Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Steve Gunn and Kevin Schuda some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Homeless youth and public space: Is there a design for that?

The transformation of the U District by Sound Transit poses a challenge for planners.
Activist Corey Crocker wants parklets included in the U District makeover. Credit: Allyce Andrew

Activist Corey Crocker wants parklets included in the U District makeover. Credit: Allyce Andrew Credit: Allyce Andrew

The coming boom spurred by a new Sound Transit light rail station and a possible rezone of the University District for transit-oriented development poses some interesting challenges. Here's one: With density and possible gentrification in the offing, can inclusive public spaces such as parks and plazas be part of the plans? Or will efforts to include public space be derailed by the mad desire for density and worries about abetting the District’s homeless youth population?

One much-discussed concept to add open space is the U District Square proposal. A group of architects and university residents wants to close off Brooklyn Ave. at the new light rail station and turn it into a public plaza. Their concept drawings show a two-block stretch alongside University Tower (and between 45th NE and 43rd NE) that would be closed to most traffic and host a variety of community-building activities, including the neighborhood's farmer's market. The space would feature trees, benches and an area for outdoor concerts or films. Some of the plaza would be taken up by the large entrances to the underground station, but the plan's proponents say these surface eyesores could be incorporated into their concept.

Brooklyn has already been declared a city Green Street. As it is, the street sees a lot of bike commuters. Cory Crocker, president of U District Advocates, sees the U District Square as a potential catalyst for community. Crocker is a web designer who got his master's degree in arhcitecture from the UW. Advocates like him are all for density, but the coming tidal wave of growth adds urgency, they say, to the need for a centrally located, active civic open space in the heart of the District. A "heart" is what the late Philip Thiel, longtime UW architecture professor and advocate of the square, always said the U District needed.

Crocker's group is also involved with a proposed a parklet for 43rd Street between the Ave and Brooklyn. That segment has been closed-off for station construction. The parklet would fulfill two important urban functions: It would boost business to the adjacent restaurants and shops by drawing people to an attractive open spot on the street, and it would serve as a kind of test for the more ambitious square idea. The parklet is part of the Seattle Department of Transportation’s parklet pilot program. According to Crocker, there has already been pushback from locals who fear the small park will become "overrun"  by the homeless.

The U District has wrestled with its public streets and walkways for decades. The Ave. underwent a major re-do in the late 1990s which widened its sidewalks and greened the street, and proposals for improving and urbanizing the neighborhood go way back. The advent of University Village in the 1950s alarmed the District's business community, which feared that the new retail hub would siphon the life out of it. UW architect and urban activist Victor Steinbruek proposed turning the Ave. into a semi-covered pedestrian mall and putting a neighborhood farmer’s market there — in 1955. U Village, which has undergone dramatic expansion in recent years, offers an upscale, car-centric shopping experience, in counterpoint to the District’s more urban Ave. Some believe that the success of U Village has only exacerbated the commercial district’s economic and social challenges.


The late Victor Steinbrueck imagined University Ave. as a bustling pedestrian mall. Credit: Victor Steinbrueck

From the standpoint of designing any urban open space, the stance toward the homeless population tends to be defensive, to say the least. Many park designs are downright hostile: unsittable seats, fences, hard surfaces, security cameras. Recently, a colleague sketched for me a new downtown development which will include a corner park or plaza next to new high-rises. Another man who lives near the proposed development looked at the napkin doodle and said: "Great. How do you keep the homeless out?"


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, May 28, 8:27 a.m. Inappropriate

There should be safe, comfortable, welcoming places for all members of a community to gather, from office workers to students to homeless people. I think that it is important to really think about why there is such resistance to providing space for homeless people to congregate, though. What is it that the employed, the students and the property owners are worried about? Is it homelessness itself, or is it some of the behaviors and activities associated with it?

How do you design a public space where all users feel comfortable using it? How do you make sure that the people coming out for lunch on a sunny day have a place to sit and enjoy the weather? How do you make sure that the environment is clean? How do you keep all of the members of the community, including the homeless, keep from feeling harassed while they are peacefully enjoying the space? An office worker or student should be able to enjoy the park without being asked for money, and a homeless person should be able to enjoy it without being told to move along by security or the police just because they are loitering.

There is room for everyone to enjoy the city's public spaces, but only if we respect each other's ability to peacefully enjoy it.

talisker

Posted Wed, May 28, 8:47 a.m. Inappropriate

The problem I see is that the proposed benefits of changes being made to the U District will benefit only those who live there, because it's already difficult to get there by car and super expensive to park if a spot can be found (unless shopping at U Bookstore, but then a purchase or payment is required). This appears to be the plan throughout the city; if you live in X neighborhood you may or may not reap some benefits, but it's going to be hard to leave the neighborhood to visit another because of traffic on the way (despite all the fabulous transit and trains and bike lanes, which it appears people are fonder of in theory than in practice) and no or absurdly expensive parking on arrival. Kind of Balkanizing the city into enclaves that may or may not be attractive to those who can afford to live there but which figuratively tell everyone else "Stay out."

