What Is A 15-minute City?

What makes a city liveable? For many, it comes down to choice. We want to be surrounded by options without having to stray too far to reach any of them. Making choices accessible is the goal, but getting there is harder than just building a new megastore.

Developed in 2010, the 15-minute city has urban planners rethinking their technique. The basic premise is that all amenities should lie within a 15-minute walk or transit ride from home. This decentralized urban planning model ensures each local neighborhood meets the basic social functions for residents to live and thrive. 

This has yet to be tried in the Big Apple, but that’s about to change. Recently approved plans show New York City will begin constructing its own version in 2023. This has created a small stir amongst conspiracy theorists. 

The concept was first developed by Parisian urbanist and scientist Carlos Moreno. The premise is simple: everyday destinations should be close to home and easy to get to. By developing neighborhoods with schools, stores, and offices only a short walk, bike, or bus ride away, communities and individuals can experience a higher quality of life while saving time usually spent commuting to dedicate to what they actually want to be doing.

15-Minute Cities Around The World

Influenced by European cities like Paris, this method of city planning maximizes convenience and quality of life while minimizing pollution and traffic. The model echoes back to a hundred years ago when cities were established and expanded around a central area containing all needed amenities. In today’s version, we have the added advantage of being digitally connected. 

“A 15-minute city neighborhood offers convenience and quality of life, but not isolation,” describes the C40 website, “Physical and digital connectivity must be at the heart of any 15-minute city strategy, prioritizing equitable access to social and economic opportunities.”

Existing examples include Portland’s Complete Neighborhoods, Melbourne’s 20 Minute Neighborhoods, Bogota’s Barrios Vitales, and, of course, Paris’s original 15-Minute City. 

Some cities are going large in their transition. Portland specifically has committed to refashioning its land use so that 80% of residents will live in complete neighborhoods by 2035. As of now, less than half of Portlanders are in a complete neighborhood.

Calling Paris a 15-minute city feels tongue in cheek to some; Paris has always had greater accessibility to amenities than most cities. Many consider Paris a “5-minute city” with daily conveniences less than a five-minute walk for the average Parisian. One survey tallied 1,180 bakeries and 516 butcher shops within the 40 square miles of Paris’s 20 neighborhoods.  

Transitioning toward complete neighborhoods takes a lot of planning on behalf of local and government officials. While the idea was slow to take hold in 2010, the 2020 pandemic provided a major driving force for cities to take action. 

COVID-19 Impact on 15-Minute Cities

During the rise of Covid-19, an organization of globally networked mayors, called C40, united in action against climate change. This group of city leaders established the Global Mayors COVID-19 Recovery Task Force. Active participants of C40 include nearly 100 major cities: Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Austin, Houston, New Orleans, Seattle, Los Angeles, and many others around the globe.

Amongst the actions these mayors committed to taking: Supporting essential workers, creating green jobs, providing fundamental public services, building with nature, and evolving to create 15-minute cities. 

“[We] committed to providing the swiftest and strongest possible rebound for their citizens and reaffirmed commitment to the principles of the Global Green New Deal,” says the C40 project website, “to protect our environment, strengthen economies and build a more equitable future – [we] reached out to other cities, youth, unions, business, and civil society to join in this effort.”

By reimagining streets and public spaces to best benefit local people of all abilities, backgrounds, and ages, the city offers itself in a more equitable and inclusive manner. Communities thrive when pedestrians “live locally” and are able to spend more time on foot, bike, or transit. 

15-minute Cities Reduction of Environmental Impact

Upsides to the 15-minute city were initially environmental. Reclaiming and reformatting space is a means to decrease car use, reducing carbon emissions. A decrease in traffic and car dependency equates to more free time for residents. Access to walking routes, parks and other outdoor conveniences mobilizes people to spend more time outdoors, boosting both physical and mental health.

“It puts people and the environment at the centre of urban planning,” said The Conversation, “Key elements are: the proximity of necessities; local participation and decision-making; community solidarity and connection; and green and sustainable urban living.”

A manifesto published in 2020 from Barcelona, backed by 300 architects and 160 academics, iterated four key elements to city organization: reorganization of mobility, renaturalization of the city, de-growth, and de-commodification of housing. So how would this translate in the hustle and bustle of New York City? 

Innovation QNS, NYC’s 15-Minute City

In 2022 the NYC Council approved a 15-minute city masterplan for the Queens’ Astoria neighborhood. The plan, called Innovation QNS, was brought forth by ODA Architecture and includes a number of major perks.

Built between 35th and 36th Avenues, the neighborhood will repurpose large surface parking lots, vacant spaces, and underutilized industrial and commercial buildings to shape an area that meets residents’ needs in a more concrete way.

“Innovation QNS will expand the adjacent Kaufman Arts District and build on Astoria’s rich cultural fabric including its existing cultural assets,” details the ODA Urban Plan website.

The 5-block plan will include over 2,800 units of mixed-income housing, of which 700 are permanently coded for affordable housing. Beyond that, 200,000 square feet will be dedicated to neighborhood retail and 250,000 square feet dedicated to creative industry and small business. Two acres have been set aside for intentional open space, community health and wellness facilities, arts and culture hubs, not to mention a multiplex cinema and grocery store.

Despite difficult negotiations, the project was finally approved in late 2022, with construction slated to begin in 2025. The $2 billion dollar development nearly came to a halt as the opposition called for even more affordable housing to be woven into the plan. Developers and housing officials finally agreed to double the affordable units to 45% of the project, equating to 1,400 units.

“This is exactly the kind of historic work we must do to tackle the housing shortage at the root of our affordable housing crisis,” said Democratic Mayor Eric Adams about regarding the negotiations.

Pressure continues to mount as officials fail to meet an urgently growing housing shortage crisis. Council members advocating on behalf of affordable housing were relieved the project has expanded to include more units.

“From Day 1, I have stood with my community in demanding deeper affordability from this development,” said Ms. Won of the Council’s progressive caucus, “There [were] more parking spots being offered than affordable units.”

 Supported by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, council members continue to pressure developers to meet the needs of local communities first and foremost. 

But while the common thread of 15-minute cities carry the sentiment of community-first principles, that hasn’t stopped conspiracy theorists from demonizing the concept, creating major backlash. 

Conspiracy Theories of 15-Minute Cities

Starting in 2023, Mr. Moreno’s 15-minute city began to attract the wrong kind of attention. QAnon conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers quickly labeled 15-minute cities as “Prison camps” and “Climate change lockdowns,” stoking fears that proximity was a form of entrapment. 

Misinterpretations of the concept ran rampant, and conservatives vilified the idea as a government takeover, accusing supporters of advocating repression and government surveillance. The oppositional narrative is dystopic at best. Opponents paint pictures of a fictional future where gated communities keep residents locked in, and limited access to vehicles prohibits people from moving freely. 

Mr. Moreno was attacked both digitally and physically. Harassment and threats through email and online forums mounted, with some calling Moreno a criminal and a dictator. Soon the death threats began to pour in, terrifying both him and his family. 

“I wasn’t a researcher anymore, I was Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler,” Mr. Moreno told the New York Times, “I am not a politician, I am not a candidate for anything — as a researcher, my duty is to explore and deepen my ideas with scientific methodology. It is totally unbelievable that we could receive a death threat just for working as scientists.”

So far, none of this doomsday foreshadowing has proven true. In fact, local communities have flourished under newly completed neighborhoods, with small businesses gaining more traction than before. Advocates of 15-minute cities are quick to dismiss any rumors, ensuring the concept is not driven by any sort of restrictive mobility or monitoring.  

As New York constructs its own version of a complete neighborhood, we will soon experience firsthand what the model has to offer. Coming from the midst of both an economic and housing crisis, this movement toward the 15-minute city may help New York emerge from the pandemic even stronger than before.

The post What Is A 15-Minute City and How It’s Coming to NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

The Real Estate Board of New York recently conducted a study revealing that thousands of properties will soon face higher operational costs and large fines due to new climate legislation going into effect as early as 2024.

In 2019, the City Council passed Local Law 97 as part of a larger legislative package focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sweltering temperatures, frequent rainfall, and rising sea levels have all placed mounting pressure on NYC to act quickly and efficiently on the issue. 

