Dissertation: ‘From Production to Consumption' by Olle Blomquist

From Production to Consumption The High Line’s Influence on the Recent Socio-spatial Transformation of West Chelsea

Olle Olle Blomquist Blomquist Ma(Hons) Ma(Hons) Architecture Architecture The University of Edinburgh ESALA ESALA Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture 2013

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Tahl Kaminer for offering advice and to Catherine Yarwood for feedback. Special thanks to my supervisor Professor Maria Soledad Garcia Ferrari.

Abstract

West Chelsea in New York has been subject to significant urban change over the past decades but very recently the transformation has accelerated. This is thought to be an outcome of the preservation of the High Line and its adaption as a park. This research aims to investigate how some key aspects have contributed to make the project feasible, why it was reused in 2009 and begin to suggest the socio-spatial impact on its context. Through a literature review covering a broader contextual field, which draws upon social change in production and consumption patterns, an analytical framework has been developed to assist the analysis. The theory emphasises the process known as gentrification and the literature highlights three key subcategories with great significance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; socio-spatial characteristics of post-industrial society, human capital and zoning regulations. The research suggests that the mixed human capital in the area that has established over the past decades has created an atmosphere from which the park could become realistic. It also indicates that the park was the central objective of the 2005 rezoning and that the following development has been influenced by the social use and industrial aesthetic of the High Line. The main conclusion of the research has focused on the socio-spatial change the High Line has enhanced. Firstly, it emphasises the mature stage of deindustrialisation the neighbourhood is experiencing and can be regarded as a socially produced symbol of the supremacy of consumption over production. In addition, it also indicates that the social order of buildings has changed where a former industrial rail line, used as a park for leisure, has become the main priority and regulations respond accordingly, which has led to speculations regarding the future of the neighbourhood.

Contents

Synopsis p.13

Part I

Economic and socio-political context

Post-industrial Society

New York City (Art and Power)

Part II THEORETICAL APPROACH

3.1.

Gentrification â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Production or Consumption?

3.2.

An Analytical Framework

3.2.1. Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class

3.2.2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development

p.17

p.25

3.2.3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society

Part III CASE STUDY

West Chelsea

Part IV ANALYSIS

p.33

p.37

A Platform of Human Capital

6.1. Previous Zoning 6.2. Special West Chelsea District

The High Line Park and the Social Order of Buildings

Part V CONCLUSION p.53

BIBLIOGRAPHY p.56

Table of Figures

front.

The High Line in 1934

back.

Aerial view of modern High Line

figure 1. Dissertation diagram figure 2. Aerial view of Lower Manhattan, SoHo figure 3. Aerial view of Lower Manhattan, SoHo and West Chelsea figure 4. The High Line in 1934 figure 5. American Round Arch Style and Starrett Lehigh Building figure 6. Land use in West Chelsea figure 7. Chelsea Market figure 8. Aerial View of the High Line in its past state figure 9. Aerial View of the High Line in its present state figure 10. Gallery distribution in Lower Manhattan, 1995 figure 11. Gallery distribution in Lower Manhattan, 2007 figure 12. Map of Special West Chelsea District figure 13. High Line Transfer Corridor location figure 14. Floor Area Ratio diagram figure 15. Bridge of Houses, Steven Holl figure 16. Walk the Highline, Joel Sternfeld figure 17. The post-modern landscape around the High Line figure 18. Metal Shutter House, Shigeru Ban figure 19. Contemporary Brick Building figure 20. The High Line Zoo figure 21. Art on the High Line figure 22. The High Line Renegade Cabaret performance figure 23. HL23, Neil Denari figure 24. The Standard Hotel, Polshek Partnershi

Preface This dissertation was born out of a life long interest for New York City and how it came to acquire such an iconic status as a place for creativity, innovation and urban myth. I spent most of the past year living in the city, and during that time the gritty and raw image perceived from cultural consumption of objects depicting the city, gradually began to vanish, and was replaced by the new pristine character that many neighbourhoods of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;newâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; New York recently has obtained. It seemed to have lost a bit of its character and naturally the response was to question why, how and when this all changed. The dissertation offered an academic opportunity to learn more about processes affecting urban transformation and allowed me to reflect on this in relation to my own experience spent working in the heart of West Chelsea, just around the corner from the High Line.

Synopsis

The subject of study for this dissertation is the recent socio-spatial transformation of the New York neighbourhood of West Chelsea. This area, a former industrial neighbourhood once characterised by manufacturing and blue-collar workers, has recently turned into one of Manhattan’s most expensive neighbourhoods. Whilst little academic research has so far been undertaken regarding the recent transformation of this area, the dissertation presents a substantial literature review covering a larger theoretical field exploring urban transformation linked to changes in production and consumption patterns. This literature has informed an analytical framework that is applied to understand the recent urban trends in the neighbourhood of West Chelsea and structure the arguments presented. Contributing to the analysis is the author’s own extensive site experience.

More specifically, this dissertation seeks to understand how the former elevated rail structure, known as the High Line, located in the heart of West Chelsea, was brought back to life in the early years of the new century to create an urban park and how that has contributed to the transformation of the area both spatially and socially in the short time since. The context analysis highlights three main areas, recognised as being key components to the phenomenon of gentrification, which then form the basis for the analytical framework. The first notion is based around the spatial and aesthetic consequences of the deindustrialised city. The second theme is the influence and social patterns of the artist and other creative people of the new middle class. The last idea is built around city government and related organisation’s political power in urban change. The analytical framework will not be applied in a mechanical manner but rather as a tool aiding the understanding of key aspects contributing to the transformation.

The context study begins looking at wider socio-economic trends affecting urban change at the end of the 20th century and draws on how changes in New York City can be associated to these. Literature analysing the characteristics of a post-industrial society introduces spatial consequences resulting from processes of deindustrialisation. From a neo-Marxist perspective this is explained through class structure and globalisation. This literature will be outlined recognising the limitations of scope in a dissertation, but is nonetheless presenting an important foundation for the thesis. After considering the reconstruction of space and society at a large scale in chapter 1 the dissertation will focus on the city of New York in chapter 2. It will briefly cover the political and legislative action that was taken in the 1960’s for further deindustrialisation of lower Manhattan. This will introduce ‘the new middle class’ - a loosely defined group of people growing larger and more important as cities workforce gradually change occupation from manufacturing to service related fields. The emergence and importance of this group partly has its roots in the rising valuation of cultural

capital as imposed by the artist. The rising social status of the artist in the 1960s changed people’s perception of art, artists and artisan lifestyle. This had significant impact on the spatial configuration and use of buildings in the city centre, expressed in the former manufacturing, turning artistic district, of Lower Manhattan’s ‘South of Houston Street’, later ‘SoHo’. This phenomenon has famously been discussed in Sharon Zukin’s critical account ‘Loft Living’. The area of SoHo provides a highly relevant precedent for this study.

Chapter 3 will expand on the theory of gentrification. A process that underused central city neighbourhoods experience that traditionally displaces the community of low-income people with more affluent ‘gentry’ and changes the urban character of the area. The vast selection of academic material in this field has been narrowed down to focus on socio-spatial outcomes of a society and process that represents the supremacy of consumption over production. A few key theoretical concepts are emphasised and explained as part of the three subthemes and will be further developed to assist the narrative of the subsequent analytical part of the dissertation.

After introducing the case study area of West Chelsea in chapter 4, the analysis of chapter 5,6 and 7 starts with an account of the importance of certain gentry and their collective identity in this process of transformation, which began when galleries retreated from SoHo to West Chelsea in the 1990s. Comparing and contrasting the stories of the two neighbourhoods allows for a lot of speculation. Did the new art district develop in a similar manner to its precedent? Will the story repeat itself? How did zoning contribute to the new urban landscape? In fact, in 2005 the area where the art scene is located was re-zoned to form the ‘Special West Chelsea District’. The impact of this will be given a separate section, forming chapter 6, before moving on to the main objective of the re-zoning - the High Line, discussed in chapter 7. In short, the two first chapters of the analysis will present factors that contributed to the transformation of the neighbourhood that influenced the use of the structure. The following last chapter will shift this relationship and will begin to understand the social and spatial influence of this architectural intervention upon its urban context.

figure 1. Opposite page: Diagram showing structure of research and the continuation of the three subthemes running through the work.

