The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion

nal on n

ore

The Arsenal of Exclusion & Inclusion Tobias Armborst, Daniel D'Oca, Georgeen Theodore written and edited with Riley Gold

With contributions by: Baye Adofo-Wilson Robert Beauregard Julie Behrens Bill Bishop Andrew D. Blechman Lisa Brawley Marshall Brown The Center for Urban Pedagogy Jana Cephas Charles Connerly N. D. B. Connolly Margaret Crawford Gabrielle Esperdy Yael Friedman David M. P. Freund Gerald Frug James Giresi Toni Griffin V. Elaine Gross Jeff Goldenson Adam Gordon Marta Gutman Nikole Hannah-Jones Chester Hartman Joseph Heathcott Sonia A. Hirt Vincent James Jeffrey Johnson Andrew W. Kahrl John Kaliski Nicholas Korody Sharon Perlman Krefetz Kaja Kßhl Michael Kubo Naa Oyo A. Kwate Matthew Lassiter Tobias Armborst Amy Lavine Daniel D’Oca Cynthia Lee James W. Loewen Georgeen Theodore The Los Angeles Urban Rangers Oksana Mironova Miodrag Mitrasinovic Gabriella Modan Raymond A. Mohl W. Edward Orser Ellen Pader Sharon Perlman Krefetz A. E. Peterson Antero Pietila Michael Piper Albert Pope Wendy Plotkin Quilian Riano Damon Rich Brian Ripel James Rojas Richard Rothstein David Rusk Beryl Satter Susanna F. Schaller Susanne Schindler Anthony (Tony) Schuman Theresa Schwarz Susan M. Schweik Lisa Selin Davis Gregory D. Squires Lior Jacob Strahilevitz Takako Tajima Meredith TenHoor William J. TenHoor Tom Vanderbilt Stephen Walker Rosten Woo Jennifer Yoos Andy Yan

SIGNS OF THE TIMES

BY INTERBORO

In the storefront window of an otherwise unremarkable real estate office a few blocks from our office in Downtown Brooklyn, one can witness—amid the clutter of posters advertising eye-poppingly-priced triple-mint brownstones, full-service starters, Newswalk duplexes, and other “picturesque Park Slope gems”—the display shown on the previous page.

Here are two ubiquitous signs making two very different—if not contradictory—statements about urban space and how people should use it. The sign on the right, which advertises the real estate office’s compliance with the Fair Housing Act’s mandate that it not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, is the open housing movement’s most prominent emblem— its presence in real estate offices, lending institutions, and apartment buildings across the country the spoil of a patient, hard-fought victory in the ongoing struggle to make more communities more accessible to more people.

The smaller sign on the left is a prominent emblem earned by the agents of another struggle, namely the struggle to limit your constitutional right to assemble. Quite contrary to the sign on the right, the sign on the left marks an attempt to make a space less accessible.

The “equal housing opportunity” sign is serious business (see: Fair Housing Act). It represents a policy that in turn represents a national housing strategy that regulates housing everywhere in the U.S. The “No Loitering” Sign doesn’t really represent a policy at all: while most municipalities have loitering ordinances that vaguely prohibit, for example, “remain[ing] in any one place with no apparent purpose,” “No Loitering” Signs don’t designate officially recognized “No Loitering” zones, even when they proclaim, presumably in an effort to sound more official, how many feet from the sign one can’t loiter. Posting an “equal housing opportunity” sign is required by law: failure to display it prominently is evidence of a discriminatory housing practice and can result in a lawsuit. Posting a “No Loitering” Sign is at best a guerilla tactic—an attempt to regulate a space that isn’t necessarily the sign poster’s to regulate. 1

1. This is one reason why “No Loitering” signs come in all shapes and sizes. Handmade versions are fairly common, but the less artistically inclined can order one from compliancesigns. com, where there are 81 varieties to choose from. “Equal housing opportunity” signs, on the other hand, come in exactly one size: its parameters are rigidly spelled out by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which insists that it be 11 inches by 14 inches and that it contain some version of the logo and the accompanying text in all caps.

Introduction 009

HISTORY AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book began in 2008, when we were asked by Kees Christiaanse to curate the American wing of the 2009 International Architecture Biennale Rotterdam, which was called Open City: Designing Coexistence. According to Christiaanse, “open city” refers to efforts by architects and urban designers to translate the ideals of an “open society”—a society with a tolerant and inclusive government, where diverse groups develop flexible mechanisms for resolving inevitable differences— into physical spaces. It refers to places where people of different backgrounds can coexist, where interaction leads to cultural enrichment and innovation, and where the market flourishes.1 Christiaanse asked us to basically take the pulse of the open city in the United States. To what extent do cities in the U.S. exhibit the qualities described in the above quote? Where do people of different backgrounds coexist and interact? To what extent are the values of tolerance and diversity evidenced in our built environment? Almost immediately, we started compiling a list of policies that promote or undermine peoples’ ability to coexist in the United States. Towards this, we talked to our colleagues in the fields of architecture, urban planning, and urban studies and anyone else who was willing to talk to us about exclusion

1. [] Rieniets, Tim, Jennifer Sigler, and Kees Christiaanse. Open City: Designing Coexistence.

Amsterdam: SUN, 2009.

and inclusion. We combed through our urban history books, immersed ourselves in journals like Poverty & Race Research Action Council’s Poverty & Race, and started scrutinizing court transcripts from important fair housing cases like Thompson v.

HUD. We also reflected on our past experiences. Thinking back to our respective childhoods, for example, we recalled the teen curfews, loitering ordinances, and other things that made us feel unwelcome in our own towns and undermined our ability to coexist with our adult peers. Perhaps most importantly, we started to pay a lot of attention to the world around us in a new way. In 2009 we taught seminars and studios about open cities at the Maryland Institute College of Art, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Vassar College.

