Well, it’s a little more housing in some neighborhoods.
The City Council's vote on Thursday to water down Mayor Adams's signature "City of Yes" rezoning — ending mandatory parking to areas with the best transit while keeping the costly mandate in low-density neighborhoods where it most hinder development — demonstrates the restive legislature's failure to institute progressive transportation policy in favor of outdated car-centric zoning.
Make no mistake: The mayor got a huge victory with the passage of his rezoning proposal, which will result in tens of thousands of new housing units in a city desperate for them. But he won't get his wish for "a little more housing everywhere" because he did not achieve what other major cities (London, Seattle, San Francisco) have: a complete end to the city’s outdated parking mandates.
As a result, neighborhoods that have been adding housing for years will add more of it, while low-density neighborhoods, which have not been adding housing for years, won't.
So, what happened?
After an unexpected flurry of last-minute negotiations, the amended plan passed through the a zoning subcommittee, 4 to 3 (Council Members David Carr and Kamillah Hanks of Staten Island voted no along with Council Member Lynn Schulman of Queens). Minutes later, the full Land Use Committee backed the zoning change in an 8-2 vote (Hanks again voted no, along with Joe Borelli of Staten Island).
The 11th-hour modifications will create three zones with different parking regulations.
- Zone 1 (red below), where parking mandates will be eliminated, will consist of most of Manhattan, Long Island City, and parts of Western Queens and Brooklyn.
- Zone 2 (yellow), where existing mandates will be significantly reduced but parking requirements for one- to two-family homes will remain in place.
- Zone 3 (blue), maintains most parking requirements.
The change will reduce the amount of housing that will be built in the city's outer-borough, low-density areas, meaning, according to the Council, that the zoning change will create 80,000 units over the next 15 years, instead of the 109,000 that the mayor's original plan was slated to create.
The Council is touting this tiered system as a success because it is the “most populous area” where parking mandates have been removed in the country. New York City is by far the most populous city in the country, so the boast is essentially meaningless.
Parking mandates were the linchpin
The main question was whether the failure to pass progressive parking policy would negatively affect the plan’s other proposals for low- and mid-density areas.
But Council negotiators wrote the modifications so that “town center zoning,” “transit oriented development,” and “accessory dwelling units” are not subject to parking mandates anymore, even if the new developments are in one of the zones where mandates remain. This saves a lot of the projected units from getting kicked to the curb.
Even so, some Council members stuck to the notion that the city needs to "preserve" the single-family areas and low-density areas to which this plan was supposed to add housing. This annoyed pols who represent denser areas.
"It's clear some communities are doing their part to address the housing crisis," said Council Member Crystal Hudson when explaining her favorable vote. "While every neighborhood is different, we can't keep relying on the South Bronx and Northern and Central Brooklyn to pull us out of this crisis. We need everyone to do their part."
More low-density carveouts
Although parking mandates will largely not apply to "transit oriented development," "town center zoning," and accessory dwelling units, the Council weakened these proposals in other ways.
"Town center zoning" or the ability to build three to five stories of residential apartments above retail in commercial areas, was reduced so that developers can't build this housing type in areas zoned for one- or two-family homes or in areas where only a single block is zoned commercial.
"Transit oriented development" or the ability to develop three- to five-story buildings within half a mile of transit, including commuter rail, was also scaled back. The Council has excluded single and two-family districts from this proposal and has reduce the radius for outermost stations of the LIRR and Metro-North from half a mile to a quarter mile.
Both of these proposals now have an affordability incentive, buildings with over 50 units will have to include 20 percent permanently affordable housing.
And in the lowest density districts, flood-prone areas, and historic districts, detached accessory dwelling units cannot be built.
These modifications show the Council's fealty to concerns about "neighborhood character" and preserving exclusionary single- and two-family districts that were protected during an earlier zoning change under Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
"The character of a neighborhood is important for many New Yorkers," said Council Member Kevin Riley of the Bronx. "One-family zoned districts represent less than 15 percent of the city's land area, and they are scattered in small areas throughout the city. They are a valuable resource to the city in terms of maintaining the diversity of housing choices for New Yorkers. For some households having access to a yard, a garage and open piece of land is an important role, and we do not want to drive away these New Yorkers."
Praise and criticism
The plan's most vocal supporters were pleased that the plan passed, but were disappointed with the Council's modifications.
Borough President Antonio Reynoso was most vehement that the plan should not have been watered-down.
"The consequences of today's decision to exempt R1, R2, and R3 contextual districts from City of Yes are severe," he said in a statement. "The housing pressure on every other neighborhood will go up, which means if Queens or Staten Island doesn't grow, Brooklyn is asked to do more than our fair share."
Citing the Bloomberg era contextual zoning that the City of Yes hoped to fix, he added, "By exempting the same neighborhoods from the City of Yes proposal, Mayor Adams and the City Council are choosing to make the same mistakes."
But Speaker Adrienne Adams stood by the modifications.
"It still does [spread the housing production citywide]," Speaker Adams told Streetsblog. "But we had to be realistic about this. What we learned through our hearings, and quite frankly, what we already knew – we represent 51 very different districts – is that we are not monolith in New York City. There had to be compromise."
Mayoral candidate Zellnor Myrie echoed Reynoso's frustrations.
"If we want to truly end New York City’s housing shortage, then government needs to be in the business of pushing for more — not settling for less,” he said.
Open New York, a grassroots nonprofit advocating for a diverse range of housing solutions, praised the compromise, calling it a "comprehensive housing reform package."
The New York Housing Conference, a coalition of pro-housing groups, also praised the deal.
“In a momentous win for housing, the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity is moving forward in the City Council," said Rachel Fee, executive director of the New York Housing Conference. "The impact that new homes for 80,000 households will have on New Yorkers in every borough cannot be overstated.”
Vocal minority
Polling suggests that New Yorkers strongly supported the original City of Yes plan, including its citywide removal of parking mandates.
Overall, 81 percent of city registered voters support "a zoning reform proposal [that] would address the housing shortage by making it possible to build a little more housing in every neighborhood," a poll by Slingshot Strategies found.
And 74 percent expressed support for eliminating mandatory parking minimums for residential development. It has been widely shown that the parking requirement drives up the cost of housing development and that parking is built where residents want it, regardless of mandates. The Council even admitted to this, claiming that "Zone 3" where parking mandates are maintained are areas where parking would've been built regardless.
"The parking mandates are maintained in areas that would likely produce that level of parking to meet market demand regardless," said Speaker Adams.
Even so, throughout the public review process, residents of low-density neighborhoods and their Council representatives spoke of eliminating parking mandates as if it was a death sentence for their way of life, ultimately swaying the Council to maintain them in large swaths of the city.
Going beyond zoning
Much of the late negotiations had to do with securing funding for complementary affordable housing initiatives. Speaker Adams announced her “City for All” companion plan earlier this month as a way to ensure infrastructure investments and subsidies for affordable housing are a part of the City of Yes passage.
In addition to passing the modified rezoning the Council has secured a commitment of $5 billion over the next 10 years for the expansion of affordable housing programs, agency staffing and infrastructure for flood mitigation.
Council members praised the speaker for reaching a funding deal.
“Taking into account the apprehensions of our constituents, the City Council balanced these concerns against the very real need to respond to the housing crisis this City is indisputably facing," said Council Member Rafael Salamanca of The Bronx. "In the process, we secured $5 billion in investments [in] a plan that makes New York City more affordable and sustainable.”
City of Yes now goes to the full Council for a vote on Dec. 5. It is expected to pass.
