The Big Picture: Whose Vision for a Community Should Be Realized?

Unlike Chicago, NYC’s waterfront and waterways were never adequately protected by anyone’s vision, but instead, abused. Living close to the “Superfund”ed, and still sewage-infested, Gowanus Canal, I am acutely aware of this reality. At the same time, I am awestruck at the rate at which dozens of buildings, with thousands of luxury rental units, are literally popping up before our eyes on the banks of a still contaminated industrial waterway. 

In early November, I flew into Chicago with my family. We were on our way to a volleyball tournament for my son. My husband had never been to Chicago before, but I had. Approaching at night, the clarity of Chicago’s skyline was awesome. Over the central business district, we saw the grid of the city streets.  My husband remarked: “the streets are so straight!”. And they are. There’s a lot about Chicago that is remarkable: the clean streets, the multi-leveled central business district that separates pedestrian movements from truck traffic, and the amazing waterfront park spaces.

he next day, after watching some tournament play, my husband and I boarded a river boat for the “best boat tour of Chicago”, offered through the Chicago Architecture Center. We learned about the buildings abutting the Chicago river, the waterfront spaces, and the history of the development and protection of this well planned city with very straight streets. We also came to realize, by stark contrast, how our home city of New York, and specifically Brooklyn, has not been as well planned, or protected.

If you haven’t been to Chicago, it’s like a smaller and cleaner New York. It’s got some hustle and bustle, but plenty of space to spread out if mayhem is not your thing. One of the most impressive characteristics of Chicago is the beautiful lakefront. The frontage of the Great Lake Michigan within the Chicago city limits has largely been protected from industrial and commercial development. The effort to protect the lakefront started in the early 1800s with the creation of a “public ground” proviso to protect a mile stretch of the lakefront around where the Chicago River meets Lake Michigan. Decades later, the aftermath of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 led to the dumping of debris along the banks of the lake, creating landfill. Chicago’s leaders planned to use this newly made land to create a civic center, along with a power plant and stables for wagons and horses. The Chicago-based industrialist and “catalog king”, Montgomery Ward, had another vision. He spent 20 years and a small fortune fighting the municipal and private efforts to develop this land for commercial and municipal use. His work ultimately preserved miles of lakefront for public parkland, and inspired efforts to preserve many miles more. 

In 1909, Montgomery Ward reflected on his efforts:

Had I known in 1890 how long it would take me to preserve a park for the people against their will, I doubt I would have undertaken it. I think there is not another man in Chicago who would have spent the money I have spent in this fight with certainty that gratitude would be denied as interest… I fought for the poor people of Chicago… not the millionaires. Here is park frontage on the lake… which city officials would crowd with buildings, transforming the breathing spot for the poor into a showground of the educated rich. I do not think it is right.

I have been considering, and then contrasting, Ward’s vision and efforts with those underway in New York City, and Brooklyn more specifically, to “develop”. This reflection has me wondering: whose vision should matter when it comes to decisions about community development and preservation? 

Unlike Chicago, NYC’s waterfront and waterways were never adequately protected by anyone’s vision, but instead, abused. Living close to the “Superfund”ed, and still sewage-infested, Gowanus Canal, I am acutely aware of this reality. At the same time, I am awestruck at the rate at which dozens of buildings, with thousands of luxury rental units, are literally popping up before our eyes on the banks of a still contaminated industrial waterway. The news coverage of these efforts focus on how important these efforts are to bring more “affordable housing” to our area. However, the definition of “affordable” is questionable to me. 

The housingconnect.nyc.gov website lists opportunities to rent privately developed “affordable” housing units across New York City. Viewing this list on 11/23/2023, I saw an upcoming lottery for 4 studio units in a building at 100 Flatbush/ 505 State Street in Downtown Brooklyn. These studios are only available for 1 or 2 person households making an income between $29,109 to $39,560 and $45,200, respectively. The rent for the unit would be $763. Seems like a steal for a studio in that location. But that’s $9,156 in rent annually, NOT including electric (and the units have electric stoves). How can someone making $30,000 per year, and bringing home less, afford that?  There are 8 one-bedroom units in that same building being held for 1-3 person households making between $73,886 to $98,900, 113,000 and 127,100 per year, respectively. The rent is $2,155 per month, or $25,860 per year. That’s a home mortgage in most of the rest of the country, but as rent in Brooklyn it has no benefit of tax deductibility. There will be 441 total units in that building, with 45 of them protected by these “affordability” requirements.  The other 396 units will be market rate, with most renting for $6000-$10,000 per month! The one major benefit of the “affordable” unit leases is that they are rent-stabilized. The renters, however, must stay within the income limitations, or else forfeit their rent protections. 

