Bed Stuy Locals Want Girls High School Site Kept as Public Land, Not Apartments
Thanks to the Atlantic Avenue rezoning, the city intends to transfer the parking lot of Girls High School to a private developer to build 16 stories of mixed-income housing.
The school in June of this year. Photo by Susan De Vries
Bed Stuy locals are pushing back on the city’s plans to sell the parking lot of the historic Girls High School to a developer to build an up to 16-story affordable housing development, saying the land should remain publicly owned and should be converted into a community green space.
The 30,000-square-foot parking lot on the landmarked school’s site at 457 Nostrand Avenue, between Macon and Halsey streets, was one of five publicly owned sites included for disposition and subsidized 100 percent affordable housing development in the recently passed Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan rezoning, designed to spur housing in the industrial section of Brooklyn. Rezoning documents outline plans for a 240-unit building up to 155 feet tall.
Community Board 3 voted 22 to 6 to approve the project during the rezoning review, but only with conditions: The new building should not rise higher than the school’s spire, studio units should be minimized, apartments should target households earning an average of 40 percent of AMI, underground parking should be considered, and green space should be included on the Halsey Street side. Those conditions are not binding, however, and there was no community benefits agreement formed during the rezoning process, meaning it’s unlikely they will be met.
Even so, many nearby residents argue they were left in the dark and say the city skipped its usual level of outreach before deciding to dispose of public land. Over the past two months, they have organized meetings, including with local politicians, to propose alternative approaches to what could be done with the site. More than 1,600 people have signed a petition organized by the Halsey Street and Macon Street block associations that calls on the city to retain ownership of the lot rather than give it to a private developer for development.
The petition says signatories support affordable housing, but adds housing must be built in ways that sustain neighborhoods long term. It calls for the lot to become a “vibrant civic space” to serve the community.
Local resident and architect Omar Walker said the group’s message is simple in that public land, which is very rare, shouldn’t be put up for sale and should instead serve the community.
“How amazing would that be for that land right there, which is a very historic site, both culturally and historically, to be utilized as a fresh food market, a space for people to be able to gather and hold block meetings, hold community meetings, hold community gatherings, and also educational things as well,” he said.
“How amazing would it be for that site to be able to give back to the community. It would help our business districts, it would help provide a space for people to be able to breathe, because we do live in the portion of the neighborhood that is lacking in any park space.”
Walker and other locals are calling on Council Members Chi Ossé, who represents the area, and Crystal Hudson to “listen to the community” and amend the plans for the site and keep it as a publicly owned open space.
Walker said arguments of a housing shortage used to support the development were misleading, saying there is “tons of housing and there are various mechanisms that could be utilized by the city to help incentivize releasing those units back onto the market” that would create truly affordable housing. Public land, he added, isn’t the place for private development.
An informational flier circulated by the block associations highlights concerns including insufficient infrastructure to support hundreds of new residents, a tower out of scale with surrounding buildings, years of disruptive construction, and affordability levels that may not match community needs. They present an alternate vision that includes incentivizing landlords to release warehoused apartments, repurposing existing buildings with developers, and preserving public land for civic use.
Challenges to approved rezonings happen, but they are rarely successful. One of those rare cases was when the city backed off an already approved rezoning that would have hurt plants at Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
According to the rezoning documents, the new development will sit behind the 1886 school building, one of the city’s first public secondary schools, which now serves as an adult education center. A blend of Victorian Gothic and French Second Empire architecture, Girls High School is a designated landmark and part of the Bedford Historic District. Any construction on the site would need Landmarks Preservation Commission review.
An HPD spokesperson told Brownstoner the city would seek proposals for a 100 percent affordable income-targeted and rent-stabilized mixed-use project including 240 apartments and 25,000 square feet of space for NYC Public Schools. At least half of the units would be set aside for Extremely Low- and Very Low-Income households, which is between 0 and 50 percent of Area Median Income, the rep said. The other levels have not yet been determined. The height of the building would have to comply with the new zoning and it would need approval from LPC. The spokesperson added the project is in very early stages and community engagement to inform the plans would not begin until late 2027.
HPD’s First Deputy Press Secretary Natasha Kersey said in a statement: “The city is facing a housing crisis, with a current vacancy rate of only 1.4 percent. The Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan represents a significant step forward in our mission to create a more affordable New York City, and this development builds on our commitment to provide much-needed housing for New Yorkers.”
The pushback against the development has also led the proposal to spill into local politics. Assembly Member Stefani Zinerman released a letter in July after meeting with residents, voicing concern about environmental risks, infrastructure strain, landmark issues, and lack of transparency. She said the proposal “must not move forward without full review, transparency, and community input,” calling for “responsible development” that protects history and ensures infrastructure can support growth.
“I stand for responsible development—that means honoring our history, protecting public institutions, and ensuring infrastructure can support new growth. The residents of Bedford-Stuyvesant deserve transparency, collaboration, and community-first solutions,” she wrote.
Her comments drew sharp criticism from Council Member Ossé, who accused her on Instagram of siding with landlords and promoting a “pro-displacement agenda.” He argued the project would provide a lifeline to low- and moderate-income residents and ease pressure on rents citywide. Ossé said he would back a primary challenger to Zinerman who is pro-housing and wrote that Zinerman “must be voted out.”
