LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Better protecting neighborhoods

Posted

To the editor:

Recently, I attended yet another meeting held by Community Board 8 about disingenuous developers acquiring a parcel of desirable land with the intent of building high-density buildings.

We are constantly faced with the buildings department’s phrase “as of right,” which means that it conforms with the zoning designation, and therefore, everyone in the neighborhood is stuck with the results.

The present zoning in Riverdale is based on a 1961 rezoning. It envisioned a backbone of high-rise apartment buildings along Henry Hudson Parkway to scale back east and west from the backbone to areas of lower density. It hasn’t really worked out that way. There are apartment buildings of various heights everywhere, and previous few private homes, especially in Spuyten Duyvil.

The zoning plan of 1961 represented a certain vision at a certain time, but could not take into account how the buildings constructed after 1961 would affect the area. The configuration of Riverdale streets should be an object lesson. They were laid out long before 1961, and they demonstrate a more bucolic vision of the neighborhood, and are hard-pressed to accommodate today’s density and traffic flow.

Villa Rosa, a Spuyten Duyvil landmark, is clearly being demolished despite the initial public statements of the developer to the contrary. In addition to unexpected issues of asbestos removal, the neighbors have clearly pointed out issues of traffic, congestion and simple danger of building in an area of narrow, curving streets.

When construction is finished, all the present residents of that area will be forced to deal with unacceptable road conditions in perpetuity.

Another high-rise building with 46 units is scheduled for Henry Hudson Parkway East and West 232nd Street. Charles Moerdler, chair of CB8’s land use committee, forcefully pointed out the traffic gridlock and mayhem that will ensure if the proffered plans are actually built.

Henry Hudson Parkway’s service road at that location is barely two lanes wide, and is already a chokepoint for local traffic. Again, after completion of such a large building, the neighborhood would have to deal with increased traffic and increased gridlock during rush hour, which is already significant. Building codes only require half the number of parking spots as there are apartments.

Just imagine where all the rest of the cars are going to park!

However, I believe there are clear options which will help maintain neighborhoods as places where people will enjoy living. Recently, I attended a meeting run by the city planning department on revisions to the Special Natural Area District, also known as the “greenbelt.” The serious need for regulatory upgrade is the fact that “we know more about natural areas and their preservation than we did 40 years ago.”

Everything changes over time, and our understanding of the impact of old regulations becomes more nuanced. The same should apply to the endless development of neighborhoods.

We are used to the need for environmental impact studies for many large projects. I propose that high-density building applications should trigger its own form of environmental impact study.

In addition, to the impact on natural features, the current residents are also part of the environment, and their needs — both present and future — should not be mindlessly sacrificed on the altar of “as of right.”

Sura Jeselsohn

Sura Jeselsohn,

Comments