SPURA Report - Second Edition [ENG] [FINAL] [2009]

8/4/2019 SPURA Report - Second Edition [ENG] [FINAL] [2009]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spura-report-second-edition-eng-final-2009 1/20

Photograph: Yori Yanov

Seward

Park

Urban

Renewal

Area

Community Voices and the Future of the



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY pg. 3

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND pg. 5

The Seward Park Urban Renewal Site pg. 6

SPURA Matters Initiative pg. 6

Purpose o Report pg. 6

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACKPrinciples pg. 8

Feedback Tools pg. 8

Outreach Methods pg. 9

WHAT WE HEARDPublic Workshops pg. 10 Survey pg. 13

Oral Histories pg. 17

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPSSummary o Feedback pg. 19

Next Steps pg. 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The active participation o more than 500 local residents, members o community organizations, andbusiness owners made the SPURA Matters initiative possible. While the list is too long to print here,GOLES would like to warmly thank all the people who took the survey questionnaire, participated in apublic workshop, and who were interviewed as part o the oral history project.

GOLES would also like to thank the ollowing or their nancial support o the SPURA Matters initiative:

Mertz Gilmore FoundationInitiative for Neighborhood & Citywide Organizing – Neighborhood Opportunities Fund Housing Preservation Initiative M&T Charitable Foundation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSPURA Matters is a yearlong initiative acilitated by several non-prot community organizations thatwished to renew a community conversation about the redevelopment o the long-vacant Seward ParkUrban Renewal Area (SPURA) site on the Lower East Side. Over several months in late 2008 and early2009 and through dierent outreach methods, the initiative consulted with local stakeholders to engagethem in a dialogue about community needs and potential uses or the site. Ater decades o controver-sial development proposals that never went anywhere, SPURA Matters strove to get local stakeholderstalking about how the site could be developed in a way that benets the surrounding community. Theultimate goal o the initiative is to help start a community-driven process to put the site back into a

broadly productive use.

This report, prepared by the Pratt Center or Community Development, documents the ndings rom theSPURA Matters community engagement process and is intended to be used as a tool or local stake-holders to use in advocacy eorts to redevelop the SPURA site. Manhattan Community Board 3 is cur-rently in the process o elaborating a set o principles or redevelopment, and the organizations that arepart o SPURA Matters hope that this report can help guide that process.

Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) spearheaded this initiative, but over the course o the communityengagement process, the organizations listed below were active participants:

Ana Luisa Garcia Community Center Center for Urban Pedagogy CHARAS-Tu Casa Sound Studio City Lore Cooper Square Committee Cooper Square Mutual Housing AssociationCAAAV East Village Community CoalitionGrand Street Settlement Hester Street Collaborative Immigrant Social Services

Indochina Sino-American Community Center

Jews for Racial and Economic Justice Lower East Side Business Improvement District Lower East Side People’s Mutual Housing AssociationLower East Side Tenement MuseumSt. Mary’s ChurchTwo Bridges Neighborhood Council University Settlement Urban Justice Center

Through public visioning workshops, a survey questionnaire, and an oral history project, the organiza-tions that were part o SPURA Matters garnered the participation o local residents, business owners,and members o community organizations to talk about the uture o the SPURA. From October 2008to April 2009, over 250 people attended six public workshops, and over 300 people responded to asurvey questionnaire.

Community Voices and the Future of the

Seward

Park

Urban

Renewal

Area



Several major themes emerged rom the publicprocess acilitated by SPURA Matters:

Housing for Low and Moderate-In-

come HouseholdsAcross the board, housing or low and moderate-income households was the most popularly citedtype o development that survey respondents andworkshop participants would like to see on theSPURA site. Many reasons were given or the

need to create this type o housing: to counter-balance the extreme gentrication that has beenoccurring in the area; so that immigrants andother low and moderate-income households couldremain in the neighborhood; and so that theirchildren and grandchildren could continue to livewhere they grew up.

While some workshop participants specicallymentioned that they do not avor any level omarket-rate housing, a very signicant amount opeople (74% o survey respondents) who avoraordable housing indicated that they can sup-port the creation o market-rate housing on thesite as well i it can help oset its costs. Someparticipants preerred mixed-income housing onits own perceived merits (e.g., that is not idealto concentrate people o similar economic back-grounds and that having households with a rangeo incomes is a good way to create a healthycommunity).

