MAS President Vin Cipolla opened the day by posing a series of questions that the three panels and keynote interview addressed, “How does New York City build?  How do the city’s neighbors shape their communities?  What, exactly, is distinct about the way New York City plans its neighborhoods and development?…What changes do we want to see?  What are the consequences of those changes?  What mechanisms are already in place to address shortcomings in the land use process, and are they working?” He continued, “As you can probably tell, today’s program is likely to provide more questions than answers, and that’s ok.  MAS, and others, are going to continue to work on these issues until we are that much closer to solving them.”

The conference’s triad of panels brought together some of New York City’s, and the country’s, leading voices on land use issues, and provoked interesting discussions among the panelists and the audience. The first panel, moderated by Ethel Sheffer, AICP (principal, Insight Associates), addressed what is distinct about New York City’s land use process.  The panelists discussed how the process works both in theory and in practice, from the perspective of the city government, developers, and the community.  They then compared New York City’s process with model practices and the land use processes of other jurisdictions country-wide.

In the second panel, moderator Eugenie L. Birch (MAS board member, Lawrence C. Nussdorf Professor of Urban Research and Education, Department of City and Regional Planning, School of Design, at the University of Pennsylvania and co-director of the Penn Institute for Urban Research.) invited panelists to suggest ways to improve the city’s land use process.  Suggestions included re-examining and reforming fair share provisions, community board reform, “197-a” community planning reform, oversight of projects not subject to the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), developing comprehensive plans, and the possibility of a future charter revision commission for implementing these changes.

In the afternoon, the third panel, moderated by Vicki Been (MAS board member, Boxer Professor of Law at New York University’s School of Law School and Director of NYU’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy), took a close look at community benefit agreements (CBAs), which are private agreements between developers and a coalition of organizations meant to represent the local community.  CBAs are an increasingly popular practice throughout the country and generally result in developers providing amenities and improvements to the community in exchange for local support of the underlying development or project.  The panel examined how CBAs attempt to address issues outside of the land use process, and questioned whether or not they are beneficial to developers, communities, and cities, including New York City.

In the closing keynote, MAS Board Member and Chair of Manhattan Community Board 1, Julie Menin, interviewed Eric Lane, former executive director and counsel to the New York City Charter Revision Commission and former chair of the New York City Task Force on Charter Implementation. The interview was a frank discussion on the successes and failures of the 1989 Charter Revision Commission (the last charter revision commission to address land use in a meaningful way), the 2010 Charter Revision Commission, and what land use issues should be considered for charter revision in the future.

The conference’s program as well as bios on all the moderators and panelists can be found at MAS.org/landuse. More photos of the conference, a transcript of the discussion, and media from the event will be posted in upcoming weeks.  Stay tuned!

Registration 8:30 am; Conference 9 am – 4 pm.
Pace University’s Michael Schimmel Center for the Arts, 3 Spruce Street (east of Park Row, near the corner of Gold Street)
FREE. Reservations Required: Register Online or call 212 935-2075

PANEL I: Big Apples to Oranges: What’s Distinct About NYC’s Land Use Process? (9:00 am)
PANEL II: Time for Change?: Perspectives on Planning in the Five Boroughs (10:45 am)
PANEL III: Who Benefits from Community Benefit Agreements? (2:00 pm)

Closing Keynote Interview (3:35 pm) between Julie Menin, MAS Board member and chair of Manhattan Community Board 1, and Eric Lane, Eric J. Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Public Law and Public Service at Hofstra University School of Law, and Senior Fellow at Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. Law School.

Visit mas.org/landuse for a complete schedule, a list of panels and panelists, and information about continuing education credits available for architects, planners, and lawyers.

*Updated: Registration for this event has closed, however spaces are still available. Please register upon arrival.

On Saturday, May 8, nearly 150 New Yorkers attended the fourth annual Livable Neighborhoods Training Program (LNP) at Hunter College. The LNP was created to provide communities with the knowledge, tools, and training needed to strengthen neighborhood decision-making and transform local vision into effective plans. Since its inception in 2007, it has served more than 600 New Yorkers.

This year’s program was especially exciting as we reached new constituents from communities throughout the five boroughs, with Queens and the Bronx being more strongly represented than in previous years, thanks, in part, to assistance from the offices of Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., and Queens Borough President Helen M. Marshall. Participants took part in a full day of training in topics including community organizing, affordable housing, and planning for parks and open space. Check out the slide show above to learn more about the day’s training program and to learn more about the courses offered, click here.

