“Do you live on a nice quiet block with no stores, or in a corner residential building that has no stores! Well that is all about to change! Under Mayor Adams City of Yes ‘COY’ communities all over NYC will be getting a store on every corner and even inside residential buildings that exist on corners!” On Nextdoor, a social media platform used to share local news, a Carroll Gardens resident posted a long lament on the potential negative impacts of Mayor Adams’s three proposed initiatives that make up “City of Yes.” Despite the extreme reactions, including the city’s own praise for the plans, the results of City of Yes, if implemented, are likely to be much more modest.
City of Yes consists of three citywide initiatives proposed by the NYC Department of City Planning (DCP). This is an important clarification, because DCP cannot open a business, build a house, or install solar panels on its own. All it can do is change regulations to make it possible for others—developers, property owners, businesses—to take these actions. DCP is the city’s primary land use agency, which means they control zoning—the rules and regulations that limit what and where things can be built. In essence, DCP hopes its three City of Yes initiatives will modernize NYC’s zoning, with the aim “to support small businesses, create affordable housing, and promote sustainability.”
The first initiative, City of Yes for Carbon Neutrality, would make it easier to install solar and wind energy systems, energy storage, and infrastructure that supports greener forms of transportation (like electric vehicles and e-mobility). The proposed changes would also support the installation of greener technologies to heat and cool buildings, and even facilitate more rooftop food production and more composting. The initiative was approved by the City Planning Commission in September, with the support of 25 community boards (of 59), and all Borough Presidents, except Staten Island’s.
The second initiative, and the one which received such pushback in the Nextdoor post, is City of Yes for Economic Opportunity. In promoting the initiative, DCP highlighted just how archaic and stunting for businesses the existing zoning rules are. For example, many retail neighborhoods allow bike shops, but not bike repair or rental; any bar or restaurant can have music, but in many areas, dancing is not allowed; there are rules about where telegraph offices may be located, but not smartphone repair shops, etc.
The 17 new proposals within this initiative aim to remove antiquated rules, simplify others to make it easier to open or expand a business (as the Nextdoor post noted), and allow certain small-scale manufacturing in commercial areas. One of the less expected proposals within the initiative is to “Potentially enable state licensure of casinos.” In a September public meeting, this proposal was barely discussed before a DCP representative noted that there would be “more to come at a later date” and asked the presenter to move on to the next slide. The Department of City Planning has been presenting to community boards since October as part of a 60-day review period. Next, there will be a public hearing in January, 2024, followed by the City Planning Commission Vote, likely around March.
City of Yes for Housing Opportunity is the final initiative. Almost all housing experts agree that the city’s inability to produce a greater supply of housing leads to housing unaffordability, displacement, and homelessness. Unlike rezonings that target one neighborhood at a time, this initiative has the potential to increase housing (perhaps just a small amount) in every neighborhood. DCP’s proposed changes would add a Universal Affordability Preference, allowing buildings to add 20% more housing, so long as it is affordable; make it easier to convert offices to residential buildings; allow housing above businesses on commercial streets; remove parking mandates for new housing; allow accessory dwelling units; legalize modest apartment buildings (3-5 stories) near transit; and more. If implemented and used, these zoning changes have the potential to create 100,000 new homes over 15 years. The public review process for this initiative will begin this spring.
DCP has worked tirelessly to showcase the many benefits of the initiatives, with long presentations to the community boards, evening meetings that inevitably run overtime. Professional groups, like the American Institute of Architects, business improvement districts, like the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, and elected officials have all shown their support. The city’s press release for City of Yes for Housing Opportunity even includes two quotes of enthusiastic support from Brooklyn Community Board 6’s Chair Eric McClure and District Manager Michael Racioppo.
Pushback on the initiatives have ranged from distress over the potential for hairdressers to pop up in every apartment building to calls that they do not do enough. In one community board meeting, a DCP representative noted that the loosening of rules around businesses allowed in residential buildings (like hairdressers) has been met with the most concern. While these businesses would be permitted by the zoning code changes, most apartment buildings can implement or maintain their own rules. Furthermore, according to DCP, Brooklyn Community District 6’s vacancy rate hovers around 13%. With so many storefronts already failing to find tenants, it seems unlikely that a swarm of disruptive businesses will open on every corner and in every building as the opening Nextdoor post suggested. The zoning changes will likely not do much beyond making opening or expanding a business slightly easier, by allowing businesses to operate in a wider range of locations.
As for City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, in November, Politico published comments from Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, pushing back on the initiative for its lack of boldness and ability to transform. Although some of his criticism may be motivated by his own interest in taking over for Mayor Adams, some housing experts agree that these are very modest efforts.
Given the mixed reaction of residents being concerned by drastic changes to their neighborhoods, and experts demanding more drastic transformation, it seems that DCP may have gotten these initiatives just right—advancing important changes, while not immediately cutting themselves off at the knees. Still, there is time for continued feedback on the economic opportunity and housing opportunity initiatives. Stay tuned by checking on when DCP will be presenting to Community Board 6, or learn more on DCP’s website.