Also notable is that both parts of this article appear to assume that youth and others will continue to remain homeless. I think that's probably accurate, but what about all the taxes we've paid and are paying to end homelessness by ___you add the year? Perhaps the developers can be forced to pay for or build at no public expense a colony of units for the homeless as part of the requirements for getting permits to build the towers of rat warrens they plan to create. That would conveniently house the homeless and remove them from these fabulous new neighborhoods where everyone will want to live and bike and walk and take trains...

OK, I'm going to reel myself in. The point is that we are breaking Seattle into little islands that are difficult to visit -- and after they're built out, maybe we won't want to, anyway -- without a detectable plan for some kind of overall coherence. That's common in places like NYC and LA, but I've liked Seattle for skipping that piece of things and being someplace where we can enjoy a lot of different kinds of people and places within easy reach and easy travel. That's almost gone. I was in the U District in January and probably won't go back as it was miserable to drive through and unpleasant to be in. And just when I thought I was going to get out relatively easy I ran into the street closure on 43rd between the Ave and Brooklyn. I used to enjoy an afternoon strolling around and poking into unique businesses there; I regret it's no longer possible.

mspat

Posted Wed, May 28, 11:48 a.m. Inappropriate

But those little islands are integral to the idea of reducing SOV traffic in the city. If a neighborhood resident has everything they need in their neighborhood then they don't have much reason to go to another for pretty much the same services. Reducing the ease of going somewhere and finding parking helps to get cars off the road, making more room for buses, bikes and pedestrians. The city's stated goal is to reduce traffic lanes and parking to discourage SOV use. One of the ways that they can do that is to promote development in neighborhoods that reduces the desire to travel to others.

I'm only being a little sarcastic.

talisker

Posted Wed, May 28, 10 p.m. Inappropriate

" I'm only being a little sarcastic."

Assuming that is the case, how about explaining this to me: globally smart NYC is rapidly replacing the neighborhood gems "that reduce the desire to travel to others" with chains and FroYos — a new heartbreaker posted just about any day here: http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.com/

So, how is it that NYC emulating Seattle thinks any TOD capable of sprouting a single neighborhood gem, let alone a "complete community" of them? Two trains passing in the night?

afreeman

Posted Wed, May 28, 9:56 p.m. Inappropriate

Everyone from homeless youth to gentrifying residents would benefit from improved and proactive policing of the U District. I am sick of walking down the Ave and neighboring streets north of 45th and viewing police officers sitting on their butts in their squad cars doodling on their computers while at the same time in plain view there are good-for-nothings (not homeless youth but twenty-somethings) offering me drugs and taking drugs. The idea that improved Urban design would somehow make up for our inept city government and lack of collective willpower is ridiculous. I avoid the U District not because of its homeless youth but because it is an unpleasant place to be in the day and dangerous at night. Why do we need a Light Rail station or a urban plaza to fix that?

WSDW

Posted Thu, May 29, 9:08 a.m. Inappropriate

And how could a train station or an urban plaza fix it? I can't think of any realistic answer to that, either. The truth is that neither will fix the issues in the U District. As with other areas, at best/worst it will push the homeless youth and others neighbors deem "undesirable" out to another area until the tenements and trains reach them again.

mspat

Posted Thu, May 29, 10:44 p.m. Inappropriate

I say: Look at Harvard Square. Whenever I return to my city-of-origin I invariably find a path to spend some time walking there. It's home to Harvard, and is also teeming with every sort of person. There is every language spoken, there are rich and poor, and always both wealthy and homeless youth mingling together, sharing the public spaces. It's gritty still, and ruled by jaywalkers (which is I think why Boston was rated the safest city for pedestrians in the US this year), and its buildings are old, new and evolving rather than planned, pristine and uniform.

Part of the success is the confluence of transit and pedestrian attractions there; part is the careful attention (generations ago) to providing fantastic public spaces. Part is the maze of old, historic buildings and streets, and I'm guessing there also needs to be a horde of social service workers tending to the homeless and mentally ill. But overall it's a story of gentrification that's remained tolerant of the gritty city underneath. It keeps me coming back in a way the U District doesn't - but could.

Posted Fri, May 30, 7:49 a.m. Inappropriate

As to closing off two long blocks to cars, as proposed, where does it work? Anywhere some except extremely high density areas.
It's a theory which has failed. (The theory is that people are repelled by slow-moving vehicles and attracted to empty spaces.)

Think empirically. Forget theory. Where has it worked?

There are very very few places where closing streets to cars has actually worked.
There are some but few; many attempts have been - no pun - rolled back.

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »