« Officers’ Row Supermarket Not Happening Anytime Soon Is Great Lakes Going to Dry Up? »
January 18, 2008
AIA’s Zoning Tweaks Draw Heat
Brooklyn Downtown Star has an article about how the American of Institute of Architects’ push to change the city’s zoning text—which has flown under the radar of many community boards and was fast-tracked into ULURP a public-review process similar to ULURP—is being opposed by the City Council’s top dog in terms of zoning, Councilman Tony Avella of Queens. The institute’s changes would increase lot coverage on smaller lots and allow taller max base heights for some buildings in R6 through R10 zones. City Planning has certified AIA’s proposed zoning changes but the architects didn’t have to conform to the typical ULURP process requiring that community boards be notified of zoning changes and be given 60 days to respond to proposals. Avella, who chairs the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee of the Council’s Land Use Committee, is pissed that AIA (whose members stand to profit from the changes) held private meetings with City Planning prior to being certified and that the proposal wasn’t required to come before community boards. “I think it is a disgrace that the AIA didn’t reach out to any community groups,” said Avella, who held a press conference about the matter last week. “I’m also disappointed that City Planning didn’t do more outreach. This whole process seems backwards.” The proposed changes have been shown to some community boards, including Brooklyn’s CB7, which was not impressed by the presentation an AIA lobbyist made last month. “They say the changes are designed to improve the art of architecture,” said Aaron Brashear, a CB7 member and cofounder of the Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Heights. “Even if that were the case, they still did a poor job of due process.”
Councilman Demands, Architect Group Declines [Brooklyn Downtown Star]
Tony Avella, Civics Blast Zoning Text Amendment [Times Ledger]
AIA Proposed Zoning Tweaks: Beware the Domino Effect [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3568
Comments
Land use law clarification: zoning text amendments, unlike changes to the zoning map or special permits, are not subject to the ULURP calendar.
Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at January 18, 2008 10:20 AM
FYI:
http://hdcvoice.blogspot.com/2008/01/contextual-planning-zones-to-be-amended.html
Posted by: Hal at January 18, 2008 10:34 AM
As I understand the AIA proposals, the changes are geared to make development in Brownstone Brooklyn much easier for developers, and by extension, their architects. Neighborhoods like Bed Stuy, with a lot of empty lots and developable property could see their 4 and 5 story brownstone blocks disappear.
Frankly, I'm disappointed in the AIA, which used to be an organization dedicated to the promotion of architectural excellence and innovation, not just a tool of unchecked development, and the lining of members' pockets. I don't think Norval White and Elliot Willensky, the authors of the Bible of New York City architecture, The AIA Guide to NYC, would be pleased. Their book praised the great architecture of our city, old and new, and decried mediocrity wherever it appeared, no matter who created it. Now their organization is endorsing hackmeisters to go forth, all for a developers buck.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 10:47 AM
As a text amendment, the application does not require formal public review. It is referred for informational purposes to every affected community and opportunity is provided for comment and public hearing. I don't understand what you mean by saying the process was "expedited". Could you clarify?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:51 AM
They, through timing or friends are trying to get their proposal pushed through without the usual scrutiny. Interesting how the best intentions of a group can be so thoroughly compromised by money and loopholes. Wonder if anyone will take up the conflict of interest at the AIA and investigate?
Posted by: bx2bklynstill at January 18, 2008 11:01 AM
These proposed changes don't really affect building height, it mostly affects setbacks and minimum yard requirements on smaller lots.
Especially in poorer neighborhoods like Bed Stuy, these changes will lead to more housing. As it is right now, there are many lots no one is going to touch because it is impossible to fully exploit the maximum FAR.
Let's also keep in mind that many of the brownstones in these neighborhoods don't conform with existing zoning laws. If anything, these changes will allow developers to build housing at a similar scale with other brownstones. I'm sure the vast majority of the residents of Bed Stuy would greatly prefer new buildings than empty lots.
Posted by: Polemicist at January 18, 2008 11:02 AM
my understanding was that this did have to go through ULURP, but I'll double check.
Posted by: gabby_w at January 18, 2008 11:06 AM
I don't think their intent is to build within scale. If anything this will give them a work around to cram oversized development down the throat of Brownstone Brooklyn. If they are all about the art of architecture, there is a whole lot more they could have done up to now. Otherwise explain how so many Fedders buildings have gone up in Bed-Stuy? How about making developers not only keep in scale, but also the "look" of the buildings? No more bright pink brick boxes with cheesy exteriors- now there's an issue they aren't dealing with.
Posted by: bx2bklynstill at January 18, 2008 11:18 AM
Developers should not be given free reign in the name of "more housing". Polemicist, that is your mantra for everything, yet you never differentiate between simply "more housing" and good housing. Just because you can go higher does not mean that the public good is being served.
Maximum FAR should NOT always be exploited just because it can. In terms of housing in poorer neighborhoods, building large highrises to warehouse the poor, has proved to be a disaster. Why keep doing it? You tout density like it's a good thing, when countless studies show that too many people packed into too small a space increase a myriad of social problems.