The city’s response was to create a law setting limits on emissions emitted by the city’s largest buildings. The reason being, that NYC’s one million buildings account for about 70% of its total carbon emissions. Much of the energy used to heat, cool, and light these buildings comes from fossil fuels. 

In a statement made to the public, NYC’s chief climate officer, Rohit T. Aggarwala, confidently stated that “Local Law 97 is telling everyone in the real estate business: Climate change is your problem,” and that forming a part of the real estate industry in NYC meant “moving to a carbon-free future.

But, with Mayor Adams allowing select building owners to bypass Local Law 97’s emission caps, the administration’s conviction on the issue is being brought into question. Climate advocates believe that the law is being defanged before it can even begin to sink its teeth, raising serious concerns over its effectiveness. 

On the other side of the aisle, building owners and landlords have expressed their frustrations with Local Law 97, claiming that they don’t make enough money from tenants to cover the transition to eco-friendly energy sources. Some owners have gone so far as to sue the city for Local Law 97 in hope that they can at least buy themselves more time to make their buildings compliant. Although owners and landlords will be directly affected through increased costs of operation, it’s likely that tenants will be affected indirectly through higher rents. 

Overview of Local Law 97

Local Law 97 is a part of the Climate Mobilization Act, passed under Mayor de Blasio. The former mayor had pledged to make the city carbon neutral by 2050 and planned to do so through the New York City Green New Deal. Local Law 97 aims to take a stab at the city’s biggest culprit of greenhouse gas emissions, its buildings. The goal of the law is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. 

Come 2024, tens of thousands of New York’s largest buildings would have emissions caps placed on them and face fines if they were to go over said limits. These buildings include several commercial structures, such as bank headquarters and hotels, as well as apartment complexes. 

The law also states that most buildings over 25,000 square feet, whether commercial or residential, are required to meet emission caps and new energy efficiency requirements by 2024. These requirements are supposed to become stricter in 2030.

Would It Just be Cheaper for Landlords to Ignore Local Law 97?

Engineering consulting firm, Level Infrastructure, conducted a study estimating that over 3,700 buildings could face penalties upwards of $200 million a year come 2024. The Real Estate Board of New York estimates that a total of 13,500 buildings could face penalties of more than $900 million by 2030.

The city estimates that 50,000 buildings will be in compliance by the January 2024 deadline. However, there are an estimated 2,700 buildings that are not expected to be compliant by then. This will require building owners to replace windows, tune up HVAC systems, and/or install energy-efficient lighting to avoid hefty fines—an expensive and unplanned endeavor for many NYC landlords.

By 2030, emission caps are set to fall significantly, forcing building owners to not just repair building features but completely replace them in order to make their buildings compliant. For this reason, it’s expected that the second deadline will require owners to pay much more in fines. Crain’s New York reports that in order to avoid the fines, landlords will have to spend about $3 billion a year in carbon cuts, $20 billion over the next decade. 

It’s worth noting that the estimated budget for carbon cuts by Crain’s New York ($20 billion) is much higher than the penalties landlords would be responsible for ($900 million). Depending on their finances and how far they are from achieving compliance—some owners may just ignore the new climate law altogether and instead treat the fines as a business tax. 

Although this may work for landlords, this certainly does nothing to reduce gas emissions emitted by NYC buildings, and will most likely result in Local Law 97 falling short of its ambitious climate goals. 

Pushback from critics, ‘too much, too soon’

Advocates of Local Law 97 believe that the city should use even stricter measures to move NYC buildings towards a more eco-friendly future, while its critics claim that the law is already too harsh. Some say that meeting the emission limits during the timeframe outlined in the law would be near impossible and that millions would have to be paid in fines regardless of their efforts. 

According to the Real Estate Board of New York, even if every building were to reduce its energy consumption by 30%, more than 8000 properties would still face fines up to $300 million each year. 

Vice president of policy at REBNY, Zachary Steinberg, told Bloomberg that the organization hopes “the city will take action over the next 12 months to avoid damage to our local economy and unfair penalties to property owners in 2024,” adding that buildings owners will simply be unable to meet emission limits “even if buildings take meaningful steps to comply and use the tools provided by the law.”

In May of 2022, an owner of a mixed-use property in Manhattan and two garden apartment complexes sued the city, asking for the enforcement to be blocked. They claimed that the law would impose “draconian” fines that would significantly harm their ability to generate profits on their buildings. 

City officials have responded with understanding, promising struggling owners who show “good faith” efforts some wiggle room. The city is considering waiving fees and lowering fines for building owners who demonstrate a willingness to comply, but may need more time to reach denoted emission caps.

Mayor Adams Allows for the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits Amidst Pushback from Landlords

Building owner advocacy groups caught the attention of Mayor Eric Adams. He recently announced that two-thirds of large office buildings and one-quarter of multi-family buildings would be allowed to bypass Local Law 97’s emission caps through 2035.

This means that about half of the pollution cuts outlined in the law would not even come close to being met, allowing owners to forgo the need to upgrade their properties for an entire decade. Property owners would be allowed to, instead, purchase Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, and essentially buy themselves out of the responsibility to make their properties energy-efficient. 

The idea isn’t completely revolutionary, seeing as the local government already allows for use of such credits. However, environmental advocates claim that such generous limits would “defang Local Law 97,” and encourage “future shoddy enforcement.” 

Activists believe that although Local Law 97 may be strong on paper, the administration’s extensive leniency with the industry is a grave mistake. They argue that providing real estate companies with the opportunity to purchase RECs will establish a weak precedent for the new law, causing it to fall apart in practice sooner or later. 

The Mayor’s administration has clarified that RECs are not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the real estate industry and that further limits on RECs will be placed in the near future, starting as early as 2024. As the main culprit of energy pollution in the city, it’s unlikely that the city’s intentions are to let building owners off the hook forever. However, letting them off the hook, for now, can still be dangerous to the survival and efficacy of Local Law 97

Not all Building Owners are Affected Equally

The city’s leniency for certain property owners has upset many environmental advocates, who claim that without strict accountability and adequate enforcement of the law, NYC will remain far from achieving its climate action goals. 

But, the truth is not all building owners will be affected equally. 

Large real estate companies often have the resources and capacity to invest in sustainability initiatives. In fact, many of them already have personnel dedicated to such initiatives, which would explain why 50,000 buildings are expected to be in compliance by the first deadline. 

However, for smaller real-estate companies that are often family-owned and operated, meeting the same emission limits will be a serious challenge. Many older buildings still run on oil or gas furnaces, requiring them to completely revamp their energy infrastructure in less than a year. 

Property owners like Debbie Fechter are wondering how they’re going to pay for capital projects they hadn’t planned for, and are even struggling to understand exactly what their new responsibilities will be. She’s been trying to get into contact with an energy audit consulting firm with no success. 

“We don’t really know what our obligations are and what our penalties are going to be,” Fechter told the New York Times. She’s a partner at Digby Management, a family-owned real estate business that owns four buildings in Manhattan subject to Local Law 97.

Who will be most affected? 

REBNY reports that condo, co-op, and rental apartment building owners will be among the most impacted by Local Law 97, should it be enforced as is. This is because of their landlords’ limited ability to fund and coordinate compliance in alignment with the stipulated deadlines. An estimated 60% of non-compliant buildings on January 1st, 2024, will be residential. 

Chances are that in order to either afford the fines or afford repairs, landlords will increase rents wherever possible, causing renters to bear the brunt of a potentially inefficient climate law.

Although some real estate businesses have sought alternative ways of complying with Local Law 97, city officials have claimed that methods such as carbon trading will not be permitted. Carbon trading is an arrangement where one building owner buys credits from a property with lower emissions. 

Purchasing renewable energy credits or certificates from the local government is currently the only way building owners will be able to legally curb responsibility for emissions. RECs would allow property owners to fund projects that will bring clean energy to one of the five boroughs. However, only a limited number of RECs will be available in the near term. 