The vision for the 2021 rezoning of a large swath of Gowanus was to bring 8500 new dwelling units to the area, along with high hopes for containing housing costs.  The 3000 “affordable” new units from the plan make up about 35% of the units coming to Gowanus. About 425 of those “affordable units” will be reserved for households 

with incomes at or below 50% of the “Average Median Income” (or about $51,000 for a family of 3). These MOST affordable units in the Gowanus Rezoning are almost all being built on and adjacent to the site of the former Citzen’s Manufactured Gas Plant, amid significant concerns for the thoroughness of the environmental remediation effort and long term health consequences. 

The other 5500 new units coming to Gowanus through the vision of the larger rezoning will be offered at “market rate”. Perusing streeteasy.com, you find current “market rate” for recently built luxury rentals in Gowanus range from $2800- $6600 per month for an apartment with 1 bedroom and 1 bathroom. As these units have come online, they have driven the average rent of non-stabilized area apartments up, as well. Area rents have increased 20-30% over the past year. 

Gowanus has yet to realize the vision of affordable housing touted by politicians, and celebrated across the newspapers and other media coverage. And now, a new vision for a significant portion of Windsor Terrace was recently unveiled. If you haven’t heard, the owners of the Arrow Linen Supply commercial laundry business on Prospect Avenue between 8th and 9th Avenues have a plan to “upzone” most of the block where they’ve grown their business for over half a century. Arrow Linen has not identified a developer for the project they propose in their rezoning application; they probably don’t have the means to develop the property themselves.  So, it’s more likely their vision for this rezoning is to make their own property more valuable to sell to real estate developers. 

Under the current R5B zoning of the lots in the Arrow Linen proposal, around 80 brand new residential units could be developed on the site. Instead, the Arrow Linen application for rezoning to R7-1, would allow for the building of two 13-story towers, two 7-story towers, and five 4-story buildings on the site. The envisioned project would develop 244-352 new residential units, 61-88 of which would be “affordable” by similar standards to the 100 Flatbush/505 State Street offerings; that is, IF the eventual developer complies with certain mandatory inclusionary housing programs (which aren’t so mandatory). The other 183-264 units on the site would be “market rate”, likely resulting in RAISING the already high market rate for rentals in Windsor Terrace. The plans offered by Arrow Linen in their rezoning plan are NOT necessarily the plans for the eventual development of the site. After a zoning change were to take effect, there are plenty of other options that could be built, with many variables at play. For instance, there are a significant number of lots that would be rezoned by the plan that are not owned by Arrow Linen, and therefore, not included in their vision. 

Arrow Linen’s vision is not consistent with the vision of their neighbors, or the larger community. A large proportion of the Windsor Terrace community is organizing a response to this rezoning proposal through a group called “Arrow Action” (www.arrowaction.org). Arrow Action’s rally cry is: “Housing not Highrises”. The organized coalition stands for “more housing that works in our neighborhood”, and “a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to zoning”. Others within the community have a different vision; they flat out oppose any change in zoning. Both have concerns about the impact that the proposed plan would have on the density of the population in the area, the loss of sunlight to surrounding lots, and environmental impacts, specifically related to existing sewer and water main issues on that block. And yes. There are concerns about traffic and parking.

Concerns about scale and scope are not unanimously held in the community. A seemingly small minority of current community members welcome Arrow Linen’s vision for Windsor Terrace. They seem open to any number of new housing units, under the mis-guided assumption that more rental units of housing will mean reduction in area market rents. 

In addition to the visions of community members, there are the visions of outsiders, like Open New York, a new-to-the-scene policy advocacy organization. The self-proclaimed YIMBY (“Yes In My Back Yard”) group, founded by real estate investors and brokers with deep pockets, not surprisingly supports the Arrow Linen vision. They have an online petition in support of the project that has garnered 182 signatures over four weeks; more than 800 short of their goal of 1000. Largely funded by a million dollar grant from Open Philanthropy, a California based foundation supported by the private wealth of Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari, Open New York works to mobilize communities to say “Yes” to residential and commercial development; but they don’t seem to actually work in, or with, the actual communities they’re trying to mobilize. Open New York recruits members to their organization who share their vision of “market-based” solutions to NYC’s housing crisis without offering support for their theory through evidence. Open New York member voices are called to action to speak in support of development in almost any form at community board and city council hearings, even if the members have little or no connection with the community impacted by proposed change. Wouldn’t it be great if, instead, this level of wealth and organization focused on mobilizing existing community members towards a shared vision for their own future. Visions of change could be offered, evaluated and debated, and not forced down people’s throats.

