To many, the real estate industry is the most important industry in the city. We're always reading about how we need more office space and housing, whether it's Trump City or West Midtown. The real estate industry's major players are consistent advocates for new development through powerful organizations like the Real Estate Board of New York. Developers are often critical of the city's many complex planning and building regulations. They want regulations that are clear, simple and require minimal public review.
New York City's massive Zoning Resolution, the major document governing land use in the city, is by no means clear and simple. This is not so much because the city's planning department has ignored the real estate industry. It's mostly due to the fact that this is a very large and complex city that's already developed, and every time anyone wants to change anything it ends up in a new set of zoning rules that takes into account the myriad needs and interests in neighborhoods. That is why the dream of radical deregulation--having a one-size-fits-all zoning code--is unrealistic in such a large and diverse city.
It is also unrealistic to expect that most new development must occur without review by the public, including residents and businesses in the city's diverse neighborhoods. For too long that has been the objective of developers and, unfortunately, the city's planning agency. "As-of-right" development does not mandate review by community boards, the City Planning Commission or City Council. No public hearings are required. Usually the developer just needs to get a building permit or go through another administrative process. This often frustrates efforts by communities to influence the design of new projects in a way that makes them compatible with existing development and the community's visions for the future of the neighborhood.
The Zoning Resolution is filled with lots of loopholes that allow developers to build their projects (some of them very large-scale projects) as-of-right, without any sort of public review. It's understandable why some developers want as-of-right rules. They make things a lot simpler, avoid what could be a messy review process, and avoid having to make changes in their plans. Some developers, however, would rather have a public process with clear boundaries so they can avoid costly delays and litigation by community groups.
As-of-Right and Planning Ethics in a Brooklyn Neighborhood
Does as-of-right zoning encourage the city's administrators to ignore or evade community input and become too cozy with developers? This is the question at the heart of a recent as-of-right project in Brooklyn that involves charges of ethical malpractice.
A professional planner assigned to the Brooklyn Office of City Planning recently resigned in protest against her agency. In a letter she sent to the Chairman and District Manager of Brooklyn's Community Board 18, Laurel Brandstetter charged that:
Developers are proposing to construct a new big box home improvement store, movie theatre, parking garage and surface parking lot. I was instructed to participate in a process that would specifically avoid community involvement. While participating in meetings with the project developers, their attorneys, and City Planning staff, I witnessed our own staff utilize the zoning code to assist the developers in designing an as-of-right project in order to avoid community engagement.
After reading Brandstetter's letter, Dorothy Turano, District Manager of Community Board 18, said "I'm not at all surprised. We don't doubt it and we're deeply concerned. All City Planning ever does is look at a map and they don't care about the community." She said the developer hadn't approached the community board with a proposal and that about eight years ago the community board successfully defeated another proposal for commercial development of the same site. The site is in the Kings Plaza Shopping Center and is located on a waterfront parcel.
Regina Meyers, director of the Brooklyn Office of the Department of City Planning, dismissed the charges by Brandstetter. She said that the office wasn't required to involve the community board because it was an as-of-right development. At issue was the design of waterfront access required by the Zoning Resolution. In this case, she said, review was strictly an administrative procedure involving City Planning and the project applicant. Under this procedure the agency and developer are not required to go before the community board or hold a public hearing.
Was City Planning just doing its job or was it being unethical in skirting community input? Did they purposely conspire with the developer or were they just going along with them? Unlike doctors and lawyers, people who function as planners don't have to be licensed, pass a test, or be held accountable to a professional code of ethics. They don't even have to be trained in city planning. The American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) does have a Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, but it applies only to its members and membership is voluntary. The AICP Code states that the planner has a responsibility to the public. This includes, among other things, the mandate that "a planner must strive to give citizens the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs."
While a strict interpretation of the city's Zoning Resolution might exonerate City Planning, a strict interpretation of the professional code of ethics might well find the agency's planners in violation of their obligation to give the public a say. Anyone vaguely familiar with the area in question knows that the issue of waterfront access is of primary concern to the community. Turano points out how the Home Depot now in Kings Plaza is in technical compliance with the waterfront access rules but the area that is set aside for public access is poorly maintained, used for truck parking, and "not really accessible to the public." Will technical compliance in the new development produce the same result? She also notes that traffic in the area has been a chronic problem for years, despite multiple studies by the city and very little action. Will technical compliance with the city's parking regulations only make traffic worse?
Could it be said that the community board is just being exclusionary, following the dreaded not-in-my-backyard philosophy? Does this neighborhood of suburban-style small homes just want to keep people out? Alas, the only way to confront exclusionary tendencies -- they're everywhere, including within government agencies -- is to get them out in the open. There is also nothing wrong with wanting to exclude ugly development, traffic congestion, and bad design. And a careful study of the city's own zoning practices will show how exclusionary they can be (for example, City Planning continues to fight tooth-and-nail against inclusionary zoning that would encourage affordable housing).
As-of-right zoning leaves important decisions to be made by developers and bureaucrats behind closed doors. It is common practice in suburban planning that every new development must go through some kind of public review, including detailed design review. Why this free-for-all here in New York City? Does it have something to do with the political power of the real estate industry and the weakness of neighborhood governance? Are the planners in Brooklyn unable to overlook the fact that the developer of the Kings Plaza site is also developer of the mayor's new business headquarters in Manhattan, and has a major interest in the city's plan for the growth of West Midtown? Does as-of-right development leave questions like these unanswered?
Tom Angotti is Professor of Urban Affairs and Planning at Hunter College, City University of NY, editor of Planners Network Magazine, and a member of the Task Force on Community-based Planning.
With the current rent laws set to expire this month, the New York State legislature will soon decide the immediate future of rent regulation. Albany's decision -- on whether and how to extend the laws enacted in 1997 -- coincides with the recent release of a report on the city’s rent stabilized housing stock.
The Rent Guidelines Board has published “Changes to the Rent Stabilized Housing Stock in New York City, 1994-2002” (in pdf format) which shows a net decrease of almost 43,000 rent stabilized apartments in New York City. Over 24,000 apartments lost regulation because of vacancy decontrol, a provision which deregulates a rent stabilized apartment if, when vacated, the allowable rent for the new tenant reaches $2000.
As Gotham Gazette has explained (“The Battle Over Rent Regulation”) tenant advocates would like the state legislature to remove this provision this year. “Tenants understand that without the repeal of vacancy decontrol, the rent regulation system will be lost in ten to fifteen years,” said Jenny Laurie, director of the Met Council on Housing, a tenants’ rights organization.
Met Council, like most other tenant organizations, supports a bill that has been passed by the State Assembly, though not by the Senate, which repeals vacancy decontrol and adds other tenant-friendly provisions. The bill would lower the allowable rent increase upon vacancy from 20 percent to 10 percent; tighten up the landlord’s personal use allowance, and ensure that apartments leaving other subsidy programs, such as Mitchell Lama and Section 8, would become rent stabilized.
The bill, said Laurie, “would preserve the stock of affordable housing that we have right now. It’s not going to add to it, but at least it is going to stop the hemorrhaging of affordable housing.”
It seems unlikely, however, that the legislators will pass that bill. Both Governor George Pataki and State Senate majority leader Joseph Bruno have recently said they would like to see the 1997 laws renewed without changes. Their position seems closely aligned to that of the real estate lobby.
“Important reforms were enacted in 1997,” said Marilyn Davenport, senior vice president of the Real Estate Board of New York, which represents the interests of real estate professionals to the city, state, and federal governments. “They are not something you need to do every time you enact the laws.”
Still, Republican state senators from New York City, where about half of all renters are protected by rent laws, are hoping to convince Bruno of the need for at least a few pro-tenant alterations.
Most importantly, the senators, Olga Mendez, Martin Golden, Frank Padavan, Guy Velella, Serphin Maltese, and John Marchi would like to raise the vacancy decontrol threshold from $2,000 to $2,500. While tenant advocates would welcome that change, they want more.
“I support the way the law worked before the changes were made in the 90s,” said Laurie, of Met Council on Housing. “I would like to see expanded rent regulation and the preservation of housing that is affordable to the bulk of the city’s median households.”
Landlord groups, of course, would oppose more rent laws. “We’d love to see them abolished,” said Davenport. “We feel they harm the housing market and the overall supply. But this is not something we are actively pushing for in this legislative session because it probably isn’t realistic this year.”
Insiders believe that the continuation of the 1997 laws is the most likely outcome when the legislature finally addresses the issue. “From what I’m hearing, my feeling is that the laws will stay as they are now,” said Mike Nieves, director of state legislation for the City Council in Albany. “Tenants are saying, ‘Don’t make it worse than 1997.’ I don’t think they are going to make it worse.”
