At Flushing Commons, NYCEDC’s Fuzzy Math Superceded PlaNYC Goals

Yesterday, Streetsblog looked at Flushing Commons, a mixed-use development in the heart of transit-rich downtown Flushing, where the New York City Economic Development Corporation has mandated suburban levels of parking. We asked the EDC why they required nearly 1,600 spaces in the development, and now we have an answer. It’s a revealing look at how the city has relinquished its responsibility to set a coordinated parking policy, much less one in line with the goals of PlaNYC 2030.

flushing_commons_6.jpgFlushing Commons will add a lot of parking — and cause more traffic congestion — in the heart of downtown Flushing. Image: Inhabitat.

EDC’s 1,600-space requirement comes from just three numbers, according to an agency spokesperson:

  1. Flushing Commons will be built on the site of a municipal surface parking lot with 1,101 spaces.
  2. The minimum parking required by the Department of City Planning, based on the Flushing Commons development plan, is around 700 spaces.
  3. The city is adding an additional 200 parking spaces to a nearby municipal lot.

EDC reasoned that Flushing Commons shouldn’t eliminate any of the parking that already existed and that the planning department’s parking minimums were a good guideline for the new development, so they added 1,100 and 700. Then they subtracted the 200 new off-site spaces, and voila, they decided that the project required 1,600 spaces. 

That kind of thinking leads straight to car-dependency. "EDC’s approach to this reflects an implicit policy that New York City should become more auto-oriented," said UPenn professor and parking policy expert Rachel Weinberger. "By preserving existing spaces while adding additional spaces they are ensuring that more trips will be made by car."

What’s particularly striking about EDC’s math is that it’s completely isolated from all other considerations. The strain on Flushing’s streets, which are already clogged with congestion, wasn’t a factor. The PlaNYC goal of reducing transportation emissions by 44 percent by 2030 wasn’t a factor. Officials apparently never stopped to think about the potential housing, retail or community uses that could have been built instead of some of the 500,000 square feet given to vehicle storage. Even the project’s financial feasibility, which we noted yesterday was threatened by such a large parking mandate, wasn’t a factor.

In other words, EDC calculated its parking requirement in a vacuum, without considering the true costs. Performing some first-grade math with three numbers does not constitute a real parking policy.

The economic development specialists at EDC may not think it’s their job to consider transportation, or land use,
or sustainability, but the agency is already setting the city’s parking
policy through its RFPs, which bind many of the largest developments in
the city. It must start making those parking policy decisions within a broader context.

In fact, that’s what PlaNYC was supposed to require. In his 2007 speech announcing PlaNYC, Mayor Bloomberg said that his staff "realized that you can’t formulate a land use plan without thinking about transportation." All the relevant agencies were expected to collaborate with the shared goal of building a sustainable city.

That includes EDC, which the original PlaNYC report gave direct authority over a dozen initiatives, from expanding ferry service to improving the electric grid. Unfortunately, at Flushing Commons, like so many other EDC projects, PlaNYC goals don’t seem to have even entered the equation.

  • Does the developer or their customers get a say in this?

    From where I’m standing, the justification for red tape would be to put an upper limit car parking. Not a lower limit. But I guess that’s just me!

  • Larry Littlefield

    Flushing isn’t a slam dunk for the Streetsblog point of view, but it is an interesting case.

    Most thoughtful people (ie. not local politicians with placards) would agree that Manhattan and nearby dense areas such as Brownstone Brooklyn or Long Island City are not places everyone should drive.

    On the other hand, there is virtually no chance of convincing most people at this time that semi-suburban areas of the city such as Eastern Queens and Staten Island are places to get around without a car.

    Flushing is a mid-way case: a small, dense regional center a distance away from Manhattan. While Streetsbloggers may see it as a pedestrian oriented small city, most of those to the east are probably ticked off it is so hard to park there. (They are less ticked off about Jamaica, because most drivers don’t want to go there).