PART I - CONTEXT

1. New York City (Artist)

2. New York City (Power)

3. Post-industrial Society

PART II -THEORY

Gentrification (Consumption)

1. Cultural Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class

2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development

3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society

PART III - CASE STUDY

PART IV - ANALYSIS

1. A Platform of Human Capital

2. Special West Chelsea District

3. The High Line and the social Order of Buildings

PART V - CONCLUSION 15

PART I - CONTEXT

1. New York City (Artist)

2. New York City (Power)

3. Post-industrial Society

PART II -THEORY

Gentrification (Consumption)

1. Cultural Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class

2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development

3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society

PART III - CASE STUDY

PART IV - ANALYSIS

1. A Platform of Human Capital

2. Special West Chelsea District

PART V - CONCLUSION

3. The High Line and the social Order of Buildings

Part I – ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT

1. Post-industrial Society

The restructuring of urban areas over the past few decades has been extensively covered in literature, emphasising a number of themes. David Ley, a Canadian Urban Geographer of significance for this study, argues however, that certain themes can be agreed on and acknowledges three works of major significance that proposes theories of societal change. Space, as will be argued in this dissertation, is a product of social context, and in Ley’s selected works, the post-industrialism thesis, is the one in which primary attention is given to social change. (Ley, 1996: 11)

Daniel Bell, the author of this thesis, ‘The Coming of Post-industrial Society’, outlines several major themes that have determined the new society (Bell, 1974: 14). The first, and the one directing the rest is the change in the economic sector of advanced western countries from producer economy to service economy. In America, this shift occurred in 1956 as the majority of the population then was engaged within this ‘new’ sector defined as “trade, finance, transport, health, recreation, education and government” (Bell, 1974: 15).

Of importance is the understanding of the terms decentralisation and centralisation. Decentralisation came about because efficiency in production was prioritised. The primary industries mass-producing large and heavy goods, such as automobiles, considered multi-storey city environs obsolete and their business could be better undertaken in the suburbs where land - to develop single story factories, was available and thus cheap (Marcuse, 1988: 190) (Zukin, 1991: 188). Large factories left the city centre and the middle class of semi-skilled workers followed. The ‘Fordist agreement’ was achieved so that factory workers were paid well enough to be able to consume the goods they were producing. This agreement became instable in the 1960s as advanced technology changed the way things were produced, how production was organised and who were responsible for the production (Marcuse, 1988: 191). This shift had great impact on class structure in post-industrial society. Efficient technological interventions replaced many semi-skilled workers - the old (lower) middle class, and there was a need for a new middle class of people that could deal with un-programmable, un-quantifiable demands, such as technicians, engineers, managers, financial experts, and other professionals (Marcuse, 1988: 191). The physical site of production remains distant from the city, often not even in the same country as the economy has become global over the past few decades. The traditional assembly line has transcended globally and this creates the need for increased centralisation and complexity of management and planning (Sassen, 2001: 10). Furthermore, Sassen points out that the

simple reason why there is a large concentration of service firms in relatively few central city locations, the centralisation, is the constant need for face-to-face communication within the service community. (Sassen, 2001: 10)

For the new middle class, the old residential arrangement of single homeownership in suburbia was no longer appropriate. This group of people are devoted to their careers, prioritising quality of work over quantity. Since the firms they work for cluster in global cities, so do they. They are attracted to the low commuting time inner city living offers, which give time for lifestyle activities and because of their education and the advanced work they perform they get paid well enough to take advantage of available amenities. The new middle class will be further discussed at a later stage.

Not only did new production patterns change class structure but they also had a direct link to the spatial changes of the infrastructure of central city neighbourhoods (Marcuse, 1988: 194). As technology advanced production, less people were needed to oversee a production of goods that could be carried out in smaller areas, and to a large extent by computer technology partly assisted by professionals (Sassen, 2001: 10). Another significant outcome of this mature state of globalisation is the efficiency in transportation that could be achieved. Larger ships, containerization and a prospering road network rendered the railway obsolete which left large areas connecting harbours to storage units to the back country available for a post-industrial usage (Brazee, 2005: 23).

Part I - ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT

figure 2. Arial view of Lower Manhattan. SoHo indicated in red.

Part I - ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT

2. New York City (Art and Power)

The previous section described how big scale industries left the inner city. This however does not suggest that the city became deindustrialised with such immediacy. The multi-storey warehouse arrangement was still suitable for smaller manufacturing. This chapter will look at some events with crucial impact for the future of the city of New York

In the 20th century, as the United States was dominating the world economy, the local patrician elite aspired to make New York the definite capital of the world. Deindustrialisation was an important aspect in this image making, as expanding and emphasising the corporate business district of Lower Manhattan was far more elegant than small manufacturing. It would create a white-collar city, rather than blue, and a white work force rather than Hispanic, Chinese or black. (Zukin, 1982: 29)

In the context of deindustrialisation of Lower Manhattan it is important to mention a pivotal political moment that occurred in the late 1950s when the reform wing of New York’s ruling democratic party broke their alliance with the traditional political ruling movement known as ‘Tammany Hall’. Mayor, Robert Wagner was re-elected a third time but was looking for new allies after breaking with ‘Tammany’. The patrician elite saw this chaotic time as an opportunity to take control over city politics, which was crucial to setting the redevelopment plan in action (Zukin, 1982: 42). The plan for redeveloping lower Manhattan, backed by the Rockefellers, Wagner and powerbroker Robert Moses failed in the end after an epic struggle on several fronts (Zukin, 1982: 46).

Opposition had risen from the artists that had recently started occupying manufacturing lofts in SoHo (fig. 2), which was part of the redevelopment plan. Artists had illegally moved into the lofts because it offered large, unobstructed, and appropriately lit space that in addition was very cheap because it was not zoned to be residential (Zukin, 1982). Something had also changed in people’s perception of artists in the 1960s. With the success of the New York school of abstract expressionism in the 1940s and 1950s and the following enormous commercial success of local artists made people view artists in a new light (Zukin, 1982: 49). This not only had a huge impact on the new middle class patterns of consumption and appreciation of the arts, which led to higher awareness of historic preservation, but it also made artists into a powerful tool for policy makers, politicians and the patrician elite (Zukin, 1982) (Ley, 2003: 2536).

As artists had discovered their symbolic power for the image of the city of New York, so had Mayor Wagner. He supported the artists as a symbolic strategy under the ATA (Artist Tenant Association) act and their

mission to re-zone SoHo into an artist district, turning a manufacturing zone, into a residential zone with commerce, where artist, and artist only, had the legal right to live. The multiple dwelling law (article 7-B) passed, which offered artist and their families rights to live in their studios, but it soon came to include other workers of the creative field such as musicians, actors, choreographers and this was later extended to ‘people committed to art’. A very ambiguous definition that would later result in the resolution of the art community through an influx of middle class people that were attracted by the cultural symbolism of the artist (Zukin, 1982: 48-52).

“Developers found that art, when it was set within the proper physical and institutional framework – the museum or the cultural centre – could become a vehicle for its own valorization. The growing value of art also enhanced the value of related factors: the urban forms that grew up around it, the activity of doing it, and most important, the status of consuming it. These processes of valorization commanded – or even demanded – a wider public for art and culture than had existed until this time.” (Zukin, 1982: 177)

To the public - artists led the urban conservation of SoHo. However, it could never have been realised had they not had powerful allies that would normally back the growth strategy. Important to saving SoHo was the rising appreciation for the arts community and the publicity it brought to urban conservation. However, these are both factors with great significance to gentrification, and in hindsight we can clearly see that the whole process ran parallel with gentrification and was a creation of the investment climate, as the large cultural and symbolic capital of the artist turned into economic capital (Zukin, 1991: 190 LoP). The following part will further explain this phenomenon.

