires to bring energy and creativity to the New York Real Estate industry.

SOURCES

Response to Growing Demand in Life Sciences

by Leave a Comment

The pandemic has put a spotlight on vaccine research and medical solutions. Investment in biomedical facilities and life sciences are shifting away from more traditional research hubs and created increased demand for lab spaces in a growing number of markets and cities. 

As we see an all-time record of $17.8 billion this year for venture capital investment in U.S. life sciences companies and forecasted growth for NIH funding at major academic centers and health care research, the building industry and cities have an opportunity to maximize the impact of these developments. 

Today’s life sciences developments expanded from single-use facilities to mixed-use ecosystems. Complex challenges around global wellness, climate impact, economic vitality, social justice, and equitability emphasize the purpose of these developments while raising the bar for what we need them to achieve.

As we face challenges brought to the forefront in 2020, life sciences ecosystems have an opportunity to focus on a triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental impact. 

What can developers do to capitalize on demand for these assets while building more inclusive, resilient communities?

Metropolis – New Beginnings

by Leave a Comment

Screen-Shot-2020-11-13-at-1.34.52-AM

In How the ‘15-Minute City’ Could Help Post-Pandemic Recovery, Patrick Sisson provides a high-level overview of the ’15-minute City’ and why the novel Coronavirus pandemic has accelerated this innovative solution. Essentially, back in early February, the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, offered the ‘15-Minute City’ as a component to her campaign as mayor. Through greater accessibility to everyday essentials just a few blocks away within short walking or cycling distance, the ‘15-Minute City’ promotes hyper-proximity as a source of future social and economic models. It envisions main roads unavailable to cars; busy auto-mobile filled streets into walking zones; “children streets” situated by parks, schools, and day-care centers, instead of street parking for cars. Now, in the midst of a global pandemic, the adoption of a ’15-minute City’ in Manhattan seems conceivable. If anything, the design is receiving more attention across borders.

At the onset of the Coronavirus touching down in New York City, life suddenly seemed to move in slow motion. Aside from the essential businesses operating, New Yorkers faced an uncomfortable quietness. Although essential businesses remained open, citizens struggled to secure their proper needs; for instance, medication from their faraway pharmacy. Due to the spread of Coronavirus in poorly filtered, condensed areas, citizens hesitated to catch public transportation, leading them to go without their treatment. As a problem centers stage, a solution begins to creep in. Welcome to the ’15-Minute City.’

In reference to the proposed example, by implementing a ’15-Minute City,’ people will be able to access their neighborhood’s pharmacy. Not only will a ’15-Minute City’ provide citizens the convenience to essentials like pharmacy, day-care and education, but will also improve “their shopping, work, recreation and cultural needs within a 15-minute walk.” Furthermore, creating an environment for neighbors to walk to their destined location will minimize pollutants in the air and add benefits to their physical, mental, and emotional health. Conversely, as touched on in the article, “It’s not just a matter of adding lanes and wider sidewalks. There are lots of arterial roads there and, without real political trade-offs from the local officials… it won’t ever be truly walkable.” Similarly, the mantra could charge inequalities across the city. As a segregated space through its economic, housing and schooling opportunities, New York City could become greater segmented and divided through the concentration of people’s wants and needs. As with any innovative solution, setbacks deem inevitable; nevertheless, if New Yorkers coalesce and cooperate over a common goal, urban reform will transpire.

With the invisible force looming the world, we recognize the need for visible change across metropolises. Similarly, the densely populated city of New York faced early struggles head-on. The resilience shown from New Yorkers these past nine months sets the foundation for positive change in the city. Senator Andrew Cuomo said it best: “We’re going to get through it because… we are united, and when you are united, there is nothing you can’t do.”

Advocating for a Better Planning Process

by Leave a Comment

Industry City was the biggest clash over development since Amazon HQ2. Business and development leaders believe the policies and politics of NYC land use planning are failing us. If we want to build toward a better future, we need to reevaluate the systems that allow for a change in NYC – that means diving into the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP).

ULURP is triggered when a developer or the City wants to modify existing zoning. The 215-day process gathers community input and allows time for response and engagement. Oftentimes, it is framed as a zero-sum game between the developer and the community, which ends up being harmful to political discourse and inhibits necessary and appropriate development.

NYC’s need for bold, visionary urban-scale action requires a big change and Envelope proposes a solution in this blog post. The proposal includes plans that would provide quantifiable goals for our urban policymakers through multiple administrations, and a process for interim review and update, progress reporting, and public accountability.

What should be done to influence more flexible and responsive rezoning?