HOMELESS & HOUSING MEETING RECAP: TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024

October 8, 2024 | johnmudd

SUMMARY

Sueranna Antoine, Deputy Director, Mainchance Drop-in Center: Mainchance, a non-profit organization that has been serving the community for 35 years, is facing the threat of closure due to unclear reasons from the Department of Human Services (DHS).  Tom Lunke, Urban Planner: The New York City charter has a section called 197-a plans. Since New York City does not have a comprehensive master plan for the entire city, it allows political districts, such as community districts, to create district-wide master plans. The Chelsea 197-a plan was one of the first such plans adopted by New York in 1996. David Holowka, Architect, 25-year Chelsea Resident: looks at how the 197-a plan influenced Chelsea, zoning in the blocks around the NYCHA campuses, and how current zoning relates to the proposed NYCHA alternatives. Crista Edroi, Court Advocate at the United Tenants of Albany: In Albany’s housing court, there is a stark imbalance in representation: only 3% of tenants have legal representation compared to 98% of landlords.

CHAIR: John Mudd

MINUTES: Sharon Jasprizza

WELCOME / INTRODUCTIONS

John Mudd welcomed everyone to today’s meeting.

POLICY MEETING UPDATES

There were no policy meeting updates. 

MAY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Congratulations to John Mudd, MSCC, on being honored at the Chelsea Reform Democratic Club Annual Brunch for his incredible work on homelessness, healthcare, and quality of life in New York City. John’s dedication and passion for helping those in need make a difference in our community. Thank you, John Mudd, for all that you do! #CRDCAnnualBrunch #MakingADifference #CommunityChampion 🌟👏🏼🏙️
  • MSCC’s Art & Culture Program continues to support local artists in New York City, and we are excited to announce the launch of Carl Kissin’s new Art & Culture Program, “Improv and Beyond,” in Long Island City! Join an improv class that goes beyond utilizing improv to create stand-up, storytelling, solo work, and more. Classes start on June 6th; don’t miss out! And, if you’d rather stay closer to the Midtown South area, there is also a drop-in improv class on Tuesday nights, 7-9 pm, on West 59th Street. For details, Email kissinimprov@gmail.com or call 917-692-5000.   #improv #NYCclasses #comedy #longislandcity #midtownsouth #kissinimprov

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION(S) AND OR UPDATES: 

  • Carol Lamberg, Author and Community Member: Chairs the 2 Bridges Neighborhood Council, which has remarkable programs for young people, including a new music program. Carol’s books include Section 8, and her real success stories are The Bronx Buildings 

MAINCHANCE DROP-IN SHELTER IS THREATENED

Sueranna Antoine, Deputy Director, Mainchance Drop-in Center. 120 East 32nd Street, New York, NY, 10016, ph. 212-883-0680 x124, santoine@gcnssc.org 

  • Mainchance, a non-profit organization that has been serving the community for 35 years, is facing the threat of closure due to unclear reasons from the Department of Human Services (DHS). The organization provides various essential services, including three meals daily for clients, a soup kitchen serving around 300 people daily, a monthly pantry for 85 families, and accommodation for 70 to 72 individuals each night. They also offer case management support for housing, medical and psychiatric services, referrals, and travel assistance.
  • The news that Mainchance may close its doors has sparked outrage and concern among the community, prompting Council members, the Board President, and other supporters to rally together to defend the organization. Letters of support have been written to the Mayor and the DHS commissioner, urging them to reconsider the decision and clarify the situation.
  • Despite the initial reason for the potential closure being budget cuts, it was later revealed that there was no specific cause for the threat. This lack of clarity has only fueled Mainchance and its supporters’ determination to fight for the organization to remain operational.
  • Various news outlets have covered Mainchance’s impending closure, bringing attention to the vital services it provides to the community and the impact its closure would have on those in need. The organization remains steadfast in its commitment to serving the community and continuing its important work, regardless of its challenges.
  • As Mainchance continues to fight for its survival, the outpouring of support from the community and local leaders is a testament to the organization’s invaluable role in the lives of those it serves. The dedication and resilience of Mainchance and its supporters are a testament to the power of community solidarity in times of adversity
  • Mainchance’s clients do not wish to leave even though the center is full every night; They have no place to go. There are centers on 14th and 28th Streets, but clients prefer their community, and it is not clear if there are spaces available at other sites

