Williamsburg Rezoned
The City's rezoning plan is official. Let us know what you think in comments.
From NYTimes
City officials agreed yesterday to let developers turn the decaying north Brooklyn waterfront, with its relics of Brooklyn's industrial past, into a neighborhood of residential towers with a parklike esplanade along the East River.The plan, which rivals the ambition and scope of the creation of Battery Park City, would rezone a 175-block area of Greenpoint and Williamsburg, two neighborhoods that have surged in popularity because of their proximity to Manhattan but whose development has been curtailed because much of the area is now restricted to industrial use.
The area has become perhaps the most emblematic of Brooklyn's resurgence over the last few decades, as young people seeking an alternative to Manhattan have flocked to its once desolate streets, remaking Williamsburg into a hub of nightlife, art galleries and restaurants just one subway stop away from Manhattan.
That has propelled the local housing market, and led to intense pressure to develop acres of abandoned or underutilized properties near the East River that boast stunning views of Manhattan.The rezoning, which was approved unanimously by a key City Council committee, would transform the long-crumbling waterfront into a residential neighborhood complete with 40-story luxury apartment buildings, shops and manicured recreation areas. As envisioned by city planners, the rezoning would help realize decades-long efforts to capitalize on one of New York's most ignored assets, its miles of neglected waterfront, while also protecting a neighborhood that has long been considered a repository for unpopular projects like power plants, waste transfer stations and porn shops.
"This rezoning will ensure that the reuse of this priceless but long derelict waterfront will be for the purposes of housing and recreation and not for such inappropriate uses as waste transfer stations and power plants," Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg told reporters at a late afternoon news conference.
The plan, which is expected to be approved by the full City Council next week, imposes some novel requirements for developers seeking to build the housing. In order to build to the maximum height of roughly 30 or 40 stories, they must keep at least 20 percent of the homes affordable to low- and middle-income New Yorkers, making it among the most ambitious such programs in the nation, city officials say. And the developers must build the waterfront esplanade, which will eventually be turned over for management to the city's Parks Department.
The rezoning in north Brooklyn is coming together as the city moves aggressively to spruce up its aging waterfronts, many of which have been in decline for more than a generation as New York's ports lost their prominence. Earlier this year, the city approved the rezoning of a huge swath of the Far West Side of Manhattan for office space and housing and has finally begun putting in place a plan to support a mix of uses, including a cruise ship terminal, on the Red Hook waterfront in Brooklyn.
But the north Brooklyn plan, whose final version came after intense negotiations between the City Council and Bloomberg administration officials, could yield one of the most extreme transformations of a neighborhood in decades. Inland from the water, the plan seeks to preserve the low-rise scale of the areas, where four- and six-story apartment buildings predominate, as well as the mix of light industry and residences.
To that end, the plan will designate a 22-block area near the Bushwick Inlet, just beyond the East River waterfront, as an Industrial Business Zone, which brings with it special protections and benefits for businesses operating or moving there, and create a $4 million fund to preserve manufacturing jobs in the neighborhood.
The plan also creates 54 acres of parkland, including a 28-acre park with an Olympic-quality aquatic center on the river. The waterfront, though, will see the most striking change, and is the scene of the city's broadest test of inclusionary zoning, which allows developers to build larger buildings in exchange for setting aside some of the apartments as lower-cost units.
To take advantage of this bonus, developers on the waterfront must put aside 20 to 25 percent of their apartments for low- to moderate-income New Yorkers. In the city's calculations, for a family of four, low income is defined as earning up to $50,250 per year, and moderate income is defined as $50,250 to $78,000.
In exchange, they will be allowed to put up larger buildings, capped at roughly 30 or 40 stories depending on the location, and they will be eligible for a 25-year tax exemption. Those developers are also eligible for certain grants for the public esplanades they build.
Those who do not include affordable apartments in their developments would be ineligible for the tax exemption. The size of their buildings would also be smaller, limited to roughly 23 or 33 stories, officials said. In the inland areas, there is also an inclusionary program, but it is smaller in scale.