Part I - ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-POLITICAL CONTEXT

PART I - CONTEXT

1. New York City (Artist)

2. New York City (Power)

3. Post-industrial Society

PART II -THEORY

Gentrification (Consumption)

1. Cultural Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class

2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development

3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society

PART III - CASE STUDY

PART IV - ANALYSIS

1. A Platform of Human Capital

2. Special West Chelsea District

PART V - CONCLUSION

3. The High Line and the social Order of Buildings

Part II – THEORETICAL APPROACH

“[G]entrification is an inherently class-rooted process, but it is also a lot more. At the regional, urban or community scales, the challenge is to understand the chain of connections linking specific local responses and initiatives to overall social structure” (Smith, 1996: 106)

In summary, the first two chapters work at a variety of scale linking factors of economic, political and cultural character, which together had impact on social structures and space. The economic shift that occurred in the twentieth century, informed by advanced technology, changed production patterns, which rendered the former spaces obsolete and they had to be used according to the new middle class that was born. These circumstances were then looked at within the context of New York, specifically looking at SoHo, a neighbourhood with similar characteristics to West Chelsea located further west. At this neighbourhood level it becomes apparent that cultural changes in this class, influenced by the emerging arts industry is of utmost importance to the manner in which space is used and perceived today. The artist’s symbolic value for the deindustrialised city and the cultural consumption it influenced was noticed by those in powerful positions and used as a political tool to change land use and make economic profit. At this point, gentrification is introduced and recognised as the main theoretical concept linking the broader phenomenon of the deindustrialised city to the local social condition and the political environment. Simply put, a process that connects space, culture and power.

3.1. Gentrification - Production or Consumption?

Gentrification – is partly the study of ‘gentry’ – defined as a certain class of good social position. It is the process places of neighbourhood scale encounter when people of a higher social rank, more affluent people, move to areas inhabited by people of lower social rank and subsequently the former occupiers are displaced. As the process continues, progressively more capital is channelled into the neighbourhood, which changes the character of the urban fabric and ultimately the whole character of the neighbourhood. Scholars have argued the problematic broad scope of the term calling it a ‘chaotic concept’, with so many different factors that need to be considered, that any single work of research cannot take all into account (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 100). Thus, there has historically been a polarisation of explanations – ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ (Smith, 1996: 108).

Perhaps the most influential advocate of ‘production explanations’ of gentrification research, is the late Neil Smith. In his influential work he stressed the relationship between the global economy and displacement

through changing land values in his ‘rent gap theory’. The movement of industries to the suburbs as explained above shifted ground rent to rise in the suburbs and fall in inner city locations. When the depressed value of inner-city land reaches a certain point, it creates an opportunity for restructuring this land to its ‘potential ground rent’. (Smith, 1996: 62). A central point in these types of theories is stressing the injustice of class. (Marcuse, 1988: 196)

Others have focused on ‘consumption explanations’, notably David Ley’s ‘post-industrial’ thesis (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 92), inspired by the broader work of Daniel Bell, claiming that the complexity of gentrification could not solely be “captured by explanations of the process that privileged structural forces of production and housing markets” (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 92). These theses, in general, take the shift from manufacturing to service as it starting point but tend to focus on a more humanistic aspect of the process - new middle class professionals and their lifestyle choices as determined not by economic capital, but cultural.

3.2. An Analytical Framework

“It is the theory which decides what we can observe” - Albert Einstein (Bell, 1974: 9)

Ley argued that with the shift from industrial to post-industrial society the priorities for allocating use of urban land has shifted. What was once determined by production is today based around what Lees, Slater, and Wyly (2008: 92), based on their understanding of Ley (1996), summarised as “consumption factors, taste and a certain aesthetic, as well as political forces”. Gentrification, thus, in Ley’s argument represent a new historical phase in urban development where consumption is held higher than production (Smith, 1986: 5). While not ignoring ‘production explanations’, the primary focus of this study will be on ‘consumption explanations’ and this chapter aims to narrow down the research.

The shift from a society based around production to one where consumption has become the decisive force was the undertone of the first two chapters. In the main body of literature that has been selected, it is apparent that certain terms, or phenomenon, are constantly applied when describing the socio-spatial and symbolic change of post-industrial societies. The purpose of this chapter is to build upon what has been discussed in the contextual part and introduce a few related theoretical concepts that are of importance and may help structure the later analysis.

The theoretical subthemes are presented through a short introduced below. Their order is determined by

Part II – THEORETICAL APPROACH

their order of appearance in the analysis.

1. Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class If space is socially produced then in must respond to the social group that determine the use of that space. This group is the ‘the new middle class’ - people characterised by their high cultural capital and a lifestyle that centres on consumption rather than production.

2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development Acknowledging the influence of the artist and the creative industries for urban change generates a tool for big scale investors and politicians to develop underused land and generate growth. This is often achieved through zoning and a deliberate strategy involving attention to cultural consumption.

3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society The spaces left behind by deindustrialisation can be adjusted to suit the new middle class and reflect their social values. The reuse of old space signifies an appreciation for historic preservation and in former industrial centres, the aesthetic of the past turns, in time, into neo-romanticism and a strong identity of place is created. This is expressed in the architecture of the post-modern landscape and in the new built there is a risk of submitting to ‘the gentrification kitsch’.

3.2.1. Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class

In chapter two, different types of capital were briefly mentioned and especially in the artistic context cultural capital becomes an important currency. With the expanding opportunities for education and a society that asked for highly skilled personnel the general level of cultural competency was heightened. Artists are of low economic capital but very high cultural and symbolic capital. Bourdieu’s argument (in Ley, 2003: 2540) has it that the succession within the dominant class goes from high cultural capital and low economic capital through a position of lower cultural capital but higher economic capital and this succession runs parallel to the many stages of the gentrification process where artist are followed by other groups of creative people, and progressively there is a shift from cultural to economic as the dominant form of capital. Artist are, despite their stereotypical low income, members of the new middle class because of their compensating cultural status, but according to Bourdieu (in Ley, 2003: 2533) “the dominated segment of this new class”. They are commonly first stage gentrifiers but more importantly is their significant impact on the more affluent segments of this wide group of people. The emergence of this group and the capital they hold has been discussed endlessly, under different names. Richard Florida refers to this in his thesis ‘The Rise of the

Creative Class’, where he proposes a ‘creative capital theory’ with the basic argument: “regional economic growth is powered by creative people, who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas” (Florida, 2002: 249).

As more affluent people are introduced to an area of high cultural capital the consumption patterns shift. Jager (1986: 86) points out that “[w]hat characterizes this new consumption model is an emphasis upon aesthetic-cultural themes. Leisure and relative affluence create the opportunity for artistic consumption, and art becomes increasing [Sic] integrated into the middle-class pattern of consumption as a form of investment, status symbol and means of self-expression.”. A neighbourhood going through gentrification often has a certain feel to it that is immediately recognisable. This is characterised by what Jager labels ‘conspicuous consumption’ and can be expressed in a number of ways (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 113). In his study of the gentrifiers of Victoriana, he stresses this concept. In Jager’s study, the housing of gentrifiers in this former working class area turn from pure functional value when inhabited by the working class to a dual purpose of function and form in an attempt to distinguish itself from its immediate past (Jager, 1986: 83). The cultural capital of the new middle class is used to expose the original features of a building to express them as aesthetic objects, not only as a functional entity. This signifies superfluity and conspicuous waste, factors of leisure – a token of freedom from economic constrains (Jager, 1986: 80). However, affluence expressed through this type of cultural consumption is not solely bound to the built environment, it is perhaps more recognisable in the lifestyle of the new middle class. A lifestyle characterised by cultural consumption is easily accessible in the city and contains, apart from art, also such things as high-end fashion, entertainment and multinational cuisine. There, in the city, is more opportunity to be seen, and to show one’s style (Jager, 1986: 89).

