NYCHA Journal.Qxd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Have a Happy Halloween!
Vol. 34, No. 10 First Class U.S. Postage Paid — Permit No. 4119, New York, N.Y. 10007 October 2004 THIRD ANNUAL KIDS’ WALK IN THE BRONX Modernization Project at Whitman/Ingersoll music, and dance to greet the One of NYCHA’s Largest Capital Improvement Projects young walkers, warm them up and cheer them on along their mile and a half trek around the track. Then, after a healthful lunch, games and activities filled the afternoon, along with educational and informational materials and face painting by Harborview Arts Center Artist-Consultant and pro- fessional clown Mimi Martinez. “Do you want to have this kind of fun next summer?” NYCHA Vice Chairman Earl Andrews, Jr. asked the assembled young peo- ple. After the loud and unsurpris- ing positive response, Mr. Andrews promised that NYCHA would do everything it could to find the funds to make Kids’ Walk On August 13th, NYCHA’s Chairman Tino Hernandez joined res- happen again. That message was idents and elected officials for a tour through Ingersoll Houses, reinforced by Board Member highlighting four model apartments. Shown here (front row, left Young residents from NYCHA’s Summer Camp program pre- JoAnna Aniello, Deputy General to right) are Whitman Houses Resident Association President pare for their one-and-a-half mile walk in Van Cortlandt Park. Manager for Community Opera- Rosalind Williams, Ingersoll Relocation Vice-Chairwoman Gloria tions Hugh B. Spence, Assistant Collins, Ingersoll Relocation Committee Member Janie Williams, By Allan Leicht Deputy General Manager for Ingersoll Relocation Committee Chairwoman Veronica Obie, ids’ Walk 2004, NYCHA’s third annual summer children’s Community Operations Michelle and Ingersoll Houses Resident Association President Dorothy walkathon to promote physical recreation and combat obesity Pinnock, and Director of Citywide Berry. -
Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy A. INTRODUCTION B
Chapter 2, Section A: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy A. INTRODUCTION The project site is located in the Borough of Manhattan and includes the median malls on Allen Street between Delancey Street and East Broadway and on Pike Street between East Broadway and South Streets (sees Figure 2A-1). The Proposed Project would reconstruct the median mall sections to provide public green space, recreational space, and amenities, would improve the overall visual character of Allen and Pike Streets between Delancey and South Streets, and would serve as a gateway to the East River Esplanade from interior blocks. This section considers existing land use, zoning, and public land use policies for the project site and the surrounding 400-foot study area. Land use issues associated with the Proposed Project include potential changes in local land uses and neighborhood land use patterns. Zoning and public policy issues include the compatibility of the proposed modifications to the median malls with existing zoning and public policies. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS As described below, this analysis concludes that the Proposed Project would be in keeping with and supportive of existing land uses in the study area, and that it would be consistent with zoning and public policy for the area. Overall, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts to land use, zoning or public policy. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS LAND USE PROJECT SITE The project site includes the Allen and Pike Street malls and the adjacent travel lanes. The Allen Street malls are located between Delancey Street and East Broadway. The Pike Street malls are located between East Broadway and South Street. -
Community Involvement in Redevelopment After the Expiration of Urban Renewal Plans
Renewing Renewal: Community Involvement in Redevelopment After the Expiration of Urban Renewal Plans A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Preservation COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning by Caroline Thompson May 2020 Abstract Communities impacted by urban renewal in the mid-twentieth century were largely unable to stop the changes brought to their neighborhoods. The plans that operationalized urban renewal remained in place for over 40 years, with significant legislative, legal, and financial effort required to make any alterations. In New York City, many of the urban renewal areas and their governing plans have since expired, ushering in market-driven development and neighborhood changes. This thesis uses a mixed-methods approach to analyze the subsequent built environment changes and to explore community involvement through case studies of redevelopment in the former Seward Park Extension Urban Renewal Area (SPEURA) and Two Bridges Urban Renewal Area (TBURA). While many lots remain unchanged since the urban renewal era, those that have changed reflect local development preferences or the results of major rezonings. The case studies reveal the wide variety of methods of community involvement in site redevelopment, with implications for future participation in redevelopment in the city. Key words: urban renewal, participation, Two Bridges, Essex Crossing, Large-Scale Developments ii Table of Contents List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... -