The event speakers and discussion facilitators came from community-based and advocacy organizations, as well as government and academic institutions. They included: Anthony Borelli from the office of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; Wendy Fleischer of the Pratt Center for Community Development; Yolanda Gonzalez from Nos Quedamos/We Stay; Betty Mackintosh, New York Department of City Planning; and Mary Beth Betts from the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

The Livable Neighborhoods Program is made possible through the generous support of the Altman Foundation. To learn more about the Livable Neighborhoods Program, please contact Sideya Sherman at ssherman@mas.org.

Donnelly Marks (pictured) is a professional photographer who decided to become more involved in her community (Astoria, Queens), in 2002. As part of the Norwood Neighborhood Association (NNA), Donnelly quickly learned that “…pictures were a very useful tool; helpful when making a presentation to the community board, the press, City Council, etc.” Donnelly uses pictures to document areas of concern and to highlight achievements on her neighborhood association’s website. In October of last year, she attended the Livable Neighborhoods Program (LNP) training at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, taking workshops in Historic Preservation and Using Maps and Data.

What made you want to devote a Saturday afternoon to learning more about neighborhood planning?
Juan Camilo Osorio from MAS attended our community board meeting (Astoria CB1) last fall. Our son made comments in the meeting and afterwards Juan told us about the GIS (Geographic Information Systems) workshop and Livable Neighborhood workshops. The program name alone “Livable Neighborhood” says it all. When Juan Camilo explained the LNP workshop offered a chance to learn from planning, preservation and GIS experts in a professional and friendly setting, how could anyone resist?

What did you gain from the training? Were there any “a-ha” moments?  
As a member of a community association in Astoria, our group had been working hard to improve our neighborhood and address some important quality of life issues, so the workshop sounded perfect.

I found the information and resources shared in the LNP workshops to be extremely useful. For those new to preservation and community service like myself, it has not been easy to navigate the city agencies, rules and processes, to understand the “big picture” or who or what agency and resources would be most constructive for us to reach out to. The presenters consolidated information in a very user-friendly way.

How have you been able to put what you learned to work for your neighborhood?
I was able to take home and put GIS to use immediately. GIS was used to create a presentation to our community board related to quality of life issues our neighborhood was addressing (see map). In addition, alternative courses of action for “special neighborhood” preservation were shared and we hope to make use of these ideas in the future.

Any parting thoughts for those considering the training? 
Getting involved has been challenging and hard work but it’s been wonderful meeting neighbors and those in City offices who are working to make our community a better place. Being involved has also made our neighborhood feel much more like “home” which is a great feeling.

The group voted to pursue a 197-a plan—one of the City’s most comprehensive planning tools. Named for the section of the City’s Charter that enables them, 197-a plans provide a way to capture a community vision and translate that vision into policies and strategies. (You can view summaries of all of the City’s adopted 197-a plans here.) The Chinatown Working Group has already begun work identifying themes and principles that will guide their work over the coming year.

Chinatown’s 197-a planning effort is unique in that it reflects the involvement of multiple community boards—acknowledging that the diverse neighborhood spans administrative and political boundaries. Chinatown is under dual pressures: still recovering from the social and economic upheaval of 9/11 yet subject to development that has resulted in an erosion of affordable housing stock, neighborhood character, and protections to cultural heritage and the local economy. The initiative can capitalize on the recession-imposed lull in development to create a framework for growth and preservation that will reflect community priorities once the market bounces back.

Helping community organizations and neighborhood advocates confront the planning, land use, and economic development issues facing their neighborhoods is a core goal of MAS. Through public forums, tools for planning, workshops, publications and one-on-one assistance, the MAS Planning Center tackles neighborhood issues at grassroots and citywide levels.

Town Hall Meeting to Review the Plan
On Monday, February 1, at 7:00 p.m., the Chinatown Working Group will host a Town Hall meeting to review its plan with the community and brainstorm ideas on how best to preserve and enhance Chinatown. The meeting will take place at PS 130 Hernando De Soto, 143 Baxter Street (between Grand and Hester Streets in Manhattan).

Initiated in 2005, the CITI Youth program has become an integral part of many New York City community boards. From Washington Heights to Lower Manhattan, and from East New York to the South Bronx, CITI Youth interns are using technology to help facilitate the community decision-making process. Using the website www.myciti.org, CITI interns create and project maps that are used to help community board members evaluate items under review. These items can range from a liquor license application to a new housing development, a bike lane proposal, and even a block party permit. The maps are a source of objective information that helps put the board and the community-at-large on the same page.