3.2.2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development

The word gentrification is one used with negative overtones for the vast majority of scholars, whereas others would argue its positive effect. Gentrification has become a tool of many city officials and policy makers when laying out new strategies for improving the economic, physical and social character of downtown areas (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 198). It presents an opportunity to channel investment back into depressed markets. Its critics would argue that the ‘ugly’ word of gentrification is disguised by terms such as urban ‘regeneration’, ‘renaissance’, ‘revitalization’ or ‘renewal’ (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: XXI). Before arguing the negative aspect of gentrification, Marcuse (1985: 934) states: “Gentrification has real benefits for a city: improvements in the physical quality of its housing stock, attraction of higher-income residents and businesses, and an increase in the tax base”

Part II – THEORETICAL APPROACH

Again, the significance of the art world cannot be neglected as both victim and catalyst of the process. Ley (1996: 104) argues that “[t]he arts and the presence of artists in the gentrification cycle have aroused a great deal of attention, particularly in New York, to the extent that arts facilities are normally concluded as a significant component of revitalization strategies by public and private corporations.”

The art world does not generate the same amount of direct economic capital as residential occupiers do, thus, landlords and developers tend to convert space for residential use if the opportunity is given. In SoHo, as was described in chapter two, the rezoning was first created to protect the artists’ mixed use of the lofts, but through progressively less strict definitions more affluent people pushed them out and cultural capital became economic capital as developers made enormous profits (Zukin, 1982: 52).

In this context, the social power of art is very significant. Artists began in the 1960s to be regarded as an asset and their cultural value was exploited as an influential political strategy (Zukin, 1982: 82). Policy makers use the actors of the art world in attempts trying to remake the city’s image from industrial to post-industrial - a place of consumption rather than production, and big scale investors use the same creative industries as a tool to attract capital (Zukin, 1982). In her critical analysis of SoHo, Zukin points out, and this is central to her explanation of gentrification, that developers redirected their attention towards a strategy of cultural consumption and urban preservation to circumvent the political opposition to the redevelopment and make profit from the built environment (Zukin, 1982: 176-182) (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 118).

3.2.3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society

“The new middle class is fashioning a post-industrial city with a consumption landscape rather than a production landscape. The world of industrial capitalism is superseded by the ideology of consumption pluralism, and gentrification is a signifier of this historical transformation, inscribed in the urban landscape.” (Smith, 1996: 111)

Chapter one centered on the argument that technology changed the socio-economic climate, which made us use space differently. Combining this fact, with the new middle class, introduces the spatial effects of gentrification. The new use of space is determined by social circumstances and cultural values of a particular time and place (Zukin, 1982: 4). This class make up a society where consumption is held higher than production and hence, land use is allocated accordingly. Thus, the use of land and the alterations made to it are socially produced. In an industrial society that has turned post-industrial, like New York, an alternative option to ‘new built’ presents itself for transforming the built environment.

The change in cultural values of the new middle class sparked an interest in historic preservation and in New York this debate, in relation to gentrification, has historically centred on the reuse of former manufacturing lofts. These former industrial spaces serve, both physically and symbolically, as infrastructure in the transition from industrial to deindustrialized urban economy (Zukin, 1982: 111). American preservationist at the time spoke about changing the use of old buildings without purifying the structure in order to keep them socially and economically viable (Zukin, 1982: 76), and after the events in SoHo, Paul Goldberger concluded in (Zukin 1982: 12):

“The recycling of older buildings is the keystone of a new urban movement that may be for the late 1970’s what the brownstone revival was for the early part of the decade – a method of channeling investment back into the center city and propping up what had been until recently an altogether depressed real estate market in many cities.”

Lofts are not the only example where an industrial space has been adapted to suit the new society – warehouses, garages, docks, railroads are but a few, but the concept of loft living is, arguably, the most influential and played an important role in popularising the industrial aesthetic from the 1960s onwards. In New York, an appreciation for industrial spaces and objects was discovered among the middle class through the artists’ mixed use of manufacturing lofts (Zukin, 1982: 14). There was an association with the artistic lifestyle and old industrial space that created a defined identity, a sense of place, rather than space, which appealed to the new middle class (Zukin, 1982: 68,71). Zukin argues that it was not the supply of lofts, but the social and cultural changes that created a demand for such space. Perhaps the most important factor in the domestication of the industrial aesthetic is - time. The revalorization and appreciation of industrial space and aesthetic as introduced to the mass market could however only happen in a society where industry appears to have become obsolete. Zukin (1982: 59) continues: “Only people who do not know the steam and sweat of a real factory can find industrial space romantic or interesting.”

With the declining possession of cultural capital and the dominance of economic capital in a neighbourhood going through mature gentrification, the area which was once cutting edge, hip and authentic turns into an appropriated, mass produced kitsch for the well-off “even if historic preservation or historical or cultural theming is part of the new landscape” (Ley, 2002: 2534). Certain features are used as signifiers of higher cultural capital and mark a difference in social class. As these become stylised they become kitsch and the aesthetic first identified is of less importance. The distinction is what really matters, thus, in ‘gentrification kitsch’, the imitation of objects and qualities is of more importance than authenticity (Jager, 1986: 87).

Part II – THEORETICAL APPROACH

As the gentrification process continues, developers get involved and any plots of available land between older converted structures are filled with new development. Here the language of modern architectural form and materials provides no historical meaning that can be incorporated into cultural display, so there is an appeal to rework the combinations of certain objects and qualities into a post-modern design vocabulary, which is often mass-produced (Smith, 1996: 115) (Ley, 1996: 105). This contributes to the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;post-modern landscapeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a paradoxical mix of past and present architectural form (Mills, 1987: 170).

figure 3. West Chelsea is bounded by West 30th Street to the north (Clinton), 10th Avenue to the east (Chelsea), West 16th Street to the south (Meatpacking District) and the HudsonRiver/ Route 9A to the west (CPC, 2005: 1). See more detailed map further down.

Part III â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CASE STUDY

Part III – CASE STUDY

4. West Chelsea

Having set the context and introduced some significant factors that had great impact on the city of New York, as well as establishing a theoretical approach, what follows now is a brief historical introduction of the case study.

West Chelsea is located on the far west side of the borough of Manhattan in New York City (fig. 3). The area is a perfect surviving example of the city’s past industrial character. The ensemble of buildings reflects the change in industrial architecture in New York. “They convey a well-defined sense of place and a distinct physical presence which sets the neighbourhood apart from other parts of Midtown Manhattan…and represents a unique and enduring part of NYC’s architectural and cultural heritage.” (Brazee, 2008: 5)

West Chelsea has been built upon since 1750, but it was not until the 1840s when development really started to trigger in the area as a mixture of working class residences and smaller industrial buildings (Brazee, 2008: 5). This occurred at the time when Manhattan was becoming the most prominent industrial centre in the country. Today few examples of this early development survive and it is instead the later development, dating from the turn of the century, that characterizes the area (fig. 4) The area’s industries were normally of small scale and few employed more than fifty people but there are exceptions – some of the country’s most prestigious industrial companies once called West Chelsea their home. (Brazee, 2008: 4)

However, West Chelsea was not only a centre of manufacturing but also became Manhattan’s primary centre for warehousing and freight handling in the late nineteenth century (Brazee, 2008: 5). With the use of larger steamship that required deep water, the Hudson River became the preferred path rather than the once dominating East River. The West Side also had a network of rail lines to handle the freight and links to distribute goods upstate and into the country. Many industrial developments were designed to incorporate the transportation systems and the tracks were connected to the buildings to a varying degree (fig. 5). Light manufacturing and warehousing continued to be important in the area for most of the twentieth century, although, as the city’s industrial use has declined, so has West Chelsea’s (Brazee, 2008).