    You can get a sense of Queens from Borough Hall. Most residents would probably approach from the front of the building (a subway stop on Queens Boulevard is right there), but most politically influential folks probably prefer the view from the back — parking lots and highways.

  • As someone else so eloquently put it, when the Empire State Building was erected, no one was concerned about people not showing up because there was no place to park.

    Flushing Commons is a wasted opportunity to reduce auto-centric development in Queens. It could have liberated 899 parking spaces for more civic- and community-oriented uses in a single blow. Instead, 699 spaces will now be removed from the public sphere and given over to private automobiles.

    The on-going suburbanization of the five boroughs needs to stop or we will end up with another Dallas on our hands, where everything is miles apart and needs to be driven to.

  • J:Lai

    Flushing is definitely an interesting case study, but I don’t think it should be the front-line for this battle. If you can’t reduce parking spaces at Atlantic Yards, how are you going to do it in Flushing?

  • Larry Littlefield

    “If you can’t reduce parking spaces at Atlantic Yards, how are you going to do it in Flushing?”

    Atlantic Yards would be a good place to shift the model. Affluent people, who by new condos, like to use cars sometimes? By all means give them cars — car rental locations, shared service such as Zipcar, etc. After all, they will probably be working in Manhattan, not driving there, and not using their cars every day. Open up enough spots for such facilities there and the surrounding neighborhoods would benefit too.

  • rlb

    Well, I would have hoped that Atlantic yards would have been fully within conquered territory. And with that in mind, Flushing should be the frontline.
    The most upsetting aspect of this is that the developer wanted fewer spaces in order to make a bigger profit. If that’s the case and the EDC is actually concerned about people’ mobility, the desire to create a building with fewer spaces – at a higher profit – should be met with some sort of required transit investment with that higher profit (maybe this would just fall out of the real estate taxes that go to the MTA). Somebody suggested SBS between Jamaica and Flushing on the previous, related post.

  • rlb: Well, the developer was mentioned as having wanting fewer parking spots in yesterday’s article. I’m sure that if he was truly convinced to not build that much parking, he may force the EDC to reconsider their position. Of course, the developer probably won’t confront this issue with a “reduce parking or I’m walking away,” but it would be an interesting tactic.

  • > Performing some first-grade math with three numbers does not constitute a real parking policy.


  • Flushing isn’t the Empire State Building. When they started to build the Empire State Building in the late 1920s, the site already enjoyed access to multiple transit lines from all directions; it was a short walk from Penn Station, all IRT subway lines, two of the IRT els, and the BMT Broadway Line. Flushing has the Flushing Line and the Port Washington Branch, and that’s it. That’s why it would be so useful to build SBS/light rail from there to Jamaica, or restructure LIRR service to be competitive for more than just rush hour work trips to Manhattan.

    Atlantic Yards is conquered territory in the sense that absent developer pressure, the accepted way to build there would have involved little parking. It just so happens that Ratner bought off the entire city and decided to build 1950s-style projects.

  • Tacony Palmyra

    There’s nothing about the built environment or transit access in Downtown Flushing that makes this project a considerably worse case than Atlantic Yards for the parking argument. The difference is that Atlantic Yards is surrounded by neighborhoods full of “Streetsblog types,” who, while having basically the same car ownership rates as the Asian immigrants getting off the 7 at Main Street, don’t have the political power and aren’t a part of this “movement.”

  • Nothing spurs “economic development” like congestion and gridlock.

    Another great project courtesy of PlanEDC1950.

  • vnm

    Bravo to EDC for attempting to bring mixed-use economic vitality to what is now the worst of all worlds: a surface parking lot. Nobody likes to see a surface parking lot in the center of a downtown, certainly nobody who cares about livable streets.

    But shame on EDC for trying to emulate Tyson’s Corner or Stamford. Every building with any density there or in any Edge City has to be built on top of or next to a multi-story parking garage that casts a deadening pall over street-level activity, encourages everyone to use a car for every trip, and makes the building more expensive to build and maintain for its owner and/or users. This is New York City. We’re supposed to be better than that. Flushing Commons is probably not as egregious as many examples we could think of, but the principle is the same.

