Jane Jacobs’ West Village: Then and Now An Analysis of Neighborhood Change

A thesis Submitted by Sarah E. Moser In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts In Urban & Environmental Policy & Planning

TUFTS UNIVERSITY

MAY 2011

Advisor: Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University Reader: Barbara Parmenter, Tufts University

i Abstract This thesis seeks to understand how Jane Jacobs’ micro-neighborhood within the

West Village has changed - physically, demographically, and in terms of use - since she lived there. In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, published in 1961,

Jacobs expresses the importance of diversity, both of uses and populations. In the

1960s, the West Village was a mix of neighboring industrial, commercial, and residential uses and was a mostly working-class neighborhood, but in 2011 both the industries and the working classes have disappeared. In order to trace the West

Village’s transition into “super gentrification,” this thesis gives a history of the neighborhood and shows physical change by comparing photography of the neighborhood from the 1960s and 2011. It compares the demographic indicators of gentrification, such as population, type of household, education level, income level, and monthly rent for each decade. And finally, it analyzes 1947 Sanborn Maps, New

York Planning Department zoning maps between 1961 and 2010, and an inventory of current businesses, to determine changes in use. Learning from this study of neighborhood change in Jacobs’ neighborhood, planners should take a three-pronged approach to address gentrification, based on Jacobs’ teachings, but modified for today’s problems. First, use Jacobs’ on-the-ground observation strategy and get out into the neighborhood to really understand how it works. Second, take a huge step back and look at the big picture - the city, the global economy, and social and political pressures – to understand these different influences on the neighborhood.

And third, ask questions of the neighborhoods’ residents and business owners to fully understand the larger shifts that affect them.

ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank all the people who supported this effort and whose insights and contributions made this possible. My thesis advisor, Shelly, I would like to thank for your guidance and knowledge about the West Village. To my reader, Barbara, thank you for your thoroughness and advice throughout this process. I want to thank my coworkers at ELM for being so flexible and supportive with my work schedule. I would also like to acknowledge Jane Jacobs for inspiring me to take a closer look at her neighborhood. And finally, thank you to my parents, friends, and Tom for bringing out the best in me. All misjudgments, errors, omissions and opinions are, of course, entirely my own.

iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... iv Table of Figures ...... v Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgments...... iii Introduction ...... 1 Methodology ...... 5 Thesis Structure ...... 6 Chapter I: Background ...... 8 Jane Jacobs: A Short Biography ...... 8 Death and Life of Great American Cities ...... 11 Reviews of Death and Life of Great American Cities ...... 16 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 21 The Origins of “Super Gentrification” ...... 21 Super Gentrification and “Destination” Neighborhoods ...... 25 Chapter 3: The West Village...... 29 A Short History of the West Village ...... 29 Jacobs’ Micro-Neighborhood, i.e. the Study Area ...... 38 Land Use ...... 41 Redevelopment ...... 42 Street-by-Street Physical Change ...... 43 Chapter 3: Gentrification Characteristics ...... 53 Historical Census ...... 53 2005-2009 American Community Survey ...... 61 Chapter 4: Diversity of Uses ...... 64 New York Department of Planning Zoning Maps ...... 65 Sanborn Maps ...... 70 Neighborhood Business Inventory ...... 72 Street by Street Building Use Changes ...... 74 Conclusions ...... 86 Appendix ...... 90 Appendix A: 1947 Sanborn Maps...... 90 Appendix B: New York Planning Department Zoning Maps ...... 98 Bibliography ...... 104

iv Table of Figures

Figure 1: The Study Area, showing Border Streets, North/South Streets, and East/West Streets (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 2: The Study Area within the West Village, showing the border streets of both (Moser, S., 2011) Figure 3: The Study Area within the West Village, within Lower Manhattan, showing the surrounding neighborhoods (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 4: The Study Area showing the land uses from the 1947 Sanborn Map (Sanborn, 1947) Figure 5: The Study Area showing the land uses from the 2011 Business Inventory (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 6: The Study Area showing the redevelopment patterns (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 7: The Study Area showing the border streets of Christopher, West, Gansevoort, and West 4th Streets (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 8: The Study Area, showing North/South Streets (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 9: The Study Area showing the East/West Streets (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 10: Census Tracts 73, 75, 77, 79 that cover the Study Area (American FactFinder, 2010). Figure 11: Map of Lower Manhattan showing percent change in census tract population from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999) Figure 12: Chart showing total population and percent non-family households for the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 13: Map of Lower Manhattan showing percent change in average household income from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 14: Chart showing average household income (in 1999 dollars) for the Study Area from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 15: Map of Lower Manhattan showing percent change in aggregate monthly rent (in 1999 dollars) per census tract from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 16: Chart showing monthly rent per renter household (in 1999 dollars) for the Study Area from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 17: Map of Lower Manhattan showing number of people age 25+ with a bachelor’s degree per census tract from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 18: Chart showing percent of people age 25+ with a bachelor’s degree for the Study Area from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). Figure 19: Chart showing total population, percent non-family households average household income (in 1999 dollars), monthly rent per renter household (in 1999 dollars), percent of

v people age 25+ with a bachelors degree (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999, American Community Survey, 2005-2009, Social Explorer, 2011). Figure 20: Chart showing average household income and monthly rent per renter household for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s for the study area and New York City (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999, American Community Survey, 2005-2009, Social Explorer, 2011). Figure 21: Map of the Study Area showing land use in 1947 (Sanborn, 1947). Figure 22: Map of the Study Area showing land use in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 23: 1961 Zoning Map of the Study Area (New York Department of Planning, 1961). Figure 24: 2010 Zoning Map of the Study Area (New York Department of Planning, 2010). Figure 25: Map showing the West, Washington and Greenwich streets which had the most zoning changes from 1961 to 2010 (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 26: The block between Bank, Bethune, Hudson and Greenwich Streets from the 1947 Sanborn Map highlighted to show the General Electric Company (Sanborn, 1947). Figure 27: Percentage of Necessity vs. Industry based on the 1947 Sanborn Maps (Sanborn, 1947). Figure 28: Percentage of Necessity vs. Destination vs. Industry based on the 2011 Business Inventory (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 29: 1947 Business Inventory of stores and industry on each street in the Study Area based on the 1947 Sanborn Maps (Sanborn, 1947). Figure 30: 2011 Business Inventory of necessity, restaurant, bars, and boutiques on each street in the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 31: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Christopher Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011). Figure 32: Christopher Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 33: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for West Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011). Figure 34: West Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 35: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Gansevoort Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011). Figure 36: Gansevoort Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 37: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for West 4th Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011) Figure 38: West 4th Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) Figure 39: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Washington Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011) Figure 40: Washington Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 41: Greenwich Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 42: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Hudson Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011).

vi Figure 43: Hudson Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 44: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Bleecker Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011). Figure 45: Bleecker Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 46: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for 8th Avenue (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011). Figure 47: 8th Avenue within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 48: The East/West streets within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). Figure 49: The 1947 Business Inventory based on the Sanborn Maps for the East/West streets within the Study Area (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011) Figure 50: The 2011 Business Inventory for the East/West streets within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011)

vii Introduction Jane Jacobs (Jane Butzner at the time) walked

out of the Christopher Street subway station in

1935 and instantly fell in love with the jumble

of small-scale buildings and the narrow,

twisted streets of the West Village in New

York City. She admired the unique goods in

the quaint shops and associated with the people

on the streets. She was quoted in an interview

Picture shows Jane Jacobs’ house at saying that “in midtown I remember I always 555 Hudson Street in 2011. The bottom floor of the townhouse is a boutique selling $40 handmade felt so depressed. Everyone looked so well candles. The second and third floors are apartments (Moser, S. 2011). dressed and ‗with it‘ but down on Christopher

Street people looked the way I felt and rents were cheap (Alexiou, 2004, 20-21).

While searching for a job, she would explore the city, writing short articles about

New York’s most unique districts, and in this way, had stumbled onto the West

Village accidentally. Soon after discovering the neighborhood, Jacobs decided that she and her sister would move from their Brooklyn apartment to Morton Street, a few blocks from Christopher Street in the West Village (Alexiou, 2004, 21).

Later, in 1947, after marrying Robert Jacobs, and subsequently taking his name, Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs bought a dilapidated row house at 555 Hudson Street, fixed it up, and converted it into a single-family home. She lived in the townhouse for more than twenty years, raised her family there, and became a prominent figure in the

1 community. Unknowingly, by renovating a row house in a neighborhood that at the time was considered by many to be a slum, Jacobs was part of the first of three waves of gentrification that the West Village would see over the next half century.

When Jacobs moved to Hudson Street and began to raise a family there, she was by far an anomaly. Post World War II was a period when many white, middle-class families were fleeing the city for sterile, quiet, single-family housing of the suburbs.

The West Village was far from the monotony of the suburbs; its mostly working-class population lived in brick row houses and tenement buildings and worked in the factories, warehouses, and docks along the Hudson River. The Village was also home to an artist and a bohemian community made up of writers, poets, painters, and other luminaries such as Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, E.E. Cummings, and

Bob Dylan (Alexiou, 2006, 21). Jacobs would join these ranks when she published her first book in 1961, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, which detailed her observations of what causes a city to either flourish or decay. For each criterion of what makes a city great, Jacobs uses the West Village as an example of successful neighborhood pointing to the bustling sidewalks, lively parks, short blocks, diverse mix of uses, and high density without a high skyline, as rationale for its survival.

Although much of the physical makeup – the sidewalks, the parks, the short blocks - remains the same in 2011, exactly fifty years after the publication of Death and Life, in many other respects, the West Village is a far different place. Many of its residents live in a mix of adaptive reuse luxury buildings and renovated townhouses and

2 apartments that sell and rent for some of the highest prices in the world. Many of the manufacturing and artistry shops of the 1960s have been replaced by designer and boutique clothing shops, restaurants, and bars catering to a very upscale patron.

Instead of having a diverse mix of industry, commerce, and residential buildings on each block - as Jacobs describes in her book - many blocks have an over-abundance of these new businesses: boutiques, and restaurants and bars.

After multiple waves of gentrification in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the West

Village is currently experiencing “super gentrification” making it one of the most expensive and desirable places to live in the world. The high rents and living standards of the neighborhood have pushed out the very essence of what Jacobs thought made the neighborhood great: the diverse mix of income groups represented by the residents and small businesses. Other than making the neighborhood interesting and bringing character and flavor, Jacobs had another reason for wanting the working classes to remain in the Village. The working classes worked in the factories and supported the local businesses and by doing so they contributed to the primary and secondary uses of the neighborhood which served as the base for New

York City’s economy. The inexpensive rent in the Village allowed the working classes to live near where they worked. But, in 2011, the factories have all moved their assembly lines to the suburbs and the working classes have scattered to other neighborhoods in the city and suburbs (Jacobs.

3 This thesis will analyze how Jane Jacobs’ micro-neighborhood in the West Village has gentrified and changed since Jacobs’ moved to Hudson Street. In her book, The

Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs does not explicitly talk about gentrification, however, reading between the lines, a reader can implicitly infer that

Jacobs wanted families and individuals with mixed incomes to be able to inhabit the

Village to have it remain diverse and interesting. She also wanted to have a diverse mix of uses in the neighborhood including industry and manufacturing that would employ the working classes.

The following core questions will form the basis of the comparative analysis: How has Jacobs’ Micro-Neighborhood within the West Village changed - physically, demographically, and in terms of use - since she moved into 555 Hudson Street in

1947? Can our ability to look back and trace these changes help us to reassess the relevance of her ideas on city planning for today’s planners? To answer these questions, this thesis will discuss the history of the neighborhood and look at how it has physically changed since Jacobs’ lived there. It will compare the demographic indicators of gentrification such as population, type of household, education level, income level, and monthly rent in the last fifty years. And finally, it will analyze the diversity of uses by observing current business uses, and using Sanborn Maps and

New York Zoning maps to determine the business uses from Jacobs’ time.

4 Methodology

Observation and Re-Photography Jane Jacobs used her own observations to write Life and Death of Great American

Cities; thus, the principal method for conducting primary research for this thesis was neighborhood exploration on-foot. Jacobs’ “micro-neighborhood” (i.e. the “Study

Area”) within the West Village - defined for the purposes of this thesis by the boundaries of Gansevoort Street to the north, Christopher to the south, West 4th

Street to the east, and West Street to the west - was studied and observed in detail.

Photos were taken of relevant buildings and streetscapes to show how the neighborhood has physically changed. As available, photos sourced from a local photographer, Robert Otter, and the Collection of the New-York Historical Society, from the late 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, were placed side-by-side with a similar view of the same area for comparison of scale and design.

Inventory of Businesses As part of the on-the-ground research, an inventory of the businesses within the Study

Area was recorded to determine a ratio of “destination” businesses such as upscale boutiques, bars and restaurants, and “other/service/necessity” industries that provide day-to-day inexpensive necessity items to make a neighborhood more livable.

Maps Maps from the time period were used to obtain a vision of how the use of the buildings has changed over time. Sanborn Maps from 1947 were useful in identifying the major manufacturing and commercial uses located in the Study Area at that time.

New York City Zoning Maps of the Study Area also showed how changes to the

5 zoning of specific streets and blocks helped to change the neighborhood character and building uses.

Census Information Census information collected from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. Decennial

Census and the 2005-2009 American Community Survey was used to determine the demographic makeup of the neighborhood. Census information for the Study Area for each decade was also compared to the City of New York. The following indicators of gentrification were found for each census period: population, type of household, educational attainment, income levels, and housing costs. The census data for 1960-1999 was acquired through the GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database software that provides historic demographic data by county. The American

FactFinder American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates from the U.S. Census were used to determine the demographic information for the period of 2005-2009.

The decennial U.S. Census for 2010 was not available for the area at the time that this thesis was written. The Social Explorer software was used to determine the census information for the City of New York for comparison.