Within a year or so, we had accumulated short texts, photographs, and drawings about 101 weapons of exclusion and inclusion. For the Biennale installation, which opened at the Netherlands Architecture Institute in the fall of 2009, we presented this information as a Leporello-style, A–Z book (designed by Luke Bulman and Jessica Young of Thumb Projects), laid out on a library shelf with variably sized images mounted on a separate shelf above.

Not long after the exhibition, we decided to expand and improve the content we had developed and produce it as a book. The process of identifying weapons through conversations, research, and teaching continued. As with the exhibition, we identified most of the weapons and either wrote the entries ourselves or invited experts to write them. Aside from providing a few basic parameters about what to include in a text and how long the text should be, we didn’t burden our authors with too many restrictions. Once the texts were written, we supplemented them with photographs, maps, and drawings, often with the assistance of the authors.

A lot of people have worked on this book over the years.

First on our list is our project manager Riley Gold, without whom this book would be somewhat slimmer. Riley, a former student who we brought in to help finish the book, ended up becoming a key contributor. Riley was first of all quick to identify a number of blind spots in the book; he pushed us to broaden our definition of exclusion, and in so doing, expand our table of contents. Even more significantly, Riley proved to be a History and Acknowledgments 021

great writing partner: almost all of the entries that were written

by Interboro were written with Riley, as were the short editorial texts that precede each entry and the bonus content that appears alongside many of the entries. Riley was also instrumental in managing our communications with the authors and was often the point person between us and our editors. This is to say nothing of the small, seemingly unimportant—but ultimately essential—tasks of tracking down photo credits, image rights, bibliographies, bios, and a host of other book ingredients.

In addition to Riley, we would like to thank our many employees and interns who contributed to the book in one way or another. We have been extremely lucky to have worked with such a talented group of architects, planners, artists, and writers over the years: Lynley Bernstein, Dare Brawley, Charlene Chai, Matthew Clark, Azzurra Cox, James Estrada, Michaela Friedberg, Alberto Gonzalez Ruiz, Jihwan Han, Carlos Ignacio Hernández, David Himelman, George Hewitt, Katherine Isidro, Nicholas Korody, Urs Kumberger, Matthew Lohry, Rachael London, Ondine Masson, Noah Michelon, Eka Pramuditha, Hilla Rudanko, E. Talbot Schmidt, Eric Schwartau, Samu Szemerey, Rafael Soldi, Kathryn Sonnabend, Pedro Torres Garcia-Canto, Arielle Wiener-Bronner, and Margaret Zyro.

We would especially like to thank our amazing former associate Rebecca Beyer Winik, who made invaluable contributions to the book over several years.

We also owe a huge gratitude to the four academic institutions in which we have taught while working on this book: the Harvard Graduate School of Design, Maryland Institute College of Art, New Jersey Institute of Technology, and Vassar College. We’re grateful for their generous support. We’re also grateful for the amazing students we have had the pleasure of teaching over the years. Our students continually challenge and inspire us, and we have learned as much from them as we hope they have learned from us.

One day, following a lecture we gave about the project, a student who happened to be blind approached us and told us that the book didn’t seem to take her experience into account. Among the things that make me welcome in a city, she said, are things like Audible Pedestrian Signals and Detectable Warning Signals: Where are they in this book that is supposed to be about 022 History and Acknowledgments

inclusion? The more we spoke publicly about the project, the more common these kinds of encounters became. What about longer pedestrian crossing times at intersections for senior citizens? What about changing tables in bathrooms for parents?

What about public bathrooms for the incontinent? How could you not include the Chinese Exclusion Act? How could you not account for the systematic slaughter of the Native American population? Indeed, this book would be a lot thinner were it not for the countless hereby unnamed individuals who were kind enough to make suggestions like these.

Towards that, we would like to thank all of the institutions that invited us to lecture about the book, a list that includes ACSA, AIA Baltimore, Academy of Architecture Amsterdam, American Institute of Architects New York, American Institute of Architects Newark, Architectural League, The Berlage Center at TU Delft, Center for Architecture, City College of New York, Columbia University, Cornell University, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Ghent University, Goethe Institute New York, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Kobe University, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Maryland Institute College of Art, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Münster School of Architecture, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Ohio State University, Parsons The New School for Design, Public Architecture, Rice Design Alliance, Storefront for Art and Architecture, Studio-X, Swiss Architecture Museum Basel, Syracuse University, Technische Universität Berlin, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University El Paso, The National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University, The School of Visual Arts, UC Berkeley, University at Buffalo, University of British Columbia Vancouver, University of Cincinnati, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Oregon, University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas at San Antonio, University of Toronto, University of Waterloo, Universität Kassel, Vassar College, Washington University in St. Louis, Yale School of Architecture, and Van Alen Institute.

We would also like to thank all of the journals and magazines that invited us to publish excerpts of the book over the years. This list includes Cabinet, Esquire Magazine, Harvard Design Magazine, Infinite Mile, MAS Context, Metropolis, Mole Magazine, Places Journal, Policy People, and Urban Omnibus.

Thanks also to the podcast 99% Invisible, which featured the Arsenal back in 2012.

History and Acknowledgments 023

Accessory Dwelling Unit 6

TAKAKO TAJIMA

An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a dwelling unit that is accessory to a primary dwelling unit or units on the same lot. Also referred to as a second unit, a “granny flat,” or a “mother-in-law apartment,” an ADU is often a rentable unit in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence created either anew or through the conversion of an existing accessory structure such as a garage.

As Takako Tajima writes here, accessory dwelling units have the potential to increase the availability of affordable units in affluent neighborhoods, thereby making the broad spectrum of services and conditions characteristic of these communities (good schools, good hospitals, low crime, clean air, etc.) more accessible. ADUs are also popular with suburban seniors, who may wish to age in their community but who may need to downsize from a traditional single-family house.

In the Arsenal, you can find a number of housing typologies that make cities more affordable, including small apartments (see: Apartment Size), cottages (see: Cottage Zoning), and Single-Room Occupancies.