CITI intern Nikki Li of Manhattan Community Board 3 (Lower East Side/Chinatown) has participated in the program for two years. He recently recalled an experience at his October Transportation Committee meeting where his maps were used to help the board evaluate a proposed route for a private van shuttle between Chinatown and Brooklyn. While he believed the shuttle route may be beneficial to the community because “…it decreased single commutes and may lead to less carbon emissions.” he noted that his maps “…showed that the van route was in the congested parts of Chinatown and would have to be revised.” By using maps, both Nikki and the board are able to make better informed evaluations.

CITI Youth is not your typical high school internship program. CITI interns have a front row seat to one of the most basic forms of democratic decision-making—community boards. CITI interns become immersed in neighborhood issues and therefore, become more civic-minded. The interns also learn to become quick-thinkers; their work includes making maps that anticipate community board needs, setting up equipment in unfamiliar meeting locations, and amending presentations on a moment’s notice as community discussions shift unexpectedly. The skills that they learn in the CITI Youth program are skills they will carry with them over a lifetime.

Their experience at the community board is complemented with regular training and mentoring from the MAS Planning Center. Once a month, CITI interns attend professional development workshops at MAS where they learn basic map-making, presentation skills, community board processes, community organizing, and other planning-related topics. The workshops also cover some basic professional skills including, resume writing, interview preparation and even college guidance.

The CITI Youth program provides community boards with assistance while helping young people become more involved and engaged in their neighborhoods. As part of our mission to help increase public participation in planning processes, the CITI Youth program is unique because it removes many of the obstacles to youth participation in planning. By providing young people with a clearly defined role at their community board meetings, with support from adult allies, CITI interns become more confident in expressing their opinions on neighborhood issues and in their ability to create change.

This fall the MAS Planning Center welcomed a new class of CITI interns. Nicole Lugo, of Manhattan Community Board 12 (Washington Heights/Inwood), is one of our new students, and after orienting herself at her first meeting, she hit the ground running. Greeted with a warm reception from the board, Nicole projected maps that covered a wide range of items. In a single evening, she had an opportunity learn about everything from illegal construction in the neighborhood to the remodeling plans for a local cultural institution. The meeting moved at a fast pace, with Nicole meeting lots of new board members and even receiving personal career pointers from an architect presenting before the board. Having survived her first meeting Nicole gleefully describes the experience: “I got many things out of today’s meeting and hopefully I’ll get more in the future!”

To learn more about the CITI Youth program please click here and to make your own map visit www.myciti.org.

Representing a variety of perspectives on sustainable agriculture, architecture and planning, and touching on issues as diverse as zoning, organic farming, national agricultural policy, and climate change, the panelists addressed the question: Can New York, a city with a growing population and shrinking acreage, eventually grow enough food within its boundaries to become self-sufficient?

The podcast above is an edited version of the full discussion. A short video of the Forum as well as a full transcript of the discussion will be available soon at MAS.org/urbanfarms. To listen to the Forum in full, click here.
[If you're an iTunes user, you can download our podcasts and subscribe to our podcast feed here.]

And, for some varied perspectives on the forum and the implications of increasing food production in urban areas, click here to read some micro-blogs from students at Vassar College.

The Jane Jacobs Forum was sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Related to the forum is the exhibition Re-Imagining Cities: Urban Design After the Age of Oil — currently on display at MAS through Friday, December 4. Visit MAS.org/exhibitions for more details.

Last Saturday, MAS, the Pratt Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment (GCPE), and the Pratt Institute Planning Student Association sponsored the Livable Neighborhoods Program at the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn. Students of Pratt and other city universities, joined members of the local community for a half-day of training sessions focused on the public’s role in New York’s planning decisions.

Launched in 2007, the Livable Neighborhoods Program (LNP) provides New Yorkers with the tools and resources necessary to effectively plan their neighborhoods. GCPE has recognized the value of the program to train incoming students on planning processes in New York City.

For more information on the LNP, visit MAS.org/lnp.

