An Environmental Study of New York Through Its Neighborhoods

I was able to find a site that listed Staten Island’s Bluebelt, which isn’t exactly Woodrow, but Woodrow is so small and unpopular that it has been almost impossible to find any information about.

Over the past century, runaway development has paved over forests, fields and wetlands across the country. Along with urbanization has come the problem of “urban stormwater” — rainwater that washes over dirty surfaces such as roads, buildings and lawns and becomes a major source of pollution in rivers, lakes and bays. While much has been achieved in the past 30 years to limit pollution from easily identifiable sources, such as factories, efforts to control pollution from these diffuse sources are still in their infancy. Although the Clean Water Act mandates stormwater control, local governments have been slow to respond.

In the 1990s, New York City began the process of acquiring a large swath of undeveloped land called the Staten Island Bluebelt, in the New York City borough of Staten Island. The Bluebelt is a chain of streams, ponds, and wetlands surrounded by urban neighborhoods. By preserving it, the city will be able to use its natural systems to catch stormwater runoff from adjacent paved areas. After the water passes through settling ponds, sand filters, and constructed wetlands, it will pass into the natural wetlands. Wetlands and stream buffers are an effective way of controlling stormwater since they act as filters, trapping sediment, metals and organic chemicals before these pollutants reach waterways.

As a result of the land set-aside, Staten Island is realizing $50 million in initial savings, can forego construction of a traditional subsurface storm sewer system, and will not have to shoulder ongoing maintenance costs. Also, use of such natural methods cleans the runoff, preventing discharge of tons of harmful pollutants. And in addition to the cost savings and runoff reduction improvements, the Bluebelt provides recreational opportunities and a wildlife refuge for area residents, as well as increased property values.

What Constitutes a Successful Stormwater Program 

NRDC’s research on the 100 case studies from which these samples are drawn indicates that successful stormwater control programs contain the following elements: 

• Advance planning and setting clear goals; 
• Encouraging and facilitating broad government and community participation; 
• Prioritizing pollution prevention over treatment of polluted runoff; 
• Establishing and maintaining accountability of partners and citizens; 
• Creating a stable funding source such as a stormwater utility; 
• Tailoring strategies to local needs and problems; 
• Including education, public participation, monitoring, and enforcement components; 
• Evaluating and improving programs as they evolve; 
• Recognizing and publicizing the quality-of-life benefits of parks, ponds, and clean streets. 

http://www.ssbx.org/solid_waste.html

Sustainable South Bronx (SSBX – Explained in a previous post concerning the B.E.S.T. program) has lunched a program to “address the problems associated with the unjust clustering of polluting facilities that receive waste in all its forms, including rotting garbage, construction and demolition debris, fill material, waste water, and sewage sludge.” The solid waste program also “works to address wasteful energy consumption and dirty energy generation that is located in the South Bronx.”

Hunt’s Point handles a tremendous amount of New York’s waste. It has an inordinate number of waste transfer stations (15) and is responsible for processing a great deal of New York’s solid wastes (at least 25%, much of it through the controversial N.Y.O.F.CO. processing plant). Initiatives such as the solid waste program help to ease the burden on Hunts Point residents, while causing them to contribute less to the city’s total solid wastes.

In order to accomplish their goals of reducing wastes and in the South Bronx, SSBX uses “a combination of advocacy activities aimed at winning increased community accountability for polluters, more protective government policies, and implementing environmentally sound and community friendly alternatives to current practices.”

Finally, SSBX has joined the efforts of many other environmental non-profits to create a Zero Waste campaign. Their mission states that “If New York City plans and invests appropriately, by 2025 it could have virtually no waste in need of export and it could create jobs and save money in the process”

http://www.ssbx.org/best.html

Sustainable South Bronx is a community organization, which aims to improve the environmental conditions in the South Bronx. It was started by community residents, and has continued to be a leader in the Bronx in the fight for environmental justice. In an area such as Hunts Point, where the city is less that thrilled to help the neighborhoods create a sustainable environment, non-profits such as Sustainable South Bronx are vital.

