CHARLOTTE CHEBASSIER · DANIEL RATHMAN · EMILY RHODES · GAVIN SILBER · CELIA WEAVER NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · WAGNER SCHOOL · URBAN PLANNING · ZHAN GUO · SPRING 2014
Charlotte Chebassier Charlotte Chebassier is Architect DEA, graduated in 2009 at the ‘École d’Architecture
de Versailles’, in France. She worked on housing, offices and public projects. Charlotte is currently in the Applied Quantitative Program of the NYU Department of Sociology, with a focus on urban sociology and metropolitan context.
el’ rt and
at
The city : formal’ Tongji
Daniel Rathman is a first-year Master of Urban Planning student specializing in Daniel is from San Francisco and holds a B.A. in economics
▷ Workshop in Buenos Aires, at FADU economic: development. ▷ 2G International competition a urban park for Venezia from Tufts University.
2003 - 06 ◀ Bachelor’s degree of Architecture at ENSA-V 05.2003 ◀ French Baccalauréat with majors in physics, with Honors
ART & IMAGE
Hailing from Okemos, Michigan, Emily Rhodes is a cat, chickpea and transportation enthusiast. Prior to joining Team 4 of the afternoon Planning Methods Course at NYU Wagner, Emily worked at Met Council, helping to increase food security throughout underserved neighborhoods in New York City.
of the omities y watch
09.2009 ◀ WAR-ning
ect, in Paris ct, in with Oglo n project,
Silber has worked for many years in South Africa on issues related to urban 2006 - 10 ◀ VideoGavin freelance development, 2007 - 08 ◀ The end of strong particularly in informal settlements. He has previously studied at differences the University of Cape Town where he majored in Politics and Economics. He is a
use project, ermit
cy, in la
al housing
, in Sèvres
plan for a t and its
&Associés
tion project
Video making for Nicolas Michelin at ENSA-Versailles.
Collaboration for the the art distribuMastersworks in Urban tion of Jean-Pierre Chebassier
Planning candiate at NYU Wagner with a focus on Housing and Economic Development. COMMUNITY LIFE
2006 - 13 ◀ ‘Godfingers’ fanfare
Trombonist member. President from 2005 to 2010. Management of finances, Cea Weaver, MUP candidate, is interested in affordable housing and community organization and concerts of the driven planning initiatives. A native of Rochester, NY, Cea has first hand experience brassband
01 - 05.2012 ◀ ‘La with Grande Masse polluted rivers and post industrial decline. She is the assistant director extremely des Beaux-Arts’ association
of organizing Volunteer worker. Organisation of theand photo exhibition and management of orders 2007 - 08 ◀ Administrative council of ENSA-V
on Design,
Elected representative to the board of directors
graphism ment ris (Real nomy) ehousing
Founder member. Organization of student public parties (2 500 people). Fanfares of ENSA-V public and administrative representation
2006 - 08 ◀ ‘La Grande Mousse’ association
policy at the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board.
CONTENTS
VISION METHODOLOGY CONTEXT STAKEHOLDERS SCENARIOS RECOMMENDATIONS
VISION
1.0 VISION
GOLIVE, GOWORK, GOPLAY, GOWANUS “A safe, clean, integrated, diverse, and accessible neighborhood to live, work, and play. GoLive, GoWork, GoPlay Gowanus preserves the area’s unique history and fosters connection to New York City as a whole.”
“GoLive, GoWork, GoPlay, Gowanus” examines the changing neighborhood of Gowanus in the western section of Brooklyn, New York. In the following report, we set forth four distinct scenarios for Gowanus’s future which take into account varying levels of planned intervention: “Baseline”, “Go Historic,” “Go Up!” and “GoLive, GoWork, GoPlay Gowanus.” The scenarios noted above examine the neighborhood through six key issues areas. “Greening” addresses both the pressing need for environmental remediation at the Gowanus Canal, but also addresses the changing nature of New York City in the face of climate change and flood realities. This category also includes the development of new and the upgrading of existing, open public spaces. “Creating” seeks to harness Gowanus’s artistic character and utilize it for workforce development. “Connecting” studies the nature of transportation in Gowanus, and identifies opportunities to connect the neighborhood to citywide transit options. “Housing” addresses key affordability issues and tackles the question of gentrification in Gowanus. “Preserving” looks at Gowanus’s industrial and manufacturing past. We address the neighborhood’s role in the City’s history, and question methods to retain an industrial character in the area in the face of nationwide industrial decline. Finally, “Growing” incorporates city-wide
demographic and socio-economic trends, and applies them to the Gowanus neighborhood. In each of our scenarios, we seek to reconcile neighborhood concerns with the need for citywide and regional planning. This need is particularly profound in the area of affordable housing. Given the political goal to create 200,000 units of affordable housing, and the endless influx of new residents to New York City, the reality of increased density across the city is palpable. This thread is woven through our scenarios: from “Go Historic,” which exerts significant planning controls in response to the threat of higher density, to “Go Up!,” which drastically up-zones the entire area and explores opportunities for vertical manufacturing. The report that follows documents a semester’s worth of study of the Gowanus neighborhood. In the first section, “Methodology,” we lay out our outreach tools and our research approach to the project. The second section, “Existing Conditions,” looks at the Gowanus neighborhood as it is, and identifies the issues that we hope to tackle with our study. We give a brief overview of the neighborhood’s history, demographics, economy, and transportation conditions, and look at the ways that the decline of urban manufacturing, increased gentrification, and climate events have affected the
6
area. In our third section, we identify the major stakeholders in the Gowanus neighborhood, their positions on the key issues affecting the community, and their visions for change in the area. We do a power analysis of the stakeholders and evaluate their ability and interest in affecting future development. Our scenarios follow our stakeholder analysis. “Baseline” studies Gowanus with no intervention -what would occur were the neighborhood to continue to develop on it’s current track. “Go Historic” seeks to keep the neighborhood relatively as is, with interventions to protect existing architectural and economic histories. While we refer to it as a “minimal intervention” scenario, it is truly a “minimal change” scenario. For the neighborhood to stay static, planners will have to significantly control develop. “Go Up!” envisions a Gowanus with unrestrained development. Finally, “GoLive, GoWork,
GoPlay” seeks a comprehensive plan that addresses the need for increased density while attempting to retain the neighborhood’s creative and industrial character. “GoLive, GoWork, GoPlay,” the plan that our team recommends, offers a controlled growth perspective and identifies new planning concepts, such as “stable mixed use zoning.” Our development plan and recommendation on stakeholder engagement and implementation follow our final scenario. The Gowanus neighborhood is crucial in New York City’s history, and we expect it to be crucial in New York City’s future. As neighborhoods across the City struggle with the entrenched problems of gentrification, loss of manufacturing, and climate change, we hope that Gowanus can address these issues in a creative and locally sensitive manner that can serve as a model for the rest of New York City and the region as a whole. ■
7
METHOD
2.0 METHODOLOGY COMMUNITY OUTREACH DATA COLLECTION We recognize the importance of conducting thorough research on the neighborhood, as Gowanus is a diverse community with many competing stakeholder interests. Relying on both qualitative and quantitative research, we collected data through community outreach, the United States Census, and existing redevelopment proposals for the area. Below, we explain the methodology used to collect and analyze our data, which contributed to our scenarios and recommendations.
2.1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH Our community outreach efforts were essential to the development of our scenario narratives and recommendations. In order to gain diverse perspectives from the Gowanus project site, we conducted community outreach that was facilitated both through class-organized stakeholder meetings and additional community meetings researched and attended by group members. Our team also conducted a number of informal interviews with community members. Below are highlights from our community outreach efforts.
Office of Council Member Brad Lander Our team met with Catherine Zinnel, the District Director for Councilmember Brad Lander. Lander, a member of the Working Families Party, is determined to find ways to keep the neighborhood affordable to the families that call it home while recognizing the growing demand for housing both in Gowanus and around the city. Lander is currently backing a hydrology study of the Gowanus Canal to determine more precisely where floodwaters would go in the event of another storm on or above the scale of Superstorm Sandy. He believes that the city must upgrade the resiliency and transportation infrastructure in the area before pursuing any further rezoning that would increase the population of the 39th District. A strong believer in transparency and participatory politics, Lander has held working groups with community members throughout the spring
to gather information about their most critical concerns and solicit planning ideas. Zinnel voiced concern during our meeting about the turnout at the meetings, which lacked input from the minority residents of the area—particularly those who live in the NYCHA housing projects north of the canal—as well as from the individual artists, whose live-work space is threatened by the upward pressure on rents in Gowanus. Lander plans to hold a third community planning meeting in May, during which he hopes to debate the issue of building along the canal as the EPA Superfund cleanup proceeds. He expects a spirited discussion about the drawbacks of density and height versus the need to provide affordable housing, and has expressed a willingness to consider creative solutions beyond the zoning code. As part of any plan, Lander strongly believes that a significant portion of the canal area should be developed into a public space, an area in which Gowanus currently lags behind other neighborhoods.
Park Slope Civic Council/Forth on Fourth Forth on Fourth is a subcommittee of the Park Slope Civic Council. Our team met with Elise Selinger, a member of the Park Slope Civic Council and chair of Forth on Fourth. Forth on Fourth is primarily concerned with elevating the street life of Fourth Avenue. They are focused on street design, making Fourth Avenue safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and with maintaining a balance of manufacturing and residential uses. While affordable housing is 9
a concern of the Park Slope Civic Council/Forth on Fourth, their priorities are about maintaining neighborhood character for existing residents. Their views are incorporated into our scenarios.
Department of City Planning Aline Fader has been working with the Department of City Planning for a number of years and so far, Gowanus is one most active neighborhood community she has work with. Interests are diverse and conflicting but the main common worry is about creating more housing, there is not public acceptance. Nevertheless, rezoning is a public process and the City has to find a consensus. Mrs. Fader distinguished between two groups in the neighborhood: (1) those who would like to see access to the waterfront, regardless of the amount of construction taking place, and (2) those who against all change or development in the neighborhood. Mrs. Fader explained that DCP would like to convince the latter group that “change has to happen”. The conversation with Mrs. Fader helped our group to better understand the implications of the Superfund designation in Gowanus. She explained that the superfund designation has created uncertainty in real estate development throughout Gowanus. Through the EPA process, a Community Advisory Groups (CAG) has been created, which meets monthly with stakeholders. Affordability is a concern among many community members in Gowanus, including seniors and other long-time residents. While a 20% tax incentive already exists to promote affordable housing, Mrs. Fader stated that the City may propose increasing the incentive to 25 or 30%. At the time of our meeting with Mrs. Fader, providing a certain percentage of affordable housing units was not mandatory, however the Mayor’s Housing Plan, released in May, ensures mandatory inclusionary zoning. These are all items we took into account when preparing our recommendations for Gowanus.
Community Board 6 Transportation Committee As we think about connectivity between Gowanus and the rest of New York City, stakeholders such as the Community Board 6 Transportation Committee play an important role in advancing transit oriented development. During our conversations, many stakeholders expressed concerns over issues of transportation and safety on the streets in the Gowanus neighborhood. At this meeting team members spoke with stakeholders about increasing the visibility of speed limit signs throughout the neighborhood, increasing the number of bike lanes in order to provide a better balance between bicycle and vehicular traffic, and the need to improve safety among motorized delivery bikes. Ultimately, the committee voted to approve a bike lane on Bond Street, starting at Douglass and heading north to Schermerhorn.
Bridging Gowanus Community Planning Meeting “If they are going to take aways manufacturing, they need to give that land back to the community,” -Gowanus resident. With over 150 participants, the Bridging Gowanus Community Planning Meeting shed light on a number of initiatives important to the Gowanus community. As developemed further in our Stakeholders section, Bridging Gowanus is a participatorory planning initiative sponsored by many local elected officials. Topics addressed at this meeting ranged from creating a special manufacturing district to bringing back the B71 bus route, creating a super school and community center to preserving and creating affordable housing. Conversations with community attendees revealed residents’ concern for maintaining the neighborhood’s affordability and Gowanus’ distinctive manufacturing industry. Team members also discussed with residents the potential outcomes of inaction in the community. The main concerns raised by residents included: • Gowanus would remain vulnerable to flooding • Missed opportunities for creating new open space and stable mixed use 10
Fifth Avenue Committee Affordable Housing Meeting In partnership with the Center for Urban Pedagogy, Fifth Avenue Committee hosted a community meeting on affordable housing in New York City and Gowanus. Attended by roughly 40 community members, this meeting provided an overview of the issues around providing affordable housing in New York City and gave the team an opportunity to talk to community members about the Gowanus neighborhood. Many of the residents our team spoke with were long-time residents in the Gowanus neighborhood and currently live in rent stabilized apartments.
