DOCSLIB.ORG

Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 9: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 9: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 9: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER A. INTRODUCTION As defined in the CEQR Technical Manual, neighborhood character is considered to be an amalgam of the various elements that give a neighborhood its distinct personality. These elements can include land use, urban design, visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomics, traffic, and noise, as well as any other physical or social characteristics that help to distinguish the community in question from another. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, an assessment of neighborhood character is generally needed when the action would exceed preliminary thresholds in any one of the following areas of technical analysis: land use, urban design and visual resources, historic resources, socioeconomic conditions, transportation, or noise. An assessment is also appropriate when the action would have moderate effects on several of the aforementioned areas. Potential effects on neighborhood character may include: ! Land Use. Development resulting from a proposed action could alter neighborhood character if it introduces new land uses, conflicts with land use policy or other public plans for the area, changes land use character, or generates significant land use impacts. ! Socioeconomic Conditions. Changes in socioeconomic conditions have the potential to affect neighborhood character when they result in substantial direct or indirect displacement or addition of population, employment, or businesses; or substantial differences in population or employment density. ! Historic Resources. When an action would result in substantial direct changes to a historic resource or substantial changes to public views of a resource, or when a historic resource analysis identifies a significant impact in this category, there is a potential to affect neighborhood character. ! Urban Design and Visual Resources. In developed areas, urban design changes have the potential to affect neighborhood character by introducing substantially different building bulk, form, size, scale, or arrangement. Urban design changes may also affect block forms, street patterns, or street hierarchies, as well as streetscape elements such as streewalls, landscaping, curbcuts, and loading docks. Visual resource changes could affect neighborhood character if they directly alter key visual features such as unique and important public view corridors and vistas, or block public visual access to such features. ! Transportation. Changes in traffic and pedestrian conditions can affect neighborhood character in a number of ways. For traffic to have an effect on neighborhood character, it must be a contributing element to the character of the neighborhood (either by its absence or its presence), and it must change substantially as a result of the action. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, such substantial traffic changes can include: changes in level of service (LOS) to C or below; change in traffic patterns; change in roadway classifications; change in vehicle mixes, substantial increase in traffic volumes on residential streets; or significant traffic 9-1 Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS Chapter 9: Neighborhood Character impacts, as identified in the technical traffic analysis. Regarding pedestrians, when a proposed action would result in substantially different pedestrian activity and circulation, it has the potential to affect neighborhood character. ! Noise. According to the CEQR Technical Manual, for an action to affect neighborhood character with respect to noise, it would need to result in a significant adverse noise impact and a change in acceptability categories. This chapter of the EIS examines neighborhood character within the area to be rezoned and its surrounding blocks, and the proposed action’s effects on that character. The chapter’s impact analysis focuses on changes to neighborhood character resulting from changes in the technical areas discussed above, since changes to these technical areas are most relevant to potential changes in neighborhood character. The analysis concludes that neighborhood character would change with new land uses and building types, increases in residents and employees, and increases in traffic and pedestrian activity, but the change would not be adverse, as discussed below. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS The area affected by the proposed action covers approximately 184 blocks in the north and south-west portions of Greenpoint and Williamsburg, and is bounded generally by the East River, the Williamsburg Bridge, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, and McGuinness Boulevard (see Figure 9-1). Greenpoint and Williamsburg contain a variety of cultural, religious, racial, ethnic and age groups who reside in several distinct communities, as well as several vibrant shopping strips. For the purposes of assessing existing and future neighborhood character, this chapter discusses the waterfront separately from the upland area (which is divided into Greenpoint and Williamsburg) as each represents a distinct character. Proposed Action Area The Waterfront Area Although zoned for heavy manufacturing, the East River waterfront in both Greenpoint and Williamsburg contains no heavy manufacturing, and is underutilized, with many large parcels of vacant land and many abandoned or only partially occupied buildings. The waterfront block furthest northeast in the proposed action area, between the Pulaski Bridge and Manhattan Avenue in Greenpoint, contains a soap and candle manufacturer, a vehicle repair shop, a construction contractor’s yard, and a multistory industrial building containing two pre-1961 residences. On the west side of Manhattan Avenue is the Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center (GMDC), a loft building which has been redeveloped for a variety of industrial and commercial users, including woodworkers, metalworkers, and design firms. Immediately west of the GMDC building is a loft building largely converted to residential use, a largely vacant two-story warehouse building, and a Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) bus depot. 9-2 Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS Neighborhood Character Study Figure Area 9-1 N EW TO ASH ST M W C N M G A C N ST U R H L I IA N E C A R BOX ST N E E T E K M T M S O A C S N B A L V AY ST PA CL ID GE A V L A N DUPONT ST A C K E E T R S C Y EAGLE ST E R L N A E H H W H T FREEMAN ST R O N F P W GREEN ST R R E A O S N V T K O K S L I S N T I G N HURON ST T S S L S Greenpoint A T T N D A V INDIA ST AV INT PO EEN N R E JAVA ST G W T O W N KENT T S C R E E K GREENPOINT AV CALYER ST MILTON ST M O J E U W L D T I E A R N L NOBLE ST M I E E M S W O C T S N MESEROLE AV E E T G D C L L U K S E S I F N T T R OAK M O H ST O N U N U A R E S L M N A O D T S S R S B R H EG R S E D S Y O AL A C U I T L M T B S L C L E L N T D B L E T E R A S W A I RS T T F N NA T T N O F S W S S K N O T V T E E A C E V N R R R Y L I RO E L DP E E S M H A K S K S E N M QUAY ST M S K NORMAN AV B A T P I R T O U N O I N H D U L O R G T A G E N E S L G T W S R N I L V M A T O F A T L O R A E O A N R N A D Y N N S R S N T A V O S S T D D S S A B T V T A T T R B AV G M I I E NS C M S N K T 1 S T V S 5 T A T T MAN V H NOR A S R T NASSAU AV E K E N E 1 M 2 T H N S T N S 1 1 1 T T 3 E H T V S H A W N N R T S A R 1 T 1 I 0 4 C R T T V CHE E A K T H H SSAU S S NA A A V N T V T M I V 9 T O R H R S P A T G O N A R N S T H K M 8 R DRIGGN S AV V E T U A A I U U O H N R R L E H T V E M S S G E G N K C T E E T A S B O E I S R O K N N T M V E O T L N A S N F 7 R O NY V L A L O T H O A M TH A Y R L N H S D N A A R T R C T S S S T N M S D D T D G T E T N T S K A A U S 6 S T V I V V T T V T T H A N DY S S N R A S G ENGERT AV MBA T V G E LO N A I S N R D E N D S V 5 A E T H 1 R H T 2 B E R Y L K T T E V S W H V E ST T M EL O S S T D EAD S B O T S M N A N TO R A T E 3 T N EW R S Y A D H N W L V Y A P N P S T N R X SIO T R T T E DIVI S 4 E T S V S R T A D A N ER H B R H BEM RT ST E N E N N A R E G E D V S Y U O I 1 K R A A H T V 1 E -Q E R B N A T V E A T N E S H M Y B ON I D L N S N D T E R R S K HA N T D C L O I O V O T BAYARD ST O S R R E 1 P O F T R 0 R R Y O B D A M T E I S S E E H B S N T B R R E T S E T T R N A E S T H O A Northside N T 9 R T S N P T H S R V O VI T V D O H U RICHARDSON ST FR E DSON ST U 1 A ST CONO STRADAL RICHAR S M V S L N A O M I T IT S S S O R T I N A T A R S G O V B N R T G 8 V I I E N O T M A R H G T S S V L S D E A R A E P H S D IT R G V W R T FROST ST N N U T FROST ST T AN S D 7 S C D A T G S S T R V H Y C T N T I W T S L P I T B X N ST N E E I SON 6 T S O CK S T O HERS S N WITHERS ST JA 1 H R WIT E P ST T E D S S U O T T U Q N RS - O D N N E E V 5 Y Y W N A T I L A B O M H E K KILL M O E S N S E N O JACKSON ST JACKSON ST S 4 T V R V M 2 A ND T A B O H H V S I T N S S 1 T E V S A T A S G T T SKILLMAN AV SKILLMAN AV V N S 3 R E RD V F A K I S A L H T LM E O A H AV M T H R ASPE T G E M L S R L CONSELYEA ST M 4 P A Y E O T A A H T N L H METRO PO V O LIT O R ST W S D P AN AV N S E N I Y H T S M A S R S T A HAR V E O 1 R N R T S V S A ST E R Eastern Williamsburg T T D A V 5 H T B S Y METROPOLITAN AV B A A H S T U U D M C S S N N R T T T M S O R T L T O S S H D A A P F 2 T B S R W E N M Y V D D S O G S M E E R E L I 6 S P A T A T N C V V V I T B A DEVOE ST O ME H D TR N H A K O O S E L S PO T O T LITA N N O J S K A O A AV R U E U S S V G V R N D 3 T D I IG R H T D T O G R R S S P A E T E E D 30_AINSLIE ST V G S U BR T S H O N N A S S I T DW T T 5 4 L I A A O Y TH TH B S G R C ST S E R A N T T O E N RS S D A E T R Y S POWERS ST POW ND S V A S E T GR 8TH M
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Broadway Triangle Redevelopment Project Williamsburg, Brooklyn, New York
    BROADWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WILLIAMSBURG, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Prepared For: New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development New York, New York Prepared By: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. New York, New York February 2009 BROADWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WILLIAMSBURG, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK PHASE IA CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Prepared For: New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development New York, New York Prepared By: Tina Fortugno, RPA Zachary J. Davis, RPA Deborah Van Steen The Louis Berger Group, Inc. New York, New York February 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) is seeking discretionary actions in order to facilitate the redevelopment of a nine-block area known as Broadway Triangle, located in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The Proposed Action includes zoning map amendments to generally rezone the existing M1-2 Manufacturing District to Residential and Commercial Districts; zoning text amendments to establish Inclusionary Housing in the proposed R6A and R7A zoning districts; the disposition of City-owned properties; Urban Development Action Area Projects designation; the modification of an Urban Renewal Plan; and City Acquisition through eminent domain. The Project Area encompasses approximately 31 acres and is generally bounded by Flushing Avenue to the south, Throop Avenue to the east, Lynch Street to the north, and Union Avenue, Walton Street, and Harrison Avenue to the west. As part of this action, the HPD is undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Broadway Triangle Redevelopment Project. Consideration for cultural resources, including both archaeological and historic architectural resources, must be undertaken as part of the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) process.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 5-2018 There’s Nothing Here: Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn Sara Martucci The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2642 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THERE’S NOTHING HERE: TENURE, ATTACHMENT, AND CHANGING PERCEPTIONS OF GENTRIFYING WILLIAMSBURG, BROOKLYN by SARA MARTUCCI A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 SARA MARTUCCI All Rights Reserved ii There’s Nothing Here: Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn by Sara Martucci This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Sociology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date Professor Philip Kasinitz Chair of Examining Committee Date Professor Lynn Chancer Executive Officer Supervisory Committee: Professor John Mollenkopf Professor Jason Patch Professor Sharon Zukin THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract There’s Nothing Here: Tenure, Attachment, and Changing Perceptions in Gentrifying Williamsburg, Brooklyn by Sara Martucci Depending on the audience, the term “gentrification” conjures images of pristine condos, fancy restaurants, dive bars full of hipsters, or eviction notices.
    [Show full text]
  • Mccarren Park Uart­ View All Monuments in NYC Parks, As Well As Temporary Public Art Installations on Our NYC Public Art Map and Guide I Map)
    BOARD MEETING AFFIRMATION OF NEW MEMBERS Chairperson Ms. Fuller requested the new members to come forward to be affirmed. Mr. Solomon Green, Ms. Dana Rachlin, Mr. Michael Gary Schlesinger ROLL CALL Chairperson Ms. Fuller requested District Manager Mr. Esposito to call the roll. He informed the Chairperson that there were 39 members present, a sufficient quorum to call the meeting to order. MOMENT OF SILENCE Chairperson Ms. Fuller called for a moment of silence dedicated to Mr. Weidberg and his family, for the passing of Mr. Weidberg’s brother. ELECTIONS At 8:00 PM, Chairperson Ms. Fuller announced that it was time for elections. She requested the Elections Committee members [Ms. Barros; Ms. Foster; Mr. Torres] to come forward. Ballots were distributed and collected. The meeting continued while the Elections Committee convened in the other room to count the ballots. The committee reported the following regarding the elections: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE POSITION CANDIDATE TALLY OF VOTES Chairperson Dealice Fuller 38 votes __________________________________________________________________________________ First Vice Chairperson Simon Weiser 23 votes. Karen Nieves 14 votes. __________________________________________________________________________________ Second Vice Chairperson Del Teague 38 votes. __________________________________________________________________________________ Third Vice Chairperson Stephen J. Weidberg 38 votes. __________________________________________________________________________________ Financial Secretary Maria Viera
    [Show full text]
  • LPC Designation Report for South Village Historic District