I sat in a recent meeting of the “Arrow Action” group just hours after returning from Chicago, While the Windsor Terrace community meeting allowed the sharing of various perspectives on the current rezoning plan, one reality became clear: the community does not have ultimate control over the vision of zoning in Windsor Terrace; policymakers do. 

At this meeting, New York State Assemblymember Robert “Bobby” Carroll, who has no power in New York City level zoning policy, laid it out: expect a rezoning to happen on this site. Period. But, he offered, the community has an opportunity to collaborate with Community Board 7 and District 39 Councilmember Shahana Hanif to come to an informed compromise. A vocal group of community members were not happy with Assemblymember Carroll for “giving up” so easily. But Assemblymember Carroll’s important point was that he believes the community should have a role in shaping the vision for its own future, even if they don’t get the final word.

Last year, I personally worked tirelessly to bring community voice to the vision for a rezoning of Gowanus’s 9th Street corridor, separate from the larger previous Gowanus rezoning plan. We collaborated across constituencies from different perspectives, towards a shared goal. The local businesses, renters and property owners did not agree on everything, but we were united under the shared vision that the community at large, and not just a single property owner, should participate in decisions about our collective future. We were called NIMBY’s, directly challenged by Open New York members in zoom meeting chats and on social media, and painted in the (real estate industry dominated) press as selfish people, resistant to change. 

Luckily, Councilmember Hanif shared a vision for community involvement in shaping the future of our community. We met a compromise that satisfied all local players, including the single property owner seeking to line their own pockets through the rezoning application, much like Arrow Linen. But community power and compromise dismayed the powerful real estate industry. In the aftermath of this community success, I was lied to and misquoted by so-called journalists, and then raked over the coals on Twitter (now “X”) by trolls. Councilmember Hanif continues to be blasted for her role in the compromise. It’s hard to find an article about rezoning in New York City that doesn’t take an unfair and untrue swipe at her for “missed opportunities”. 

There are some significant differences between the Arrow Linen proposal and the 9th Street rezoning proposal. The 9th Street proposal came on the heels of the larger 2021 Gowanus rezoning. The only recent nearby rezoning comparable to the Arrow Linen proposal is the International Baptist Park Church site on Park Circle, by the Parade Grounds. Construction there is almost completed, resulting in the addition of 278 apartments, including 70 “affordable units”. The Park Circle rezoning, like the 9th Street rezoning, involved a change to residential zoning from another zoning classification. The International Baptist Park Church could have built a tall hotel or storage facility without a zoning change. A hotel or large storage facility was not part of then-Councilmember Brad Lander’s vision for the area. As a result, he supported the Park Circle rezoning after securing a commitment from the identified developer to a higher level of affordability. Much of the local community was dismayed. They expressed significant concerns including that the scale of the project was out of character with the neighborhood, the addition of hundreds of luxury units would lead to gentrification in the area, and there would be increased pressure on the already taxed transportation, sewer and sanitation systems.

 

Unlike the 9th Street and Park Circle rezoning proposals, the Arrow Linen site is already zoned residential. Without a change in zoning, 80+ residential units could be developed on the existing Arrow Linen lots. There’s got to be some entity interested in doing just that, without a zoning change. But that’s not Arrow Linen’s vision. Arrow Linen’s vision is not about the future of Windsor Terrace; it’s about the future of their bank account. Changing the zoning classification would allow the property owners to sell the property for significantly more money. The vision of a single property owner seeking to personally enrich themselves will alter the entire character of a well-established community under the guise of improving the community, even against significant, and even overwhelming opposition from the community itself. I’m not particularly comfortable with this. Are you? 

I think about whose vision for the future of a community should be realized. Should it be the vision of local business owners, like Montgomery Ward or Arrow Linen? Should community outsiders, like Open New York, determine a community’s fate? What priority should be given to the vision of the people who live in that community?  Should the vision of elected officials who represent a community be different from the majority of those who live in the community? Should access to resources, like money and media control, give one vision more power over another?

Beneficent intentions are touted by all visions presented in these current Brooklyn neighborhood development debates.  Simultaneously, all sides claim malicious intentions from their opposition. There is no trusted arbiter to resolve these conflicts. These debates will always result in winners and losers, and ultimately disrupt community cohesion, unless there is compromise and conciliation. 

I implore everyone to take a position on this, or any, issue that will impact their community. But, I beg of everyone to work towards a shared vision. That vision might not be perfect, or meet everyone’s goals. But, maybe. Just maybe, 100+ years from now, someone flying over Brooklyn will find beauty in what they see.