ADUs were commonplace in America’s pre-war, inner-ring suburbs. However, as the country rapidly suburbanized in the post-war era (see: Freeway), newly developed communities began to exclude ADUs, perhaps in response to perceived demand for low-density, single-family homes marketed toward nuclear families. In recent decades, some of these communities have started to reconsider the prohibitions on ADUs as they have run out of developable land and face housing shortages. In this context, certain municipalities have developed programs to legalize and increase the numbers of ADUs.

ADUs are championed as a tool to alleviate housing shortages and to provide rental units in areas that are otherwise devoid of affordable options. Those opposed to the legalization of existing ADUs and to the creation of new ones

An accessory dwelling unit, or “a mother-in-law apartment” (Courtesy of Portland Bureau of Development Services) 028 Accessory Dwelling Unit

Voices from the Battlefield: “If ADUs were to be code approved, what do the owners do when Granny or the Motherin-law are no longer with us?

Considering the investment involved, the obvious conclusion is that the ADU will become rental property and we do not need or want that in St. Anthony Park on our 50 foot lots.”

– Roland Gerjejansen, writing to the St. Anthony Park Community Council in opposition to ADU-friendly rezoning within St. Paul, Minnesota

“St. Anthony Park is a family-oriented community with homeowners who have invested considerable time and money into this community having chosen to live in one of the last green spaces in St. Paul. They are not willing to experience losing on their real estate investment when additional rental units are

cite the potential burden consequent population increases may cause on existing infrastructure such as roads, schools, and utilities. Owners and occupants of single-family homes may also perceive ADU renters as transients who threaten to disrupt the status quo.

built with more problems created by crowded schools, on-street parking, etc.”

– Anonymous resident of St. Anthony Park in St. Paul, Minnesota

While ADU ordinances and programs have been instituted around the country, California became a hotbed of ADU battles following the 2002 passage of Assembly Bill 1866 (AB 1866). Although California legislature had already codified a law in 1982 to encourage the creation of ADUs in an effort to alleviate the state’s severe housing shortage, AB 1866 amended the law to prevent municipalities from banning outright the creation of ADUs in single-family and multi-family residential areas and to improve the predictability of the ADU application process. With the passage of AB 1866, local jurisdictions without ordinances that govern the creation of ADUs or with ordinances not in compliance with the amended legislation were suddenly required to consider applications for ADUs utilizing the state standards set forth in the same bill. AB 1866 also requires the application of accessory dwelling units to be considered ministerially and not be subject to discretionary review.

Following the passage of AB 1866, many local jurisdictions throughout California enacted ordinances that set standards for ADUs. Some ordinances are less restrictive than others and allow for more inclusion of ADUs, while others are highly restrictive and promote the exclusion of ADUs.

“Imagine that you are sitting out on your deck or patio, only now, instead of enjoying a view of a neighbor’s garden, you find yourself looking directly into the windows of a granny flat.

That’s something you never imagined when you bought your house, and when the time comes to put your house on the market, that will not be a strong selling point.”

– Fred Foster of St. Anthony Park in St. Paul, Minnesota, writing to his neighbors in opposition of ADU-friendly rezoning

For Further Reading

· Assem. Bill 1866, 2002 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2002). ftp://www.

leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1866_ bill_20020131_introduced.html. · City of Santa Cruz. “Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Program.” Accessed June 2015. http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/ departments/planning-and-community-development/programs/ accessory-dwelling-unit-development-program. · City of Santa Cruz. Accessory Dwelling Unit Manual. 2003, Accessed June 2015. http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/ showdocument?id=8875. · Crawford, Margaret, John Chase, and John Kaliski. Everyday Urbanism. New York: Monacelli Press, 2008. · Lubell, Jeffrey. “Zoning to Expand Affordable Housing.” Zoning Practice. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2006. · Lydon Mike, et al. Tactical Urbanism. Miami: The Street Plans Collaborative, 2012. http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/ docs/tactical_urbanism_vol_2_final.

“[Permitting ADUs] would be making these houses into boarding houses... It wouldn’t be a suburb anymore. It would be urban.”

– Victoria Kleinschmidt, resident of North Hempstead, New York, on new law allowing homeowners to rent out apartments to tenants unrelated by blood

“It’s a win-win because there are a lot of seniors unable to pay their property taxes. By having a legal renter in the home, it provides more income and more affordable housing… [But there] are so many class and race issues, and people fear that their property value will go down.”

– Lisa Tyson, Director of the Long Island Progressive Coalition, discussing the benefits of, and hostility to, ADUs on Long Island, New York Accessory Dwelling Unit 029

(Courtesy of Tim Davis) 36

Aging Improvement District

Americans with Disabilities Act 6

INTERBORO

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, defined as “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.”1 It addresses discrimination in the realms of employment, telecommunications, public services, and physical access to spaces of public accommodation. The latter includes sites of lodging, commerce, recreation, education, transportation, public gatherings, and public display and collection.

By necessitating the physical accessibility of an expansive range of spaces, the ADA has exerted tremendous influence on the production of the built environment.

New structures and modes of transportation must adhere to its codes, and those structures and modes of transportation that predate 1990 require alterations “to the maximum extent feasible” so as to be “readily accessible to and usable by” persons with disabilities. Failure to comply leaves property owners vulnerable to occasional investigations by the Department of Justice and, most threateningly, private lawsuits. These pressures have catalyzed the development and installation of numerous inclusionary design tools, many of which are catalogued in this book.

As author and disability rights activist Doris Zames Fleischer asserts, disability is “the one ‘ism’ that everyone will probably, at some point in their lives, join.”1 Stated differently, the vast majority of non-disabled people will, with age or by chance, be affected by a physical and/or mental disability in their lifetime. Thus, reducing the material and social barriers that limit life opportunities for individuals with disabilities is something that everyone has a stake in.

Additionally, ADA requirements can enhance the built environment for non-disabled people as well, e.g., elevators for parents with strollers or wide automatic doors for anyone carrying large objects.