    South Village Historic District Designation Report December 17, 2013 Cover Photographs: 200 and 202 Bleecker Street (c. 1825-26); streetscape along LaGuardia Place with 510 LaGuardia Place in the foreground (1871-72, Henry Fernbach); 149 Bleecker Street (c. 1831); Mills House No. 1, 156 Bleecker Street (1896-97, Ernest Flagg); 508 LaGuardia Place (1891, Brunner & Tryon); 177 to 171 Bleecker Street (1887-88, Alexander I. Finkle); 500 LaGuardia Place (1870, Samuel Lynch). Christopher D. Brazee, December 2013 South Village Historic District Designation Report Essay prepared by Christopher D. Brazee, Cynthia Danza, Gale Harris, Virginia Kurshan. Jennifer L. Most, Theresa C. Noonan, Matthew A. Postal, Donald G. Presa, and Jay Shockley Architects’ and Builders’ Appendix prepared by Marianne S. Percival Building Profiles prepared by Christopher D. Brazee, Jennifer L. Most, and Marianne S. Percival, with additional research by Jay Shockley Mary Beth Betts, Director of Research Photographs by Christopher D. Brazee Map by Jennifer L. Most Commissioners Robert B. Tierney, Chair Frederick Bland Christopher Moore Diana Chapin Margery Perlmutter Michael Devonshire Elizabeth Ryan Joan Gerner Roberta Washington Michael Goldblum Kate Daly, Executive Director Mark Silberman, Counsel Sarah Carroll, Director of Preservation TABLE OF CONTENTS SOUTH VILLAGE HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP .............................................. FACING PAGE 1 TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................ 1 SOUTH
    [Show full text]
  • F. J. Berlenbach House Designation Report
    Landmarks Preservation Commission May 11, 2004, Designation List 352 LP-2152 F. J. Berlenbach House, 174 Meserole Street, Borough of Brooklyn. Built 1887; architect: F.J. Berlenbach, Jr.; builder: F. J. Berlenbach. Landmark Site: Borough of Brooklyn Tax Map Block 3053, Lot 13. On April 20, 2004, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed designation of F.J. Berlenbach House and the related landmark site. The public hearing was duly advertised with the provisions of law. Three witnesses testified in favor of the proposed designation, including representatives of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Historic Districts Council, and the Municipal Arts Society. There were no speakers in opposition to the proposed designation. The Commission held previous public hearings on the proposed designation on November 10, 1981 (LP-1263), June 12, 1984 (LP- 1503), and July 10, 1990 (LP-1791). Summary Located in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, the Berlenbach House is an extraordinary Queen Anne- style survivor from the last decades of the nineteenth century. The three-story frame building was constructed in 1887 by local carpenter Franz J. Berlenbach, a German immigrant, from plans drawn by his son, F.J., Jr., a young architect who had recently opened a design office nearby. The Berlenbach family occupied the house until 1899. The great wave of immigration that New York City experienced in the 1850s brought a large number of German immigrants to Williamsburg. Its population in the late nineteenth century was almost exclusively German. While most of the older wood-frame buildings in this section of Brooklyn have been resurfaced with new materials, this house not only retains its original clapboard siding, but features inventive wood carving.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Board No. 1
    COMMUNITY BOARD NO. 1 N 435 GRAHAM AVENUE - BROOKLYN, NY 11211 PHONE: (718) 389-0009 FAX: (718) 389-0098 Email: [email protected] Website: www.nyc.gov/brooklyncbl IIOX ERIC L. AOAMS BROOKLYN BOROUGH PRESIDENT greenpo,nt - -w1lllClmsburg $11',JON WEISER DEALICE FULLER HON. STEPHEN T. LE VIN FIRST VICE.-CHA!RM,\N CHAIRPERSON COUNCILMEMBER, 33'" CD DEL TEAGUE SECOND V!CE,.CHAJRP~RSO~ GERALD A. ESPOSITO HO!\". ANTONIO REYNOSO DISTRICT MANAGER COUNCILMEMBER, 3~" CD STEPHEN J. WEIDBF.KG TI-ORD VICE-CHAJR.\MN MA.WA VIERA FINANCIAL SECRETARY SONIA JGLESUS COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING RF.CORJ)Th'G SECRETARY AND BOARD MEETING PD/LIP A.. CAPONEGRO 1'1E.'\IBER,AT•LARClE SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 211 AINSLIE STREET PUBLIC HEARING ROLL CALL Chairperson Ms. Dealice Fuller requested District Manager Mr. Esposito to call the roll. District Manager Mr. Esposito conducted the roll call and announced that there were 26 members present, a sufficient number for a quorum. Chairperson Ms. Fuller noted the quorum and opened the board meeting. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chauperson Ms. Fuller asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Ms. Kaminski made a motion to approve the agenda as written. The motion seconded by Mr. Caponegro. The motion was unanimously carried. UNENCLOSED SIDEWALK CAFE: SJD 220 CORP., DBA BREAD BROTHER BAGEL CAFE, 220 BUSHWICK A VENUE, BROOKLYN, NY 11206-4459 (Application# 2052885-DCA) 3 Tables; 6 CIWRS (RENEWAL) - Applicant did not appear. The item was referred to the SLA Review & DCA Committee for further review. UNENCLOSED SIDEWALK CAFE: GRAND ENDEAVORS INC., DBA CLEM'S, 264 GRAND STREET, BROOKLYN, NY 11211 (Application# 1145629-DCA) 5 Tables, 20 Chairs (RENEWAL) Applicant did not appear.
