For today’s class we read: “Planning and the Narrative of Threat” and “The Armature for Development” from Scott Larson’s (2013) Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind, which concludes our historical overview of shapes and shapers of NYC past.

We began by reviewing the concept of neoliberalism, which is a political, economic, and cultural ideology that came to prominence in the U.S. and the U.K. in late 1970s/early 1980s in relation to the globalization of industrial production, the demand for more flexible [capital] accumulation strategies, and the restructuring of the welfare state.  During the 80s and 90s the ideology became institutionalized at every level of government, which involved mass deregulation, privatization, market-driven development, decentralization, and the downloading of [federal and state] government functions to weak local governments, nonprofit organizations, and civil society.  As a result, there is extreme pressure for city governments to divest themselves of all but a minimal public infrastructure and social responsibility, and to use their powers (i.e. land use and zoning regulation) primarily to encourage private real estate development.

Then we backed up and asked:  What exactly is zoning?  Most simply, ZONING is…

• a map divided into districts
• a set of rules about how land can be used in each district (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc.)
• specific regulations on things like lot size, building height, and required yard and setback provisions
• procedures for administering and applying the zoning rules.

For a more visual and comprehensive explanation, see this article by Urban Omnibus from February, 2014.

… and discussed how zoning has developed historically in the U.S. and NYC.  Here are some highlights:

• Zoning falls under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis of land use authority. This amendment authorizes the government to regulate behavior and enforce order within its territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants; also known as police power.  
• Early/notable uses of zoning include: 1860s- a state statute prohibited commercial uses on Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn; 1916- NYC’s first zoning ordinance was passed in re. to a building in lower Manhattan blocking too much sunlight; In the western U.S., the first uses of zoning were by KKK members to dictate who could be in certain areas; the city of Houston, Texas is the only in the U.S. to have NO zoning.
• Zoning had its first big wave in the 1940s and 50s,  a time of functionalist/modernist thinking about cities and “Rational Comprehensive Planning.”  It was integral to the transformation of NYC via “urban renewal”and was all about separation of uses thought to be incompatible (recall Robert Moses superblocks).
• This approach to zoning was widely criticized, most notably by Jane Jacobs, for being too top-down/heavy handed and for disrupting the life of the city that stems from a diversity of uses in closer proximity.  In 1961 NYC zoning law was revised to make more flexible… and to incentivize development.
• In 1975 further zoning-related changes were made to the City Charter in response to the grassroots organizing and community planning efforts of the 1960s and 70s, namely the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP).  Around this time William Whyte and others were very critical of the transformation of zoning as a tool, which was designed to limit/control, not incentivize/unleash development.

Then we discussed why zoning is so central to contemporary (aka neoliberal) planning and politics in NYC, drawing mostly from Larson…

• Enter Mayor Bloomberg (2002), a product and promoter of Wall Street.  Bloomberg claimed NYC was a “city at risk” of losing its place of prominence as a global city; and due to its lack of sustainability given its growing population and aging infrastructure.  He insisted that we must build big like Moses (and as part of regional economic growth plans) but with Jacobs’ “authenticity” in mind.  Bloomberg used zoning as “an armature for development” (Larson) along with tax incentives and public subsidies, to create optimal conditions for the growth machine.
• Bloomberg rezoned over a third of the city during his tenure (2002-2013): Downzoning “authentic” (white, upper class) areas like Cobble Hill in Brooklyn and “upzoning” areas like 125th St. in Harlem.  The other major zoning actions related to the waterfront- almost entirely rezoned from industrial manufacturing to commercial and residential, based on the notion that manufacturing had left NYC, which wasn’t really true.  These rezonings were all about increasing land value in order to promote development- by “unlocking value.”  Greenpoint/Williamsburg is the prime example here.
• In terms of push-back, Bloomberg’s first wave of rezonings was during the housing boom (pre-2008) and had little resistance from the city council who has to approve, or from community boards, borough presidents, or the city planning commission.  Later cases like Hudson Yards were different, as communities came to understand the implications of rezoning and increasingly fought against it, though never won.
• For a broader reflection on Larson’s text I highly recommend your own reading responses, which are great!

And for an update on the zoning situation, which has only gotten more contentious…

• Mayor de Blasio took office in 2014 and kept the zoning party going, though in a different guise.  “Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning” is the primary tool for his housing and economic development plan, which requires developers who are going to benefit from upzoning to include a certain percentage of “affordable” units.  He has promoted his plan as visionary, ambitious, and in line with his progressive agenda- he talks about it as a way to address the housing crisis and inequality, by building low and middle income housing, and by promoting “mixed-income” neighborhoods.  His plan is citywide but targets 6 “struggling” neighborhoods, including: East NY (Brooklyn), Flushing West (Queens), Stapleton (north shore SI), Jerome Ave (Bronx), Long Island City, and East Harlem.
• Meanwhile, community boards across the city have overwhelmingly voted no to the plans and there has been widespread resistance from grassroots groups.  The main problems, they contend, are that the plan falls way short in terms of the # affordable units; the promised units will not be affordable enough; and overall the plan will drive up land values, which will lead to lots of displacement.  Coalitions of community groups have formed all across the city and many have developed their own community-driven plans.  Most recently, the Real Affordability for All (RAFA) Coalition (which represents many of these groups and plans) canceled its scheduled civil disobedience demonstration “citing progress”negotiations with the Mayor’s Office. But not everyone is happy with this deal and some have organized a last ditch resistance effort:  It’s not over! Rally and Press Conference: Tuesday at 9am, City Hall. 
• City Council is scheduled to vote on de Blasio’s plan TOMORROW, Tuesday, March 22nd.  
• For more analysis see:  NYC has the power to do better than de Blasio’s housing plan by the super smart Sam Stein, and this video by Movement for Justice in El Barrio.
• And to see what others are demanding, check out: Who’s city? Our city! Press conference and community speak-out for elected community boards, Wednesday, noon-2pm, Brooklyn Borough Hall…Join the Brooklyn Anti-Gentrification Network (B.A.N.) to demand elected community boards! Community boards are currently appointed by each Borough President and therefore are not truly accountable or beholden to the community. We want to empower community boards to be more than just advisory and to have veto power. We demand and will work to change the New York City Charter so that Community Boards will be elected.