Of course, not every architect is able to respond to ADA standards with designs that do so. More often than not, buildings are simply brought up to code—usually by rehashing the same old forms. The resulting unimaginative spaces are symptomatic of an antiquated, ableist approach to architecture, in which structures are not designed for a variety of publics but instead are altered in later stages to accommodate them. Accordingly, these environments reveal accessibility as an afterthought through their massively long ramps, backdoor elevators, or other perverse forms.

Although countless urban spaces remain profoundly inaccessible to people with disabilities, including ones that could feasibly be made otherwise, the ADA—and its subsequent amendments—remains an enormously important weapon in this civil rights struggle. In the Arsenal, you can find a range of weapons that are influenced or made possible by the ADA, including Aging Improvement District, Audible Pedestrian Signal, Beach Wheelchair, Curb Cut, Detectable Warning Surface, Elevator, Public Bathroom, Ramp, and Raised Crosswalk.

For Further Reading · Charlton, James I. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Oakland: University of California Press, 2000. · Fleischer, Doris, and Frieda James. The Disability Rights Movement: From Charity to Confrontation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2011. · Mahoney, Eric. 2012 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Vista: BNi Books, 2012. · O’Brien, Ruth. Voices From the Edge: Narratives About the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. · Russell, Marta. Beyond Ramps: Disability at the End of the Social Contract. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2011.

Bonus Material: Capitol Crawl On March 12, 1990, more than 60 individuals with physical disabilities abandoned their mobility devices (wheelchairs, crutches, etc.) and proceeded to crawl up the 83 stone steps of the U.S. Capitol. “I’ll take all night if I have to!” declared Jennifer Keelan, a second grader with Americans with Disabilities Act

37

Left: Steps of annexation for Boston, Detroit, and Houston, shown at same scale.

Right: Steps of Annexation of Boston, Detroit and Houston. While the cities of Detroit and Boston steadily expanded throughout the 19th century, their physical shape is basically unchanged since the 1920s

BOSTON

DETROIT

Original city (1795) 1800 - 1819

Original city (1806) 1806 - 1819

1840 -1859 1860 - 1879 1880 - 1899

1840 -1859 1860 - 1879 1880 - 1899

1820 - 1939

1820 - 1839

1900 - 1919

1900 - 1912

Boston Metropolitan Area

Detroit Metropolitan Area

1920 - 1926

ANNEXATION PERIODS BOSTON

1800

44

Annexation

1820

1840

1860

1880

1900

HOUSTON 1836 - 1909 1910 - 1929 1930 - 1949 1950 -1969 1970 - 1989 1990 - 2009 1990 - 2009

H

DETROIT HOUSTON

1920

1940

1960

1980

2000

2012

BOSTON

DETROIT

HOUSTON

Annexation

45

having negative effects on property values, which many real estate brokers took advantage of through the practice of “blockbusting” (see: Blockbusting).

In 1972, the NAREB changed its name to the National Association of Realtors (NAR).

Two years later, its Code of Ethics was com-

pletely revised. The new Article 10 read, “The REALTOR shall provide equal professional services to all persons regardless of race, creed, sex, or country of national origin.” In the coming decades, Article 10 would be amended to include religion, handicap, familial status (1989), and sexual orientation (2010) as protected classes.5

Cold Water 3

MARTA GUTMAN

In this essay, Marta Gutman challenges a The egregious charge is this: Robert Moses, well-known Robert Moses myth involving the savvy, ambitious, and arrogant parks compools, race, and water temperature in New missioner of New York City, ordered a public York City. In the Arsenal, you can also swimming pool filled with cold water.1 This find Bridge, another disputed weapon of exclusion supposedly deployed by Moses decree is supposed to have targeted the huge as park commissioner. For other weapons pool in Thomas Jefferson Park in East Harlem, we know were used by Moses, see Eminent one of the magnificent new public recreation Domain, Freeway, Public Housing, and centers built during the New Deal thanks Urban Renewal. to millions of dollars of funding that Moses won from the Works Progress Administration Bonus Material: (WPA). His broad goal with this public works project was to “Learn to Swim Campaign” democratize recreation, but the alleged objective at JefferBy Marta Gutman son Pool was nasty—to exclude darker-skinned New Yorkers The principle beneficiaries from a prized civic resource in an Italian-American neighborof Robert Moses’s ambitious hood hard hit by the Great Depression. The logic was even pool-building project were nastier, based on a racist theory of human behavior that prechildren and teenagers, a sumed African Americans and Puerto Ricans disliked swimpoint made clear by the “Learn ming in cold water. Confronted with unheated water, people to Swim Campaign” poster, designed by John Wagner in of color would elect to swim elsewhere, preferably in Central 1940, and also funded by the Harlem. Whites called that part of New York City Dark or ColWPA. The poster is often taken ored Harlem in the 1930s; African Americans knew it as the as proof that racial segregation black Mecca of the United States. After a race riot erupted in prevailed in city pools during 1935, Moses and his boss, Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, another the 1930s and 1940s. It did, in savvy politician, agreed to relocate the new WPA pool, slated segregated neighborhoods like East Harlem, but that’s not the for Mount Morris Park (now Marcus Garvey Park) to Colonial main message. This WPA post2 Park (now Jackie Robinson Park). That decision placed the er (it was rare for an artist to new pool in the heart of the black community.

Robert Moses, a racial conservative who endorsed “separate and equal” as a practical political philosophy, 98

Code of Ethics - Cold Water

depict white and black children together) defied racist stereotypes to show kids of both races benefitting from the new pools.

