When zoning was first instituted under the framework of the 1916 Zoning Resolution it was “the nation’s first complex set of rules governing how land can be used, and where and how structures can be built” (Farley). It was a bunch of guidelines to organize urban planning and to protect neighborhoods. It told people what they can build, where they can build it, and to an extent what their buildings would have to look like. One thing zoning policy didn’t do though was to tell people if they were going to build A, then they also needed to build B. That’s what Bill deBlasio wants to do.
A prevalent issue in the city today is that of affordable housing. There’s just not enough affordable places for the poor to live. While Bloomberg used a “voluntary inclusionary model”, which basically gave developers incentives, such as tax-reductions to build affordable housing when they build developments, deBlasio wants to use “a ‘guaranteed inclusionary’ model. Developments that take advantage of rezoning will contain affordable units by requirement rather than as an elective trade item. There will be no opting out” (Pomorski).
The thing is, some developers may decide they don’t want to be told what to do and could go build elsewhere, which would be harmful to our city. Can we really tell developers that they must build affordable housing? “We don’t ask Hermes to produce cheap polyester ties, or Thomas Keller to offer a dollar menu at Per Se. Why should Manhattan developers forgo profits on their most valuable holdings?” (Pomorski). At the same time, Bloomberg’s model clearly wasn’t the best plan either. “Having secured lucrative incentive packages, developers were allowed to deliver tiny studio apartments, useless to families, to fulfill affordable square footage obligations” (Pomorski). Under Bloomberg there just wasn’t enough affordable housing. Developments like Williamsburg and Greenpoint and Hudson Yards have what seem to be “indefinite delays to promised affordable housing construction” (Pomorski).
Works Cited
Farley, John. “Eye Sores and Eye Candy: The Impact of Zoning on NYC”. Thirteen. 3 Jan 2012. Web. 15 Mar 2015. <http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/01/eye-sores-and-eye-candy-the-impact-of-zoning-in-new-york-city/.
Larson, Scott. 2013. Building Like Moses With Jacobs in Mind: Contemporary Planning in New York City. New York: Temple University Press. 33-43, 77-96. Print.
Pomorski, Chris. “Is Manhattan for Everyone? The pied-a-terre approach and the “‘poor door'”. The Observer. 19 Feb 2014. Web. 15 Mar 2015. <http://observer.com/2014/02/is-manhattan-for-everyone-the-pied-a-terre-and-the-poor-door/>.
Debra
I agree with you. I think “Inclusionary zoning” is a very controversial topic. In one side we have the people who advocate for affordable housing by promoting different types of policies that ensure that housing is available for any type of income levels, which would also integrate the communities economically. On the other side, we have the people who are agains it and they said that instead of providing more affordable housing, the only thing that this would do to the community is to reduce affordable housing. Now, as you asked before, should we tell developers that they must build affordable housing? I don’t know the exact answer, but what i know is that we have to ask ourselves what is it going to be best for the city and for the future of it….
I love the way you presented the information. Very clear and concise.
Great post! I think it is definitely a controversial topic. While it can definitely be seen as unfair that developers would have to include affordable housing, especially being that this could be considered a violation of constitutional rights, I think the idea might be beneficial for the city. If you think about it, it would more or less never be in a private developers interest to create affordable housing, as it is much less profitable. If developers were allowed to continue building housing for the rich with no regulation, the entire city would slowly become gentrified and unaffordable for anyone who isn’t at least upper middle class. This has already sort of happened in many areas – you have to look pretty far out in the outer boroughs to find places that haven’t become at all expensive. Maybe DiBlasio is trying to create a system that would prevent the working class from being priced out of the entire city. While it could be considered quasi-socialism, it could also be considered social justice. Not everybody will be able to afford luxury condos, but private developers would probably like to make every residence in the city as swanky and profitable as they could.