2.2 DATA COLLECTION
• Loss of manufacturing jobs • Unwanted development, including big box retail and chain hotels
New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) Our meeting with Ben Margolis at NYCEDC helped shed light on the need to think about what the future of manufacturing will look like in Gowanus. Following the meeting with the NYCEDC, we deliberated how we should address manufacturing in the neighborhood: would we follow nationwide trends and decrease its presence? Or would we work to prop up the manufacturing that currently exists, and hope and plan for it to stay into the future. This conversation drove our group to think more about the tension that exists in Gowanus and the city as a whole between the need for affordable housing and the need to create quality jobs for residents. Ultimately, the NYCEDC made clear that if our solution to the tension between manufacturing and housing is to create a mixed-use neighborhood, mechanisms need to be in place to ensure there is a stable balance between these two driving forces.
In addition to community outreach, our team engaged in extensive data collection through resources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, New York City’s Zoning and Land Use System (ZoLa), and New York City’s PLUTO system.
Demographic data Our team used the American Community Survey (ACS) through the U.S. Census Bureau to identify the existing conditions in Gowanus. The main strength of this survey is its combination of the most recent demographic, social, economic, and housing information about the U.S. population. We used the most recent five-year estimate (20082012) to describe the Gowanus neighborhood. In order to obtain raw data with individual response information, we used the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files (Census Bureau, 2009). With these files, we were able to provide a comprehensive description of the population with the statistical software, Stata. Using PUMS files enabled us to describe the neighborhood with more precise and weighted values. The Gowanus neighborhood corresponds to the geographical unit PUMA 4005, which comprises the area from Red Hook to Gowanus and western Park Slope. As a result, the Red Hook neighborhood was included in the demographic analysis, even though it is outside of and may differ in 11
makeup from the study area. Nonetheless, the areawide view provides a strong sense of the demographic composition of the neighborhood and its direct neighbors over the past five years.
Spatial data Various spatial data is represented in this study using ArcGIS software. Different layers of information are used in this research: geography, administrative boundaries, environmental issues, build environment, land use, transportation and facilities. Unfortunately, no ideal document regroups all information; it is necessary to treat each layer specifically with available data. The main sources of data are provided by PLUTO system and New York City’s Zoning and Land Use System (ZoLa). Each document will be referenced with credits.
2.3 EXISTING PLAN ANALYSIS
Historic District Proposal The proposal to designate the Gowanus Canal and over 400 surrounding buildings as part of a State Historic DIstrict, was influential in the development of our “Preserve Gowanus” scenario. The purpose of the proposal is to recognize the historic significance of the Gowanus Canal and the surrounding area. Buildings on the register receive a measure of protection, and many may be eligible for tax credits on their property. The nomination, initiated by Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus (FROGG), would ensure that before any state or federal agency approved a project (including issuing a permit or providing funding) a determination would have to be made as to the effect that project had on the historic area1.
community workshopping and proposed plans that had been previously laid out for the neighborhood. Key to the framework was mixed use around the Canal and some level of access to the Canal’s water front.
Fiscal Year 2015 Preliminary Budget Register - Community District 63 Each year Community Board 6 publishes their Preliminary Budget Register for the fiscal year. Our team drew on the requests made by Community Board 6 for the fiscal year 2015, specifically their priority items (01) Areawide Repairs to Gowanus Watershed Flooding Problems; (02) Reconstruction of 4th Avenue Medians for Improved Safety; and (03) Renovation and Restoration of Gowanus Community Center. As the key priorities to Community Board 6 for the coming year, our team took these requests seriously and incorporated them into our final recommendations.
PlaNYC The waterways around New York City are one of the City’s key components. The City has been dedicated to providing waterfront access to its residents and ensuring the care and cleanliness of its waterways is maintained. We used the City’s PlaNYC Progress Report on Resiliency and Sustainability 4 to help inform us on the progress the City and the EPA has made in the cleaning of the Canal up to this point, which proved beneficial when we were putting together out existing conditions section. ■
New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework 2 DCP’s Framework for Gowanus, while currently on hold due to the EPA Superfund Designation, was used to provide our team with background on the 1 Sive Paget Memorandum re Proposed Gowanus Canal Historic District (February 26, 2014) http://www.gowanusalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/Letter1.pdf 2 New York City Department of City Planning Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework Draft Proposal http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/ html/gowanus/presentation_0508.shtml
3 Register of Community Board Budget Requests, Fiscal Year 2015, http://www.brooklyncb6.org/_attachments/BK06.pdf 4 New York City Department of City Planning PlaNYC Progress Report http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/downloads/ pdf/140422_PlaNYCP-Report_FINAL_Web.pdf 12
CONTEXT
3.0 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT HISTORY DEMOGRAPHICS ECONOMY ZONING AND URBAN SPACE TRANSPORTATION RISING WATERS «New York is not a completed city. It is a city in the process of becoming. Today it belongs to the world. Without anyone expecting it, it has become the jewel in the crown of universal cities.[...] New York is a great diamond, hard and dry, sparkling, triumphant» (Still, 1956, p.335)
3.1 HISTORY The Gowanus neighborhood is situated between Carroll Gardens and Park Slope, south of Boerum Hill and northwest of Redhook. It is named for the Gowanus Canal, a natural tidal inlet in South Brooklyn. The surrounding neighborhood was originally used by the Dutch as a tobacco plantation, and later several mills. During the industrialization of the nineteenth century, the creek was deepened and widened by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to allow ships to travel down the canal to transport goods produced on its banks. By this time, production had shifted from agricultural goods to stone, coal, cement, gas, leather, machinery, and chemicals. Before long, the Gowanus neighborhood became central to New York City’s industrial development. Brooklyn’s expanding population put considerable strain on the city’s sanitation systems. Much of the waste (sewerage and stormwater) in South Brooklyn was channelled untreated into the Gowanus Canal. The waterway had to be dredged regularly to prevent waste accumulation from endangering the passage of ships. By the beginning of the 20th century, the Gowanus Canal was America’s busiest commercial waterway, with six million tons of cargo passing through each year. This continued until the mid 1950s, when a shift from coal to gas transported into the city via pipeline significantly reduced traffic in the canal. The introduction of containerized shipping in the 1960s and larger cargo ships further reduced
demand. The canal had also become increasingly polluted, rendering continued dredging cost-prohibitive. In 1951, the Gowanus Expressway—which today sees 150,000 cars pass over the canal—also contributed to additional toxicity in the waterway. In the years that followed, the Gowanus Canal became a de facto dumping site. The City of New York responded in 1975 by announcing a Gowanus Industrial Renewal Plan, followed by several further interventions over three decades with limited success. In 2010, the Gowanus Canal was declared a Superfund site by the Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the Gowanus neighborhood faces unique challenges. The nationwide decline of manufacturing has contributed to a significant amount of brownfields in Gowanus -- unused sites with serious environmental contamination. There is a categorical need to clean up the canal. In New York City’s post-Sandy consciousness, attention must be paid to the parts of the Gowanus neighborhood that lie below the 100 year flood zone. As we can expect more and more significant climate events, mitigation retrofits to existing infrastructure is necessary city-wide, and in Gowanus. Finally, Gowanus has not been isolated to the gentrification that is happening across Brooklyn, as our stakeholder meetings demonstrated. Nearby Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, and Boerum Hill have become wealthy enclaves. This puts increasing pressure on Gowanus to retain affordability. These are the issues that our project means to address. 14
3.2.1 POPULATION AGE PYRAMID
3.2 DEMOGRAPHICS
Population Between 2008-2012, almost 195,000 residents called the Gowanus area home. The population pyramid (figure 3.2.1) presents some disparities by gender and by age, showing a neighborhood with a large adult population. Nevertheless, the composition of the population is almost the same as that of Brooklyn as a whole, with a slightly lower proportion of children and teenagers and a slightly higher proportion of adults between 18 and 65 years. As the table shows, half of the population is age 34 or older. One-quarter of the population is under 18 years old, and young adults between 18 and 34 comprise the smallest share. It is interesting to note
that the number of children under 5 far exceeds the number of children in other age groups. We predict the neighborhood will need to increase youth services in order to accommodate this population group (and its parents) as it ages. Residents of Gowanus are mostly U.S. citizens, with foreigners representing only 6.5 percent of the population living in the neighborhood (a rate that is significantly smaller than the Brooklyn average of 14.7 percent). This trend is reflected in the particularly high number of people who speak only English at home. The previous graph also illus-
3.2.2 LANGUAGE SPOKEN IN THE HOUSEHOLD
15
3.2.3 RACE
trates the relatively small ethnical diversity of the study area compared to other Brooklyn neighborhoods. Gowanus is less racially mixed, with a very high proportion of white residents and a very low
number of those who identified as black or Asian. There is a statistically significant relationship between the large presence of white residents and the area’s level of educational attainment. As the following graph shows, Gowanus residents are highly educated, with almost half of the population holding at least a Bachelor’s degree. This is two times higher than the rate in Brooklyn as a whole. There is little diversity in household types in the Gowanus neighborhood. Almost 60 percent of households are married-couple families. This proportion of traditional couples may be higher as there is a larger unmarried partners are more present in the Gowanus area compared with NYC as a whole (by two percentage points points). Almost one in four of these married pairs do not
3.2.4 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
3.2.5 HOUSEHOLD TYPE
16
3.2.6 WHEN MOVED INTO HOUSE OR APARTMENT
have children, which may be because they are young couples. One-parent family households and multigenerational households are significantly less present in the study area relative to Brooklyn at large. The fertility rate in Gowanus over the last 12 months of the study is slightly lower than the Brooklyn average. Only 42 percent of households have a child. Family size also tends to be smaller on average than it is in Brooklyn, with more than 80 percent of the families having two or fewer children, compared to 63 percent across the entire borough.
Housing Over the last decade, the neighborhood has been gentrifying, though rents are still lower than in Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn. Almost 13 3.2.7 TENURE
percent of the residents were not living in the city one year ago (compare to nine percent in Kings County), which means that more than 24,000 residents are newcomers to New York. Almost 38 percent of the residents moved into their homes less than five years ago, but a majority moved in 10 or more years ago. Nevertheless, this distribution over time cannot fully explain the difficulties the neighborhood is facing in its attempt to agree on a comprehensive renewal plan. The homeownership trend may offer a better explanation for the rezoning challenges in Gowanus. A majority (57 percent) of the most tenured residents are homeowners, which is 14 percentage points higher than the Brooklyn average. On average, residents in Gowanus tend to be less rent burdened than in Brooklyn as a whole. Borough wide, the average proportion of income that consumed by gross rent 42 percent, while in Gowanus it is 33 percent. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, housing is considered affordable if a household spends 30% of their income on rent. By this measure, Gowanus is relatively affordable. This difference in housing affordability between the borough and the neighborhood is even more striking for married-couple family households, of which only 25 percent are housing-cost-burdened: less than half the Brooklyn rate. This suggests that these families have high income compared to the Brooklyn market. One-parent family households and people living alone are subject to the heaviest 17
3.2.8 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME
burden, with more than half of them committing one-third or more of their income to housing costs.
Working Unemployment rates in Gowanus are constant with the borough of Brooklyn as a whole. Employee types are similar to the overall distribution in Brooklyn. However, a Gowanus has a larger share of self-employed people who own their own business. The average household income is nearly two times greater in the Gowanus area that Brooklyn as a
whole, with an average of $131,000 and $77,000 respectively. This is partly explained by the fact that 65 percent of the households have more than two workers. More significantly, the population is highly educated; even households with one worker are earning more than the Brooklyn average ($116,000). The following graph shows than even at the same level of education, the income of Gowanus residents exceeds that of their counterparts in Kings County as a whole. As a result, residents in Gowanus require less public assistance. However, it is notable that low-income
3.2.9 WORKER TYPE
18
3.2.10 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD YEARLY INCOME
households in Gowanus also receive less public assistance on average than those in Brooklyn at large. Households with a weighted annual income below $32,500 receive, on average, $60 in Gowanus; in other parts of Brooklyn, they get $173 per year.
3.2.11 MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK
3.3窶ウCONOMY Gowanus has historically been a manufacturing hub. More recently, the gentrification of surrounding neighborhoods (most notably Carroll Gardens and Park Slope) and the development of the Atlantic Yards area to the north, has spurred commercial activity along corridors at the fringes of the study area. The increasing demand for housing in Brooklyn, particularly in and around the Gowanus area,
has begun to alter the fabric of the neighborhood, and these forces will continue to shape its economic makeup over the coming decades. In order to explain trends in the neighborhood economy, we conducted a location quotient (LQ) analysis. LQ measures the strength of a particular industry in a neighborhood relative to other areas across the country. The relatively large LQ shares for Health Care and Social Assistance indicate it is competitive in Gowanus (measured at the Census Tract Level), while the low manufacturing LQ indicates that it is a non-competitive sector.