Cold Water

99

John Wagner, “Learn to Swim Campaign,” New York City W.P.A. Art Project, stamped on verso July 22, 1940 (Courtesy of the Library of Congress)

and/or golf course “for sale” signs on more than one post colored or blinking Christmas lights car decals smoking within 25 feet of any building clothes washing machines and dryers in any unit grasses more than 3” in height trees limbed more than of their height horses, reptiles, livestock, or poultry puppies after 3 months of birth exterior building colors that are not earth tones feeding birds flagpoles window bars motorcycles signs of any kind

resin, wicker, wood, or household furniture on patio wind chimes on patio hanging plants on patio towels on patio toys on patio hoses on patio bicycles on patio book shelves on patio exercise equipment on patio filing cabinets on patio BBQ grills on patio large/objectionable statues on patio Astroturf, carpet, tile, floor covering on patio dusting rugs etc. from doors, windows, balconies, patios non-white drapes, blinds, screens if visible from outside

registered sex offenders

smoking in apartment

residents under 18 (guests are subject to conditions of the Board) oil drilling oil wells tanks, tunnels, or mineral excavations or shafts

walking dog through the lobby (must be carried) air conditioning units artificial vegetation servicing of motorbikes, boats, etc. horns, bells, or obnoxious sound devices

skateboards rollerblades bicycles toys ball playing dogs without submitting DNA samples parking in your driveway parking non-luxury cars in your driveway gun possession solar panels and any solar heating or cooling devices

basketball hoops dogs

Cul-de-Sac ALBERT POPE

To fully appreciate the role of the cul-desac today, one must look at its recent and rapid evolution. The contemporary “closedend street” has a brief history beginning with the English Garden City movement and ending, not 50 years later, with the cul-de-sac structure of the contemporary megalopolis. The cul-de-sac took its contemporary form in the working out of the Garden City idea. A direct line of development extends from the theory of Ebenezer

Despite its banality, few urban typologies are as polarizing as the cul-de-sac. To New Urbanist advocates of “smart growth,” culs-de-sac reflect the formless, automobile-reliant, insular enclaves of suburban sprawl, inevitably leading to congested arterial routes, social segregation, and expensive road maintenance. In 2009, the latter argument in particular led to Virginia’s ban on cul-de-sac developments altogether. Yet for many homeowners, the cul-de-sac affords quieter and safer streets and produces a neighborly social space that is as desirable for families as it is lucrative for real estate developers.1

118 Cottage Zoning - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions - Cul-de-Sac

Howard to the designs of Raymond Unwin at Letchworth Garden City and Henry Wright and Clarence Stein at Radburn, New Jersey. This line sketches out the “English” development of the cul-de-sac form; a development that was acknowledged and subsequently brought into the world of modernist abstraction by the urban theory of Ludwig Hilberseimer.

Albert Pope’s entry discusses the conceptual evolution of the cul-de-sac, asserting its efficacy as a planning tool within the context of post-urban megalopolises. In the Arsenal, you can find other weapons dealing with streets and circulation, including Bridge, Farmers Market, Fence 2, Freeway, Grid, Median, One-Way Street, Sidewalk Management Plan, and Skywalk.

The cul-de-sac was defined by Hilberseimer as an emblem or logo of modern urbanism in his so-called “Settlement Unit.”

The Settlement Unit shows cul-de-sac organization reduced to its basic form, a single, cross-axial spine. (Hilberseimer first conceived the unit in a 1927 sketch entitled “The Metropolis as a Garden City.”) The definition of cul-de-sac organization as an emblem was not just a matter of coining a recognizable form but was the basis of a principle drawn from urban history: aggregation. Laid out in three books, Hilberseimer argued that the Settlement Unit would replace the traditional city block as the fundamental unit of urban aggregation. As opposed to the masterplanning done by Garden City planners as well as by modern urbanists such as Frank Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier, Hilberseimer’s application of the cul-de-sac carried with it an entirely different conception of urban organization. The emblematic spine of the cul-de-sac was imagined as a new type of “city-block” or unit of urban aggregation. Against the orthodoxy of Radiant City masterplanning, Hilberseimer used the cul-de-sac to bring aggregation into the Modern project.

Bonus Material: Cul-de-sac Shortcut

By Michael Piper

Insomuch as Hilberseimer invented a new kind of urban aggregation based on a cul-de-sac, he was prophetic. It is commonly imagined that the megalopolis emerged spontaneously in the late 1950s and was identified shortly thereafter by Jean Gottmann. I would argue that the megalopolis was fully anticipated by Hilberseimer with the invention of his Settlement Unit some 30 years before. This accreditation is important because the aggregated cul-de-sac spine is, in fact, the very basis of megalopolitan development.

Cul-de-sac units create a closed node in an expansive polynuclear field that we generally, and erroneously, refer to as urban sprawl. Through Hilberseimer’s work, and his articulation of the cul-de-sac unit, we can recognize the structure of so-called sprawl. While often arranged in an apparently

1. Start by scoping houses. The idea is to find one without a car in the driveway or a fence blocking the backyard (fences are a sure sign of watchdogs).

2. Casually walk down the driveway. Don’t sneak, as sneaking will raise the suspicions of watchful neighbors.

3. Once you get to the back, you may find a fence at the property line. Seek out a weak spot to pass through (for example, you might find a drainage ditch that dips below the bottom of the fence).

4. Cross.

A cul-de-sac shortcut links one dead-end cul-de-sac to another by cutting through the private property that separates them.

Produced for privacy, cul-de-sac subdivisions have a spaghetti-like network of dead-end roads and limited access points that makes getting around on foot challenging. Destinations visible from a backyard could be several miles away following designated roads.

A simple solution for car-less inhabitants confounded by dead-end streets: pick a welcoming yard and make a shortcut through it. The following shortcut instructions are based on my preteen years in Atlanta, Georgia. Here’s what to do:

Cul-de-Sac

119

Fourth of July Block Party, 1972, photo by Bill Owens (Courtesy of Bill Owens Archive) 120 Cul-de-Sac

Cul-de-Sac

121

Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA Public Private

CONCEALED EASEMENT The door to the public easement is disguised as a private fence, camouflaged between two buildings that are faced with the same material.

FAKE GARAGE The street-facing side of the living room appears to be a garage, so that curb cuts could be created on the street.

DOUBLE DRIVEWAY The remaining strip of curb between two one-car garages is not long enough for a car to park, allowing the house’s street-facing side to remain free of parked cars.

