When New York City officials announced that the city would demolish Elizabeth Street Garden in Soho to build low-income housing for its older tenants, proponents of cherished green spaces scrambled to find an alternative site for the building.
Park proponents have proposed a vacant lot about a mile away on Hudson Street. Margaret Chen, the city councilman who represents the neighborhood, and other officials listened — but in an unexpected way.
The city agreed to build 100 new apartments on Hudson Boulevard recommended by advocates. But in a move that upset many locals, the city still plans to destroy the park that serves SoHo and Little Italy residents and build 123 apartments for older residents in its place.
The details are tucked away in a controversial redistricting plan for SoHo and NoHo approved by the city council on Wednesday. The plan could pave the way for more commercial and residential development, including low-income housing that Mayor Bill de Blasio and his administration say will help integrate an affluent, white-dominated neighborhood that has long resisted new, affordable housing.
But some local officials and activists say the reorganization plan contains hollow pledges and loopholes that will allow developers to avoid creating affordable units.
Ms. Chen dismissed their criticism. “They will never be happy, but we need more affordable housing,” she said in an interview last week, adding that she negotiated the deal alongside Council President Corey Johnson. “Right now, finding a space to live in SoHo is very expensive. So if we can create more affordable housing, we create more opportunities to enjoy this neighborhood.”
Parks proponents said the city created a false choice between affordable housing and green spaces. The park is on leased land from the city. It has become a symbol of residents’ resistance to repartition, which many argue will change the character of the neighborhood that has evolved from an artists’ enclave into a stylish shopping district. Many residents say the rezoning of the skyline will crowd out more luxury high-rises.
Supporters saw the end coming in October when the group running the park received an eviction notice from the city. The death of park founder Alan River in May also dampened hopes of saving the park.
But the city has yet to attempt to remove the limestone lion statues, granite balustrades, and rose beds that mark the space, and the lawsuit continues, arguing that the city violated zoning laws and failed to adequately consider the potentially harmful environmental impact of its redevelopment. Garden plan.
said Norman Siegel, a well-known civil rights attorney and former executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, which represents the nonprofit that operates the park.
Mr. Siegel said the city’s decision to build on a vacant lot on Hudson Street, owned by the Department of Environmental Protection, shows officials could have found other sites to develop.
“The city appears to be adopting our position that affordable housing can be built in other locations,” he said.
Ms. Chen said she was looking forward to building on all possible sites. The agreement giving final approval for housing at the park site, which will be called Haven Green, and properties owned by the Environment Agency also includes plans to convert an NYPD car park into affordable housing.
Haven Green has long been disrupted by the controversy over the park and the repartition of Soho and NoHo in general. Some locals are anxiously awaiting its construction along with the new affordable housing planned on Hudson Street.
“I’d like to see the neighborhood more diverse,” said Kathleen Webster, 68, who lives near the park. Opposition prompted leaders to improve the affordable housing scheme. Now we have to move forward.”
Ms. Chen began asking the city to end the park’s monthly lease in 2012 so developers could start building; The eviction notice was not delivered until October of this year.
Pressure escalated towards the end of Ms. Chen’s term when a member of the council approached. Under term limits, you will leave the position at the end of the month. As the mayor is leaving office, creating affordable housing as part of his promise to tackle inequality is a priority.
“No administration in history has built more affordable housing than this, and we have done so using every tool at our disposal,” Mitch Schwartz, a spokesman for Mayor Bill de Blasio, said in a statement. “This includes developing 100 percent affordable projects on city-owned land.”
Mr. de Blasio argued that his reorganization plans would secure affordable housing so that more black and Latino residents could live in some of the city’s whiter and affluent neighborhoods.
Last month, for example, lawmakers passed a development plan for Brooklyn’s affluent Goanos district, which would require an estimated 8,000 housing units with nearly 3,000 deemed “affordable.” The SoHo redistricting plan will add 3,200 apartments over the next 10 years and include approximately 900 subsidized units in an area with fewer than 8,000 residents at the 2010 census.
Developers will be required to reserve about 20 percent of new housing for New Yorkers who earn about $42,000 for a family of three, or provide units for mixed-income earners where 25 percent of apartments go to families of three earning about $64,000 a year. And another 10 percent of the units that go to those who earn $42,000.
The city’s richer redistricting will likely continue under Eric Adams, who supported Gowanus and SoHo’s plans while opposing some redistricting in Brooklyn. “We need to take a look at those sacred cows like SoHo and other parts of town where we’ve used these methods to keep groups away,” Mr. Adams said in October on “The Ezra Klein Show.”
However, there are many grassroots community groups that insist that these new reorganization plans will outpace longtime residents and fuel real estate speculation.
“If they’re really interested in affordable housing, why not stop the SoHo plan and keep the existing units?” I asked Zishun Ning, an organization with the Chinatown Working Group, who would like to see more community contributions to the decision-making process.
“It’s very clear that lawmakers are not considering other viewpoints.” Mr. Ning said. “They only listen to developers who want to build tall and build luxury.”