Mixed-Use DevelopmentWhile housing (and aordable housing in par-ticular) was a top goal or many stakeholders,there was no shortage o non-housing ideas ordeveloping the SPURA site. The people who par-ticipated in the SPURA Matters outreach activities

(the survey and the workshops) seem to appreciatethat a mix o uses helps create a thriving, healthyneighborhood, so they suggested a broad rangeo things—rom movie theaters to retail stores toopen space--that could complement housing on thesite.

Community FacilitiesParticipants discussed the need to create commu-nity services and acilities o all types as part o

new development. Many o them spoke o essen-tial services such as day care that have been clos-ing down in the Lower East Side. Others spokeo a strong need or seniors and young people tohave access to recreational, cultural and educa-tional activities.

Jobs for Local ResidentsStakeholders expressed that the creation o jobsor local residents is o major importance. Evenbeore the current economic downturn, the numbero jobs that were available to people o limitededucational backgrounds was declining signi-cantly. But now, jobs o all types are harder tond. As such, people want local residents to beable to benet rom the new jobs--both construc-tion and post-construction—that the developmento SPURA would generate.

The SPURA Matters initiative has shown that thereis a strong local appetite or putting the SPURA site

back into a use that includes housing as a largecomponent. Many participants have expresseda strong desire or creating aordable housing,even i it requires the development o some level omarket-rate housing to make it happen. In addi-tion to housing, participants would also like to seecommunity acilities and stores, as well as jobs,created rom redeveloping the SPURA site.



INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Seward Park Urban Renewal Site It has been over 40 years since the City o New York took ownership o a large piece o land in theLower East Side known as the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area, or SPURA. Over the decades,there has been a series o proposals or how to redevelop the area, but a vast majority o the siteremains vacant today (apart rom its use as a parking lot). In addition to problems related to theederal urban renewal program, local controversy over what to develop there has prevented anydevelopment rom actually taking place.

The actions o private property owners have been largely responsible or the dramatic changes in

the built and social character o the Lower East Side, but the SPURA site is still in public hands asone o the largest tracks o vacant city-owned land in Manhattan. This presents a real opportunity todo something on the site that would be o benet to a broad range o stakeholders, including resi-dents, property owners, business owners, and public and private institutions.

G R AN D S T

C L I N T O

N S

T

HENR Y S T

E BROAD WA Y

R I D G E

L U D L O W

S T

S U F F O

L K

S T

N O R F O L

K S

T

E S S E X S T

D E LA N C E Y S T

O R C H A

B I A L Y S T O

K E R

P L

C A N A L S T

A T T O R N E Y

S

J E F F E R S O N S T

E R S T

R U T G E R S

S A M U E L

D I C K S T E I N

P L Z

D E LAN C E Y S T

B R O O M E S T

A T T O R N E Y

S T

W I LLI AM S B U R G B R AP

Seward

Park

P

SPURA Boundaries

Seward Park Area



SPURA Matters InitiativeIn 2008, three organizations teamed upto kick o the SPURA Matters initiative toget New Yorkers talking about SPURA’spast, present, and uture: Good OldLower East Side (GOLES), City Lore, andthe Pratt Center or Community Develop-ment. They created an interactive touro the Seward Park neighborhood (Field

Play, Inc. played a vital role in developingand deploying it), acilitated several pub-lic discussion sessions, and conducted anextensive oral history project. All o theseeorts were made possible by the act thata diverse, long list o community-basedorganizations not only endorsed the spirito SPURA Matters but made importantcontributions to its activities. These organi-

zations are: o AnaLuisaGarciaCommunityCenter o CenterorUrbanPedagogy o CHARAS-TuCasaSoundStudio o CooperSquareCommittee o CooperSquareMutualHousingAssociationo CAAAV:OrganizingAsianCommunitieso EastVillageCommunityCoalitiono GrandStreetSettlement o HesterStreetCollaborative

o ImmigrantSocialServiceso IndochinaSino-AmericanCommunityCenter o JewsorRacialandEconomicJustice o LowerEastSideBusinessImprovementDistrict o LowerEastSidePeople’sMutualHousingAssociationo LowerEastSideTenementMuseumo St.Mary’sChurcho TwoBridgesNeighborhoodCouncil o UniversitySettlement o UrbanJusticeCenter

Purpose of ReportThe purpose o this report is to document a series o activities and outreach eorts that several com-munity organizations undertook to better understand the community’s interest in seeing developmenttake place on the SPURA site. It will also describe common ideas that were aired among stakeholdersregarding the types o development they desire or the uture. This document in no way represents a“community plan” or the site. It does, however, represent a strong consensus to do something with thesite that could be benecial to broad segments o the Lower East Side community.