  • Doug

    Those 1600 parking spots are a drop in the bucket when looking at the commuters who circuit through the Main Street 7 station each day. The majority of commuters are busing or walking to the station. Parking spaces are needed by local businesses, but they are poorly served by spaces taken up all day by commuters.

  • fdr

    Doesn’t EDC report to the same Mayor who supposedly champions PlaNYC?

  • Tacony: But a lot of the people who work/commute via Flushing don’t really give a damn about the development, especially when it comes to standing up to politicians/city gov’t. Most people just mind their own business. The closest thing that business owners and residents there that got to attacking Flushing Commons was a somewhat loosely organized campaign against it a few years ago that failed and has disappeared. I hate to say it, but most Asians there and around just don’t really care to mess with this stuff (trust me, I know what I’m talking about.)

  • J:Lai

    Tacony Palmyra –

    that is a straw-man argument, as Atlantic Yards is within walking distance of almost every single subway line in NYC, in addition to LIRR and various bus routes. Flushing has pretty decent transit, but nowhere near the level of Atlantic Yards.

    Not to mention that AY is within biking distance of lower Manhattan and many high-density parts of Brooklyn, and has fairly extensive bike lanes connecting it to these areas.

  • J:Lai,

    Precisely why the Atlantic Yards project’s planned 3600+ parking spaces are an absurdity, and which makes it an even bigger transportation blunder than Flushing Commons.

  • momos

    We hear all the time how much Amanda Burden at City Planning cares about good architecture. Does anyone know what her views are on parking policy? Is Rohit Aggarwala of PlaNYC paying attention? What does the Bloomberg admin have to say for itself?

  • Community Board 7 will be holding a hearing on Monday evening. No doubt there will be lots of people clamoring for more parking. Will anyone show up to support the developer’s push to reduce parking?

    CB7 Public Hearing on Muni Lot 1,
    Monday, March 22, 7:30 – 9:30PM,
    Union Plaza Care Center,
    33-23 Union Street, 1st Fl,
    Flushing, NY 11354

  • I hope to be able to make it-anyone else?; I found this about the last meeting for CB7 online:

  • I appreciate Queens Crap’s opposition to eminent domain abuse, but the amount of racism there is just staggering. In one minute I’ve learned that this is part of a conspiracy to establish a Chinese colony in Queens where they can do illegal business, and that the only reason they don’t live closer to JFK is that all Asians are racist and won’t live near blacks. (But they do move to Corona and the Lower East Side – presumably they’re much more tolerant of Dominicans and Puerto Ricans…)

    Give me anti-city but pro-immigrant Reason hacks over those knuckledraggers any day.

  • Alon: I mainly read it for the summary of the CB mtg-it was very meaty; took one quick glance at the comments and just ignored it.

  • Just wanted to remind everyone of the CB7 mtg in Flushing tomorrow!
    Hope the press will come…?

  • I’ve been discussing this issue on Facebook with some Flushing community leaders, and they clearly believe that no one from the community would support reducing the amount of parking. Will anyone prove them wrong?

  • Paul Graziano

    I am an urban planner and life-long resident of Flushing; bike over 100 miles a week on average; and am an advocate for public transportation reform. I also spoke at the CB7 Hearing on Monday and met the correspondant who covered the meeting, who struck me as not understanding the context of what’s actually going on here (not a surprise, frankly).

    Here’s a couple of thoughts:

    1) “Flushing is not Atlantic Yards.” Damned straight. As soon as you get out of downtown, with the exception of the LIRR, there’s no rail service. That’s no accident – the property owners back in the 1920s fought against the city to stop the 7 train from going all the way to the city line, as was intended. Additionally, while there are many, many bus lines, our bus terminal was taken away from us decades ago. Every new development proposed for the Municipal Lot – except for this one – was to include bringing our bus terminal back. That isn’t happening, so the bus lines are a gigantic mess. It’s going to get even crazier if this project is built.