Manufacturing Improvements in transportation technology and lower wages in other parts of the country have diminished the extent to which Gowanus and Kings County as a whole can compete in traditional manufacturing. In fact, among the industries that employed at least 20,000 workers in Broo19
klyn in 2011, manufacturing was the least competitive compared to the United States. As a result, some 7,000 manufacturing workers lost their jobs between 2007 and 2011, and further decreases in employment are likely as firms find it advantageous to locate elsewhere in the metropolitan area or the country. Nonetheless, key stakeholders in Gowanus place a high value on manufacturing—an industry that residents have long relied on for stable, middleclass jobs. This compels us to expand our view of manufacturing and envision the neighborhood’s economic future with the sector in mind. Manufacturing in major cities is increasingly trending toward specialized firms that make goods for local consumption and whose production plants are compatible with mixed-use neighborhoods. The Lite Brite Neon studio, which makes lighted signs and fixtures that decorate Park Slope apartments and invite customers into local businesses, is an example of the sort of manufacturing that a neighborhood like Gowanus can sustain1 and the type that any long-range plan for the neighborhood should make space for and nurture.
in the sector. Many of the employers in this sector are based in Downtown Brooklyn, an area to which many Gowanus-area residents currently commute2. Developing housing that will be affordable and desirable for health care and social assistance workers is a key consideration for this neighborhood plan. Enhanced transportation options and connections to Downtown Brooklyn are also critical to improving the attractiveness of Gowanus as a neighborhood and access to jobs for its current and future residents.
Retail Trade Although retail trade (LQ 0.94) is relatively less competitive than Brooklyn’s other major sectors, it grew considerably between 2007 and 2011, topping both the United States and the New York City metropolitan area. This bodes well for the burgeoning commercial corridors in and around the Gowanus area, where employment opportunities would grow if more retail businesses were to move in. Fostering creative manufacturing firms, which would produce and sell their goods locally, could offer peripheral benefits to the retail trade sector.
Health Care and Social Assistance
Accommodation and Food Services
The most competitive sector in Brooklyn is also its largest, with more than 180,000 workers as of 2011 and a 15 percent growth in employment between 2007-2011 that far outstripped nationwide growth
The fastest-growing sector in Brooklyn by percent change in jobs from 2007 to 2011, accommodation and food services could play a vital role in the future
1 «Bright Ligts in the Big City.» MetroNY. April 2008. http://www. litebriteneon.com/press/nymetro4208.pdf
2 «Brooklyn’s Changing Role in New York City Labor Markets» Regional Labor Review. Fall 2004. http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld_rlr_f04_bklyn.pdf 20
economy of the Gowanus area. With multiple transportation connections to both Downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan, Gowanus and South Brooklyn are developing into attractive locations for new hotels, which offer lower-cost alternatives to tourists and business visitors who need not splurge for Midtown lodging. Affordable motel chains, such as Holiday Inn, La Quinta, and Super 8, have taken hold along Fourth Avenue, investing in what they view as a future commercial hub. Globiwest Hospitality, which already operates a boutique hotel on Fourth Avenue, unveiled plans to construct another on Third Avenue last August. The firm is planting deep roots in rapidly changing Brooklyn neighborhoods for which it envisions a bright future. Globiwest Hospitality’s ventures with Hotel Le Jolie in Williamsburg and Hotel Le Bleu on the western fringe of Park Slope are representative of the sector’s growth in Brooklyn over the past decade, and its desire to invest in a new property closer to the canal suggests that the firm forecasts similar demand and success in the Gowanus area3.
3.4 ZONING AND URBAN SPACE The Gowanus area features a diverse array of land uses, with a manufacturing and commercial center flanked by chiefly residential neighborhoods to the east, north, and west. This section examines the existing land-use patterns and zoning, and their bearing on the recent and impending changes in the neighborhood immediately surrounding the Gowanus Canal. The manufacturing sector in the center and 3 Albrecht, Leslie. «Hotel Le Bleu Operator Planning New Boutique Inn on Third Avenue. «DNAinfo New York, August 1. 2013» http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130801/gowanus/hotel-lebleu-operator-planning-new-boutique-inn-on-third-avenue
southwest of the study area is preserved by the South Brooklyn Empire Zone4 (map 3.4.1). Established by the South Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation, the Empire Zone was implemented to ensure the availability of jobs to area residents with low educational and literacy requirements, and to mitigate unemployment as manufacturing firms began to leave New York City. The zone impedes conversion of land zoned for manufacturing into residential uses and incentivizes manufacturing firms to stay in Gowanus and Red Hook. With the exception of one significant variance, residential development in the area has proceeded outside of the portion zoned for manufacturing, but the EPA-led cleanup of the Gowanus Canal could lead to demand pressure on the housing market. Vacant land (see scenarios) already zoned or designated for residential uses is presently limited to small lots, aside from a six-acre brownfield parcel on the west side of the canal for which Hudson Inc. has planned Gowanus Green5, a 774-unit mixeduse and -income development that will be the chief near-term driver of population growth in the study area.
Residential Most of the residential areas within Gowanus are zoned contextually, with R6A and R6B codes used to preserve rows of brownstones in Carroll Gardens and Park Slope (map 3.4.2). Large parcels around the canal’s north end are occupied by NYCHA housing projects, the largest of which is the Gowa4 Southwest Brooklyn Empire Zone Development Plan. May 2007. http://sbidc.org/documents/SouthwestBrooklynEmpireZoneDevelopmentPlan.pdf 5 Hudson Companies Inc. Gowanus Green. http://www.hudsoninc.com/gowanus-green/
Fourth Avenue and Ninth Street, Brooklyn in October 2007 21
3.4.1 LAND USE AND EMPIRE ZONE
22
3.4.2 RESIDENTIAL ZONING
23
nus Houses, a 1,134-unit complex built in 19496. R7 zoning permits higher-density housing on the northern fringe of the study area, near the Atlantic Terminal. The Park Slope Rezoning, approved in 2003, upzoned Fourth Avenue to R8A while installing the contextual R6B designation to the east of the area’s major traffic corridors7. This rezoning and the subsequent developments it spurred are a source of local residents’ trepidation about further upzoning despite the apparent residential demand pressures on the area. Sightlines down Fourth Avenue have changed dramatically over the past six years8.
Manufacturing Zoning for manufacturing within the study area (map 3.4.3) moves from light uses in the northeast to increasingly heavy manufacturing in the southwest, near the border with Red Hook, where contamination levels in the canal are highest9. The Empire Zone protects the vast majority of the parcels zoned for heavy, M3-1 manufacturing. However, light manufacturing (M1) uses in 6 New York City Housing Authority. NYCHA Housing Developments. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/developments/bklyngowanus.shtml 7 NYCDCP. Park Slop Rezoning Proposal. http://www.nyc.gov/ html/dcp/html/parkslope/parkslope1.shtml 8 Google Street View screenshots at “Fourth Avenue and Ninth Street, Brooklyn” 9 «A History of Pollution in the Gowanus Canal.» New York Times, September 26, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/26/nyregion/gowanus-pollution-map.html?_r=0
the northeast, which include one- and two-story warehouses, and M2 manufacturing uses along the northwest and northeast shores of the canal are not within the Empire Zone. Residential conversions or proposals have, to this point, proceeded outside of the Empire Zone. This includes the aforementioned Gowanus Green project, as well as the Special Mixed-Use District, MX-1110, created in 2009 for the Lightstone Group (previously Toll Brothers) development at 363-365 Bond Street11. Zoned M2-1 before the variance, the site was occupied by a warehouse and silo that have since been razed in preparation for construction. The MX-11 rezoning, which blends R7A residential with M1-4 manufacturing, may serve as a harbinger for future residential and mixed-use development along the northwest and west banks of the canal, as the Superfund cleanup proceeds and demand for housing in the neighborhood continues to rise.
Commercial The City of New York has used commercial overlay zoning and special enhanced commercial districts in an effort to stimulate ground-floor activity and vibrant mixed-use corridors along several avenues and streets in the study area (map 3.4.4). 10 NYC DCP MX11 Special District Zoning Map. http://www. nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/map16c.pdf 11 Lightstone Group Razes Gowanus Grove for 700-unit Complex. Curbed. April 11, 2014. http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/04/11/ lightstone_group_razes_gowanus_grove_for_700unit_complex. php
Commercial ground floors, Brooklyn in October 2007
Fourth Avenue and Ninth Street, Brooklyn in October 2007 24
3.4.3 MANUFACTURING ZONING
25
3.4.4 COMMERCIAL ZONING AND OVERLAYS
26
Fourth Avenue was designated a Special Enhanced Commerical District EC-1 in 2011, from the northern fringe of the study area to 24th Street. This designation followed the a 2003 upzoning of Fourth Avenue to R8A. Combined, former borough president Marty Markowitz described these efforts as transforming Fourth Avenue into “a grand Brooklyn boulevard.”12 These planning efforts have not succeed in activating Fourth Avenue, to the chagrin of local residents. We identify two factors that contribute to an unwelcoming Fourth Ave. First, a gap in the overlay stretches from St. John Street to Third Street on the west side of Fourth Avenue, slowing the conversion of uses such as auto repair shops into the sorts of retail that the overlay strives to promote. Second, traffic along Fourth Avenue also remains heavy, limiting its appeal as a pedestrian-oriented retail corridor. Our long-range plan considers both of these shortcomings in its attempt to bolster the future of Fourth Avenue. The rezoning was backed by the Park Slope Civic Council, Councilmember Brad Lander, and other stakeholders, and it followed the 2003 upzoning of Fourth Avenue to R8A. By requiring ground-floor windows for all new developments and prohibiting curb cuts along Fourth Avenue, in tandem with the increased residential density, the city may eventually fulfill that vision. However, two factors have slowed early progress toward that end. A gap in the overlay, which stretches from St. John Street to Third Street on the west side of Fourth Avenue, will slow the conversion of uses such as auto repair shops into the sorts of retail that the overlay strives to promote13: Traffic along Fourth Avenue also remains heavy, limiting its appeal as a pedestrian-oriented retail corridor. This long-range plan considers both of these shortcomings in its attempt to bolster the future of Fourth Avenue. Overlay zoning on Smith Street, near the Carroll Street (F, G) subway
12 Brown, Kristen «City Plan Special Commercial District on Fourth Avenue.» Park Slop Patch. June 21, 2011. http://parkslope. patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/city-plans-special-commercial-district-for-fourth-ave 13 Google Street View screenshot, “270 4th Avenue, Brooklyn.”
station14, has been more successful: However, Smith Street is narrower, has one-way traffic buffered by a bike lane, and has a solid streetwall of brownstone buildings. All of these strengths are challenges that must be tackled along Fourth Avenue in order for it to become a similarly vibrant corridor. Finally, the parcels zoned C8-2 include Hotel Le Bleu, a Pep Boys auto parts store, a Staples office supply store, an MTA-owned parking lot, and the Lite Brite Neon studio. The parcel immediately to the west of that block, 190-220 Third Street at the corner of Third Avenue, is now the Gowanus Whole Foods store. Whole Foods obtained a use variance in 2012 to rezone the lots from M2-1 to C8-2—matching the adjacent parcels—which permitted the construction of a supermarket in excess of 10,000 square feet with a parking lot15.
3.5 TRANSPORTATION Located in close proximity to both Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn, Gowanus enjoys excellent fixed characteristics that bode well for its current and future residents. Gowanus residents, perhaps in part due to public transportation, have an average travel to work time of 34 minutes. This is 4 minutes quicker than other parts of Brooklyn. Every corner of the study area is within walking distance of a subway stop. The area closest to the canal and to the southeast has access to two.
Subways The subway routes that serve the area—most notably the F, G, and R—provide efficient transportation to employment centers in Midtown and Downtown Brooklyn, as well as to New York University and other destinations beyond the neighborhood (map 3.4.5). Residents in the northeastern part of Gowanus are within a 10-minute walk of the Atlantic Terminal, where they can find service to a wide range of other destinations in Manhattan and Brooklyn. 14 Google Street View screenshot, “Smith Street and 2nd Street, Brooklyn.” 15 Gowanus Institute. «A Study of Whole Foods Market’s Use Variance Application.» Dec. 13, 2011. http://www.gowanusinstitute. org/gi/gi%20content/WFM_Report_BSA_111213_1.pdf 27
3.4.5 SUBWAYS ACCESS (0.5-MILE RADIUS)
28
3.4.6 BUS ROUTES
29
Whereas inter-neighborhood connections are a strength of Gowanus, traveling without a car between points within the study area can be more challenging. Improving intra-neighborhood connections is therefore a focal point of this comprehensive plan.