Nycha Residents Head to Washington, D.C
Vol. 32, No. 6 First Class U.S. Postage Paid — Permit No. 4119, New York, N.Y. 10007 June 2002 NYCHA RESIDENTS HEAD TO WASHINGTON, D.C. HUD’S Budget For Fiscal Year 2003 At Issue By Eileen Elliott n May 22, 2002, over 800 New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents boarded 21 bus- es and headed to Washington, D.C. to rally against the proposed $417 million cut in the U.S. De- Opartment of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Capital Funding Program for Fiscal Year 2003. They were joined by some 200 residents from public housing authorities in Buffalo, New York, Bal- timore, Maryland, Cleveland, Ohio, Georgetown, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico. Because there was no room large enough to accommodate them at the Capitol, the group converged at the nearby Hyatt Regency Hotel. There, in the words of Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) Executive Director Su- nia Zaterman, who also attended, they raised their voices, “loud, insistently, again and again.” As the residents found their York City Congressional delega- would be a reduction of $63 mil- seats in Ballroom A of the Hyatt, tion, and to 35 housing authorities lion from the Fiscal Year 2002 al- more often than not, they seemed around the country to rally their location of $402.4 million. unable to resist the urge to tap the support. Cheers went up as Ms. Lamb microphones set up on the floor, “The proposed $417 million re- told the residents, “We want you or murmur the words, “testing, duction in HUD’s Capital Fund- to know that we’re in this togeth- testing,” into them. -
Canarsie Summary Report
Resilient Neighborhoods Canarsie Canarsie 1 This study was funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR), as part of the New York City Department of City Planning’s Resilient Neighborhoods Initiative. Canarsie Pier Resilient Neighborhoods Canarsie THE CITY OF NEW YORK MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING MARISA LAGO, DIRECTOR May 2017 www.nyc.gov/resilientneighborhoods FOREWORD Canarsie is a community along Jamaica Bay in Brooklyn with a long history tied to its extensive waterfront and park network. These amenities remain a vital part of Canarsie’s identity. However, Hurricane Sandy in 2012 took many Canarsie residents by surprise as, prior to the storm, the neighborhood had not been mapped into the floodplain. Today, nearly five years after Sandy, residents are continuing to grapple with how to adapt their neighborhood to face a future storm. The Resilient Neighborhoods initiative was launched by the Department of City Planning (DCP) shortly after Hurricane Sandy. This report is the culmination of over three years of research, outreach, and hard work by DCP, working closely with Canarsie residents and local leaders to identify strategies to reduce flood risk and build a more resilient and vibrant neighborhood. This report includes recommendations for updating specific zoning and land use regulations, as well as investments in coastal infrastructure and other programs. The conclusions of this report will guide updates to the citywide flood resiliency text amendment that DCP is currently developing. This plan is the beginning of a conversation and a commitment to work with Canarsie to ensure the community’s ongoing vibrancy and resiliency. -
Zoning Text Amendment (ZR Sections 74-743 and 74-744) 3
UDAAP PROJECT SUMMARY Site BLOCK LOT ADDRESS Site 1 409 56 236 Broome Street Site 2 352 1 80 Essex Street Site 2 352 28 85 Norfolk Street Site 3 346 40 (p/o) 135-147 Delancey Street Site 4 346 40 (p/o) 153-163 Delancey Street Site 5 346 40 (p/o) 394-406 Grand Street Site 6 347 71 178 Broome Street Site 8 354 1 140 Essex Street Site 9 353 44 116 Delancey Street Site 10 354 12 121 Stanton Street 1. Land Use: Publicly-accessible open space, roads, and community facilities. Residential uses - Sites 1 – 10: up to 1,069,867 zoning floor area (zfa) - 900 units; LSGD (Sites 1 – 6) - 800 units. 50% market rate units. 50% affordable units: 10% middle income (approximately 131-165% AMI), 10% moderate income (approximately 60-130% AMI), 20% low income, 10% senior housing. Sufficient residential square footage will be set aside and reserved for residential use in order to develop 900 units. Commercial development: up to 755,468 zfa. If a fee ownership or leasehold interest in a portion of Site 2 (Block 352, Lots 1 and 28) is reacquired by the City for the purpose of the Essex Street Market, the use of said interest pursuant to a second disposition of that portion of Site 2 will be restricted solely to market uses and ancillary uses such as eating establishments. The disposition of Site 9 (Block 353, Lot 44) will be subject to the express covenant and condition that, until a new facility for the Essex Street Market has been developed and is available for use as a market, Site 9 will continue to be restricted to market uses. -
Resolution by Community Board 3