Council members involved in the negotiations said that their modifications to the administration's plan will result in the construction of more affordable homes overall, about 33 percent of the more than 10,500 apartments anticipated from the rezoning.
In addition, Mr. Bloomberg said, the five major developers who own 70 percent of the property within the rezoning area reached an agreement with the city's main building service union to pay union-scale wages.
"In 10 years, I can't imagine what Williamsburg-Greenpoint is going to look like," said Councilwoman Melinda Katz, Democrat of Queens, who as chairwoman of the Land Use Committee led negotiations with Bloomberg administration officials.
City Councilman David Yassky, Democrat of Brooklyn, who represents much of the area, echoed that sentiment. "This is truly a transformative plan for New York City's waterfront," he said. Many residents and community advocates, though, have been opposed to the changes envisioned by the city, and some had lobbied for a guarantee that 40 percent of the new housing would be directed to lower-income residents. But several housing advocates watching the voting at City Hall praised city officials for including more lower-cost housing and open space in the plan.
"The communities off Williamsburg and Greenpoint win," said Brad Lander, director of the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development, "because today there is a guarantee of new and permanently affordable housing, instead of a virtual guarantee that new development would price residents out of their homes."
Comments
I think this is good and bad. what's new right. I am trying to buy a good size live and work loft so I can do what I love to do in the only area i've felt home and fit me in new york city. I hope things don't change to much, I mean that's all we can do is hope right. if we wanted to what could we do? EXCEPT?? This is a city of constent change the willy B looks nothing now like it did 30 yrs ago. I'm sure the people that live here love the area the most. but what I fret is that the building is going to bring in more people who live here cause it's trendy and don't really take in and enjoy what's around them. I've lived in my sublets for 500 bucks that sucked and i've lived in large lofts some many stops out on the L to get away and some close to be near what I need to be who I am ALL IN WILLY B. all in all i guess it's time to change. GET READY FOR SHELL SHOCK NO ONE CAN FORE SEE WHAT THIS WILL TRUELY DO FOR OR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD! ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES STAY IN WILLY B AND HELP KEEP PARTS OF IT WITH THE FLAVOR IT CAME WITH!
Posted by: joseph neil | December 18, 2005 03:27 PM
nyc has always been about immigration-waves. the previous, established group hates the new incoming wave. but wave upon wave comes and replaces the previous group. the "hipsters" took over the area from the latin-american and italian demographics. and now yuppies are gonna take it over from the hipsters. that's life. that's nyc baby. eventually, the hipsters can decide whether they want to move deeper into brooklyn--or back to mom and dad's in ohio.
Posted by: ck | November 16, 2005 09:16 PM
30-40 story towers populated by stupid yuppies.
Ha Ha!
I didn't know you stack shit that high!
I hope all you outta town shitheads get fucked!
Posted by: DS | August 26, 2005 07:35 PM
As an ex-Williamsburger, the one question I have about this news is how will the already overcrowded L train accomodate 40,000 new users?
Posted by: Mr. Furley | August 3, 2005 06:40 PM
does anyone actually read the good parts of this?
- 1/3 affordable housing
- over 2k new union jobs
- redevelopment of the waterfront streaching from da'burg to long island city... HUGE LONG PARK
- more live/work in bklyn...
look this city is all about changing. we need affordable housing close to manhattan and frankly i could think of a better place to put it...
Posted by: nonecknoel | May 13, 2005 12:39 PM
This is so unfair. I moved to Brooklyn last year to live the urbane bohemian lifestyle. These developers are ruining everything. Next thing you know...gasp...they are going to put up a Starbucks.
Posted by: pseudo brookylnite | May 8, 2005 05:00 PM
Let's pray that included in the plans for these chages still art and culture will have a place, like an area for concerts in the riverside or chances for areas for events....the point is at the end that there will be something back to the community in the area!
