City of Yes - Letter to City Council

 

Mayor Adams is rolling out the City Of Yes for Economic Opportunity, a package of initiatives that aspire to address our housing crisis and at the same time creatively refit the city for a post-COVID world where over 20% of our offices stand vacant, and a post-Amazon world where storefront retail is in epic flux.   

This is important stuff: housing is in deep crisis, it affects so many issues that go to the heart of making our city livable, fair, and vibrant. The coincidence of this crisis with the redrawn commercial market is unique.  The general view outlined below is:  good, for a start, but it does not go nearly far enough.  This is the first time in my adult life when nearly all voices agree that housing must be a national priority.  It would be criminal to allow that instant of consensus pass without the most robust, polymorphic, creative response. 

An excerpt from Michael’s letter to City Council below:

As an architect practicing in the city since 1984, in all boroughs and in many building types and zoning districts, I have experienced the many limitations that the Zoning Resolution [ZR] places on logical neighborhood and city development. And in light of the dramatic changes that COVID has wrought to the city’s retail and office sectors, a reimagining of the ZR is an urgent need. 

In general, my view is that the City Of Yes for Economic Opportunity does not go nearly far enough.

There are many sound, reasonable improvements in the package.  And the protections it retains in many cases remain relevant.

Generally, I would advocate for a much more aggressive approach.  Our need for housing is insanely urgent, our entire commercial sector is in turmoil, undergoing a once-in-a-generation shift whose outcome is still uncertain.  Zoning must recognize all of these realities and loosen the reins.

It is recognized by academics and policymakers that complex, lengthy, abstruse zoning codes are a significant contributor to stifling development and business in the city.  The code must step back and look at the city as it is now and reset itself. It must be more user-friendly, simpler, shorter, clearer, and more flexible. 

The underlying assumption behind zoning is that certain uses would make life difficult if located adjacently, and that scales of development enhance the sense of place in the city’s neighborhoods.  My comments relate solely to the adjacency-related regulations.  These are antiquated.  People are clamoring to live in M and C zones: Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Soho, Tribeca, the Garment Center, Wall Street, Sunset Park, Bushwick, Gowanus, Mott Haven, Long Island City . . . I could go on. The city’s hottest, most desirable neighborhoods were or still are industrial.  People are eager to live in industrial and commercial zones. Let them! Protect them from the most noxious, noisy uses, but otherwise let the market find places for housing. 

To this end:

  • change the code to allow R uses in all but the most caustic M & C zones – as of right

  • instead of segregating noxious uses by zone, institute distance minimums and construction provisions that buffer seemingly incompatible uses

  • Change the definitions of ALL single family zones to include Accessory Dwelling Units, permit them to be permitted obstructions to some degree in side/rear yards

  • In Historic Districts, allow buildings to match their context, even if this exceeds setbacks and yard requirements – this may allow for denser development in these areas, while enhancing the objectives of historic preservation

These dramatic changes would affect many regulations in many sections.  Huge sections of the code would probably, should probably, be largely rewritten. This should result in a shorter, simpler, more transparent ZR, which should in turn translate into lower construction costs and more housing.

Codes that are too prescriptive tend to become obsolete faster: the more results-oriented and general the code is the longer it will last and the nimbler it will be when change continues to churn. 

More suggestions were sent in the full letter. Join the conversation on Linkedin!

Previous
Previous

Congregation Zemach David

Next
Next

Being Secure and Feeling Safe: Building for the Jewish Community Today