Garages and driveways in Malibu, California 174 “Garage”

Garage Sale 4

MARGARET CRAWFORD

Ubiquitous and ordinary, the garage sale temporarily inverts the dominant economy and social order. Castoff items sold at low prices displayed on driveways or lawns transform their settings into liminal spaces, where domesticity and commerce, private and public space mix. Generated by consumer culture, they also suggest alternative economies since sales can be based on use

As Margaret Crawford writes here, the garage sale temporarily assigns new meaning to the street, blurring boundaries of front lawn and sidewalk, private and public. In the Arsenal, you can find other weapons that encourage public activity on residential streets and give a reason for visitors to explore neighborhoods they might not otherwise find themselves in. These include Famous Person’s House and Halloween.

Women in Los Angeles share their front yards with neighbors and passersby (Courtesy of Margaret Crawford)

values, exchange value, or even “meaning value.” Although most buyers purchase for use, items can move up and down the commodity chain, gaining value as vintage, collectible, or even antique, or losing value, discarded as garbage. Flexible prices and bargaining move transactions into the “gift economy” as buyers sell for nominal prices and, responding to need or interest, often give their merchandise away. Other gifts are the personal stories that go along with

objects already laden with meaning. These used objects serve as a medium for sociability and neighborliness, in an egalitarian marketplace where anyone passing by is welcome.

For Further Reading · Crawford, Margaret. “The Garage Sale as Informal Economy and Transformative Urbanism.” In The Informal American City: Settings, Strategies, and Responses, edited by Vinit Mukhija and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014.

Garage Sale

175

portion of the housing stock, combating the troubling trend of income inequality being etched permanently into our physical landscape. By careful development of social programming within the LECs, communities can be nurtured that are inclusive in terms of age and physical mobility, while extending social, educational, and cultural opportunities to a broad spectrum of residents. Perhaps most importantly in the current housing market, LECs offer a measure of protection against foreclosure, maintaining the integrity of communities to the benefit of individual households and the social networks of which they are part.

going rate for a two-bedroom apartment at Penn South in 2014 was roughly $100,000, compared with market values in the neighborhood in excess of $1 million—but would destroy the affordable aspect of the enterprise for future generations. While many of New York’s limited-equity coops have opted out over the past 20 years, almost all of the union-sponsored projects have remained in. 3

Eleanor Roosevelt and President John F. Kennedy at the 1962 opening of an International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union limited-equity cooperative (Courtesy of Penn South Archives) For Further Reading · Davis, John Emmeus. Shared Equity Homeownership: The Changing Landscape of Resale-Restricted, Owner-Occupied Housing.

Montclair, NJ: National Housing Institute, 2006.

212 Limited-Equity Cooperative

· Davis, John Emmeus. “Shared Equity Housing.”

In The Encyclopedia of Housing, edited by Andrew Carswell, 660-670. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2012.

Lincoln Towers, opened Lincoln Towers, opened 19611961 Lincoln Towers, opened 1961 Penn PennPenn South, South, South, opened opened opened 1962 19621962

Vladeck Houses Vladeck Vladeck Houses Houses opened 1940 opened opened 19401940

Amsterdam Houses, opened Amsterdam Houses, opened 19481948 Amsterdam Houses, opened 1948

Lincoln Guild, opened Lincoln Guild, opened 19611961 Lincoln Guild, opened 1961

Ravenswood, Ravenswood, opened opened 19511951 Ravenswood, opened 1951 Trump Village, opened Trump Trump Village, Village, opened opened 1964 19641964

Phipps Houses, opened 1906-1912 Phipps Houses, opened 1906-1912 Phipps Houses, opened 1906-1912

Queensview, Queensview, opened opened 1950 19501950 Queensview, opened

Cooperative Village Amalgamated Cooperative Cooperative Village Village Amalgamated Amalgamated Dwellings and Houses, Dwellings Dwellings andHillman Hillman and Hillman Houses, Houses, opened 1950. opened opened 1950.

1950.

East Houses, opened 1955 EastRiver East RiverRiver Houses, Houses, opened opened 19551955

Parkchester Housing, opened in 1941 Parkchester Parkchester Housing, Housing, opened opened inin1941 1941

Holmes Towers, opened 1969 Holmes Holmes Towers, Towers, opened opened 19691969

Morningside Gardens, opened 1957 Morningside Gardens, opened Morningside Gardens, opened 19571957

Isaacs Houses, opened 1965 Isaacs Isaacs Houses, Houses, opened opened 19651965

Knickerbocker Village, opened Knickerbocker Village, opened 19341934 Knickerbocker Village, opened 1934

Big6 6Towers Big Towers 6 Towers Big opened opened 19631963 opened 1963

Amalgamated Housing Cooperative, Amalgamated Housing Cooperative, Amalgamated Housing Cooperative, opened 1930 opened opened 19301930

Limited-equity cooperatives in New York City Limited-Equity Cooperative

213

214 Limited-Equity Cooperative

Limited-Equity Cooperative

215

Local Preference 2

INTERBORO

In some U.S. towns, local preference laws are written into inclusionary zoning, public housing, or Section 8 policy (see: Housing Voucher), mandating that residents who already live within a town’s jurisdiction be given priority in accessing new affordable units. For example, Darien, Connecticut, one of the richest suburbs in the country, has a “Priority Population” section of its inclusionary zoning ordinance that outlines seven types of preferred households for new affordable developments. As The New York Times reports, the first five categories are people who live or work in the town, while the sixth “is for people who used to live there and want to move back.”

The final category, at the bottom of the list, includes people who do not already live in Darien.1 There is a strong case to be made for certain local preference laws, especially when they offer better housing options to city and school employees in prohibitively expensive communities. But such laws can effectively exclude non-residents and in so doing preserve racial homogeneity.

216 Local Preference

In the Arsenal, you can find other weapons that reinforce racial and class boundaries in the suburbs, including Farmers Market, Fire Truck, Incorporation, Residents-Only Park, School District, Single-Family Zoning, Wetland, and Thirty-Day Limit.

