Mark Ginsberg, President of Citizens Housing Planning Council, on strong support for proposed citywide zoning text amendment
4:57:12
·
3 min
Mark Ginsberg, representing Citizens Housing Planning Council (CHPC) and Curtis Ginsburg Architects, testifies in strong support of the proposed citywide zoning text amendment. He emphasizes that these changes would be the most significant zoning reform since 1961 and are crucial for addressing New York City's affordable housing crisis.
- Highlights the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) as a common-sense expansion of existing programs, creating more diverse affordable housing options
- Supports the proposal's prioritization of housing needs over vehicle storage, noting that parking requirements can significantly increase apartment costs
- Urges the commission to maintain simplicity in regulations, allow flexibility for future changes, and ensure a smooth transition for existing projects
- Strong support for the proposed citywide text amendment
- The changes would be the biggest and most important set of zoning reform since 1961
- Essential step to address New York City's affordable housing crisis
- Expansion of Ayers to UAP creates wider range of affordable housing options
- Prioritizes housing needs over vehicle storage
- Reducing parking requirements can lower housing costs
- Importance of allowing more housing in every neighborhood
- Need for simplicity in regulations to avoid delays and limitations
- Maintaining flexibility for future unanticipated changes
- Ensuring existing projects can be completed without disruption
- Urges approval of the proposed amendment with only necessary changes
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
- Parking Mandates
The following are AI-extracted quotes and reasoning about which elements of the proposal were discussed in this testimony.
This is a quick, close approximation. Occasionally, the connection between a testimony's transcript and specific elements of City Planning's proposal is tenuous.
Read about this AI-generated analysis here.
UAP
"The steps from Ayers to UAP is a common sense expansion of an existing program."
This quote directly mentions UAP (Universal Affordability Preference) and describes it as an expansion of an existing program, which aligns with the proposal's description.
"It isn't an up zoning but rather creates a wider range of affordable housing options for different populations, including housing for seniors and multi generational housing."
This quote elaborates on the UAP, explaining that it creates more affordable housing options for various populations, which is consistent with the UAP's goal of delivering new affordable housing in high-cost neighborhoods.
Parking Mandates
"The proposal puts our society's need for housing ahead of its needs for vehicle storage."
This quote indicates a shift in priority from parking to housing, which aligns with the proposal to remove parking mandates.
"The cost of a structured parking space can add as much as $100,000 to the cost of an apartment."
This quote highlights the high cost of parking, which is one of the key issues addressed in the proposal to remove parking mandates.
"Under the proposal, we can design buildings with an amount of parking that makes sense based on the building's program that rather than making a build program workaround zoning."
This quote directly refers to the proposal allowing more flexibility in parking requirements, which is consistent with the removal of parking mandates.
About this analysis:
This analysis is done by AI that reasons whether or not a quote from the testimony discusses a particular element of the proposal.
All the prompts and data are open and available on Github.
You can search for testimonies that mentioned a specific element in the table on the main meeting page.
When an element is explicitly stated in the testimony (e.g. "Universal Affordability Preference" or "UAP"), the analysis is accurate.
But the connection between a quote from the testimony and an element of the proposal is sometimes implicit.
In these cases, the AI might eagerly label a testimony as discussing a proposal when the connection is tenuous, or it might omit it entirely.