    Also,understand – we are not close to the city at all. Atlantic Yards is 1.5 miles to the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges with lots ‘o’ public transport. We’re more than six miles to the Queensboro, divided by highways and other unfriendly barriers with a single subway line and a single commuter rail. And, if we were comparing our location to an area of Brooklyn, downtown Flushing would be located at the equivalent of south Midwood or Canarsie. The rest of our area is equivalent to commuting from Bay Ridge, Coney Island or Staten Island.

    2) “On the other hand, there is virtually no chance of convincing most people at this time that semi-suburban areas of the city such as Eastern Queens and Staten Island are places to get around without a car.”

    Damned straight again. Downtown Flushing is the regional hub for an area that stretches about seven miles east to the Nassau County border. I live a little less than a mile from the 7 train, about as far as a typical person in good health will walk around here to get to it. Beyond that, everyone drives – unless they take the Port Washington LIRR to work or the bus to the 7 train, which is a pretty large segment (you see, we actually use public transportation when we can). This is partially because the public transporation and infrastructure in general has not been improved upon for fifty years. And, clearly, that is not going to change. I should know – I’ve lived here my entire life and pay attention to these things.

    3)Most importantly – TDC/Rockefeller and the EDC made an agreement that goes beyond the parking issue in order to become the chosen developer of the Municipal Lot. It included all sorts of things: parking and parking rate guarantees; a movie theater (downtown Flushing is the 3rd largest urban area in the city and they haven’t had a movie theater since 1986 – everyone has to DRIVE to the Whitestone Expressway to the suburban multiplex built less than a decade ago); a bookstore (last one left in 1995 for suburban Bay Terrace); a business-class hotel; and the YMCA, which is still relocating there was to receive huge benefits, which seemingly have evaporated. This has also created another issue: the historic YMCA building around the corner is now in jeopardy, because they are going to have to sell it to a developer in order to relocate to the Municipal Lot. Our schools here are at the bursting point, so we are trying to push for that building to become another school as part of the deal, but nothing is guaranteed.

    What I’m trying to say is this: you seem to approach this entire argument by isolating the transit/parking issue from everything else, and even there your comparisons to areas much closer to the city don’t really hold up to close examination. There is much more going on – it was a package deal, and it has been reneged upon, with absolutely no community input for three years of internal discussions between the developer and the Mayor’s office.

    That ain’t right.

    Paul Graziano

  • Peter Koo and DOT Cmsr speak about traffic plan for downtown Flushing:
    Mon 3/29

  • Paul Graziano and others, “There is virtually no chance of convincing most people at this time that semi-suburban areas of the city such as Eastern Queens and Staten Island are places to get around without a car.”

    But isn’t this a straw man argument? Nobody is saying that there isn’t going to be any parking at all. This is not a car-free development. The discussion is *how much* parking there should be. If they put in, say 1200 spaces instead of 1600 spaces, the price of parking will rise a little. That’s all that’s going to happen.

    Am I missing something?

  • Since 2005, there have been 3000 new parking spaces in downtown Flushing, (all private). Do we really need an additional 500?

  • Paul, we sympathize with your frustrations about the “package deal” issue, and we wish you success in keeping these projects clean. But it’s really separate from the issue of how much parking there should be. Your insistence that the appropriate amount of parking depends on whether the developer and the EDC follow certain rules is pretty bizarre.

  • Joanna

    Funny how Paul laid out an entire argument about why parking is just one reason for why this project is bad, yet all you managed to do is come back with more arguments about parking. How about the fact that the developer is going to make out like a bandit by obtaining a piece of publicly owned land for nothing, get huge tax breaks on top of that, put long time merchants out of business and also not have to provide any upgrades in the way of infrastructure? This project will be taxing the schools, power grid, sewers, subways, etc. Meanwhile, all these services are being cut (especially bus service in eastern Queens, the lack of which makes people drive), workers are being laid off and fares are going up.