Zinerman pushed back in a letter of response, saying her letter was based on constituent concerns and was not in opposition to affordable housing. She said she invited Ossé to meet and explore alternative sites, but said he would not engage. She said she supports real affordable housing but wants development that centers community needs and quality of life.
“My job is to secure maximum public benefit,” Zinerman told Brownstoner. “Based on 1,600 signatures, the Brooklyn Adult Learning Center’s opposition, the site’s landmarked status, and the infrastructure concerns outlined above, I do not support this specific housing proposal at this location. The Brooklyn Adult Learning Center campus should be preserved for community benefit—especially open green space, recreation, and other public uses—while we site deeply affordable housing elsewhere in the district where it does not displace vital services or sacrifice rare public space,” she said, citing a 35-unit affordable housing proposal by the Jefferson Avenue Block Association and a “large district space” empty most of the year that might work for affordable housing.
Brownstoner reached out to Landmarks and Ossé for comment but did not hear back by publication.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with comment from Zinerman on Friday, September 5.
[Photos by Susan De Vries unless noted otherwise]
Related Stories
- Atlantic Avenue Rezoning, Set to Bring Thousands of Homes, Passes City Council
- Sweeping Atlantic Avenue Rezoning Plan Moves Forward
- Building of the Day: 475 Nostrand Avenue
Email tips@brownstoner.com with further comments, questions or tips. Follow Brownstoner on Twitter and Instagram, and like us on Facebook.
To add to the spirited conversation, the land is public, belongs to the school, and currently serves as a parking lot for students and faculty. A portion of the school burned down many years ago and was never rebuilt on this site. This attributed to racial inequity in public funding for this predominantly Black neighborhood.
The community’s focus is not exclusively on a park for this site, but rather centered on retaining Public Land for Public use and preventing Privatization. This specific site could easily become an expansion of the school, The Brooklyn Adult Learning Center, which serves thousands of New Yorkers who come from across the city to better themselves and their families.
The issue should not be framed as a choice between housing people and sacrificing public space, even though this is how Councilman Chi Osse has presented it. These kinds of ultimatums are never given to residents in Park Slope, Dumbo, BK Heights, etc. So why are we lowering the standard here? Housing is not a one size fits all, and needs to be handled with care in all communities and thoughtfully with consideration to long term unforeseen impacts.
This is a “Yes, and” moment. The community has proposed alternative plans that would create deeply affordable housing within 1.5 years, at a cheaper cost, and in larger volume, while being thoughtfully dispersed to retain a functional, equitable neighborhood.
The Councilman has currently noted that, even though our solution is viable, he is not interested at this time. When he is ready to return to the table, we are here to continue to advocate and work with him to create thoughtful housing and neighborhood improvements.
“This specific site could easily become an expansion of the school, The Brooklyn Adult Learning Center, which serves thousands of New Yorkers who come from across the city to better themselves and their families.”
This seems out of sync with the rest of your comment and the article above in which multiple participants talk about using the parking lot as open space for the community. Zinnerman speaks of “open green space, recreation” and Omar Walker talks about “space to breathe” because of a lack of park space. The petition talks about a “vibrant civic space.”
Not saying it’s a bad idea to expand the Adult Learning Center, but it seems at odds with all of the talk focused on open park space that “serves the community.”
OK I see you posted a clarification below which addresses my confusion. These posts appear out of order and I didnt see it (maybe its just my browser). There used to be an edit function on this site.
No prob. Tech. def. has its moments…Lol.
A vibrant civic space could include multiple civic programs on the site from green open space to an expansion of the school structure or another civic program in service of the overall community.
You definitely do seem to be having two versions of the same conversation. While John is right that the immediate block is brownstones, the broader context is the project to rezone a portion of Atlantic in which this lot is on the fringes. So, according to that initiative, I think this block (notwithstanding its brownstones) is appropriately viewed in the context of the larger commercial areas around it. I see that view as well. While personally I would always selfishly prioritize public park space, the idea that this space will be some green wonderland is a naive pipe dream. At best we’ll see a public playground or public space the developer is forced to share with the community. We’re not getting another true city park like Von King and there are a few playground/parks associated with the schools right around there. (Note Hattie Carthan is on Monroe/Madison not up by Von King and is also being redeveloped next year.)
I got confused.
But looking now, I see that there are two Hattie Carthans, 1) the community garden I referenced which is across from Von King, and 2) the playground the earlier commenter must have been referencing.
I only knew about the community garden – my mistake.
To clarify, this land is Publicly owned and part of a school site that educates thousands of adults across the five boroughs; it is not Private Parcel for sale. The current proposal seeks to seize this Public Land and Privatize it.
There are no NIMBYs in this community. Contrary to the Councilman’s narrative that we only “support affordable housing in theory,” – Chi Osee. The community not only supports it, but actively knows how to create it—while retaining public assets. We have successfully executed similar projects before with minimal public funding.
The community’s ultimate goal is for this site to continue to serve a fully Public function for the entire community as it was originally built for prior to the fire that burned down this section of the school, whether it is an expansion of this amazing, historic school (the first all-girls high school in Brooklyn) or another communal use, needs to retain its public mission.
I think we are talking past each other at this point.
Good luck.
You missed the point, the building you listed are not on residential neighborhood blocks. They are on avenues and commercial corridors.