Nuha Ansari from Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts on concerns with the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal
0:36:11
·
3 min
Nuha Ansari, Executive Director of Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, expresses concerns about the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal. While supporting the goal of creating more affordable housing, Ansari argues that the proposed zoning amendments fail to address key issues and may have negative impacts on neighborhood character and public review processes.
- Criticizes the proposal's reliance on market regulation of prices, citing failures in the Upper East Side where affordable units have been demolished for luxury high-rises
- Expresses concern about weakening public review processes and potential negative impacts on historic districts and neighborhood character
- Argues against reducing rear yard sizes and eliminating open space requirements, emphasizing the importance of light, air, and green space in high-density areas
- The market has failed to regulate prices and create affordable housing on the Upper East Side
- Concerns about weakening the public review process and transparency
- Potential destruction of historic district character due to changes in landmark transfer development rights
- Reduction in light, air, and green space due to proposed changes in rear yard sizes and open space requirements
- Need for zoning that prioritizes resident well-being and creates truly affordable housing
- Urges the commission to consider alternative solutions that strengthen neighborhoods and ensure an inclusive review process
[EXPERIMENTAL]
Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?
- UAP
- ADU
- Campuses
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 proposed universal affordability preference allows developers to opt out of creating affordable housing by foregoing additional SAR."
This quote directly addresses the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) element of the proposal, highlighting a concern about its implementation.
ADU
"Propose changes like reducing rear yard sizes and eliminating open space requirements in favor of accessory dwelling units with diminished light, air and green space."
This quote directly mentions accessory dwelling units and discusses concerns about their impact on open space and living conditions.
Campuses
"Lifting open space requirements for tower and the park campuses also could lead to development that destroys valuable Green Space that residents depends on."
This quote directly addresses the campus element of the proposal, specifically mentioning concerns about changes to open space requirements for campuses.
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.