issue of down zoning and neighborhood development

anonymous

This might interest folks both on the Crown Hts list as well as the Prospect Hts list. It concerns the issue of down zoning and neighborhood development and gentrification themes that have been talked about.



Is It Density Or Poor Planning That Neighborhoods Oppose?
by Alex Marshall - editor of Spotlight on the Region (affiliated with the Regional Planning Authority)

In the once weed-filled, trash-strewn vacant lots near my apartment in Crown Heights, new buildings are growing. Some are mere slivers, slipped into a skinny lot between two existing brownstones or apartments. Others are larger and more architecturally ambitious, like the Washington Condominium project on Dean Street, which takes up almost an entire block, and includes a dramatic wraparound corner at Washington Avenue. Another noteworthy project is the conversion of the old Jewish hospital at Classon and St. Marks into apartments and condominiums.

This kind of development is on balance a good thing, despite concerns over gentrification. It fills in unsanitary, unattractive and potentially dangerous spaces (or replaces ramshackle buildings with new ones), and brings to the neighborhood new residents that will vote, support local stores and pay more taxes. And it’s happening in an area, Crown Heights, which was written off as recently as a few years ago as a place that “would never come back.”

In the Oct. 10 issue of The New York Times, Janny Scott described how more and more neighborhoods were opposing “density,” and in response the Bloomberg administration was “downzoning” many neighborhoods so as to stop or drastically reduce development.

This trend is troublesome. The city needs ongoing development to stay healthy and vital. Neighborhoods certainly deserve a say in things, but there needs to be a recognition that each neighborhood is part of the city as a whole and depends on its overall health. While it’s appropriate to have limits, it’s also often appropriate to have apartment buildings in neighborhoods of single family homes, for example.

Yet, despite the presence of the dynamic that Scott describes, is it really density per se that neighborhoods oppose? I suspect the truth is more complex than that. The development that is happening all around me in Crown Heights and other neighborhoods of Brooklyn is adding substantial density. Yet I have heard little opposition to it.

I suspect that that what many neighborhoods oppose is not density but unduly tall buildings that block out the sun and their views, projects that close streets and alter the street grid, projects that use eminent domain in a cavalier fashion, and massive projects that are presented as fait accompli with little input beforehand from the neighborhood. They also fear traffic and congestion, but these do not always come with additional density.

There are really two problems. In rezonings, communities need to be able to envision the future, with all its implications and uncertainties. Specific developer-driven projects can engender even more intense opposition. Bruce Ratner’s Atlantic Yards proposal would be built just a few blocks from my apartment. Consisting of not only an arena but also skyscraper-sized residential and office towers and mammoth superblocks, it has, not surprisingly, created substantial opposition. As is typical with many if not most such large scale projects, it reverses the logical order of development, with the project selected first and the planning and neighborhood outreach coming second.

This type of behavior has been business-as-usual for decades, and it is a large reason why neighborhoods often oppose development so intensely. Neighborhoods are placed in positions where they have to accept the project, perhaps with some compromises, or reject development altogether. Projects and rezonings that are subject to the city land use review process at least have a hearing process and City Council approval to negotiate changes, but projects involving state-owned property, like the Atlantic Yards or the Hudson Yards in Manhattan, are exempt from this process. Redevelopment authorities are used as a way to avoid a normal review process. Even projects that go through the city process, however, are too seldom preceded by an analysis and discussion of alternatives.

To be sure, the city is not unaware of such problems and has worked with many areas to come up with guidelines everyone can endorse. Ultimately, we need both neighborhood and citywide plans that contain concrete visions for where the city is heading. If successful, this would give neighborhoods more input and developers clearer guidelines that would allow them to build more swiftly and easily. Such plans would pay attention to commonly accepted principles of urban design, such as putting density near mass transit, enhancing pedestrian and visual access to the waterfront, respecting the street grid, and providing enough housing and commercial space to allow the city’s economy to grow.

One simple tool the city should consider using in more areas are height limits. Neighborhoods are much more likely to accept increased density if they know massive towers will not materialize overnight. It’s often forgotten that great density is not synonymous with great height. A district of single-family homes and small apartment buildings can double or triple in density simply with the addition of mid-rise buildings of less than six to eight stories.

In a word, what the city needs more of is subtlety. Development and opposition to it now often proceeds in a winner-take-all fashion. A subtler, finer-grained vision of how the city and its parts should grow has the chance of crafting a more prosperous and livable metropolis.


- Alex Marshall, an independent journalist, is editor of Spotlight on the Region.