To preserve the character (read: lower densities) of New York City neighborhoods that are finding themselves bursting at the seams after decades of obscurity and decline, neighborhood officials are asking the city administration to have their areas "downzoned:"
In what some housing experts are calling "the downzoning uprising," communities throughout the city want to see an end to an influx of apartments, additional people, and what they consider McMansions - and to preserve neighborhoods of limestone town houses, 1950's ranch houses, even humble wood-frame houses wrapped in aluminum siding.
The administration has agreed, with enthusiasm. Since 2002, 42 rezonings "to preserve neighborhood character," as the administration puts it, have been approved or are under review. About 3,600 blocks have been rezoned, and more proposals are on the way. By contrast, officials say, the city approved only eight such rezonings in the three years before 2002.
The demand to control neighborhood density comes as the city's population is projected to reach 8.4 million by 2010, up from an estimated 8.1 million today. There is already a shortage of housing that moderate and middle-income people can afford. So the push for downzoning pits the rights of neighborhoods against the city's broader need to equitably accommodate its growth.
Very broadly, there is an issue about codifying stasis, and an obvious fear of the future, that needs to be considered here, one with big cultural effects but also economic ones (does one have to compensate for downzoning with inclusionary zoning?). There is an impact for not just the city, but also the suburbs and the entire region. Ironically, I read this article after seeing an article about loft development in Detroit, one of the most severe examples of a reverse of the problem New York seems to have (and one where the protectionism at work isn't as much economic as it is racial). I had a thought that perhaps the epicenter of the Rust Belt, notorious for its massive urban ills, might somehow be the right kind of vortex for self-directed people to establish themselves. Maybe there's no fixed narrative there, or one that has been completely obliterated, or one people are eager to replace? A dose of creative freedom that, coupled with job opportunity, could again attract newcomers? (The Web presence of Detroit is somewhat slanted toward photoblogs of grand, old abandoned buildings--but then again, that is exactly the kind of backdrop a lot of people seek).
Everyone knows of New York's historic role as a portal to the future for millions. Downzoning is the kind of regulation that might signal a changing attitude here. What if the open cities of the future were the ones most ignored, the most devoid of appeal, sitting right under our noses? Where opportunity is not immediately obvious?
Well, here is another Detroit article referring to the suburb of Ferndale, a formerly struggling 50's-era first-ring suburb that finds itself becoming home to a thriving gay community. Its mayor recently staged a large-scale commitment ceremony with dozens of couples, despite Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Next door is the city of Royal Oak--home to nightclubs, coffee shops, affordable housing, a ton of real estate development, and widely recognized as the hippest part of Detroit. Williamsburg, in Brooklyn, even has a bar named for it. (Amazing what Google can find).
These places have reaped the benefits of being solvent nearby alternatives to still-struggling Detroit--and in the process have opened themselves to change and newfound vitality. Freezing a place in time does not ensure its long-term viability at all.
Comments