« The Duffield Eminent Domain Battle Continues In Greenwood Heights, That Old Sinking Feeling »
October 30, 2007
Council OKs Bed-Stuy Rezoning
The City Council approved a rezoning of the southern part of Bedford-Stuyvesant yesterday, a move meant to echo other recent rezonings by preserving the area’s low-rise, brownstone blocks. The measure, which covers the section of Bed-Stuy roughly bounded by Quincy Street and Saratoga, Atlantic and Classon avenues, also seeks to stimulate new business and housing creation by permitting increased density on major commercial drags. The new zoning allows residential developments to rise around eight stories on Nostrand and Bedford avenues and up to about 10 stories on Fulton Street and Atlantic Avenue if developers include subsidized housing. The plan also adds residential use to the southeast edge of the neighborhood, which was a light manufacturing zone. And what’s next for Bed-Stuy? The Planning Commission has promised to move forward with a rezoning of the neighborhood’s northern section.
Action on Development in Brooklyn and Queens [NY Times]
Bedford-Stuyvesant South Rezoning [City Planning]
More Details Emerge on Bed Stuy Rezoning Plan [Brownstoner]
City Planning Considering Bed Stuy Rezoning [Brownstoner]
Photo by nrvlowdown.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2743
Comments
Yay, soon we will rezone the entirety of Brooklyn and never allow new development again!
Posted by: Polemicist at October 30, 2007 9:45 AM
Fulton Street needs as much help as it can get...
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 10:00 AM
From the Planning website "This proposed designation (R6B) would protect the three- and four- story brownstone and rowhouse scale and character of Bedford-Stuyvesant’s residential core."
Sounds pretty good. However, "New development in the proposed R6B district would be required to line up with adjacent structures to maintain the existing street wall characteristics. New multifamily residences in R6B districts must provide one off-street parking space for 50 percent of the dwelling units."
I just don't understand how requiring a parking space or two in front of a building on a side street "preserves the character" of the neighborhood. Plus it also ends up removing one public parking spot. Maybe I'm just a sucker for trees and flowers in front yards. . .
Posted by: Heatherie at October 30, 2007 10:07 AM
Heatherie is exactly right -- if the requirement for parking is only to provide parking spaces in front -- I can't imagine anything worse for the neighborhood than having multiple new buildings with parking in front of the building.
OTOH, requiring underground parking might be a decent compromise.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 10:11 AM
I think that's how it will be implemented, because only R6A specifies that parking cannot be in front of the building.
Posted by: Heatherie at October 30, 2007 10:14 AM
requiring underground parking may sound like a good idea, but it is incredibly expensive and god knows we don't need to add to the cost of housing in this city. besides, most places in this city -- including bed-stuy -- have great subway infrastructure. why make expensive off-street parking requirements when the city and state are already spending so much money on mass transit?
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 10:53 AM
It hardly matters, because all of Bed-Stuy (and Brooklyn, and the world for that matter) will be worthless once AY is built.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 11:12 AM
10:53 -- I agree that where the subway infrastructure is good, I don't see the need for off-street parking requirements. However, if the city planners bnelieve that parking is necessary, front of building parking is the worst of all worlds. Doing so, especially in a historic urban neighborhood like Bed Stuy, would be devastating to the character of the neighborhood. That's why I said if there is going to be a parking requirement, a decent compromise should be underground (or standalone 2 to 4 story garages on the larger lots).
Possibly alleys to the back of the lots might work (like in many neighborhoods in Queens), but I don't think that's possible without major reconfiguring of the neighborhood plan.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 11:16 AM
I'd like to know how retail along the avenues gets encouraged. Zoning is one thing, but there should be some real benefits being given to opening a business in the area. It needs to be made attractive at a lot of scales - buildings are still buildings after all - but what about the business owners who given the right subsidies/benefits could be encouraged to take root and help Bed Stuy grow? What impresses me about Bed Stuy is that a lot of the physical infrastructure is already there. Most of the old buildings on the avenues (aside from Stuyvesant) actually have storefronts. They're all just borded up. Look at Ralph Ave, Malcolm X, Putnam - everything you need is already there, it just needs some love and investment. If somehow a system was in place to encourage people with monetary aid or tax breaks for taking on a project there and opening a business, I'd bet we'd see something happen.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 11:42 AM
I was in the proces of converting my four story brownstone from a two family to a three family and was initially told that I would need to create a curb cut in order to get the approval for the C of O change. Does anyone know if this requirement may be due to the recent re-zoning? If yes, this would be ridiculous in this beautiful brownstone neighborhood. Thoughts??
