Share This Article
‘This plan did not start in a developer’s office, or at City Hall. It started through community planning, a series of public conversations that generated core principles for what inclusive, sustainable growth in the neighborhood would require.’
Adi Talwar
A view of Gowanus.
A shrill debate surrounds most rezonings in New York City. Skeptical neighbors protest loudly— not without reason—about displacement, strained infrastructure, soulless towers, and enriched developers. Meanwhile, a pro-growth coalition argues—also not without reason—that if we defer to neighborhood opposition, we won’t build any new housing anywhere, creating an even less affordable and more segregated city.
So it might surprise you that this month, when a community coalition of artists, tenants, homeowners, environmental advocates, and faith leaders rallied outside City Hall in advance of the first rezoning of the de Blasio Administration in a majority white community—the Gowanus Neighborhood Rezoning—they weren’t rallying against the plan. Instead, neighbors rallied to celebrate the wins secured by organizing that will ensure that the things they love about our neighborhood are strengthened and preserved as we welcome new neighbors.
It turns out, having real conversations with community stakeholders all along the way leads to far better outcomes—for the neighborhood, for the city, and for our shared goals.
The Gowanus Rezoning is the first neighborhood-wide rezoning to apply Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) to create affordable units in a whiter, wealthier community. It’s also the first to undergo a racial impact study, with data showing that the new affordable housing the rezoning will generate will lead to a more racially and economically integrated community.
The Gowanus rezoning will bring 8,000 new units of housing, including 3,000 below market rate units affordable to low-income and working-class families, mixed-use commercial and industrial and artist space,as well as new sewer, school, transit, and park infrastructure to the shores of the Gowanus Canal. With a U.S. EPA-ordered Superfund cleanup of the canal underway, this plan represents a proactive intervention by neighbors and advocates to shape the trajectory of growth in an already changing area.
This plan did not start in a developer’s office, or at City Hall. It started through community planning, a series of public conversations that generated core principles for what inclusive, sustainable growth in the neighborhood would require.
The NYC Department of City Planning then worked with the community around these principles, with five working groups open to all residents, being honest about areas of disagreement and building toward consensus. As a result, their plan includes new zoning tools for arts and industry and new schools, landmarking to preserve historic structures, and a vibrant and resilient shorefront design.
Meanwhile, the Gowanus Neighborhood Coalition for Justice brought together a multi-racial and economically diverse group of public housing residents, affordable housing proponents, civic, environmental and faith leaders, artists, and industrial business advocates who forged common demands out of many different interests. Their bottom-line demands were reflected by three large red check-marks on the banner they brought to City Hall earlier this month:
- Fix our local NYCHA homes
- No new Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
- Ensure accountability
They demanded that new development help to clean rather than further pollute the Canal. That community oversight would be built in for the long term. And most important: that all of the apartments in the neighboring public housing developments receive the comprehensive rehab they have long-needed and deserve.
The local community board, Brooklyn’s CB6, overwhelmingly voted “yes with modifications,” demonstrating an unprecedented willingness to accept growth if the community’s priorities for real affordability, for sustainable infrastructure, for a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood were met.
This isn’t usually how things go with rezonings. It often seems like we can’t get the balance right between larger citywide goals and what people want in their neighborhoods. That real estate developers set the agenda, and all communities can do is react. That there’s little hope for creating a less segregated, more affordable, more sustainable city. We’ve called it the “REBNY-NIMBY doom loop.”
But in Gowanus, through a years-long process of community planning and organizing, we were able to forge a remarkable amount of consensus and build the trust that is so critical to doing so, that was ultimately reflected in the “Points of Agreement” document negotiated with City Hall.
What’s the lesson here? That we are capable of planning together for a fairer city. That many people will accept growth in their neighborhood if they are a real part of the planning process. That if we start from shared values, rather than a developer’s proposal, we can agree to combat segregation and invest in sustainability.
Of course, inclusive planning can’t be done only on a neighborhood scale, because so many of the daunting challenges we face—affordability, segregation, aging infrastructure, and the climate crisis—require balancing broader citywide needs with the things people love and want to protect about their neighborhoods.
New York City should commit to comprehensive planning, with communities, grounded in shared values and a data-driven look at the city’s future. Many other cities already do this, and the City Council has laid out a proposal for what it could look like.
Some developers worry that a comprehensive plan will give communities too much say. Some community leaders who are skeptical of growth worry that agreeing on shared citywide values might create pressure for change in their neighborhoods.
Maybe they’re both right. The Gowanus Rezoning shows how that could be a big win for the future of our city.
Michelle de la Uz is the executive director of the Fifth Avenue Committee. Brad Lander is a City Councilmember representing Brooklyn’s 39th District (including Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, and Gowanus) and the comptroller-elect.