PhotoCredit:KaraBecker



PUBLIC OUTREACH AND

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

PrinciplesEven by New York City standards, the LowerEast Side is an ethnically, racially, and socio-economically eclectic neighborhood. Wethereore strove to refect this diversity when wedid outreach or the various activities that arepart o the SPURA Matters initiative. That beingsaid, we also wanted to make a special eortto ensure that segments o the community whose

voices are oten marginalized – the elderly,working class people, recent immigrants, etc.– were given the opportunity to express theiropinions on the uture o the SPURA site. Assuch, we targeted low-income stakeholders andpeople who have lived on the LES or a longtime, many o whom make up the constituencieso the sponsoring organizations or SPURA Mat- ters. A large number o these people have beennegatively aected by the recent changes occur-ring on the Lower East Side, particularly those

ueled by the recent real estate boom. Finally,through residential door-knocking and workingwith the Lower East Side Business ImprovementDistrict, we made concerted eorts to reach outto people who live and work near the SPURAsite, since they would likely be aected by uturedevelopment there.

Feedback ToolsIn order to reach a broad range o community

stakeholders, we engaged in several dierentmethods o collecting eedback about whatpeople desire or the uture o the SPURA site.In acknowledgement o the community’s diver-sity, we thought it was appropriate to supple-ment public workshops with other approaches

or gathering community eedback since werecognized that not all interested parties wouldbe able to attend a public workshop in the eve-ning. The results o the various orms o eed-back are presented later in this report.

>Public workshops The participating organizations hosted a se-

ries o public workshops that were open to allinterested stakeholders. The workshops openedwith two historians (Marci Reaven o City Loreand Hilary Botein o CUNY) making a presenta-tion on the history o housing developments inthe Lower East Side. The second portion wasdevoted to participatory exercises designed tolet people voice their opinions about how theneighborhood is today and how it could be inthe uture i the SPURA site is developed. Aterusing large maps to encourage people to think

about places in the community that are impor-tant to them (as well as places and things thatcould use improvement), workshop participantsplayed a simple voting game to register theirpriorities or uture development. It is importantto note that the participatory exercises weredesigned so that they could be relevant to abroad diversity o people with dierent levels oeducation and dierent levels o amiliarity withreal estate development. As such, we tried tostay away rom complex, insider language andattempted to orient the discussion about com-munity development more towards the generalthan the specic.

In order to encourage a broad range o par-ticipants, these workshops were held at variouslocations throughout the neighborhoods sur-



October22,2008UniversitySettlement

November1,2008St.Mary’sChurch

November12,2008GrandStreetSettlement

November22,2008 LowerEastSidePeople’sMutualHousingAssociation

March25,2009 ImmigrantSocialServices

March31,2009 St.Teresa’sChurch

Because o the importance o hearing rom theGrand Street Co-op residential community – majorstakeholders in the uture o SPURA – the SPURAMatters initiative made concerted eorts to reachout to them. Volunteers rom Jews or Racial andEconomic Justice (JFREJ) engaged in a year-longdoor-knocking process in many o those build-

ings. Through one-on-one discussions about howrecent development is aecting the local neighbor-hood, these volunteers engaged householders inthe question o what should be developed at theSPURA site. 175 o them expressed some degreeo interest in seeing low and mixed-income hous-ing on the site, and they signed up to learn more

about advocating or such a possibility.

JFREJ volunteers also held a small workshop(which was similar in ormat to the larger ones)on a Sunday last April or people who were inter-ested in urther discussions around what shouldbe developed at the site.

>Survey questionnaire

We designed a short survey and disseminatedit at various locations throughout the Lower EastSide (and also created on online version o it).Survey questionnaires were distributed through-out the community by several methods, includ-ing door-knocking in large residential buildingsnear the site (e.g., the Grand Street Co-ops andNYCHA’s Seward Park Extension development)and canvassing public places such as parks, romas ar north as Tompkins Square Park and as arsouth as the Brooklyn Bridge.

Like the exercise that was done at the publicworkshops, the survey’s straightorward questionswere written to gauge what land uses peoplewant to be developed on the site (i.e., commer-cial, residential, community acilities). Some othe questions were written to see i people werewilling to make trade-os in order to ensurethat some o their highest priorities were met(i.e., “cross-subsidizing” aordable units withmarket-rate units, accepting bigger buildings inexchange or more aordable units). Ultimately,308 valid surveys were collected; Pratt analyzedthe responses, and the results are presented inthe next section o this report.

rounding the SPURA site. Translators and trans-lation equipment was available or speakers oCantonese/Mandarin and Spanish at our o thesessions. Over 250 people attended the publicworkshops.