In recent history West Chelsea has been best known as the most prominent district for contemporary art in the city. Numbers varies, but according to City Planning Commission (CPC) in a study from 2005, it houses approximately two hundred galleries and contributing to the area’s cultural dominance is also the many

businesses engaged in the creative field (fig. 6) (CPC, 2005: 8). They are located in the former industrial infrastructure of lofts, garages, warehouses and terminal buildings for freight trains (fig. 4). Naturally, a place of culture will attract other forms of cultural consumption – amenities such as entertainment, leisure, food and fashion. Examples of former industrial structures being converted for this use include several unique nightclubs and recently the popular ‘Chelsea Market’ (fig. 7), a food market located inside the former Nabisco factory, and the large indoor sports complex know as ‘Chelsea Piers’ in what used to be a busy centre for passenger ships and sea cargo (David, 2002: 66). West Chelsea has also long been a centre for auto-related services and parking but these businesses have since the residential development occurred struggled to compete with other commerce (CPC, 2005: 4). Arguably the most innovative use of former industrial infrastructure is the High Line Park, opened in 2009, which has attracted even more attention to the neighborhood (fig. 6).

figure 4, 5 and 7. Left (5): A freight train on the High Line running through a warehouse. Top right (4): Warehouse in the ‘American Round Arch Style’ that was popular at the turn of the 20th century. The Starrett-Lehigh building, an icon in american industrial architecture in the early 20th century, is visable in the background (Brazee, 2008). Bottom right (7): Entrance to Chelsea Market.

Part III – CASE STUDY

figure 6. Today over fifty percent of West Chelseaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s building stock is used for art-related purposes (Brazee, 2008: 25).

PART I - CONTEXT

1. New York City (Artist)

2. New York City (Power)

3. Post-industrial Society

PART II -THEORY

Gentrification (Consumption)

1. Cultural Capital and Consumption in the Creative Class

2. Re-zoning, Politics and Development

3. Space and Aesthetics in Post-industrial Society

PART III - CASE STUDY

PART IV - ANALYSIS

1. A Platform of Human Capital

2. Special West Chelsea District

PART V - CONCLUSION

3. The High Line and the social Order of Buildings

Part IV - ANALYSIS

The High Line is an elevated, former rail viaduct, erected in the 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s to keep transportation of freight off the busy pedestrianized streets for the benefit and safety of the public. At the time of its official opening in 1934 it was heralded as one of the best public improvements in the history of New York City (DTPS, 2002: 48) (fig. 8). However, the High Line was constructed for a society whose primary economic function was production. When this focus shifted as deindustrialisation changed the spatial use of buildings in New York, the use of the High Line also stopped. The last train to ride its tracks was in 1980, and according to Mollenkopf and Castells (in Brazee, 2008: 24), New York, could no longer claim to be an industrial city by the 1990s.

One wonders then, why was the use of the High Line not adapted until 2009? The subsequent section will first examine how certain people triggered the old industrial area to become a centre of culture, and then move on to look at a specific point in 2005 when it, through rezoning, became a residential area as well, to finally move on to a discussion on the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s socio-spatial impact on the area.

Fig x. The High Line Park

figure 8. Aerial view of the High Line in its past state.

figure 9. Aerial view of the High Line in its present state.

figure 10. Gallery distribution of Lower Manhattan in 1995.

figure 11. Gallery distribution of Lower Manhattan in 2007.

Part IV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ANALYSIS

5. A Platform of Human Capital

The neighborhood of West Chelsea has transformed from a district of industrial production to an upper middle class district defined by its cultural consumption with a focus on the arts. The shifting status of a neighbourhood running parallel with the artist role in it is a commonly observed trend in gentrification. As in the case of SoHo, artists are unintentional catalysts in the process of transforming West Chelsea.

The recent change in West Chelsea starts back in the mid 90’s when artists and art galleries were pushed out due to rising rents in SoHo (fig. 10 & 11). Similar spatial qualities that were the attraction of SoHo in the first place were the motivation for the subsequent move to West Chelsea. It had a similar but more varied infrastructure of manufacturing lofts, warehouses and garages - generally high, unobstructed spaces with great lighting conditions. Spaces that used to house industrial production are now the places where ‘contemporary production’ is actually carried out, but they also embody the shift from the city’s industrial economy to one dominated by the service sector (Zukin, 1982: 111).

Although industrial activity was present still, the slow decline had begun, and artist and gallery owners creatively converted these former industrial spaces just as had been done in SoHo. Some galleries, including the famous Dia Foundation for the Arts, had been there for years, but when a few more of the famous galleries established West Chelsea as their territory it put the area on the cultural map of New York. A stream of galleries followed and by 1997, forty galleries had opened their doors with fifty more anticipated to move in within that year (Brazee, 2008: 25).

However, few artists have ever lived in West Chelsea because of the zoning designation (Brazee, 2008) and thus, their role in the process is perhaps more indirect than in the case of SoHo. Nevertheless, as the neighborhood established as an art gallery district, where artists worked and frequented, combined with the commercial attraction of the galleries, created a collective identity of high cultural capital that appealed to other creative professionals, which resulted in an influx of the broader middle class in the neighborhood (Brazee, 2008: 25). The order of people following the artist has in this case, as in so many others, been marked by their social proximity to an artistic occupancy (Ley, 1996: 210). Ley argues the importance of a particular subgroup to this class, one he labels ‘the cultural class’ - cultural and social professionals in the applied arts, the media, teaching and social services (Ley, 1996: 15). The infrastructure of the area provides appropriate space for such activities and these businesses are important contributors to the creative spirit that characterizes West Chelsea today. Zukin, (1982: 120) points out: “though a corporate headquarters could hardly move to a loft, in their case a loft address is chic. Meanwhile, the loft areas that have been

disrupted by a variety of productive uses settle down to a more homogeneous variety of middle-class mixed use.”. This is true of West Chelsea where manufacturing was replaced by modern forms of productive businesses that cannot easily be replaced by larger headquarters but by the workers of such firms, if a residential opportunity is given. In summary, as gentrification continues, the lifestyle of middle class people dominates the use of space and buildings are defined by consumption rather than production.

The area now has a vital street life and a mix of capital. The art gallery is the defining institution and automatically the area is one where cultural capital is held very highly, however, having through this possession attracted other businesses and people with progressively higher economic capital and not necessarily the highest of cultural capital - the area has dual wealth. This creates a perfect opportunity for conspicuous consumption, but requires a physical platform. What attract people to the location of West Chelsea is simply, the lifestyle and the amenities that make up the “landscape of conspicuous consumption” (Lees, Slater and Wyly, 2008: 113) that is immediately noticeable. High-end fashion boutiques and restaurants compete with galleries for street-level space and together they create a stage where affluence and social distinction can be expressed. Florida (2002: 259) points out that the creative class, in his thesis, prefer “a more active, informal, street-level variant of amenities”. He supports this argument with research in the field that describes the new role of lifestyle amenities as being part of the ‘entertainment machine’ that the modern city has become which, again, is explained as a result of the shift from the city as a place of production to consumption. Edward Glazer (in Florida, 2002: 259) concludes that “[t]he future of most cities depends on their being desirable places for consumers to live”.

Research has proven that high-income people prefer neighbourhoods with a good selection of amenities and that the same thing may be said about gay people (Florida, 2002: 259). The prominent gay community in West Chelsea is a significant element of its image and cannot be overlooked. Gays often have a pioneering role in gentrification, as writers such as Castell (1983), have discussed. In Florida’s theory he stresses ‘the 3 T’s of economic development: ‘Technology’, ‘Talent’ and ‘Tolerance’, and the importance of having all three (Florida, 2002: 249). Having lately attracted larger technology companies such as Google and IAC, there is no doubt West Chelsea possesses them all but particularly striking in this context is perhaps – tolerance. The Lower West Side of Manhattan has for decades been a hangout of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) and West Chelsea was early home to several gay nightclubs (David and Hammond, 2011). Florida (2002: 256) continues: “To some extent, homosexuality represents the last frontier of diversity in our society, and thus a place that welcomes the gay community welcomes all kinds of people.”. By having an established gay community, Chelsea is showing a clear sign of having a low entry barrier to human capital (tolerance) that is important to spurring creativity and generating growth (Florida, 2002: 256).