DISCUSSION

  • John Mudd, MSCC, referred to the support letter MSCC has written to Mayor Adams and is in the process of bringing others to sign on. It is found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OA6dC1DciHCbeh_hFitDmnBkye-s-bHTJ9r9-JaQ7a8/edit?usp=sharing
  • John Mudd, MSCC, asked about legal support for the ongoing battle to stay open
  • Sueranna Antoine, Deputy Director, Mainchance Drop-in Center, one Mainchance board member, and an attorney filed legal action against the city yesterday, June 3, 2024
  • John Mudd, MSCC, MSCC is working on some block parties and press conferences
  • Sueranna Antoine, Deputy Director, Mainchance Drop-in Center, If anyone needs food, the food pantries are open next Wednesday, June 12, from 2.00 PM to 3.30 PM
  • Robert Robinson, Partners 4 Dignity & Rights, a human rights advocate and also formally homeless, 646-509-9986 rob.robinson423@gmail.com, During my time at the Open Door, Rob built strong relationships with the staff and organization that runs it, Urban Pathways. This and Rob’s understanding of the challenges individuals face in similar facilities and becoming a part of a group of impacted advocates allows Rob to sit at the table with high-level officials from the Department of Social Services, HPD, and the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. It’s a platform to have a voice heard and to advocate for the changes needed in the system
  • Rob suggests he meet Sueranna and discuss potential strategies to bring the conversation into City Hall and engage with key decision-makers
  • Rob is a member of an impacted Advocates group founded by Jessica Katz when she was Chief Housing Officer. Rob sits with the Commission of the Department of Social Services twice a month and high-level DHS people. Part of this meeting is Deputy Mayor and Williams, Iceland, the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. Rob says 

there may be a way our voices and other impacted advocates can support Mainchance and possibly catch City Hall off guard right when we start asking questions about what’s happening

  • John Mudd, MSCC: We’re having a meeting with Nichelle Carver from USISCH

to strategize, it may be wise to bring Sueranna’s concerns to Nichelle.

  • Robert Robinson, Partners 4 Dignity & Rights, suggests broaching the subject with Nichelle. Nichelle works with the US Interagency Council on Homelessness Federal Agency, which brings together 19 Federal agencies to try to end homelessness. She is the regional director here in the northeast, and she’s very interested in what is happening on the ground, particularly in New York City

ACTIONS

  • Robert Robinson, Partners 4 Dignity & Rights, and Sueranna Antoine, Deputy Director, Mainchance Drop-in Center, will meet to work on bringing the issues to City Hall

NYCHA’S FULTON AND ELLIOT CHELSEA HOUSING REBUILD AND ZONING 

David Holowka, Architect 

  • David, a 25-year Chelsea resident, gave an overview of today’s presentation and introduced Tom Lunke, who was involved in creating a 197-a plan for Chelsea. Section 197-a of the City Charter intends to improve the city, boroughs, and communities. The plan influenced Chelsea’s zoning
  • This presentation is one that Tom and David put together for Community Board 4. It was essential to examine how the proposal for Fulton and Elliot Chelsea related to the long-term community plans for zoning and how Chelsea should be shaped. Tom was on the community board 20 years ago when the 197-a plan was implemented. He has a history as an urban planner
  • David is an architect unfamiliar with the zoning in Chelsea but did learn about it and put together this second part of the presentation. Tom talks about the goals of the 197-a plan. David talks about the different generations of Chelsea zoning to see how it developed, the direction it was going in, and what’s currently being proposed for Fulton and Elliot Chelsea by the NYCHA and Related Development team. The new redevelopment plan, which will be overseen by NYCHA and Essence Development and co-developed by Related Companies, prioritizes the rebuilding of all the campuses’ existing NYCHA apartment buildings, as well as the redesigning of community centers
  • Related and NYCHA say that renovating the existing buildings will cost nearly as much as replacing them. When NYCHA recently presented to CB4, they presented the tenant survey, which is very controversial and seemed to indicate that the tenants preferred a demolition plan. At the meeting, David asked where the two choices on the survey came from for demolition instead of renovation of the existing buildings. 

David was told that it came from the fact that it would cost as much to renovate as to restore. If that’s the case, then why not let the tenants decide? Renovating would be common sense as David commented the buildings are structurally fine, the buildings are subject to New York City Local Law 11 inspections every five years that require their facades to be maintained.  Local Law 11, also known as the Facade Inspection and Safety Program (FISP), mandates periodic inspections of buildings taller than six stories to ensure public safety

