Overview of the Proposed Rezoning of FG & CH
Brooklyn Papers had a good round-up last week of the proposed zoning changes for Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. The city has been having a dialogue with groups like the Fort Greene Association and the Society for Clinton Hill for the past couple of years and it sounds like most parties are pleased with the…
Brooklyn Papers had a good round-up last week of the proposed zoning changes for Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. The city has been having a dialogue with groups like the Fort Greene Association and the Society for Clinton Hill for the past couple of years and it sounds like most parties are pleased with the result. Like other downzoning plans in recent memory, this one trades a height cap in residential blocks–in this case, fifty feet high–for increased size along a major thoroughfare–in this case, 120 feet high, up from 80, along Atlantic Avenue. This will allow developers to build, but require them to build in context, said Sharon Barnes of the Society for Clinton Hill. They’ll have to respect what’s in the immediate vicinity.
Nabes To Join Downzone Club [Brooklyn Papers]
Photo by ultraclay
Brownstones are becoming more like coops. But I like that.
That’s why I said just an unfortunate choice of words — I figured you actually meant something like “people should be encourages to explore other areas in which to live and work,” etc. However, what if people don’t want to move? What if they’re happy where they are, but economic circumstances are forcing them out? As for immigrant newcomers, it’s quite simply easier for them to navigate this new country and, possibly, language when they are closer to their families/fellow immigrants and have easier access to jobs.
Immigrants come to New York City for the same reason Americans do — it’s New York City! And nothing will ever change that draw; indeed, it seems to grow stronger all the time.
Let me clarify, babs. I *live* upstate – I wasn’t expressing a NIMBY attitude. Rather, I’m questioning policies that lead to a situation where there are two completely different economic realities for cities within the SAME STATE. New York City is booming and overcrowded and there’s a lack of affordable housing and the housing market is a bubblicious anomaly compared to most of the rest of the state and nation. While upstate there are a number of cities that are languishing and have lost population – Troy, Schenectady, Utica, and others. It just seems like in the SAME STATE things could be evened out a bit better. I realize there’s a whole complicated set of forces leading to this disparity; loss of upstate manufacturing jobs, for one. But I also wonder if the upstate cities were more populated, if that wouldn’t generate economic opportunity in itself (e.g., rehabbing neighborhoods, revitalizing waterfronts, developing cultural programs that draw in tourists, etc.).
I question immigration policies where New York City seems to be loaded with new immigrants – but I’m not seeing them so much up here where I am. Are they being *kept out* upstate? Quite possibly – in all this “immigration crisis” talk of the nation these days. Anyway, I really don’t understand it all, I’m just trying to.
Why am I going on about this on this thread? I’m reacting to 10:07 – who sees the downzoning in terms of financial winners & losers, like it’s a stock, and not a neighborhood that people live in. And I’m reacting to 10:31’s trotting out the old saw about the need for more housing in the city – I’m thinking NYC needs fewer people.
Someone posted a comment a few days ago that makes sense to me – that all the new Fedders “luxury” condos and rentals will be the Section 8 housing of tomorrow. Makes sense to me.
“Send the folks upstate”? What an unfortunate choice of words.
I’m starting to think that the city doesn’t need more affordable housing. What it needs is fewer people. At the same time, upstate NY is losing population. Lots of cheap affordable housing to be had. Send the folks upstate and leave NYC at a manageable population, infrastructure and scale. Government officials should focus on economic development opportunities upstate.
I have lost faith that city policies and real estate have much to do with the goal of providing housing. Yes, I’m overstating things – but it just seems that real estate has turned into an exotic financial instrument, a huge speculative pyramid scheme – which is why the city always has to “grow.” It jams in the people (e.g., new immigrants, legal or not) so as to create the constant excuse for “development pressures” and the need for growth. It’s not about human needs, it’s about greed and money.
If there’s concern about housing people and providing opportunities – work on policies to make it viable for people to resettle upstate and enjoy a middle-class life, not this skewed rich/poor divide that NYC has totally become.
The developers will not honer the down zoning as is already becoming reality in the South Slope
For a city that is in need of more housing this kind of stuff is too stupid. I am against destroying old buildings but if there are lots to built and you can built high to accomodate more people than developers should do it. The city is just going to become too expensive… that is what is gain in this stupid zonings decisions.
Sounds good to me. But for landowners of some lots probably just lost some value and those that own on Atlantic just got a big boost in value.
GREAT NEWS!!