The Bloomberg Administration was able to transform the city with an aggressive use of zoning. The administration called for zoning that would rezone places that seemed “underutilized” (which were mostly industrial/working class areas) for more productive uses and at the same time, it called for downzoning, which would preserve neighborhoods by limiting development. The administration aimed to facilitate economic growth and preserve diversity while addressing the needs of the city’s expanding population. Although rezoning increased real estate values in areas surrounding the High Line (allowing the Bloomberg Administration to accomplish one of their primary goals for economic growth), there were still dire consequences with the administration’s agenda. One of the biggest consequences was a lack of affordable housing due to increased housing prices and rents. Ultimately, more areas in the city were gentrified as residents could not afford to live in developed areas.The administration tried to address this issue with inclusionary zoning, where incentives such as “density bonuses” were offered to developers
The administration tried to address this issue with inclusionary zoning, where incentives such as “density bonuses” were offered to developers into providing affordable housing units when building. This type of zoning, however, did not prove to be too successful as the city only generated funding for 82,500 housing alongside the New Housing Marketplace Plan, which was half the number of units that the administration had intended. The issue is still present in New York City today, and an interesting question thus comes to mind in this New York Times article with the de Blasio Administration’s methods of solving this ongoing affordable housing crisis. Are these methods truly ideal and can they really serve to alleviate this housing issue? As seen in the article, de Blasio is also implementing inclusionary zoning to create “four times as many market-rate units as affordable” units for more affordable housing. He is making it mandatory for developers to provide affordable housing while building these market-rate units, but as the article states in its title, many (especially those in Brooklyn) are opposed to these changes.
An important argument from residents living in Brooklyn is that the ratio of market-rate units to affordable ones does not provide enough affordable housing, and even with the increase in affordable housing, it is not “affordable” or open to many that make less than 60 percent of the area’s median income. Although de Blasio is attempting to address the city’s affordable housing issue with rezoning and reconstruction, his methods could still potentially lead to increased gentrification as poorer populations cannot afford his planned “affordable” units. The complexity involved with the balance of zoning for newer developments and preserving old developments is thus underscored with this new debate over affordable housing, and it seems that a solution without a losing side is inevitable. New developments are needed for more affordable housing, yet these new developments can result in a lack of affordable housing and gentrification. It seems to be a Catch-22 that the city cannot escape.
Works Cited:
Larson, Scott. “The Armature for Development.” Building like Moses with Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2013. 77-96. Print.
Yee, Vivian, and Mireya Navarro. “Some See Risk in De Blasio’s Bid to Add Housing.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/nyregion/an-obstacle-to-mayor-de-blasios-affordable-housing-plan-neighborhood-resistance.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=N.Y.%20%2F%20Region&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
I agree that providing affordable housing in New York City has been an ongoing crises and that new developments often lead to gentrification which seems to be a Catch-22 situation. The challenge is how to create safer neighborhoods with better services to meet the needs of residents who are skeptical of new developments. As mentioned in the New York Times article, I believe including residents in community forums to influence planning. This may ease some of the uncertainty toward new developments and help ensure neighborhood services meet the needs of the community and are affordable to the community. The definition of affordability also needs to be clarified and regulation needs to ensure that affordable housing is guaranteed. Neighborhood improvements should benefit the residents who live their, not displace them. I think some of the fear residents have of big development is that it has not benefitted local residents enough and they may feel more comfortable with “small scale incremental changes” that Jacob’s had recommended (81, Larson).
Devin, I understand your doubts about Mayor De Blasio’s plan for more affordable housing. In the New York Times article you referred to, I noticed an important question: “affordable for who?” This is something to think about because the people who live in neighborhood of East New York for a long time may not be able to afford these new homes. Households in the range of 60 percent of the area’s median income can afford most new affordable units, not a family of four living off of less than $26,000 a year (Yee and Navarro). Mayor De Blasio’s quotes sound wonderful but we don’t know if his plan will benefit the people who need it the most.