Quantcast

Planning chief downplays upzoning’s impact; Critics are still all hitting the roof

Carl Weisbrod, director of the City Planning Department, called the proposed height changes “very, very modest.”
Carl Weisbrod, director of the City Planning Department, called the proposed height changes “very, very modest.”

BY LINCOLN ANDERSON  | The de Blasio administration’s stated plan to “modernize” contextual-zoning districts by boosting their building-height caps would simply create “better housing,” according to Carl Weisbrod, the city’s planning czar.

In addition, the scheme would help spur the creation of more affordable senior housing for the city’s growing older population, as well as affordable housing in general, Weisbrod and other officials say.

Because seniors need elevators, which are not economically efficient to install in small buildings, the buildings would need some added height and so have to be at least four to six stories to accommodate the lifts, city planners say.

Over all, though, the proposed changes “are very, very modest,” in Weisbrod’s view.

However, the administration’s new plan — called Zoning for Quality and Affordability — has sparked a firestorm of protest from local community activists and preservationists. These critics say the proposal, if approved, would undermine the entire point of hard-won contextual districts — namely, their already-existing height caps.

A chart shown by City Planning at last week’s informational meeting shows how much the existing contextual zones’ height caps in the Village and East Village — R7A and R8A zones — would increase under the plan for both market-rate and afforable or senior housing.  Photos by Lincoln Anderson
A chart shown by City Planning at last week’s informational meeting shows how much the existing contextual zones’ height caps in the Village and East Village — R7A and R8A zones — would increase under the plan for both market-rate and afforable or senior housing. Photos by Lincoln Anderson

In short, this plan basically would be an “upzoning” of building heights by up to 15 feet (for market-rate housing) to 25 feet or more (if senior or affordable housing makes up 20 percent of the project) — or, in other words, from two to three stories — for wide swaths of the city, opponents charge.

About 15 percent of New York City is currently covered by contextual zoning. All of that area, under this proposal, would be rezoned in one fell swoop.

In an informational meeting with members of the local media on Monday, Planning Director Weisbrod and other top Department of City Planning officials, laid out what they described as the proposal’s benefits, then answered reporters’ questions.

Howard Slatkin, deputy executive director for strategic planning, gave a powerpoint presentation of the scheme.

Partly driving the plan, the officials said, is that by 2040 it’s predicted the city will have 400,000 more seniors than today.

Due to current conditions for new construction — such as the standard width of prefab concrete floor slabs and the need to pack in more utilities in between floors — ceiling heights over the years in contextual districts have shrunk by a few feet, while it’s more convenient to make new buildings only 60 feet deep rather than the allowable 65 feet deep.

Combined with the strict height caps of contextual districts, this all somehow translates into developers currently not being able to use all of the available F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) — or the maximum square footage allowable under the zoning — in their projects.

As developers struggle to squeeze enough floors into their height-capped projects, what often gets squeezed out is affordable and senior housing, the agency representatives argue. And this kind of housing is always a challenge to get built, due to the lower profit margin, they note.

Also, Slatkin said, the city’s proposed zoning change would correct a current “issue” where first-floor apartment windows are at pedestrians’ eye level, meaning some residents “keep their blinds shut all day.”

Similarly, having retail at street level isn’t as good as when a store is up about 5 feet above street level, he said. As a result, the scheme calls for boosting the first floor up by this amount.

According to the planning bigs, under the plan, for straight market-rate projects, 75 percent of the city’s contextually zoned districts would see a height-cap increase of  from zero to 5 feet. But the other 25 percent could see a bump-up in height of 15 feet or higher.

Residential districts that are zoned R7A — and equivalent commercially zoned areas — which would potentially have among the greatest increases for straight market-rate projects, predominate in the Village and East Village.

The zoning tweaks would also allow for street-wall setbacks, such as to allow small courtyard-like entrances for buildings, which haven’t been allowed for some years in contextual districts.

The city’s zoning was put into place in 1961, while contextual zoning — with height caps and uniform street-wall regulations — went into effect in 1987.

Tobi Bergman, chairperson of Community Board 2, has warned that the new zoning could lead to “teardowns” of old buildings in contextually zoned areas that are not also included landmarked historic districts.

However, Weisbrod countered that this would not happen.