To further their impact on the residents of the South Bronx, SSBX (Sustainable South Bronx) has created a program called B.E.S.T., which stands for Bronx Environmental Stewardship Training program. The program “offers opportunities to gain skills and certifications in ecological restoration, hazardous waste cleanup, landscaping and similar fields through a 12 week intensive program. This unique program benefits our communities through the restoration of stressed natural resources, and living-wage jobs with growth potential.”

Through a three-week training session, participants learn about river and estuarine restoration through hands-on training in the Bronx River. Participants learn the “science and techniques of salt marsh and streambed stabilization, plant identification, nursery management, and more.” They are also given the opportunity to expand their training to include “valuable life skills in time management, financial management, resume writing, and Environmental Justice.” They also “obtain certification in First Aid and CPR, Hazardous Materials Handling, OSHA, Tree Climbing and Pruning, and take classes at the New York Botanical Garden with one-on-one personal support to help trainees launch their lives in a new direction.”

Living in Canarsie all of my life, I am almost embarrassed to say that I hardly knew of the environmental issues that my neighborhood was faced with. I feel as though I should have known about major environmental offenders in my area and I feel as though I should have been more aware of projects at the pier and conservatory efforts. However, I do not feel as bad when I think about the fact that probably no one in my neighborhood is aware. I think a step towards making Canarsie an environmentally better place would be to put up more signs and discuss the issues more in the local newspaper, the Canarsie Courier, so that the people in the area can be more informed. I have to believe that if more people knew what was going on, they might be more interested in finding a way to make the parks nicer for the children or to preserve the beautiful Canarise Pier. With education comes the power to make changes.

I also think that more concentration should be placed on the Pier and the Jamaica Bay area. I think that this is the crowning jewel of the neighborhood and it has such potential to be a really beautiful clean place for the population. However, I have always thought that not enough effort is placed into rebuilding the area. Because a lot of people have bbqs and parties in the park area, I think it could be a great community place. I think it is great that some effort is placed on making the area nicer, it remains an eyesore that has potential to be something great.

A lot of the environmental issues in Canarsie occurred in the past and have been solved already. Though some remain, there is primarily undeveloped land and uncleaned large areas of land that have yet to be used. I think the major thing holding back Canarsie is the fact that it is a primarily poor, immigrant neighborhood. It is not likely that money and effort will be pumped into it. Therefore, we will remain as we have been until Canarsie has gone through a valorization of its own. perhaps when he L train is expanded and construction is done, Canarsie will be another up and coming Brooklyn L-train stop.

Our discusion in the last class got me thinking about how everyone could support help support environmentally friendly companies. I found a website from the Environmantal Protection Agency that could educate people about “Envirofacts” of businesses in their neighborhood. This website allows you to put in your zip code and it will show you a list of EPA- regualted facilites and whether or not they have reported the air releases. It will also show you if the business is in violation with procedural and/or emmission compliance.

A lot of the businesses that came up were dry cleaners, gas stations, and schools. Most of the dry cleaners in my area had POTENTIAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS of less than 100 tons per year. Some of the dry cleaners were in violation with regards to both emissions and procedural compliance. However, some of the dry cleaners were not in violation, and these are the ones that I will try to support.

I was a little surprised to see schools included in this list. I never really considered them to be handlers of potentially harmeful materials. Most of the schools had the handler classification of “Conditionally Exempt Small Generator”. Some schools lacked any information, which was not helpful at all.

Finally, I saw that all of the gas stations were in compliance with EPA regulations. They were, however, a source for potentiall uncontrolled emissions of less than 100 tons per year, just like the dry cleaners.