Buses The Gowanus area is also served by several bus routes, which complement the subway coverage but will need to be reinforced or augmented in response to population growth in the neighborhood (map 3.4.6). Two popular bus lines, the B71 and B77, were eliminated amid MTA budget cuts in 2011. While the MTA addressed concerns around the B77—one of the few transit lines that served the residents of Red Hook and those who commuted from Gowanus to work there—by increasing service on the B61 line that matches it in the southwest, the absence of the B71 line remains a source of frustration for residents and stakeholders alike16. 16 Kral, Georgia. «Not all Cheers: The MTA Still Receving Some Jeers.» MetroFocus. Aug. 8, 2012. http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2012/08/not-all-cheers-the-mta-still-receiving-some-jeers/
The B71 provided a horizontal route between Cobble Hill on the west and Crown Heights on the east. It traversed the Gowanus Canal on Third Street and Union Street, bridging the study area, which locals say feels “disconnected” without it. It also was a popular way for Gowanus-area residents to access the greenspace in Prospect Park, essentially the only large recreational area to which the neighborhood has easy access. In response to the B71 cut, the Taxi and Limousine Commission expanded its Brooklyn Van Lines service to Gowanus, meeting the demand for $2, roughly the cost of an MTA bus ride17. However, the van service requires users to call a driver to schedule a pickup, instead of simply coming to a bus stop and expecting regular service on a set schedule. Its popularity in spite of this drawback is a testament to transportation demand unmet by the MTA, and this demand will only grow as the population of Gowanus increases. 17 Ackerman, McCarton. «Miss the B71 Bus? Take a Van!» Carroll Gardens Patch, July 1, 2011. http://carrollgardens.patch.com/ groups/around-town/p/miss-the-b71-bus-take-a-van-its-cheapertoo
3.4.7 INCIDENTS COMPLAINS
30
3.4.8 BIKE ROUTES
31
Mindful of these concerns and the long-term cleanup of the canal, which will continue to constrain public-open-space access within the study area for at least the better part of the next decade, this plan explores restoring the B71 line among other transportation recommendations.
Walking and Biking As mentioned in the Working section of the existing demographic conditions, Gowanus residents are more likely than others in Brooklyn to commute to work on their bicycles. Existing bike infrastructure makes these commutes possible, but upgrades are necessary to account for growth in bicycle commuting that is likely as the population increases. The majority of the bike routes in Gowanus are designated Class II18—that is, painted or dedicated bike lanes, which are separated from car traffic by lines, colors, and/or demarcations on the street but not by physical barriers (map 3.4.8). These include the canal crossings on the Third Street and Union Street bridges, which have contraflow bike lanes. Smith Street, a key commercial corridor on the western fringe of the study area, also has a dedicated bike lane, as do Bergen and Wyckoff Streets, which are one-way and chiefly residential. Conversely, the southern and eastern parts of the study area lack consistent bicycle infrastructure. Third Avenue and Fifth Avenue have the only north-south dedicated bike lanes on this side of the canal, and the Fifth Avenue lane is interrupted by Class III (shared bike/car lanes) at the Ninth Street intersection and north of Carroll Street. Class III interruptions on Third and Ninth Streets near the Third Avenue intersections can also lead to unsafe biking conditions. Locals have expressed concerns about Whole Foods’ use of the bike lane and sidewalk adjacent to its property on Third Avenue for loading and unloading19. Finally, the lack of bicycle infrastructure on Fourth Avenue renders it difficult to navigate without a car. As part of Mayor Bill De Blasio’s Vision Zero campaign, the Department of Transportation 18 http://bikingrules.org/biking/laneprimer 19 Miller, Stephen. «Eyes on the Street: Whole Foods Takes the Whole Bike Lane. StreetsBlog NY. May 2, 2014. http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/05/02/eyes-on-the-street-whole-foods-takes-thewhole-bike-lane-and-sidewalk/
implemented a crowdsourced map, allowing residents and commuters to report dangerous conditions and driver behavior around the city20. Gowanus-area residents have gone a step further, forming the Park Slope Street Safety Partnership, which provides a second public forum through which concerned residents and commuters can report incidents on area streets. The map below was pulled via screenshot from the Vision Zero application at the end of April: Incidents in Gowanus are heavily concentrated on Third, Fourth, and Fifth Avenues, as well as on Ninth Street and Smith Street (map 3.4.7). The most common complaints surround failure to yield by drivers, speeding, and long crosswalk waiting times. Fifth Avenue and Ninth Street also face double-parking challenges. Finally, Fourth Avenue and Smith Street are among the worst pedestrian crash corridors in Brooklyn. The city’s desire to turn the Park Slope-side avenues into vibrant mixed-use commercial corridors hinges on its ability to improve pedestrian and bike safety on these streets. This comprehensive plan explores ways to redesign the streetscape of Third and Fourth Avenues, considering dedicated bike lanes, crosswalk improvements, and the feasibility of Select Bus Service.
3.6 RISING WATERS The possibility of flooding along the Gowanus Canal is a concern shared and voiced almost universally by area stakeholders, including Councilmember Brad Lander. Much of the neighborhood lies within the 100-year floodplain and flood models show a considerable threat to the businesses and residents who live near the canal (map 3.4.9). The SLOSH Model Hurricane Flood projection, published by the National Weather Service21, shows the flooding threat to the area surrounding the canal from storms of different strength. A Tropical Storm, similar in strength to Superstorm Sandy, would flood many of the manufacturing parcels on the eastern bank of the canal. Any hurricane20 Vision Zero Heroku App. http://visionzero.herokuapp.com/ 21 National Weather Services, SLOSH Model Flood Projection. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/surge/slosh.php 32
strength storm would spread water toward the commercial corridor on Third Avenue, a critical traffic and truck route1. In the worst case scenario, a Category 4 hurricane could flood Fourth Avenue, threatening the new residential developments as well as the ground-floor retail the city hopes to promote along the street. Flood resiliency must therefore be a critical component of any comprehensive, long-term plan for the Gowanus area. ■ 1 New York City Truck Route Map. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/ downloads/pdf/2011_truck_route_map.pdf
3.4.9 GOWANUS SLOSH MODEL HURRICANE FLOOD PROJECTION
33
STAKEHOLDERS
4.0 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REAL ESTATE COMMUNITY BASED CONCLUSION The Gowanus neighborhood benefits from a large number of politically well connected stakeholders -- though these stakeholders do not always agree with one another. This section explores the major political, economic, and community based stakeholders who are exerting influence over the future of Gowanus.
4.1 POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL
push for a MIZ policy in his district.
Official power to influence land-use decisions and to implement neighborhood plans in Gowanus rests with the City Planning Commission, the Department of City Planning, the New York City Council, and the Mayor. The Land Use Committee of the City Council has a first pass at all land-usepolicy decisions. The majority of the project area is in the 39th district of the City Council, which is represented by Brad Lander. The northernmost section is represented by Steve Levin.
Lander has taken a leading role in “Bridging Gowanus,” a series of open community meetings convened by his office in conjunction with Councilmember Steve Levin, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, and Assemblywoman Joan Millman. The community charrettes are pushing for a “democratic planning process to envision the future of the neighborhood.”3 Bridging Gowanus has identified the following shared values for the neighborhood: • Address the social, cultural, and environmental infrastructure • Keeping a mixed use of the area • Preserving and creating affordable housing • Need for more community amenities • The canal as a publically accessible, open body of water • Thriving local businesses should remain and expand • Preserving iconic historic buildings.
Lander is the chair of the rules committee in the City Council and is co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Elected as a Democrat, Lander aligns closely with the Working Families Party. He is a former Urban Planning professor and housing advocate; in his earlier career he was the executive director of the Fifth Avenue Committee and of the Pratt Center for Community Development. Lander is closely aligned with Mayor de Blasio and is widely recognized as a power broker in the City Council1. In Gowanus, Councilmember Lander is focused on retaining the existing stock of affordable housing units, which exist primarily through rent regulation, and on requiring developers to provide affordable units in new projects. He was an early supporter of Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning2, and our group has reason to believe that Lander would 1 Taylor, Kate. “An Unassuming Liberal Makes Rapid Ascent to Power Broker.” New York Times. 23 January 2014. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com 2 View Brad Lander’s Inclusionary Zoning Report at http://bradlander.com/iz
Out of these values, Bridging Gowanus has developed a unique concept of “stable mixed use zoning,” which features prominently in our suggestions for the area. Stable mixed use zoning refers to establishing percentages of land uses—residential, manufacturing, and commercial—that reflect the community needs; further details can be found in our scenario analysis.
3 Information retrieved from project website, 3 May 2014. www. bridginggowanus.org 35
Beyond the political players, there are a number of government agencies invested in the future of Gowanus. Some of the most significant include the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Government), which has designated the area as a Superfund site, and the Empire State Development Agency (New York State), which has created an Empire Zone in the neighborhood. The Superfund site mandates environmental remediation, while the Empire Zone designates the area as a site of purposeful, government-driven economic development.
4.2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REAL ESTATE Real estate and property developers have a growing interest in Gowanus as the neighborhood comes under gentrification pressures. Major developers have projects in the area, including The Lightstone Group and Hudson Companies. Both Lightstone and Hudson Companies specialize in residential development and are interested in opportunities to extract capital from the neighborhood through upzoning and transforming former manufacturing spaces into housing. Currently, the Lightstone Group is developing a 700-unit residential project at 363-365 Bond Street. The group specializes in “value add investments,”4 a euphemism for seeking out gentrifying neighborhoods in which to invest. The Hudson Companies builds both market rate and affordable units. Currently, the group is working together with the Fifth Avenue Committee on a mixed-use plan for Gowanus Green. The 774-unit development includes a significant amount of affordable housing and is expected to open in 2017. The Gowanus Alliance is a pro-development coalition of area property owners5. Unlike Hudson Companies and Lightstone Group, the alliance is based in the neighborhood. However, its members align closely with the positions of the larger real estate actors in their desire to see the neighborhood grow. The Gowanus Alliance, the Lightstone 4 Information retrieved from company website, 3 May 2014. http://www.lightstonegroup.com/investments.html 5 Information retrieved from company website, 3 May 2014. http://www.gowanusalliance.org/about-us/
Group, and Hudson Companies are all pro-development and would like to see expansion in the volume of housing and commercial life in Gowanus. These groups generally favor market-oriented solutions to neighborhood development and would align most closely with our “Go Up!” scenario.
4.3 COMMUNITY BASED Finally, there are a number of vocal community organizations in the neighborhood, comprised of advocates and activists who have varying levels of sway over neighborhood decisions. The most powerful and well-established community organization in Gowanus is the Fifth Avenue Committee. FAC has been involved in Park Slope and Gowanus since the 1970s; their major areas of focus are affordable and low-income housing and workforce development. FAC is involved in anti-gentrification efforts, such as a “no displacement zone” along Fifth Avenue. They have a mixed track record in working with developers; FAC vocally opposed the Atlantic Yards project but is currently collaborating with Hudson Companies. FAC exists primarily to serve the low-income residents of Gowanus. The executive director of FAC has a close relationship with Mayor de Blasio and serves on the City Planning Commission. Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus is a similarly vocal nonprofit organization that is dedicated to preserving the existing neighborhood character. They are less focused on low-income residents than Fifth Avenue Committee and are the most vocal supporters of the plan to designate Gowanus as a historic district. Forth on Fourth is an advocacy group of the Park Slope Civic Council dedicated to supporting commerce and affordable housing along Fourth Avenue. Finally, the Pratt Center for Community Development is located outside the catchment area of the project, but is involved in facilitating a number of community charrettes, including Bridging Gowanus. As a planning center, they are specifically focused on how best to position parts of New York that were previously used for manufacturing, and have significant expertise to add to the conversation about the transformation of Gowanus. 36
The underlying motivation of the Gowanus area community groups is community-level participation. The community is focused on retaining the balance of uses in the neighborhood and feels strongly that any increase in housing density must both minimize or avoid displacement of existing residents and include corresponding infrastructural upgrades. The community is particularly concerned with maintaining its long-standing manufacturing character, increasing transportation, and retaining affordable housing.
binding documents that establish a set of priorities, shared goals, and mutually beneficial agreements between large scale developers and community members. Securing a CBA in the development of Atlantic Yards was a crucial turning point for a highly controversial project. ■
4.4 CONCLUSION Gowanus is a politically well connected neighborhood, and there are many voices clamoring for input in the area’s future. However, the current decision-making process places real limits on community participation in planning. Organizing often puts community members in opposition with developers, and as Pratt Center Director Joan Byron told City Limits, “Under ULURP, the only way communities can influence a large-scale project is to obstruct it.”6 Developers may ignore public opinion and may willfully deceive both city government and community groups7. Despite the structural impediments, there is reason to expect that key decisions-makers will be sympathetic to neighborhood organizing. Councilmember Brad Lander sits on the Land Use Committee (though the committee is large) and holds significant sway in the New York City Council8. Michelle de la Uz, Executive Director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, sits on the City Planning Commission. As the Gowanus Green project exemplifies, established and powerful community stakeholders have a demonstrated record of bending real-estate development to suit community-minded goals— including, among others, affordable housing. One method of harnessing real estate capital for community driven interests in through Community Benefit Agreements (CBAs). CBAs are legally 6 Arden, Patrick. “Lessons of Willets Point.” City Limits. 30 October 2013. Retrieved from www.citylimits.org 7 Powell, Michael. “After decades at a walk up, tenants fear losing a home.” New York Times. 18 February 2014. Retrieved from www. nytimes.com 8 Taylor, Kate. “An Unassuming Liberal Makes Rapid Ascent to Power Broker.” New York Times. 23 January 2014. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com 37
SCENARIOS
5.0 SCENARIO NARRATIVES BASELINE GO HISTORIC GO UP! GOLIVE, GOWORK, GOPLAY The following four scenarios attempt to address the key issues and problems in the neighborhood through the lens of possible and potential futures.