Reducing gas emissions is a crucial component in the city’s ability to meet its climate change goals. With 1 million of its buildings contributing to more than two thirds of the city’s gas emissions, there’s no way around it—real estate companies have to be engaged. The question is how quickly, and to what extent?

The post Local Law 97: A Controversial Environmental Fix appeared first on CitySignal.

Why the Plan is Controversial

There are a few main criticisms of Mayor Adams’ plan. First, critics describe the policy as a human rights violation that enables law enforcement to arrest and forcibly detain individuals with mental illness, even if they aren’t an active danger to those around them.

Rising crime and safety concerns are major factors behind Mayor Adams’ decision.

Adams, for his part, responded to his critics by framing the new policy as the most compassionate and humane way of helping people who have chronic mental illness conditions and challenges with substance abuse.

“As a city, we have a moral obligation to support our fellow New Yorkers and stop the decades-long practice of turning a blind eye towards those suffering from severe mental illness, especially those who pose a risk of harm to themselves,” Mayor Adams said at a press conference.

Critics also argue that Adams is putting too much money and emphasis on enforcement instead of addressing the root causes of chronic homelessness among people with mental illness. Adams once again disputed this notion.

“If you cannot take care of your basic needs and you are a danger to yourself- that is the small group that we are talking about,” Adams said in a radio interview. “You will be taken to the hospital where a mental health professional would make the determination on what the next steps.”

There’s also the issue of transparency. Adams said that his administration may not be able to report how involuntarily hospitalized patients are treated due to HIPAA laws and other patient privacy laws. However, activists say that the only way the government can execute the program ethically is through complete transparency.

“We want to know the length of stay, I want to know whether they’re admitted, whether they’re not admitted, whether they’re medicated, not medicated, whether they’re connected with services, what services, for how long, whether the city is finding housing for them,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in an interview with a local news station.

Are There Enough Hospital Beds?

In the same interview, Lieberman showed concern regarding the new policy’s impact on New York’s hospital system. She argued that there aren’t enough hospital beds to meet the demand.

“It’s like potentially blowing up the whole barn because the mayor is proposing, by his own words, to sweep thousands of people off the streets into the already overburdened hospital system,” Lieberman said. “That means that people who want to go to the hospital for care won’t have any place to go.”

Right now, it’s unclear what the Adams Administration plans to do regarding a shortage of psychiatric hospital beds. DailyMail reported that Adams has an agreement with an undisclosed number of private hospitals to provide psychiatric beds and that Kenneth Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, supports the mayor’s plan. However, Raske admitted that the new policy would be hard to implement and that there would need to be an expansion of psychiatric beds in the city.

Is Mayor Adams’ New Policy a Blast From the Past?

Critics argue that Mayor Adams’ new plan is reminiscent of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s homeless policies that heavily emphasized enforcement over treating the root causes. Giuliani emphasized involuntary psychiatric commitment for the mentally ill during his tenure, according to The New York Times. However, he took enforcement further than that by threatening arrest for any homeless individuals who refused housing or shelter.

Critics of Giuliani’s homeless policies argue that his initiatives didn’t address the root causes of homelessness or provide long-term solutions. Meanwhile, proponents of his policies argue that he made the city much safer by removing dangerous individuals from the streets.

New York City’s crime rate declined considerably during Giuliani’s tenure from 1994 to 2001. Crime incidents in New York fell 41% from 1994 to 2002, the year after Giuliani left office. However, crime nationally fell 36% during that time, so there may not be enough evidence to prove whether or not his “tough on crime” policies made the city safer.

Mayor Adams’ policy has a legal hurdle to jump before officials can implement it. About a week after the announcement of his new policy, homeless advocates filed a lawsuit arguing that the involuntarily committing mentally ill New Yorkers who don’t pose a risk to others violates their constitutional rights.

The post New York Plans to Involuntarily Hospitalize Mentally Ill People Despite Challenges appeared first on CitySignal.

What Questions Does the ZoLa Map Answer?

The name speaks for itself in this situation. The Zoning and Land Use Interactive Map gives you information about your zoning district and what landowners are allowed to do in said district. Most people use this map to understand regulations for their zoning district, research new zoning and city planning initiatives, and find their zoning district. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg regarding the info this map can provide. 

When it comes to full districts, you can find out what kind of district you live in, be it commercial, residential, manufacturing, or special purpose district. The map will have info on building regulations for your area, such as how high they can be, the requirements for quality buildings, and the requirements for the construction of new buildings. You can also find current and pending amendments for the area, as well as whether or not your district is legally obligated to provide flood insurance for those who want it. 

If you search for your specific address, you can learn even more info. You can learn who owns your building, whether or not you live in a historic district, and even find a link to the building’s public records. They can even show you some fun things like landmarks, cafes, and FRESH zones (locations with special tax codes for grocery stores) in your area. The ZoLa Map will tell you everything you want to know and more about your zoning district.

How to Use the ZoLa Map

The ZoLa map has recently gone through an update to make navigation simple. Once you head to the portal on the government website, type in the building number, street, and borough you’re searching for. You’ll find yourself on the map, and you can search by block or lot numbers to find your district. When you’ve found the address or district you’re looking for, two menus will appear on either side of the map, each with different links and information.

Some of the links that can be found in the menus include ACRIS (The public records for buildings), transit zones, and coastal zones. The website is intuitive since it’s been updated earlier this year, and anyone can use it for any purpose. The ZoLa map might seem complex at first glance but is very easy to use once you get the hang of it.

Why Would You Use ZoLa?

The ZoLa map can, and should, be used by everyone. Landowners, business owners, and developers will benefit the most from it for several reasons. Developers, especially, will want to pay attention to this map. District zoning policies are extremely rigid, and any new development project must follow the district’s rules. Landowners should check the map frequently to keep up with current zoning laws and pending regulations for the neighborhood. This way, owners can be sure that additions or renovations to their buildings are completely legal. Business owners will want to check the map to see changes in their zoning areas’ tax status.

Although the map is most helpful for professionals, it can also be helpful for individual use. Residents should check the map regularly, especially if there’s a new addition to your building. They should also keep track of any zoning changes regarding sanitation and tax codes, which the map also provides info on. That said, ZoLa also provides an exciting look into your zoning district. You can find hidden gems on the map, see if you live in a historical area, and find out cool information about your zoning district. Pair that with some stats and trends on rents in your area to have a better understanding of the real estate market. Cartography enthusiasts, especially, will love this portal.

Additional Resources 

Many people might have specific questions that the ZoLa map cannot answer. For more information, people should visit the ZoLa help desk, a resource designed to answer any questions you might have about the platform. They address common questions like what people in multiple zoning districts should do if they want to know how their area works. 

They can also answer questions like, “when was my area last rezoned,” “How can zoning policies in my area change,” and “can I run a business out of my home?” If this page doesn’t answer your question, you can contact the Zoning Help Desk or fill out the Zoning Inquiry Form. The form is probably the fastest way to get your question answered, as a response should be sent to you in a matter of days. 

The government is also aware that the map isn’t a perfect tool. Though it’s much improved, people can still make suggestions via Github and Twitter @NYCPlanningLabs or with #ReimagineZoLa. You can also email them at zolagis@planning.nyc.gov. Your suggestions could very well make it easier for the public to access public information, which is a net positive for the entire city.

ZoLa is an excellent yet underused resource that every New Yorker should know about. It provides essential public info that residents and developers can use to make their lives easier and follow the complicated zoning rules of their area. The map is incredibly easy to use, and the amount of information is mind-boggling. One could spend an entire day learning about their zone alone. This resource is important, and more people should be aware of it. So head to the portal and learn about your district today. A well-informed resident is a powerful one. 

The post How to Use ZoLa: NYC’s Zoning and Land Use Interactive Map appeared first on CitySignal.

Despite working in similar fields, city planners and real estate investors are often at odds with each other. Planners tend to focus on creating more equitable and inclusive real estate options, while developers naturally aim to make a return on their investment. 

While not completely contradictory, there are instances where the two priorities cannot coexist. In a place as densely populated as New York City, quality real estate is expensive and scarce, making it harder for planners and developers to work in unison. 