From this information, I can conclude that the dry cleaners are the biggest source of concern. Many of them are not in compliance and the EPA needs to take some action and stop this. Everyone in the nieghborhood could also help by not supporting these businesses. Although this website taught me a lot, I still feel like it could have been better developed to include more information on more businesses. However, I encourage everyone to visit the website to learn more about your neighborhood:

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/commsearch.htm

In 2003, there was a lot of concentration on the Canarsie section of Brooklyn because of certain junkyards that were violating environmental law. On April 3 of that year, four junkards and 10 individuals in Canarsie were indicted for the illegal dumping of dangerous chemicals. The companies dumped thousands of pounds of motor oil, antifreeze, transmission fluid and other materials onto the ground and into sewers while they were taking cars apart for recycling purposes. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer pushed further that merely asking for cleanup and wanted the companies to lose their profits from this and the materials they used to dismantle the cars. It is suggested that the materials they have put into the sewer system have greatly harmed them and are being taken to court for Endangering Public Health, Safety or the Environment in the 3rd degree. By breaking Environmental Conservation Law, these companies may face four years in prison, $100,000 in fines, and hopefully the responsibility to clean up the mess they made.

It is always so sad to hear stories like this because it gets me mad to think about. To think about the fact that these businesses clearly know what they are doing is wrong (if not how wrong it actually is, they can definitely understand that spilling of oils and antifreeze cannot be good for the environment at all), but they do it anyway makes me mad. It is this mentality that is killing our Earth because as long as people are refusing to take responsibility for their actions or even care about what they are doing to the environment, we are in grave danger. However, I have hope in our world because the past few years have showed greater increases in “green” activities, so since this story is from 2003, I like to hope that progress has been done since.

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/apr/apr03c_03.html

I recently discovered an article titled “Sewage Retention Tank Should End Smell From Flushing River” by Victor Ross. The article states that the New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection has completed the construction of a new 28-million gallon Flushing Bay sewage retention tank.
The construction of this project cost $300 million. It’s built on the site of three former baseball fields beneath Kissena Park, at Fowler Avenue. The dimensions of the tank are 800 feet long, more than 500 feet wide, and 20 feet high.
A rising population and an inadequate combined sewer system, fifteen of the Flushing’s sewer lines discharge millions of gallons of raw sewage and rainwater into the Flushing River. The Flushing River is the largest tributary to the Flushing bay. Currently, the river cannot support aquatic life because it has a nearly zero oxygen rating.
The project will speed development of Downtown Flushing and the “Iron Triangle”. The project is designed to improve water quality in Flushing Bay by reducing the sewage overflow into the Flushing River. Inside the tank, the sewage odor will be captured, treated and deodorized by a dual control system, which “scrubs” the air and then treats it via a carbon absorption system. The huge tank promises to cut the combined sewage overflow into the river by 90 percent.

The entire article can be found on:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/community/20/news/2233

While searching for environmental issues afflicting Bensonhurst, I came across a useful and informative website: scorecard.org. This website provides in-depth pollution reports for each specific county and neighborhood comprising the United States. It lists statistics on air and water quality, and categorizes the toxins and chemicals that cause serious health effects to the community residents. One can use this site to get reports for a particular zip code, so I decided to look up my area, which is located on the outskirts of Bensonhurst in Southwest Brooklyn. I’ve made a lot of interesting discoveries that have definitely affected my perception on a plethora of environmental issues. In addition to posting the link, I’ll list some of the findings that I thought had the most relevance and urgency.

1. Bensonhurst was rated as being one of the dirties/worst regions (bottom 10%) in the US when it comes to added cancer and noncancer risks from hazardous air pollutants. The pollutant with the highest contribution to cancer risk is diesel emissions and the pollutant with the highest contribution to noncancer risk is acrolein, which is commonly found in pesticides and building materials.

2. Bensonhurst is also in the bottom 10% of all US regions when it comes to the emission of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter (less than 2.5 and 10 microns), sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds. Mobile sources account for the most emission of these toxic substances, followed by area sources and points sources, which include major industrial facilities.

3. Bensonhurst is rated as one of the worst regions for lead concentration in the neighborhood. There are about 130,000 housing units with a high risk of lead hazards, which makes up about 14% of the total amount of homes in the area.

4. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which collects reports on chemical releases and transfers by industrial facilities, lists cadmium as the toxin that poses the highest cancer risk. Lead compounds are listed as the toxins that pose the greatest noncancer health risk. The most current TRI report on the website is from 2002, but I doubt that much has changed since then. In addition to listing the most harmful toxins and carcinogens, the score card also includes some point sources that contribute to the emission of these chemicals.

5. Bensonhurst is again listed as one of the worst regions in the US for its water quality. The state and EPA data report that 90-100% of waterbodies in the area is impaired or polluted. Urban runoff/storm sewers account for 94% of water quality problems, with the remaining 10% being attributed to land disposal.

For more information and facts on the environmental issues affecting Bensonhurst, visit
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/search-by-zip-code.tcl?zip_code=11214

Amidst the crowds of policy makers, high and low, very few glean new insight as to why we have not addressed problems quicker or more effectively with the arsenal of technological advancements we have today. Congressman Gary Ackerman’s page is particularly interesting because not only was he successful in securing a clause in the 2005 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) that ensured involvement on a federal level with the long term cleanup and renewal of Flushing Bay and Creek, he is also aiming for efforts in addition to the Sewage Retention Facility slated to complete November 2006. Along with a few others, Ackerman is working with the ArmyCorps of Engineers to remove the illegally placed Seawall that is currently in Flushing Bay.
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny05_ackerman/PR_051011.html

According to our research, Flushing Bay has received attention from city agencies such as the NYC DEP, as well as the EPA. However, the type of information that one is able to find reflects heavily on why it may be difficult to clean up what seems like one small area. If one types in Flushing Bay in the search box on the DEP website, the latest water quality report for NYC that is available is for 2003. Several things can be inferred by this lack of information: 1) Decreased availability of information for public access helps prevent uninvolved residents and citizens from being aware and involved. 2) Surveys of water quality for the entire city’s waterways are time-consuming and costly; perhaps they are also incessant, as repeatedly running tests on the water– when no time has been allotted for implementing change–probably yields the same results as the previous survey.

According to the latest NY harbor survey Northern Arthur kill, Flushing bay, and a portion of the Harlem river showed avg conditions to exceed the bathing standards of less than or equal to 200 cells/100 mL of fecal coliform. The distribution maps for NY Harbor
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/results.pdf The standards that each body of water must meet in order to be used for certain purposes can also be found at the above link.
In reading these reports, one can easily deduce that although there is special attention paid to Flushing Bay.

Anyone interested may help out by joining the Flushing Bay and Creek Stakeholders Team. They meet bimonthly, and their minutes and materials could be found on http://www.hydroqual.com/Projects/ltcp/. Everyone is welcome, as their password Marina and username Flushing Bay are prominently displayed on their website. These minutes are very comprehensive, as the meetings are largely operated like press conferences, with answers as to why certain things were not done earlier due to risks and barriers. An excerpt from the June 6, 2006 minutes demonstrates this:”The participant wondered why previous plans for disinfection by chlorination were not carried forward. Philip answered that DEP felt that the risks involved with the present technology for chlorination of storm flows were too great; the facility retains space for future disinfection equipment. ”

Here is a map of how a sewer retention facility looks like:

http://www.wef.org/apps/gowithflow/theflow.htm

While it is important to discuss the contemporary issues involving the Lower East Side, it is equally important to look back on the neighborhood’s origins in order to obtain a better idea of what exactly characterizes it as well as the factors that are leading it in its present direction. Therefore, let us examine the history of the neighborhood, particularly how its changing population played a significant role with regards to its evolving environment.

The original LES was bound by the East River, Canal Street, 14th Street and Broadway. Over the years these boundaries have been redefined with 14th Street and Broadway being replaced by East Houston Street and The Bowery, respectively. Though the name has changed, parts of the LES that are now part of the East Village are still intimately connected as we will see further below.