Thesis Structure This thesis is divided into five sections. Chapter one provides a short biography of

Jane Jacobs, and a guide to the relevant sections of her book, Death and Life of Great

American Cities. Chapter one also provides historical and current reviews of the book and of Jacobs’ ideas on cities. Chapter two gives a short history of the West

Village, a definition of Jacobs’ Micro-neighborhood, i.e. the Study Area, and an analysis of the Study Area in 2011. Also in Chapter two is a comparison of

6 photographs from the 1960s and 2011 to document the physical changes in the neighborhood. Chapter three offers an overview of the demographic indicators of gentrification for the Study Area for each decade and provides a comparison to the city of New York. Chapter four presents a business inventory and land use map of the Study Area and provides a street-by-street discussion of building uses in 1947 compared to the building uses in 2011. Finally, the Conclusions chapter provides an overview of how the Study Area has changed over the last fifty years and a discussion about what planners can learn from Jacobs’ teachings.

7 Chapter I: Background

Jane Jacobs: A Short Biography Jane Butzner was born on May 4, 1916 in

Scranton, Pennsylvania to middle-class, protestant

parents. Her father a doctor and her mother a

teacher and nurse, she grew up in a large suburban

house. Her parents instilled in her a sense of

individuality and non-conformity, characteristics

which would define her later in life. Although she

never receive formal education in urban planning, Jane Jacobs around the time that she wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York Times, she was a champion for neighborhood advocacy, 2006) has become one of the most famous activists against urban renewal and orthodox planning, and her books, especially Life and

Death of Great American Cities, are on the reading lists of urban planning schools nationwide (Alexiou, 2004, 9-26).

Her writing career began after graduating from high school at a local newspaper as an assistant to an editor. Growing restless with the small city life of Scranton, in 1935, she moved in with her sister who had an apartment in Brooklyn. Jobs were scarce during the Great Depression, so she was forced to fall back on secretarial positions in various manufacturing industries. Between jobs, she took to wandering the city writing short pieces about different districts in the city – the flower district, the fur

8 district, the diamond district, and others. She was able to sell some of these articles to

Vogue Magazine. She finally procured a job in journalism as a feature writer for Iron

Age Magazine where she worked for three years. Next she worked as a feature writer with the Office of War Information and a writer and editor for the State Department and Overseas Information Agency’s Amerika magazine (Alexiou, 2006, 9-21).

In 1947, she met a young architect named Robert Jacobs and they were married within three months. That same year, the Jacobs’ bought a three-story Jacobs’ townhouse at 555 Hudson Street in 2011(Moser, row house at 555 Hudson Street S. 2011). where they would live for more than twenty years and raise three children. When they bought it, the building was in a state of disrepair; it had no central heating and the backyard was piled with garbage. The last use of the ground floor had been a candy store, but the building had been vacant for several months. At the time, it stood between a laundry and a tailor shop (Alexiou, 2006, 27).

In 1952, Jacobs took a position with Architectural Forum magazine as the School and

Hospital Expert. Jacobs had no formal training in city planning or architecture and was baffled by her new title. To learn her new specialty, she stayed up late with her husband looking at hospital and school blueprints. In time, Jacobs was assigned stories on city planning, and despite her boss’ enthusiastic support of modernist ideas,

9 quickly became disillusioned with the bulldozer-driven urban renewal policies of the time (Alexiou, 2004, 33).

In 1956, Architectural Forum sent Jacobs to Harvard University to speak at a conference on urban design. Despite crippling stage fright, Jacobs gave a riveting speech arguing against urban renewal and was received with roaring applause. After meeting an editor of Fortune Magazine at Harvard, Jacobs was encouraged to write an article attacking urban renewal and redevelopment plans. Her article, “Downtown is for People,” appeared in Fortune magazine in 1958 to rave reviews. A short time later she secured a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to turn her ideas into a book. She took a leave of absence from Architectural Forum in 1958 and completed

Death and Life of Great American Cities less than three years later in February of

1961 (Alexiou, 2006, 57-68).

The years after publishing Death and Life of Great American Cities were full of turmoil as Jacobs engaged in multiple urban renewal battles over proposed redevelopment projects in Lower Manhattan. In 1968, the Jacobs family sold their

Hudson Street home and moved to Toronto in protest of the Vietnam War. She lived in Toronto until the end of her life in 2006 and was active in Toronto’s city planning, most notably in a fight against an expressway that would have cut her neighborhood in half. She also wrote five additional books: The Economy of Cities, Cities and the

Wealth of Nations, The Question of Separatism: Quebec and the Struggle over

Sovereignty, Systems of Survival, The Nature of Economies, and Dark Age Ahead;

10 however, none of these books became as famous or well received as Death and Life of Great American Cities (Alexiou, 2006, 149-191).

Death and Life of Great American Cities “This book is an attack on current city planning and rebuilding.…It is an

attack...on principles and aims that have shaped modern, orthodox city planning

and rebuilding” (Jacobs, 1961, 3).

Commencing with this strong opening statement, Jacobs intended The Death and Life of Great American Cities to counter principles that were responsible for the urban renewal projects that were razing and rebuilding cities throughout the country. Urban

Renewal encouraged order, modernity, and simplicity by demolishing village-like neighborhoods with a mix of uses and rebuilding them with tall single-use towers.

Jacobs argued in Death and Life that cities were complex, messy organisms that could not be a work of art and could not be imposed upon by a grand, sweeping plan. The book drew attention to the failure of urban renewal projects in New York, Boston,

Philadelphia and other mega-cities while pointing out successful neighborhoods that had not yet been touched by Urban Renewal but were often on the list for future urban renewal projects. Jacobs relied on her observations and experiences in the

West Village, the North End in Boston, and Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, among other great neighborhoods in American cities, to show that vibrant, diverse, mixed-income, and village-like neighborhoods were better places to live than the sterile, separate income, monotonous groups of towers that were replacing them

(Alexiou, 2006, 75).

11 The Life and Death of Great American Cities is broken into four sections. The first is entitled the “Peculiar Nature of Cities,” in which Jacobs details the physical makeup of the city, the sidewalks, the neighborhoods and the parks analyzing how each entity works both independently and interactively to either make a neighborhood vibrant or

“dull,” a word she frequently uses to describe neighborhoods that were lifeless and deteriorating. The second section of the book, “The Conditions for City Diversity”, makes an argument for diversity of uses, building age, block size, and concentration of people. The last two sections of the book, “Forces of Decline and Regeneration” and “Different Tactics,” discuss the factors that cause cities to decay and ways to enliven cities by using planning and policy tactics (Jacobs, 1961).

For this thesis, the section, “The Conditions for City Diversity” is the most useful for understanding Jacobs’ theories on the ideal business and population mix for a successful neighborhood. In this section, Jacobs describes four conditions that are indispensable in generating enough diversity to make a city flourish. She notes that all four of these generators are required and the absence of even one can be detrimental. The first generator is a mix of primary uses which ensures that people will come to a place for a primary purpose, such as factories, offices, dwellings, or schools. The second generator is for the neighborhood to be made up of short blocks which ensures that streets and opportunities to turn corners are frequent so first floor businesses receive exposure to pedestrian activity. The third generator is a sufficiently dense concentration of people at all times of the day and night including people who live there, to ensure that there are enough people to support the

12 businesses and because people attract other people. The fourth and final generator of diversity is that there must be a mingling of buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones that have low rents and allow for small and entrepreneurial businesses (Jacobs, 1961, 196).” For this thesis, only the first of these generators of diversity – mixed primary uses - is useful in comparing the neighborhood during Jacobs’ time to 20111.

The Need for Mixed Primary Uses “The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must

serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These

must insure the presence of people who go outdoors on different

schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to

use many facilities in common (Jacobs, 1961, 196).”

Primary uses are those that bring people to a specific place for the purpose of living, working, educating, or recreation, such as offices, factories, dwellings, schools, museums, libraries, and parks. Primary uses function as economical anchors and stimulate secondary uses, enterprises that grow in response to the presence of the people who are there for primary uses. Secondary uses include eateries and restaurants, bars and nightclubs, shops, service businesses

1 Since the neighborhood escaped urban renewal and the bulldozer, the great majority of the blocks have remained just as they were over 100 years ago, short and with many opportunities to turn corners. Moreover, the population of people living in the West Village has increased since the 1960s making its density and concentration of people even greater than it was fifty years ago. The streets of the Village today are constantly filled with students, residents, and visitors that provide activity throughout the day and night. Also, due to Historical Preservation designation of Greenwich Village in 1969, many of its old buildings are still intact today. There are also quite a few new construction buildings in the neighborhood providing a mix of old and new that would have undoubtedly met with Jacobs’ approval to presumably house both entrepreneurial and established businesses and residents of many income levels. However, many of the old buildings that Jacobs thought would provide housing for the working classes and the entrepreneurial and family-owned businesses have likely been renovated and no longer have substantially lower rents. 13 like a tailor or dentist office. Primary uses attract people to a certain location and secondary uses keep them there for longer and bring them out onto the street (Jacobs, 1961, 196-199).

Jacobs describes the “ballet” of Hudson Street and describes the activity that provides an economic foundation for the neighborhood through a mix of uses:

For a humble example of the economic effects of people spread through

time of day, I will ask you to think back to a city sidewalk scene: the ballet

of Hudson Street. The continuity of this movement…depends on an

economic foundation of basic uses. The workers from the laboratories,

meatpacking plants, warehouses, plus those from a bewildering variety of

small manufacturers, printers and other little industries and offices, give

all the eating places and much of the other commerce support at midday.

We residents on the street and on its more purely residential tributaries

could and would support a modicum of commerce by ourselves, but

relatively little...if the neighborhood was to lose the industries, it would be

a disaster for us residents. Many enterprises, unable to exist on

residential trade by itself would disappear. Or if the industries were to

lose us residents, enterprises unable to exist on the working people by

themselves would disappear. As it is, workers and residents together are

able to produce more than the sum of our two parts (Jacobs, 1961, 199).

As Jacobs describes in the passage, industry and manufacturing employers in the neighborhood served as primary use as they provided countless jobs for residents and

14 non-residents who worked in the factories and then stayed in the neighborhood to patronize the eateries and commercial entities which served as secondary uses.

Without the factories, Jacobs believed that the working classes would not be able to continue living in the neighborhood, and without the working classes coming into the neighborhood for employment, the secondary businesses would disappear (Jacobs,

1961, 199-200).

Also within this section, Jacobs discusses how a lack of diversity even in an area with mixed uses can become monotonous, uninteresting to visitors, and vulnerable to decline. She describes 8th street in the Village as having a problem with too many restaurants that were pushing out the bookstores, galleries, clubs, craftsmen, and one- of-a-kind shops. By converting most of its retail space to one use, 8th street was

“slowly but steadily starting to un-diversify itself (Jacobs, 1961, 319).” In this same vein, Jacobs describes 3rd Street in the East Village as having too many entertainment venues and a lack of other uses:

“Night spots are today overwhelming the street, and are also

overwhelming the very life of the area. Into a district excellent at handing

and protecting strangers they have concentrated too many strangers, all in

too irresponsible a mood, for any conceivable city society to handle

naturally. The duplication of the most profitable use is undermining the

base of its own attraction, as disproportionate duplication and

exaggeration of some singe use always does in cities” (320)… Streets

(especially if their blocks are short) sometimes can weather much

15 duplication of successful uses, or else can regenerate themselves

spontaneously after declining and stagnating for a time. These escapes

are possible if the surrounding district sustains a strong and vigorous

mixture of diversity – especially a strong, underlying base of primary

diversity. However, when whole neighborhoods of streets, and entire

districts, embark on excessive duplication of the most profitable or

prestigious uses the problem is far more serious‖ (Jacobs, 1961, 322).

Here Jacobs describes the problem of nighttime activity taking over a section of the

East Village, a phenomenon that has continued in the neighborhood to present day.

Although to a different extreme, parts of the Study Area also have a high concentration of restaurants and bars that have turned the neighborhood into a

“destination place” attracting strangers who have little invested in the neighborhood and are more likely to act irresponsibly, create large amounts of waste, and make the streets less diverse and more vulnerable to economic downturn.

Reviews of Death and Life of Great American Cities

Historical Reviews Although today Jacobs’ most famous book is one of the most frequently read texts for current urban planners and urban sociologists, when The Death and Life of Great

American Cities was first published it debuted with mixed reviews. Lewis

Mumford’s scathing 1962 review in the New Yorker Magazine entitled “Mother

Jacobs’ Home Remedies” attacks many of Jacobs’ ideas. Mumford finds fault in

Jacobs’ belief that concentration and disorder are good for cities and criticizes her for advocating for density because he thought it was destructive force on the environment

16 as a whole. Moreover, Mumford attacks Jacobs’ methodology - her observations, discussions with residents, and visits to other cities - saying that she should not have criticized her peers in city planning who were far more educated, and therefore, more knowledgeable about the behavior of cities (Mumford, 1962, 148-179).

Herbert J. Gans, a well-known sociologist and author also criticizes Jacobs in his

1968 article “Urban Vitality and the Fallacy of Physical Determinism” citing Jacobs’ failure to look at how people use capital and culture to shape the urban space. He also disagrees with her focus on physical determinism that ignores the social, cultural and economic factors that can make a city have vitality or dysfunction. Gans notes that the neighborhoods that Jacobs points to as healthy neighborhoods in Death and

Life were all white working class communities that had significant political influence and were therefore more likely to have successful reinvestment eventually (Gans,

1968, 34-35).

Contemporary Reviews Contemporary reviewers of Death and Life both condemn and acclaim Jacobs’s ideas.