Part IV – ANALYSIS

A tolerant area, accepting difference, will foster a creative atmosphere and automatically accept new unconventional ideas. West Chelsea has symbolised in its population, characteristics that creates a platform of human capital from which the High Line could be realised. One, the people have the cultural capital to appreciate and support the historic preservation of a gritty industrial structure. Two, the creative and diverse population makes it a place open to new ideas - not only is there acceptance of historic preservation of the structure but also support to make something inventive out of it. Three, the new middle class and their relative affluence create an opportunity for mass-consumption of cultural objects. As, noticed in SoHo, this offers an opportunity for growth and attracts large-scale investors and politicians.

figure 12. West Chelsea Special District has its core between 10th and 11th Avenues, and 18th and 30th Streets (CPC, 2005: 9).

Part IV â&#x20AC;&#x201C; ANALYSIS

6.1. Previous Zoning

Continuing from where the last chapter ended, the other key to unlock the project was through re-zoning. Whereas the population of West Chelsea is largely an unplanned evolution, zoning, in contrast, is a planned activity managed by city government in alliance with certain organizations.

The zoning designation of the area the High Line is running through was ‘M1-5’ prior to the rezoning of 2005 (fig. 12). MI-5 allows for light manufacturing but it also accepts commercial activity (CPC, 2005). However, residential use is not permitted in such a zone, which meant that artist could not legally take residence in the area but galleries could use the space for commercial activity as the zoning permitted manufacturers to have showrooms, and art galleries, under the zoning codes, were regarded as showrooms (Brazee, 2008: 25). 6.2. Special West Chelsea District

Despite the gradual change in use of the area’s infrastructure from manufacturing to commercial activity that occurred when the art galleries started competing for space, the area’s land continued to be underused because of its manufacturing zoning and as a result the popular residential core east of 10th Avenue was not able to extend westwards. In 1999, West 23rd Street, between 10th and 11th Avenues, was re-zoned to permit residential use. Three residential towers were immediately developed which proved the demand for housing in the area (CPC, 2005: 2). CPC states in their report that one of the re-zoning’s objectives was to shift the underdeveloped land use from manufacturing to residential, while encouraging the growth of the vibrant arts community (CPC, 2005: 2). In more pragmatic terms, the new zoning permits residential development along 10th and 11th Avenues and the most northern and southern part of the area. However, to help ensure the continuation of the existing art district, the M1-5 designation was kept in the mid-blocks where the vast majority of the galleries are located. Thus, limiting the economic pressure that would naturally occur if property owners had the opportunity to convert their buildings into residential use, which would increase rents, and ultimately push the galleries out once again (Davis and Hammond, 2011: 64) (CPC, 2005: 8).

‘Reclaiming the High Line’, a report by the Design Trust for Public Space (DTPS) and Friends of the High Line (FHL), states on other hand that “[m]any ground floor spaces are occupied by prominent art dealers who have purchased their buildings, while the upper stories of larger warehouses and factory buildings tend to be rented by smaller or newer galleries. It is these smaller galleries that may suffer if the area is

rezoned for new residential uses, since the resulting development pressure may lead to a sharp increase in rents.” (DTPS, 2002: 62). Neither the city, nor the art world, would like to see the art community suffer the same death as its precedent and while history cannot repeat itself because the potential displacement produced by gentrification, allowed by rezoning, is in regards to business only, as opposed to both people and business in SoHo, it can nonetheless break up the community and force it to re-establish elsewhere. Some galleries learned their lesson from SoHo and can claim ownership of their space rather than a lease but these are established galleries with healthy economy. They are however depending on the large quantity of smaller galleries that makes high concentration a distinctive attribute of the art scene in New York, but perhaps more dependent on this positive distinction is the city, for the social and cultural value it derives from this leading position (Zukin, 1982: 52). In addition, the presence of an art infrastructure, as Ley (1996) and Zukin (1991) argued, is a significant tool for attracting further economic capital which, depending on one’s point of view, could lead to further revitalization - or gentrification, in any case, repeating what Marcuse (1985: 934) pointed out “improvements in the physical quality of its housing stock, attraction of higher-income residents and businesses, and an increase in the tax base”. However, economic market forces are not the only threat to the arts community in this case, as zoning, as have been previously discussed, is not always strictly enforced by the regulating bodies and thus the future of the neighbourhood is difficult to predict (Halle and Tiso, 2007: 3). This is important as we move on to the central objective of the rezoning, and the catalyst for the whole process - the High Line. The faith of the art galleries - the main characteristic of the neighbourhood’s contemporary personality, could potentially be in danger because of the development spurred by the park.

The main obstacle for making the park a feasible project was finding a solution to the problem of the underdeveloped properties beneath and directly to the west of the structure. Chelsea Property Owners (CPO) - an alliance of real estate developers, had for years been lobbying for its demolition and had the former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, backing their proposal (Davis, Hammond, 2011). In 1999, when the demolition seemed almost certain, Friends of the High Line (FHL) was formed by Joshua David and Robert Hammond, two local residents, with the aim of saving the structure and create an urban park on top of it. Their work defeated the opposition with the support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his administration, proceeding Giuliani in office. FHL (DTPS, 2002: 72) argued, “that because the High Line was built with public as well as private funds, it should be reused as a public amenity that benefits the entire community, not just private property owners.”. In addition, they pointed towards the cost of demolition and then convinced the Mayor and CPC through an extensive feasibility study that the High Line, in a revitalized form, could spur urban renewal and generate income for the city (Oroussoff, 2004: 1). CPO only dropped their long standing opposition after being promised by the city, through the rezoning, to be able to sell their developing rights to other lots in

Part IV – ANALYSIS

the area. This meant CPC in collaboration with FHL had to work out a ‘transfer of developing rights mechanism’ so that property owners were allowed to transfer ‘air rights’ to existing buildings in an area specified to a hundred feet wide corridor along the park, and thus make profit from selling these rights (fig. 13). This would ultimately increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the current structure to a higher maximum FAR (CPC, 2005: 8) (fig. 14). This mechanism was one of the four that would regulate this development. The other three allowed further increase in FAR and included the ‘Inclusionary Housing Bonus’, to increase the percentage of lower income housing; the ‘High Line Improvement Bonus’, requiring a monetary contribution as well as provision of access and support facilities to the park; and the ‘High Line Transfer Corridor Bonus’, that allowed lots underneath the park to be developed for commercial use once the rest of the rights had been transferred (CPC, 2005: 11).

figure 13. (left) High Line Trasnfer Corridor location. figure 14. (right)“The floor area ratio is the principal bulk regulation controlling the size of buildings. FAR is the ratio of total building floor area to the area of its zoning lot. Each zoning district has an FAR which, when multiplied by the lot area of the zoning lot, produces the maximum amount of floor area allowable on that zoning lot.” (nyc.gov, 2013)

http://socks-studio.com/2011/04/02/same-highline-another-era/

figure 15. Steven Holl’s proposal ‘Bridge of Houses’ from 1981.

figure 16. The High Line covered in weeds. Photograph from Joel Sternfeld’s ‘Walk the High Line’, a book of photographs that heavily contributed to the great public interest for the park.

Part IV – ANALYSIS

7. The High Line and the Spatial Order of Buildings

Several proposals of reusing the High Line had been under discussion ever since it ceased to operate in 1980 (fig. 15) but constant opposition had made it left to decay (fig. 16). The realisation of this project has been a huge success for New York City and has had a significant effect on West Chelsea in numerous respects. The first of these outcomes, discussed directly below, is the development that resulted from the rezoning mechanisms, which allowed the space on the High Line to be reclaimed.

