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…
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]
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.
“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
“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
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.
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.
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.
my understanding was that this did have to go through ULURP, but I’ll double check.
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.
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?