Nicolai Ouroussoff of the New York Times argues in her article “Outgrowing Jane

Jacobs and Her New York” that we should rethink some of Jacobs ideas about the ideal neighborhood. Ouroussoff points to SoHo as an example of a neighborhood that has retained its small blocks, cobblestone streets, and small-scale buildings, but “the rich mix of manufacturers, artists and gallery owners has been replaced by homogenous crowds of lemming-like shoppers. Nothing is produced there anymore. It is a corner of the city that is nearly as soulless, in its way, as the superblocks that Ms.

17 Jacobs so reviled” (Ouroussoff, 2006, 2). Moreover, Jacobs did not offer a long-term solution for population boom in cities, which cannot be solved through incremental, small-scale growth in existing neighborhoods. Ouroussoff argues that we may have to revisit the modernist style of development to allow our cities to grow smartly – and that would not necessarily be as bad as Jacobs’ thought (Ouroussoff, 2006, 2).

Andrew Manshel’s Wall Street Journal article “Enough with Jane Jacobs Already” asks planners to reconsider trying to apply Jacobs’s ideas to every contemporary project. He argues that Jacobs had a “tendency toward sweeping conclusions based on anecdotal information” and also had quite a few wrong predictions about the large-scale urban renewal projects during the 1950s, many of which have turned out to be great successes, most famously, Lincoln Center. Manshel also says that Jacobs’ views of her own neighborhood as a model of city life is no longer applicable since the West Village now has the highest-priced real estate in New York City. He argues that the neighborhood is “no longer the diverse, yeasty enclave she treasured” and ultimately, “many of the policies she advocated blocked real-estate development, causing prices of existing housing stock to rise and pricing out all but the wealthiest residents (Manshel, 2010, 1).”

Roberta Brandes Gratz, a writer, preservationist and founder of the Eldridge Street

Project in New York has a different argument about Jacobs’ West Village saying that people incorrectly assume that Jacobs would have disliked the neighborhood today.

Gratz argues:

18 “The Village, as gentrified as people may think, is as dense, diversified, and

quintessentially urban today as it was in Jane‘s day. Families, singles, elderly,

immigrants, small shopkeepers and large — all still populate the district, as

reflected in the great variety of children‘s clothing stores, or adult single

hangouts. What is wrong with the Village today is wrong with the whole city and

in fact the country. The squeezing out of the working class and the rising costs of

housing and other essentials are a fact of American life, not just Village life. This

is totally in keeping with Jacobs‘ writing.”

According to Gratz, Jacobs’ diverse and vibrant West Village is still intact today regardless of the fact that the income diversity of its residents has disappeared. She says that this phenomenon is not unique to the Village, but is a problem occurring in cities nationwide due to the global economy that has accelerated the gap between the rich and poor (City Room, 2007, 1).

In her latest book published in 2010, Naked City: the Death and Life of Great

Authentic Urban Places, Sharon Zukin, a professor at City Univsity in New York, examines how neighborhoods like the Village have gentrified and lost their authenticity in the process. Zukin agreed with Jacobs that authenticity was a marriage of both the physical fabric of the urban core and the social diversity of its long-time residents, but today a gap exists today in many cities between the desire to live in the authentic physical environment and the desire to push out the authentic social components, which directly contradicts with the way that Jacobs emphasized authentic human contact, made possible by the city’s “un-planned messiness” and

19 mixed society (Zukin, 2010, 12). Similar to Gans’ ideas about Jacobs’ lack of discussion on capital, Zukin also thought that Jacobs failed to recognize that she played a part in the gentrification efforts of the West Village and had a general lack of awareness of the importance of capital in making it the way that it was. Economic capital bypassed the Village for several decades, but if it had not, the small blocks, short buildings, and tight streets would have been replaced long before Jacobs arrived in the late 1940s. Social capital was what caused local immigrants to open small shops that made the village a diverse and useful place. And the cultural capital that

Jacobs, and other gentrifiers, and artists brought with them, also contributed to making the Village such an interesting place to live. But the consumption that gentrifiers bring to the Village today is pushing out the working class and their authenticity that Jacobs so appreciated (Zukin 2010, 18).

20 Chapter 2: Literature Review

The Origins of “Super Gentrification” When Jacobs was writing the Death and Life of Great American Cities, urban planners and sociologists were just beginning to notice a new phenomenon, now known as “gentrification.” But in 1961 the term had yet to be conceived of. British sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term “gentrification” in her 1964 book London:

Aspects of Change. She pointed out that neighborhoods in cities were beginning to experience an influx of the middle-class who were fixing up modest two-story townhouses and displacing the lower-class worker residents (Glass,1964: xviii–xix).

Today, the term “gentrification” is used frequently to describe the transformation of a neighborhood from low-value to high-value through a process of renovation of old buildings and construction of new buildings causing an influx of new residents of higher financial means. Consequently, average income rises and average family size decreases, resulting from conversion of multi-family rental properties into single- family rental or owned properties. This process can cause eviction and displacement of long-time low-income residents and shop-owners who can no longer afford the high rents and property taxes. Commercial development that caters to the new wealthier residents is also characteristic of gentrification which only accelerates the process by increasing the neighborhood’s appeal to a more affluent resident and decreasing accessibility to low-income residents (Lees, 2003; Hackworth and Smith,

2001; Freeman and Braconi, 2004; Angotti, 2008; Zukin, 1995, 2004)

21 Although initial gentrification began in the 1950s in New York, the 1980s marked a period of rapidly increasing gentrification patterns, a product of economic globalization and the new economy of centralized, high-level service work. Recently, scholars have been studying this new pattern of gentrification that Loretta Lees,

Professor of Human Geography at King's College London, describes as “super gentrification” meaning the “transformation of already gentrified, prosperous and solidly upper-middle class neighborhoods into much more exclusive and expensive enclaves (Lees, 2003, 2487).” Lees studied super gentrification in Brooklyn Heights in New York, a neighborhood that began to gentrify at the same time as the West

Village. She writes about one brownstone that was sold to a young lawyer for

$28,000 in 1962 during the early stages of gentrification. The lawyer renovated the property and sold it for almost $600,000 in the mid-1990s, twenty-three times what he had paid for it. Since then has been sold again for $1.75 million (Lees, 2003,

2489-2490). According to Lees, not only is super gentrification due to renovations of old residential buildings, but it also applies to new construction residential buildings and also commercial development because high rents drive out the small, family- owned businesses destroying the unique neighborhood character (Lees, 2003, 2490).

In the same vein, Hackworth and Smith in their 2001 article “The Changing State of

Gentrification” described how gentrification in the 1990s and continuing into the 21st century is “third wave gentrification” because it occurs in areas that have already experienced gentrification but are now experiencing it in accelerated and globally- influenced terms. The first wave of gentrification during the 1960s through 1973 was

22 mainly isolated in small neighborhoods in areas where disinvestment had occurred, and was highly localized. The second wave occurred after the recession and revival in the late 1970s when new neighborhoods were converted into “real estate frontiers”.

The second wave lasted into the 1980s and began to integrate with economic and cultural processes at the global and national scales. After the stock market crash of

1987 and revival, the third wave of gentrification was stronger and more effective than ever before. It expanded in already gentrified areas, hence becoming “super gentrification,” and extended to areas outside the growth core of many cities. Larger developers became involved in the process and orchestrated reinvestment in collaboration with local, state and federal government. Resistance to gentrification also declined significantly because much of the working class population was forced out during the first and second waves which served to accelerate the super gentrification process (Hackworth and Smith, 466-469).

In his 2008 article New York for Sale, Agnotti explains in more detail how Lower

Manhattan experienced disinvestment and subsequent gentrification. Agnotti argues that while the Upper East Side of Manhattan never experienced disinvestment, during the mid-1900s, the rest of the city did, albeit to differing degrees. Harlem, Central

Brooklyn, and the south Bronx experience deep disinvestment, while Lower

Manhattan dealt with less severe, but still very real, disinvestment before the 1950s.

He explains that new development pressure on neighborhoods in Lower Manhattan – the West Village, Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen – began after the building boom of the

1950s that added millions of square feet of office space to the central business

23 districts downtown and in midtown. Property values in the central business district escalated quickly and developers had their eye on the low rent neighborhoods nearby with the idea that people would want to live close to where they work. Many of the buildings in these neighborhoods had been vacant and marked for demolition due to capital fleeing the city to the suburbs, the Sunbelt, and developing countries and jobs being uprooted from the factories and manufacturing plants in the city and moved where they could be more profitable (Angotti, 2008, 78).

Hackworth argues in his article “Inner-city Real Estate Investment, Gentrification, and Economic Recession in New York City” that in the 1960s and 1970s the pockets of wealth in the inner city were “isolated anomalies within its seas of low-rent residential areas” the wealth that had been there in past decades had fled to the suburbs leaving the inner city to disinvest (Hackworth, 2001, 865).” Subsequently, real estate investment returned to Manhattan in the 1980s and 1990s transforming the borough into one of the most exclusive districts in the world. Gentrification in Lower

Manhattan started in the West Village in the 1950s and was followed by loft conversion in SoHo in the1970s. Hackworth explains that “the acceleration and spatial focus of reinvestment during the 1980s can be measured through various means, especially, residential building alternations, and demolitions (Hackworth,

2001, 865).

In an interview with a New York Times reporter, Sandra Zukin describes super gentrification in New York as: “dreary and inexorable: middle-class ―pioneers‖ buy

24 brownstones and row houses. City officials rezone to allow luxury towers, which swell the value of the brownstones. And banks and real estate companies unleash a river of capital, flushing out the people who gave the neighborhoods character

(Powell, 2010, 3).‖ Zukin thinks that the gentrification that takes effect in today’s

West Village is not the same as what was occurring in Jacobs’ time; it is not buying one house at a time and fixing it up. Instead, what happens today is “powerful and breathtakingly fast — a product of upper-middle-class aesthetics, and newspapers, magazines and blogs that compete to find new ―destination neighborhoods.‖ She argues for regulation that keeps prices down so current residents can afford to stay in order to keep neighborhoods from getting more and more stratified (Powell, Michael

2010, 3).

Super Gentrification and “Destination” Neighborhoods In 1995, Zukin first explored the idea that the culture of cities was beginning to change in the late 1980s and 1990s. Her book The Cultures of Cities argues that city culture has become a system for producing “symbols” in an attempt to get people to buy something (Zukin, 1995, 12) Art galleries, boutiques, restaurants, and other specialized sites of consumption create a “social space for the exchange of ideas, and has become the new culture (Zukin, 1995, 13).” No longer is a mix of diverse people, products, and services what gives the city culture, instead there is a culture of consumption of a certain kind of product – gourmet restaurants, high-fashion boutiques, expensive art galleries, and organic coffee shops (Zukin, 1995, 13).

25 Zukin argues in her 2004 article “Point of Purchase: How Shopping Changed

American Culture” that shopping is now considered a “cultural” activity and satisfies our need to socialize and express ourselves creatively (Zukin, 2004, 7). In the 1960s, there was a shift from Americans working in the factories and workshops to service and financial industries and a shift in the economy towards consumption and away from traditional art forms, religion, and politics. Since the 1960s, the economy has become more and more based on consumption, and designer brands and boutiques have become one of the main identifiers of social class and self worth (Zukin, 2004,

19). Lower Manhattan was revitalized by new shopping districts in the West Village,

Tribeca, SoHo, NoHo, and the Lower East Side. The dark shops and social clubs in the old neighborhoods were replaced by bright open shops with large plate glass windows, which changed not only the shops themselves but the entire feel of the streets. Shopping became one of New York’s greatest cultural attractions, changing many of its neighborhoods into shopping destinations (Zukin, 2004, 27).

Richard Ocejo, a doctoral student who studied under Sandra Zukin at City University of New York, approaches “super gentrification” from another angle. In his 2009 dissertation entitled “City Nights: the Political Economy of Postindustrial Urban

Nightlife,” he describes neighborhoods transforming into destination locations that cater to a new gentrified resident and visitor. Ocejo argues that the current economic foundation of contemporary postindustrial cities is various forms of consumption, such as material (shopping), cultural (museum and historic districts), and experiential

(entertainment) consumption (Ocejo, 2009, 1). Buildings that used to accommodate

26 commercial, industrial, and manufacturing uses are now being used for these new forms of consumption (Ocejo, 2009, 2). Current residents are most vulnerable to neighborhood nightscape transformations, but are almost powerless to stop the changes from happening (Ocejo, 2009, 9). According to the author, the most common complaint from current residents is the quality of life issues that stem from nightlife activity, such as noise, crowds, rowdy behavior, property defacement, and litter. But residents also see new bars and restaurants and the patrons who they attract from outside the neighborhood as “threats to the deep communal attachment and relationships that they have formed both with and within their neighborhood” and a constant reminder that their neighborhood is changing (Ocejo, 2009, 10).

Ocejo argues that Jacobs would have negatively viewed neighborhood nightscapes today because they do not “evolve naturally in the messy, unplanned way that she would have appreciated.‖ Instead they are shaped by large economic and political conditions intertwined with complex processes of capital flow in real estate development and entertainment (Ocejo, 2009, 19).” The author argues that Jacobs would likely have objected to these changes because of the homogenizing effect it has on neighborhoods. An excessive number of restaurants and bars in a neighborhood transforms it into a destination place for outside visitors and cannot accommodate the mixed uses that make the neighborhood useful and livable. The author points out that

Jacobs did worry about the bars along 3rd Street in the East Village as evidenced by the paragraph about the street in Death and Life (see Chapter I). But today, the problem is made all the more serious because these neighborhood destinations are

27 encouraged by the city’s larger growth and economic agenda based on leisure, entertainment, and tourism (Ocejo, 2009, 19).

Conclusion The literature defines super gentrification as a process of multiple waves of gentrification on a historically disinvested, but physically interesting neighborhood, resulting in the disappearance of industrial uses and the working classes and an overabundance of boutiques and restaurants and bars supported by high income residents. The following chapters will take a closer look at the West Village in 2011, specifically the micro-neighborhood surrounding Jacobs’ row house - its history, physical and demographic character, and business uses – and compare it to when

Jacobs lived there.

