Exhibition Proposal

Audience

I think the audience of our exhibition should be people we can realistically reach in our promotions and spark interest in the exhibit. A very accessible group of people that would be interested in our work is fellow Pratt students. Fellow students and professors would be the first people I invite to attend our exhibit considering that invitations to view each others work is common at Pratt. Although it is very important that we try to reach out to members of the community, they will be harder to directly access and we will not have personal connections that will influence attendance. It is important that we keep this in mind and develop layers of information that can be enjoyed by people of the community, developers and activists as well as students who are being educated in the design process. It makes sense for us to design for at least a partial student audience since that is who we are and how we understand the material is from the perspective of a student living outside of the effected area. None of our homes or families homes will be displaced by this project and we need to design our exhibit with that consciousness and compassion in mind if our goal is to draw people that will be more directly affected.

Goals

Considering that the development plan for downtown Brooklyn was developed and approved earlier in the decade and has seen and heard much apposition already it is important that we concentrate on presenting the material differently than it has been presented multiple times before. It is important that we constantly keep the question in mind, how can we present the material uniquely in order to bring community members and activists to hear this information again. What makes our exhibition special? How can we include any new information that will spark interest in an old subject? The slow economy has caused an opportunity to reflect on the downtown plan. Perhaps we can include a current event section of the exhibit showing what has been done, what is on hold and what is no longer going to happen at all. I think this information may be difficult to quantify and present for certain, but the community might be interested in where the project stands currently, and what aspects can still be influenced and changed by voicing their approval or disapproval.

Concept

I sought advice from two professionals with experience in urban development on how to approach our exhibition. Please see bio’s that were included in materials distributed at our career day below.

David Danois, RA, Danois Architecture, P.C.
Pratt Institute—Master of City and Regional Planning, Bachelors of Architecture
The firm, Danois Architects, P.C., has been a major contributor to the NYC built environment in the area of affordable housing, with more than 1500 renovated apartments, 850 individual two- and three-family Partnership Homes, 450 units of new apartments, and the preservation of significant New York City landmarks. Mr. Danois entered private practice in 1978 after gaining extensive public sector planning and design experience serving as the Planner and Architect for the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, the nation's largest Community Development Corporation.


Shay Alster, AIA, GF55 Partners
Pratt Institute—Bachelors of Architecture
Shay Alster was named Partner at GFSS Partners in 2006 and has been instrumental in the firm’s growth in mixed-use multi-family apartments and townhouse developments including several large urban developments in Harlem. His efforts resulted in Manhattan Court / Brownstone Lane being awarded the 2006 New York State Association for Affordable Housing project of the year.

The advice of these two professionals included that we as architectural students present materials from a neutral standpoint. Because we are designers we have a responsibility to not just present critiques on the current development plan, but to present our own answers to the problem of development in a dense urban environment. As designers we can find many problems with the existing design that will be apparent even if we present our information as neutral as possible. A way to present alternatives to the current development plan would be to show relevant precedents of effective urban planning in communities with a large transit hub. The precedents should be presented in all aspects of the plans in terms of the demographics, infrastructure, and architecture of the communities where they were realized. It is more likely that not all aspects of successful plans will be similar to our site so we should point out how these precedents relate to our site in some ways and will need to be modified in aspects that do not address the issues of downtown.

The main goals of the zoning changes in the Plan for Downtown Brooklyn encourage new office development and academic expansion space within the commercial core and, in the surrounding areas, new residential development with attractive ground-floor retail. All re-zoning statements are taken from the website of the New York City Department of City Planning/Projects & Proposals/Brooklyn/Downtown Brooklyn.

The area south of MetroTech would be rezoned to C6-4.5, increasing the allowable FAR from 6 and 10 to 12 for commercial and community facility buildings. Residential buildings would be limited to an FAR of 10 but could achieve an FAR of 12 through a plaza bonus or inclusionary housing. FAR represents Floor Area Ratio which is equal to the total covered area on all floors of all buildings on a certain plot divided by the area of the plot. It is clear from the increased FAR that the zoning changes benefit first office and commercial space and second residential space. In order to residential buildings to reach a FAR 12 they would need to include a plaza bonus or inclusionary housing, which I’m assuming to mean affordable housing. Why is it that residential buildings are given these “obstacles” but not commercial buildings? Clearly the city of New York will also profit from the taxes collected on large amounts of office tenant space in a building more than housing. Although, neighborhood residents would benefit from more open space and more affordable housing, therefore commercial buildings should also have incentives to increase FAR by providing plazas and inclusionary housing.

The rezoning would promote new office building construction to extend the MetroTech office core south to the Fulton Mall. The area is now dominated by many small underdeveloped commercial and residential buildings, and parking lots fronting on Willoughby, Gold, Duffield, Bridge and Lawrence Streets. Along the Fulton Mall, the rezoning area contains department stores, retail and office buildings. Tower building forms would continue to be permitted (with no height limit) and a 250-foot height limit would be established for a non-tower building form. It is interesting that there are no height limits for towers in the rezoned area of the core of Downtown Brooklyn. Manhattan style towers will dwarf the narrow streets in this area and the surrounding neighborhoods. Clearly shadows were not considered either or their effect on existing buildings.