Thus, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the 85-percent-white town of Oyster Bay in Long Island, New York, in 2014 for discrimination against African Americans. Two of the town’s affordable housing programs, one targeting firsttime homebuyers and another for older adults, gave preference to Oyster Bay residents, as well as the family members of Oyster Bay residents. 2 The DOJ asserted that virtually none of the more than 1,500 affordable units produced through these programs were purchased

by African Americans, a group that is underrepresented in Oyster Bay compared to the rest of Long Island.3 Similar cases have been brought against other suburban communities where local preference laws have reproduced their status as wealthy, majority white enclaves in more racially heterogeneous metropolitan regions.4

Map 4

INTERBORO

Using maps and guided tours (called “safaris”), the Los Angeles Urban Rangers demystify Malibu’s 20 miles of beaches by identifying public spaces, access ways, and easements that have been obscured by misleading signage and private development. As the collective of geographers, architects, environmental artists, and historians states, “In a dense and diverse city hungry for public space, the Malibu Public Beaches project elucidates and activates the important public space of the beach... [and] offers an accessible format for navigating the often confusing interface between public and private lands, making these spectacular beaches easier to find, access, and enjoy.”

In the Arsenal, you can find lots of maps and practices of mapmaking, although few are as inclusionary as the Los Angeles Urban Rangers’ representations of Malibu. In fact, most of the other maps documented in this book are rather exclusionary and sometimes downright racist. (The best examples are Insurance Redlining and Residential Security Map, both of which severely restricted access to capital in communities of color while incentivizing whites to move to the suburbs.)

The Los Angeles Urban Rangers, on the other hand, make legible abstract concepts like the Public Trust Doctrine and Wet Sand, thus empowering the public to access spaces that others try to deter them from.

The map is available for free download on the Rangers’ website (where you can also find a Spanish-language version).

A tour of Malibu beaches led by the Los Angeles Urban Rangers, walking along the mean high tide mark (Courtesy of Los Angeles Urban Rangers) Map

217

WELCOME TO THE BEACH! N RANG

BA

E

ANGEL

S

OS

ER

S

L

Los Angeles Urban Rangers www.laurbanrangers.org Fair Exchange Public Access 101Gallery Malibu, California 2007-2008

UR

“Development shall not interfere wi

Just a stone’s throw from Los Angeles, the world-famous Malibu coastline offers 27 miles

right of access to the sea...includin

the dry sand and rocky coastal bea

of scenic public beaches. Spend a day in the sun on one of the beautiful all-public beaches.

line of terrestrial vegetation.”

— California Coastal Act, S

Or head for the 20 miles of public beaches that are lined with private beachfront—where

“The state of California owns...the l

you can go beachcombing and wildlifewatching on the state lands below the high tide line and sunbathing and sign-watching on

of what is called the ‘mean high tid Although it is difficult to ascertain

between public and private lands, a

follow is that visitors have the right

the abundant public easements on the dry sand. Whether you're visiting from far away or from the properties next door, Malibu's public

wet beach.”

— California C

CA Coastal A

218 Map 194 Map

hwy

Leo Carrillo State Beach

R

Nicolas Canyon County Beach

R

El Pescador State Beach

R

(PCH)

La Piedra State Beach

1 2 R El Matador 3 State Beach

R

Lechuza Beach

4

5

Trancas (Broad) Beach

ACCESS TO PUBLIC-PRIVATE BEACHES Lechuza Beach

Heathercliff Rd

M Westward Bch Rd M

R

2 Broad Beach Rd at Bunnie Ln 8

Broad Beach

PACIF

Latigo Beach

Malibu Road Beaches (Puerco &

5 Between 31138-31202 Broad Beach Rd 6 Between 27420-27400 PCH

Little Dume Beach Big Dume Beach

Turn on Webb Way from PCH

9 Between 25120-25116 Malibu Rd 10

Just west of Geoffrey’s restaurant

Between 24742-24712 Malibu Rd

11

7 Between Malibu Cove Colony Dr and

Between 24604-24572 Malibu Rd

12

Between 24436-24434 Malibu Rd

13

Between 24320-24314 Malibu Rd

Escondido Beach Rd Just east of Geoffrey’s restaurant

7

Escondid Beach

Latigo Shore Rd Park on PCH

4 Between 31346-31340 Broad Beach Rd

Escondido Beach

Westward Beach

6

Point Dume

3 Broad Beach Rd at East Sea Level Dr

All-public beach between West Sea Level Dr and 1 house west of Bunnie Ln

1

Paradise Cove

Point Dume State Beach

1 Broad Beach Rd at West Sea Level Dr

Latigo Shore Rd Malibu Cove Col Dr Escond Bch Rd M M

M

Zuma County Beach

R

kanan dume rd

Broad Beach Rd

pacific c oast hig hway

1

to 101 Ventura Fwy

trancas cy n rd

to Ventura

mulholland

Malibu Public Beaches

beaches will reward you with abundant opportunities for recreation and discovery.

WHERE IS THE PUBLIC BEACH?

ith the public’s

Private property

Photo-maps like the one below are a handy tool for locating dry-sand easements, and are available on the Coastal Commission website for Broad and Carbon beaches. Less detailed public access maps for all of the beaches are also available under the “Malibu LCP” section.

See www.coastal.ca.gov/pubs.html.

ng...the use of

aches to the first

Section 30211 (1976)

lands seaward

Public Easement

Many private beach properties have public easements on the dry sand

de line’.... the boundary

Mean High Tide Line (MHTL):

a general rule to

18-yr. avg. high tide (unmarked)

t to walk on the

Daily High Water Line (DHWL): Wet/dry boundary (last high tide)

Coastal Commission, Wet Sand

Access Guide (2003)

Public property—You can walk here!

M

8

do

M

M

15 Dan Blocker County (Corral) Beach

Latigo R Beach

9

11 10

13

Malibu Beach

Malibu

14 Lagoon State Beach

12

Malibu Road Beaches R (Puerco & Amarillo) Malibu Bluffs State Recreation Area

Las Flores 16 La Costa

Carbon Beach Beach

Malibu Pier

14

Malibu Beach (Malibu Colony)

Take the path west from Malibu Lagoon parking lot.