The most immediate striking feature of the built environment of West Chelsea at present date is perhaps not the innovative design of the High Line itself, but the modern skyline of condominiums that cluster along the linear park and their juxtaposition to former industrial factories and warehouses. Friends of the High Line was built on community values by two members of the neighbourhood, at first arguing that through historic preservation of the High Line, they were also saving the neighbourhood from high risers that could develop in its place (Davis and Hammond, 2011). At some point along the line though, this ethos was lost when it became obvious that those developing rights had to land somewhere if the High Line was to become a feasible project. This was a drawback of FHL, representing a community whose primary concern was to keep the urban landscape low. However, FHLâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s acceptance of this fact suggests a changed attitude towards the project as its realisation, the idea of a new type of space, became a greater priority than maintaining the character of the neighbourhood itself. Needless to say, the developers used this clause of the rezoning and as a result high risers have in no time completely altered the urban fabric of the neighbourhood.

The celebrated project immediately gave the neighbourhood a reputation of innovative design, attracting world-renowned architects including Frank Gehry, Jean Nouvel and Shigeru Ban that have enhanced this position (fig. 17). When the gentrified landscape includes new built, the form and aesthetic, according to Ley (2002: 105), often try and express the characteristics of the former into a post-modern design vocabulary. The success of this strategy is a fine balance, which can easily result in kitsch. The play on past architectural forms and the industrial aesthetic is obvious in contemporary West Chelsea and the High Line has to some degree influenced this style with its paradoxical play of past and present, raw and polished, wild and controlled. In the first review of the design proposal, before the competition winner was even announced, the new architecture critique at the New York Times, Nicolai Ouroussoff (2004: 2), praised this part of the design specifically saying,â&#x20AC;&#x153;[t]he idea is to create a virtually seamless flow between past and future realities, a blend of urban grit and cosmopolitan sophistication. But it is also to slow the process of change, to focus the eye on the colliding forces -- both natural and man-made -- that give cities their particular beauty.â&#x20AC;?

Imitations of the industrial aesthetic can be observed in the new built along the linear park and is in some cases used in a sophisticated manner (fig. 18 & 19), but will this play on the industrial aesthetic become a commodity as time passes? If opportunity to further develop properties was to arise, which could be an outcome through increasing economic pressure and less strict zoning as precedents have indicated, this style can potentially be exploited as it appeals to the new middle class and especially the less culturally rich segment of this group. For them, it is a signifier of high cultural capital and social distinction, whereas the theoretical framework would argue it being a sign of mature gentrification where economic capital dominates the urban landscape, creating mass-produced kitsch.

The introduction of new condominiums, expressed through modern architecture, demonstrates a definite change in social use of space in West Chelsea. The days of manufacturing are over, non-productive activity has taken over and the deindustrialisation process is close to completion. The following discussion will look at the influence of the High Line from a socio-spatial perspective and the relationship between buildings that make up the area to present date.

The revitalization of the High Line exposes its visitors to the city’s and the neighborhood’s industrial heritage but at the same time heralds its new characteristics of design, art and cultural consumption letting its users simultaneously enjoy the city in past and present form (DTPS, 2002: 82). Zukin (1982: 73) argued that time is the most important factor in commercializing the industrial aesthetic. When structures that were once used for manufacturing turns into cultural artifacts, the image of their economic function’s death is reinforced and they become picturesque (Zukin, 1982: 180). We find art in industry, in objects that were not created to be aesthetically pleasing, but to accomplish a societal function. The High Line had fallen to decay since the early 1980’s, almost forgotten, hidden behind warehouses and lofts and covered in weeds, but technically a working railway. If we agree that the High Line used to be of secondary nature, serving the primary function of the warehouses - then when the warehouses changes to places of cultural consumption, and there is no longer room for an industrial function to reestablish in the area, it makes a return to an industrial society impossible (Zukin, 1982: 180). With no space left for industrial production to start up again, a supportive infrastructure meant to serve this use automatically becomes obsolete. Its new use is instead being informed by the new social use of the primary infrastructure it used to connect, what are now art galleries.

The art community had through the long planning process supported the reuse of the structure, and this has clearly affected the High Line’s modern use, as art has been an important feature of the High Line’s success (fig. 20, 21 & 22). Adrian Benepe, the New York Parks commissioner, once said: “The High Line is going

Part IV – ANALYSIS

figure 17. The Post-modern landscape - a mix of past and present architectural form. Frank Gehry’s IAC building is lit up. Next to it is Shigeru Ban’s ‘Metal Shutter House’, followed by a project by Annabelle Selfdorf. The highest building visable is designed by Jean Nouvel.

figure 18 & 19. Left: ‘Metal Shutter House’ by Shigeru Ban. Right: Another contemporary peice of architecture that mimics an industrial past.

figure 20 & 21. (top) Art on the High Line. figure 22. (middle right) Even old structures interact with the public space. Performance from the ‘High Line Renegade Cabaret’. figure 23. (left) HL23 by Neil Denari. From the High Line, one can see straight into the living room of this luxurious and transparent building. figure 24. (below) The Standard Hotel by Polshek Partnership straddles the High Line

Part IV – ANALYSIS

to be much more than a park, it is going to be a work of art.” (Davis and Hammond, 2011: 85). As a product of its surroundings, in this sense, it has also become a showroom for displaying art, and architecture, with regulations that encourages “a variety of building forms to allow for visual interest along the High Line’s length” (CPC: 2005: 8). This could possibly begin to suggest that there has been a shift in the social hierarchy of buildings making up the consumption landscape of West Chelsea. What used to be a secondary structure connecting the warehouses has now become its centerpiece. Just as the artist were regarded as a bohemian prior to the 1960s and then suddenly discovered as something of social value, the High Line has in the perception of the general public, and especially developers, shifted from being regarded as an urban blight, to become an asset with invaluable symbolism. Adding to this theory, is the fact that the city, although expressing concern for the art district and taking actions through the re-zoning to maintain it, is simultaneously making the statement that the High Line and the expected growth from it is prioritized, and this might affect the art district in the long run. Finally, the re-zoning aims to “[e]nsure that the form of new buildings relates to and enhances neighborhood character and the High Line open space” (CPC, 2005: 3). This again emphasizes the high priority the High Line has been given in relation to its urban context. Bulk regulations guaranteed air, light and views to be protected around the park. The adjacent development, as well as old structures have integrated so well in this philosophy, directing their attention to the linear park and opening up to become an extension of the public space it created, engaging with the park, making it both its scene and its audience, from where ostentatious display and exhibitionism can be practiced and viewed. A showcase for the gentrifiers conspicuous consumption of culture, aesthetic and lifestyle (fig. 23 & 24).

“Central to the process of class constitution and definition is the built environment, as both container and expression of social relations. The changing social order is both reflected in and reconstructed by the spatial order and the buildings, which are part of it.” (Jager, 1986: 79)

Part V – CONCLUSION

PART V â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CONCLUSION

The dissertation set out to study the recent urban transformation of West Chelsea and more specifically the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in this process. Little time has passed since its opening in 2009 but significant change has occurred in the adjacent built environment in that period. This proves its value as a springboard for urban renewal and presented an opportunity of study as little academic research has been carried out regarding its recent revitalization. In this investigation, the aim was to assess how certain aspects of the neighbourhood have contributed to the transformation, why the structure was reused now and how that has affected the spatial and social climate in the area.

One of the more significant findings to emerge from this study is that the art world played a crucial role in the early transformation of the area and this has affected the High Line Park. The different actors of the art world were the original gentrifiers, making this former industrial area a centre of culture, which attracted more creative people and businesses with high cultural capital that, together with the traditionally large gay community, generated a creative and open-minded atmosphere, with a low entry barrier to human capital. In West Chelsea, as in many gentrified neighbourhoods, the cultural capital of the art world have over time, to some degree, been replaced by the broader middle class and their economic capital. However, this last subgroup is important as it increased the consumption power of the population, which captured the attention of large-scale investors and politicians. This seems to suggest that the timing of the High Lineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s revitalisation can partly be explained by the fact that the neighbourhood had to reach a certain stage of gentrification to establish a well-balanced platform of people with different characteristics that could make the it a realistic project.