Since commercial development’s ‘post-pandemic’ comeback, competition for land in New York City has done everything but slow down. To add fuel to the fire, the average size of new apartments has shrunk, despite exorbitant demand for housing units. 

Developers across the country are criticized for their lack of concern for meeting community needs, while planners are denounced for not doing enough to stop them. 

But how much can we blame either side?

When from a legal standpoint, developers aren’t doing anything wrong, and planners are professionally bound to roles of ideation and advisory. 

History of Urban Planning in the U.S.

Urban planners are tasked with the responsibility of developing land use plans to help sustain communities, revitalize metropolitan areas, and accommodate population growth. In their earliest days, planners dealt with the allocation of land in a vastly different manner, focusing on the domestication of forests and management of river dams.

City planning, as we know it today, emerged in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. As people started moving into the city, issues of congestion, poor sanitation, and dangerous construction became important to address. Urban planners soon became advocates for the urban poor, many of which were factory workers working in deplorable conditions. 

Many planners openly condemned sweatshops and called for government control of the land upon which factories were built. They also voiced their support for a progressive tax on land values to help fund the social needs of workers, hence property taxes. 

Despite their many efforts to protect the common worker from capitalistic ambitions, power imbalances remained, resulting in a complicated relationship between urban planners and real estate developers, a contradiction which persists until today. 

The contradictory relationship between planners and developers

As employees of government entities, planners are expected to ensure the community’s well-being and present development plans that benefit the general public. Developers, on the other hand, aren’t necessarily obliged to the community or public well-being. They’re instead focused on making a return on their investment, a natural consequence of operating in a free-market economy. 

Despite having competing interests, nothing stops either party from pursuing their objectives. However, problems arise when developers push for local governments to create legal infrastructure needed to support their development plans while fiercely guarding their property rights. 

Government control over land in any capacity is usually not well received among developers. This makes it difficult for planners, who work in the interest of the public, to see eye-to-eye with developers, who expect a return on their investment. The government owes itself to the people, not to developers. But, many developers seem to believe that if it weren’t for their developments, cities wouldn’t prosper. 

This line of thinking, although not completely flawed, gives way to the pull-push relationship we see between planners and developers today. In theory, planners serve the public, but in practice, planners are bound to developers and their ideas on what kind of development(s) would be favorable to a given community. 

Development often charges forward with little to no regard for public opinion

The term ‘developer’ has almost become synonymous with ‘greedy’ in cities such as New York, where development projects tend to disregard the immediate needs of the communities in which they are built. 

In a piece published by the New Yorker, former community organizer, Nikil Saval states that development projects often require “catastrophic, violent interventions in the lives of the very people that planners are trying to help, limiting the public’s ability to deposit full trust in developers, or even planners, for that matter.” 

Such is the case with the demolition of a 120-year old mansion in Bed-Stuy that left neighbors heartbroken. The historic structure had been a peculiar, yet cherished sight for many Brooklyn residents. Neighbors were in the process of getting the Jacob Dangler House landmarked when the demolition began. 

A lifelong resident of the neighborhood told CBS News, “For them to tear it down, it’s awful.” According to several neighbors protesting the demolition, the mansion had rentable value up until the pandemic. It had also recently become the home of a masonic organization, belonging exclusively to African American and African Caribbean women.

Several Bed-Stuy residents were infuriated to find out that the French gothic-inspired mansion was going to be destroyed in order to build yet another condominium building in the city—especially since the property was not vacant nor was it without value. 

In a statement to CBS News, a spokesperson from the mayor’s office confirmed that “as the Landmarks Preservation Commission considered this building for potential designation as a landmark, the developer was able to legally obtain demolition permits.’’ This occurred despite continuous efforts from residents and community leaders to delay the work. 

CBS reporter, Hannah Kliger, asked developer Tomer Erlich to comment on the demolition, to which he responded, “No. There’s no point.” When Kliger pressed for Erlich to at least respond to the community’s strong opposition to the demolition he said, “The building department issued a permit, we’re doing our job, and that’s it.” 

Urban planners have tried to make development more equitable, with minimal success

The concept of zoning emerged in the early days of urban planning as the first real attempt to protect communities against the dangers of unregulated real estate development. 

Zoning was intended to counteract racial segregation as much as it was meant to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. In practice, however, zoning remained exclusionary, especially for low-income communities and communities of color. 

Modern-day planners have tried to improve the efficacy of zoning by promoting inclusionary zoning, which allows developers to exceed zoning restrictions and even receive subsidies on their development projects if they reserve a portion of their real estate for ‘affordable’ housing. 

In 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio implemented the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program, requiring developers to “build permanently affordable housing in areas zoned for growth to ensure that all of the city’s neighborhoods will be diverse and inclusive.”

Although the mandate marked a significant move in the fight for affordable housing in New York City, the MIH program has been criticized for its lack of efficacy. According to several community leaders, the program allows developers to bypass zoning requirements and push forward projects that provide little to no benefit to local communities. 

Another key criticism of the MIH mandate is the ability developers have to conveniently miscalculate income thresholds, which disproportionately affect black and Latinx New Yorkers. Such was the case with the One45 development in Harlem. 

New York City’s Luxury Development Boom

The New York Times dubbed the 2010s as ‘The Decade Dominated by the Ultraluxury Condo.’ It was during this time that developers started to reshape NYC’s skyline by building towering luxury condos all across Manhattan. 

The 2010s were also categorized by widespread gentrification in Manhattan’s outer boroughs. The pursuit of cheaper land spurred development in places like Brooklyn, Queens and now, even the South Bronx. 

Although well-intentioned and, in many cases, deemed necessary, surges in development drive up the cost of living for local residents and ultimately push them out of their own neighborhoods. 

Although COVID halted commercial development in NYC for some time, the industry has made a comeback in the past year, this time with taller towers and fewer units—a trend that has made urban planners especially critical of new development.

Low-density, luxury towers wipe out market-rate housing options

Once they obtain a land’s property rights, developers have the right to tear down whatever was there and build their new project. But, with the MIH program in place, it’s expected that new developments should work to alleviate the housing crisis to some degree. 

According to some urban planners, developers are misusing the last of Manhattan’s valuable sites for new construction—sites upon which multiple units could be built. On the Upper East Side and West Sides of Manhattan, soaring towers are replacing buildings that previously housed more units than the new condominiums going up. 

The Benson, Naftali Group’s first Upper East Side condominium, houses just 15 units. According to zoning calculations, the development site could have supported up to 83 apartments. Units in the 19-story tower are either full-floor apartments or duplexes ranging from $12.75 million for a 1,770 sq.ft. 3-bed to $35 million for a 6,600 sq. ft. penthouse. 

The same development group has plans to demolish 128 rental units located on West 84th Street to erect a 210-foot tower with just 45 apartments. The new tower could potentially house more than 220 apartments, given it will nearly triple the height of the current building. 

Similar projects are taking place along Madison Avenue, where developers are building a 13-story building with 11 units and a 210-foot building with 13 units. Zoning analyses reveal that a total of 163 housing units could have been supported between the two towers. 

Lesser rental units are being built despite extraordinary rental demand

In 2021, the New York City Housing Vacancy Survey revealed that two out of three households in the City rented their homes, revealing an exceptional demand for rental apartments. Additionally, a report by REBNY found that NYC would need 560,000 additional housing units by 2030 to keep up with the expected population and job growth.

The New York Times reports that from 2010-2020, the Upper East Side lost more housing units than any other community district in the city. According to the Department of City Planning, this reduction in units was caused mostly by demolitions and the combination of smaller apartments to create larger ones. 

Developers maintain that the cost of land in Manhattan is too high to build anything other than luxury condominiums. They claim that without more favorable zoning regulations or new tax incentives, diverting from high-end residences would be financially disadvantageous. 

Housing proponents counteract developers’ claims by stating that there are steps both the city and state could take to incentivize or simply require developers to do more. 

In an interview with the New York Times, Gale Brewer, who is currently a city councilwoman for the Upper West Side and was formerly Manhattan borough president exclaims that, “the idea that these people can get away without building anything affordable is mind-boggling to me. In a city that’s desperate for housing, all kinds of housing, how can you allow a builder to build fewer units?