    The commuter parking will supposedly be moved to the lots at Citifield, but the Wilpons will be building a 50,000 sq ft project on the commuter lot there, which means more cars driving into Manhattan, adding to the gridlock that will be caused by the Van Wyck ramps which are supposed to “mitigate” the additional traffic at Willets Point, which will be 9 million sq ft of car dependent development.

    In addition, an agreement was signed in 2005 between John Liu representing the area and Dan Doctoroff representing the city, which called for a movie theater, bookstore, below market rate public parking (not private condo parking), and other amenities. None of these are in the current plan, which is being rammed down the public’s throat months after John Liu left office. I’d think the outrage would be better focused on the fact that one side thinks they can just decide not to follow a contract that they signed. It shows you how much you can trust the city.

    The fact of the matter is that the transportation system here stinks, Queens buses are always the first to get cut, the service is often times unreliable, and the city feels there is no incentive for it to see that it gets upgraded by contributing its fair share to the MTA. So that is why people will continue to be car dependent, much to the chagrin of Streetbloggers.

  • Paul Graziano

    Maybe I’m not being clear:

    Again, please try to understand that the community sees the loss of those 400 spaces as a loss of an amenity that was promised in a negotiation – another amenity that was promised and reneged upon, for example, was the cinema. These amenities were part of the reason that the developer received the green light from the Community Board and other elected officials to move forward with designing the project in the first place.

    It was only in January of this year at certification that we found out that the terms of the agreement for development of our public property had been unilaterally altered by the developer and EDC, with no discussion with the local stakeholders (meaning the public, Community Board, etc.). There was plenty of time for them to come to us and re-negotiate, propose or otherwise enjoin discussion for over three years. This did not happen, despite numerous entreaties on the part of CB7.

    Also, this is not a typical project – it took years to negotiate
    and the approvals were based upon balancing extra density at the Municipal Lot with various things that the community felt were benefits to downtown Flushing and beyond. Now, while the ideology of streetsblog doesn’t necessarily think of additional parking spaces as an amenity, I would suggest that many people in eastern Queens beg to differ. I would also say that this is an honest difference of opinion – again, this is not Long Island City, Astoria, Hunter’s Point or Sunnyside, not a close-in urban area where encouraging less parking is a no-brainer – it’s Flushing and its a whole different ballgame as stated in my previous post.

    So, if those 400 spaces are not included, then either another amenity to be determined needs to be included in the overall project as a replacement, or there needs to be a lowering in the density of the project to compensate for the loss of that amenity.

    That was the crux of the discussion at the Community Board Land Use meeting tonight – do the positives outweigh the negatives of the overall project? And, if certain amenities have been changed or removed, what do we want or need as a community as a replacement amenity?

    Again – it’s why you can’t separate the issue of parking/transit/traffic from all of the other issues that are relevant to this proposal. Everything has an effect on everything else in a General Large Scale Development Plan (GLSDP), which is why it takes so long to negotiate these things and why it’s even more complicated when the negotiated agreement has been broken.

    Hope that clears the thrust of this discussion up.

    Paul Graziano

  • Paul Graziano

    Thanks Joanna! You hit it on the nose.


  • Paul and Joanna, would you please consider our case that Flushing – because it’s Flushing, because of where it is – should have less parking, not more? Because if you won’t, there’s no point in discussing this with you.

  • To someone who sees cars – in Flushing – as a corrosive element in the neighborhood, treating it as an amenity just seems bizarre. “The agreement says that 10% of the foundation will be structurally deficient, but now you want to make it 5%? We won’t stand for this! And how do we know that you’ll keep your word about hydrogen sulfide concentrations of at least 0.10 parts per million?”

  • Paul Graziano

    Folks: this will be my last post here.