Historically speaking, the LES has been known as a lower-class immigrant neighborhood, substantiating its position for centuries as a “gateway” for new immigrants to America. Even now, immigrants from Bangladesh and the Ukraine have taken the place of groups such as the Irish and the Italians at the turn of the last century. As an immigrant neighborhood, it is typified by the presence of low-rise tenements and housing that is affordable by those who are only just starting to get a foothold in American society. This characteristic is however changing in more recent years.

The LES is undergoing significant changes as many previous entries have indicated. Gentrification in the neighborhood (which has spread from the East Village) has spurred an undertaking to make things more trendy and fashionable to younger, more ‘hip’ residents who have slowly but surely begun to move into the area. While retaining its immigrant accommodating qualities, the LES now shows signs of becoming diverse with this influx of new blood. In the coming years, it’s foreseeable that the area will become an even greater attraction for both residents and those into the night life.

It’s common that when someone or some entity commits a violation that they pay a fine. Sometimes they have some kind of community service (e.g. if they littered, then they have to pick up trash from the side of the road or in Central Park). But what if you violated EPA contaminant standards?

            Well apparently Columbia University got a chance to see exactly what happens. In 2003, as part of a settlement with the EPA, the university did have to fork over $100,000, but in addition they will take measures to correct the violations they committed by

1)      Creating a new waste management system

2)      Making their self-evaluation available to both the EPA and the general public

3)      Educating (supposedly what they should do best) high schools and the general public about proper waste management techniques to make the public at large even more environmentally conscious.

 

    Not only is punishment creative, but also in many ways a stroke of genius for the governmental agency. Instead of just admonishing Columbia University for its harmful actions, it gave the university a chance to not only correct their error, but also to educate and potentially curb the problem in the future. This EPA action is an example of creative multitasking in disciplining Columbia as well as making inroads towards environmental sustainability and awareness. Now imagine if instead of throwing just money at the problem of environmental sustainability, we met it with creative policymaking? Think how much more attainable and realistic the goal of sustainability would be as well as the potential time frame needed to get there.

The residents of Morningside Heights and other parts of Northern Manhattan have decided to take a grassroots approach to fighting for environmental sustainability. They have taken the initiative to protect their own and to try to preserve their neighborhood for both present health and future generations to come (parallel to the UN definition of sustainability). Instead of relying solely on governmental or free enterprise forces which are notoriously either inefficient on the one hand, or primarily profit-driven on the other, they have decided to take matters into their own hands as much as possible.

            As a result many coalitions have sprung up in the past few years championing environmental awareness in Morningside Heights and their surrounding neighborhoods. A few of them are the Morningside Heights Historic Committee, the Morningside Heights Residents’ Association, and the Morningside Heights / West Harlem Sanitation Coalition. In addition there is also the Northern Manhattan Environmental Justice Coalition. All of these are maintained and staffed by residents who unlike third party activists actually have a vested interest in what happens to their neighborhood as it directly affects their everyday lives.

            Their collective campaigns have a few similar goals. Most of these goals revolve around finding improved methods of waste disposal and claim that the neighborhoods already treat most of Manhattan’s solid waste. They are in opposition to increased garbage trucks (that would allegedly rotate every 4.5 minutes instead of 15 minutes). These additional trucks would undoubtedly bring not only a greater volume of solid waste to the area, but also produce a greater amount of air pollution, the effects of which have already been reflected in the high asthma statistics present in the resident population.

            As for the success of these groups, if quantity is any indicator, the cause is certainly crept into the consciousness of the residents. The effectiveness of their efforts will only truly be seen in a long term analysis, but it is heartening that residents recognize the need to address the problem and to attempt inroads to resolving it.