5.1 BASELINE SCENARIO The Baseline Scenario narrative acknowledges the current forces driving the changes taking place in Gowanus. GREENING Y This narrative identifies opportunities for environmental remediation through market-driven methodologies. Specifically, it evaluates the EPA Superfund site designation of the Gowanus Canal and the development of a mixed-use waterfront by real estate developers. In order to implement the Superfund cleanup plan in a manner consistent with community preferences, the EPA has created the Gowanus Canal Community Advisor Group, a discussion forum between EPA and representatives of the community. In addition to the Superfund cleanup, additional greenspace may be created in Gowanus to accompany new real estate development. CREATING The Baseline Scenario will bring jobs to the Gowanus neighborhood, however due to the current trends of the shrinking manufacturing industry, jobs created in the Baseline Scenario will most likely be in the commercial, service and retail sectors. This is in line with the Special Enhancement Commercial District that has been effective along 4th Avenue since 2011. The purpose of adopting this special district in the area is to promote lively commercial activity along the 4th Avenue
corridor. Under the zoning code for this district, ground floor commercial and community establishments are required1. CONNECTING m Market forces would cause Gowanus to follow greater city-wide trends, including increasing the amount of residential units, and decreasing the affordability in the area. Due to the increase in residential use, Gowanus may see additional connectivity to the rest of the city in the form of additional bus or bike routes. HOUSING 8 The intent of this scenario is to allow the current range of development patterns to continue, including the Lightstone Group’s building of a largescale residential project on the Toll Brothers site (363-365 Bond St). Their residential plan, which is as-of-right, includes significant and necessary envi1 Special Enhanced Commercial District, http://www.nyc.gov/ html/dcp/html/zone/zh_special_purp_bk.shtml
700 rental units developed by the Lightstone group 39
ronmental improvements in order to make development financially attractive. The Baseline Scenario does not veer from this path. It continues the City’s current model - established at Willets Point and the Williamsburg Waterfront - of encouraging environmental improvement as part of a larger, private-interest-driven, economic development strategy. However, affordability will most likely only be maintained through the current administration’s mandatory inclusionary housing program. In addition to maintaining the City’s current policies surrounding Gowanus, the Baseline Scenario includes outbuilding on the vacant lots in the Gowanus Area.
PRESERVING D If left on its current trajectory, Gowanus will see an increase in its population as the area, driven by greater city-wide trends, becomes more residential which will make it difficult to preserve manufacturing or smaller historic structures in the neighborhood. GROWING @ Due to the fact that developers will be a driving force in the Baseline Scenario, the population in Gowanus will increase dramatically as the area overall becomes more residential. The trend of young, well-educated residents moving to Gowanus will continue, while lower income residents may not longer be able to afford living in the neighborhood as the cost of renting increases.
5.1.1 POPULATION PROJECTION
Gowanus Neighborhood Population Projection
80000 R² = 0,853
70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005 Série1
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Poly. (Série1)
5.1.2Gowanus MEDIAN INCOME PROJECTION Neighborhood Median Income Projection 160000 R² = 0,968
140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 1985
1990
1995
2000 Série1
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Expon. (Série1)
40
5.1.3 MAP OF GOWANUS WITH ZONING TAKEN FROM ZOLA WEBSITE
Current Zoning The current zoning in Gowanus will be maintained. Maximum FAR = 1.0; parking is required
M1-1
Maximum FAR = 2.0; parking is required
M2-1
Maximum FAR = 3.0 Maximum height = 70ft Parking is required for 50% of units
R6A
Maximum FAR = 2.0 Maximum height = 50ft Parking is required for 50% of units
R6B
Special Mixed Use District/Inclusionary Housing Designated Area (Lightstone) R7-2: Maximum FAR = .87-3.44 (depending on lot size); Maximum height is governed by sky exposure plane; Parking is required for 50% of units
M1-4/R7-2
Maximum FAR = 2.0
C8-2
Special Enhancement Commercial District on 4th Avenue
EC-1 41
SCENARIO FEATURES
DRIVING FORCES
Residential development
Environmental
• Mixed use development along the waterfront and high density development along the avenues, consistent with the Department of City Planning’s 2008 Gowanus Canal Corridor Framework • Increased development driven by market forces • Current plans for development, such as the Lightstone Project, will continue after the cleanup.
• Superfund EPA Plan • Special for Resiliency and Rebuilding
Transportation
Economic • Market forces driving changes in development • Declining manufacturing • Increased housing prices and gentrification pressure
Demographic • Community equilibrium is shaked • Low-income population are moving out
• Development consistent with the City’s Introduction to Bus Rapid Transit Phase II
Manufacturing • Mixed use manufacturing consistent with the City’s plan introduced in 2008 but put on hold by the Superfund designation in 2010. • Market forces will drive out manufactures.
Environmental remediation • Adoption of EPA plan for a clean neighborhood by 2035 • Once the clean-up of the canal will be implemented, market values will determine the future of the neighborhood • Introduce Sandy rebuilding projects, consistent with the Special Initiative Report for Rebuilding
STAKEHOLDER VALUES
Real Estate Developers • Profit
Environmental Protection Agency • Remove toxic contaminants from the polluted waterway • Reduce pollution • Protect the health of the people who live and work in the neighborhood
42
Baseline Scenario Evaluation GREENING
Canal is cleaned and there will be an increase in greenspace.
CREATING
Jobs will be created in retail and service sectors.
CONNECTING
May be marginally more connected, but will not focus on transit oriented development.
HOUSING
Affordability will decrease without mechanisms in place to ensure that new developments contains affordable units.
PRESERVING
Manufacturing and any historic preservation will eventually be lost.
GROWING
Population will increase consistent with citywide trends. 43
5.2 PRESERVING GOWANUS Minimum Growth. This scenario examines what
would happen to Gowanus if minimal growth were to take place in terms of large scale development and programing. Instead this scenario examines the outcomes of placing large portions of the Gowanus neighborhood on the New York State Historic Preservation list and development activities in line with maintaining the current balance of Gowanus. Major supporters of this scenario include the neighborhood advocacy group Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus (FROGG). Under this scenario, FROGG contends that the historic designation will “preserve the buildings, structures, places and open spaces for adaptive re-use and improve the natural and industrial beauty of the Gowanus Canal,” 1 ultimately protecting the neighborhood from over development. Not all stakeholders are in favor of designating Gowanus as a historic district, and some property owners, including Paul Bastile of the Gowanus Alliance and Bill Apel of the Gowanus Canal Community Development Corp., are circulating a petition around the neighborhood urging residents to reject the proposal. Although this is a minimum growth scenario, heavy intervention will need to be in place in order to combat the market forces explained in the Baseline Scenario.
1 Friends and Residents of Greater Gowanus. http://froggbrooklyn.org/
GREENING Y While the main goal of this scenario is to evaluate the maintenance of the current context in the Gowanus neighborhood, it also takes into consideration waterfront revitalization and cleaning of the Canal. The Canal will be cleaned and the current open space will be preserved. CREATING To accompany registration onto the New York State Historic Preservation list, commercial zoning will be allocated in the Historic area. To avoid a shortage of jobs and economic activities due to the registration, commercial businesses will be able to develop pedagogic, environmental and historical activities for residents and tourists. In addition, currently manufacturing jobs will be preserved in the Gowanus neighborhood. CONNECTING m Due to the modest increase in population that may occur in this scenario, there may be an increase in the number of bike routes, however, there will be no significant change in the level of public transportation provided in the area. HOUSING 8 Under this scenario, 422 properties in the Gowanus Canal study area would be placed on the State Register of Historic Places and would come under the protection of preservation laws. Property owners seeking to alter their buildings would have 44
to apply for agency approval. Such a designation would certainly slow and likely impede development in the area, restricting use to its current state. Certain stakeholders are concerned that it would inhibit residential growth, exacerbating a shortage of housing in the area and potentially decreasing affordability. In this scenario, property owners would become eligible for certain tax breaks, and the neighborhood could have access to federal funds for targeted environmental remediation.
is expected to vote within the next three months on the plan.The application to establish the Gowanus Canal Historic District cites the four bridges that span the canal, the cobblestones on the streets, and the diverse architectural character, from highstyle Italian Renaissance Revival buildings to the Modern Industrial style of the Art Deco period. It also relies heavily on the neighborhood as a historic site of water-based and vehicular industry in the 18th and 19th centuries3.
PRESERVING D
GROWING @
The Gowanus neighborhood has important historic significance as a site of manufacturing and exported goods, but also as a port of entry to Brooklyn and Long Island. This scenario acknowledges that there is neighborhood and state pressure to preserve Gowanus as a historic district, which has implications for a comprehensive neighborhood plan2. This scenario was developed due to the New York State Historic Preservation Office deeming the citizen-driven plan to obtain historic designation eligible for consideration in 2006, and the agency
Preserving Gowanus will not fit with the greater city-wide trends of growing population and significantly increasing the number of housing units. Under this scenario mechanisms would be in place to preserve the current zoning for the majority of the Gowanus neighborhood. The impact would be minimal population growth in the area. While there may be a modest increase due to the mixed use development taking place on the Southwest side of the Canal, this scenario experiences the smallest population growth.
2 New York Daily News, “Gowanus and fetid canal up for historic district designation by the state.” Published 13 March 2014. http:// nydn.us/1golvDz
3 United States Department of the Interior. National Parks Service. “Gowanus Canal Historic District.”
Proposed Zoning While the state historic district designation allows for rezoning, it may make it more difficult to rezone. Therefore, the zoning within the historic district designation (see map) would remain in its current state. However, areas outside the historic district designation may see an increase in demand for housing and development and could be rezoned to allow for more residential development. MX-11
Special Mixed Use District/Inclusionary Housing Designated Area R7-2: Maximum FAR = .87-3.44 (depending on lot size); Maximum height is governed by sky exposure plane; Parking is required for 50% of units
Southwest Canal
R8-1 with C2-4 Overlay
Maximum Residential FAR: 6.02 Parking Required: 40% of dwellings Maximum Commercial FAR: 2.0
Northwest Canal
As Is R6-B with C2-4 Overlay
Maximum Residential FAR: Maximum Commercial FAR: 2.0
4th Avenue
M1-5
Maximum FAR: 5.0 Parking not required
3rd Avenue
Maximum FAR: 1.0 Parking required
Northeast Canal
As Is (M1-2)
(Between Degraw and Baltic)
45
SCENARIO FEATURES
DRIVING FORCES
Gowanus as a landmark
State Historic District Designation
• 422 properties placed on the State Register of Historic Places, with historic preservation guidelines • Ecological and pedagogic value in the neighborhood • Teach Gowanus history with pedestrian information signs • Height restrictions on properties • Design restrictions on facades/aesthetic values • Uncovering historic cobblestones on the streets • Fixing up and preserving the bridges over the canal
• Maintain existing community around the canal, including current density • Protect the current manufacturing character of Gowanus
Residential development • Contextual zoning to protect neighborhood character • Rehabilitation loans through the Department of Housing Preservation and Development for low income families living in designated historic properties • Property owners will have to get redevelopment approved by the NYS Office of Historic Preservation
Transportation linkages • Bicycle linkages within the community Manufacturing/economic development • Economic spillover from historic district: increased tourist uses • Commercial activities on first floor of historic properties • Maintain manufacturing as a relic of earlier times • Tax effects of designation as a historic district
Community outreach • Pedagogical impact of historic district designation: workshops, architectural walking tours, local history lectures working with neighborhood groups.