The second major finding of the research was the significance of the re-zoning of 2005. The research implies that the High Line was in fact the central objective of this political action and has directed the future development in numerous ways. The High Line was dependent on finding a solution to the underlying properties and by allowing residential development, to foster a mixed-use zone, it is likely to put financial pressure on existing businesses, which could potentially, in the long run, harm the art district. The manufacturing designation was kept for part of the new district to counteract this effect, but as the investigation of SoHo suggests, zoning regulations are not always strictly enforced and the rezoning hence, do not guarantee the future of the art district. The research does not propose that the rezoning will ultimately resolve the art scene, but merely recognises it as a potential problem that West Chelsea might encounter.

Perhaps the most obvious finding to emerge from this study is the High Line’s impact on the adjacent built environment as it is clearly visible in the form of the new built, which now makes up the modern skyline of West Chelsea. Furthermore, the research suggest that the play on the industrial aesthetic in the High Line’s design has inspired this theme to be applied to several new buildings in this post-modern landscape. The study express a certain concern for the development of this design theme, as imitation could eventually become mass-produced, creating an aesthetic that submits to the kitsch of gentrification.

The major observation of this study is the shifting socio-economic priority that has been the trend over the past few decades and how this is expressed in the local built environment. The structure reminds us of the neighbourhood’s industrial legacy but its new use is a social product of a society that allocates land according to consumption patterns rather than production. An appreciation of the High Line aesthetic, its identity and sense of unique space could however, only begin to appear when enough time had passed to render its former function obsolete. This offers further understanding to why the project was realised in 2009 and not, for instance, when Steven Holl proposed a reuse scheme in 1981. In that case, as in several other, deindustrialization had not evolved enough to make the structure interesting or romantic in people’s perception.

Furthermore, the study of the socio-spatial aspect has led to the finding that this architectural intervention has had significant impact on the social order of buildings making up post-industrial West Chelsea. The High Line’s new use was from the start supported by the art industry. Its modern character is highly influenced by this cultural aspect of West Chelsea, to such an extent that one could argue it being not only a park, but also the main art gallery displaying art, as well as architecture and people. Because art galleries were not prioritized in the rezoning and the newly built was regulated to enhance the High Line’s position, its symbolic status appears to be infinite and what used to be of secondary nature can now be considered the centre piece of the consumption landscape. This new public space offers a new type of amenity from where affluence, leisure and cultural consumption can be expressed, but also an audience for the gentrifiers, occupying the transparent facades of the adjacent built environment, where their lifestyle and social status can be expressed.

Overall, this study points out the influence that innovative urban planning can have on its context. It enhances our understanding of the High Line’s impact on its built environment and provides some clues to certain criteria that can make such a project successful. Many American cities have plans to replicate the concept of the High Line hoping to achieve the same effects. However, it remains to see if this strategy will be successful in other contexts that may not have the same unique blend of people, history and architecture as West Chelsea. Finally, the research suggest certain problems that may arise from this type of urban

Part V – CONCLUSION

planning. Given the short amount of time that have passed since this project took shape and the limitations of the scope of a dissertation, it is important to point out that these suggestions are speculative as there are many more factors that have affected West Chelsea that could not be considered. This subject will most likely be discussed to a great extent in the years to come and this study have hopefully provoked some areas of particular interest and posed questions for further investigation of the powerful phenomenon that is the High Line.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bell, D. (1974) The Coming of Post-industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, London: Heinemann.

Bird, J. Et al. (ed.) (1993) Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global change, London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Brazee, C. (2008) ‘West Chelsea Historic District: designation report’, New York City Landmark preservation Commission.

Bridge, G. (2001) ‘Estate agents as interpreters of economic and cultural capital: the gentrification premium in the Sydney housing market’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 40, 4: 87-101.

Bridge, G. (2006) ‘Perspectives on cultural capital and the neighbourhood’, Urban Studies 40, 4: 719-730.

Burns, C. and Kahn, A. (2005) Site Matters, New York: Routledge.

Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-cultural Theory Of Urban Social Movements, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

City Planning Commission (2005) Unkown, May 25, 2005, New York: CPC

Currid, E. (2009) ‘Bohemia as subculture: “bohemia” as industry: art, culture and economic development’, Journal of Planning Literature 23, 4: 368-382.

DTPS (2002) Reclaiming the Highline, New York: Ivy Hill Corporation, Design Trust for Public Space and Friends of the High Line.

David, J. and Hammond, R. (2011) High Line: The Inside Story of New Yorks City’s Park in the Sky, New York: Ferrar, Straus and Grioux.

Deutsche, D. and Gendel Ryan, C. (1984) ‘The fine art of gentrification’, October 31: 91-111.

Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class:...and how it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, & Everyday Life, New York: Basic Books.

Friends of the High Line (eds.)(2011) Designing The High Line: Gansevoort Street To 30th Street, New York: Friends of the High Line.

Halle, D and Tiso, E. (2007) ‘Chelsea still center of art world’, The Villager 77, 30.

Jager, M. (1986) ‘Class definition and the aesthetic of gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne’, in N. Smith and P. Williams (eds.) Gentrification of the City, London: Unwin Hyman, 78-91.

Kostelanetz, R. (2003) SoHo – The Rise and Fall of an Artist’ Colony, New York: Routledge.

Lees, L., Slater, T. and Wyly, E. (2008) Gentrification, New York: Routledge.

Ley, D. (1996) The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ley, D. (2003) ‘Artists, aestheticisation and the field of gentrification’, Urban Studies 40, 12: 2527-2544.

Marcuse, P. (1988) “Do cities have a future?” in R. Cherry et al. (eds.) The Imperiled Economy, Book II: Through the Safety Net, New York: The Monthly Review Press.

Marcuse, P. and van Kempen, R. (2000) Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order?, Oxford: Blackwell.

Mills, C. (1987) ‘“Life on the upslope”: the postmodern landscape of gentrification’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 6: 169-189

Molotch, H. and Treskon, M. (2009) ‘SoHo, chelsea, and the dynamic geography of galleries in NYC’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (Seminar), January 25.

Moreno, L. (2012) ‘Looking backward: towards a critique of neo-modernity’, City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action 16, 3: 345-354.

Ouroussoff, N. (2004) ‘An appraisal; gardens in the air where the rail once ran’, New York Times, 12 August.

Sassen, S. (2001) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Simpson, C.R. (1981) SoHo – The Artist in the City, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Smith, N. and Williams, P. (eds.) (1986) Gentrification of the City, London: Unwin Hyman.

Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, New York: Routledge.

Zukin, S. (1982) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change, Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.

Zukin, S. (1991) ‘Gentrification, cuisine and the critical infrastructure: power and centrality downtown’ in, Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 179-217.

FIGURE REFERENCES

front.

David, J. and Hammond. R., 2011: 140

back. http://landarchs.com/highline-london-design-competition/ figure 1. Auhtor’s personal figure 2. maps.google.com/maps, edited by author figure 3. maps.google.com/maps, edited by author figure 4. David, J. and Hammond. R., 2011: 140 figure 5. Brazee, C., 2008: 1 figure 6. DTPS, 2002: 61 figure 7. http://clearedready.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/new-york-city-week-chelsea-market.html figure 8. David, J. and Hammond. R.,2011:140 figure 9. David, J. and Hammond. R., 2011: 144 figure 10. www.uni-bonn.de_~lmetzger_res_NAP_slides012510.pdf figure 11. www.uni-bonn.de_~lmetzger_res_NAP_slides012510.pdf figure 12. CPC, 2005: 10 figure 13. CPC, 2005: 133 figure 14. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/glossary.shtmlfigure 15. Bridge of Houses figure 16. http://www.luhringaugustine.com/artists/joel-sternfeld#/images/46/ figure 17. http://robclearyphoto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/iac-frank-gehry.html figure 18. http://www.shigerubanarchitects.com/works/2011_metal-shutter-house/index.html figure 19. Authour’s personal figure 20. http://inhabitat.com/nyc/the-high-line-zoo-is-a-glow-in-the-dark-animal-menagerie-along-the- elevated-park/ figure 21. Authour’s personal figure 22. http://www.renegadecabaret.com/ figure 23. Authour’s personal figure 24. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/arts/design/09pols.html?_r=0