Amarillo)

15 16

17 18

Beach

Big Rock Beach

17

18

M Las Tunas State Beach

R

M

Topanga State Beach

R

M

su

ns

et

blv

d

1

to Santa Monica and 10 Fwy

Surfrider Beach

R

FIC OCEAN

M

topanga cyn rd

M

big rock rd

M Malibu Rd

Civic Center Dr Cross Creek Rd

las flores cyn rd

cyn r d

Pepperdine University

malibu

corral cyn rd

latigo cyn rd

to 101 Ventura Fwy

Carbon Beach

“Zonker Harris Accessway” East edge of 22706 PCH West edge of 22126 PCH

Big Rock Beach

Between Moonshadows and 20340 PCH Closed due to storm damage Between 20000-19958 PCH

Beach hours vary. 7am-10pm at most all-public beaches. Public-private beaches open 24 hrs; access gates open sunrise-sunset for entry, 24 hours for exit (all but #16, not locked from beach side).

Legend 1 Access to public-private beaches R Restroom M MTA 534 bus stop, www.metro.net

North

Bold indicates all-public beaches.

East of Broad Beach, public-private beaches are often not passable at high tide. See other side for “Reading a Tide Chart.”

Map 219 Map 195

ARSENAL FOOTNOTES AND SOURCES

Footnotes and sources 395

Accessory Dwelling Unit Voices from the Battlefield [Sources] “Letters received about Accessory Dwelling Units.” St. Anthony Park Community Council. Accessed July 2014. http://sapcc.org/node/1145[BD1].

Fischler, Marcellus S. “Fighting In-Home Rentals.” New York Times. September 12, 2008, accessed November 19, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/realestate/14lizo.html.

Ginsberg, Danielle. “Lake Forest Residents Discuss Allowing ‘Granny Flats.’” Chicago Tribune. February 25, 2013, accessed November 19, 2013. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-25/news/ct-tl-lake-forest-granny-flats-20130225_1_catherine-czerniak-coach-houses-granny-flats#sthash.7dTObfsT.dpuf.

Adverse Possession Entry [Footnotes] 1. Real property is defined as that “which consists of land, and of all rights and profits arising from and annexed to land, of a permanent, immovable nature.” See: “Real Property.” The Free Dictionary by Farlex. Accessed July 1, 2014. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/ real+property.

2. For example, a renter cannot claim legal title to the landlord’s property.

3. New York’s Lower East Side and East Village, during periods of low real estate demand in the 1980s, were centers of squatting culture. Abandoned buildings were commandeered by groups of like-minded individuals and set up as living co-ops. The most advanced, such as C-Squat on Avenue C, were programmed with art exhibits and punk-rock concerts and often based on shared values such as veganism.

4. Many of these properties, by the time the squatters had occupied them, had been abandoned by their landlords and were owned by the city.

5. In one particularly absurd case, a rapper named Loki Boy briefly occupied a multimillion-dollar Boca Raton mansion.

Entry [Sources] Luna, Cari. “Squatters of the Lower East Side.” Jacobin. Accessed July 2, 2014. https://www.jacobinmag. com/2014/04/squatters-of-the-lower-east-side/.

“Adverse Possession.” The Free Dictionary by Farlex.

Accessed July 1, 2014. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/adverse+possession.

Voices from the Battlefield [Sources] Romano, Jay. “Adverse Possession: Mind Your Property.” New York Times. November 11, 2007, accessed June 30, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/realestate/11home.html?_r=0.

396 Footnotes and sources

“State Law Allows Squatter to Own Vacant Home.”

KTVU.com. April 25, 2013, accessed July 2014. http:// www.ktvu.com/news/news/special-reports/man-takesover-vacant-home-under-state-law-without/nXYPp/.

Smith, Chris. “Housing a Movement: Adverse Possession in California.” Utne. September/October 2012, accessed July 2014. http://www.utne.com/arts/adverse-possession-california-zm0z12sozros.aspx?PageId=2#ArticleContent.

Ferguson, Sarah. “L.E.S. Gardeners Claim ‘Adverse Possession,’ Sue to Regain Lot Slated for Building.” The Villager.

March 13, 2014, accessed July 2, 2014. http://thevillager. com/2014/03/13/l-e-s-gardeners-claim-adverse-possession-in-lawsuit-to-regain-lot-slated-for-development/.

Wolford, Ben. “Coconut Creek Legislator Aims to Stop Squatters in Their Tracks.” Sun Sentinel. March 16, 2013, accessed June 30, 2014. http://articles.sun-sentinel. com/2013-03-16/news/fl-squatter-laws-20130316_1_adverse-possession-law-squatters-andre-loki-boy-barbosa.

Age Segregated Community NA

Aging Improvement District Entry [Footnotes] 1. “Department for the Aging.” NYC.gov. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dfta/html/age/ age-friendly.shtml.

Entry [Sources] “Aging Improvement Districts.” Age-Friendly NYC. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://www.nyam.org/agefriendlynyc/initiatives/current/aid-pilot-east-harlem. htmlhttp://www.nyam.org/agefriendlynyc/initiatives/ current/aging-improvement-districts.html.

“East Harlem,” Age-Friendly NYC. Accessed June 25, 2014. http://www.nyam.org/agefriendlynyc/initiatives/ current/aid-pilot-east-harlem.html.

Editorial Text [Footnotes] 1. Hartocollis, Anemona. “A Fast-Paced City Tries to Be a Gentler Place to Grow Old.” New York Times. July 18, 2010, accessed October 2014. http://www.nytimes. com/2010/07/19/nyregion/19aging.html.

2. Saul, Michael Howard. “Senior Centers May Face Ax.” Wall Street Journal. March 4, 2011, accessed July 2014. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748 704507404576179004035233150.

Americans with Disabilities Act Entry [Footnotes] 1. In 2008, the ADA was amended to clarify the definition of “disability,” thus making it easier for individuals to seek civil rights protection. The amendment was drafted in response to court cases that focused too spe-