Better Homes and Gardens, City Planning-Style

if people weren't so mind-numbingly stupid these laws wouldn't be needed

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 10:50 AM

Maybe there is a zoning expert out there who can clarify but my understanding of the front yard requirement is that it would apply only to new construction and alterations. The new construction requirement seems obvious. Presumably the alteration requirement would be that if you have planted area already you can't reduce it unless its over the sf limit in which case you can only reduce it to the set minimum for your lot. As much as I would like it to, I doubt it's going to require the buildings with concrete yards to rip up a percentage and replace it with plantings unless they get a permit to do other work.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 11:18 AM

The problem is 3rd world-ideas of grandeur/residential compound mentality and staten-island white-trash dream-home ideals.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 12:14 PM

It would be nice to break up the fully paved front yards but I'm not clear on what qualifies as "planting".
If I have a narrow lot with a 20% area mulch bed and a small azalea does that qualify?

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 1:42 PM

I agree WillBklyn. Parks does not do anything to care for the sidewalk trees.

Once the trees are planted, the city should provide funding, supplies and training for block associations and community groups who apply to be the trees' caretakers.

Otherwise the Parks Dept will convince the city to give them all the money, then not spend it on taking care of the trees. They'll funnel it into something else. As they obviously do now.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 1:45 PM

I hope the city will have some control over the species to be planted. It seems like 90% of new sidewalk plantings are ginkgo trees. They're tolerant of urban environments but end up looking spindly and scrawny, providing little shade. Also, the females produce a fruit that smells like dogshit when crushed underfoot.

Cities (like forests) need a variety of species. With a monoculture you're exposed to the next dutch elm disease or chestnut blight that'll wipe out everything in the span of a few years.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 1:56 PM

they're planting oaks in greenpoint at the moment.

i agree about that Ginkgo smell - pheweeee

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 2:06 PM

There is an exception to new zoning regulations for existing nonconforming uses, so yards that are currently paved would not have to be planted -- but I think if you were redoing your yard you would have to meet the new requirements. The proposed text says that "Planted areas shall be comprised of any combination of grass, groundcover,
shrubs, trees or other living plant material." So it does not sound like an area covered with mulch would count.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

If this greening plan goes through, Brooklyn will look exactly like New Jersey, and then what reason would people have to stay?

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 4:44 PM

1:56, the city gives you like three or four choices to pick from when you want to plant a tree in front of your home. I can't remember the choices but Gingko wasn't one of them.

1:45, I don't know where you live but Parks is out here in Mill Basin every spring to trim branches. And yes, you can become certified by the city to prune the trees on your own block. I know because my BIL on Staten Island did it.

Posted by: guest at March 26, 2008 8:38 PM

This is absurd. We need more places to park our cars, not less! I think the best solution to all of this is for homeowners to put down artificial grass and shrubs right on top of their asphalt or cement. Some artificial grass is strong enough to support vehicles, and looks so real that most people won't even notice the difference!

Posted by: guest at April 4, 2008 1:27 AM