THE CITY OF NEW YORK MANHATTAN COMMUNITY BOARD 3 59 East 4th Street - New York, NY 10003 Phone (212) 533- 5300 www.cb3manhattan.org - [email protected] Alysha Lewis-Coleman, Board Chair Susan Stetzer, District Manager September 2018 Vote Sheet Executive Committee no vote necessary Land Use, Zoning, Public & Private Housing Committee 1. Approval of previous month's minutes approved by committee 2. Borough President / Councilmember: Presentation on Text Amendment requiring Special Permit to modify Two Bridges LSRD VOTE: TITLE: Support for Council Member Chin and Manhattan Borough President Brewer's Text Amendment requiring a special permit to modify the Two Bridges Large Scale Residential Development (LSRD) WHEREAS, Council Member Margaret Chin and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer have filed an amendment to the New York City Zoning Resolution concerning Article VII, Chapter 8 (Special Regulations Applying to Large-Scale Residential Developments); and WHEREAS, the proposed zoning text amendment includes a provision requiring a special permit for modifications to the existing Two Bridges LSRD in Manhattan Community District 3; and WHEREAS, the requirement of a special permit for modifications to the Two Bridges LSRD would ensure that proposed changes to the underlying site planning and zoning controls that govern the LSRD would go through Uniform Land Use Review Procedures (ULURP), and be subject to review by the public, Community Board 3, the Manhattan Borough President, as well as review and approval by the New York City Council; -
Revising Canarsie Racial Transition and Neighborhood Stability in Brooklyn
16 Revising Canarsie Racial Transition and Neighborhood Stability in Brooklyn Jennifer Candipan, Roberta Cordeau, Mark Peterson, Nicole Riordan, Bengisu Peker, Danielle Shallow, Gregory Smithsimon In the early morning hours of July 17, 1991, a homemade firebomb crashed through the window of Fillmore Real Estate agency on Flatlands Avenue in the Brooklyn neighborhood of Canarsie. This bombing was the second of three bias-related attacks on the real estate agency which had been court or- dered to show homes to black and Hispanic buyers in the mostly white neigh- borhood. On August 11 of the same year, police arrested twenty-year-old Brian Fining, a lifelong resident of Canarsie’s Avenue M, an all-white block where no homes had been sold in twenty eight years. Although he acted alone in all three attacks, Fining’s explosive anger over minorities moving into the neighborhood was a familiar sentiment among many of Canarsie’s longtime white residents (Kurtz 1991). From the 1970s through the 1990s, the neighborhood of Canarsie in South Brooklyn underwent a dramatic period of racial tension and transition, trig- gered by the in-migration of black residents to what had formerly been a pre- dominantly Italian and Jewish community.1 In his book Canarsie: The Jews and Italians of Brooklyn Against Liberalism, Jonathan Rieder chronicled the angry, sometimes violent response of white residents against new black resi- dents (Rieder 1985). Whites were convinced that that the safety, status, and physical quality of the neighborhood would precipitously decline if blacks moved in, and their resistance metastasized into a generalized dismissal of integrationism, liberal politics, the Democratic Party, and even rule of law. -
Rutgers Slip
Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study Rutgers Slip Between Cherry and South Streets New York, New York Prepared for: Lower Manhattan Development Corporation One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10006 Prepared by: AKRF, Inc. 440 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10016 May 2009 Management Summary SHPO Project Review Number: 06PR06649 LPC Project Review Number: HUD/106-M Involved Agencies: New York City Department of Parks and Recreation Lower Manhattan Development Corporation Phase of Survey: Phase 1A Archaeological Documentary Study Project Location: Rutgers Slip between Cherry and South Streets Minor Civil Division: 06101: Manhattan County: New York County Location Information: Survey Area Length: Approximately 375 feet (114.3 meters) Survey Area Width: Approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) Number of Acres Surveyed: Approximately .4 USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Brooklyn Report Author: Elizabeth D. Meade, RPA Date of Report: May 2009 Table of Contents 1: Introduction A. Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 1 B. Research Goals and Methodology ................................................................................................................... 1 C. Site File Research Results ............................................................................................................................... 2 2: Environmental Setting A. Geology and Topography ............................................................................................................................... -
NYCHA's First New Development Since 1996
