Flatbush Rezoning in the Works
Flatbush Gardener attended last week’s preliminary public hearing on the city’s plan to rezone a large section of Flatbush. City Planning is undertaking the rezoning, in the main, to preserve the low-rise housing stock that defines a great deal of the neighborhood, particularly in the non-landmarked, Victorian sub-nabes. The city’s current study area for the…
Flatbush Gardener attended last week’s preliminary public hearing on the city’s plan to rezone a large section of Flatbush. City Planning is undertaking the rezoning, in the main, to preserve the low-rise housing stock that defines a great deal of the neighborhood, particularly in the non-landmarked, Victorian sub-nabes. The city’s current study area for the rezoning is, as shown in the map above, humongous, stretching from below the Parade Grounds to Brooklyn College, and bounded on the west by Coney Island Avenue and to the east by Bedford Avenue, Foster Avenue, and 32nd Street. While it’s unclear how much of this area the rezoning will actually end up affecting, Flatbush Gardener notes that City Planning seems particularly keen on waving an R4 wand over some unprotected Victorian Flatbush areas. The existing zoning in the study area is a big hodge-podge, including a few sections that allow for the construction of mid-rise buildings; the rezoning is likely to allow for taller buildings on the main commercial drags. The most controversial aspect of the pre-proposal, according to Flatbush Gardener, has to do with the zoning (R4A) the city is looking to push through in Ditmas Park West and South Midwood, which would allow for 50 percent bigger buildings in those areas than current zoning: “It’s this large increase in FAR that raises concerns for residents in these two neighborhoods, who are concerned it will open the door for expansion and enlargement of existing homes, or new development, out-of-scale with the existing homes.”
Flatbush Rezoning Will Define Future of Victorian Flatbush [Flatbush Gardener]
Flatbush Rezoning Push Not Sitting Well With Some Locals [Brownstoner]
Photos and map from Flatbush Gardener.
2:00
A terrible argument. Smith Street and the surrounding area is much more dense than anything in Flatbush.
That said, aesthetic and design standards for new construction will eliminate your concerns. I agree much new construction is of inferior quality – but this is what always happens when demand far outstrips supply. People in poor countries are happy with hard tack and swill. People in communist countries and New York City are happy with concrete barracks as homes. This is only because the things they really desire are in short supply and they will take whatever they can get.
Increase density so that there is no longer a housing shortage, have some aesthetic standards, and developers will building product similar or superior to what was common prior to the modern era.
2:58
Crowding is worse in New York City than anywhere in the country. Density is not an “ideology” it is the fundamental belief that people should have the opportunity to afford the most spacious home they can. Increasing density inherently allows more New Yorkers to afford larger homes.
Tomgee:
You really have no idea about how real estate economics works. The inventory is quite low based on demand. The problem is the price they paid for the land cannot be supported by current market demand. Renting allows them to make a profit on their speculation. The truth is if the price of every condo in Brooklyn was cut 25%, they would sell this weekend.
There isn’t much demand for luxury housing in Nigeria either. It doesn’t mean the people there wouldn’t be happy to have a nice 800 square foot 2-bedroom apartment with a dishwasher, they just can’t afford it. It’s the same issue here. Demand is and has been strong pretty much forever in New York City. The question is how do we get housing to the people. The question is not: do people want housing?
Re: “Some historical, residential streets should be downzoned. But not huge commercial arteries like Flatbush.”
Flatbush AVENUE would NOT get downzoned. One of the goals of DCP’s draft proposal is to create opportunities for commercial growth. No controversy there; noone at last Thursday’s meeting spoke out against THAT.
Presently there is no need for higher density buildings. If you follow real estate at all (which you would if you really paid any attention to this site) you would know we are overbuilt. Loads of inventory and condos that can’t sell that have become rentals.
So, does every last historic building in Brooklyn need to be torn down,
And make every bit of this map the highest density possible?
http://www.brooklyngreenway.org/smap3.htm
How are all those people going to fit on the already crowded subways?
Where are they going to park their cars?
Where are they going to send their kids to school?
Haven’t we learned anything from housing project where there are mega blocks of
High-rise buildings, and the result is mega poverty and crime concentration.
A diverse area with some mid rise on the comercial streets and side streets
Residential makes for a much better mix, and that is what Victorian Flatbush is trying to perserve.
Agreed 3:09. And you know what, if all the 3 story houses were just 1 family, good for them. NYC doesnt have to be high rises everywhere and everyone moving as tight as lemons on the ave’s.
Next thing we will hear is that Brownsville is convenient and should be all $1million + condos.
While the Q train can get me to 34th Street or 42nd Street in about 45 minutes on the weekends,
I have to allow a full hour to get from Cortelyou Q to Wall Street with a transfer a Atlantic Ave.
The Q train gets all mixed up with the B train, and you sit and sit on the tracks between stations.
I would hardly call the Q train a convent and fast way to get into Manhattan for work.
My commute time has doubled from when I lived in either Fort Green or Carroll Gardens.
But I live in the area because of the amount of space. I’m in a legal 3 family wood frame
(it has separate meters for gas and electric, it is not an illegal apartment).
Not every 3 story house in the area is occupied by just one family.
Amenities follow income, as well as density. In Park Slope, you get both (although obviously much lower density than some parts of our fair city, which by the way is already the densest in the country.) In Vic Flatbush, you’re getting more income, so now we have some restaurants etc. But people don’t move there for the amenities so much as the affordable space.
The ideology of density is threatening to kill parts of New York City, and I’m glad the Planning Department is taking a sensible approach to this issue.
Why does everyone want to move out here now? It has great subway access?? So does everywhere else in NYC dummies. You have 2 train lines!! Leave our neighborhood alone!!
Why does an area need to become more dense? Because it is NYC? This area has been like this forever and now we have to change it? Isnt the whole benefit of living farther from the city that you can get more space and you dont have to be in the rush of things all day every day? You want a more dense area, move to SOHO, that will be real dense for you. Im actually amazed it took this long for this to happen.
I find the amenities hip but pretty sparse and spread out in places on Smith Street, 2pm. I wouldn’t be entirely happy with its offerings if I lived there.