    The cars are coming, whether the parking is there or not. They are not going away in this case. And with more people, there will be more cars. You can spin this any way you want, but that’s the truth. 90% of residents in Queens have cars and you can bet your ass that 90% of the residents of Flushing Commons/Macedonia Plaza – mostly luxury condos – as well as the merchants and most of the customers will have cars and be coming in them. The only ones who won’t have cars will be the estimated 14,000 kids coming to the YMCA and guess what? Many of them will be picked up by the parents after going to the Y in – cars!

    Many of the “car people” will not park in a private garage. Period. End of story. They will circle around downtown Flushing looking for a metered street spot for hours if they have to, creating more traffic and pollution. They may park ten blocks away if they can find an alternate-side space that they don’t have to move for several days.

    In order to change the situation of people driving around eastern Queens you would have to give people other realistic options. That means you

    A) have to seriously increase the level of public transportation, which I support wholeheartedly but which hasn’t happened. In fact, as my one of my previous posts stated, there has been zero increase in public transport here in fifty years, and in fact we are dramatically losing it with the latest MTA budget.


    B) change the entire street parking scheme within a one-mile radius of downtown Flushing, because any kind of approach to only dealing with the immediate streets around the Muni Lot will have a ripple effect.

    The parking spaces ARE an amenity because the cars are coming no matter what, not the other way around.

    Paul Graziano

  • Joanna

    What part about this being a signed contract do you not understand? You think they should put less parking? Fine. They still are supposed to go to the BID first, plead their case and if the other side agrees, revise the contract.

    Amazing that some are willing to throw an entire community’s freedoms, rights and responsibilities out the window just because something that partially agrees with their agenda is floated. It happened at Willets Point, Atlantic Yards and is happening here.

    I seriously wonder where the gonads of this city have gone.

  • Paul wrote:

    “90% of residents in Queens have cars”

    Sorry, that’s false.

    34.1% of Queens households have no motor vehicle available, according to the 2000 census.

  • “B) change the entire street parking scheme within a one-mile radius of downtown Flushing, because any kind of approach to only dealing with the immediate streets around the Muni Lot will have a ripple effect.”

    Sounds good to me. How about residential permit parking on all residential streets within a mile downtown flushing, and market price for all commercial parking?

    We have residential permit parking for all the neighborhoods roughly within a mile of downtown Berkeley, CA. You can do it too.

  • Joanna

    If you are arguing that 34% of Queens households don’t own cars based on census statistics, which we know are skewed and suffer from serious lack of response, then you can’t be taken seriously.

    Queens is full of mostly one and two family homes. Most of those homes have garages and driveways as well as street parking. Many households own more than one car because a lot of Queens people work locally in working class jobs and do not commute into Manhattan. On top of that, we have the privilege of being sandwiched between Long Island and Manhattan, not to mention have the bridge connections to/from the Bronx. And if you don’t live and work near a subway line, your commute will definitely suck. Taking the Q58 from Ridgewood to Flushing can take up to 2 hours.

  • Paul and Joanna: I don’t think Streetsblog is for or against the plan. What they are against is the recommendation by EDC and DCP for requiring this much parking. By now, you should have realized that this site focuses on Livability, Safety for pedestrians and commuters who aren’t protected by airbags and a metal shell, and Sustainable growth.

    That being said, I myself am mostly the plan because of the TREMENDOUS loss of open space in downtown Flushing. Yes, parking isn’t exactly great open space, but it is at least a break from the ever-increasing density of Flushing. COMBINE that with even more residential units, YMCA, and increased parking in an area that already suffers from congestion would be a nightmare. Not to mention as you guys said: traffic will increase regardless of Flushing Commons.

    I think if we were to agree on one point, it’s that we are all on the same side.

  • If you are arguing that 34% of Queens households don’t own cars based on census statistics, which we know are skewed and suffer from serious lack of response, then you can’t be taken seriously.

    You’re wrong, for three reasons:

    1. The people who the census has the most trouble counting are the homeless, illegal immigrants, and the very poor. The skew would make the car ownership rate look higher, not lower.

    2. The numbers on the American Community Survey, which uses sampling to correct for undercounts, confirm the census numbers.