How do developers get away with it?

Brewer raises an interesting point. The purpose behind the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program was to force developers to participate in the fight for affordable housing in the City.

How are they getting away with building sky-high condominium towers housing less than a few dozen apartments when homelessness in New York City has reached the highest levels since the Great Depression?

“It’s a very simple answer: It’s the market demand,” says Miki Nafalti, whose firm is building a variety of high-rise condos with minimal units across Manhattan. Following this line of thinking, developers have the right to pursue the best return on their investment. 

Georgia Janes, an urban planner who has studied a number of the new towers going up, believes that the City suffers from “a scarce resource of floor area that could be used for housing people, and it is being used, essentially, for people who are super wealthy.”

The truth is that many of the development projects mentioned above are being built on sites that are “as of right,” which means they don’t require zoning changes or public review that could potentially require the builder to at least match the number of units previously built on those same sites. Hence, the loopholes to the MIH program mentioned earlier. 

Are Real Estate Developers the Real Urban Planners?

Competing perspectives among developers and planners beg questions of who is at fault, and perhaps more importantly, who controls land development in NYC?

Cincinnati Developer, John Blatchford, believes that although development is guided by local laws, zoning, and building codes, private real estate has more control over urban environments than anybody else and that developers are the ones shaping the way cities look and function. 

He says that in more conservative cities like Houston, “it’s rare that private development companies will have urban planners involved unless it is a really big project, which is not always good.” 

This capitalistic perspective has long been criticized as lining developers’ pockets at the cost of displacement and gentrification, to which developers respond is a natural cause of the free market economy we live in today. 

Author of Capital City: Gentrification and the Real Estate State, Sam Stein, presents the hopeful idea that “although gentrification has become a generalized fact of urban life in the 21st century, we can stop it and build cities that work for all.

Stein centers his book around the contradictory role of the urban planner who operates in a political economy where state powers have turned the devaluation of urban land into a profitable commodity. 

Stein essentially makes the argument that perhaps neither the developer nor planner is at fault, but rather the state and local powers for fomenting their contradictory relationship.  

He makes the bold claim that to cut the cord between urban planning, commercial development, and gentrification, the city would have to reject the concept of private land ownership—an idea that sends chills down the spines of developers and other faithful capitalists. Is New York ready for that?

The post The Beef Between Urban Planners and Real Estate Developers in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

Within New York, redlining condemned dozens of Manhattan and Brooklyn neighborhoods as hazardous and unworthy of investment, shaping New York’s infrastructure from the 1930s up until today. The long-term effects of redlining persist in multiple ways, from continual income inequality to infrastructural decay; previously redlined areas experience higher levels of pollution than their counterparts. 

What is Redlining?

Redlining evolved from the color coding of city maps. During the 1930s, the government-run Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created “Residential Security” maps of all major American cities. These maps were color-coded to measure risk and potential profitability, informing builders, lenders, and appraisers on areas worthy of investment. These maps became a blueprint for future suburban development while also leading to decades of racial discrimination. 

Areas colored green indicated a “Best” neighborhood, while yellow and red coloring meant “Declining” to “Hazardous.” Neighborhoods considered high risk were “redlined” not only on maps but also by lending institutions. Houses in redlined communities suffered exclusion and were blocked by government lending programs. Purchasing a home within redlined communities disqualified buyers from government-secured loans and insurance programs. This disproportionately impacted people of color (POC), mainly Black and Hispanic communities, and led to mass segregation of American communities.  

Redlining is synonymous with the systemic denial of financial services, such as mortgages, insurance, and loans, based on geographic location rather than on the individual. But how was this practice ever legal to begin with? It was actually created and promoted by the Federal Housing Administration.

The Dark History of Redlining 

The United States government is now considered one of the main segregators of modern-day America. During the housing shortage of the 1930s, the US government made efforts to restructure the layout of American housing. Under the New Deal, housing programs were created to offer affordable housing to white middle-class and lower-middle-class families.

Minorities and families of color were left out of these programs and pushed into urban housing projects. In 1934 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) was created to oversee mass housing construction. The FHA subsidized builders creating housing subdivisions for white people, even issuing a requirement that none of the homes could be sold to Black people. At the same time, the FHA refused to insure mortgages in or around Black neighborhoods. On top of that, any neighborhood that contained Black residents was automatically redlined. In essence, redlining made it legal to deny Black people home loans while also relegating minority neighborhoods to disrepair. 

Author Richard Rothstein ties our current sociological issues back to these racially motivated policies and actions. “The segregation of our metropolitan areas today leads … to stagnant inequality because families are much less able to be upwardly mobile when they’re living in segregated neighborhoods where opportunity is absent,” he says. “If we want greater equality in this society, if we want a lowering of the hostility between police and young African-American men, we need to take steps to desegregate.”

From a current standpoint, it’s easy to see neighborhoods were redlined on baseless claims. It was argued that if minorities purchased homes in majority-white suburbs, property values would go down, placing insured homes at risk. Once the Fair Housing Act was passed, it became evident that property values actually rose when POC families bought in white neighborhoods. Due to restrictive housing with limited options, those families were willing to pay more for housing, causing property values in the area to rise. The only problem is Black people couldn’t secure housing loans. 

The ways in which redlining was written into work manuals are shocking to some. The FHA first published its Underwriting Manual in 1938, which stated that “incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities.” In populous cities such as Detroit, builders were not allowed to construct housing developments near Black communities unless a 6-foot-high cement wall was erected to separate the two developments. 

Another recommendation outlined in the Underwriting Manual was to separate Black neighborhoods from white by constructing a highway between the two. From looking at the maps, you can see many redlined neighborhoods in Manhattan are in place next to highways. 

These walls and highways became emblematic of American segregation and racial discrimination, forcing communities of color into polluted, struggling areas. 

The practice of redlining was finally overthrown during the Civil Rights movement, officially banned by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The act was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in the wake of the Martin Luther King assassination riots. Prohibiting discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, or sex, the Fair Housing Act made individual acts of discrimination illegal in housing transactions. This would allow mobility between race and neighborhood, opening doors for people of color and Black families to live in whatever area they would like. Unfortunately, it was not quite that easy. While residential segregation by race began to decline after the act passed, the promise to promote further integration was never truly realized, and much tension persists today. Studies have found that over a hundred formerly redlined cities remain just as segregated today as they were in the 1940s. The aftereffects of redlining are not set to end anytime soon. 

Redlining in New York

The boroughs were no exception to redlining. Demographics and maps from 1940 show the majority of grade A, green-lined neighborhoods were those surrounding Central and Prospect Park, while much of north Brooklyn and eastern Manhattan was redlined due to living conditions, wages, and the presence of immigrants. If a neighborhood contained any Black residents, it was automatically redlined. Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen, and Lincoln Square were redlined, along with the river-facing portions of Yorkville, the Upper East Side, and Lenox Hill. Harlem and East Harlem, up past Washington Heights, was redlined property. Areas around Harlem still struggle today with worse living conditions than those neighborhoods directly surrounding Central Park.

In 2016 a team of scholars published a project called Mapping Inequality, publishing both color grades and detailed notes from the redlined maps. Grade A areas of Manhattan include the portions of East Harlem, Upper East Side, and Yorkville that bordered Central Park. Further west, Morningside Heights and the Upper West Side were B-graded. Nearly all areas outside of these neighborhoods were redlined. Over the Lower East Side, comments say, “An old district, many ‘old law’ tenements and converted dwellings… Continued obsolescence thru non-conformity with the Multiple Dwelling Law.” An example of neighborhood categorization can be seen in a write-up of 2nd Avenue: “An old tenement district. Rentals largely in the lowest brackets and almost all under $30. Has tendency to improve but not at all active in recent years. Some modernization. Large development on York Ave. reflected in trend. Foreign-born families: 45% Czech Austria predominating. Negro: No.”

Much of northern Brooklyn was redlined: from Greenpoint to Crown Heights and over to East New York. Carroll Gardens, Gowanus, and land surrounding the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Grade B blue-lined portions include Prospect Park South down to Sheepshead Bay, Lefferts Gardens, and parts of Park Slope and Prospect Heights, which directly bordered Prospect Park. A small portion of Bay Ridge is color-coded green. 