“We don’t see teardowns now,” he said. “We’re in no way increasing F.A.R. We’re in no way increasing development rights. We’re making affordable and senior housing more profitable. That’s not why people tear down buildings — to create senior and affordable housing.

“We’re building better housing,” Weisbrod stressed. “We’re building affordable housing — and that’s a major difference.”

(Another Planning official later said that the only places where demolitions might happen would be “soft sites,” properties built to less than 50 percent of their potential F.A.R.)

“I think that the changes here are very, very modest,” Weisbrod stated. “And, frankly, they are intended to make contextual districts more contextual. You get [a few] more feet for a much nicer building. No historic districts get changed at all by this.

“You’re not going to see much in the way of changes,” Weisbrod assured of the overall plan.

Most of the West Village, Soho, Noho, Tribeca and the Flatiron District, as well as parts of Chelsea and the East Village, has been designated as historic districts, meaning any new construction in these areas must be approved by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission; so there is some level of protection against new projects being built in these areas, especially ones that don’t conform with the area’s prevailing heights and architecture.

Historic districts — the areas in purple — have strong protections against new construction, and projects that don’t mesh with the surrounding built environment. Any new construction in these districts would need approval by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Historic districts — the areas in purple — have strong protections against new construction, and projects that don’t mesh with the surrounding built environment. Any new construction in these districts would need approval by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Also, so-called “special districts” — Chelsea has one — would not see any changes in their height caps, Weisbrod noted.

In short, this plan is in line with Mayor de Blasio’s goal of creating 200,000 units of affordable housing over 10 years, the planners said. And, they further argued, it would help make contextual areas economically diverse, by creating housing with a range of income levels — assuming the senior and affordable housing actually would get built. It would allow older residents in areas like the Village to age in place in their neighborhoods.

As for the criticism that the city seems intent on ramming the plan through as quickly as possible, Weisbrod dismissed those fears. Nevertheless, a scoping hearing for the rezoning held two weeks ago was packed with dozens of extremely concerned community activists and preservationists, who fear the public isn’t being given an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes.

“We have to go through a very elaborate public approval process,” Weisbrod assured.

That process will take about six months, he said. The public can still comment on the project’s scope — basically meaning its size — until the end of this month.

Furthermore, Weisbrod and the planners maintained that the mechanism for building senior housing and affordable housing — and getting a height bonus for it — already exists. For affordable housing, this program is known as “inclusionary zoning.”

However, Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, said that, under the city’s new proposal, R7A districts and commercially zoned areas that are “R7A equivalents” would see allowable heights go up 31 percent for inclusionary-zoning affordable housing (including senior housing) and 20 percent for strictly market-rate housing.

In 2004, G.V.S.H.P. successfully pushed to get R7A contextual zoning put in place for two areas near the Hudson River in the far West Village, including a section of W. 14th St. Meanwhile, G.V.S.H.P. is currently leading the effort to get contextual zoning for the South Village, as well as along the University Place corridor, where developer Billy Macklowe is now building a 23-story skyscraper on the old Bowlmor lanes site — which was the impetus for the G.V.S.H.P. effort.

C.B. 2 and local politicians are all supporting these zoning modifications — to R7A and R8A — Berman said.

“If this goes through,” he warned of the city’s plan, “that would no longer be an option. We would only be able to get the new ones with the much more permissive height limits.”

Plus, Berman added, “What you get currently for building senior housing is a bulk increase and not a height increase.”

(Developers can currently build projects with 20 percent senior housing in any residentially zoned part of the city and get a height bonus; but if they do so in contextual zones, they only get extra bulk, not height.)

A map showing the West Village’s contextual districts.  Courtesy G.V.S.H.P.
A map showing the West Village’s contextual districts. The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation is pushing for the creation of two new contextually zoned districts.  Map courtesy G.V.S.H.P.

More to the point, Berman added, the zoning envelope shouldn’t be expanded upward for straight market-rate projects just to accommodate developers’ whining.

“I don’t know why it’s such a priority for City Planning to ensure that every luxury condo developer gets to squeeze out every single inch of luxury condos in every development,” he stated. “In the R7A zone — which is our most common zone — it’s a 20 percent height increase, and it will be noticeable.”