  • If everything was gutted from the existing shells, including elevators, the structural system, and fire stairs, and then replaced with new infrastructure to meet current standards, it seems this would cost less than demolishing the buildings, creating new foundations, new building shells, new fire stairs and rebuild the identical new apartments
  • D. T. Max reported in The New Yorker on April 29, 2024, that the developer, Nathan Berman, who’s developing a 1967 office building in Lower Manhattan at 55 Broad Street, could renovate the building into housing for under 400 million dollars while demolishing it and rebuilding it as housing would cost over 600 million. The sale price for 55 Broad was $172.5 million. The construction loan was set at two hundred and twenty million dollars. The total cost of the project—nearly four hundred million dollars—was considerable. Still, replacing the office tower with a new building, Berman told me, would have cost “well over six hundred million.” (According to Berman, upgrading it to attract new office tenants would have cost roughly eighty million dollars.) 
  • Even when a building that doesn’t lend itself to conversion to housing costs less than two-thirds than it would to demolish the building and rebuild. Compare this to the NYCHA buildings, which were initially built as housing, which already have perfect dimensions for conversion
  • Yet, the Fulton and Chelsea Elliot proposal is about rebuilding rather than renovating at 2/3 of the cost. The ULURP process and the EIS are already underway. NYCHA and Related say they must build the new market-rate housing from scratch to recoup their costs. David does not see anyone challenging this or anyone providing any substantiation to support the demolition
  • The New York City Charter requires specific actions reviewed by the City Planning Commission to undergo a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). ULURP is a standardized procedure for publicly reviewing applications affecting the city’s land use.
  • On January 8, NYCHA announced the issuance of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the redevelopment of Fulton Houses and Elliott-Chelsea Houses. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) will serve as the joint lead agency for the environmental review process.

Tom Lunke, Urban Planner

  • Tom has lived in Chelsea for 32 years and is an urban planner with over 40 years of practice and was a student at Columbia University in the urban planning program when my professors discussed and drafted the Chelsea, 197-a plan in consultation with Manhattan Community Board 4
  • The New York City charter has a section called 197-a plans. Since New York City does not have a comprehensive master plan for the entire city, it allows political districts, such as community districts, to create district-wide master plans. The city’s Department of City Planning carefully reviews and modifies these land use plans to ensure they meet its goals and objectives. The plans are also reviewed and voted on by community boards, borough presidents, and the City Council; the Chelsea 197-a plan was one of the first such plans adopted by the city of New York in 1996
  • Who may sponsor a 197-a plan? • Community Boards • Borough Boards • Borough Presidents • DCP • The City Planning Commission • The Mayor
  • Zoning is a tool that a city uses to implement the goals and objectives outlined in master plans. After the 197-a plan was adopted, Tom was appointed by the Borough President to Manhattan Community Board 4 and worked closely with Ed Kirkland, who was on the board at the time and chaired the Chelsea Preservation and Planning Committee, and the New York City Department of City planning to turn the 197-a plan into Chelsea’s 1999 Contextual rezoning. This was a first in New York City
  • While some of the goals of the 197-a plan were not adopted in 1999 rezoning, such as the preservation of manufacturing uses and the creation of new affordable housing in East Chelsea (between 6th and 7th Avenues south of 23rd), the 197-a plan did create restrictions on how tall and dense residential and commercial buildings could be
  • The NYCHA campuses were not carefully studied in the 197-a plan and, therefore, were given noncontextually zoning in 1999; they would later be analyzed in the 2,021 Chelsea NYCHA working group report
  • The following list highlights decades of community engagement in shaping Chelsea’s Land, of adopted community plans and rezonings:  the 1996 Chelsea 197-a plan, the 1999 Chelsea 190-c, 197-c, Rezoning, the West Chelsea, 197-C. Rezoning in 2005 and the Chelsea Nigel Working Group report in 2021
  • The 197-a Plan and its 1999 and 2005 rezonings have created nearly 10,000 new housing units, with 20,000 new residents. Space has also been added for thousands of new workers and tourists, all while maintaining the historic scale of the neighborhood.
  • The following is a list of quotes, with their listed pages, from the Chelsea 197-a plan: 
  1. Page 8. Broad goals of preservation of the historical character and community form protection of the existing low-income, housing, stock, and provision of new affordable housing stock as affordable housing at a reasonable scale
  2. Page 11. To minimize displacement, zoning must not encourage the replacement of sound buildings with new structures 
  3. Page 11. Any community must change to live. But massive replacement of the existing building stock over a short period entails the destruction of community identity 
  4. Page 11. Besides individual hardship, displacement of persons with low income or social handicaps is likely to lead to homelessness.
  5. Page 12. To preserve the character and perception of community unity, zoning must not allow the erection of walls of taller buildings on main thoroughfares that alter the feel of the community, dominate lower areas near them, psychologically cut off one midblock from another, and isolate subsections of the community. 

