Selfishness 1, Housing 0. Again?
By Alec Pruchnicki
ELIZABETH STREET GARDEN. Photo by Lynn Pacifico.
The first time I wrote about opposition to housing at the Elizabeth Street Garden (ESG) was in 2016 (Westview News, May 2016, Selfishness 1, Housing 0). Then and now, I felt that unwillingness to accept changes to the ESG that would build housing for about 120 people was selfish and heartless. Instead of accepting a smaller, landscaped, and reconfigured garden, ESG advocates wanted it to remain completely intact. They wanted the proposed Haven Green housing to be built somewhere else. For 10 years advocates for housing and for the garden have been fighting in court, but last month it appeared that the court had come down in favor of housing. At the last minute Mayor Adams, with the concurrence of Councilman Chris Marte, announced that the ESG housing proposal was being dropped. Instead, three other sites would accommodate new housing and the garden would remain untouched. I went to those three sites and this is what I found.
A private developer had acquired six buildings on The Bowery (156 to 166) and tore them down, leaving a large empty lot. He promised to include 123 affordable apartments in his new building to replace the ESG/Haven Green proposal. But it was obvious that these buildings had been planned for new development no matter what happened on Elizabeth Street. He hadn’t spent millions of dollars waiting for the court cases to be settled. Whatever goes there will probably be big. Since the city requires 25 percent of new housing to be affordable, there would most likely be at least 123 such apartments built anyway.
At 100 Gold Street, a city-owned building is to be demolished and another private developer is promising 1,000 new apartments with up to 300 of them being permanently affordable. But there was already a tentative agreement for this in March (Our Town, June 26, Elizabeth Street Garden Saved!) well before the decision on ESG/Haven Green.
The third site, an empty lot at 22 Suffolk Street, is a potential location for additional housing. Who will develop this and what will be put there is unclear, but it is being touted as potentially producing 200 apartments of some type.
What do these three sites have in common? First, none of them required the elimination of Haven Green housing in order to build. They would have been developed no matter what the final decision was for the ESG. In other words, thanks for nothing. Second, it will take years for the zoning, funding, architectural designs, and income composition of the apartments to be finalized, assuming the developers don’t find a loophole and renege on their promises. Haven Green could have been built many years ago. Building it now could start almost immediately. Third, there is no guarantee that these final designs won’t elicit local NIMBY opposition like Elizabeth Street, although the reasons would be completely different. The ESG advocates can’t be the only selfish and heartless people in Manhattan.
How can we make the best of this? We can hope that the proposed extended hours for ESG (8 a.m. to 8 p.m.) actually occur. We can hope that the city parks department finds a way to take over and keep the garden public, so it doesn’t get privatized to a self-selected group of politically connected individuals. We can also hope that non-profit organizations like Habitat for Humanity, one of the advocates for Haven Green, doesn’t give up in disgust at developing housing in New York City after spending 10 years’ worth of time and money. The city still needs affordable housing and non-profit NGOs (Non-government Organizations) are one way to do it. That way we don’t have to be completely dependent on profit-making private developers.
As for these three sites, what will happen? I very much hope that Councilman Marte, and whatever mayor gets elected in November, manage to expedite housing with maximum affordability and maximum speed. Maybe it will be streamlining paperwork, pushing quick zoning changes, coordinating with local groups, or even a little funding. With a little luck, maybe we can get housing at those three locations in less than the ten years it took to get a decision on Elizabeth Street. But remember, there could have been housing at all four locations.