Vol. 33, No. 10 First Class U.S. Postage Paid — Permit No. 4119, New York, N.Y. 10007 October 2003 STANTON STREET OFFICIAL OPENING NYCHA’s First New Development Since 1996 COMMUNITY SERVICE What Residents Need To Know As you may know, the U.S. Congress has reinstated Communi- ty Service. Under federal law, Community Service requires that certain adult residents of public housing perform eight (8) hours of voluntary work or other activities a month (96 hours a year), that are of a public benefit or enhance resident self-sufficiency, as a condition of their tenancy. The New York City Housing Au- thority (NYCHA) is required by law to implement Community Service. Examples of activities that qualify for Community Ser- vice are outlined below. The Community Service law includes five categories that would exempt public housing residents from having to perform Community Service. As a result of input from the NYCHA Resident Advisory Board, advocacy groups and the public, NYCHA has expanded the number of exemptions it will allow to more than 20. A chart providing a summary of the exemptions allowed under NYCHA's Community Service pro- gram is on page 5. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS PRO- GRAM WILL BE PHASED IN OVER A PERIOD OF SEV- ERAL MONTHS. FOR THAT REASON, THERE IS NO NEED TO VISIT YOUR MANAGEMENT OFFICE AT Chairman Tino Hernandez (Center) was joined by a host of supporters for the Stanton Street Ribbon-Cutting THIS TIME TO DISCUSS YOUR ELIGIBILITY FOR AN Ceremony held on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. -
Testimony of State Senator Daniel Squadron Regarding the Draft Annual Plan 2013 for the New York City Housing Authority, July 25, 2012
RANKING MEMBER INVESTIGATIONS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS THE SENATE SOCIAL SERVICES DANIEL SQUADRON STATE OF NEW YORK COMMITTEES SENATOR, 25TH DISTRICT CODES CONSUMER PROTECTION CORPORATIONS, AUTHORITIES & COMMISSIONS FINANCE JUDICIARY TRANSPORTATION TESTIMONY OF STATE SENATOR DANIEL SQUADRON REGARDING THE DRAFT ANNUAL PLAN 2013 FOR THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, JULY 25, 2012. My name is Daniel Squadron and I represent the 25th Senate District in the New York State Senate. My district includes the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Greenpoint, Williamsburg, Vinegar Hill, Fulton Ferry, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Gowanus, and the Manhattan neighborhoods of Tribeca, Battery Park City, the Lower East Side, Chinatown, the Financial District, Little Italy, SoHo and the East Village. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. Among the New Yorkers that I represent are the residents of 24 New York City Housing Authority Developments, spanning the Lower East Side, East Village, Willamsburg, and Chinatown. The Manhattan part of my district includes the Bernard Baruch Houses, Marianna Bracetti Houses, Pedro Albizu Campos, East 4th Street Rehab, First Houses, Samuel Gompers Houses, Rafael Hernandez Houses, Fiorello H. LaGuardia Houses, Lower East Side I, II, and III, Lower East Side Rehab, Max Meltzer Tower, Jacob Riis Houses, Henry Rutgers Houses, Seward Park Extension, Alfred E. Smith Houses, Two Bridges, Vladeck Houses, Lillian Wald Houses, and 45 Allen Street. In Brooklyn, I represent three developments: the Taylor Street-Wythe Avenue Houses, Williams Plaza, and Independence Towers. My constituents experience firsthand the challenges described by the New York City Alliance to Preserve Public Housing, and that is why I generally support the recommendations listed in the Alliance’s NYCHA FY 2013 Draft Annual Plan Position Statement. -
Human Territoriality and the Downfall of Public Housing
Public Culture Human Territoriality and the Downfall of Public Housing Kenny Cupers On February 11, 1974, the BBC’s long- running series Horizon invited its viewers to an hour- long scrutiny (“The Writing on the Wall” 1974) of British and American public housing projects. The topic was unusual for the popular science series, which was known for covering the discovery of DNA and the invention of the silicon chip, but the episode’s central question was posed in a scientific style. “Does modern architecture actually encourage people to commit crime?” the narrator asked while confronting viewers with the now notorious Aylesbury Estate in Southeast London. As the camera panned across the concrete surfaces of high- rise blocks and zoomed in on the nooks and cran- nies of entrance lobbies and playgrounds, the voice- over discussed anonymity, alienation, inhabitants’ “feelings of territoriality,” and their need for “defensible spaces.” The narrator was Oscar Newman, a North American architect who was enjoying a remarkably successful career as a pioneer of crime prevention through environmental design, a newly invented field exploring how to increase the secu- rity of residential areas. This article is not about Newman or his — by some accounts dubious — brand of social science, which found enthusiastic followers on both sides of the Atlan- tic.1 Rather, it focuses on the theory of human territoriality that was at the basis of his and other experts’ research at this time and analyzes the relationship of this way of thinking to the historical demise of public housing. From the 1960s to the 1980s, Western Europe and North America witnessed a momentous shift in housing policy.