NOTE: NYCHA and Related proposal seeks to put incredibly high, dense high rises on 9th and 10th Avenues

  1. Page 12. The human scale of most of the community and this distinctive form give Chelsea an identity as an attractive and livable community that would be destroyed by future development on an inappropriate model. The diminution of light and air, particularly given the need for more open spaces in the traditionally built portion of Chelsea, would severely diminish the quality of life in the community.
  • More discussion about the loss of publicly owned open space needs to be held in the NYCHA Related presentations. Many wide-open spaces around Fulton and Elliot C would be destroyed under this plan. There are over a hundred mature trees in the Elliott Chelsea Campuses and then with Fulton. One resident of Fulton counted 82 trees to be destroyed on her campus. These are 70 years old, plus trees that reduce the carbon in the atmosphere and give oxygen. They’re like the lungs of Chelsea, and they’re not being preserved according to the NYCHA Related plan
  • The following are two quotes from the Chelsea NYCHA Working Group report
  1. Page 36. No existing residential buildings in the NYCHA Chelsea developments will be demolished 
  2. Page 36. The development of residential infill sites must balance maximum capital financing for Chelsea NYCHA development renovations while respecting the NYCHA campus and neighborhood context in height and bulk. Infill development must also balance a range of affordability, with minimum market-rate units, to keep comprehensive renovations at each development financially feasible.

DISCUSSION

  • John Mudd, MSCC: What links do you see in this trend?
  • Tom Lunke, Urban Planner: demolishing existing affordable housing in NYCHA campuses as part of urban renewal plans is a concerning trend that harkens back to the failed promises of the past. The history of urban renewal in the fifties, sixties, and early seventies has shown that replacing affordable housing only sometimes materializes, leading to the displacement of residents. With over 5,000 people living in NYCHA developments and planning over 2,000 units to be demolished, the risk of displacement is high. The lack of funding for replacement housing further exacerbates the issue, leaving residents vulnerable to housing insecurity.

One key concern with the current urban renewal proposals is the need for more value placed on open space. For example, the City of Yes housing plan prioritizes housing development over preserving open spaces in communities like East Harlem. The potential loss of open spaces, such as in Stuyvesant Town, threatens the quality of life for residents who value the greenery and nature in their surroundings. The push for future development on housing campuses needs to be revised to maintain open spaces that contribute to the well-being of residents.

Furthermore, the issue of building demolition on NYCHA properties raises questions about the soundness of the existing structures. While maintenance issues may need to be addressed, the buildings are reportedly solid and do not warrant demolition according to HUD regulations. Preserving existing affordable housing is crucial in ensuring the stability and security of residents, and decisions regarding urban renewal plans must prioritize the community’s well-being over short-term development goals. Learning from past mistakes and prioritizing preserving affordable housing and open spaces in urban renewal efforts is essential

  • Miriam Fisher, a Community member, attended some of the hearings. It’s important to consider what is needed and how much change is necessary
  • Tom Lunke, a 32-year resident of Chelsea, had discussions with the NYCHA residents who formed a coalition to stop the demolition. Many residents are happy with their apartments and say they are in good shape. But yet, the NYCHA presentation by Related promotes the sky is falling, and something must be done immediately
  • John Mudd, MSCC: Its purposeful deterioration

CHATBOX

Rob Robinson, Partners 4 Dignity & Rights: Urban renewal is a euphemism for negro removal

David Holowka, Architect, 25-year Chelsea Resident

  • This part of the presentation will examine how the 197-a plan influenced Chelsea,  zoning in the blocks around the NYCHA campuses, and how current zoning relates to the proposed NYCHA alternatives. The presentation covers:
  1. Zoning requirements for open space and setbacks
  2. Developers can choose to build taller buildings
  3. Each zoning area has its FAR
  4. Examples of Fulton Houses and Elliot Chelsea buildings and their FAR
  5. Comparison of the actual built area to allow FAR
  6. Potential rezoning to increase FAR
  7. Overview of surrounding blocks and historic districts
  8. Visual representation of FAR for each block or block portion
  9. Implementation of Chelsea 197A plan and 1999 rezoning recommendations.
  • David’s PowerPoint presentation illustrated the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) concept. An example is a building lot with a FAR of 1 and a building with a FAR of 2. This means a building can be constructed on it with a floor area equaling the lot area. The floor area ratio is the ratio of allowed building area to lot area, which in this case is one-to-one. The built floor area can be distributed over multiple floors if it totals no more than the lot area. The bottom row shows a similar example for a lot with a FAR of 2 zoning, often requiring open space where setbacks squeeze floor area upward as additional stories. Developers can also build taller, skinnier buildings for design or marketing purposes. Every zoning area has its own far, and all building lots within it share that far zoning areas cover city blocks or parts of blocks before looking at surrounding blocks. 
  • Next are slides of the NYCHA campuses to see how their built area relates to their FAR.
  1. The following image shows the Fulton Houses buildings in gray and their building lots in green. According to ZoLa, the city zoning, and the land use map, ZoLa provides a simple way to research zoning regulationsThe Fulton houses buildings have gross square footage of 850,030 square feet and a total lot area of 261,943 square feet. Their combined square footage is three and a quarter times their combined lot area. If their floor area were distributed over the entire campus’s lot area, it would be more than three stories tall. That’s a little over half of what zoning allows, with its current FAR of 6.0 2 over most of the site and 7.5 over the western part. 
  1. David performed a similar exercise for the Elliot Chelsea houses. This diagram shows the dark gray floor area of Fulton Houses and Elliot Chelsea. The lighter gray immediately above shows how much more area can be added under the current FARS.  Fulton Houses are built to about 50% of the allowed distance, and Elliot Chelsea to about 80% of the permitted distance. The latest grey zone at the top shows how much more floor area would be allowed under the nature redevelopment projects. They are rezoning an alternative—the NYCHA. The rezoning would increase the FARS by nearly one and a half times, allowing 2 and 3 quarter times the current floor area of Fulton houses and one and three-quarter times the current floor area of Elliot Chelsea.
  1. A look at the surrounding blocks follows:

This is a schematic map of the area in which North is down. Fulton and Elliot, Chelsea are shown in gray, and parks are shown in green areas. In yellow are New York City landmarks or historic districts. The yellow area at the top is the Gansevoort Market historic district. The area hatched in diagonal lines next to it, which includes Chelsea market, is within the larger Gansevoort market. The state and the national registers of historic places establish historic districts. The yellow area in the center is the Chelsea landmark district. The diagonally hatched area next to it is a potential district extension. This area contains over a hundred historic buildings, about half of which are Greek revival row houses, Chelsea signature, historic building type, including commercial 1st floors directly across 9th Avenue from Fulton. The West Chelsea landmark district is the yellow area across 10th Avenue from the Elliott Chelsea houses. This district’s Avenue School building is immediately across from Elliot’s house. The smaller yellow area between London Terrace and Elliot Chelsea indicates 12 landmark rowhouses from 1840. The western half of the block contains other historic buildings. The small yellow area at the lower right in Penn South is the Landmark Church of the Holy Apostles. This is an oblique view of the same map that shows the floor area ratio for each block or block portion before the recommendations of the Chelsea 197-A plan were implemented in the 1999 rezoning. Fulton is at upper left, in gray, and Elliott Chelsea at lower right, in gray. This image extrudes blocks and large sections upward in proportion to their FARS to give a visual sense of the allowed building bulk. The idea is to create a topographic map of the city’s intention for Chelsea’s development. A floor area covers the entire lot with no open space. The darker gray at the bottom of the NYCHA blocks indicates the actual built square footage with a lighter gray above, showing their full FAR.  The Google Building and London Terrace predate modern zoning, and they are both substantially more significant than what the FARS on this map allows. London Terrace was the largest apartment complex in the world when it was completed in 1930. Its floor area is about 10.4 times its lot area. Its impact is reduced by being bordered on three sides by 100-foot-wide streets and having front gardens. However, multiple blocks of buildings of its size would have little light and air, as a walk down 24th Street attests.  The 1999 rezoning significantly lowered FAR in historically sensitive areas, reducing it from 6 to 3 in many places. 

  1. David refers to reductions in FAR as down-zoning and increases as up-zoning. This is post-1999. Ed Kirkland had much to do with this rezoning and how closely areas of reduced FAR related, not just to landmark sites. But to other historic areas worth respecting. Even the half block with the 12-row houses between 10th and 11th Avenues was down-zoned.  23rd Street, between 10th and 11th Avenues, was converted from manufacturing to residential use and up-zoned to allow large apartment buildings. The two southern Fulton houses blocks saw a slight increase in FAR due to being rezoned from a manufacturing to a residential district
  2. David referred to diagrams to show the direction of FAR before 1999 and after. 2005, the special West Chelsea district was created to complement the High Line. 

Blocks over which it passed were converted from manufacturing to residential use and partially up-zoned to encourage housing development. E.g., two southern blocks of Fulton houses fall within an area that had its far increase to 7.5 near where the High Line crosses 10th Avenue. The tall Caledonia Residential building, at 450 West 17th St, is within this area just north of Chelsea Market on 10th Avenue. These up-zoned areas are generally away from the low-rise historic regions.  Farther north, the buildings in the West Chelsea landmark district, between 10th and 11th Avenues, are very large and wouldn’t be dwarfed by the new FARS.  To their north, blocks approaching the planned high-rise Hudson Yard site were up-zoned to FARS as high as 12, while the area across 10th Avenue from the Chelsea historic district saw an increase in FAR. A height limit of 80 feet was imposed on it, with incentives for transferring unused FAR to remote sites away from the High Line.  A relatively high FAR of 6 is seen right across 10th Avenue from the General Theological Seminary. However, the 80-foot height limit kept the building eventually constructed there to a contextual scale. 

