Bloomberg’s administration began rezoning the entire city, upzoning certain areas and downzoning others. The plan for upzoning was to increase density and development through building more affordable housing units, while downzoning would restrict density and development by reducing the number of housing units available for use. The government’s plan for the greater good of New York City ultimately caters to the wealthy, as rezoning depends heavily on the private sector.
Sarah Laskow’s, “The quiet, massive rezoning of New York” discusses an argument for upzoning: developing denser neighborhoods would use less land (building upward) and the real estate market could supply more affordable housing units for people with lower incomes, which in theory would be a success. However, it is not in the real estate market’s best interest to provide affordable housing. As the number of housing units go up, prices – profits for the private real estate sector – would go down. As a result, residential capacity increased only 1.7 percent in upzoned lots, the statistic determined in a report by the Furman Center, discussed in Kareem Fahim’s article, “Despite Much Rezoning, Scant Change in Residential Capacity.” Furthermore, the newer housing units are not strictly set aside for people with lower incomes – there is no guarantee that these units will benefit people of a lower socioeconomic class. If people with lower incomes can afford to live in these units, so can people with higher incomes, which could lead to the gentrification of the area and possible future downzoning as the neighborhood’s resident income grows.
Downzoning, on the other hand, limits competition for private developers (Laskow 2014), and typically occurs in white neighborhoods with higher incomes, leaving minorities with lower incomes few housing options (Fahim 2010). Downzoning keeps wealthier areas wealthy, and these neighborhoods have more power to push for downzoning in the first place. The real estate market in the neighborhood stays up as a result of downzoning, and lower income minorities would look elsewhere for more affordable housing.
While the initial idea may have been well-intended, the effects of the rezoning put into place haven’t changed much in regards to affordable housing or progression of gentrification. In the end, the rezoning government policies have lead to the benefit of the wealthier white population and private sector, leaving lower-income minorities displaced.
Additional Sources:
Hi Loren,
Hi Loren,
I think you did a good job in reiterating one of the main themes that come up in this class. You point out that the rich usually benefit while the poor are harmed. Looking through this paradigm, Bloomberg’s zoning can be taken as catering to the wealthy. However, I think the complexity of the rezoning and its impacts make it controversial.
From 2002-2013, 18 percent of the city has been rezoned (Podemski 2013). In his research, Podemski, in his Master’s Thesis for Columbia University, showed that more urban planning had to be done to produce successful neighborhoods, since most of the upzoned areas in Brooklyn failed basic design standards. He did agree that many of Bloomberg’s policies had a Jane Jacob essence transforming industrial areas to ones with mixed uses of buildings, although Jane Jacobs criticized city planning at that time.
Old industrial land was rezoned for different purposes like the highline, Hudson Yards, Willets Point, etc. I have been on the highline a few times which it is very pretty with expensive ice cream stands. Who goes there? Wealthy people or tourists willing to spend more than $3.00 on an ice cream bar. I do think it’s important for the city to have uses for all of its parts, however the highline served a different purposed before the old subway line was changed into a park. Abandoned areas become outlets for certain people and places to go.
I agree with you that zoning will generally benefit the wealthy because they have more political power for change in their favor. The city does want to make money and would want to invest in areas that will make profits and keep taxes flowing in. Downzoning protects existing house values and keeps wealthier areas wealthy and furthers gentrification. I don’t see the cycle of the rich benefitting in the city ending any time soon.
Sources:
Max B. Podemski, 2013, The New-New York: Upzoning Neighborhoods in the Era of Bloomberg, Columbia University Academic Commons, http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:20752.
Hi Loren,
I enjoyed reading your post as you introduced the topic of discussion of zoning by differentiating the two terms: upzoning and downzoning. I agree that whether the city is upzoned and downzoned, zoning ultimately caters to the wealthy. Actions, or in this case the regulations of land use and building size, are more influenced by profits economically and financially than the interests of the city. Rezoning simply makes the city more marketable—appealing to those with money such as upper-class residents, corporations, and tourists. The government and city politicians are doing what they think is best of its people.
The increase in density, development, and use of land through upzoning intensifies the roles commerce and industry play in the city. While it also may be argued that it helps lower-income families by providing affordable housing and job opportunities, these effects are not long-term even if it is guaranteed. As stated in the blog, people with high-income can afford what the lower socioeconomic class can too and the jobs provided during development ends once the project is completed. Upzoning does not necessarily “house the future generations” the way it intends to and may have following consequences like gentrification and downzoning of the area.
The restriction of density and development without demolishing buildings not only reduces the amount of available housing units, but prevents involvement of private developers in order to protect its existing character. As a result, the lower-income people have less housing options and job opportunities when the rich are kept rich and the poor are kept poor.
Zoning, whether the planners, developers, or anyone involved intended to, favors the existence of the different classes and benefits some over the other. I thought when the Bloomberg administration was building like Robert Moses with Jane Jacobs’s ideologies in mind, New York City would be reshaped into a successful city with no flaws. However, nothing is perfect and life is unfair.