“A lot of the components of this plan have been on the real estate industry’s wish list for years,” he added.

In 2008, more than 100 blocks of the East Village and Lower East Side were contextually rezoned, meaning they now have height caps, with an 80-foot maximum height (R7A) for much of the area, or 120 feet (R8A) along the bigger streets if affordable housing is included.

“The entire East Village, with a few small exceptions, is a contextual zoning district,” Berman said.

In other words, under the city’s plan, compared to what’s currently allowable, East Village construction would be able to be built from 5 to 15 feet taller for 100 percent market-rate projects, or from 20 to 25 feet taller if senior or “I.Z.” affordable housing is included.

All of this area within the black lines, from E. 13th St. down to Grand St. and between Third Ave. / Bowery and Avenue D, is a contextual zone due to the 2008 East Village / Lower East Side rezoning. This whole area would see the current height caps raised under the administration's plan.
All of this area within the black lines, from E. 13th St. down to Grand St. and between Third Ave. / Bowery and Avenue D, is a contextual zone due to the 2008 East Village / Lower East Side rezoning. This whole area would see the current height caps raised under the administration’s plan.

In Chelsea, parts of the Special West Chelsea District would be immune to the new plan’s changes, Berman said.

“But there are other parts where it would apply,” he said, “and huge parts of Chelsea where it would.

“The Chelsea Plan — that took 15 years to achieve and would be completely upended by this,” he said of the neighborhood’s existing zoning, which was approved in 2000. Plus, to win the Chelsea Plan, the community had to accept upzoning in other areas, he noted.

As for the argument that historic districts won’t be affected by this plan, Berman scoffed, calling that claim “disingenuous.” L.P.C. has shown a willingness to approve modern, tall buildings in these districts, he said, offering the example of the 13-story One Jackson Square luxury building at W. 13th St. and Greenwich Ave., which sports an undulating glass facade.

What about City Planning’s contention that the rezoning would relieve future first-floor residents from the annoyance of having to keep their drapes drawn all day long?

“Of all the problems facing New York,” he said, “I haven’t found keeping your blinds shut to be a major problem that New Yorkers have.”

Berman sharply disagreed with Weisbrod’s denial that the rezoning plan is being rushed through by the city.

“They’re fast-tracking this,” the preservationist accused. “They’re moving from the scoping to the public-review process really fast — and this is a plan that has such broad ramifications. And there’s no analysis on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis on what the impact would be.

“The irony is,” he continued, “these areas are parts of the city where it was felt there was a special character to be preserved, and this proposal would upend those rules.”

Would community activists and organizations sue to stop these changes?

“I think it’s too early to say,” Berman offered. “But this is of enormous concern. And if this is adopted as is, we would look at all of our options. But I hope it doesn’t get to that point. Some very, very serious changes need to be made before this could even be considered,” he said of the city’s zoning proposal.

C.B. 2 Chairperson Bergman was among the group of concerned community members who packed the plan’s recent scoping hearing to voice their concerns, and to call for slowing down the process.

“The contextual zoning that was put into place was the result of years of community planning,” he told The Villager.

On the other hand, he said, this new rezoning is being driven, not at all by the community — but by the developers.

On that point, Bergman said he attended a “borough board” meeting at City Hall in February, at which leading members of Manhattan’s community boards got their first presentation of the proposed zoning scheme.

“They kept saying, ‘Practitioners tell us…,” Bergman recalled with a wry chuckle. “By that, they don’t mean neurosurgeons — they mean developers.

“The scoping shouldn’t have been done only with ‘practitioners.’ ”

The board chairperson added that the “give” the city is offering the community right now simply isn’t enough. In other words, who’s to say that the senior or affordable housing — part of the whole justification for the plan, but which is only voluntary on developers’ part — will even get built? Other local affordable housing schemes haven’t panned out.

“If this is truly about creating better buildings and affordable housing in contextual zones, let’s make sure we really get the affordable housing,” Bergman emphasized. “The Hudson Square rezoning turned out to be a bonanza for developers of luxury housing but the affordable housing isn’t getting built.

“This plan allows a 20 percent height increase in R7A zones for developments with no affordable housing. That’s just a big mistake,” he said. “There has to be a give to get.”