Other areas of the city, such as Queens, have even fewer green areas. Flushing and Corona were redlined, while most areas surrounding the East River are yellow, exceptions being Bayside, Whiteside, and Douglaston Little Neck. Neighborhoods surrounding the current John F Kennedy airport were redlined, with much of the remaining Queens marked yellow. 

Much of this legacy carries on today, as neighborhoods surrounding Prospect Park and Central Park remain unaffordable to many. Many redlined neighborhoods still exhibit difficult living conditions. Until recently, much of Brooklyn’s Williamsburg and Bedford-Stuyvesant were working-class neighborhoods considered undesirable for housing purposes.

Pollution and Inequality Amongst Redlining 

Recent studies find direct correlations between redlining and neighborhood pollution levels. Communities of color are often exposed to higher levels of air pollution, at great risk to their health. A team of experts found that in 202 cities, modern pollution levels directly correlate with the color grading system established by the New Deal. 

Despite improvements in air quality around the US, levels remain high within Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Minority and Black neighborhoods are often near emissions infrastructure, including roads, ports, rail lines, and industrial facilities. Redlined areas were determined by the presence of Black or immigrant communities and proximity to pollution sources. While the majority of rail lines were laid prior to 1930, most highways were constructed after the 1930s and were preferentially constructed through Black and brown communities as mandated by the FHA. 

One example is Flint, Michigan. Redlined in 1937, Flint was considered one of the most segregated non-southern cities in the United States. Today, residents battle for access to clean drinking water after tens of thousands were exposed to harmful levels of lead, leading to an outbreak of Legionnaire’s disease. Government officials downplayed the outcry until residents began to protest. Five years later, sanitary drinking water has not been restored. 

Income levels also vary in tandem with grading scales. In 64% of grade D neighborhoods, the population is a majority of people of color. Within 74% of grade D neighborhoods, the income level remains low to moderate. 

These discriminatory practices have had lasting effects and still resonate with living styles today. The lines of segregation remain constant in most cities, and New York shows similar demographic breakdowns today as it did fifty years ago. A study by FiveThirtyEight found that, out of 138 cities, almost all formerly redlined areas were still majority Black, Latino, or Asian, while two-thirds of the greenlined neighborhoods are still majority white. The numbers have not shifted significantly. 

“The redlining maps are like the Rosetta stone of American cities,” says LaDale Winling, professor of history at Virginia Tech and a researcher for the Mapping Inequality project. Redlined zones in the Northeast and Midwest are found to be the most segregated within the country. While it’s hard to imagine what this country could look like had it not been for redlining, our cultural history has so seeped in racial tension that it’s impossible to imagine an American without segregation. Hopefully, with careful analysis of the past and help from forward thinkers, New York, and other large and small cities can move into a more harmonious future. 

The post Redlining and Its Impact on New York City appeared first on CitySignal.

Early History of the fire escape in New York City 

Early examples of fire escapes can be traced back to a bustling 1700s London, where solutions had to be posed to the surging population in urbanized areas due to the Industrial Revolution. As buildings got taller, more tenants, workers, and families became endangered by an epidemic of fires that ravaged the city. English inventors created some early versions of fire escapes, though few of them would be recognizable to us today. Even so, these inventions were rarely utilized, and the fastest way to escape a fire remained either taking the stairs (which were often made of wood and burned out, making escape impossible) or to another nearby rooftop. This solution was ineffective for a couple of reasons: one being the fast-moving fires often made it to adjacent buildings first, and the second was that adjacent buildings were often either taller or stories shorter than the one burning. A better solution was needed as advancements in technology, and larger and larger factories brought more and more people to industrialized cities across the world. 

Why does NYC have fire escapes? 

The fire escape as we know them in New York City is the result of several codes and laws created to address these same issues in a rapidly industrializing America. The first of these major codes was implemented in the 1800s when the population of New York City doubled every decade from 1800 to 1880. This was largely due to the Industrial Revolution, which found many Europeans migrating to the city for work in factories that were just as tall as some of the tallest residential buildings at the time. Many of these workers had no other choice but to find housing in cheaply built and poorly maintained Tenement Row houses, packing large quantities of workers and families into buildings made of dangerously flammable material. Historians estimate approximately 50% of the fires in New York City at the time took place in such structures.

What are fire escapes made out of? 

The 1860s saw some of the worst of these fires but also the first concrete laws that would lead to our modern fire escapes. A Bakery Fire on the ground floor of a tenement building housing 24 families led to the 1867 First Tenement Act, which, in addition to setting room size, ventilation, and sanitation standards, also set a requirement for a fire escape in each suite and a window for every room. These fire escapes were required to be made of iron, stone, and wood, where our pop-culture image of the fire escape begins to take shape. These requirements specifically affected buildings over four stories tall, while landlords of shorter buildings were simply admonished to keep their buildings in” safe conditions.” Our modern depiction of fire escapes was born as a cheap solution and an easy way to skirt these new regulations. 

Are there other types of fire escapes? 

However, these iron staircases were far from the only solutions proposed at the time. Inventor Lewis Anidjah, for instance, patented a fire-proof canvas slide similar to those on airplanes, while a 1909 patent by Pasquale Nigro calls for the implementation of fireproof “wings” to be attached to persons escaping the building. The design most landlords settled on was what we see still installed on many historic buildings across the city. These are cheaply made iron ladders and stairs that could easily be affixed to the side of existing buildings and incorporated into new construction. Landlords at the time were no more scrupulous than those of modern times, and many of them opted for this option even though it was proven ineffective and even dangerous very early. Even still, this design was immensely popular, to say the least, and thanks to the tenement act of 1901, tens of thousands of these iron ladder and stairs types of fire escapes were newly built or used to replace older installations as landlords were given stricter guidelines for the structures.

Why don’t I see fire escapes on newer buildings? 

Following a 1938 update to the NYC Building Code and numerous laws since fire escapes were not needed as protected interior stairwells for all new constructions were acceptable replacements. While landlords were slow to adapt to these new recommendations, they’re now universally required by another 2004 change to the code requiring protected stairwells and sprinklers in buildings over 40 feet tall (something many buildings in NYC still don’t have). By this point, most pre-code fire escapes in the city are at least 50 years old, and some are over 100! These requirements, along with other updates to the code, largely eliminate the need for fire escapes on new constructions.

Will NYC ever remove my fire escape? 

Tenants who have fire escapes are likely to use their fire escapes, and that means these decades-old structures made of (often rusted) iron must retain their structural integrity enough for these activities to take place. There have been efforts to remove fire escapes from older buildings as modern improvements have rendered them redundant, and many see keeping them as a danger to residents of under-maintained buildings. Not only would this require a gargantuan effort on behalf of the City of New York, but many of these structures were also built in the 1800s and early 1900s; they are on historically protected buildings and are, by extension, themselves unable to be removed. This means that we’re unlikely to see a mass removal of fire escapes from the city in our lifetimes; a good thing to many who see them as an essential feature of New York’s cultural and historic identity. For example, this SoHo loft (seen below) would not have its quintessential look without the fire escapes you see out the window. 

Are fire escapes dangerous? 

Fire escapes have sometimes proven ineffective in the case of fire, collapsing, folding, or even melting in the heat, as it did in the famous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on March 25th, 1911. There are several modern accounts of fire escapes taking lives outside of emergency situations, such as in the 2015 death of Broadway Star Kyle Jean-Baptiste or a Soho man who was killed in 2018 by a piece of fire escape that failed and fell seven stories. A combination of age, lax code enforcement, and wear-and-tear has left much of this architecture dangerously under-maintained. The New York City fire escape is as beautiful as it is flawed, though fortunately, you’re unlikely to need yours in the future, thanks to modern building codes. 

What can I legally do with my fire escape? 