  1. In this section, David discusses the proposed FAR increases for the Fulton and Elliot Chelsea sites under NYCHA’s redevelopment project and the proposed FAR increases for the Fulton and Elliot Chelsea sites under NYCHA’s redevelopment project rezoning alternative. Chelsea’s zoning to date has been painstakingly crafted over decades by community consensus to lower FAR in historic areas and raise it at a distance from them. The current NYCHA proposals’ FARS would be higher than any of this part of Chelsea, except for the blocks stepping up to Hudson yards, increasing FARs from 6, for the most part, to 8 and 12 within 100 feet of Avenues. This would introduce steep discrepancies between new construction and low-rise historic neighbors, including Cushman Row in the Chelsea Historic District and Greek Revival Row houses across 9th Avenue from Fulton Houses. The additional bulk allowed on the Elliott Chelsea site would cast Chelsea Park into a shadow. These FAR-based maps obscure finer aspects of neighborhood, scale, and texture. A better sense of that comes from the Chelsea or NYCHA presentation materials. David presents the existing NYCHA campuses in their context: non-rezoning alternative and the rezoning alternative
  2. David ends with a 1960s rendering of Fulton houses. Even though their towers were at a locally unprecedented height, they stood back from both 9th Avenue and the side streets, allowing plenty of light that zoning has always prioritized for 24/7 family life in residential districts. The perimeter buildings step down to match their historical context. Any further development of the NYCHA campuses should score no less for civic-mindedness. These towers are 25 stories, and they’re the tallest buildings around. The current proposal for the NYCHA sites would include buildings up to 39 stories tall. 

DISCUSSION

  • John Mudd, MSCC: asked about housing around Penn
  • David Holowka, Architect, 25-year Chelsea Resident: It seems that everyone wants to build where the biggest payback will be, and of course, that’s around midtown. But it’s not necessarily an ideal place for housing around Penn Station. There was also a proposal to reduce the restrictions on converting office buildings to residential. If an existing office building is in an area without a demand for offices, converting to residential is reasonable. Mixing high-density residential with commercial activity has not always been mutually beneficial. Manufacturing activities with health concerns were always kept separate from residential. In New York, Midtown is zoned higher because people work indoors from 9 to 5, 5 days a week. Residential areas are 24/7 for families, including outdoor activity spaces with more light and air. Thus, David is skeptical about proposing housing around Penn. There are better solutions than putting up tall buildings
  • Robert Robinson, Partners 4 Dignity & Rights: Questions the objectivity of HUD after Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Development (HUD) 2009 – 2014, demolished public housing and rebuilt market-rate housing or mixed-use after the Katrina storm.  The logistics issue of housing half a million people who live in public housing in the US during redevelopment is not considered
  • Harvey Montague, AIA: architects are asked to design mixed-use, and communities want more mixed-use to include offices, affordable housing, regular housing, hotels, healthcare centers, and schools, so mixed-use creates a community. Housing should be near people’s work or transportation. There’s a move to build all the housing adjacent to train and subway stations. It’s a requirement for many towns to create innovative growth and put housing near transportation. This makes a vibrant city. Midtown is mainly office space; now is the time to be creative. An office building doesn’t have to be a mix of housing, health care, school, and office space. This approach is more effective for development because when one use is underperforming, the other can thrive, resulting in a more affordable and economically viable project
  • John Mudd, MSCC: this point was illustrated during the pandemic 
  • David Holowka, Architect, 25-year Chelsea Resident: developers get the most significant return in central areas like midtown. The City of Yes is asking us to give up contextual zoning. This means the building will be 20% larger than zoning currently allows. If 20% is affordable, it could become the vibrant narratives Harvey is talking about. Recently, on a visit to a medical facility on Jackson Avenue in Long Island City, David found that its dead neighborhood was entirely of new apartment buildings and new office buildings. How much of New York has this potential, and how could it be developed instead of piling more on top of the Upper West Side, the Upper East Side, Chelsea, and Midtown?
  • John Mudd, MSCC: It is important to be a watchdog, as the extract of wealth affects older people and people with low income
  • R Keitt, Community Member: We are a mixed community, and it already exists. The

housing and mixed-use buildings are already in the Pen Plaza area. It’s just not housing. The answer to the question is the hundreds of vacant lots in this city, and as David said, communities can blossom anywhere. Give them the chance to do that. Stop pushing everything into the middle.