Environmental remediation • Clean up the watershed • Adopt the EPA’s plan for a clean neighborhood by 2035
Environmental • Superfund EPA Plan • Special Initiative for Resiliency and Rebuilding (Sandy) • Waterfront clean-up/access to the canal • Eco-safe the Gowanus watershed
Land use • Exclusive manufacturing and residential zoning in the historic area
Educational • Knowledge about Gowanus’ position in the history of New York City
Economic • Market forces driving changes in development • Increased housing prices and gentrification pressure STAKEHOLDER VALUES
Section A: Primary Stakeholders Community organizations • FROGG: Eco-safe Gowanus watershed; Protect neighborhood’s industrial heritage and creative future
Residents • Maintain manufacturing jobs in the neighborhood and in New York City • Desire to maintain neighborhood character: density • Reinforcement of the local safety • Increase of land value
Environmental • Canal environmental remediation
46
Section B: Secondary Stakeholders Real Estate Developers • Profit: Profit could be both positively affected (tourism) and negatively affected (reduced ability for luxury development.)
Property Owners • There are property owners and community groups (Gowanus Alliance, Gowanus Canal Community Development Corp.) who are opposed to a plan that designates Gowanus as a historical district, as it may negatively impact the neighborhood’s ability to grow.
Political Players • Key politicians including area City Councilmember Brad Lander and Mayor Bill de Blasio (former City Councilmember for the neighborhood) have declined to take a stance on whether or not Gowanus should be designated as a historic district.
Jobs and population projections AREA
ZONIING
Southwest
MX11
Northwest
R8A + Commercial Overlay
4th avenue south
No change
3rd avenue
M1-5 (b/tw DeGraw + Baltic)
Northeast 4th avenue north ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
JOB CREATION
CHANGE IN RESIDENTS
1600
6600
700
11000
0
0
800
0
No change
0
0
No change
0
0
3100
4,000-6,000 1,500-2,500
Assumptions are 2.4 persons/unit (except in R10 with 2.2 persons/unit), 500 sqft/manufacturing job and 750 sqft/retail or commercial job.
47
Preserving Gowanus Evaluation GREENING
Canal is cleaned under EPA process; city has leverage to make developers provide public green space.
CREATING
Existing jobs would be maintained, and new types of manufacturing could add jobs
CONNECTING
Because there would be no real increase in population, this scenario would not follow citywide trends and would most likely not increase transit access.
HOUSING
Modest upzoning would take place. Property owners may like due to the potential increase in housing equity, however affordability for renters will decrease.
PRESERVING
Manufacturing and historic buildings would be preserved.
GROWING
Limits populations growth because there will not be enough housing units to meet neighborhood or citywide needs. 48
5.3 GO UP ! Unrestrained Growth. In this scenario, our
group acknowledges that the Gowanus neighborhood, like the rest of New York City, is under severe housing pressure. Recent down-zonings and contextual rezonings in the Park Slope, Boerum Hill, and Carroll Gardens neighborhoods have put increased pressure on Gowanus to provide affordable housing as the neighborhoods to the North and the East become less affordable. This plan - and the increased density that comes with it - is likely to be unpopular with and unpalatable to the neighborhood residents. However, due to market forces and powerful stakeholders, there is reason to believe that this scenario has many supporters. The mayoral administration has made clear that it will support increased density in New York City neighborhoods in order to reach 200,000 units of affordable housing. GREENING Y Under Go Up! the Gowanus Canal will be cleaned according to the EPA’s timeline. As the environmental remediation continues, development of high rises will become more prevalent in the area. With requirements on developers to provide public outdoor space, open green space will increase around these developments. CREATING
number of available housing units. This scenario also increases the commercial overlays which may also increase the number of commercial and retail jobs available. There would be no maintainance of manufacturing jobs in the area. In the shortterm, there may be an increase in the number of construction jobs available necessary to build new residential buildings, however, in the long-term Gowanus will be a neighborhood where people live, not work. CONNECTING m This scenario provides the increased infrastructure necessary to the Gowanus neighborhood. Under this scenario there would be an increase in public transportation, including returning the B71 Bus route and modifying some of the rigid parking requirements that building New York City housing requires. Further transportation improvements to account for sharp population growth might include enhancing options on Fourth Avenue and expanding Select Bus Service into the Gowanus area, beyond the Gowanus Expressway route currently under consideration. HOUSING 8 Certain stakeholders, including the new administration who is focused on density, and real estate developers who are focused on profit, will be friendly to a plan that increase the number of housing
The Go Up! scenario explores dramatically upzoning the Gowanus neighborhood to increase the 49
units1. This scenario focuses on how to make a plan palatable to neighborhood residents, including through infrastructure improvements and Community Benefit Agreement. Under the Mayor’s new Housing Plan, rezoning this area will trigger the mandatory inclusionary zoning and thus will increase both the number of market rate and affordable units. PRESERVING D Some interest groups, particularly real estate developers, see residential development on New York City’s former industrial sites as our City’s manifest density2. Data shows that manufacturing is on the decline in New York City and in the Northeastern United States in general. Manufacturing jobs are increasingly hard to come by. Unfortunately, so is housing. Under this final scenario, we explore drastically upzoning the Gowanus neighborhood,
wiping out industrial uses, and increasing the residential footprint of the entire area. GROWING @ The Go Up! scenario will see a dramatic increase in population in Gowanus. Under this scenario, housing and other land-value-raising developments may take place. Further, the scenario, driven by forces external to the neighborhood, may be unpopular with current neighborhood groups, who tend to be focused on preserving the manufacturing character of the neighborhood.
1 New York Daily News. “Sky’s the limit: Mayor de Blasio says he would OK affordable housing buildings at any size.” 20 February 2014. http://nydn.us/1oUG0ev 2 Interview with Association of Neighborhood and Housing Development, 13 March 2014.
Proposed Zoning R10
Wide Streets: Maximum FAR: 10.0 Maximum Building Height: 210 ft Required Parking: 40% of dwelling units Narrow Street: Maximum FAR: 10.0 Maximum Building Height: 185 ft Required Parking: 40% of dwelling units
Southwest Canal
R8-A with C2-4 Commercial Overlay
Residential: Maximum FAR: 6.02 Maximum Building Height: 120 ft Required Parking: 40% of dwelling units Commercial: Maximum FAR: 2.0 Depth of Overlay District: 100
Northwest Canal 4th Avenue
R8-A
Residential: Maximum FAR: 6.02 Maximum Building Height: 120 ft Required Parking: 40% of dwelling units
3rd Avenue (between 1st Street and Baltic) Northeast Canal (Between the Canal and 4th Ave; Between 1st Street and Baltic) 50
SCENARIO FEATURES
DRIVING FORCES
Residential Development
Political
• Provide incentives for developers to build: zone up lots of previously industrial areas and encourage property owners to work with housing developers to build affordable housing through mandatory inclusionary zoning policies • Re-zone manufacturing areas as residential and up-zone existing residential areas. • Ensure a right-to-return for any buildings that are fully replaced. • Revisit the high-rise: • “How do you build an attractive high rise?”: Sponsor a design competition and community charette on the new Gowanus. Prioritize designers based in the neighborhood for the competition. • Explore ways to make sure that increased residential development specifically reduce the housing burden on existing neighborhood residents. • Affordable homeownership opportunities in new developments working with the Fifth Avenue Committee. (Affordable homeownership and financial counseling trainings.) • Work together with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development in addition to Neighborhood Housing Services to make responsible loans available for first time homebuyers. Target towards existing residents and build an ownership stake in the neighborhood. • Often, gentrification leads property owners to see large increases in tax burdens. Use increased tax base from new development reduce tax burdens on existing, small-scale, qualified homeowners, using the LOOP tax in Philadelphia as an example.
• How will New York handle extensive population growth ? • Mayor de Blasio’s campaign promise to build 200,000 units of affordable housing
Economic • Rising housing costs (both rents and owners) • Decline of manufacturing jobs in New York City: do we really need to maintain extensive manufacturing land use where the demand for housing is enormous and the supply of manufacturing jobs is minimal. • High land value with good transportation and proximity to Manhattan
Land use • Promote residential zoning by rezoning and upzoning in the area STAKEHOLDER VALUES
Section A: Primary Stakeholders Government • The Mayoral administration wants to build 200,000 units of affordable housing, and is willing to increase density drastically to so do. • Higher tax base from higher-end housing will increase property tax revenue (fiscal zoning.)
Developers • Real Estate groups: motivated by profit, desire to build, and raising rents. Community Organizations • Need for affordable housing and good jobs in the neighborhood • Safety: increased density = more “eyes on the street” • Use increased density as leverage to bring back B71 bus route -- something the neighborhood desires. • Need for accessible housing as the population ages.
51
Environmental • Canal environmental remediation • Open the waterfront for recreational use
Section B: Secondary Stakeholders Residents • Incoming population that can alter the neighborhood cohesion. • Increased density will add pressure on existing infrastructure and change neighborhood services.
Jobs and population projections AREA
ZONIING
Southwest
R10
Northwest
JOB CREATION
CHANGE IN RESIDENTS
0
20000
R8A + Commercial Overlay
700
11000
4th avenue south
R8A, added Commercial Overlay
500
0
3rd avenue
R8A + Commercial Overlay
400
5000
Northeast
R8A
0
8000
4th avenue north
No change
0
0
1600
18000 - 25000
ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
8000 - 10000
Assumptions are 2.4 persons/unit (except in R10 with 2.2 persons/unit), 500 sqft/manufacturing job and 750 sqft/retail or commercial job.
52
Go Up ! Evaluation GREENING
Canal is cleaned, and made more accessible as a public space.
CREATING
Jobs would increase, most likely in the retail and commercial sectors.
CONNECTING
Transportation infrastructure would increase to meet the demand of the growing population.
HOUSING
Under the Mayor’s new Housing Plan both market rate and affordable units will be constructed in Gowanus.
PRESERVING
Manufacturing would be pushed out and any historic, low-density buildings would be torn down and replaced with housing.
GROWING
Dramatic population growth would occur throughout the neighborhood. 53
5.4 GOLIVE, GOWORK, GOPLAY, GOWANUS Controlled Growth. Our third and final scenario,
“GOLive, GOWork, GOPlay, Gowanus,” encompasses our recommendations for the Gowanus neighborhood. The scenario embraces Gowanus as a community with a diversity of uses: residential, commercial, and industrial. In this scenario, we attempt to reconcile the strong desire of community stakeholders to see Gowanus continue essential as-is with the reality of city-wide pressure for housing development. A key aspect of this plan is its methodology: we focus on engaging current residents to address the social, cultural, and infrastructural concerns facing the both the neighborhood and the city as a whole. Community members in Gowanus recognize the need to grow to accommodate gentrification pressures. Fifth Avenue Committee is particularly concerned with the development of affordable housing in the neighborhood. However, there is a desire, articulated by Forth on Fourth and supported by groups such as the Fifth Avenue Committee and the Center for Urban Pedagogy, to maintain the area’s industrial heritage and explore opportunities for new manufacturing. This scenario examines the concept of “stable mixed use zoning” and what a mandatory inclusionary zoning policy would look like in Gowanus. Many of the interventions discussed in our recommendation scenario emerged from “Bridging Gowanus” community workshops. This plan, a medium intervention plan,
recognizes the reality that the Gowanus neighborhood will change, and takes care to include the community in the decision making process. GREENING Y This narrative complies with the EPA Superfund site designation, and seeks to unlock the development potential of the Gowanus Canal. With a goal of the canal as a publically accessible body of water, the plan incorporates pedestrian and bicycle access and identifies “visual corridors from the neighborhood to the canal and from the canal to the neighborhood.” By creating an eco-park on the southeast side of the Gowanus Canal, we also begin to address the need for increased resiliency in the face of future climate change. CREATING New York City, and more specifically, Brooklyn, is the epicenter of a new trend in manufacturing: small scale, arts based, and digitally oriented. This is exemplified locally through the success of planned projects such as the Brooklyn Navy Yard and DUMBO’s Tech Triangle. In this scenario, we explore ways to move towards equitable economic development by “creating systems and environments to create a stable middle and working-class employment base...through targeted strategies for job creation, small business development, and workforce development placement. Gowanus is ideally situated for arts based job growth. The area has a strong creative base. Projects 54
like Proteus Gowanus, a gallery and reading room, and Gowanus Your Face Off nurture an artistic spirit and creative manufacturing through a neighborhood conscious lens. In the GoLive, GoWork, GoPlay scenario, we plan to provide make spaces that maintain the cultural integrity of the area while supporting economic and job growth. To do so, this scenario experiments with a variety of economic development strategies, such as a tax exemption for businesses that hire locally, the city wide Made in NY incentive program developed by Mayor Bloomberg, and stable mixed use zone, which is detailed below. CONNECTING m In order to accommodate increased density in Gowanus, we suggest a number of things to deepen transit options. First, we suggest a select bus service route along Fourth Avenue to connect Gowanus to the rich transit hub at Atlantic Terminal. Consistent with stakeholder values, we suggest bringing back the B71 bus route and enhancing bicycle access. In order to promote ridership, we propose bike lanes along Fourth Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, Union Street, Third Street, and Ninth Street. . The scenario focuses on public transit. We reduce parking requirements to ease residential development; we believe that parking requirements reflect an archaic transportation model and we plan to bring Gowanus into the 21st century.