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 12:37 PM
Many stores on Fulton street are junk stores that add no value to the area... How many nail and hair shops dose one area need... All the corner bodegas with the three lights blinking..... There is a wonderful shop on Thompkins that is closing down because the owner can't deal with the people that set up shop by sitting and doing nothing all day long infornt of her business. you can't do that on Lex Ave.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 12:44 PM
1) The off-street parking is NOT required in the front of a building - duh. Has anyone ever seen a multifamily building with more than 3 units with parking in the front?
2) The current zoning code dates from 1964, when people thought car culture would dominate the world and that NYC was on the way down. It is totally out of date and insufficient to plan the city.
3) Rezoning Bed-Stuy, a low-income neighborhood that has lots of vacant land and crowded housing, really shows us how incompetent the city government really is. This zoning change is actually quite minor - but some of it is baffling. A 1.35 FAR on blocks RIGHT BY THE A TRAIN? Come on. WHY? It makes no sense.
In the end, this will serve the real estate developers well. It transfers development rights from the whole neighborhood to a few parcels on main avenues. The politicians get to make their supporters rich while pretending to do SOMETHING for the city. Nothing will change in Bed Stuy, besides reduced access to affordable housing.
Btw, the typical NY Housing Partnership crap they build in the ghetto has a greater FAR than 1.3.
Posted by: Polemicist at October 30, 2007 1:10 PM
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/10/michelle_willia.php
The good news is she is in this zone, not Michelle the real hottie.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 1:17 PM
You know, psychologists and psychiatrists have long maintained that a male's obsessive fixation on a woman's ass denotes latent homosexuality.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 1:25 PM
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 1:59 PM
Polemicist,
I think NYC defines a residential building more than 2 units as "multi-family". I hope I'm wrong though. Parking may not be _required_ in front of a building, but if a developer puts in a new three-family in the middle of the block, where else can they put the parking? Brooklyn doesn't typically have the alleys or driveways of other cities.
There's an example from the Department of Planning's website (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bed_stuy/bed_stuy2.shtml), but they call it "out of context" development, since the buildings are set back. I don't know how developers will line up the building and still provide parking in front.
Posted by: Heatherie at October 30, 2007 2:28 PM
why all the struggle for parking? On any given Brooklyn block there are already more than enough cars to go around for everyone. How about instead of requiring parking (with space for one car - which serves one person - being large and disruptive), more requirements for trees, which benefit everyone on different levels.
or how about this - mandated carpooling? Is that too crazy? Or block associations getting together and holding car keys at one central location, so that anyone can take one of the hundreds of cars just parked idly on the block when they need it?
the beauty of living in the urban environment is that we don't need to be as reliant on cars as our counterparts in the suburban environment. We shouldn't make our built environment bend over backwards to accomodate them when so many alternatives are in place.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 3:40 PM
Also, ther reuqirement for off-street parking is misguided especially as to Bed Stuy. On street parking is not too bad unless there is osme inconvenience like a block party.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 3:48 PM
Polemicist,
Re your number 3: have you ever been in this neighborhood? I live right in the middle of it, and there are blocks and blocks and blocks of beautiful, well-preserved, owner-occupied brownstones. This will prevent speculators from knocking down a few and erecting ugly, tall Fedders buildings.
Please, take a walk or ride through the blocks just north of the Nostrand Ave. stop on the A or C train. Macon, Halsey, Hancock, Jefferson, Putnam, all lovely blocks, at least from Nostrand to Throop, but very vulnerable to uglification.
Posted by: rf at October 30, 2007 4:06 PM
Maybe I'm just a sucker for trees and flowers in front yards. . .
Then you should oppose the downzoning and leave some space for them. Density is the only thing that makes open space possible.
I'd like to know how retail along the avenues gets encouraged
Basically it doesn't. Downzoning will limit the total population and make it more expensive for new people to move in so they will have less disposable income when they get here.
Rezoning Bed-Stuy, a low-income neighborhood that has lots of vacant land and crowded housing, really shows us how incompetent the city government really is.
It is shocking that the politicians (DiBlasio, James, etc.) actually convince their followers that it is good for them when it drives down the value of their properties and raises their rents at the same time. Fucking brilliant.
The politicians get to make their supporters rich while pretending to do SOMETHING for the city. Nothing will change in Bed Stuy, besides reduced access to affordable housing.
Posted by: guest at October 30, 2007 5:32 PM
I don't understand how to reconcile the comment that "[d]ownzoning will...make [the neighborhood] more expensive" but will also "drive down the value of [its] properties."
I also don't see how a neighborhood gets expensive while at the same time attracting no retail, because residents have less money when they get there? wha? Is there any evidence of this in NY? And don't say red hook, b/c that's a seperate phenomenon, having nothing to do with its residents disposable income.
Posted by: guest at November 28, 2007 4:32 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.