Urbanities,
Vol. 4
·
No 2
·
November 2014
© 2014
Urbanities
55
However, the standard of affordability of the units created is measured with respect to the
Area Median Income (AMI) of New York City as a whole, which is invariably much higher
than the median income of many working-class neighbourhoods like Harlem (see later, the
sub-section on
Affordability of new housing and threats of displacement
).
On April 30, 2008, City Council gathered to decide whether to approve or reject the
plan. One of the official arguments in support of the rezoning was that, if nothing was done,
the lack of height restrictions and of affordable housing provisions within the existing 1961
zoning code would threaten the area’s physical and social character. The modified version of
the rezoning plan was eventually approved by an overwhelming majority of City Council
members (47-2), in what became a tensed and emotionally charged session. The public,
mostly comprised of black Harlem residents opposing the plan, shouted and booed Dickens
from the public gallery. After Dickens’ remarks were repeatedly disrupted, the police cleared
the Council chamber of all spectators. As the session ended, she was escorted out of City Hall
through a rear door (Rudish and Lombardi 2008). Council members Tony Avella and Charles
Barron, the only two who voted against the rezoning, called it ‘top down’, and ‘a sellout’.
Barron protested: ‘Ten to 12 years from now, they will see that the housing will not be
affordable. This will be the wholesale sell-out of Harlem from river to river’ (quoted in Chung
2008).
On the same day, benevolent press accounts listed the concessions that Dickens had
managed to extract from the DCP, and boasted the large amount of affordable housing the
rezoning would create. The
New York Post
wrote of an ‘unprecedented 46 percent’ of new
housing units that would be reserved for low- and moderate-income families (Topousis 2008).
Dickens claimed ‘It’s an inclusionary program never before done in the history of this great
city […] With this rezoning, Harlem’s historically indigenous cultural institutions will be
protected’ (quoted in Durkin 2008). Such enthusiasm was echoed by Mayor Bloomberg, who
argued: ‘Not only does the plan lay the foundation for economic growth on Harlem’s Main
Street, but also it preserves its noted brownstones and reinforces its arts and culture heritage’
(quoted in Williams 2008a). According to the modified plan, 1,785 of 3,858 of the apartments
planned for Harlem (46 per cent) would be indeed ‘income-targeted’, with 900 set aside for
those earning 46 thousand US dollars or less a year for a family of four, and 200 for families
earning a maximum of 30,750 dollars a year (Williams 2008a). Other revisions included
height restrictions capping buildings at 195 feet, a 750 thousand dollars forgivable-loan
program for businesses adversely affected by the plan, the creation of a local arts advisory
board, and a 5.8 million dollars fund for capital improvements at Marcus Garvey Park
(Durkin 2008).
The 125
th
Street Rezoning Plan in Detail
125
th
Street contains a variety of cultural, commercial and residential uses, and some of the
most important cultural institutions of Harlem. The urban form varies broadly across the
corridor, exhibiting several building types from small single-story retail stores, to large
suburban-like megastores concentrated especially in its East end, to traditional four- to five-
story tenement houses, to high-rise public housing projects at either end of the street, to rows