bonus/locate the required affordable housing anywhere in the district. This suggestion, based on meetings with BFC Partners, an established real estate developer who is experienced in the inclusionary housing program, could achieve more balanced growth throughout the neighborhood and open up incentives to build affordable housing. All future developments that come under a mandatory inclusionary housing program will likely occur on unbuilt sites in the Gowanus neighborhood. The map (5.4.1) illustrates the unbuilt FAR that would be ideal test sites for MIZ. As the neighborhood gentrifies, it is important to recognize the displacement pressures put on long term residents. We suggest layering a “special district” with no displacement provisions to be layered on top of the current zoning. Such a provision could ensure a “right to return at comparable rents” for tenants displaced so that their landlord can take advantage of increased FAR (by tearing down and rebuilding a taller building). This is
Following the political climate, this scenario examines what a mandatory inclusionary zoning program would look like for affordable housing development in Gowanus. The current inclusionary housing program allows developers to achieve a density bonus in exchange for building affordable. By making inclusionary housing mandatory, the entire neighborhood of Gowanus is effectively upzoned according to the chart below. HOUSING 8 There are specific rules in the inclusionary housing program that mandate the affordable housing be built on the lot or on the lot adjacent. Our group suggests loosening these restrictions to the entire project area; developers building residential housing along the canal may achieve their density 55
5.4.1 UNBUILT FAR IN ALL ZONING
Data Source: Department of City Planning, City of New York, MapPLUTO: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/dwn_pluto_mappluto.shtml 56
similar to a program developed in midtown in the Clinton Special District, which requires landlords to get a certificate of no harassment to develop housing. PRESERVING D GoLive GoWork GoPlay introduces the idea of “stable mixed use zoning,” first discussed in the Bridging Gowanus workgroups. Stable mixed use zone encourages balanced growth by determining a ratio of residential, commercial, industrial uses, and requiring the develop happen consistent with this ratio. The concept of a preserved mix of uses reflects community anxiety that “mixed use zoning” is frequently overcome with simply residential uses and community discontent with the Fourth Avenue rezoning under the previous administration, which failed to activate street life. GROWING @
upzoning policies that expand the neighborhood’s residential development potential, while maintaining local aesthetic character. Local residents have been disappointed with the recent upzoning of Fourth Avenue as R8A with a commercial overlay. The thrust of their argument has been that the upzoning has not been successful in activating street life, while fundamentally changing the character of the avenue. In this scenario, we propose upzoning Third Avenue as well as Fourth Avenue, but with careful improvements that pay attention to street life. Some of these improvements are noted above, and include support to local businesses, bike lanes, and streetscaping. As we upzone major avenues (Third Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Ninth Street) we contextually downzone the surrounding neighborhoods. The goal is to add FAR to Gowanus while maintaining character and support stakeholder desires.
GoLive, GoWork, GoPlay accommodates citywide growth trends. In order to reconcile local desires with city-wide realities, we suggest careful
Proposed Zoning MX-11
Special Mixed Use District/Inclusionary Housing Designated Area R7-2: Maximum FAR = .87-3.44 (depending on lot size); Maximum height is governed by sky exposure plane; Parking is required for 50% of units
Southwest Canal Northwest Canal
R8-A with C2-4 Commercial Overlay
Residential: Maximum FAR: 6.02 Maximum Building Height: 120 ft Required Parking: 40% of dwelling units Commercial: Maximum FAR: 2.0 Depth of Overlay District: 100
4th Avenue
M1-5
Maximum FAR: 5.0 Parking not required
3rd Avenue (between 1st St and Baltic St)
R8-A
Residential: Maximum FAR: 6.02 Maximum Building Height: 120 ft Required Parking: 40% of dwelling units
Northeast Canal (Between the Canal and 4th Ave; Between 1st Street and Baltic) 57
SCENARIO FEATURES
DRIVING FORCES
Residential development
Environmental
• Increased residential density on balance with commercial development: mixed use growth. • Maintain neighborhood context: ° Design guidelines for all new development ° Standardized and environmental performance • Limit effects of gentrification through property tax support for eligible households • Work with Fifth Avenue Committee on reviving the “Displacement Free Zone” initiatives from Park Slope. Anti-Tenant Harassment Clause built into development. (There is an example of this in the fight for the creation of the 1972 Clinton Special District around SROs.) • Account for demographic changes ° Ensure that new developments are accessible to aging populations ° Tax incentives for accessibility improvements in existing buildings ° Promotion for in-site developments with available FAR • Mandatory inclusionary zoning on higher density, new developments
• Superfund EPA Plan • Improve neighborhood greenscape
Transportation • Promote the use of alternative means of transportation including bike linkages and pedestrian linkages along the East River and Gowanus Canal • Bring back the B71 bus route
Manufacturing/economic development • Maintain affordability and stability for artists and makers in Gowanus ° Establish microenterprise loans for start up businesses ° Include maker and exhibition spaces in new, repurposed and mixed used manufacturing buildings • Workforce training through community partners for new, permanent jobs that the scenario might bring to the neighborhood (continuing education programs).
Government • “Made in NY” incentive programs • Brad Lander’s Inclusionary Zoning inn New York City Report • “Bridging Gowanus”: Brad Lander, Nydia Velazquez ° Land-use: “Stable mixed zoning”
Economic • Shifts from large scale to small scale manufacturing • Made in New York incentive programs • Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning and other affordability incentives for housing developments
Demographic • Artists’ community; design based industry • Medium increase of the residential population STAKEHOLDER VALUES
Government • Transit-oriented development • 200,000 units of affordable housing
Residents • Desire to maintain neighborhood context as space for creative uses and manufacturing • Housing stability for renters is important • Affordable rent and owned spaces
Environmental • Improve greenscape • Canal environmental remediation
58
• Mixed-use zoning categories that allow nightlife and extended closing hours in key areas: along avenues and thoroughfares, waterfront development ° Side streets, smaller streets maintain full residential zoning • Work with “Made in NY” initiatives for light industry in Gowanus: design based, artistic, creative, small scale food and beverage
Community Outreach • Community Gowanus workshops • “Bridging Gowanus” charrettes • Education around new tax incentives (economic development, residential) that existing residents can benefit from. • Education around zoning definition and potential allowed FAR that existing residents can benefit from.
Environmental concerns • Adopt the EPA plan for a clean neighborhood by 2035 • Open up the waterfront for recreational uses
Jobs and population projections AREA
ZONIING
Southwest
MX11
1600
6600
Northwest
MX11
1800
7300
4th avenue south
R8A + Commercial Overlay
500
6000
3rd avenue
M1-5 (b/tw DeGraw + Baltic)
2500
0
Northeast
R8A (b/tw 3rd and 4th Ave)
0
5000
4th avenue north
No change
0
0
6400
8000 - 12000
ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
JOB CREATION
CHANGE IN RESIDENTS
4000 - 6000
Assumptions are 2.4 persons/unit (except in R10 with 2.2 persons/unit), 500 sqft/manufacturing job and 750 sqft/retail or commercial job.
59
GOLive, GOWork, GOPlay, Gowanus Evaluation GREENING
Canal is cleaned and made more accessible and existing public spaces are upgraded.
CREATING
Harnesses Gowanus’ creative ethos for workforce development.
CONNECTING
Transit-oriented development focused on bus routes and bike paths.
HOUSING
Intentional focus on affordable units and anti-displacement measures. Support affordable housing in Gowanus through Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning.
PRESERVING
Transition to manufacturing in growing subsectors: small scale, digital, food based.
GROWING
General increase in neighborhood density along major avenues. 60
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION The following list identifies our goals for each issue area, along with action items to achieve these goals. This list is not comprehensive, but merely steps and suggestions towards implementing our recommended vision for Gowanus. We expect that development of the area will take place in phases, with initial interventions along the already-upzoned Fourth Avenue, and changes along the canal as environmental remediation takes place, at the pace set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
GREENING Y Conduct environmental remediation Increase green, public open space throughout Gowanus Increase neighborhood resiliency against flooding
CREATING Provide viable employment options for community members Attract the type of employment that provides jobs to current residents
CONNECTING m Redesign the streetscape of the main corridors (Third Avenue, Fourth Avenue and 9th St) Develop green transportation Connect East River to Prospect Park (West-East)
HOUSING 8 Increase affordable housing density Create a “Special Development Zone”
PRESERVING D Preserve neighborhood context by maintain select historic sites near the Canal Reimagine manufacturing uses along the Canal
GROWING @ Increase housing density Rethink transportation capacities Ensure the reconversion of heavy manufacturing Provide cultural/community facilities
62
GREENING Y
GOAL 01 Y Conduct environmental remediation ACTION 01
Clean-up the canal
POLICY MECHANISM
Designated Superfund Site
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Environmental Protection Agency
TIMEFRAME
Long-term
FUNDING
Private (responsible parties); Public (Federal Agencies)
GOAL 02 Y Increase green, public open space throughout Gowanus ACTION 01 Create
a public waterfront along the Canal
POLICY MECHANISM
Transferable Development Rights (Gowanus Canal Transfer Corridor)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD and DCP; Developers
TIMEFRAME
Medium-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Private
ADDITIONAL NOTES
• Require a continuous public access and dock from development (minimum length of 20m) • Design guidelines
ACTION 02 Create
an Eco-Park along the Southeast side of the Canal
POLICY MECHANISM
Encourage private developers to contribute to public works projects in exchange for relaxed development restrictions
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Parks Department, Developers
TIMEFRAME
Medium-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Private and public blended financing
ADDITIONAL NOTES
• Develop a comprehensive network of smart technologies for inhabitants to provide environmental guidelines and reduce consumption 63
GOAL 03 Y Increase neighborhood resiliency against flooding ACTION 01 All
new construction meets FEMA flood regulation
POLICY MECHANISM
Community Development Block Grants - Disaster Recovery
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
FEMA, HUD through CDBG-DR (disaster recovery), HPD
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Public
ADDITIONAL NOTES
• Higher reference floor (or no housing below the flooding level) • More landscaped area (and less paving/building coverage) • Develop resilient system in Gowanus Eco-park as retention basin
ACTION 02 Look
for opportunities for developers to retrofit multi-family buildings as both green, resilient, and accessible POLICY MECHANISM
Incentives and loan programs
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD, multifamily property owners
TIMEFRAME
Medium-term
FUNDING
Public
64
CREATING
GOAL 01 Provide viable employment options for community members ACTION 01
Tax exemption for companies who hire local workers
POLICY MECHANISM
Reduced tax burden on companies hiring local workers
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
City and State government; businesses
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Public
ACTION 02 Increase
housing density
maintenance & retail employment opportunities through increased
POLICY MECHANISM
Change the zoning resolution
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD; Developers
TIMEFRAME
Long-term
FUNDING
Public and Private
GOAL 02 Attract the type of employment that provides jobs to current residents ACTION 01 Work
together with the community and development experts to envision a workforce strategy for the area. POLICY MECHANISM
Training program
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Non-profit sector and NYC Economic Development Corporation
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Public and Foundational (non-profits)
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Provide training opportunities for local residents, working in conjunction with Fifth Avenue Committee, who already does this.