Not surprisingly, many people are opposing the recent developments in the Lower East Side. From the noise to the light, to the ruining of their neighborhood, many residents are banding together to fight the “economic-free-for all.” They formed a group called The Ludlow-Orchard Community Organization or L.O.C.O. Their primary complaint is the bars that open until 4am or later, 24-hour hotels, large apartment complexes that tower over their tiny apartments. One of their objectives is to “keep the Lower East Side low.”
The unregulated construction leads to unhealthy levels of asbestos in the surroundings charged the group. On the phone, the Department of Environmental Protection, DEP told the group that the building already received several violations regarding their handling and removal of asbestos. The other major complaint is the area being treat as a “film set.” They alleged that within the period of a year, there has been 141 films shoot in the neighborhood. The film set creates as much noise as they want and wreak havoc on resident’s life by shinning light throughout the night. Combine this with the noise created by the bars, clubs and traffic; nights have become hell for longtime residents.
http://theloco.org/index.html

Rapid Developments in the L.E.S

The Lower East Side is rapidly transforming into a neighborhood that would shock and astound its immigrant predecessors. In the area between Delancey and Houston St, in the area around 90 Rivington St, several bars and clubs have sprung up within the last few years. The crowd at night is younger, more vibrant and much more wealthier. Many new upscale buildings are being constructed to cater to the new crowd. Several of the newer buildings are listed below, although these are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many new condominiums and commercial buildings, 50 Mott St, Hotel on Rivington, Eldridge Street Apartment and etc, being constructed in the LES as more and more young personals move in seeking more competitive rent while still staying in Manhattan.

The Gotham Court in 149-151 Essex St. was built on the plans of treating it as an “urban oasis.” The building will feature its own “private landscaped courtyard” to complete the experience of an oasis.
A Whole Foods has opened on Avalon Chrystie Place on 229 Chrystie Place inside Avalon Chrystie Place, a luxury condominium completed in 2004.

Another building will be built at 108 Delancey Street, former site of a KFC and Taco Bells.

Kenmare Street Residential Tower

Switch Building on 109 Norfolk Street

“A Lesson in Civics: The Devil You Know”

Two years ago, when a long-awaited wrecking crew finally tore down the 200-foot smokestacks of the shuttered Southwest Brooklyn Incinerator, residents and elected officials in Bensonhurst were there to celebrate. They even had gold-painted sledgehammers.

It was a joyous day for a neighborhood that had fought for more than 40 years to close the trash facility and keep it closed. But to some residents, that jubilation was shortsighted.

As part of the mayor’s comprehensive plan for trash disposal, which the City Council approved in July, the site on Bay 41st Street where the incinerator stood will become home to one of four city-run waste transfer stations. The local community board endorsed the plan as a cleaner alternative, but its opponents are not quietly accepting the decision.

”I have a problem putting this right in the middle of a residential area where there are already acute environmental problems caused by having an incinerator there for 30 years,” Assemblyman William Colton, who represents the area, said on Thursday before a meeting to plan last-ditch strategies for opposing the station on environmental grounds.

The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation must still approve the site for the station to become a reality.

Mr. Colton, who in the mid-1990’s was one of the lawyers for residents fighting a proposed reopening of the incinerator, which closed in 1991, contends that the dredging required for barges to land at the transfer station would stir up toxins in Gravesend Bay. In addition, he said, the station will attract increased truck traffic, noise and odors to property surrounded by parks, a shopping center and a marina.

Jerry Gagliano, owner of the Marine Basin Marina, said that when the incinerator was operating, boat owners had to hose down their boats in the morning to clean off ashes. With that in mind, he said, the city should put all the planned transfer stations in places where they are not next to homes and businesses — for example, Floyd Bennett Field, the former airport.