The answer to the housing crisis in places like Bed Stuy is to rebuild in the empty lots, and to renovate the great many existing buildings laying fallow. Everyone knows that. But good design and careful planning have to be a part of that. Throwing up the usual POS is not the answer.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 11:20 AM
This is scheduled to be heard before City Planning on 2/13. I heard that last night the Brooklyn Borough Board approved BP Markowitz's response which tweaks each of the points of the amendment, but does not reject the full package.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 11:20 AM
"Maximum FAR should NOT always be exploited just because it can."
My point exactly and developers should not be allowed to bypass the BSA either, which these supposed "friendly" amendments from a special interest group would do.
Proper transparency from the AIA and DCP could have alleviated much of this back-lash and perhaps produced a more comprehensive package...not looking like so much back door dealing.
To quote another article in the Times Ledger:
***"Furthermore, as chairman of the City Council zoning subcommittee, Avella said he had not received any official notification about the application or its certification by City Planning, which was issued on Oct. 31. He also said many community boards did not know about it and therefore did not vote on the issue.
"The way I found out about it was through a Brooklyn civic group," he said."***
That was us...
http://tinyurl.com/yqz32y
See you at HDC's forum next week on the topic. Ought to be a fun time. Bring your pitchforks and torches.
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 12:28 PM
"This is scheduled to be heard before City Planning on 2/13. I heard that last night the Brooklyn Borough Board approved BP Markowitz's response which tweaks each of the points of the amendment, but does not reject the full package."
Yes, but part of the recommendation may be to have CPC postpone the hearing, right?
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 12:55 PM
City Planning does not need community approval if they don't want it. As stated above, most townhouses are overbuilt and the neighborhoods have susequently been downzoned, making it hard for new buildings to match the existing buildings and provide a better context for the neighborhood.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 12:56 PM
I do not understand Avella's statement that many community boards did not know about this proposed text amendment and therefore did not vote on the issue. Text amendments are always sent to the community boards that would be affected by revised zoning text. Is the councilman accusing City Planning of not following its standard protocol?
I agree that the AIA should have offered to make presentations. But when they didn't, shouldn't community board district managers picked up the phone and made those arrangements. I don't think the AIA told any boards they would not present. Are community board's really this reactive?
Posted by: g man at January 18, 2008 1:05 PM
Per Planning, this is going through "a public review process similar to ULURP but are not subject to the same ULURP clock that applies to rezonings."
Posted by: gabby_w at January 18, 2008 1:05 PM
...and another thing, Avella complains that the AIA met privately with City Planning prior to certification. Applicants always meet with City Planning before applications are certified. As chair of the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee, Avella has to know this.
I understand lay-people that don't have the expertise to really evaluate the proposed amendments and I understand community residents who have been burned in the past and are now distrustful. But I cannot help but write off a lot of Avella's comments as little more than posturing by a long-shot mayoral candidate.
Posted by: g man at January 18, 2008 1:13 PM
"I understand lay-people that don't have the expertise to really evaluate the proposed amendments"
gman, I would not not underestimate us "lay-people," and the architects in our community who had issue with AIA's and DCP's process and the nitty-gritty of the deceptive proposed amendments. Nor "reactive" CBs, that we're actually being "proactive."
I'd suggest getting of your high horse and listen to us "lay-people" for a few minutes. But, I guess the AIA is above that, right?
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:46 PM
Not at all, ccgh. I also understand lay-people, some of whom are on community boards, that DO understand zoning, urban design and the public review process. I apologize if it seemed that I was lumping everybody into the few categories that I mentioned.
That said, many of the objections that I have heard (that is, from listening first-hand to lay-people) are based on misconceptions, despite the real criticisms that can be made. And I am sorry, but I have little sympathy for community boards that, upon receiving a text amendment in the mail but no corresponding request to present, don't have the gumption to call somebody and arrange for one. (These community boards are not to be confused with those that took the bull--pun intended--by the horns.) My high-horse is only a Shetland pony (but he's really cute.)
Posted by: g man at January 18, 2008 2:15 PM
Thanks for the clarification. And yes, it would have been nicer, at least in Bklyn, if more than 3 CBs had taken this up before the Borough Board vote last night.
But we can't be everywhere :;
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:32 PM
that was meant as a ;)
Not sure what the heck :; is as an emodicon, "taking a smoke?"
-ccgh
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:34 PM
Looks like City Planning might not hear it until 2/27, so there's more time for CBs to review it.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:02 PM
I'm a neighbor like everyone else. Also, I understand, at least basically the zoning regs. I also understand, a little deeper, economics. The Community Boards are merely a platform for the NIMBY's. Someone has to speak up for building buildings and I for one am glad AIA is pushing it with the City Council. None of the community boards do anything except reject proposals. Everyone who values their property shares an interest with the "developers".
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 9:14 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.