65
ACTION 02 Provide
incentives for new manufacturing uses
POLICY MECHANISM
Emerging Technologies Tax Credits
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
New York State, qualifying businesses
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Public
66
CONNECTING m
GOAL 01 m Redesign the streetscape of the main corridors (Third Avenue, Fourth Avenue and 9th St)
ACTION 01
Explore East-West SBS connection from Red Hook to the Park
POLICY MECHANISM
Create a new bus route
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DOT, MTA
TIMEFRAME
Long-term
FUNDING
Public
ACTION 02 Do
landscaping along upzoned areas to make the streets more user and pedestrian friendly. Address the problems with the Fourth Avenue Rezoning. POLICY MECHANISM
Follow the Street Design Manual (DOT)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DOT, DCP
TIMEFRAME
Short-term and on-going
FUNDING
Public
4th avenue existing conditions
4th avenue redesigned 67
GOAL 02 m Develop green transportation ACTION 01 Designate
bike lanes in the neighborhood
POLICY MECHANISM
Follow the Street Design Manual (DOT)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DOT, DCP
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Public
ADDITIONAL NOTES
In order to fully connect the neighborhood from the River to the Park, insure protected bike lanes on Atlantic Avenue, Union Street, 3rd Street & 9th St. To connect the neighborhood to other areas of Brooklyn and the borough wide bicycle network, implement a pedestrian and bicycle path along the Gowanus Canal that is publically accessible (following environmental remediation.) Connect the path, via Smith Street, to the network of bicycle lanes that run along the East River, through Brooklyn Bridge Park, past the Brooklyn Navy Yard, along Kent Avenue, to Williamsburg and Greenpoint.
ACTION 02 Address
pedestrian safety along major thoroughfares.
POLICY MECHANISM
Follow the Street Design Manual (DOT)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DOT, DCP
TIMEFRAME
Short-term and on-going
FUNDING
Public
GOAL 03 m Connect East River to Prospect Park ACTION 01
Bring back the B71 bus line
POLICY MECHANISM
Create a new bus route
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DOT, MTA
TIMEFRAME
Short-term and on-going
FUNDING
Public, Private in the form of bonds (MTA is an agency with bonding entity).
ACTION 02
Create a pedestrian overpass over the Gowanus Canal
POLICY MECHANISM
Transferable development rights
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DCP, Private developers
TIMEFRAME
Long term, following environmental remediation of the canal.
FUNDING
Private funding, public facilitation.
68
HOUSING 8
GOAL 01 8 Increase affordable housing density Working with the Department of City Planning, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, and private developers, implement Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning. ACTION 01
POLICY MECHANISM
Use the zoning regulation to alter FAR limits
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD and private developers
TIMEFRAME
Immediate and ongoing as projects commence
FUNDING
Private
ACTION 02 Ensure
a market for development bonuses by allowing flexibility of air rights (transferable development rights) within the neighborhood. This proposal can serve as a pilot program for the City looking to implement Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning in an effective way. POLICY MECHANISM
Use the zoning regulation to alter TDRS restrictions
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD and private developers
TIMEFRAME
Immediate and ongoing as projects commence
FUNDING
Private
GOAL 02 8 Create a “Special Development Zone” ACTION 01
“Special Development Zone” with no-harassment clause for current residents.
In conjunction with upzoning, create a “Special Development Zone” that insures a no-harassment clause for current residents, and a right to return at comparable rents should the property owner choose to teardown and build higher. We expect this will slow development to a pace the community can stomach. POLICY MECHANISM
Use the zoning regulation to alter FAR limits
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD and private developers, tenants/residents
TIMEFRAME
Immediate and ongoing as projects commence
FUNDING
Private 69
PRESERVING D
GOAL 01 D Preserve neighborhood context by maintaining select historic sites near the Canal ACTION 01
Contextual zoning/Stable zoning
POLICY MECHANISM
Change the zoning in the neighborhood
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DCP, Planning Commission, FROGG
TIMEFRAME
Medium-term
FUNDING
No funding implications
ACTION 02 Historic
tour for newcomers
POLICY MECHANISM
Create programmatic opportunities for industries and businesses
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Current community members
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Non-profit
GOAL 02 D Reimagine manufacturing uses along the Canal ACTION 01 Zoning
for light manufacturing
POLICY MECHANISM
Change the zoning in the neighborhood
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DCP, Planning Commission
TIMEFRAME
Medium-term
FUNDING
No funding implications
70
ACTION 02 Mixed
used manufacturing to create a vibrant neighborhood
POLICY MECHANISM
Create Mixed Use zoning designations along the Canal
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DCP, Planning Commission
TIMEFRAME
Change in zoning will be short-term, however the change in the neighborhood will take place long-term
FUNDING
No funding implications
71
GROWING @
GOAL 01 @ Increase housing density ACTION 01
Upzone along major thoroughfares
POLICY MECHANISM
Use the zoning regulation to alter FAR limits, include a commercial overlay.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD and private developers, DOT
TIMEFRAME
Immediate and ongoing as projects commence
FUNDING
Private
ACTION 02 Re-zone
M3 in the Southeast along the canal (close to Smith Street)
POLICY MECHANISM
Use the zoning regulation to alter FAR limits
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
HPD and private developers
TIMEFRAME
Immediate and ongoing as projects commence
FUNDING
Private
GOAL 02 @ Rethink transportation capacities ACTION 01 Incentivize
non-automobile transit
POLICY MECHANISM
Lower parking requirements to 25% of dwelling units on new developments
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DOT, DPC, Developers
TIMEFRAME
Short-term, ongoing
FUNDING
No funding implications
ADDITIONAL NOTES
A traffic demand analysis will still be conducted for all new developments, however few parking spaces will be required for each development
72
GOAL 03 @ Ensure the reconversion of heavy manufacturing ACTION 01 Relocate
manufacturing through Eminent Domain
POLICY MECHANISM
Eminent Domain with compensation
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Economic Development Corporation
TIMEFRAME
Medium-term, ongoing
FUNDING
Public
GOAL 04 @ Provide cultural & community facilities ACTION 01 Subsidize
for cultural/community development
POLICY MECHANISM
Funding, through public or private sources, for recreational programming
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Community members; DOE, Department of Cultural Affairs
TIMEFRAME
Programs to keep up with the pace of new residents
FUNDING
Department of Cultural Affairs: both programmatic and capital needs
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Cultural programs are often also funded through foundations, nonprofits, philanthropic source
ACTION 02 Promote
cultural facility on ground floor of overlay buildings as alternative
POLICY MECHANISM
Add a “Cultural” overlay in the Zoning resolution.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
DCP, Department of Cultural Affairs, Community Members
TIMEFRAME
Ongoing, as projects become available. Begin with a RFP for a sample space as a pilot program.
FUNDING
Revenue neutral to the city
73
POLICIES
POLICY 01
Transferable Development Rights
Transferable development rights refers to the ability of landowners and developers to sell unused FAR to nearby lots at market rates. Flexible air rights allowed the City and its partners to create the High Line; we suggest that the City do a similar program to use TDRs to create a pedestrian and bike pathway along a cleaned-up Gowanus Canal. POLICY 02
HPD Redevelopment Programs
Article 8A Article 8A provides low cost loans to developers looking to capital repairs to their properties. In exchange, owners agree to affordability restrictions on the properties. If mitigation repairs (i.e., repairs that make the building more resilient to storm events) are worked into capital plans, Article 8A can be used to fund the buildings in an affordable way. Participatory Loan Program Like Article 8A, PLP provides redevelopment financing to owners looking to do significant repairs to their homes. PLP loans require developers to comply with Enterprise’s “Green Communities” program, which addresses climate change measures for housing infrastructure. Green Communities and PLP could both be utilized in Gowanus for aging housing stock in the flood zone looking to do mitigation work. Both PLP and Article 8A apply to non-owner occupied, rental housing stock. New Mayoral Initiatives Mayor de Blasio’s recently released housing plan includes a loan program for low, moderate, and middle income homeowners (owner occupied buildings) to perform resiliency upgrades in the flood zone. POLICY 03
Brownfield Program
The EPA’s Brownfield Program works with communities to promote area wide planning that both cleans up and revitalizes distressed brownfield areas, such as Gowanus.
74
POLICY 04
We Are Made in New York
We Are Made In New York is an economic development initiative that supports and connects the city’s growing tech community. It provides technical and capital assistance to media and tech related start-ups by providing access to resources and programs that help tech companies grow, in addition to providing a network to individuals seeking work in this field. POLICY 05
Emerging Technologies
New York State has enacted tax incentives for investors in Qualified Emerging Technology Companies (QETCs). QETC can include computer integrated manufacturing and other types of Manufacturing 2.0 technologies. These tax incentives can lead to job creation in Gowanus through helping small companies whose annual sales are less than $10 million. The key credits that could make it easier for Gowanus companies to create jobs is a refundable tax credit of $1,000 per new full-time employee. POLICY 06
Housing and Urban Development, Section 3
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1992 mandates that recipients of financial assistance for urban development projects -- including developers, owners, contractors and their subcontractors -- provide, “to the greatest extent feasible,” training and employment opportunities for low income area residents. POLICY 07
The Relocation and Employment Assistance Program
The Relocation and Employment Assistance Program offers businesses tax credits to move jobs from outside of New York City, or below 96th Street in Manhattan, to places in the four outer boroughs. This economic development assistance program could lead to job growth in Gowanus. Businesses have to be completely non residential, and have been operating for at least 24 months prior to application for the program. POLICY 08
Select Bus Service (B71)
Select Bus Service is a limited access bus route that speeds bus commuting for riders. SBS in the Bronx has drastically reduced commute times. It is particularly helpful in areas that are not served by trains. We suggest implement Select Bus Service along 4th Avenue to provide additional connectivity to Gowanus from the Atlantic Yards Terminal. We also suggest bringing back the B71 Bus Route to connect Gowanus with other emerging Brooklyn neighborhoods, such as Crown Heights. POLICY 09
Follow Street Design Manual
The NYC Street Design Manual is a comprehensive resource that designates standards, guidelines, and policies for streetscape. We suggest that Gowanus implement recommendations from the Street Design Manual -- such as pedestrian safety islands, bus bulbs, and protected bike lanes -- to make Fourth Avenue and other wide thoroughfares more user friendly.
75
POLICY 10
Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary Zoning is a land use tool that encourages developers to include affordable units in large scale housing development projects. The new administration is pioneering a mandatory inclusionary zoning program in all parts of the city that can be rezoned to support more housing. We submit Gowanus for one of these areas. The program requires, for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning zones, that a portion of units (historically it has been between 20-30%) be set aside as affordable. The affordable units can be provided on or off site. POLICY 11
Special Development District
New York City has historically designated “special development zones” to use the Zoning Codes as a means of pursuing land use and urban planning goals. Two notable Special Development Districts are Clinton and Hudson Yards, both in Manhattan. In Gowanus, we propose gleaning some of the initiatives pioneered in the Clinton and Hudson Yards districts. From the Clinton Special District, we are inspired to include a no-harassment and right to return clause. In neighborhoods that are upzoned rapidly, landlords may see opportunity to tear down properties and rebuild, higher, and achieve more profit. This can put existing residents at risk. We propose including a no-harassment clause (to make it harder for landlords to force people to vacate a building) and a right to return clause (to allow existing residents to return to the building at comparable rents once redevelopment is complete.) This “right to return” has also been pioneered by BFC Partners in a luxury development in the Lower East Side, once occupied by the Mars Bar. The Hudson Yards Special District includes percentages for manufacturing and residential development. One use (during development) cannot far outpace the other, in order to maintain a stable, mixed use district, throughout development. We suggest this same policy be carried over to Gowanus. POLICY 12
LOOP
The Philadelphia “Long Time Owners Occupant Program,” allows property owners who also occupy their homes freedom from rising tax burdens as property value rises. The program is being pioneered in formerly industrial, gentrifying neighborhoods in Philadelphia, and we think it is relevant here. Low income homeowners may benefit from growing equity in Gowanus ; this should shelter them from unmanageable tax burdens. POLICY 13
Local AMI Pilot Program
Housing affordability is generally based on area median income -- a number determined by HUD and based on New York City and Rockland County. Because of the wide disparity in incomes between different parts of New York, AMI is not always an accurate measure of what is truly affordable in New York. We suggest piloting an area AMI program in Gowanus, for affordable housing development, so that units are priced at levels that accurately address neighborhood conditions. POLICY 14
Industrial Business Zones
In recent years, industrial job creators have been wary to invest in New Yorks, thanks to a spate of rezoning that has drastically reducing industrial areas. Industrial Business Zones were created to establish real estate certainty for the industrial sector.
76
POLICY 15
Capital and Program Funding for Cultural Organizations
Through the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs both capital and programmatic funding is made available to non-profit organizations whose mission is to support the arts throughout New York City. Funds can be used for an array of purposes, including the purchase of equipment, to fund construction or to launch a new cultural program. POLICY 16
Empire Zone
Gowanus is a designated Empire Zone. Businesses that relocate into Empire Zones recieve New York State tax benefits to do so. Empire Zones, funded by the State, are managed by the New York City Environmental Development Corporation ■
77
Just as New York is not a completed city, Gowanus is not a completed neighborhood. Our vision and recommendations stive to make Gowanus a thriving neighborhood that can continue to evolve into a place where people go to live, work, and play.