  • David Holowka, Architect, 25-year Chelsea Resident: I agree with Renee. The open spaces surrounding the NYCHA campuses exemplify the architectural philosophy rooted in the towers-in-a-park model, notably championed by the esteemed architect Le Corbusier, with Pen South reflecting this vision. This approach emphasizes the importance of balance and maintaining open spaces within urban environments. French architects Lacaton & Vassal, who received the prestigious Pritzker Prize in 2001, are renowned for their commitment to preserving existing structures rather than demolishing them in favor of new developments. Their expertise in renovating 1960s social housing proves more cost-effective than complete rebuilds and enhances the buildings while they remain occupied. As the world grapples with both a climate change crisis and a housing crisis, Lacaton & Vassal’s innovative strategies serve as a vital reminder that urban renewal can be achieved through thoughtful preservation and adaptation rather than destruction
  • Miriam Fisher, Community Member: known in the community as the “elevator lady,” has been a passionate advocate for increasing accessibility in Chelsea, particularly along 6th Avenue and 23rd Street. In her recent comments, she expressed concern about the missed opportunities for enhancing accessibility during the construction on 8th Avenue, specifically regarding the subway station at 23rd and 8th. Miriam highlighted that there was a chance to leverage developer incentives to make the subway accessible by installing elevators, which could have significantly improved accessibility for residents and visitors alike. Unfortunately, she fears this opportunity has been lost since the development is complete. Her remarks underscore the importance of integrating accessibility considerations into urban planning and development discussions
  • David Holowka, Architect, 25-year Chelsea Resident: is not sure if it will be the Department of Transportation or city planning will establish a policy requiring accessibility designs of new developments over the subway.
  • Miriam Fisher, Community Member: spoke to Eric Botcher. He says it’s too late for that site. Miriam expressed her thoughts on the perks associated with certain agreements, noting that they could expand the lobby, including more businesses and the potential for adding another floor. However, she clarified that these topics were not raised in meetings she attended, mainly since she didn’t participate in land use meetings. Her involvement has primarily been with the See Before Transportation meetings, where she has actively advocated for accessibility, specifically at the intersection of 23rd and 6th, as she believed that location had the best chance of securing an elevator due to the nearby facility for individuals with disabilities. She lamented that opportunities for development on 8th Avenue were missed and expressed regret for not being aware of the discussions, stating, “If I had known, I would have spoken up.”
  • Tom Lunke, a 32-year resident of Chelsea: The zoning resolution includes provisions for subway improvements, allowing developers to gain extra floor area if they incorporate features like stairs or elevators within their private lots. However, contextual zoning complicates the situation in places like Chelsea, particularly the corner referenced by Miss Fisher. Contextual zones impose strict height and density limits, eliminating developers’ potential to receive additional bonuses for such enhancements. This limitation was evident in the case of a seven-story building constructed at the intersection of 16th Street and 8th Avenue, where a more strategically placed stairway could have been integrated into the new Chase bank. Unfortunately, the lack of incentives for developers to facilitate these subway access points has resulted in stairs being relegated to narrow sidewalks, diminishing the overall accessibility and functionality of the urban environment.
  • Carol Lamberg, MSCC: In my book, “Neighborhood Success Stories,” I share the inspiring journey of a significant development project in the Bronx that began in 1989. At the time, I was initially skeptical about attracting applicants, as our plan involved housing 30% formerly homeless individuals, 40% low-income families, and 20% market-rate tenants, with 10% unregulated units. To my surprise, we received an overwhelming response with around 25,000 applications. Today, I am heartened to see these buildings thriving and contributing positively to the community. The playgrounds have been revitalized, children are joyfully playing, and local businesses are bustling. I believe that the collaborative efforts of the residents and stakeholders can pave the way for further successful developments, as we all recognize how essential it is to foster vibrant, inclusive neighborhoods
  • Harry Montague: In urban design, two crucial concepts stand out: the importance of human scale and the necessity for genuine green spaces. First, every structure we create must relate to human activity and scale; whether it’s housing, offices, or public buildings, they should enhance the human experience rather than overwhelm it. Unfortunately, many architects overlook this vital aspect, leading to environments that fail to resonate with their inhabitants. Second, the notion of “towers in the park” often results in underutilized green spaces that merely cast shadows rather than serve as vibrant communal areas. Instead, we should advocate for establishing entire blocks dedicated to parks that function as the city’s lungs, providing essential recreational regions, opportunities for urban agriculture, and social gathering spots. By prioritizing these principles, neighborhoods can cultivate a more livable and sustainable urban landscape.