Seeing as many buildings in the city are older than 1968, many of us have fire escapes and wonder what we can do with the iconic piece of architecture affixed to our building. The short answer is – legally? Not much. The Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) doesn’t want you to use your fire escape for anything but that – escaping. Firstly there’s safety. While landlords are required to perform routine inspections and keep them up to code, modern fire escapes have failed and collapsed in several instances, causing major damage to the building and harm to inhabitants. A combination of rust, oxidation, and age makes stepping out on any under-maintained fire escape a risk. The Fire Code of New York City also prohibits blockage of the fire escape and use of the platform for storage, although many do. 

Can I sit on my fire escape? 

But rest assured, standing or sitting on your fire escape is perfectly legal; no need to say goodbye to quick breathers or a night stargazing. Just be sure it’s well-inspected, safe, and up to code: which, if you’re a renter in New York City, is a codified right of yours. If you feel worried about the state of your fire escape and don’t believe it’s being well maintained, there are several legal actions, according to Local Law 11, you can take to make sure your landlord keeps your fire escape up to code. The International Fire Code requires a certified engineer to evaluate, repair, and repaint your fire escape every 5 years if it’s over six stories tall. If you know, it’s been longer than that, or your fire escape looks to be in disrepair, familiarize yourself with your rights. 

What about my fire escape garden? 

All that being said, many have found creative ways to use their fire escapes for fun and utility. We’ve all seen classic images of clotheslines draped from building to building, and garments drying in the sun on the fire escape. Another popular use is a fire escape garden, though not strictly legal due to the requirements around storage and blockage of the platform. One could argue it’s not illegal so long as the plants do not block access to the platform, although that’s up to your landlord, building codes, and local fire department. Other interesting examples of things done with fire escapes include do-it-yourselfers transforming their fire escape into breakfast nooks and artists creating installations with paint behind and across the iron bars. Recently in Harlem in 2020, musicians performed impromptu jam sessions with their musical instruments outside on their fire escapes to entertain and uplift isolated neighbors. 

Whether enjoyed for their old-fashioned charm and visual appeal or for a simple and quick escape to one’s little patio, fire escapes in New York City are here to stay, even if they’re unlikely to save you from an actual fire in the future. The next time you look up and see one of these ancient structures, I hope you remember the centuries of innovation and ingenuity that ultimately led to the technology that keeps us safe from fires today. These old iron ladders and staircases possess a surprisingly complex and sordid past, representing not only humanity’s worst tendencies toward greed and rule-skirting but also the best of humanity’s efforts in preserving life.

The post The History of the Iconic NYC Fire Escape  appeared first on CitySignal.

According to the ASCE, New York’s infrastructure hasn’t improved much since 2015. Having improved only slightly from seven years ago, the city’s infrastructure is lagging considerably. A state as large as New York and a city as developed as NYC should be better positioned to meet key infrastructure needs. 

Civil engineers evaluated New York’s transportation capabilities, water regulation, and public space. In total, there were 11 categories assessed. Of those 11, only two were in ‘good condition’—public parks and solid waste. The rest were either in mediocre or poor condition. 

For the first time in 20 years, American infrastructure is out of the D range, receiving a nationwide score of C- in 2021. With New York scoring slightly higher than the nationwide average, the city is doing relatively well at providing residents with critical services, given NYC’s infrastructural challenges. 

Why did NYC receive such a low score?

The report acknowledged that city agencies had made significant progress in modernizing the city’s infrastructure, especially over the last decade. However, the ASCE concluded that there is an inability to keep pace with capital costs and, thus, the growing needs of the New York population. 

Capital investment currently needs a total of $64 billion throughout 2024—a value far exceeding any infrastructure funding plans on behalf of the federal or state governments.

As one of the most densely populated and largest metropolitan areas in the country, it’s no surprise NYC has a complex, ground transportation system. What might come as a surprise is that ground transportation scored considerably low. Transit, Rail, Roads, and Bridges scored between C and D+, highlighting sizable strain on existing resources and an immediate need to improve a public service that’s crucial to New Yorkers.

Understanding the impact of poor infrastructure in NYC 

Although state and local agencies have coordinated funding solutions to improve New York’s transportation system, the ASCE reports there is still “serious concern for the adequacy of future funding.” Out of the four recommendations the ASCE made for New York State to improve its infrastructure score, increasing funding is the first. 

Ridership across transit and aviation entities have diminished significantly after COVID. As a result, engineers are encouraging state officials to not only increase funding for existing infrastructure projects but also take a step back to reassess infrastructure goals as a whole; while taking into consideration lifestyle changes ushered in by the pandemic. 

Hybrid and remote work has taken many New Yorkers out of the city and into the suburbs, placing an unexpected strain on roads and bridges connecting the two parts of town. New York state and city officials will likely need to reassess the longevity of intrastate infrastructure in the near future. 

Transit, Roads, & Bridges

New York City Transit Authority remains the busiest and largest transit system in North America. Its 100+ transit systems are currently wrestling with a $62.1 billion funding backlog across 12 counties. With an annual ridership of 640 million, these backlogs leave many residents at a transportation disadvantage should funding backlogs persist.

Freight rail transportation is well-positioned to deliver key services to New York customers. Two railway developments in particular marked significant improvements—the opening of Moynihan Train Hall and the Gateway Program. The Moynihan Train alone facilitates the daily movement of 650,000 passengers through Penn Station. 

About half of New York’s major highways are considered to be in fair or poor condition. Lags in maintenance have resulted in congestion, rough roads, and safety deficiencies across New York’s 240,000 miles of road. Congestion and rough roads are estimated to cost New York motorists $7.7 billion annually statewide. That comes out to about $759 per driver every year.

Similar to rail transportation, New York State’s bridge program has advanced substantially with high-profile replacements of Governor Mario M. Cuomo and Thaddeus Kosciuszko Bridges. Both are considered critical lifeline bridges in the city. 

With bridge and tunnel traffic approaching pre-pandemic levels, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is dealing with up to 10.1 million vehicle trips a month. The city’s smaller bridges spread across the boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, and Ed Koch Queensboro bridges started to record close to 250,000 monthly vehicle crossings headed to Manhattan in May of last year. 

About 60% of the city’s bridge infrastructure is in fair condition. The remainder is either ‘good’ or ‘very good.’ Just 1 structure of the 799 surveyed was found to be in poor condition. 

The reconstruction and replacement of hundreds of smaller bridges have also strengthened the city’s flood resistance which is becoming increasingly relevant given New York’s coastal geography and rising climate concern. Despite these advancements, almost 10% of the state’s bridges are in poor condition, which is above the national average of 7.5%.

How is President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law going to benefit New York?

This July, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $5.9 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding for the State of New York. 100 specific projects are identified within the funding plan, promising significant infrastructure improvements over the next five years. 

By the end of this year, New York is expected to receive more than $5 billion for transportation dedicated to the enhancements of roads, bridges, transit, ports, and airports. Additionally, New York is set to receive $420 million for clean water initiatives. 

Public Transit

Over the next five years, New York will receive $11.2 billion for public transportation improvements across the state, making it the largest investment in public transit in U.S. history. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is intended to expand healthy and sustainable transport for all New Yorkers, including non-white households which are 2.5 times more likely to commute to work via public transportation. 

Transit Funding Gap ($52.8 billion)

As of July 2022, New York has been allocated $2.2 billion to improve public transportation options across the state in fiscal year 2022. Although federal funding for NY public transit is significant, it still falls short of New York’s transportation capital investment needs of $64 billion. Through 2024, New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority will need a total of $62.1 billion to close funding backlogs. The remaining $1.7 billion funding deficit belongs to Upstate and suburban transit agencies.

Roads & Bridges

In allocating $13.6 billion in federal funding for New York highways and bridges, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is making the single largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the interstate highway system. At the moment, there are 1,702 bridges and over 7,292 miles of highway in poor condition in New York. 

Bridges & Roads Funding Gap

As of July 2022, New York has been granted $2.2 billion in highway funding and $408 million in funding for bridges. New York’s State Budget for 2022/2023 increases direct support for local roads and bridges to more than $6.1 billion and adds nearly $2.5 billion to the existing BRIDGE NY program. The combined efforts between state and federal funding programs go a long way to strengthen the state’s bridge and road needs in the short term. However, the ASCE has determined that funding still falls short of total need, overlooking the need for what they refer to as long-term fixes. 

