Clinton Hill/Fort Greene Downzoning Deets Released
City Planning chief Amanda Burden (right) showed up at Polytechnic University last Wednesday night introduce some long-awaited details about the re-zoning of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. Similar in concept to what happened in Park Slope, the plan is to down-zone the interior blocks while allowing developers to build bigger buildings on the three most…
City Planning chief Amanda Burden (right) showed up at Polytechnic University last Wednesday night introduce some long-awaited details about the re-zoning of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene. Similar in concept to what happened in Park Slope, the plan is to down-zone the interior blocks while allowing developers to build bigger buildings on the three most commercial avenues in the area — Myrtle, Fulton and the northern side of Atlantic. The upshot: Developers who own property in the down-zoned areas have until sometime near the end of this year (depending on the speed of the approval process) to get their plans approved and foundations in the ground. In the meantime, prices should be rising for prime locations on the aforementioned avenues. The new R7/R7A zoning there will let developers build a 3.45 FAR as of right and up to 4.5 FAR by using inclusionary zoning. (All this means is that to get the bonus FAR, the developer must build affordable housing somewhere in CB2, not in the development itself.) One developer we talked to was a little disappointed in the 3.45 number, saying that he had expected it to be closer to 4; nonetheless, he said, it should still be a good shot of adrenaline for building on the avenues.
Robert – Good point, well taken.
I would recomend you get the word out about this thread, and make other threads and venues available soon. You should start one on the CB2 website (as well as update it – not offense, but it does a poor job of connecting the community and seems a little pretensious; there isnt even a calendar of events). I have a feeling the ULURP will fly through in record time, and the communtiy will have little chance to make an impression. On CB2, DCP, and all ULURP parties.
I request that people (e.g.: anon 8:17 at 8:16 pm, Anonymous 8:33 am) not make statements about the position of Community Board 2 until it has taken a position as part of its ULURP review of the still-uncertified application.
I am, however, interested in reading people’s opinions of the proposed rezoning, if this thread can have a shelf-life of greater than 48 hours.
Robert Perris, District Manager
Community Board 2
The difference isn’t quite as huge as some people are stating. The as-of-right FAR in an R6 district on a “wide street”, that is, one of 75 feet or wider, is actually 3.0, not 2.43. With the as-of-right FAR on Myrtle & Fulton under the proposed inclusionary R7A being 3.45, it’s not that huge of a jump. And as people have stated, the 4.6 FAR is only reached if a developer agrees to do 20% affordable units. The FGA, CB2, and others are not opposed to this change, as it was deemed necessary to offset the loss of FAR on the residential streets.
g-man, thanks for the explanatory link! This is interesting stuff, but much more so when one understands what people are talking about.
Yes, 8:17, “The difference is huge,” especially given all the soft sites like those listed by 9:18, not to mention the former KFC. And then there is the unchanged zoning for St. Josephs’s, which has tons of unused development rights and open space to build. I spoke today with the owner of ‘some plain old brownstones’ (his description) in the proposed R7A on Fulton Street who pointed out to me, as if I didn’t know, that his buildings were outside the landmark district. He seemed to have put 2+2 together. The right hand giveth and the left hand taketh away.
g-man, Another call to DCP wouldnt be bad – they seem to be very good at call backs within 24 hours. You should call too.
I may be mistaken. I was at the meeting but they really flew through the presentation (not suprising). I think a lot of people who were there are confused about at least something.
But I am 99.999% sure, the only rezoning along Myrtle was a contextual R6B, and a C2-4 overlay. Myabe you saw the overlay and got confused? The difference is huge. R7-A would be way out of line along Myrtle, no? No use in arguing though – if R7-A is proposed for Myrtle, it would be against the Fort Greene Alliance and CB2’s rec’s, and will get some serious opposition once the proposal is certified and public reviewed. Its potentially twice the density as the contextual rezoning.
anon 8:17, if you spoke with DCP, call back and tell then to get their s#it together. The PowerPoint presentation last Wednesday clearly showed the R7A as I indicated at 10:37. (I did not go into the little nuances.) Also, the slide on the inclusionary housing bonus stated, “The units can be provided on-site or off-site within the community district.”
That would be (almost) consistent with Section 23-952 of the Zoning Resolution, “Substantial rehabilitation and off-site new construction options” which states:
“To qualify for one or more of these options, the designated #lower income housing# shall meet the following requirements:
(a) The #lower income housing# shall be located either:
(1) within the same Community District as the #compensated development#; or
(2) within an adjacent Community District and within a onehalf mile radius of the #compensated development#….
Seriously, the R7-A is not proposed for Myrtle. Just a contextual downzone and an upzone to C2-4 from C1-3. I spoke with DCP. R7-A is only between Atlantic and Fulton M zones. But i was wrong about the 4.0 FAR – it is 4.6. I was not wrong about on site inclusionary though. The FGA, CB2 and CHA would not allow the change without onsite inclusionary. It was a DCP concession. It will also extend into the CB3 rezoning along Atlantic and Fulton, but as an R7-B with onsite. The CB3 rezoning will happen almost simultaneaously.
FIGHT OPPRESSIVE DOWNZONING
Clinton Hill is borderline ghetto. Do you really believe the people in that neighborhood who ARENT the children of rich upper east side parents care about this?
They want affordable housing – and a maximum FAR of 10.0 will be needed to achieve that.
OPPRESSIVE ZONING is the #1 reason for the housing crisis in New York City. FIGHT OPPRESSIVE ZONING. It is the tool of the rich to keep the rest of us forever poor.
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2002papers/HIER1948.pdf