The Woonerf Deficit

The Dutch call it a woonerf—a “livable street” resplendent with wide sidewalks, ample retail, greenery and minimal automobile traffic. It’s designed to boost quality of life for citizenry, the till for retailers and property values for landowners. Perhaps you’ve noticed that New York City doesn’t have many woonerfs amid its warren of streets, which make up one-fourth of the city’s land area.

But what if it did?

Retail sales and property values would jump; pollution and noise would drop; and contentment among those lucky enough to live near or on a livable street would abound. That’s the idyllic outcome, according to a preliminary report shared with The Observer by the nonprofit group Transportation Alternatives. (The report is out officially Aug. 6.) The report aggregated studies of livable streets performed in other cities and found tangible benefits—not Valhalla, perhaps, but serious economic and social benefits that might be replicated in New York.

Some examples from the report:

• In Grand Rapids, Mich., property values increased by nearly one-third following traffic-calming measures.

• An effort to make downtown Melbourne, Australia, more livable spurred a 50 percent pedestrian volume increase over 10 years. The number of outdoor cafes quadrupled and the number of cafe seats nearly tripled.

• After two through-traffic streets in Cambridge, England, were closed, daily traffic levels dropped by more than 7,300 vehicles with no effect on retail.

• A survey of shoppers in central London retail districts found that those who walked to stores spent much more over the week than those who drove.

No studies exist of what livable streets would mean economically and socially to New York, according to Transportation Alternatives’ planning director, Shin-pei Tsay (and relatively few have been conducted, period). Of the studies cited in the group’s report, none involved a city as large as New York (though London has more than seven million residents); and the examples of benefits are not perfectly analogous among cities.

Still, the gathering evidence suggests a sunny mantra: Design additional livable streets and New Yorkers would come—and property owners and retailers would benefit.

Plus, such streets would gel nicely with the Bloomberg administration’s long-term goals. Its PlaNYC 2030 wants to do things like plant one million new trees, reduce traffic-related pollution and put every New Yorker within a 10-minute walk of a park.

“I think livable streets is one of those strategies that would fulfill many of the goals in PlaNYC,” Ms. Tsay said, “in that PlaNYC has taken this environmental perspective on things like reducing air pollution, noise, congestion, managing storm water, etc. And if you have a livable street, where a street is sort of our manifestation of all of our priorities for the public realm, if it’s well designed, it can handle all these different issues very, very well.”

Despite the lack of concrete data, evidence that pedestrian- and environment-friendly changes can impact the city economically already exists. The Transportation Alternatives report cites a 2006 New York University study that concluded proximity to community gardens can boost nearby apartment values. And barely half of city households own cars, and most New Yorkers already commute using public transportation.

Of course, the potentially negative impact of livable streets on automobiles may doom any immediate progress toward additional measures (congestion pricing, anyone?).

Still, among large American cities, New York might be the best poised to reap the benefits of a woonerf harvest.

tacitelli@observer.com