28 Chapter 3: The West Village

A Short History of the West Village The early development of the West

Village began in the 1820s as people

moved to undeveloped areas north of

what is now the Financial District and

Chinatown during the smallpox and

yellow fever epidemics. In the early-

to-mid-1800s, the West Village was a

haven for the wealthy who built Hudson Street in 1895 (Collection of the New-York Historical Society). mansions and large townhouses

around the area that became

Washington Square; these historic, brick, Federal style buildings still line the streets today. In the late 1800s, as the greater part of the Village was developed with smaller townhouses and multifamily dwellings, the neighborhood became home to thousands of working and middle class families who found employment in the warehouses, manufacturing, carpentry, textiles, and other industries along the West side of the

Village, including Hudson Street (McFarland, 2001, 2). Before becoming the meat packing district in the 1900s, the northern part of the West Village waterfront was a warren of coal yards, piano manufacturers, book binderies, lumberyards, paint factories, and plaster mills (Miller, 1990, 160).

29 By the end of the 1800s, the neighborhood took an economic downturn, as plummeting real estate values prompted nervous retailers and genteel property owners to move uptown. Rents substantially dropped, attracting the artists, radicals, and rebels, who looked for a freer lifestyle. Older residences were subdivided into cheap lodging rooms and multiple-family dwellings, or demolished for higher-density tenements. In 2011, these tenements, as well as the Civil War era townhouses, are considered historic preservation buildings (Greenwich Village Society for Historical

Preservation, 2010).

In the early 1900s, the businesses and residents of the West Village were dependent upon on the waterfront and the network of businesses, ferries, and markets that sprung up around it, but maritime activities began to wane by the middle of the century. As part of its industrial past, the West Village had two elevated rail lines, the old Ninth Avenue el on Greenwich Street (New York’s first elevated rail line, erected in 1867) and the High Line east of Washington Street (New York’s first elevated freight rail line, erected in 1934). The Greenwich Street line has been torn down, but part of the High Line exists today to the north of the West Village as a raised public garden. Cut off from the rest of the Village by these rail lines, the area west of Hudson Street developed in a more industrial style than the more residential streets to the east. The area is also unique in that it is the only neighborhood in New

York that developed neighboring industrial and residential buildings, while Tribeca to the south and Gansevoort Market to the north were exclusively industrial (Greenwich

Village Society of Historical Preservation, 2010).

30 In the early 1900s, the ever-rising skyline of New York began to encroach on small- scale neighborhood like the West Village. The concept of enacting a set of laws to govern land use was controversial, but the city needed to regulate its surging physical growth. The Zoning Resolution of 1916 established height and setback controls and designated residential districts that excluded what were seen as “incompatible uses” keeping residential, commercial, and industrial uses separate. It fostered the iconic towers of the city’s Central Business Districts – the Financial District and Midtown - and established the familiar three-to-six-story residential buildings found in the West

Village. In 2011, most of the neighborhood is still characterized by the 1916 zoning restrictions on upward development (NYC Planning Department, 2010). .

The 1920s and 1930s in the West Village was a period of social tension as the strictly religious Italian and Irish communities clashed with the new bohemian and homosexual newcomers. The tension between the two groups escalated as the neighborhood’s industrial and manufacturing entities began to move out of Manhattan into the more spacious and less expensive surrounding suburbs. The neighborhood was beginning to change in character from an industrial district to a business and retail district. The residential character of the Village was also changing. The 1934

Housing Act created the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) which established mortgage underwriting standards that significantly discriminated against minority and low-income neighborhoods. As the significance of subsidized mortgage insurance on the housing market grew for people who wanted to buy homes in suburbs; home values in many lower Manhattan neighborhoods plummeted. After 1935, the FHA

31 established guidelines to blatantly steer private mortgage investors away from minority and low-income areas (Harris, 2003, 56)

Although it was clear to those living in the Village that the neighborhood - although somewhat run-down and home to low-to-middle income residents - was not a slum; nevertheless, the city believed it to be one. The city stifled their development in the

Village triggering the banks to redline it, and subsequently the neighborhood fell into decay and disinvestment. The bohemian and low-income residents remained, allowing the neighborhood to keep its unique and artsy base. Although worn with age and disrepair, the neighborhood’s unique physical character of small crooked streets with a mix of diverse and interesting shops and eateries and its varied and ornate architecture was preserved. The Village become a center for the “beat movement” symbolized with drugs, sexual freedom, rock and jazz music, and a rejection of materialism and consumerism. It was known for its galleries, coffee houses, and storefront theaters featuring “happenings” and other unorthodox artistic, theatrical, and musical events (Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation,

2010).

Published in 1959, the West Village Guide with Map and Directory, describes the

West Village as “winding streets, whim directed as prima-donnas, among handsome churches inlaid with antiquity, little houses weathered as wrinkled crones, and gardens and courtyards stripped with light and the shade of centuries (Honan, 1959,

33).” The little book sold for 50 cents in the 1960s and served as a walking guide and

32 history lesson for visitors to the Village. The most fascinating aspect of the guide book are the hundreds of little advertisements for family-owned restaurants and shops many of whom boast of their longevity in the neighborhood with “established 1909,”

“in the Village for 40 years,” and “a Village Landmark for over a Quarter of a

Century (Honan, 1959, 23, 45, 89).” Sadly, all three of the shops that promoted themselves as long-time Village establishments have been replaced by chain stores or trendy restaurants.

The year 1961 was important for urban planning in the West Village: Jacobs published The Death and Life of Great American Cities, the 1961 Zoning Resolutions was adopted, and fourteen blocks within The West Village were announced as part of a slum-determination study. The 1961 Zoning Resolution – a document of over 450 pages – was adopted at the height of urban renewal and “tower in the park” planning.

It separated uses, incorporated parking minimums, and emphasized the creation of open space giving incentives to developers to include public plazas in their projects.

These “towers in the park” created buildings that overwhelmed their surroundings and were unwelcoming and isolating (NYC Planning Department, 2010).

The West Village’s mixed uses, short blocks, and jumble of buildings and small parks were in direct opposition to the 1961 Zoning Resolutions goals. It was for this reason and because of the low rents and its low-income residents, that the neighborhood was officially designated a “slum” by the Mayors Committee on Slum Clearance, and it was announced that the city would conduct a study to consider fourteen blocks,

33 including Hudson Street and Jacobs’ townhouse, for urban renewal. The City

Planning Commission had in the works plans to raze most of the neighborhood and build modern high-rise housing towers for middle-income families. But neighborhood residents, including Jane Jacobs, rose up against the plans for urban renewal in the Village. After several years of public outcry and advocacy work,

Jacobs and the other Village residents finally persuaded the mayor to permanently shelve the plan (Alexiou, 2004, 98).

The West Village in the 1960s. These streets that would have been included in the slum designation and the study to consider the area for urban renewal. From left to right: Greenwich and Christopher Streets (Collection of the New-York Historical Society), Hudson Street (Robert Otter, Photographer), Meeting of Hudson and Christopher Streets (Collection of the New-York Historical Society, 1956), Jane and Hudson Streets (Collection of the New-York Historical Society).

The 1960s in the West Village was known for its free-thinking, bohemian, counter- culture, and homosexual population. In 1969, the Stonewall Riots at the Stonewall

34 Inn on Christopher Streets marked the first large-scale riot of homosexuals against the persecution from the police and the start of the gay rights movement (Miller, 1990,

161). The 1960’s also marked the beginning of decline for the entire city as it experienced racial and religious tension, power outages, garbage and transit strikes, and manufacturing and industry decline. Many middle-class families had fled to the suburbs leaving the city to languish in rampant crime and economic decline, and by the end of the 1970s, the population had shrunk by over a million people and there was a widespread belief that New York City was in irreversible decline (Teaford,

2006, 125-164).

Although the city was struggling economically during this time, the West Village was finally gaining the appreciation it deserved. In 1969, a large portion of the West

Village was designated a historic preservation district which protected more than

2,035 structures and covered neighborhood as far west as Hudson Street. In addition, the city engaged in a number of adaptive reuse projects that converted old warehouses and factories to residential developments. In 2005, the rest of the neighborhood was finally preserved by the designation of the West Village from Hudson Street to the

Hudson River (Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation). Shown in the photos below are examples of buildings that have been completely preserved in their

1960s state, at least on the outside.

35 Left to right, 93 Perry Street (Collection of the New-York Historical Society, 1969) and 93 Perry Street (Moser, S., 2011).

Left to right, 48 Charles Street (Collection of the New-York Historical Society, 1969) and 48 Charles Street (Moser, S., 2011)

In the 1980s, as the neighborhood experienced a period of reinvestment, gentrification, and real estate boom, the city engaged in a number of adaptive reuse projects that converted old warehouses and factories to residential developments on the streets west of Hudson Street - West Street, Washington, and Greenwich Streets.

Instead of tearing down the old warehouses and factories, the West Village pioneered the trend of adaptive re-use of industrial buildings for residential purposes, resulting in a large number of nineteenth-century buildings being preserved and renovated.

This adaptive re-use movement has spread throughout New York and to industrial neighborhoods in cities around the world (Greenwich Village Society Historical

Preservation, 2010).

36 Even until the late 1980s the meatpacking district was just that; the meat processing headquarters of New York City. Every morning the streets were clogged with trucks unloading and picking up meat for process and delivery to New York’s restaurants

(Miller, 1990, 159). But starting Beginning in the late 1990s, the Meatpacking

District went through a transformation. High-end boutiques and restaurants opened along Gansevoort Street and New York Magazine named the district “New York’s most fashionable neighborhood”. In 2003, the New York City Landmarks

Preservation Commission designated the Gansevoort Market Historic District, which protected the historic meatpacking district north of Gansevoort Street, and only increased its value as a gritty, yet chic place to live and visit. Since the 1980s, the

West Village has become one of the most sought after addresses in the world. It is home to numerous actors and illuminati and boasts some of the most expensive boutiques and restaurants in the city. Although many of its buildings remain the same on the outside, on the inside many have been renovated several times to house some of New York City’s and the world’s wealthiest people (Greenwich Village Society of

Historical Preservation, 2011).

37 Jane Jacobs’ Micro-Neighborhood, i.e. the Study Area

Figure 1: The Study Area, showing Border Streets, North/South Streets, and East/West Streets (Moser, S., 2011).

Jane Jacobs’ micro-neighborhood, i.e. the “Study Area,” is a two and three block radius with her townhouse in the center (on Hudson Street between Perry and West

11th Streets). This would have been the area of the West Village with which she was most familiar; where she conducted her day-to-day errands, and where she collected

38 observations about how neighborhoods work. She probably would have done her shopping along Hudson Street and 8th Avenue, observed the nightlife on Christopher

Street, and purchased meat and produce at the markets on Gansevoort Street. These blocks she would have known and loved the best; this was her neighborhood. For this thesis, the Study Area is divided into three sections: Border Streets, North/South

Streets, and East West Streets (See Figure 1). Border Streets include Christopher,

West, Gansevoort, and West 4th Streets. North/South Streets include Washington,

Greenwich, Hudson, Bleecker Streets and 8th Avenue. East/West Streets include

West 10th, Charles, Perry, West 11th, Bank, Bethune, West 12th, Jane, and Horatio

Streets.

In Death and Life of Great

American Cities, Jacobs frequently refers to the West

Village as an example of what an ideal neighborhood would look like and how it would function. According to the

Official Guide to New York

City on the City of New York Figure 2: The Study Area within the West Village, showing the border streets of both (Moser, S., 2011) homepage, the West

Village/Greenwich Village covers an area of about fifteen blocks from north to south and eight streets from east to west. Unlike the rest of Manhattan to the north, the

39 West Village streets have remained the same as when they were created from Indian trails and topographic paths resulting in a crooked and confusing street pattern (NYC:

The Official Guide, 2011).

The West Village is located on the lower west side of Manhattan, bordered by SoHo

(South of Houston Street) and Tribeca (the

Triangle below Canal Street) to the south, the Meatpacking District and Chelsea to the north, and the East Village to the east. The skyscrapers of the two major central business districts of Manhattan, the

Financial District and Midtown, are only a ten minute train ride or a thirty minute walk. The Financial District is on the east side of the tip of Manhattan and on the west Figure 3: The Study Area within the West Village, within Lower Manhattan, side is Battery Park City. showing the surrounding neighborhoods (Moser, S., 2011).

Like the West Village, Lower Manhattan experienced dramatic change in the last half century. In the early part of the twentieth-century, much of Lower Manhattan was industrial and heavily commercial. Tribeca and SoHo were manufacturing centers and the Financial District, Midtown, and much of downtown were commercial centers; none of these areas were residential and very few people lived there. But in

40 the last three decades, there was a great movement of people into Lower Manhattan and Midtown as residential development expanded in these areas. The World Trade

Center was built in the 1970s prompting rapid real-estate investment downtown and spreading throughout Lower Manhattan. And in the 1980s, Battery Park City, an entirely residential community, was built onto the western tip of Manhattan.

Land Use In 1947 when Jacobs moved to the Study Area it had a mix of land uses including industrial, heavy commercial, and light commercial/retail. Mixed throughout each of different uses were residential buildings; even in the mainly industrial areas residential buildings neighbored factories and warehouses. Figure 4 shows the study area according to the 1947 Sanborn maps. As shown, the western side of Study Area was very industrial, while the eastern side was very commercial. There were no areas of primarily residential use.