8 Comments
Margaret Maugenest
This was not a plan that came from the community, period. Bridging Gowanus was a rigged process. Don’t try to rewrite history.
Ruth
As a member of the community who is deeply disappointed with the public engagement process and the result of this rezoning, I feel insulted by Lander and De La Uz’s false reassurances about the health and safety of our community in the face of massive development. Will they be living next to the polluted land being dug up? Will the light on their streets be blocked by 30-story towers? Will they be displaced like so many artists, musicians, small businesses and rent stabilized tenants? All so that we can have tons of luxury housing on the “waterfront” of the Superfund site that is the Gowanus Canal. Shame!
Dan Miller
Please don’t be fooled by the slick PR that Michelle de la Uz and Brad Landers is serving up here! Read this great article that was recently published exposing them for what they are, giving developers a huge tax break for very little in return!
https://brooklyneagle.com/articles/2021/11/22/a-tale-of-two-brad-landers-an-open-letter-to-the-new-york-city-council-on-the-gowanus-rezone/
Gowanus Gus
This plan started and ended in Brad Lander’s Comptroller campaign office. It will continue in Brad Lander’s Mayoral campaign office. Big developers—the ones planning 22 and 30 story towers today—bought up enormous parcels along and around the Gowanus well before any “Rigging Gowanus” meetings were being held. In fact, many of them donated to Lander’s campaign. The community process was Lander’s attempt to force community consensus on something none of us want. And just so we don’t rewrite history here, this article shows that the community was “wiling” to accept “8 to 18 story buildings.” In fact, that was the most manipulative part of the entire Rigging Gowanus process. But what do we have now? 30 story buildings. https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141125/gowanus/proposal-for-taller-buildings-gowanus-gets-mixed-reaction-from-locals/
Jerome Krase
only those proposals that politically connected developers wanted were squeezed into the end product. affordable housing is not a byproduct, but an afterthought, of luxury upscaling. note also, that with eternal pandemics, increasing housing density is not devoutly to be wished…
linda laViolette
The Gowanus Rezoning is a failure of epic proportions. The community input was totally orchestrated to deliver exactly what Councilman Lander wanted. One of It’s defining features is to place 950 affordable units for low-income BIPOC on the most Toxic land in NYC. This land will not be remediated in any significant way and has coal tar deposits going down 150 feet. It’s no surprise that the Fifth Ave Committee is one of the development partners and will directly benefit from putting low income families in harms way.
Public Place site is also a potentially explosive site since their proposed development sits just feet away from a major gas pipe surrounded by corrosive coal tar deposits.
Why are they applauding overbuilding in a FEMA Flood Zona A that is already an overburdened sewer shed. The Gowanus antiquated infrastructure does not have the capacity to remove the existing sewer effluent. We clearly saw people drown in sewer effluent during Ida.
NYC already dumps 360 million gallons of raw sewage into the Gowanus Canal and that will only get worst as they double and triple the population.
Additionally, Lander has pushed for 421 tax abatements that will deliver 35 year property tax abatements to developers of luxury apartments. These developers will bank billions while paying nothing for schools and infrastructure. The Gowanus Rezoning is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and will only exacerbate the environmental dangers the area will face when the next flood hits.
LK
What kind of person plans for low income housing and a school on forever polluted land? When the people living there come down with cancer and other diseases all these players will be long gone-probably on to another job paid for by taxpayers. The developers will have gotten their tax free development and basements will still be flooded.
Susan Yung
The Marianos died 2019, during COVID’s beginning, of cancers in separate months. It was a 50 year marriage. My mother had encouraged them to buy the neighboring abandoned empty-shell building next door in 1974. They did a lot of renovations to the building since Joe was a physics teacher and Linda an activist & artist. They replaced every rotten wood; replaced plumbing & electrical systems; had installed tin ceilings; planted flowers, fruit trees & grapevines in the backyard where Joe made his special homemade wine. My mother had planted a persimmon tree in her backyard. Recently, after 25 years bearing persimmon fruits, the tree died with no fruits. So I wonder if my neighbor’s cancer is the result of the polluted groundwater where an underwater stream flows close to the coal tar’s polluted Gowanus Canal? Their cause of death were never publicized even when Linda as memer of FROGG, fought courageously for 10 years for the Gowanus Canal’s Superfund Cleanup. I dearly miss my neighbors.
Presently, this article by Brad Lander (the next comptroller) & Michelle de la Luz (Fifth Ave Committee) wants 3,000 or more POC, Seniors and Homeless Families with a new school, instead of a hospital or green park, live on highest toxic land in the USA. I call this a slow systemic genocide for appeasing & dealing with luxury developer’s greed. The Mariano’s sacrifice goes unheeded as a sample for future residences unless the Public Place cleanup of Coal Tars and poisonous substances completely & safely become harmless towards humans.