    3. According to the DMV, there are 749,000 vehicles in Queens; this means there are 325 cars per 1,000 Queens residents. (The national rate is 765; city rate is 233).

    While Eastern Queens is full of single-family homes, the access to buses to the subway means that it’s easier to have one car per family there than one car per adult. Then the high transit access in Western Queens and along QB pulls the number down.

  • Joanna, you have to understand: we are not arguing for the development. We are arguing that you should stop insisting on lots of parking and focus on the other aspects of the issue.

    Paul, it’s simply not the case that “The cars are coming, whether the parking is there or not.” In the past, over and over again, when cheap parking has been provided, residents bought (or brought) cars. When parking was expensive or nonexistent, residents did not have cars.

    Interesting that you point out that public transit has not improved in Flushing in fifty years. I don’t think it’s strictly true; the free subway-bus transfers were a huge improvement. But if we’re talking exclusively infrastructure, you have to wonder why nothing has improved in the past eight years, when your councilmember was chair of the transportation committee. He clearly felt that all that mattered to Flushing was cars, cars, cars. Did you do anything to convince him otherwise?

  • Thanks for the back-up, Alon.

    Joanna — if you have any contradictory data, I’d love to take a look at it.

  • YK

    It is of great pleasure to see all your guys’ discussions, they are very educational. I just have two questions for you:
    1) Years ago EDC chose a planner from Philadelphia(?)to come out a Flushing traffic study and proposal. What happens to it?
    2) You guys have been counting the parking spaces so seriously, but technically I have way more concern on the numbers of entrance/exit to the garage. Currently there are about 6 entrance/exits at the municipal lot from the 4 streets around it; while the new proposed only 2, each from 37 and 39th street. Have they planned and provided enough queuing spaces, with 500 more cars into the garage, and need to go through a ticked gate? I am afraid this will create real problem to the streets immediately.

  • YK:
    Unfortunately, neither the community board or the community seems to be that much concerned about this. In my opinion, pedestrians are probably more at risk because of more traffic volume limited to two entrance/exits. And the traffic studies just do not mean anything to the Board or city. So I welcome you to join the people against it if you’d like.


Parking Overkill in Flushing: NYCEDC Made It Happen

It’s not every day that a New York City real estate executive name-checks Donald Shoup, but one developer admiringly referred to the dean of progressive parking policy while explaining his project to Streetsblog. If not for the New York City Economic Development Corporation and mis-directed political pressures, says TDC Development President Michael Meyer, the huge mixed-use […]

NYC’s Top Parking Subsidizer, Seth Pinsky, Moves On

Seth Pinsky, whose legacy as head of the New York City Economic Development Corporation will be years of parking-induced traffic in city neighborhoods, with taxpayers footing the bill, is headed to the private sector. The news came this morning, via announcements from City Hall and RXR Realty, which hired Pinsky. During Pinsky’s five-year tenure, NYCEDC incentivized […]

Bloomberg Touts Approval of 1,600 Parking Spaces at Flushing Commons

Flushing Commons puts growth next to a major transit hub, but it’s stashing a lot of parking there as well. Image: Rockefeller Group Development Corporation. The City Planning Commission approved plans for the Flushing Commons development yesterday, sending the project forward through the land use approval process. Officials’ portrayals of this development, which will put 1,600 parking […]

Council Mems Display Parking Ignorance at Flushing Commons Hearing

The fight over Flushing Commons shifted to the City Council yesterday, as a key subcommittee turned its attention to the contentious megaproject and the battle royale over parking in booming downtown Flushing. Though the developers propose to redevelop an 1,100-space municipal parking lot and still increase the total amount of parking on-site, that isn’t enough […]

The New York City Parking Boom

The first in a three-part series on New York City parking policy. Last December, in announcing the goals of his Long-Term Planning and Sustainability initiative, Mayor Michael Bloomberg raised the terrifying specter of New York City commuters in the year 2030 stuck in an eight-hour "rush hour." This all-day traffic jam would become a reality, the […]