Figure 4: The Study Area showing the Figure 5: The Study Area showing the land uses from the 1947 Sanborn Map land uses from the 2011 Business (Sanborn, 1947) Inventory (Moser, S., 2011). 41 In contrast to the 1947 Land Use maps, the 2011 Business Inventory shows that the land uses in the Study Area have changed dramatically (Figure 5). Remarkably, there are no longer any industrial streets in the neighborhood. All of the East/West streets are mostly residential in nature and have very few, if any, commercial uses. As a whole, the neighborhood has become more residential and many of the streets that were lined with manufacturing facilities and warehouses in the past are now merely speckled with light commercial activity (meaning one or two commercial or retail establishments per block). The only streets with commercial activity (meaning that almost every first floor unit has a businesses use) are the main shopping streets –

Christopher, Hudson, Bleecker, 8th Avenue, and Gansevoort.

Redevelopment The major redevelopment since the 1960s occurred along West Street, Washington

Street, Greenwich Street, and Gansevoort

Streets. There are a large number of new construction buildings along West Street, and a smaller number along Washington,

Greenwich and Gansevoort Street. The majority, if not all, of the old buildings on all four of these streets has been renovated and adaptively reused. Many old warehouses Figure 6: The Study Area showing the redevelopment and factories are now luxury condominiums or patterns (Moser, S., 2011). apartment buildings, so although the outside appears to be the same, both the use of

42 the building and the inside are very different. The rest of the Study Area has only moderate to light redevelopment. Although there are some new construction buildings in these areas the majority of the buildings were residential fifty years ago and remain the same today, albeit with several renovations on the inside. This is due mainly to historical preservation of the area to the east of Hudson Street in 1969.

Street-by-Street Physical Change

Border Streets

Christopher Street

Christopher Street subway stop, the start of

Jacobs’ first adventure in the West Village, is located at the corner of Christopher and West

4th Streets. Christopher Street is a bustling shopping and tourist street with 3-to-5 story apartment buildings with shops lining the first floor. The shops have a mix of variety gift shops, bars and restaurants, and boutique Figure 7: The Study Area shops. A few of the bars and shops that were showing the border streets of Christopher, West, Gansevoort, and West 4th Streets (Moser, S., popular in the 1960s are still on Christopher 2011).

Street today, including McNulty’s, a coffee and tea variety shop that has also been a favorite in the neighborhood for over fifty years. As seen in the pictures below, not much has changed physically on Christopher Street. Due to historical preservation designation in 1969, most of the shops and apartment buildings are in the same,

43 unchanged buildings as they were in the 1960s, however, it is likely that most of the apartments and shops have been renovated on the inside.

Left to right, McNulty’s on Christopher Street in 1970 (Robert Otter, Photographer), McNulty’s on Christopher Street in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011).

West Street

The character of the street changes

quickly after turning off of

Christopher Street and onto West

Street. West Street is lined with

tall residential towers, some of

which are new construction and some West Street facing south (Moser, S., 2011). are adaptive reuse of old industrial buildings. West Street (also called the West Side Highway) is a roaring four-lane highway, the main roadway to access the west side of Manhattan from end to end. In the 1960s, the West Side Highway was elevated creating an ugly, raised barrier between the West Village and the Hudson River. By 1985, the highway was finally fully dismantled and in 1998 the city built the Hudson River Park, a new linear park that stretches north and south from the tip of Manhattan to the Upper West Side. On a warm weekend, bikers, runners and children on scooters visit the park by the hundreds. The view from West Street is now one of the most sought after in the City 44 and the buildings that line the street are some of the most expensive (Schoeneman,

2004 .1).

Gansevoort Street

Where West Street meets Gansevoort Street, the streetscape suddenly changes to

“industrial chic” and opens into a little square, called the Gansevoort Market, marking the end of the West Village and the beginning of the Meatpacking District. In what were once warehouses and loading docks are now some of the most upscale restaurants and boutiques in the city. The atmosphere is enhanced by peeling paint, exposed brick and electrical wire, cobblestones streets, and exposed iron support beams.

Gansevoort Street in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011).

West 4th Street

Gansevoort Street eventually meets West

4th Street and the neighborhood character immediately changes to residential. West

4th Street is a narrow, quiet, and well- maintained, shaded by numerous trees, and lined with impeccable town houses styled

West 4th Street (Moser, S. 2011) 45 in the upmost taste. A glance in the window of any of these townhouses would likely show an interior that has been renovated a number of times in the years since Jacobs walked these streets. Further down West 4th, the number of restaurants becomes more and more frequent until each corner has a different boutique coffee house or French bistro. On a warm Sunday afternoon, the streets are full of people slowly browsing the restaurant menus or having a cappuccino with brunch on an outside table.

North/South Streets

Hudson Street

Hudson Street runs north/south through the center of the Study

Area and is one of its major commercial streets. There is an abundance of restaurants and bars of all varieties, expensive French and Latin restaurants, Asian restaurants, pubs, and taverns, Figure 8: The Study Area, showing North/South including the famous White Streets (Moser, S., 2011).

Horse Tavern which Jacobs’ mentions in Life and Death. In addition to restaurants, the street also provides various service stores, such as pharmacies, laundry and dry cleaning, and convenience stores. According to a photo of Hudson Street looking south dated circa 1960, the street appeared to be dingier, with more litter along the sidewalks and in the gutters. There was also a complete lack of trees and other street- scaping objects such as trash cans. Hudson Street today is much cleaner and well-

46 kept, and also has a number of trees that make the streetscape more pleasant and appealing to pedestrians.

Hudson Street looking South circa 1960s (Robert Otter, Photographer).

Hudson Street looking South in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011).

47 Washington and Greenwich Streets

Washington and Greenwich Streets are very similar in appearance, and both are great examples of adaptive reuse of commercial and industrial buildings. Many of the buildings were once warehouses, commercial buildings, and factories that have been converted into stylish and expensive apartment and condominium buildings. There are also a number of townhouses that have been renovated and restored. Both streets are primarily residential, but also have several restaurants and bars, hair salons, coffee shops, and boutiques, located mainly on the corner lots. The photo of Washington and West 11th Street below gives a good example of a large factory building that would have either been abandoned or had an industrial use when Jacobs’ lived in the neighborhood. Today the same building is shown on the left after being restored and renovated into condominiums. It also appears that the street was cobblestone in the

1960s. Again, the lack of trees during the 1960s is obvious.

Washington and West 11th Street circa Washington and West 11th Street in 1960s (Robert Otter, Photographer). 2011 (Moser, S., 2011).

48 Bleecker Street

Bleecker Street, a few blocks west of West 4th Street, is one of the most expensive shopping areas in the world. Marc Jacobs, Coach, Ralph Lauren, and dozens of other chain boutique stores line the streets while stylish residents and tourists with shopping bags and cappuccinos stroll the tidy sidewalks. Not only are there boutique clothing and accessory shops, but boutique coffee shops and bakeries as well. At the corner of

Bleecker and West 11th Streets is the famous Magnolia’s bakery with a line of people around the block waiting to taste the cupcakes featured in numerous television shows.

Bleecker Street in 2011 is very different than Bleecker Street of the 1960s when it served as shopping district for the low-to-middle classes who resided in the area at the time.

Ruggiero’s Fish Market on Bleecker Street Bleecker Street in 1962 (Collection of the circa 1960 (Robert Otter, Photographer). New-York Historical Society)

Bleecker Street at Charles Street circa 1960 (Collection of the New- York Historical Society). 49

Bleecker Street in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011).

East/West Streets The East/West streets in the study area are all very similar in character. West 10th, Charles,

Perry, West 11th, Bank, Bethune,

West 12th, Jane, and Horatio Streets are all primarly residential streets with the occational corner boutique, bar, or restaurant. The East/West Figure 9: The Study Area showing the East/West Streets (Moser, S., 2011). streets’ are smaller and less populated with pedestrians, and the whole feel is quieter and more residential then the

North/South streets. East of Hudson Street, the East/West cross streets consist of

50 mostly townhouses and tenement-style apartment buildings, but west Hudson Street the streets transitions to a mix of townhouses, tenement-style apartment buildings, and converted factory buildings. There are almost no new construction buildings on the cross streets between West 4th and Hudson, but there are quite a few between

Hudson and West Street.

As seen below in the photo of Charles Street between Perry and Bleecker and West

11th Street in the 1960s, there have been few physical changes to the block. However, there are a surprising number of trees on the sidewalks in the current photo, a small detail that has made the streetscape more pleasant.

Charles between Perry and Bleecker Streets in the Charles between Perry and Bleecker 1960s (Collection of the New-York Historical Streets in the 2011 (Moser, S., 2011). Society).

Conclusion Overall, in terms of actually physical structure and design, there have been limited changes to the architecture of many of the buildings in the West Village mostly due to

Historical Preservation designation of most of the neighborhood in 1969 and the rest by 2005. But while the outside of the buildings appear the same as it did fifty years ago, the inside is likely very different. Most if not all of the residential and

51 commercial buildings in the area have likely been renovated more than once in the last half century adding even more cost to an already expensive life style. In the next chapter on the demographic changes in the neighborhood, the demographic profile of the West Village resident over the last five decades will be further examined and will document the transition from a working-class neighborhood to a super gentrified neighborhood.

52 Chapter 3: Gentrification Characteristics When Jacobs describes the West Village and the “street ballet” on Hudson Street in

Death and Life of Great American Cities she describes a neighborhood with a diverse population of people with a wide range of income levels, including factory workers who she described as the foundation of the neighborhood economy. In the half decade since Jacobs published Death and Life, the neighborhood has experienced multiple waves of gentrification, resulting in a demographic shift from a working- class population to a highly gentrified population.

Historical Census To show super gentrification in action, historic census data from the 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000

U.S. Census was used for the four census tracts that cover the Study Area. Census 2000 Tracts

73, 75, 77 and 79 cover the entire Study Area with minimal overflow onto surrounding blocks

(see Figure 10). Hudson Street runs north/south between the four tracts. To track the rate of demographic change from 1960 to 1999, several

Figure 10: Census Tracts 73, 75, 77, gentrification indicators were used including: 79 that cover the Study Area (American FactFinder, 2010) population, household type, household income,

53 monthly rent, and people age 25+ with a bachelor’s degree. All dollar figures were standardized to 1999 dollars (American FactFinder, 2010).

Figure 11 shows the percent change in population for the four census tracts that cover the Study

Area. As shown, the two tracts to the west of Hudson Street have 25-

50% population increase, while the tracts to the east of Hudson Street have negative or no change. This trend is due to the blocks to the west of Hudson Street changing in nature from industrial and Figure 11: Map of Lower Manhattan showing manufacturing to residential. Many percent change in census tract population from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area of the factories were converted into (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960- 1999) apartment buildings or demolished and replaced with apartment buildings. On the east side of Hudson Street in the more residential part of the West Village, the trend within the last fifty years has been for the number of people living within an apartment to diminish, which would explain the decrease or stabilization of population. Overall for the four census tracts, population has risen over the last fifty years, but not dramatically (See Figure 12). The largest increase in population was from 1970 to 1980, presumably after the city returned

54 from bankruptcy and was reestablishing itself as the financial hub of the country.

Total population remained relatively stable from 1980 to 1999 as the neighborhood reached its limit for providing housing (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database,

1960-1999).

Type of household in West Village also changed from 1960 to 1999. In the 1960s,

67% of households were non-family, meaning a person living alone or sharing a home with unrelated people, such as roommates. But by the 1990s this number had increased by 13% to 77% non-family households. The largest change from family households to non-family households occurred from the 1960s to the 1970s, presumably when many families were fleeing the city as it fell into decline and disinvestment. Neighborhoods with large non-family populations are characteristic of super gentrification because these demographics are more likely to be high-income consumers (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999).

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Total Population 19,816 19,911 21,525 21,608 Percent Non-Family Households 67% 79% 76% 77% Figure 12: Chart showing total population and percent non-family households for the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999).

Compared to the rest of New York City, the West Village remained consistent with overall trends. Census tracts throughout the City that were historically commercial or industrial areas in the city transitioned to residential areas by the 1990s and gained population. Other areas of the city, especially wealthier neighborhoods like those

55 around Central Park lost population as families became smaller and apartment size increased. The large maroon area in Lower Manhattan that shows more than 100% increase in population is reflecting the transformation of SoHo and Tribeca from strictly industrial to strictly residential, redevelopment of the

World Trade Center area, construction and development of

Battery Park City added to the tip of Figure 13: Map of Lower Manhattan showing percent change in average household income Manhattan in the 1980s, and from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). residential redevelopment in the

Financial District and Midtown (Social Explorer, 2011 and GeoLytics Neighborhood

Change Database, 1960-1999).

Figure 13 shows the percent change for household income from 1960 to 1999 for the four census tracks that cover the Study Area. All four census tracts had the same level of household income increase – a 500 to 1000% increase. For all four census tracts the average household income increased over the period from $11,292 in the

1960s to $111,935 in the 1990s. Average household income in the 1970s was

56 $21,166 and in the 1980s it was $67,837 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database,

1960-1999)..

Figure 14 shows that household income in the Study Area increased slowly from the

1960s to the 1970s and increased dramatically between the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

These trends reflect the nationwide economic depression in the 1970s that was especially felt by the City of New York, and the subsequent financial boom of the

1980s and 1990s. All household income figures are in 1999 dollars (GeoLytics

Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999)..

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Average Household Income (in 1999 Dollars) $11,292 $21,166 $67,837 $111,935 Figure 14: Chart showing average household income (in 1999 dollars) for the Study Area from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999).

When compared to the rest of New York City, the West Village’s gentrification patterns become even more apparent. In 1960s, 86% of households in the city were earning more than households in the West Village. This trend began to change slowly, starting in the 1970s when about 50% of households in New York City were making more than households in the West Village. The average household income for the city in the 1970s was $43,479, almost double the $21,166 average household income for the West Village. In 1980s, the West Village jumped ahead the rest of the city in household income. 69% of the households in the city were making below

$60,000 and the average household income in 1980s was $61,915, while the average household income in the West Village was $67,837. Finally in the 1990s, 83% of

57 households had incomes lower than $99,999 and the average household income was

$60,846, almost half the average household income in the West Village, $111,935.