Rebecca Webber is a journalist who has covered housing issues for Gotham Gazette since July 2000.
After piles of research and hours of discussion, concrete steps are now being taken to lay the groundwork for a downtown cultural district. Arts advocates and city planners are hoping that Lower Manhattan’s cultural resources will lure visitors and businesses to the area and help to catalyze the local economy -- and reshape the financial district into the mixed-use, 24-hour neighborhood that so many New Yorkers say they want.
Ambitious plans aside, however, many cultural groups need immediate help. They have experienced prolonged gaps in ticket sales and other earned income since 9/11, and now face precipitous drops in city, state, and philanthropic giving. The best hope for them in the short term may be the “take-it-to-the-streets” strategy put forth by DowntownNYC!, a grassroots coalition of arts groups and small businesses located below 14th Street.
This summer, DowntownNYC! will roll out the ArtsVan, a retrofitted film location vehicle that will circulate around Manhattan’s parks and public squares, offering discounted tickets for cultural events and serving as a mobile hospitality unit for Lower Manhattan. The coalition hopes eventually to have several vans in action.
The idea came from the group’s first meeting, in November 2001, when it was noted that Lower Manhattan lacked a visitor’s center. One of the many ripple effects of the terrorist attacks was the loss of the TKTS booth that had been housed at 2 World Trade Center since 1983. While mainly focused on Broadway, the booth had also promoted downtown events, attracting the many tourists and workers that streamed through the tower’s lobby. ArtsVan will be the first district-wide campaign to lure visitors to downtown’s many theaters, dance performances, galleries, museums, and other cultural attractions. Notably, the van will also offer tickets for small and off-off-Broadway productions, which are not generally sold at Duffy Square or the new South Street Seaport TKTS.
According to project director Jonathan Slaff, the ArtsVan will serve as “a soft-core concierge service for downtown.” A February 2002 DowntownNYC! survey revealed that only 10 percent of visitors to downtown cultural events were tourists. By contrast, well over half of Broadway audiences come from out of town, drawn by mass market advertising and the tourist-friendly infrastructure of Times Square. Taking a more targeted approach, the ArtsVan will promote downtown culture as a form of experimentation -- one that, compared with Broadway, can be considerably easier on the wallet.
Rather than trying to market the sprawling area as a single destination, Ă la Times Square, the promotions will emphasize the unique assets of Lower Manhattan’s neighborhoods, such as Chinatown’s jewelry district or the East Village’s Indian restaurants. It will offer package discounts between arts groups and nearby businesses, and provide maps, guides, and announcements about walking tours or special events.
ArtsVan’s bootstrap operation may eventually get help from city planners, many of whom have embraced the notion of a downtown cultural district. City Councilmember Alan Gerson of District 1 (which includes parts of Greenwich Village and SoHo, as well as the Lower East Side, Chinatown, and the financial district) is advocating for a comprehensive municipal arts policy for Lower Manhattan, “with new and forward-thinking initiatives that will stabilize the entire sector citywide and create long-term sustainability for our institutions.” Citing reports by arts advocacy groups, he calls for policies to preserve affordable space, build public–private partnerships, and foster civic involvement.
Such policies may be enabled by a bill currently in the state legislature that would allow local governments to designate “culture zones” in order to help local arts. The legislation cites Richard Florida’s report, “The Creative Engine,” which argues that strong arts communities attract creative thinkers in all industries. The bill would provide tax incentives to encourage the development of studios, galleries, and performance facilities, so that artists can work cheek by jowl with bankers. It would also provide tax incentives to landlords who offer below-market rents to arts tenants and organizations that make philanthropic donations to cultural groups.
Corporations are also playing a role in the emerging downtown arts district. American Express will be the headline sponsor of this summer’s second-annual downtown arts festival. The company has also signed on to support a Museum of Freedom, planned as part of Daniel Libeskind’s vision for the World Trade Center site. The museum would tell the story of the terrorist attacks and explore the notion of freedom from local, national, and international perspectives. The Museum of the City of New York and the New-York Historical Society, which have been discussing merger plans for some time, have expressed their interest in being part of the planned downtown museum.
Martha Hostetter writes for American Theatre magazine.