Matthew Lipani, a Sanitation Department spokesman, cited an April 2005 environmental impact study for the trash plan, which addresses the Bensonhurst transfer station. The study says that noise and odors will not be a problem, that increased traffic can be mitigated and that while dredging will disturb silt in the bay ”to some degree,” the department will take ”appropriate measures” to minimize effects on water quality. JAKE MOONEY

This article was published on September 17th, 2006 in the New York Times. In summary, it talks about the City Council’s plan to construct a waste transfer system at the former site of a Southwest Incinerator that was torn down in 2004 due to health risk problems that were arising. A waste transfer station is a building for the temporary deposition of some wastes. These stations are usually used as sites for local waste collection vehicles to deposit their waste cargo before loading in into larger vehicles. These larger vehicles will in turn transport the waste to the end point of disposal or treatment. As the article points out, many complaints have been voiced regarding this project. The one that resonates the loudest is the concern of building the waste station too close to residential areas. People will constantly be exposed to pollutants and toxins found in garbage residue and through dredging the Gravesend Bay. Additionally, unwanted odor and noise pollution, as well as increased amounts of traffic will plague the nearby area. This proposed station will also interfere with the existing peaceful environment, comprised of shops, shopping centers, and residential houses. One solution that was proposed by a local resident was constructing the waste station in a non-residential area, which would have less of a negative effect on the people and the Bensonhurst community. A possible location is the Floyd Bennett Field, a former airport.

As the article points out, the plan of building a waste transfer station is still being considered and has to be looked over and approved by the State’s Department of Environmental Conservation.

Grassroots protestors, and East Harlem rersidents at large, can sleep easier, at least for now, as protesting and political pressure has squashed Mayor Bloombergs one billion dollar plan for expansion and East Harlem. Earlier this year the plan to extend the neighborhoods bus depot, along with two other projects including a shopping mall and middle income level appartments, was cancelled by the city. Although this is certainly a victory against the nieghborhoods ongoing struggle with asthma, it is also a great loss for a neighborhood that needs development.

If East Harlem-ites wish to fully rectify their homes extensive environmental problems they need the revenue, and investor intrest, that will be spurred by development. City officials, including Mayor Bloomberg, need to find new alternative plans that will promote the “greeness” of one of the cities most historical and exciting neighborhoods. In order for this neighborhood to thrive it needs to seek the attention of politicians and make itself heard. However, they also need to ensure that developers will not drive up real estate prices and allienate its existing residents the way new buildings in Hell’s Kitchen drove away its locals.

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=8149e945eff0dd301693d004c8bdf2cc&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=011f21154b9b8bd28766d28712b15bb1

In 2003 residentss of East Harlem, especially 10029 zip code, began protesting the expasion of a bus depot already existing on 100st. The MTA has eight bus depots in Manhattan; of the MTA’s bus terminals in Mahattan six are located north of 96st street. Northern Manhattan consists of some of the cities largest minority populations (mainly black and latino), and East Harlem contains one of the cities largest and richest latino cultures. The extension in East Harlem would allow the MTA to close another depot on 14th street, in a movement which has led to the creation of a new term: environmental racism.

The new tdepot would be home to more than 130 buses, mostly diesel powered. Diesel fueled buses emit copius amounts of SO2, a toxic pollutant that has been linked to asthma amonst other health conditions.

The problems with these expansions are two fold. Firstly, diesel buses are an ongoing problem that contribute to the SO2 problems in New York. Secondly, the city seems to be constantly abondoning the minorities that comprise the not only the majority of the cities population (minorities currently outnumber white residents according to recent estimates), but also provide the city with much of its rich culture and diversity. In order to rectify the first of these problems city must look to alternative fuels, including low sulfur diesel, and strengthen its policies towards the overall reduction of SO2 emissions both city-wide and especially in problem areas like the 10029 area code that has the city’s highest childhood asthma rates. Likewise, city official must seek to fight, rather than contribute, to the racism that continues to plague our great city.

 

 

On February 14, 2005 the Department of City PLanning submitted a proposal to rezone about 120 blocks of Bensonhurst. The area proposed for rezoning is a predominantly low-rise residential community. Recently, however, a lot of taller condominium buildings have been constructed on neighborhood midblocks and on some predominantly low-rise wide streets.
Most of the narrow side streets and midblocks in the Bensonhurst rezoning area are lined with two- and three-story houses, detached or semi-detached homes for one or two family houses. Only some of the wide avenues are characterized by taller, bulkier apartment buildings and commercial uses. However, the current zoning laws do not make the distinctions between these areas, permitting instead all housing types, including multifamily housing.

