Post 25: Pratt hired, reports, Victor pushes forward, property owners defect, CAAAV proposes options

As always, with the exception of public figures, I use altered names to protect the individuals in this history.

After restructuring, the CWG set about the task of hiring a consultant. $150,000 isn't much in the coin of the realm of zoning consultants, but it was at the nadir of the Great Recession's construction slow-down, so several firms were interested, having few other options available in the market. We issued and RFP (request for proposals), received their bids and interviewed each of the applicants, spending an hour or so for each. Each applicant appeared as a team with their experts in their areas. Pratt brought several advantages to the table. We expected that they might be able to use their classes and the students in them to augment their work without added expense, they had a history of community service, and as academics they seemed more attuned to the progressive needs of an immigrant and diverse population. Their experts encompassed a broad range from zoning and housing to preservation. CWG voted to hire Pratt. 

After several months, Pratt produced a comprehensive report including lot of data on the current state of the CWG catchment area, Chinatown, the Bowery, Two Bridges neighborhood, the NYCHA properties from the Brooklyn Bridge to 14th Street. In addition, Pratt looked at the areas of the Lower East Side that were not included in the CWG catchment area, specifically the area of the LES that was rezoned in 2008 since their context is homogenous with Chinatown's. 

The report ended with a series of zoning proposals, each with an alternative option. They divided the catchment area into five special districts, A, B, C, D, E and F according to their distinct constructed contexts. The tenements of Chinatown comprised district A, the NYCHA projects B, the commercial area around Broadway C, the Two Bridges waterfront subsidized housing D, the Bowery E (in two parts divided by Houston Street), and F a city-owned lot under the Manhattan Bridge. They chose special district zoning rather than simple zoning designations in order to take advantage of the added possibilities of special districts beyond mere zoning designations. A special district can limit the size of storefront use, for example, or require that no building be demolished unless the landlord has a clean record of not harassing tenants. Both of these were included in the Pratt recommendations. 

The alternative options Pratt offered were not radical differences, but significant small ones. For example, giving each NYCHA complex its own special district but each with the same zoning requirements was one option. The alternative was to have one special district for all the NYCHA properties together. It was a difference of flexibility for the tenants associations, but Pratt's recommended zoning designations and provisions were all the same for all the NYCHA properties across both options. 

When the report was submitted to the combined Culture, Affordability, Preservation and Zoning committee (CAPZ), its co-chair, Victor, announced that the committee would vote up or down on the options without discussion. His justification for this surprise, was that seven years of debate was long enough. Whether this was the real reason, I can't say. But he may already have been negotiating with Extell over their plans to construct One Manhattan Plaza over the popular Pathmark and its parking lot and that he knew he'd have to resign once his role in Extell was brought forward. 

In any case, the seven years seemed to me to be more reason to debate carefully. Why throw out seven years just out of a sudden fit of impatience? It was not clear that anyone in CWG wanted any of the Pratt proposals, much less choose among their options. Did the Pratt options meet our desires? Was it a good plan? Did it allow too much development in the Two Bridges area? Did it provide sufficient protection for NYCHA residents? Did it provide protections for the undocumented? There could have been many questions CWG might have addressed, but Victor's decision precluded them all. 

I objected to Victor, and CAAAV volunteered to examine the options and come back with recommendations, so the group did not find itself voting up or down on options that most in the room hadn't even read yet. For the next few months, CAAAV presented detailed suggestions with detailed justifications. 

A we proceeded, the property owners decided, as I understand them, that the option CAAAV proposed for district A did not give them enough FAR for their desires. The option reduced their FAR from 6 to 4, which implied that while they'd be able to add a couple of stories to their buildings, the FAR would not provide enough incentive for a developer to buy, demolish and redevelop. Seeing that the entire membership of the CAPZ committee agreed that this was exactly what Chinatown needed to protect it from redevelopment and wholesale displacement, the property owners quit CWG. We soon learnt that they then met with CCBA, the central organization in Chinatown. (No other neighborhood has exactly this social structure. The closest might be the Queens Democratic Party or Tammany Hall back in the day. Chinatown is organized into family associations as well as trade organizations. CCBA heads all of these.) What they said to CCBA is something of a mystery, but it is likely that it was a distortion of the CWG's work and plans, since property owners to this day think that -- and say that -- the CWG plan contains a landmarking component. There is no landmarking in the CWG plan. It's a zoning plan. It's addressed to DCP not LPC. The property owners to this day do not understand this and refuse to believe that the plan has no landmarking when it is explained to them. In other words, the property owners have not read the plan. 

Nevertheless, whatever they told CCBA, CCBA believed, since CCBA had stopped attending meetings in 2010 long before the plan was drafted and long before Pratt was even hired. CCBA knew nothing about the plan except what the property owners told them, and as I say, the property owners misunderstood the plan, imagining that it included landmarking. So CCBA, whether persuaded by the property owners or out of loyalty to them, left CWG, taking with them all its close associates.