Planning Experts Call for an Overhaul of NYC Zoning Rules

New York City's unpassed 1969 comprehensive plan. Photo: ## Districts Council##

New York City’s zoning regulation turns 50 this year. Though the zoning ordinance has been amended extensively over the last half-century, land use in New York is still governed under a basic framework established under Mayor Robert Wagner. In a panel discussion held last Friday by the Municipal Art Society, experts put forward a vision for a brand new planning paradigm for New York City. The panelists called for fewer restrictions on how buildings are used, a merging of the city’s various land use codes, and a shift toward strategic planning.

Last week’s panel focused on the underlying structure of the zoning code rather than particular provisions. Rather than discussing the city’s many downzonings near transit or its parking minimums, each of which promote automobile use and increase the cost of housing, participants talked about the overarching principles that should govern land use regulation.

Each of the panelists endorsed a move toward what moderator Vicki Been, a professor at the NYU Law School, called the “Vegas principle” of zoning: “What happens in the building, stays in the building.” Zoning, they argued, should be more concerned with how buildings meet the public realm or impact public infrastructure than what people choose to do inside their property. “There’s nothing unsafe about having a business on the same floor as an apartment, if the people in the building agree to it,” said Michael Kwartler, a national expert on planning who helped write the zoning laws for midtown Manhattan.

When asked what she would change in the city’s zoning code, Jerilyn Perine, the head of the Citizens Housing and Planning Council and a former city housing commissioner, said “the word ‘family’ should be eradicated from the zoning resolution.” The definition of ‘family’ currently used in the zoning code limits the number of unrelated individuals who can legally share a single unit. The code “dictates not only how many people but who lives in places,” said Perine.

The desire to deregulate the use of buildings doesn’t mean that the MAS panelists were leaping to the New Urbanist solution of form-based codes, which can regulate the design of buildings as strictly as conventional zoning regulates use. The form-based code for the area around the Bay Area’s Pleasant Hill BART station, put forward by the Form Based Code Institute as a model, requires all buildings to be between two and four stories and for half of all upper-story units to include a balcony. “Figure out what elements of form really matter,” urged Don Elliott, the co-author of The Citizen’s Guide to Planning. “A lot of the details: it doesn’t matter, despite what the architects say.”

Kwartler and Perine, too, warned against over-regulating urban form, and especially against the current planning vogue for “contextual zoning,” which has been a hallmark of the Department of City Planning under Amanda Burden. “I hate this idea of contextual, this idea that what’s there should dictate what could be there in the future,” said Perine. Kwartler added that the Empire State Building is out of context with its surroundings, to the benefit of the entire city.

Panelists also called for reforming the city and state environmental review processes. “It’s reactive rather than planning,” said Been, who called environmental review “one thing we know is broken.” The panelists suggested that to the extent possible, environmental regulations and land use regulations ought to be unified rather than left as separate legal regimes. In Duluth, Minnesota, said Elliott, the city sat down with state environmental officials to determine what land use patterns could guarantee compliance with stormwater runoff regulations. They then wrote those patterns into the zoning code, eliminating one procedural hurdle for developers.

“Blend all of the regulations that deal with a piece of land into one code,” agreed Kwartler, citing overlapping environmental, zoning, building and preservation codes. Those regulations can sometimes work at cross-purposes, he said, and often create redundant and costly review processes.

Ideally, that unified code would come out of comprehensive planning processes that develop an integrated vision for the future of a neighborhood. New York City does not do comprehensive planning, making it an outlier among municipalities. Under the Bloomberg administration, PlaNYC is meant to serve as a “strategic plan,” setting priorities for the city, but since it is not site-specific, it doesn’t always help the city balance competing priorities. Mitchell Silver, the planning director for Raleigh, North Carolina and president of the American Planning Association, said that rewriting Raleigh’s comprehensive plan made rezoning the city easier and more effective. “We understand what we’re solving and what we’re coding for.”

Instead of the often-ineffective public outreach done at the end of each legal review, said Elliott, developing a comprehensive plan would also let the public engage at the beginning, when input can be both more constructive and more impactful than in the current process, which Kwartler called “public hearings as public screamings.”