The new rezoning laws will serve to:

~Prevent “out of character” development. (see pictures below for examples of this)

~Establish a height limit of three stories in areas where low rise housing predominates

~Permit apartment house construction on major avenues (with height limits)

~Eliminate the potential for extra-large community facility (schools, hospitals, houses or worship, and medical offices) and mixed use buildings.
On June 23, 2005, the new rezoning laws were adapted by the City Council, with one modification. The City Council’s modification removed from the rezoning area a 1.5 block area between 65th Street, Avenue O and West 4th and West 5th Streets. That area will remain zoned R6. Zone R6 means that this area permits construction of tall towers on large lots under standard height factor regulations, which have no height limits and a maximum floor area ratio of 2.43 for residential buildings. Under R6 regulations, community facility buildings and mixed residential/community facility buildings can achieve an floor area ratio of up to 4.8.
Incidently, the area that was removed from the new rezoning plan is right next door to my house. Currently, this area of land is empty. About a year ago, a developer boought about 6 one to two family houses that were all next to each other. Most of these houses were owned by Italian American families that had been living in the area for many many years. The developer demolished them, with plans to build some really big building. Then, for whatever reason, after he had demolished the houses, the developer gave up on the project. As of today, when I look out my window, this area is empty. There is a meadow growing in the lot and there is no signs of any activity whatsoever.

The zoning map changes are now in effect.
For more information on the new rezoning plan in Bensonhurst, visit : http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bensonhurst/index.shtml

Out of character development in Besonhurst:

This was an interesting site that we came upon. Essentially it is about people living in the lower east side in rent controlled area. As we all know Manhattan is the most expensive borough to live in. This website GOLES talks about tenant rights. Land is very precious in Manhattan as we’ve been learning in class that the best way to get more land is to essentially build upwards. However this website helps tenants to figure out their rights to living in their apartments and helps them from being evicted. As well as other programs put in place here especially since there are minorities in this area. The website mentions that they provide “provides access to job readiness, training, and employment and supportive services for the unemployed and the underemployed.”

http://www.goles.org/campaigns.htm

Bensonhurst is located in the south-central part of Brooklyn. It runs from 14th Avenue to 25th Avenue and from Gravesend Bay to 60th Street. It encompasses Bath Beach, New Utrecht, and part of Dyker Heights and is bordered by Bay Ridge, Gravesend, and Borough Park. From the outset, Bensonhurst was largely dominated by residents of Italian and Jewish descents. In the 1950s, there was an influx of new immigrants from southern Italy that offset the growing Jewish population. Pretty soon, the neighborhood became predominantly Italian and remained that way until the 1990s, a period that was marked by the flood of new immigrants of Russian and Chinese descent.

Bensonhurst took shape in the 1930s when high-rise apartment buildings began to spring up. Today, the neighborhood is largely comprised of single-family detached and attached houses and multi-family dwellings. Many working-class families that work in nearby shops and restaurants take residence in these houses, which are then passed down from parents to children. It’s common to find two or three generations of the same family living in the same area, within walking distance of one another. It’s also not unusual to find residents who have lived in the same dwelling for over 25 years.

Currently, the Bensonhurst is undergoing major changes that threaten to offset the decades-long stability of the neighborhood. Many of the original houses, built over 90 years ago, are being destroyed so that new construction can be underway. Developers are planning to build three-story brick apartment complexes and multi-family condominiums. This will undoubtedly affect the present communities by tearing down their homes and disrupting their daily life routines. The old society will slowly be replaced by the influx of new residents who are more able to afford the new houses and apartments. I think it is safe to say that in a couple of years, Bensonhurst will be go through many changes in both its external appearance and in ethnic and socioeconomic population demographics.