NY Times – Carroll Gardens: The Big Front Yards That Rob the Streets
Although the yards serve as leafy margins to the streets, creating ample open space between the rows of brownstones arrayed on either side, they also put those streets into the “wide” category for zoning purposes. This means developers can build structures on those streets that are taller than would otherwise be allowed.
In recent months, some local residents, with one eye on all the construction, have been objecting to this rule.
Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn NIMBYs will do anything to stop development in their neighborhood. The buildings are set back so far from the street with gardens, yet they don’t want to allow taller buildings in their neighborhood, claiming the streets cant handle it. In my opinion, either allow taller buildings or end the setback requirements. Otherwise, your NIMBY selfishness is just too much.
Is high density really related to capitalism? It seems like the problem is that free markets for varying densities do not exist, so the local governments dictate densities based (as usual) on political considerations. That is, low densities might make sense — as long as the land owners pay the price of keeping low densities.
Maybe private restrictive covenants are the answer? I don’t know how they could be applied after a neighborhood is established, but in theory, if the residents of Carroll Gardens formed a corporation that had a financial stake in densities (like the ability to profit from the sale to high-density developers), then NIMBY would need to be weighed against $$$.
Put another way: Who should be able to decide what the “correct” densities should be? Planners? Governments? Academics? Experts? Committees?
Is high density really related to capitalism? It seems like the problem is that free markets for varying densities do not exist, so the local governments dictate densities based (as usual) on political considerations. That is, low densities might make sense — as long as the land owners pay the price of keeping low densities.
Maybe private restrictive covenants are the answer? I don’t know how they could be applied after a neighborhood is established, but in theory, if the residents of Carroll Gardens formed a corporation that had a financial stake in densities (like the ability to profit from the sale to high-density developers), then NIMBY would need to be weighed against $$$.
Put another way: Who should be able to decide what the “correct” densities should be? Planners? Governments? Academics? Experts? Committees?
Zero set back and/or no height restrictions would not be a good idea in this type of neighborhood. If the majority of the existing structures comply with an older standard for setbacks (misdirected or not), then so should the new. If there are exceptions to this rule on that street then this new development should be considered for exception as well.
If the developer is presenting something that will reasonably fit into this established neighborhood then it should not be a problem (yes, I realize that “reasonably” has room for interpretation, and that reason rarely plays a part in a NIMBY’s mindset).
If they want to build up to the sidewalk or build something significantly taller than the surrounding properties then IMO they don’t have the right to come in and change the dynamics of an established neighborhood.
And what exactly do they mean by “…the street can not handle it”? Is the street made of saltines?? Or is there lack of parking, or what? Last time I heard, parking in NY was no easy task in most areas.
Keep us posted on how this turns out, there’s nothing like a good ‘ol neighborhood battle.
Good job on the site BTW, great articles lately.
Zero set back and/or no height restrictions would not be a good idea in this type of neighborhood. If the majority of the existing structures comply with an older standard for setbacks (misdirected or not), then so should the new. If there are exceptions to this rule on that street then this new development should be considered for exception as well.
If the developer is presenting something that will reasonably fit into this established neighborhood then it should not be a problem (yes, I realize that “reasonably” has room for interpretation, and that reason rarely plays a part in a NIMBY’s mindset).
If they want to build up to the sidewalk or build something significantly taller than the surrounding properties then IMO they don’t have the right to come in and change the dynamics of an established neighborhood.
And what exactly do they mean by “…the street can not handle it”? Is the street made of saltines?? Or is there lack of parking, or what? Last time I heard, parking in NY was no easy task in most areas.
Keep us posted on how this turns out, there’s nothing like a good ‘ol neighborhood battle.
Good job on the site BTW, great articles lately.
Bill,
I think what you are proposing would be the free market solution if people want to keep densities low.
Neighbors can get together to form a corporation that would own the air rights above X feet. To build above X feet, one would have to buy certain air rights from the corporation. Since the neighbors own the corporation they can choose to have nothing tall built.
So, the corporation restricts density at its own cost. If preservation of low density is so valuable to them, they won’t mind the lost opportunity cost of not selling the air rights. I don’t have any problem with people keeping their own air rights to themselves if they own them.
However, as demand for space at that location increases, the lost value from not allowing development increases. The neighbors would be the beneficiaries if they began selling the valuable air rights. So, the market would tell them how valuable preserving character is.
Or, they could choose not sell to at their own expense….
But the way it works now is that NIMBYs can abuse the government authority to zone in order to restrict the property of other people. It doesn’t cost them anything, except their time it take to scream and yell. But, they still reap the benefits of restricting supply in the form of rising property values.
Bill,
I think what you are proposing would be the free market solution if people want to keep densities low.
Neighbors can get together to form a corporation that would own the air rights above X feet. To build above X feet, one would have to buy certain air rights from the corporation. Since the neighbors own the corporation they can choose to have nothing tall built.
So, the corporation restricts density at its own cost. If preservation of low density is so valuable to them, they won’t mind the lost opportunity cost of not selling the air rights. I don’t have any problem with people keeping their own air rights to themselves if they own them.
However, as demand for space at that location increases, the lost value from not allowing development increases. The neighbors would be the beneficiaries if they began selling the valuable air rights. So, the market would tell them how valuable preserving character is.
Or, they could choose not sell to at their own expense….
But the way it works now is that NIMBYs can abuse the government authority to zone in order to restrict the property of other people. It doesn’t cost them anything, except their time it take to scream and yell. But, they still reap the benefits of restricting supply in the form of rising property values.
DBM,
Thanks for the kind words.
This neighborhood is an old Italian neighborhood, where many people have lived for generations. They hate change in any form, yet ironically most of them vote democrat….
DBM,
Thanks for the kind words.
This neighborhood is an old Italian neighborhood, where many people have lived for generations. They hate change in any form, yet ironically most of them vote democrat….