Figure 15 shows the aggregate monthly rent per census tract from

1960 to 1999 for the four census tracts that cover the Study Area. As shown, the two tracts to the west of

Hudson Street and the lower tract on the east side of Hudson Street have a 200-500% increase in aggregate monthly rent, and the remaining tract has a 100% to 200% increase. This large increase in aggregate rent is likely due to the Figure 15: Map of Lower Manhattan showing percent change in aggregate monthly rent (in 1999 areas west of Hudson Street dollars) per census tract from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999). transitioning from strictly industrial and manufacturing to strictly residential. The 1960s had a very low aggregate monthly rent, especially considering that there were 11,817 households in all four census tracts during this decade making the average monthly rent per renter household in the 1960s was only $5. This number may be inaccurate, or may be explained by the number of students and artists who were living in very inexpensive

(or free) lodging. The monthly rent per renter household for the 1970s, 1980s, and

1990s was $326, $745, and $1,344, respectively. These numbers tell a story of how

58 the neighborhood rents have almost doubled each decade (Social Explorer, 2011 and

GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999).

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s Monthly Rent per Renter Household (in 1999 Dollars) $5 $326 $750 $1,344 Figure 16: Chart showing monthly rent per renter household (in 1999 dollars) for the Study Area from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999).

Again, a comparison to the rest of New York shows how the West Village rental costs have steadily increased and outpaced the rest of the city. In the 1970s, 75% of gross rents in New York City were $350 or more per month, so 75% of people in the city were paying more for rent then West Villagers. The Village in the 1960s and 1970s was one of the more affordable neighborhoods in the city, but this changed in the

1980s. In the 1980s, 63% of gross rents in New York City were below $700 per month, while Villagers were paying about $750 per month. Finally in the 1990s, 83% of renters in New York City were paying below $1200, while West Villagers paid

$1,344 (Social Explorer, 2011 and GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-

1999).

Figure 17 shows the percent change in the number of people age 25+ with a Bachelor

Degree per census tract from 1960 to 1999 for the four census tracts that cover the

Study Area. Again the largest rate of change occurred in the census tracts to the west of Hudson Street, presumably because more people moved there after it changed from industrial to residential. The four census tracts as a whole had continuously increasing levels of higher education. The percent of people age 25+ with a

59 Bachelors Degree increased from 39% in the 1960s to 75% in the 1990s – a 48% increase. Compared the rest of New York City the West Village has always had exponentially greater percentage of people with bachelor’s degrees. From the 1960s to the 1990s, the percent of people over the age of 25 in New York City only rose from 9% to 40% (Social Explorer, 2011 and GeoLytics Neighborhood Change

Database, 1960-1999).

Figure 17: Map of Lower Manhattan showing number of people age 25+ with a bachelor’s degree per census tract from 1960 to 1999. The red box shows the Study Area (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999).

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Percent of People Age 25+ with a Bachelors Degree 39% 55% 67% 75% Figure 18: Chart showing percent of people age 25+ with a bachelor’s degree for the Study Area from 1960 to 1999 (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999)

60 2005-2009 American Community Survey Although this thesis was written in the spring of 2011, the U.S. Decennial 2010

Census information was not yet released. However, the 2005-2009 American

Community Survey 5-Year Estimates were available for the Census 2000 Tracts 73,

75, 77 and 79 through the American FactFinder website since December of 2010. For this thesis, the New York Times Census 2010 Explorer project was used to acquire the data from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey2 (American Community

Survey, 2005-2009).

According to the New York Times Census 2010 Explorer, the population of the four census tracts has remained relatively stable at 21,796 people for the years 2005-2009.

The percent of non-family households has decreased slightly, from 77% in 2000 to

75% in 2005-2009. Average Household income has increased from $111,935 in 2000 to an average of $125,774 for the years 2005-2009. The median gross rent for the years 2005-2009 was $1,562, a 12% increase from 2000. The percent of people with

Bachelors degrees also rose, from 75% to 81% (Census 2010 Explorer, New York

Times, 2011).

Although home value data was not available in the GeoLytics Neighborhood Change

Database, and could not be used for the historic census portion of this thesis, it is interesting to note that the 2005-2009 data shows median home values rising 84%

2 The 2005-2009 American Community Survey is an estimate according to the average of five years of data, and includes the period of economic recession that began in 2008, which would make these figures less significant in terms of change from 2000 to 2009 (American Community Survey, 2005- 2009). 61 since 2000 to $957,875. The percent of people who spend more than 30% on their mortage also rose to 32%, a 7% increase from 2000 (Census 2010 Explorer, New

York Times, 2011).

Compared to the rest of New York City, both the average household income and monthly rent in the West Village are much higher. Average Household income from

2005-2009 for the city was only $62,616, almost half the average household income for the West Village. In terms of monthly rent, 81% of the city pays $1,499 a month or lower, while renters in the West Village pay $1,562 (Social Explorer, 2011 and

Census 2010 Explorer, New York Times, 2011).

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Total Population 19,816 19,911 21,525 21,608 21,796 Percent Non-Family Households 67% 79% 76% 77% 75%

Average Household Income (in 1999 Dollars) $11,292 $21,166 $67,837 $111,935 $125,774 Montly Rent per Renter Household (in 1999 Dollars) $5 $326 $750 $1,344 $1,562

Percent of People Age 25+ with Bachelor's Degree 39% 55% 67% 75% 81% Figure 19: Chart showing total population, percent non-family households average household income (in 1999 dollars), monthly rent per renter household (in 1999 dollars), percent of people age 25+ with a bachelors degree (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999, American Community Survey, 2005- 2009, Social Explorer, 2011).

62 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s Average Household Income (in 1999 Dollars) Study Area $11,292 $21,166 $67,837 $111,935 $125,774 New York City 86% above $43,479 $61,915 $60,846 $62,616 Monthly Rent per Renter Household (in 1999 dollars) Study Area $5 $326 $750 $1,344 $1,562 New York City n/a 75% above 63% below 83% below 81% below

Figure 20: Chart showing average household income and monthly rent per renter household for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s for the study area and New York City (GeoLytics Neighborhood Change Database, 1960-1999, American Community Survey, 2005-2009, Social Explorer, 2011).

Conclusion Overall, the demographic character of the Study Area has changed drastically in the last fifty years creating a neighborhood with a high income, highly educated, high rent-paying population of non-family households. Although the number of non- family households has decreased slightly in recent years, the neighborhood is still 8% more non-family in 2011 than in the 1960s. Income and monthly rent has more than quadroupaled. And the percent of people with a bachelor’s degree has doubled.

Although many of these indicators have naturally increased due to the global market, the rising cost of living in New York, and the exponetial increase in people going to college, it is still very clear that the West Village has experienced the “super gentrification” trend. In addition to the demographic changes, the business uses in the West Village have also transitioned according to the characteristics of gentrification, detailed in the next chapter.

63 Chapter 4: Diversity of Uses As described in detail in Chapter 1, Jacobs placed great importance on a neighborhood having a diverse number of primary uses and argued for one of these primary uses to be the factories and manufacturing facilities that employ the working classes. But, as seen in the maps below, industrial uses that were prominent in the

Study Area in 1947 have all disappeared and the neighborhood as a whole has become less commercial and more residential. Although the neighborhood still has a number of different uses other than residential, the uses only serve one population: the gentrified majority. In this chapter, the current and past zoning changes and land uses of the Study Area will be broken down by street (Sanborn, 1947).

Figure 21: Map of the Study Area showing Figure 22: Map of the Study Area showing land use in 1947 (Sanborn, 1947). land use in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011).

64 New York Department of Planning Zoning Maps As described more fully in Chapter 3, the Zoning Resolution of 1961 established height and setback controls and designated residential districts that excluded what were seen as “incompatible uses” keeping residential, commercial, and industrial uses separate (NYC Planning Department, 2010). It was difficult to separate uses in the

West Village, however, because so much of the neighborhood had industry, commercial, and residential uses side-by-side. The 1961 Zoning Resolution for New

York City, is still in effect today, albiet with many amendments (NYC Planning

Department, 2010).

In 1961, the Study Area was made up of only four distinct zoning districts:

R6 General Residence District: allows residential-type uses such as apartments, townhouses, boarding houses, churches, clubs (night and day), colleges, community centers, convents, fire stations, sub stations, and gas stations, but restricts eating and drinking places and retail, manufacturing, and service establishments.

C1 Local Retail District: allows retail shops, eating and drinking places with restrictions on entertainment, churches, colleges, substations, and even a power plant, among many other retail uses. It restricts heavy and light manufacturing and service industries.

C8 General Service District: allows heavier service uses, such as animal hospitals, automobile repair, and building material sales.

M1: Light Manufacturing District: allows many of the same uses as C1 and C2, but also allows light industry such as electronic and textile manufacturing, shipping, tool manufacturing, and assembly of steel or metalworks, but prohibited uses that were

65 expecially noxious such as processing of materials that resulted in excessive waste, pollution, and noise (NYC Planning Department, 2010)3.

According to the 1961 Zoning Map,

West 4th Street from Christopher to

Gansevoort Street was zoned R6

General Residence District. Also the eastern side of the blocks of West 11th,

Bank, Bethune, West 12th, Jane, and

Horatio Streets between Greenwich and Washingon Streets were R6 zoning districts. Jacobs’s house at Figure 23: 1961 Zoning Map of the Study Area (New York Department of Planning, 1961). 555 Hudson Street fell within the the

C1-Local Retail District, which covered the area along Hudson and Bleecker Streets north from Christopher to Gansevoort Streets. The blocks along West 10th, Charles, and Perry Streets between Greenwich and Washington Streets was zoned District C8-

General Service District. The western side of the blocks of West 11th, Bank, Bethune,

West 12th, Jane, and Horatio Streets between Greenwich and Washingon Streets were also zoned District C8-General Service District. The entire block of Washington and

3 The docks that jut out into the Hudson River were zoned M2 Medium Manufacturing District and have remained the same through 2010, however, they are out of the range of the Study Area. M2 Medium Manufacturing District allows slighly more noxious uses, such as processing of material that resulted in waste, pollution and noice. The heaviest and most polluting and dangerous industries were only allowed in M3 districts which were prohibited in the West Village, but were allowed in a small area of the Meat Packing District several blocks north.

66 West Streets from Christopher Street to Gansevoort Street were zoned M1-Light

Manufacturing District (NYC Planning Department, 2010).

Zoning Changes 1961-2010 Zoning changes to the Study Area happened sporatically in the fifty years since the Zoning Resolution of

1961 as the neighborhood began to change in character. Most of the change occurred between West and

Greenwich Streets which had the Figure 24: 2010 Zoning Map of the Study heaviest concentration of industrial Area (New York Department of Planning, 2010). uses (according to the 1947 Sanborn

Maps) and were zoned M1-5 Light Manufacturing District (according to the 1961

Zoning maps). In addition to changes to the zoning districts, three additional districts were added to the Study Area between 1961 to 2010, including:

C2 Local Service District: allows many of the same uses as R and C1, but also allowed service industries such as laboratories, repair shops, printing shops, sign- making shops, music and dance studios, trade schools, etc.

C4: General Commercial District: allows larger commercial uses such as auditoriums and arenas, bowling allies, large stores, and dance halls.

67 C6: General Central Commercial District: allows all the things as the other Commercial Districts but also allowed for slightly heavier uses, such as bicycle repair (NYC Planning Department, 2010).

Zoning Changes along West, Washington, and Greenwich Streets In 1968, a small block between West Street and Washington Street was down-zoned from

M1-Light Manufacturing District to C6-

General Central Commercial Disstrict which introduced a new zoning district into the neighborhood. C6-General Central

Commercial District allowed a slighly heavier commercial use, such as contractor’s Figure 25: Map showing the West, Washington and Greenwich streets which had establishments, but restricts manufacturing the most zoning changes from 1961 to 2010 (Moser, S., 2011). and industrial uses (NYC Planning

Department, 2010).

Then, in 1970, seven blocks along Washington Street from Morton4 to Bank Streets were changed from M1-Light Manufacturing District, C1-Local Retail District, which prohibits many service and heavy commercial uses and all manufacturing uses (NYC

Planning Department, 2010).

4 Morton Street is not included in Study Area. 68 In 1974, the C1-Local Retail District was expanded again to a small block of

Washington Street between Christopher Street and Charles Street replacing the C8-

General Service District. In 1981, between West Street and Washington Street, a nine block area was downzoned from M1-Light Manufacturing District to C6-General

Central Commercial District, which allowed for heavier more large scale commercial uses, but prohibited manufacturing and industry. Also, a three block area on

Greenwich Street directly west of Jacobs’ house was downzoned from a C8-General

Service District to a C6-General Central Commercial District. In 1984, a small block along West Street between Horatio and Gansevoort Street was down-zoned from M1-

Light Manufacturing District to C6-General Central Commercial District, thus making many of the manufacturing uses of the previous decades illegal (NYC

Planning Department, 2010).

In 2005, the last of the M1-Light Manufacturing District was down-zoned. West

Street and Washington Street between Gansevoort, Horatio and Jane Streets changed from M1-Light Manufacturing District to three commercial districts, C6-General

Central Commercial District, C1-Local Retail District, and a new zoning district, C4-

General Commercial District, which allowed larger commercial uses such as auditoriums and arenas, bowling allies, large stores, and dance halls. Finally, in

2010, six blocks on Washington Street were downzoned again from C6-General

Central Commercial District to C1-Local Retail District, which allows only retail and residential uses and banning heavier commercial and service uses (NYC Planning

Department, 2010).

69 In 1961, the Study Area was more than one-third light manufacturing and heavy commercial, less than one-third light commercial and retail, and one third residential only. By 2010 the study area had completely lost its manufacturing and industrial zoning allowances (except on the docks which is not included in the Study Area).

