« Wednesday Links No Norten for BAM? »
April 25, 2007
City Planning Certifies FG/CH Rezoning Plan
On Monday, the Department of City Planning "certified" the proposal to rezone parts of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. As we discussed last month, the contextual rezoning plan increases the amount that may be built along the neighborhoods' major East-West thoroughfares (boosting FAR to 3.45 or 4.6 with an affordable housing bonues) while decreasing development potential in the internal brownstone blocks (reducing FAR to 2.0). In addition, ten blocks in the area between Park and Flushing would be downzoned to a 1.35 FAR. While this was an important step in the process, it'll probably be another six or seven months before all the bureaucratic boxes have been checked and the rezoning is official. In the meantime, be prepared for a rush of applications for rear and rooftop extensions in the brownstone blocks.
Fort Greene/Clinton Hill Rezoning Begins [Myrtle Minutes]
Clinton Hill/Fort Greene Downzoning Deets Released [Brownstoner]
Fort Greene / Clinton Hill Rezoning Project [City Planning]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1027
Comments
wow. So this should be set around Nov-
Dec. of this year.
Posted by: local at April 25, 2007 9:25 AM
NIMBYISM at its best. Downsizing caters to the gentrifiers and only increases sprawl. This is New York City. If you think it is too densely populated move to New Jersey.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 9:26 AM
hey anon, wtf are you talking about? This is a combo upzone/downzone. Parts are downzoned to protect the character of the neighborhood and other parts, such as fulton, myrtle, and atlantic, are upzoned to allow for more development.
In fact, it's rare that people will use all of the development rights that they have on their brownstone lots so shifting those unused development rights to streets where development will actually happen results in a net increase in space developed.
I think all parties involved here including developers - or maybe even especially developers - see this as a good thing. This creates more opportunity to build new buildings, not less.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 9:41 AM
What creates value in a neighborhood is not just density, but architectural style and context. This rezoning will reduce bad design by capping building heights in the res district to 50 ft (80 ft along the commercial streets); prohibit curb cuts on lots less than 40 feet wide; reduce parking requirements; etc. This proposal plans to reduce bad development, which is NIMBYISM at it's best!
Posted by: Myrtle Guy at April 25, 2007 9:55 AM
go NIMBYS!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 9:57 AM
Please do not move to NJ. Sprawl is killing the state, gobbling up open space Gee whiz pave everything and wonder why the rain rushes to the rivers and floods!!. (Re)Develop urban areas.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 10:15 AM
This is a great plan. It provides balance. Far too often, it's either 'raze all historic structures to the ground and build giant monoliths in their place' or 'preserve every crumbling cottage/money pit'.
This plan is sensible; it provides balance. It preserves the brownstone core while allowing the thoroughfares to be re-developed.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 10:23 AM
i heart NIMBY!
Posted by: for real man at April 25, 2007 11:26 AM
The key component here concerns community facilities (hospital, drug treatment, homeless shelter, private school, nursing home, residential care for the mentally ill, etc).
In generic R6 zones these get twice the floor area of housing on the same lot, part of a 1961 deal to dump those facilities on what was then the most powerless parts of the city. In the original zoning proposal, community facilities had no such bonus; as adopted in 1961, they had bonsues almost everywhere but in other generic zoning districts their bonus is smaller.
In contextual zoning districts, such as those mapped in most locations as proposed, there is little if an bonus for these facilities.
At attempt to cut back every so slightly on community facility excess bulk privileges was easily squashed by the Greater New York Healthcare Association in the late 1990s.
Posted by: WT Economist at April 25, 2007 12:05 PM
What is "affordable housing bonues"? Is that French?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 12:49 PM
I don't understand the R5B areas, most of the homes there are overbuilt for this designation so I don't see how this preserves anything.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 1:17 PM
Hey anon 9:41, increasing the FAR with affordable housing bonuses is not an incentive to a developer. This is an example of downsizing for downsizing's sake, aka not in my backyard,
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 4:06 PM
1:17, if existing FAR > allowable FAR, then no incentive to tear down and build larger
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 4:24 PM
Much of the new R6B area is within the historic district. Historic districts are fairly reliable checks on "out-of-character" development. I think that the reasons given for this particular rezoning have no merit.
My personal feeling, as someone who has been in FG since the 80's, is that this rezoning is somehow symptomatic of the recent gentrification of our neighborhood. It's a reaction to other events, comes straight out of community politics, and wouldn't ever be pursued by an objective and knowledgable planning authority.
There was a huge amount of resentment over the Carlton and Greene tower which I could never understand. That building is only a story taller than the Mugavero home across the street. In any case, it had the unfortunate effect of riling up people who think that when they buy a house, they are buying a neighborhood too.
On the other hand, you can see community support for the rezoning as a reaction to the Ratner juggernaut. I think that the Ratner development is just awful - it's way too dense, will take way too long, and the architecture, urban design, and landcaping is poorly conceived. But worst of all, FCR shrewdly rammed the thing through, in the face of (justified in my opinion) fairly well organized opposition.
That's why people who have been active in the community were able to get behind the rezoning. Sadly, I must agree with those who characterize the proposal as NIMBYism. It depresses me. Maybe I'll just have to move to jersey after all.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2007 11:38 PM
If upzoning commercial streets and downzoning residential blocks does nothing because this covers areas that are for the most part landmarked, then there is nothing to be upset about 11.38.
I, however, think the value of the rezoning is the incentive to build up commercial streets and prevent every non-landmarked residential block and lot (and there are many) from being developed in a way that destroys the character of the neighborhood. I think this is a good thing as it will encourge denser development on Fulton and Myrtle while allowing for contextual development (i.e. no towers) on low rise row house blocks.
Posted by: lp at April 26, 2007 10:40 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.