    [Show full text]
  • NOTICE of PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Financing
    NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Proposed Financing NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to the provisions of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that the New York City Housing Development Corporation (the “Corporation”) is contemplating the issuance of one or more issues or series of bonds pursuant to plans of financing (the “Bonds”) in an aggregate amount not to exceed $5,610,583,920 in order to (i) provide a portion of the funds for the financing, refinancing, acquisition, rehabilitation and/or new construction of the residential developments described below (the “Developments”); and (ii) pay related costs including, without limitation, reserve amounts and costs of issuance of the Bonds for the Developments. The Bonds will not constitute a debt or obligation of the City or State of New York. The Corporation will conduct a hearing at 10:00 am on July 10, 2020 to receive comments from the general public on the proposed financing plans for the Developments and the Bonds. Due to the COVID-19 public health crisis, such public hearing shall be conducted remotely, through the use of telephone conference. Interested members of the public are invited to participate, and individuals will have an opportunity to make brief statements by dialing into the teleconference using the toll-free number 1-844-740-1264 and by entering the access code 160 007 3949. The hearing will also be accessible as a free-to-join webinar accessible through the world wide web address: https://nychdc.webex.com/nychdc/j.php?MTID=maa0f937f2cb92c9d75f02f5be931c531 and entering the passcode “TEFRA2020”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Perspective— Excluding the Poor: Public Housing in New York City
    The Historical Perspective Excluding the Poor: First Houses, pictured here in 1939, replaced poorly constructed tenement housing on the Lower East Side with modernized apartments for low-income families. Almost 4,000 families competed for only 122 apartments when First Houses opened, in 1935. Photo courtesy of the New York City Housing Authority. page 24 page 25 Summer 2012 by Ethan G. Sribnick Public Housing in New York City In the 1930s, in the midst of the Great Depression, federal, state, standards for safety and sanitation or to board them up. Many and local officials developed their most radical response to the buildings were so old as to make the required improvements problem of inadequate shelter for the poor and working class: impossible. “The only ultimate cure for them,” opined Tenement publicly built and subsidized housing. In the years after World Commissioner Langdon Post, “is dynamite.” War II, stark high-rise towers became a common feature in the landscape of America’s cities. There was never, however, a clear In February 1934 the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), consensus over the purpose of public housing. Some believed the city’s new public-housing agency, began its state-mandated public housing should provide shelter for the poorest and most mission to provide for “the clearance, replanning, and recon- unstable families. Others hoped to create thriving, financially sta- struction” of the slum districts of New York. Over the next four ble working-class communities by restricting residency to work- years, NYCHA demolished 1,100 tenement buildings, removing ing families who could demonstrate their potential as upstanding 10,000 rental units.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing Projects: New Deal Guidebooks, Community, and Housing Reform in New York City
    113 Writing Projects: New Deal Guidebooks, Community, and Housing Reform in New York City J. J. Butts Syracuse University The reader of the 1939 WPA Guide to New York City encounters an oddity: situated with the WPA Guide’s tours of more familiar Gotham landmarks--the Brooklyn Bridge, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the new Empire State and Rockefeller Center buildings--a description of the Harlem River Houses, a public housing project, seems rather misplaced.1 An East Harlem housing project, after all, was not a destination most tour- ists would put on the must-see list, particularly during the middle of the Depression. Stranger yet is the accompanying description. Quoting a re- view of the housing in the prominent architectural journal Pencil Points, the writers claim: In every really important general matter of land usage--in air, in light, in a sense of green and growing things as a concomitant of living; in the creation of an atmosphere of humanity and de- cency, a place where children would be glad to grow up; in the development of a community that brings with it a new vision of democracy and of progress […] [this development has] qualities that no money can buy. (WPA Guide 459; first brackets added) The passage’s optimism, linking public housing to the making of a national community, may seem incredible, or at least ironic, to contemporary read- ers whose imaginations picture destitution, crime, and squalor. The reasoning behind the odd inclusion of the housing project tour is illuminated by a passage in the manuscript “A Brief Narrative History of New York’s WPA for the Year ending July 31, 1936 by the Federal Writ- ers’ Reporting Project”: “Perhaps no other program of the entire New Deal offers so concrete an expression of its social objectives as does the effort to make available decent housing for people of low incomes” (Housing section 4).