The positions presented on Friday represent only a sample of the competing visions for the city’s planning process, others of which were put forward at a MAS conference held last year. These big ideas notwithstanding, however, there is no indication that the city is considering starting over with a new system of land use regulation, rather than continuing to rewrite the city’s zoning one neighborhood at a time.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “These big ideas notwithstanding, however, there is no indication that the city is considering starting over with a new system of land use regulation, rather than continuing to rewrite the city’s zoning one neighborhood at a time.”

    The political process, and Amanda Burden, are against even comprehensive reforms of existing rules, let alone a new zoning resolution.  She fought against such comprehensive reforms when her predecessor tried to do them.  And any attempt to change the zoning resolution would turn into a NIMBY fest.

    Those advocating a new zoning resolution ought to do some research into what happened from 1958 to 1961.  The city hired planning consultants, who produced a report and proposal in 1958.  The zoning resolution passed in 1961, with huge changes put in at the last moment by powerful people and interests with no discussion.

    1)  Much more restrictive use regulations on local commercial streets, and home occupation rules, to satisfy Queens snobs.  I was surprised to find out, when researching the commercial use and parking rules, that many of the problems were NOT caused by the original proposal.

    2)  A huge increase in the floor area allowed for “community facilties” relative to housing or businesses in what was then the most politically powerless parts of the city, the mid-rise R6 districts mapped in places like the Bronx and sections of Brooklyn close to Manhattan.  This was put in by powerful institutions like hospitals, museums, churches, private universities (Greenwich Village had some R6).

    3)  A “grandfather clause” allowing out of scale apartment buildigns to be built under the old rules for several years, demanded by powerful developers.  That’s why so many half-ass apartment buildings were thrown up in the outer boroughs in the early 1960s — so many NYC actually had a housing glut for a while.

  • Newstreet2000

    There is a copy of some of the five 1969 plan volumes (pictured above) that can be made available on eBay.  If interest is expressed here, a listing will appear this weekend.

  • Larry Littlefield

    City Planning dumped almost all of their copies years ago.  The pictures are nice, and it is interesting as history — a snapshot of the city heading into its worst years.

    From a policy perspective, the Lindsay Administration was promising the moon as the city was going broke.

    As for only “some” of the volumes being available, the ones worth having are “Critical Issues,” Brooklyn and the Bronx, particularly the first one.  But don’t count me as interested; I’ve already read them.

  • Larry Littlefield

    BTW, I did save a couple of things from the trash myself.  A photocopy of the Vorhees Walker Smith and Smith report from 1958 that became the basis of the 1961 zoning resolution, and a copy of County Business Patterns from 1969.  Not for sale.  Interesting only to historians.


Planners Tackle Big Questions About How to Shape NYC Development

New York City’s unpassed 1969 comprehensive plan. Photo: Historic Districts Council Though the Charter Revision Commission looks likely to take a pass at reforming the city’s land use process this year, the door will remain open in the years to come to tackle the complex and controversial issues that surround planning and development in New […]

Senior Philly Planner, Unlike NYC Peers, Says Parking Minimums Matter

We reported last week that Boston, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. are each making policy shifts to curb the proliferation of off-street parking even as New York City continues to enable the construction of more and more traffic-inducing, land-devouring parking. Streetsblog followed up with Debbie Schaaf, a senior transportation planner at Philadelphia’s planning department, about her […]

City Council Passes Changes to Manhattan Core Parking Regulations

This afternoon, the City Council passed the Manhattan Core parking text amendment with a vote of 47-0, with one abstention (Jessica Lappin). The zoning change, which modifies off-street parking rules in the densest parts of Manhattan, is as good as law now, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s approval basically a given. The zoning change modifies the […]

Rezoning to Encourage Street Life on Brooklyn’s Fourth Avenue

When the Department of City Planning put forward its rezoning of Park Slope in 2003, one of the earliest of the now 111 rezonings under Mayor Bloomberg and City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden, it was intended to help turn Fourth Avenue into “a grand boulevard of the 21st Century.” The sought-after residential development has started […]