Manny De la Cruz and Miguel Rodriguez (pictured at left) of the Kingsbridge neighborhood in the Bronx are part of Sistas and Brothas United, the youth affiliate of the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition, and the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA). For the past year, these teens have having been organizing alongside other young people in the Bronx to advocate for increased community benefits in the proposed Kingsbridge Armory redevelopment plan. The armory, which is approximately the size of three football fields, is slated to become a large-scale retail destination. Some Kingsbridge residents have expressed concern over the impact of this project and have advocated for changes to better align the proposal with the community’s vision for neighborhood redevelopment. Many young Kingsbridge residents have been at the forefront of the decision-making process — speaking at public hearings, creating literature and even helping to organize rallies and demonstrations. Both Manny and Miguel described this experience as “powerful” and have been inspired to continue working on behalf of their community well beyond the armory conflict.

For most of the teens, this is their first experience with neighborhood advocacy. Miguel describes it as “having the blindfolds removed from his eyes” once he became more aware of the planning-related issues in his neighborhood. Celeste shared this sentiment, noting that her learning experience at UPROSE has only complemented what she learns in school — helping her to think about topics such as civics and democracy in more practical terms.

In a city so young, where over 25 percent of the population is under the age 19, having young people participate in community decision-making is critical to creating a city that meets the needs and reflects the vision of its residents. Although young people are sometimes considered apathetic and disengaged, these teens prove that when equipped with information and a legitimate opportunity to participate; many young people are more than ready to rise to the occasion.

The following podcast is part of a series profiling youth and planning: In A City So Young, Where’s the Youth Voice in Planning? During this third and final installment, these young activists share stories about their experiences and explain what compels them to do the work they do.

For the other installments in the “Youth in Planning” series, please follow these links:
Part 1: In a City So Young, Where’s the Youth Voice in Planning?
Part II: I Was a Teenage Community Board Member

Flint portrays their battle as the ultimate David-and-Goliath story: Jacobs was the quirky “girl from Scranton” who shunned academics and would later turn down an honorary degree from Harvard. Moses was the “master builder” who graduated from Yale, continued his studies at Oxford, and returned from England with an affected English accent. He wielded his power through appointed positions, while she used savvy activism to mobilize the community and to court both the media and up-and-coming politicians like Ed Koch.

Jacobs discovered Greenwich Village, the neighborhood she would come to love and defend, almost by accident in what Flint calls the “quintessential New York story,” which began when she wandered off the subway at Christopher Street out of curiosity. Greenwich Village was a wonderful oddity to Jacobs, its low-rise buildings sandwiched between the skyscrapers of Midtown and the Financial District. Flint writes, “Everyone looked, she thought, the way she felt: unpretentious, genuine, living their lives. This was home.” No doubt unearthed during the many hours he spent in the archives pouring over Jacobs’ writings, this anecdote is just one of the many interesting details that Flint incorporates into his book, making it an entertaining narrative.

Moses had quite a different view of Jacobs’ beloved neighborhood, which he condemned as a slum and slated for urban renewal in the early sixties. It was this condemnation that outraged Jacobs and moved her to initiate a successful campaign against Moses’ proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway (LOMEX). We can still see the ripple effect of her triumph over Moses today, as Flint pointed out, in the growing support for dismantling many of the expressways that bisect our nation’s cities in an effort to create the human scale and short streetscapes that Jacobs championed. Flint spoke in particular about the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle, where, he said, landscape architect and opponent of the expressway Carrie Moon has cited Jacobs as an inspiration.

Although her principles have been thoroughly embraced by the planning profession, Flint reminded us that Jacobs’ activism was originally intended to be against city planners, noting that she did not really believe it was possible to “plan” an area and make it like Greenwich Village. Rather, successful neighborhoods were organic and dynamic. Still, Flint argued, there can be place for verticality and large-scale projects, as long as they are designed with smart principles in mind. In the end, Flint seems to advocate an increasingly popular historical view of late: Jacobs cannot be put on a pedestal just as Moses cannot be completely condemned.

If there’s one issue that Jacobs could not quite solve, it was that of gentrification. Flint remarked that she did indeed recognize that the “oversuccess” of a neighborhood could well become its curse. One might wonder, as some of the audience on Monday did, what Jacobs might think of the Greenwich Village of today — an upscale neighborhood with a high-priced real estate market. Flint’s work makes clear, however, that one only has to walk through the winding streets of Greenwich Village to know that this neighborhood could have met a significantly worse fate had David not slain Goliath.

To learn more about this epic battle, check out Anthony Flint’s book Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York’s Master Builder and Transformed the American City, available now at the MAS bookstore, Urban Center Books. You can also join Matt Postal, architectural historian, for LOMEX Remembered, a walking tour retracing the route of the proposed expressway at 11:00 a.m., Saturday, October 10.