    [Show full text]
  • The New Deal in the Empire State
    fdr4freedoms 1 12. Franklin D. Roosevelt, New Yorker: The New Deal in the Empire State During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s governorship, his home state of New York served as a laboratory for New Deal programs. In turn, after FDR won the presidency, the New Deal in all its variety transformed and enriched New York in ways that remain very much visible in the twenty-first century. As New York’s governor from 1929 until his election to the presidency in 1932, FDR pioneered state old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and aid for the ever-growing ranks of the unemployed; all became central components of the New Deal. His battle to regulate private utility companies, commitment to hydroelectric power, and determination to expand access to affordable electricity set the stage for the Tennessee Valley Authority. FDR’s struggle in New York State to “help the farm dollar go as far as the [city dollar]” helped shape New Deal farm policy and work-relief projects. And his experience with New York’s failing banks helped prepare him to manage the nation’s banking crisis and push reforms such as the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The New Deal policies tested in New York went on to profoundly influence its future. Upstate rural communities benefited from New Deal farm policy and the Civil Conservation Corps’s programs to protect natural resources. Meanwhile, New York City’s ethnic neighborhoods experienced (many for the first time) American theater and music performed in their own languages. Public-works and work- relief projects dramatically marked New York State, studding countryside and city alike with schools, post offices, parks, Manhattan and Queens in January 1932.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 8: URBAN DESIGN and VISUAL RESOURCES
    Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 8: URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES A. INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an assessment of the potential impacts on urban design and visual resources that could result from the proposed action. As described in Chapter 1, “Project Description,” the proposed action includes zoning map and zoning text amendments, street demapping, and park mapping in an area spanning 184 blocks in the Greenpoint and Williamsburg sections of Brooklyn. The proposed action would result in substantial amounts of new above-ground development by 2013 with urban design characteristics different from those currently attributed to the project area and located within areas containing resources of visual significance. Given the above conditions, an analysis of urban design and visual resources is therefore appropriate as per the guidelines of the CEQR Technical Manual. For purposes of analysis, the urban design and visual resources study area is coterminous with the study area used for the analysis in Chapter 2, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy,” delineated by a ½-mile radius around the proposed action area. Together, the urban design components and visual resources of an area define the distinctive identity of a neighborhood. As stipulated by CEQR, the analysis of urban design will assess the effects of the proposed action on those attributes that constitute the physical appearance of buildings and streets in the study area. These attributes include building bulk, use, and type; building arrangement; block form and street pattern; streetscape elements; street hierarchy; and natural features. The concept of bulk is created by the size of a building and the way it is massed on a site.
    [Show full text]
  • Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 5: OPEN SPACE
    Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning EIS CHAPTER 5: OPEN SPACE A. INTRODUCTION The proposed action would add a sizable number of new residents to the area over the next ten years following the adoption of the proposed action, and map a new public park, and therefore has the potential to affect the way residents of the surrounding community use parks, playgrounds, and other open spaces in the area. In accordance with guidelines established in the CEQR Technical Manual, this chapter assesses the adequacy of those resources in the area and the project’s effect on their use. An open space assessment may be necessary if a proposed action could potentially have a direct or indirect effect on open space resources in the proposed action area. A direct effect would “physically change, diminish, or eliminate an open space or reduce its utilization or aesthetic value.” An indirect effect may occur when the population generated by a proposed project would be sufficient to noticeably diminish the ability of an area’s open space to serve the existing or future population. According to the guidelines established in the CEQR Technical Manual, a project that would add fewer than 200 residents or 500 employees, or a similar number of other users to an area, is typically not considered to have indirect effects on open space. The proposed action would result in the net addition of approximately 7,391 DUs and 253,698 sf of ground-floor local and general retail, and a decrease in industrial space, vehicle and open storage uses, and vacant land. This anticipated development would add an estimated 16,778 net new residents and approximately 805 net new retail employees to the study area over the next ten years following the adoption of the proposed action.
    [Show full text]