Plans for Rezoning Northern Bed-Stuy Unveiled
Last night at the CB3 Meeting, the Department of City Planning presented plans for rezoning 140 blocks of northern Bedford Stuyvesant, a move that follows the rezoning of the southern section of the neighborhood in 2007. As with the earlier rezoning, the point of this one is to try and ensure more contextual new development….
Last night at the CB3 Meeting, the Department of City Planning presented plans for rezoning 140 blocks of northern Bedford Stuyvesant, a move that follows the rezoning of the southern section of the neighborhood in 2007. As with the earlier rezoning, the point of this one is to try and ensure more contextual new development. The rezoning boundaries run from Quincy to Flushing and Classon to Broadway. The proposed new zoning is for R6B and R6A on avenues and wide streets, which limits developments to seven stories. R7A is planned for avenues and wide streets near transit, which allows for a max height of 8 stories and offers incentives for affordable housing. Myrtle Avenue will be zoned R7D, which carries a limit of 10 stories and requires ground-floor retail or community facilities. And new zoning was proposed for Broadway, C4-4A, with apartments (at a max of 10 stories) set back from the elevated train tracks and incentives for affordable housing. Commercial overlays currently exist on Dekalb, Bedford, Myrtle and Lewis, but the gaps in the overlays will be filled in.
The audience expressed a lot of concern that after the rezoning, the city-owned parking lots at the Tompkins and Sumner Houses would be redeveloped. The city is indeed looking at those lots as possible development opportunities, but reps said they would find ways to replace the lost spots. (Residents seemed doubtful that underground parking, which was suggested, would actually happen.) One resident expressed concern that the new zoning would limit the amount of housing that can be constructed, thus resulting in a shortage of low-income housing. Overall, the board continued to stress concerns about out-of-context developments like the one on Kosciusko, pictured above, and the need to limit the scale of new developments. So what comes next? The process will continue with an environmental review and then move on to the public review process. You can see a (very blurry) photo of the proposed new zoning after the jump.
not everyone has a convenient 9-5 job in manhattan. i would be you a ton of the people who do have these parking spots have jobs where do actually do need their cars as 1.) could be in the in the middle of the night that they work 2.) could be located who knows where? long island, new jersey, pennsylvania? 3.) i doubt a single person with a parking spot in this complex is trotting off the the hamptons every weekend. 4.) i also bet you (this was the case with my grandmother btw who had a parking spot in the projects in jersey) that a lot of these people carpool neighbors to the grocery store and other places like eh, i dont know, doctors appointments dyalisis treatments, etc etc. yeah get jealous of cheap rents in the projects all the time, but i bet you for most people there it’s still not cheap and maintaining a car is expensive cuz they need it. now if youre talking about some tricked out SUV or sports car or something fine, but don’t hate on people who do still have to depend on their cars in the city. we are not a car-less society yet, stop shoving that down peoples’ throats as some sorta moral superiority thing.
now the lady in the 80Met thread today bitching about not getting to enjoy the pool who pays 400 bux a month, well, sorry, no lady, you already signed up for that! that’s why your rent is so low (tho i’d be sorta pissy and sad about it). maybe they have guest passes? they should have guest passes.
anyway, im not dead or anything, just been a little distracted and busy and laying low on the internet in general. but wanted to chime in on this thread.
*rob*
The other concerns were specific to NYCHA (Tompkins Houses), not the re-zoning in general.
Also learned last night that Bedford Stuyvesant is now ending at Myrtie. All these NYCHA buildings are in South Williamsburg. hmmmmm
BK real estate veteran, this will be a significant overall increase in FAR.
This will allow for more residential opportunities, not fewer.
What are the other concerns? The plan looks like it will encourage residential development on residential blocks and commercial development on the main drags. To support a diverse community that can live and eat, socialize and attend schools in a safe, clean neighborhood. Whether anyone “deserves” city-subsidized parking has nothing to do with it. And, yes, I find it hi-la-ri-ous that anyone would object to a plan to make a neighborhood a better place to live on the grounds that parking is cheaper in the slums.
BK real estate, it’s my understanding that this area is generally being upzoned, not downzoned.
There will be signficicantly more FAR in the new zoning.
I attended the meeting last night. The resident who asked the question about the parking lot was the head of the Tompkins Houses Tenants Association. The lost of parking was only one of many concerns she presented on behalf of the tenants. The residents have been meeting with NYCHA and have not had the concerns adequately addressed. A representative from NYCHA was in attendance and would not address the audience or their questions until prodded by the Board Chair. He responded to the parking issue, but did not concretely address the other concerns which are far reaching and would greatly impact current and future residents.
Not right thing to do. One of last close places to build up being wiped out. Bad for Satmar, bad for African-American community, bad for Brooklyn. SOME of the area should be down zoned but not all. Overreaction.
Ok, granted, Putnam. If the original poster had framed it that way I would be in total agreement with you and him/her. It did not come across that way, however. Maybe I’m too sensitive.