Water

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law promises to replace lead service lines and address dangerous PFAS chemicals found in drinking water across America. For New York, this translates into $116 million for lead pipe and service line replacement and $73 million for safe drinking water investments for fiscal year 2022. As of July of this year, approximately $427 million has been made available for clean and safe water across the state. 

Water Funding Gap

The need for drinking water infrastructure is estimated at $44.2 billion over the next 20 years. Although current funding efforts are certainly enough to sustain clean water provision across the state, lack of sufficient water system revenue is concerning. Water system revenue is only growing at about the rate of inflation. 

Airports & Ports

As one of the most visited countries in the world, it’s surprising to discover that no U.S. airports rank in the top 25 of airports worldwide. American ports and waterways are in need of much needed repair and innovation, as well. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is allocating a collective $25 billion in airports and $17 billion in port infrastructure to address supply chain challenges and reduce congestion and emissions near airports and ports. 

Aviation & Port Funding Gap

As of July 2022, New York has received more than $155 million in funding for airports and $63 million in funding for ports. With an estimated infrastructure funding gap of $13.7 billion from 2017-2026 for New York airports, federal funding falls short of meeting demand. As mentioned above, the Port Authority of New York New Jersey has identified a capital need of $20 billion to replace mission-critical wharf structures, making federal funding for ports insufficient as well. 

What’s next for New York infrastructure?

The ASCE made clear that New York’s infrastructure transportation network, particularly in the NYC metropolitan area, is experiencing considerable pressure given that current needs far away available funding. 

Even with local, state, and federal funding joining forces to tackle the infrastructure funding problem facing New York, it seems that funding is simply inadequate for the depth of improvements that would need to take place. 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor alone is facing a $38 billion backlog. The passenger rail is a vital aspect of transportation to and from New York state, connecting rural communities to the rest of the country, supporting economic development, and reducing vehicle congestion. More than 840,000 commuters reach their destinations every weekday on an Amtrak train. 

With ridership making a comeback across several transportation sectors across the state of New York, decision-makers in the city are going to have to carefully consider the impact of budget shortfalls on a variety of infrastructure systems, but especially transit and aviation.  

The post NYC Ranks an Overall GPA of C on ASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card appeared first on CitySignal.

Around the time that the Park Savoy Hotel reopened as a shelter, NYC unveiled an ambitious program to convert hotels into affordable housing and supportive units for the homeless. In August 2021, former NY Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that provided funding for hotel conversion into housing.

Mayor Eric Adams supported Cuomo’s initiative and campaigned to convert 25,000 city hotel rooms into permanently affordable apartments and supportive housing. It was a unique opportunity, as hotels were cheap and occupancy was low in the wake of the pandemic.

The city committed $200 million to the effort, but New York hasn’t used the money after a year and hasn’t generated one affordable or supportive unit through the program. Unfortunately, it seems the city lost out on an opportunity to buy hotels when they were cheap and when vacancy rates were high. Hotel occupancy in NYC was 39.1% in September 2020, increased to 64.5% in September 2021, and was 81.2% this past September. Because of this, the program will likely not gain much momentum, if any, in the future.

Why Didn’t the Program Succeed?

Andrew Cuomo initially funded the hotel-to-housing program with $100 million, but the state legislature later added an extra $100 million in available funding to make conversions financially feasible. Unfortunately, the program never used the money, netting no new affordable or supportive housing units. There are a couple of main reasons for this.

First, the strong influence and power of the hotel trade’s council union proved a major roadblock. As part of the bill, hotel owners with union staff had to get approval from the hotel workers union, which meant converting union hotels was very unlikely. The hotel union remains largely opposed to converting hotels to housing since it jeopardizes hotel workers’ jobs.

Second, the hotel-to-housing push didn’t resonate with developers. Hotel conversions in NYC are difficult and expensive, and developers didn’t believe they could break even. As of September, five New York developers submitted proposals to purchase and convert hotels, four of them within NYC. Those five proposals are still in the early stages of approval, and some may never come to fruition.

Right now, the city is leasing space from hotel owners for temporary supportive housing units for the homeless. Purchasing these properties would allow the city to convert the units into affordable and supportive housing permanently. While hotels are more expensive now than they were during the height of the pandemic, Eric Rosenbaum, president and CEO of the homeless services provider Project Renewal, thinks that the city should still consider buying specific distressed hotel properties.

“As expensive as they might look today, the alternative will be increasingly expensive,” he told Politico. “Even if these hotel deals got more expensive, they would still be better deals than ground-up development.”

How Do NYC’s Affordable Housing Efforts Compare to California’s?

Other places have successfully implemented similar programs. In California, state and local governments provided temporary shelter to 48,000 people through “Project Roomkey,” which focused on temporarily leasing hotel rooms for unhoused residents. “Project Homekey,” a similar initiative, was successful. The program focuses on purchasing cheap properties and converting them into permanent supportive and affordable housing.

Between July and December 2020, the city purchased 94 properties, primarily hotels, through “Project Homekey”, creating over 6,000 permanent and interim supportive housing units. The cost was a major selling point — the average cost per unit was only about $148,000. In comparison, California pays an average of nearly $500,000 per unit to develop new affordable housing. By August 2022, the program had successfully created 12,500 permanent and interim supportive housing units for individuals experiencing homelessness.

The post Why NYC’s Pandemic Plans to Convert Hotels Into Affordable Housing Failed appeared first on CitySignal.

The project has been in the works for nine years and took a long time to garner Cabán support. Many local residents and activists are not in favor of the project over the size and design of the project. The towers will be between 23 and 34 stories, which is much taller than the typical building in a low-rise neighborhood like Astoria. Others were concerned that building luxury, market-rate towers in the neighborhood would affect affordability, and potentially push long-time renters out of the area. 

Despite these concerns, Cabán officially announced her support for the project during an event outside the property on Tuesday, September 13. She mentioned that she could throw her support behind the project because the developer promised to include more affordable units as a condition of approval. The developer pledged to include 268 units that will rent for below 50 percent of the area median income (AMI). 100 of those units will be set at 30 percent of AMI, which for a family of four would be around $40,000 yearly income. 

Halletts North also has support from the Queen’s borough president Donovan Richards, although the support from Richards and Cabán seems to be lukewarm at best. Ultimately, Cabán’s decision to support the project is a result of disliking the alternatives, as opposed to supporting the project itself. 

“The best we can hope for without rezoning is a “last mile” facility where some massive corporation like Amazon would pay our neighbors garbage wages for nonstop, back-breaking work,” Cabán wrote in a Twitter thread. “A No vote would have been a vote for that. I cannot and will not in good conscience vote for that.”

However, Cabán also noted the positive effects of the development, such as a public esplanade and increased public safety. Regarding the current land usage, she wrote on Twitter that Halletts North currently “sends the message to residents of Astoria Houses the next block over that they are unworthy of a safe, comfortable neighborhood” as the space is filled with vacant lots and prevents those residents from easily accessing the waterfront.

She also mentioned that the increase in residential units “holds down the housing supply amid a brutal housing shortage.” 

First, let’s talk about today’s vote on the Halletts North development.

At present, Halletts North is a sacrifice zone of shuttered industry and vacant lots. It contributes nothing to the community. It prohibits our neighbors from accessing the waterfront.

— Council Member Tiffany Cabán (D22) (@CabanD22) September 13, 2022

 With skyrocketing rents and cratering vacancy rates, affordability in the city is at a low point. As Cabán noted, NYC does have a brutal housing shortage, and it could get even worse if government officials and private developers don’t work together to address the issue. A January 2022 report found that NYC would have to build 560,000 housing units by 2030 to keep up with future population and employment growth. It also concluded that the city is not on track to meet that threshold. 

Developments like Hallet North can help NYC close its housing shortage. However, large-scale developments also spark a lot of debate and public controversy because of concerns over affordability and neighborhood character. Ultimately, developers in NYC will likely have to provide concessions like increased numbers of affordable housing units or extra public amenities and investment if they want to garner support and approval for their projects. 

The post Council Member Cabán Approves 1,400 Unit Development in Queens appeared first on CitySignal.