Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. My name is Moses Gates, and I am the Vice President for Housing and Neighborhood Planning at Regional Plan Association. RPA is a non-profit civic organization that conducts research, planning and advocacy to improve economic opportunity, mobility, environmental sustainability and the quality of life for those who live and work in the New York metropolitan region.
Overall, RPA is very excited about the Department of City Planning’s focus on the SoHo/NoHo area as a neighborhood which could supply much needed affordable housing growth, and applauds this effort wholeheartedly. More mixed-income housing is greatly needed in New York, particularly in areas with access to jobs and mass transit, and in areas which do not currently have affordable housing opportunities for new residents. This is also the type of place where New York’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing policy is designed to work: high market neighborhoods in which larger buildings can be built with proper zoning. Testimony on specific considerations of the rezoning follow, which include modifications we would like to see in order to make this the most effective and equitable plan possible.
Encouraging Residential Development
There are three different visions possible for the future of SoHo/NoHo today.
The first vision is to reject this rezoning. In this case development and change will still occur, just the type that make the neighborhood even more exclusive and segregated. This is typified by what has happened in 2015 between Sullivan Street and Sixth Avenue, south of Spring street, where four 4.600 SF single-family homes, currently valued at approximately 12 million dollars each, were built. This is the type of development that results in high-market areas which are not zoned to allow for enough mixed-income multifamily housing. Encouraging more expensive single-family homes is completely inappropriate in an area like SoHo, which needs more affordable housing and neighborhood retails, and has incredible access to jobs and transit - the Sullivan street single-family homes have a WalkScore of 99/100 and a TransitScore of 100/100. This is especially egregious considering Sixth Avenue is a wide street in core Manhattan, the type of street which is best suited for large multifamily buildings. This site of these four townhouses could have easily accommodated well over 100 apartments with ground floor neighborhood retail and still not be taller than the building next door.
The second vision is to approve the rezoning as it stands. This is a much better option, and will bring development appropriate to a core Manhattan neighborhood. But there is a risk, which is that the high allowable commercial FARs will result in office buildings instead of the intended result of mixed-income housing. Given our housing gap, which the recent census information has only confirmed is growing and the wish - from all parties - for more affordable housing specifically, this is still not the optimal path.
The third option is to modify this proposal to be intentional about what we want built - mixed-income housing. Because increasing the residential FAR is out-of-scope, the only way to easily accomplish this is by lowering the proposed commercial FAR allowed to 2.0, still allowing for ground floor retail, second floor office space and mixed-use buildings. To be clear, the FARs should not be lowered “just enough” to try and tip the balance to housing, nor should we rely on current conditions to serve as reassurance that housing will get built instead of commercial development. Markets and circumstances change, and if the wish is for mixed-income housing and not commercial development, the zoning should reflect this as strongly as possible. We encourage the commission to modify the proposal in this way.
Requiring Mixed-Income Buildings
In conjunction with other changes to be made in the MIH text with this proposal we would like to specifically see one loophole closed, which is in section 23-96 (b) 2 of the Zoning Resolution. This specifically allows IH projects where “all affordable housing units are rental affordable housing and all other dwelling units are homeownership housing” to economically segregate the buildings, putting all the affordable rental housing on lower “poor floors” and all of the high-end condos on upper floors, leading not to a mixed-income community but to a two-tiered structure both literally and figuratively. This is not in the spirit of mixed-income housing and neighborhoods, and we urge DCP to eliminate this language in the SoHo/NoHo MIH area, if not the MIH text overall.
Displacement Considerations
On the issue of potential displacement, we will first note that this issue does not entirely rely on speculation and that the Draft EIS has conducted both a direct and indirect displacement analysis for both residents and businesses. While discussions are needed regarding CEQR methodology regarding these analyses, it does exist and as the purpose of Environmental Impact Statements is to inform the public, and the Commission, about likely effects of any land-use action it should not go unreferenced. To complement this analysis, RPA would encourage the Commission to examine the testimony from the significant numbers of people who have provided it, and look for how many are from residents in the rezoning area who indicate they are low-income, unprotected renters personally vulnerable to displacement if this rezoning goes through in order to provide an additional direct measure of likely displacement. On RPA’s end, our 2016 displacement analysis, “Pushed Out,” found the entire rezoning area (and all of lower Manhattan west of Bowery) not at risk of displacement mainly due to the very low share of low-income, unprotected renters in the already long-gentrified area.
However, in terms of mitigation against any displacement, we encourage the City Planning Commission, and the City overall, to address this issue in the context of what is before them and what the City is able to effect, and not rely on the permanence of the current iteration of the rent regulation laws. Since the last rezoning of SoHo there have been seven instances of significant changes to the rent regulation laws, including the passage of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act itself, and three to the Loft Law. Assuming current rent regulation laws will not change over the life of the zoning, or even the life of the reasonable worst-case development scenario, is unlikely.
In addition to discouraging office tower redevelopment, which could displace existing regulated residential housing, by reducing the allowable commercial FAR to 2.0, the City should also look at other anti-displacement measures suggested by local community groups as possible mitigation.
Higher Education Use
One possible effect of this rezoning that has been raised has been whether this rezoning would encourage overnight community facility use - specifically dormitory use for New York University students - rather than mixed-income housing. Without commenting on the relationship between one institution and the neighborhood, both higher-education use and community facility uses with sleeping accommodations (including dormitories) are appropriate uses in Lower Manhattan. On a land-use basis these are dense, car-free housing uses appropriate to a transit-rich, walkable neighborhood like SoHo/NoHo. By providing this type of housing for students they also relieve the pressure on other neighborhoods and types of housing.
Additionally, when one talks about the character of a neighborhood, it goes well beyond just architectural character. SoHo/NoHo, and Lower Manhattan in general, have been hotbeds of culture and creativity for decades, mainly driven by young people. New York has benefited enormously from this energy, both culturally and financially. Young people should be encouraged, not discouraged, from living, enjoying and contributing to the life of Lower Manhattan. Dormitory housing options for college students is part of this, as is more affordable housing overall.
Comprehensive Neighborhood Planning
This rezoning should also be part of a coordinated plan of action for the neighborhood, and other measures which could encourage Lower Manhattan to continue its history as a vibrant, welcoming and creative place, for young people and others. Actions which lie within the purview of the City (if not the planning commission), include better pedestrianization and bicycle safety, particularly reimagining Canal and Houston streets as modern thoroughfares safe for pedestrians and bicyclists, more support for local arts and cultural institutions, instituting needed climate resiliency measures, and reducing curfews, overpolicing and barriers to public use in Washington Square Park and other parks. As such, we highly encourage DCP to coordinate with DOT, NYC Parks and other agencies to envision and effect not just a rezoning, but a plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony, and we look forward to continuing to support the effort to bring more affordable housing to one of our neighborhoods most in need of it.