CHATBOX

  • Robert Robinson, Partners 4 Dignity & Rights, 646-509-9986 rob.robinson423@gmail.com
  • Miriam Fisher, Community member: several tenants said their apartments were OK. It might be that selected apartments and areas are deficient, not the whole structures
  • Alex Yong WSide Nbd Alliance: We need more market-rate housing
  • Robert Robinson: Urban renewal is a euphemism for Negro removal!
  • Michele Zalopany, Community member: Is Erik Bottcher present or anyone from his office?
  • Robert Robinson: Yes, Alex, ! he was HPD Commissioner before Obama chose him to lead HUD
  • Robert Robinson: David, while I agree L.I.C. has undergone a metamorphosis, what are the rents in all those shiny new buildings?
  • Zoom user: Save section 9 no demolition Nycha Chelsea Elliot Fulton no private developer. Isn’t the landscape in danger of New York having too many heavy buildings
  • Carol Lamberg: Our 14 renovations of 14 vacant buildings in the Bronx are now thriving. In the Bronx, we have a playground and a lot of gardens

United Tenants of Albany

Crista Edroi, Court Advocate at the United Tenants of Albany

  • Crista assists tenants facing eviction in a city without the right to counsel for such cases. Her role involves meeting tenants both through a hotline and in person at the courthouse, providing support with financial assistance and rental payments, and educating them about their rights in housing disputes
  • In Albany’s housing court, representation needs to be more balanced: only 3% of tenants have legal representation compared to 98% of landlords. While some tenants can access legal aid, resources are limited, and Krista collaborates with a pro bono attorney for more complex cases
  • Recent developments in tenant protections include the Residential Occupancy Permit Law, which requires landlords to be registered to evict tenants, and a new “good cause” eviction law that mandates landlords provide justifiable reasons for eviction. This new law aims to curb rampant rent increases and evictions that have affected long-term residents in the community
  • Crista also discusses the challenges tenants face when negotiating payment agreements for back rent, which can lead to further complications if payments are missed. Overall, she highlights the ongoing struggles of tenants in Albany and the efforts of organizations like United Tenants to provide support amid challenging circumstances
  • Crista discusses various rights and options available to tenants in legal proceedings concerning their housing situation. Tenants have the right to request an adjournment during their first court appearance, which postpones the case for two weeks. This time allows them to seek assistance from legal organizations to understand their circumstances better. However, landlord attorneys may discourage adjournments by suggesting that tenants may lose certain benefits upon returning to court, which can deter tenants from pursuing this option
  • Another option available to tenants is to request an abatement hearing if they face habitability issues in their unit, such as leaks or code violations. During this hearing, they can present evidence, and the judge will determine a fair reduction in rent owed, though some amount will always be due
  • Tenants can also negotiate move-out dates in court that are more suitable for them and can request a hardship stay if they are up to date on rent but facing eviction due to other circumstances, such as health issues or children in local schools
  • Additionally, tenants benefit from notice periods (30, 60, or 90 days) that provide a timeframe to relocate, which is particularly important for long-term residents. The text emphasizes the significance of these rights in protecting tenants and facilitating smoother transitions in housing situations

DISCUSSION

  • Tom Lunke, a 32-year resident of Chelsea: In the presentations by David and myself, we discussed the concept of contextual zoning, which involves assessing a neighborhood’s scale and implementing zoning regulations to preserve that scale. The Chelsea 197 plan and its subsequent rezonings exemplify this approach by honoring the area’s established low-rise and mid-rise character while allowing some flexibility for limited height increases in certain parts of the district. This zoning creates a harmonious building envelope that respects the community’s longstanding aesthetic. In contrast, non-contextual zoning, as seen in the NYCHA campuses, permits greater flexibility in building forms, potentially leading to varied architectural styles and heights. David referenced the ideas of architect Le Corbusier, who advocated for transforming traditional row houses into tower structures, thereby maximizing open space on the ground for public use and recreation. This distinction between contextual and non-contextual zoning highlights the importance of maintaining a neighborhood’s character versus allowing for more diverse building designs.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

  • John Mudd, MSCC: I am reaching out to gather a dedicated team of board members, program managers, and committee members for an upcoming rally and press conference on September 15th. Our goal is to significantly impact this event, particularly in response to Hokos’ press conference at the end of the month. We want to generate attention and draw the press to our cause, ensuring our message is heard loud and clear. This is a critical opportunity to connect various issues, from homelessness to housing and rent control, as we push back against overdevelopment in our community. If you’re interested in participating or contributing, please let me know. Let’s unite our efforts and make this a powerful moment for advocacy. Feel free to stick around if you’d like to discuss further

NEXT Homeless and Housing Meeting: 9:30 AM Tuesday, July 2, 2024. Always the 1st Tuesday of every month. Contact hello@midtownsouthcc.org or john.mudd@usa.net for more information and Zoom invitations.

Related Articles

Business

MSCC Homeless & Housing Meeting RECAP: November 5, 2024

Read More
Business

MSCC Homeless and Housing Recap: December 3, 2024

Read More
Business

MSCC Homeless and Housing Meeting RECAP: September 3, 2024

Read More

Make NYC a better place –
sign up for our newsletter!