From my research on the Fulton Mall the architecture of the buildings, including but limited to the New York City land marked buildings is essential to the history and aesthetic of the neighborhood. As class research and Pratt Center documents show much of the upper stories of the buildings on Fulton Street are not used because the owners of the buildings are collecting very satisfying rent for the ground story and it is not worth their time and money to renovate upper floor to rent out. Also precious ground floor space would have to be given to egress staircases. What incentive does the new zoning plan give to these landlords to add height to their buildings, renovate or raze and re-build? Clearly this street is profitable the way it is and considering the small amount of upper stories in these existing buildings that is not being used, there is nothing in this new zoning plan that will entice building owners to renovate and add stories to their structures and possibly jeopardize months of profitable rent. Possibly the existing owners could be bought out and the properties will be razed and new construction would be developed, but unfortunately the architectural aesthetic of the Fulton Mall will be lost.

Two blocks at Tillary, Johnson, Jay and Adams Streets that contain the New York City College of Technology, a Polytechnic University dormitory and Westinghouse High School, currently zoned C6-1 (6 FAR), and Polytechnic University’s portion of the MetroTech campus, currently zoned C6-1A (6 FAR), are proposed to be rezoned to C6-4 (10 FAR). The rezoning would facilitate new mixed-use academic and office buildings. The rezoning is intended to expand academic and commercial uses by facilitating public/private development and promoting mixed-use opportunities. Is the idea of mixed-use development an innovation in this plan? The idea of mixed-use development is new in terms of being positive for the environment in the essence of creating compact communities that are self sustaining. Mixed-use development is defined as a sustainable concept in that all needed amenities of a community are contained within the structure or dense neighborhood in order to cut down on the necessity for transportation in and out of the community on a daily basis. For example a mixed-use complex would include daily amenities such as work, grocery, day care, health center, ect. The Downtown Brooklyn Plan does not use the term mixed-use in relation with sustainability, but rather space efficiency in terms of maximizing profit. Residential buildings are proposed to have ground floor spaces featuring attractive ground-floor retail. The idea of integrating and requiring everyday amenities in the plans of the mixed-use streets is missing.

The proposed zoning would develop Flatbush Avenue as a gateway to Brooklyn connecting the Fort Greene community with downtown. I find when walking or driving from Pratt’s area of Clinton Hill through Fort Greene into Downtown Brooklyn a schism exists in terms of scale, roadways, traffic, etc. The change in height from a low brownstone neighborhood with smaller side streets and tree lined sidewalks collides with the abundant traffic and multiple lane Atlantic Ave and Flatbush Ave that become Downtown. The attitude of Fort Greene neighborhood with its small restaurants and sidewalk shops abruptly halts as the scene changes with the wide highways, taller commercial buildings and less residential buildings. The new plan seems to try to establish a gradient of height surrounding Downtown Brooklyn. For example, the area between Livingston and Schermerhorn Streets, currently zoned C6-1 (6 FAR commercial/ 3.44 FAR residential) would be rezoned to C6-4 (10 FAR) to encourage new residential and mixed residential-commercial development. The Schermerhorn Street Height Limitation Area of the SDBD would be extended to these blocks to provide a transition between the low- to mid-rise Boerum Hill community to the south and the high-density core of Downtown Brooklyn to the north.

Under the proposed zoning change, many blocks containing auto-related uses, loft buildings, small stores and residential buildings could be redeveloped with higher-density residential and commercial buildings. One large complaint with the project is that with all of the street lots taken away and increased automobile traffic the parking problem in the area will be extreme. One public parking facility for approximately 700 cars would be located below the newly created Willoughby Square public open space and would be modeled after the successful Post Office Square parking garage in Boston, Massachusetts. Willoughby Square’s intention is to provide an attractive environment for evening and weekend use by residents and employees. The space would include cafes, restaurants and new retail establishments while allowing approximately 700 people to drive to work and congest the already crowded downtown streets. Although Willoughby Square intends to provide an evening and weekend place of leisure for the residents of the neighborhood, if its intentions follow Post Office Square it will turn out a popular lunch spot for the local financial district renting cushions and providing shade. On the weekends the park is very quite considering the programs of the surrounding buildings consist of mainly office tenants.

Only one more park is mentioned in the Plan for Downtown Brooklyn. A triangular park is proposed on Flatbush Avenue Extension at the entrance to Willoughby Street. This park is intended to provide a gateway from the Fort Greene community to Willoughby Square and the new commercial core office buildings. Unfortunately, the designers of this urban plan first of all did not include enough green space in an already automobile and concrete saturated neighborhood. Second, none of the green space is considered productive green space. The green space above the parking garage at Willoughby square will provide a place of leisure for mostly likely daytime workers. For instance if the park contained bio-swells or shallow reflection ponds to slow water runoff from the surrounding concrete jungle, it would have purpose in its after hours and could not be critiqued on its ineffectiveness on the nights and weekends.