Posted by: Zashammm | May 7, 2005 07:59 PM
this is really just a sad day, the real shame is down the line when and yes eventually we will decide that maybe we were better off with the lower structures, the quality of the construction of the buildings will not be ever regained, you will never see buildings built that well structurally or asthetically again, it is simply too expensive now, the same thing happened in Seattle, and now we have a neighborhood full of empty condos. Sad. Sad indeed.
Posted by: jeff | May 6, 2005 02:45 AM
i belief dat shit n fuck da bitch who posted as me - curse yo bloodline muthafucka bitch imposta! hex on u rasclat!
Posted by: gimme 4 real | May 5, 2005 07:35 PM
when a neighborhood goes to shit, people are driven out too - by the crime rate. things work both ways. unless an area is stable/stagnant, someone will be driven out. many of those northside converted factories are roach-infested and already overpriced. now, people will be paying for good apartments. on the one hand, i will miss the scruffy charm of the waterfront, but economically it makes sense. i won't be able to afford it, but majoring in liberal arts was my own choice. gentrification is part of the urban cycle, that is all.
Posted by: H. | May 5, 2005 01:45 AM
fuck you gimme - we don't care, gentrification is a way of life and it's coming to brooklyn whether you like it or not - you frightened pussies better recognize!
Posted by: Jarod | May 4, 2005 06:19 PM
This is always a dilemma.There is is the battle between long-sited urban planning and pure economic mining of seemingly underused land. As an architect I don't deny the value in building to develop areas of infill that would unify and complete urban fabric that has been severed or damaged over time. But to REPLACE or DISPLACE existing populations by creating a situatiion which potentially creates large scale rifts in the demographic and social structure of a given neighborhood can be very dangerous. So this is a two fold problem; one being the sensibility of the physical built solution and the popoulation who will inhabit it. I agree the persistent desire to walll off riverfront with towers is peculiar. Why not maintain the general scale of the riverfront? If the views of the river/skyline are deemed the points of value, than by building lower at the river the views are maintained for a greater number of dwellings further back from the waterfront. Therefore the neighborhood as a whole gains value in part by its collective connection to the waterfront. While this is the one small aspect, it could represent an attitude about the value of the neighborhood as a whole and not just a select portion (riverfront). The thought of a "Battery Park" scenario if quite frightening.
Posted by: GEO | May 4, 2005 10:14 AM
This is what happens in neighborhoods that become "happening" and it won't be the last one. Whatever is deemed the next "happening" neighborhood, the same thing will happen there. Soon, people of modest means (and those who had lived there for years before it became "happening", will be driven out). When does it stop? And all this in the name of "cool". It's a shame....and, frankly....ironic
Posted by: Diego | May 4, 2005 06:25 AM
Can't see too many developers springing for "lower-income" high rise apartments just to get those extra floors. When you've got 33, what's ten more?
Posted by: Ki | May 4, 2005 01:40 AM
Hopefully the developers will pay some attention to the architecture, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure the development will be generic and homogenous. One of the things I love about the neighborhood is the industrial feel of its factories and warehouses. Horrible to see people displaced too. I accept that neighborhoods change, but it's ashame no one does anything to help the displaced or to maintain the personality of a neighborhood
Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2005 11:49 PM
totally agree, can't something just be left like it was? why do greedy developers have to make everything new and ugly looking? whats wrong with old factories? they can be turned into apartments, without any external change, and the neigborhood would remain intact.
Posted by: max | May 3, 2005 10:19 PM
This article, along with the cheerleading side piece, bummed me out. Esp. the quote from the polish meat market owner who thinks it would be good for business- I don't think too many polish sausage shoppers will be moving into the high rises. It ignored the critics of the plan, of which there are many.
Why Why WHY do there always HAVE to be high rises on the river in any redevelopment plan? I love the low rise river front, compared to say, Battery Park City and ugly, isolated feeling Queens West. It can be turned from factories to houses/apartments, but 30, 40 story apartment buildings? That SUCKS.
Posted by: will | May 3, 2005 07:42 PM