The Study Area is almost two-thirds light commercial and retail, has a tiny section of heavier commercial and service, and is one third residential only. Moreover, in 1961 there were only four different zoning districts that covered a range of uses from manufacturing, commercial, retail, and residential. But in the fifty years since the

Study Area was zoned by the 1961 Zoning Resolutions there have been a number of additional zoning districts added. These additional zoning districts have helped to transition the neighborhood from a manufacturing area to a commercial/retail district by allowing a range of light to heavy commercial uses (NYC Planning Department,

2010).

Sanborn Maps Sanborn Maps, large-scale lithographed street plans, were originally created for assessing fire insurance liability in urbanized areas in the United States. The maps include outlines of each building and outbuilding, the location of windows and doors, street names, street and sidewalk widths, property boundaries, fire walls, natural features, railroad corridors, building use (if a fire hazard was present), house and block number, as well as the composition of building materials (Sanborn.com, 2011)

The Sanborn Map for the Study Area, accessed through New York University’s Bobst

Library and were drawn in 1947, the very year that Jane and Robert Jacobs moved into their townhouse at 555 Hudson Street. The maps show the major industrial and

70 manufacturing uses with a description of the items being made or stored or the name of the company. The maps also display an “S” on the buildings that had stores on the bottom level, a “D” for any type of dwelling, most likely a row house, and an “Apt” for apartment (Sanborn, 1947).

To the right is an example of the 1947 Sanborn Map showing just one block in the Study

Area, the west side of Hudson

Street between Bank and

Bethune Streets. Highlighted is the old General Electric Figure 26: The block between Bank, Bethune, Hudson and Greenwich Streets from the 1947 Sanborn Map Corporation which took up the highlighted to show the General Electric Company (Sanborn, 1947). entire block. The map shows the street names and numbers and lists the type of building use and the hazardous materials that would have been stored there, in this case, radio and electric supplies.

The Sanborn maps also show which buildings were apartments and how many bedrooms were in each apartment (Sanborn, 1947).

71 Neighborhood Business Inventory The 1947 Sanborn maps of the Study Area were used to count the number of stores and industrial 1947 Necessity Industry businesses, such as factories, manufactuing 68% 32% Figure 27: Percentage of companies, warehouses, and motor frieght Necessity vs. Industry based on the 1947 Sanborn Maps (Sanborn, companies to create a historic inventory of 1947) neighborhood businesses. The Sanborn maps detail the exact industrial use of buildings, because of the fire hazard involved, but only put an “S” on a building that contained a store; therefore, type of store is unknown. But it is likely that in 1947 and into the 1950s and 1960s that most of the stores sold goods that would be deemed “necessities” instead of “boutique” or

“destination” by today’s standards. Moreover, as Jacobs mentioned in the text, there were a number of eateries, bars, and restaurants in the neighborhood when she was living there. The Sanborn maps do not show restaurants or bars and it is unclear whether the “S” for store includes restaurants, however, it is unlikely that there was a high percentage of restaurants and bars due to the spending culture of the “time5.” In

1947, 68% of the Study Area’s businesses could have been considered

“necessity,”and 32% were industrial or manufacturing (Sanborn, 1947).

5 Due to time restrictions, the exact type of “store” that each “S” on the Sanborn Map reflects could not be fully researched, so certain assumptions were made which put everything labeled “S” in 1947 into the category of “necessity”. This assumption was made because it is unlikely that a high percentage of these stores were restaurants, boutiques (as we know them today), and other non-necessity businesses in the late 1940s. However, it should be noted that there were a number of clubs, theaters, and other non-necessity businesses in the neighborhood in the 1940s, but it is unknown whether the “S” on the Sanborn maps include these businesses or not. 72 In contrast to the 1947 business inventory, the 2011 business inventory of 2011 shows a far different Necessity Destination Industry 32% 68% 0% mix of businesses. “Necessity” includes shops Figure 28: Percentage of Necessity vs. Destination vs. Industry based on the 2011 and stores that supply daily needs products, Business Inventory (Moser, S., 2011) such as CVS, Duane Reade, pharmacies, inexpensive clothing, consignment clothing, grocery, bakeries, convenience/fast food, laundry and dry cleaning, hardware, paper supplies, gyms/yoga/athletic clubs, skin/hair care, etc. “Restaurant” includes any sit-down, full-service, eatery that does or does not serve alcohol. “Bar” includes any sit-down, full-service, eatery whose primary use is serving alcohol i.e. a tavern, lounge, bar, or pub. “Boutique” includes any specialty shop that caters to a high-income population and serves non-necessity items, including specialty clothing, accessories, shoes, eyewear, home goods, specialty bakery, gourmet food supply, specialty skin/hair/body care, etc. In 2011,

32% of the businesses in the Study Area could be deemed “necessity” and 68% would be deemed “destination”. There are no industry uses in the Study Area in 2011.

73 1947 Business Inventory 2011 Business Inventory Store Industry Necessity Restaurant Bar Boutique Border Streets Border Streets Christopher 33 5 West 18 13 Christopher 31 15 9 10 Gansevoort 18 8 West 3 1 0 0 West 4th 36 0 Gansevoort 2 8 1 15 North/South Streets West 4th 9 18 4 7 Washington 25 28 North/South Streets Greenwich 17 19 Washington 6 3 4 2 Hudson 61 5 Greenwich 4 4 1 8 Bleecker 47 1 Hudson 24 28 8 17 8th Avenue 18 0 Bleecker 4 2 0 51 East/West Streets 8th Avenue 15 6 1 4 West 10th 16 15 East/West Streets Charles 10 11 West 10th 8 3 1 10 Charles 5 4 2 2 Perry 16 19 Perry 4 2 1 1 West 11th 21 10 West 11th 5 4 3 1 Bank Street 8 15 Bank Street 2 0 0 0 Bethune 2 8 Bethune 1 0 0 0 West 12th 9 4 West 12th 1 0 0 0 Jane 10 9 Jane 0 1 0 1 Horatio 20 9 Horatio 2 1 0 0 Total 385 179 Total 126 100 35 129 Figure 29: 1947 Business Inventory of Figure 30: 2011 Business Inventory of necessity, stores and industry on each street in restaurant, bars, and boutiques on each street in the Study Area based on the 1947 the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) Sanborn Maps (Sanborn, 1947)

Street by Street Building Use Changes

Border Streets

Christopher Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 33 5 31 34 Figure 31: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Christopher Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

Christopher Street in 1947 had approximately

33 stores and five industrial buildings, including an auto repair shop, a machine shop, a sheet metal workshop, and the Federal

Archive building. There was also a brick oven

Figure 32: Christopher Street within the 74 Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) bakery and a meeting space/lodging house called Greenwich Hall (Sanborn, 1947).

The Federal Archive building, built in 1899 for the U.S. Customs Service, is still the largest structure in the West Village to this day. Soon after its completion, the building was taken over by the U.S. Federal Archives. Since each floor contained over one acre of square footage, it was highly suitable as storage space for the agency's archival materials. Renovated in 1988, the building was converted into 479 luxury rental apartments (Miller, 1990, 168). . In 2011, Christopher street has 31 stores, 15 restaurants, nine bars and 10 boutiques. Of all the streets in the Study Area,

Christopher has the most “necessity” businesses, such as inexpensive food stores and service businesses.

West Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 18 13 3 1

Figure 33: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for West Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

West Street in 1947 was a mix of factories and warehouses, stores, and dwellings.

There were approximately 18 stores and 13 different industrial uses including motor frieght stations, warehouses, marine repairs

Figure 34: West Street within the and supplies, House of Detention for U.S Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) Prisoners, Enoch Morgans Sons Co. Soap

Factory, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Cotton Bale warehouse, export crating

75 warehouse, private garage, and Manhattan Refridgerating Company. Bell Telephone

Laboratories took up two entire blocks and the Manhattan Refridgerating Company took up one entire block (Sanborn, 1947). In 2011, most of West Street is a mix of adaptive reuse and new construction residential buildings. There are only three service uses and one restaurant/bar on the street. The Bell Telephone Laboratories is now the Westbeth Artists Cooperative. Built in 1968 as a low-to middle income rental housing project for artists, their families and their studios, it is the largest such community in the world and is funded by the National Endowment for the Arts

(Miller, 1990, 168). The full block Manhattan Refrigerating Company was built in stages in the 1910s between Gansevoort and Horatio Streets on West Street. It was vacated in 1979, and redeveloped into 234 apartments and renamed “the West Coast”.

Its meat storage facilities had operated for so long that it took two months of the building to thaw before the conversion could begin (Miller, 1990, 158).

76 Gansevoort Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 18 8 2 24

Figure 35: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Gansevoort Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

Gansevoort Street in 1947 had 18 stores and eight different industrial buildings including Cudahy Packing Company, cold storage warehouse, several vacant warehouses, and a waste paper sorting and bailing facility (Sanborn, 1947). In

2011, there are two stores, eight restaurants, one bar, and 15 boutique shops. Gansevoort Street, of all the Figure 36: Gansevoort Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). streets in the Study Area, has managed to keep its wholly industrial physical appearance while completely shifting use away from industrial and heavy commercial. The restaurants and boutiques are houses in almost unchanged industrial spaces, creating a trendy juxtaposition of raw grit and opulent luxury.

77 West 4th Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 36 0 9 29

Figure 37: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for West 4th Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

In 1947, West 4th Street had 36 stores and no industrial uses. Although there is no way to know what kind of stores were on the street, it is safe to assume that they would have likely provided daily necessity products and inexpensive eateries (Sanborn, Figure 38: West 4th Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) 1947). In 2011, there are 9 stores, 18 restaurants, four bars, and seven boutiques. Although West 4th Street did not have any industrial uses according to the 1947 Sanborn Map, the street was very commercial in nature, likely packed with necessity businesses. In 2011, most of West

4th street has a high number of light commercial/destination businesses, mostly expensive restaurants and boutiques that cater to a highly gentrified population.

78 North/South Streets

Washington Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 25 28 6 9

Figure 39: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Washington Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

Washington Street in 1947 had approximately 28 industrial buildings and 25 stores on the ground floor of dwellings.

There was asbestos storage, a sheet metal workshop, several motor frieght stations, loading platforms, Shepard Warehouse Inc., Figure 40: Washington Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011). wine manufacturing, Harrow Warehouse, among others (Sanborn, 1947). In 2011, Washington Street has six stores, three restaurants, four bars, and two boutiques. The rest of the street is residential with many industial buildings converted into apartments and condiminiums.

The West Village Houses, a middle-income housing project conceived of by Jacobs and other West Village activists in the 1960s, spans seven blocks of Washington

Street. The vacant lot abutted various industrial buildings and warehouses, but the project did not demolish any buildings or displace any residents (Alexiou, 2006, 124).

Finally completed in 1975, the West Village Houses were plain and received no praise from the architectural community, however they represented a new style of

79 small-scale affordable housing and community involved planning (Alexiou, 124). In

2002, owners of the West Village Houses announced to residents that they intended to leave the Mitchell-Lama rent control program, turn the units into cooperatives, and sell them at a 300% increase. After the tenant group protested the price increase, the City agreed to forgive the interest owed by the owners as long as they sold the units at only a 50% increase, ensuring that the West Village Houses will remain affordable (The Villager, 2004). The West Village Houses in 2011 (Moser, S., 2011)

Greenwich Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 17 19 4 13

Figure 36: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Greenwich Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

Greenwich Street in 1947 had approximately

19 industrial buildings and 17 stores. The industrial uses included a paper warehouse, adhesive warehouse, wood box manufacturer, Tower’s Warehouse Inc., printing and furniture warehouse, motor Figure 41: Greenwich Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) freight station, meatpacking factory, cold storage warehouse, General Electric corporation, and a steel and iron warehouse,

80 among others (Sanborn, 1947). In 2011 Greenwich Street has four stores, four restaurants, four bars, and eight boutques.

Hudson Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 61 5 24 53

Figure 42: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Hudson Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

In 1947 Hudson Street had approximately 61 stores and five industrial buildings that included a printing factory, storage warehouse, General Electric Corporation, and a waste paper sorting and bailing factory

(Sanborn, 1947). In 2011, Hudson Street has Figure 43: Hudson Street within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) 24 stores, 28 restaurants, eight bars, and 17 boutiques. Although Hudson Street has the highest number of necessity stores in the neighborhood, the street has also become very similar to how Jacobs’ describes 3rd Street in Death and Life; Hudson Street now has an overabundance of restaurants and bars.

81 Bleecker Street

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 47 1 4 53

Figure 44: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for Bleecker Street (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

In 1947, Bleecker Street only had one industrial building, the Henry Stetler Public

Storage Warehouse, and 47 stores. In 2011,

Bleecker Street has four stores, two restaurants, one bar, and 51 boutiques.

Bleecker Street in the 1960s was a place to Figure 45: Bleecker Street within the shop for inexpensive groceries and daily Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) necessities. The streets would have been flooded with housewives gathering produce for the night’s dinner and visitors haggling with street venders for inexpensive goods (Sanborn, 1947). In 2011, the street has 51 boutiques, some of which are among the most expensive shops in the world catering to a very high-income population.

82 8th Avenue

1947 2011 Necessity Industry Necessity Destination 18 0 15 11

Figure 46: 1947 Business Inventory compared to 2011 Business Inventory for 8th Avenue (Sanborn, 1947 and Moser, S., 2011)

In 1947, 8th Avenue had 18 stores and no industrial uses. In 2011, it has 15 stores, six restaurants, one bar, and four boutiques

(Sanborn, 1947). 8th Avenue in 2011 serves as street with a high number of necessity shops (second to Hudson Street).

th It is the only street in the Study area with Figure 47: 8 Avenue within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011) higher number necessity businesses than destination businesses.

