Land-use regulations is a issue that was most discussed in a roundtable conversation. That conversation focused on historic asset ordinances for outlying areas, regulatory tools, community review, standards and design guidelines, long-term planning, and comprehensive zoning. It was noted that NYC regulations are not concerned with aesthetics so that preservationists may only argue that a neighborhood is historically significant.
These limitations might be eased by the use of conservation districts formed around inclusionary zoning guidelines and regulated by local/community boards, though potential obstacles are many if review boards are not made up of professionals, designed with an appeal process, and shored up with strong Mayoral support. These districts could take use, scale, and social cohesion into consideration.
In NYC there are no design guidelines for historic district, it is left to the discretion of the commission review to make suggestions. This has limitations, it is difficult to argue that a bad copy of the context is not appropriate. Good design guidelines do not guarantee good design. In the end regulators can only follow the contextual standards. Comprehensive zoning is needed. Currently rezoning is driven by the political moment, often when community boards are trying to avoid something; and is not driven by professional, long-term planning, but should be. Roundtable participants suggested that discussion of good ideas should be liberated through detachment from the limitations of existing players and their immediate goals.
It was agreed that once improved strategies are imagined, new collaborative frameworks and oversight mechanisms can be envisioned; otherwise, opportunities will be lost.
This report is only partial summary of discussions hosted and feedback received by the Preservation Vision: NYC project. Every attempt was made to convey the breadth and content of these exchanges between participants, but brevity demanded that many useful contributions were simplified, combined, or left out altogether. In no case are the assertions and assessments summarized here a reflection of the organizers' opinions or best knowledge; they belong only to the participants and contribute to an open process of deliberation. A final report will provide a more comprehensive and nuanced reflection of these deliberations along with a synthesis of project participants’ visions for the future.