East/West Streets In 1947, all the East/West Streets had a similar business mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The lower East/West Streets of West 10th,

Charles, Perry, West 11th, and Bank Streets had almost equal numbers of stores/necessity businesses and industry Figure 48: The East/West streets within the Study Area (Moser, S., 2011).

83 uses. The upper East/West Streets of Bethune, West 12th, Jane and Horatio Streets generally had less industrial businesses and more commercial, with the exception of

Bethune which had more industry. Overall the East/West streets had a total of 112 stores/necessity businesses and 100 industrial businesses. In terms of industry/heavy commercial, there was a White Head metal products company, Shepherd Warehouse

Inc, a number of motor freight stations, metal works shops, Seacoast Laboratories, a grocery warehouse, a furniture warehouse, woodworking store, cotton goods warehouse, export packers warehouse, a Detention House for U.S. Prisoners, truck sales and services, an ice plant, power plant, sheet metal works, and Chin and Lee

Chowmein Factory, among many others (Sanborn, 1947).

In 2011, the East/West Streets have generally transitioned to primarily residential.

None of the industrial uses remain and many of the commercial uses have also disappeared. Overall these streets have 28 stores/necessity businesses and 37 destination businesses bringing the total business inventory on all the East/West

Streets to 65. The upper East/West Streets – West 10th to Bank Street – have 86% of the total businesses with 41% stores/necessity businesses and 59% destination businesses. The lower East/West Streets – Bethune to Horatio – have only nine businesses total with six stores/necessity businesses and three destination businesses.

84 Business Inventory: 1947 Necessity Industry Total East/West Streets West 10th 16 15 31 Charles 10 11 21 Figure 49: The 1947 Business Perry 16 19 35 Inventory based on the Sanborn Maps for the West 11th 21 10 31 East/West streets within the Bank Street 8 15 23 Study Area (Sanborn, 1947) Bethune 2 8 10 West 12th 9 4 13 Jane 10 9 19 Horatio 20 9 29 Total 168 174 342

Business Inventory: 2011 Necessity Destination Total East/West Streets West 10th 8 14 22 Figure 50: The 2011 Business Inventory for the Charles 5 8 13 East/West streets within the Perry 4 4 8 Study Area (Moser, S., West 11th 5 8 13 2011) Bank Street 2 0 2 Bethune 1 0 1 West 12th 1 0 1 Jane 0 2 2 Horatio 2 1 3 Total 28 37 65

Conclusion Overall, the Study Area is still diverse in its businesses and uses; however, the type of diversity is different and confirms the literature on gentrification showing that boutiques and other “destination” business, such as restaurants and bars, can change the character of a neighborhood. The West Village is still a mix of commercial, retail, and residential, but has lost both its industrial uses and the workers who depended on the industry for employment. This process was encouraged by the zoning strategies of the city as the industrial and heavy commercial areas were down- zoned consistently in the years since the 1961 Zoning Resolution.

85 Conclusions Jane Jacobs depicts the West Village in her 1961 book The Death and Life of Great

American Cities as the ultimate functional neighborhood. Although the photos of the neighborhood from the 1960s would suggest that not much has changed, a closer look inside the buildings and at the residential population tells a different story. The 1947

Sanborn maps and the 1961 New York Zoning maps depict the West Village as a place that had neighboring industry, commercial, retail, and residential uses creating employment for the working classes, places for them to buy daily necessities, and inexpensive housing where they could live. Although urban planners at the time would have condemned the neighborhood as having incompatible uses, Jacobs proved that it worked.

But in 2011, the West Village has lost the very essence of what Jacobs thought made it successful; its industrial and manufacturing uses, and the working classes that lived and worked in the neighborhood. And yet, rather than becoming economically insecure, as Jacobs implied that it should, the West Village has surged in popularity and prestige, becoming one of the most desirable places to live in the world. So was

Jacobs wrong? And what does this micro-history of the West Village mean for planners, who have lauded Jacobs’ observations even as they were the focus of her criticisms?

Jacobs put great emphasis on the role of neighborhood and city-scaled economies. At the time that she was writing Death and Life, perhaps this small-scale economic view

86 was viable, but since then the global economy has had an enormous role in the West

Village’s transition into super gentrification. Global money has poured into New

York City and the West Village, especially within the last thirty years, elevating the real estate market into the stratosphere and creating a new demographic of the super wealthy who can afford to pay top dollar for their real estate preferences. Jacobs’ quaint idea that a blue collar/working class neighborhood could continue unchanged if only planners stayed away was idealistic, and history has proven that neighborhood economies are not sustainable when matched against the new global economy, especially in cities like New York (and Jacobs herself was first to point out that “great cities” like New York are different from towns, smaller cities, and suburbs).

Ironically, the role that planners did play in Greenwich Village, in enacting historic preservation codes that preserved much of the physical framework, enabled a different kind of market shift in which tourism plays a major role. Jacobs could not foresee the role that the tourism industry would have on the West Village, creating an entirely new primary use to replace the need for industry and manufacturing.

Throughout the year tourists visit the village and patronize the eateries, shops, and theaters and flood the streets with constant activity day and night. These eateries, shops, and theaters provide employment for the working class; however, the working class can no longer afford to live where they work.

But is Jacobs’ observation-based planning approach enough for planning in the twenty-first-century? Or in addition to the ground-level view of the neighborhood do planners also need to take a look at the bigger picture? Planners today are still getting

87 caught up in the physical aspects of planning as a catch-all solution to society’s problems. As some of her critics mentioned, Jacobs believed that the physical environment had a large role in determining whether or not a neighborhood and its residents are healthy and economically productive. A neighborhood must have the

“conditions of diversity” – the short blocks, concentration of people, mix of old and new buildings - and most importantly, diversity of primary uses, with an emphasis on industrial uses for employment of the working classes who live and work in the neighborhood. Although Jacobs argued that all four of these conditions are necessary for success, contemporary planners sometimes choose to include the physical conditions of diversity, but not diversity of uses or diverse population. Back in 1968,

Herbert Gans critiques Jacobs’ emphasis on “physical determinism” and her lack of acknowledgement of social, cultural and economic factors that are vital in neighborhood studies (Gans, 1968, 34-35). Yet today planners continue to follow only her physical guidelines in implementing projects that they attribute to her book.

For instance, the popular New Urbanism-style design, which is based on Jacobs’ physical guidelines, is frequently used for planning new developments or redeveloping urban areas. Many of New Urbanism developments become highly functional and desirable communities, but very few of them are implemented with all four conditions of diversity. Planners will celebrate these neighborhoods as successful, but in terms of equity, these neighborhoods fail to address the very real problem of gentrification pushing low-income residents out of their neighborhoods.

New Urbanism and other urban village style developments might be the right fit for

88 some neighborhoods, but cannot possibly be a perfect fit every time. And as Nicolai

Ouroussoff of the New York Times argued, the short-blocks and small-scale developments may not be the best way for mega-cities like New York to sustainably, economically, and equitably absorb the population influx anticipated in the next several decades (Ouroussoff, 2006).

Although there is no easy solution for planners to address gentrification, it would be useful for planners to take a three pronged approach to planning neighborhoods based on Jacobs’ teachings, but modified for today’s problems. First, use Jacobs’ on-the- ground observation strategy and get out into the neighborhood to really understand how it works. Second, take a huge step back and look at the big picture - the city, the global economy, and social and political pressures – to understand how the neighborhood is affected by these different influences. Third, ask questions of the neighborhoods’ inhabitants and business owners to delve deeper into the reasons that they live or own a business there to understand the larger shifts that affect them.

Jacobs understood that the residents know their neighborhood’s needs and flaws better than a planner who approaches a neighborhood as his or her next problem to be solved. But planners have the advantage of the larger perspective, and should have the knowledge of historical trends that can help neighborhood residents and business owners understand longer-term issues. What can we learn from this study of neighborhood change? Perhaps the best way to put it is in Jacobs’ own words: “I hope any reader of this book will constantly and skeptically test what I have to say against his own knowledge of cities and their behavior” (Jacobs, 1961, 4).

89 Appendix

Appendix A: 1947 Sanborn Maps

Sanborn Map #2

90 Sanborn Map #11

91 Sanborn Map #12

92 Sanborn Map #13

93 Sanborn Map #14

94 Sanborn Map #15

95 Sanborn Map #16

96 Sanborn Map #35

97 Appendix B: New York Planning Department Zoning Maps

1961 (Zone 12a and 8b)

98 1964(Zone 12a)

1968 (Zone 12a)

99 1970 (Zone 12a)

1974 (Zone 12a)

100 1981 (Zone 12a)

1984(Zone 8b)

101 2005 (Zone 8b)

102

2010(Zone 12a)

103 Bibliography Alexiou, A. S. (2006). Jane Jacobs: Urban visionary. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Amateau, Albert (2004) Victory! West Village Houses to become an affordable co-op. New York: The Villager. Volume 73, Number 4. Retrieved on March 26, 2011 from http://www.thevillager.com/villager_56/victorywestvillage.html

American Community Survey. (2005-2009). U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on April 10, 2011 from http://FactFinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_sub menuId=datasets_2&_lang=en.

Angotti, T. (2008). New York for Sale : Community planning confronts global real estate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barnes, B. (2010). “Emerging Issues: Wrestling With Jane Jacobs”. Nation's Cities Weekly. 21 June. Retrieved on February 2, 2011 from http://www.nlc.org/articles/articleItems/NCW062110/emergingissuesJaneJacobs.aspx

City Room (2007). Time for Some Jane Jacobs Revisionism? The New York Times. Retrieved on March 24 from http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/time-for- some-jane-jacobs-revisionism/.

DUALabs (2011) 1970 Census Tracts, Social Explorer & U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g=0

DUALabs (2011) 1980 Census Tracts, Social Explorer & U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g=0

DUALabs (2011) 1990 Census Tracts, Social Explorer & U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g=0

DUALabs (2011) 2000 Census Tracts, Social Explorer & U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g=0

DUALabs (2011) 2005-2009 American Community Survey, Social Explorer & U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved April 16, 2011 from http://www.socialexplorer.com/pub/maps/map3.aspx?g=0

Freeman, L., & Braconi, F. (2004). Gentrification and displacement: New york city in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), 39-52. Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from www.scopus.com

104 Gans, Herbert J. (1968) Urban Vitality and the Fallacy of Physical Determinism, in: People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions. London: Cox & Wyman Inc. p. 34, 35.

Neighborhood Change Database [NCDB] Tract Data from 1970-2000. GeoLytics, Inc. Retrieved November 4, 2010 from Tufts University Tisch Library.

“Greenwich Village.” (2011). NYC: The Official Guide. Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from http://www.nycgo.com/?event=view.article&id=76564

Hackworth, J. (2001). Inner-city real estate investment, gentrification, and economic recession in New York City. Environment and Planning A, 33(5), 863-880. Retrieved on February 4, 2011 from www.scopus.com

Hackworth, J. and Smith, N. (2000) “The Changing State of Gentrification.” Tijdschrift voor Econonomische en Sociale Geografie. 22 February 2011. Vol. 92, No. 4, pp. 464-477

Harris, L. S. (2003). Around Washington Square, An Illustrated History of Greenwich Village. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

“History of Zoning.” (2010). New York City Department of City Planning. Retrieved on March 24, 2011 from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zonehis.shtml.

Honan, William H. (1959) Greenwich Village Guide. New York: The Bryant Publications Inc.

Lang, G., Wunsch, M. (2009) Genius of common sense: Jane Jacobs and the story of The death and life of great American cities. Boston: David R. Godine.

Lees, Loretta (2003) Super-gentrification: The Case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies, Vol. 40, No. 12, 2487-2509.

Manshel, A. (2010). “Enough With Jane Jacobs Already”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on April 4, 2011 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703691804575255000992679376.ht ml

McFarland, Gerald. (2001). Inside Greenwich Village. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Mumford, Lewis. (1962). The Skyline: Mother Jacobs’ Home Remedies. The New Yorker, 1 December: 148-179. Retrieved on February 4, 2011

105 New York, Boro of Manhattan. (1947) Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Volume 3. Map 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 35. Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from the New York University Bobst Library.

Ocejo, Richard. (2009). City nights: The political economy of postindustrial urban nightlife. (Ph.D., City University of New York).

Ouroussoff, Nicolai. (2006). Outgrowing Jane Jacobs and Her New York. New York: The New York Times. Retrieved on February 4, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/weekinreview/30jacobs.html

Otter, Robert, Photographer. (2011) Ned Otter. www.robertotter.com.

Schoeneman, Deborah. (2004) Down by the Riverside. New York Magazine. Retrieved on March 29, 2011 from http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/features/n_9823/

Teaford, Jon. (2006). The Metropolitan Revolution: The Rise of Post-Urban America. New York: Columbia University Press.

“Village History” (2011) Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation. Retrieved on March 26, 2011 from http://www.gvshp.org/_gvshp/resources/index.htm#history

Vitullo-Martin, Julia. (2007) West Village Houses a Monument to a 1960s Development Battle. New York: The Sun. Retrieved on March 26, 2011 from http://www.nysun.com/real-estate/west-village-houses-a-monument-to-a- 1960s/61592/

Wyly, E., Newman, K., Schafran, A., & Lee, E. (2010). Displacing new york. Environment and Planning A, 42(11), 2602-2623. Retrieved on February 4, 2011 from www.scopus.com.

Zipp, S. (2006) Jane Jacobs, Reconsidered: Jane Jacobs transformed urban planning. In These Times. Retrieved on February 4, 2011 from http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2743/jane_jacobs_reconsidered/.

Zukin, S., Trujillo, V., Frase, P., Jackson, D., Recuber, T., & Walker, A. (2009). New retail capital and neighborhood change: Boutiques and gentrification in new york city. City and Community, 8(1), 47-64. Retrieved on February 4, 2011 from www.scopus.com

Zukin, Sharon. (2004) Point of purchase: how shopping changed American culture. New York: Routledge.

106