>Oral history project GOLES also engaged community members in anoral history project whereby interested individu-als were interviewed at length about the past,current state, and uture o the Lower East Side.We subsequently reviewed many o the interviewtranscripts and extracted the parts that wererelevant to SPURA. Recurring themes rom theseinterviews are described in the next section othis report.

Outreach Methods Because o the high importance that SPURA Mat- ters placed on hearing rom a wide array o com-munity members, the participating organizationsundertook various outreach methods and made agood aith eort to include all types o stakehold-ers in the public workshops and as survey respon-dents. Despite limited resources, many hours

and serious eorts were put into getting as manypeople as possible to participate in the publicworkshops or ll out a survey.

GOLES spearheaded the outreach activities andenlisted help rom other well-established localcommunity-based organizations who could en-gage their own bases o interest. For example,University Settlement’s history o working with thearea’s Chinese amilies helped ensure that sev-eral members o this community turned out to thepublic workshop held there. Cabrini ImmigrantServices and Two Bridges Neighborhood Councilalso encouraged their largely Chinese constitu-ents to participate by lling out the survey. Jewsor Racial and Economic Justice made repeatedconcerted eorts, particularly through door-knock-ing, to encourage residents o the co-op buildingssouth o the SPURA site to attend public workshopsor ll out surveys.

PhotoCredit:GOLES



0

WHAT WE HEARD

Public WorkshopsThe public workshops gave participants a chance to sit together in tables o eight to ten people andhave inormal discussions about what they like and dislike about the neighborhood today and how theSPURA site could be developed to benet various stakeholders rom the surrounding area. We as-signed one volunteer acilitator to each table to guide the discussion and ensure that all voices wereheard. The workshops yielded useul inormation about what a cross-section o stakeholders want orthe uture o SPURA and the Lower East Side in general, but the process itsel was also valuable. Get-ting people together to talk about development can be a contentious undertaking regardless o theneighborhood, but these public workshops demonstrated that people in the Lower East Side are eager

to come together and respectully voice a multitude o opinions about what the area’s uture should looklike.

>What people value about the neighbor-

hood While it is easy to get people to talk about howthe neighborhood is changing in a way that theydon’t like, a lot o people articulate how much theneighborhood still means to them. People likemany aspects o the neighborhood, but some o

the elements that people value the most are com-munity institutions like schools and places o wor-ship. Other characteristics that people like aboutthe Lower East Side are its diversity, vitality, andliveliness.

>What people would want to see

changed A ew themes emerged during the discussionabout what people do not like about the neigh-borhood. The recently erected “ugly” residentialbuildings were oten maligned, and an oversaturation o bars was requently mentioned.

People also spoke o the ill eects o gentrica-tion and the recent overheated real estate market:decreasing aordability that orces residents andtheir institutions out. Several people spoke o thedisappearance o small, independent retail stores(as well as a movie theater close to the SPURAsite), too.



>What people want for the SPURA site Ater the inormal discussion o likes and dislikes, individuals at each table were asked to imagine howthey would distribute a nite set o nancial resources towards the development o the SPURA site. Inorder to acilitate this exercise, a list o potential development “types” was presented, but people weregiven the chance to add to the list i they elt something was missing.

In total, participants o the rst our public workshops--where attendance was the greatest-- distributedtheir hypothetical budget accordingly:

578 Housingthat’saordabletolowandmoderate-incomehouseholds

324 Communityacilitiessuchasschools,daycare,andcommunitycenters 289 Openspaceorrecreationandrelaxation 281 “Green”buildingsareonthesite 239 Amixtureohousingthat’saordabletoavarietyoincomelevels 215 Jobsthatarecreatedromdevelopmentgotolocalresidents 159 Largerbusinessessuchassupermarketsandmovietheaters 154 Smaller,neighborhood-servingbusinesseslikesmallgroceryandhardwarestores 62 Newspaceorretailandothercommercialactivitiesisavailableorlocalentrepreneurs 23 Market-ratehousing(withoutsubsidy)

Housing that’s affordable to low andmoderate-income households

25%

Community facilities such as schools,day care, and community center s

14%

Open space for recreation andrelaxation

12%

“Green” buildings are on the site12%

A mixture of housing that’saffordable to a variety of income

levels10%

Jobs that are created fromdevelopment go to local residents

9%

Larger businesses such assupermarkets and movie theaters

7%

Smaller, neighborhood-servingbusinesses like small grocery and

hardware stores7%

New space for retail and othercommercial activities is available for

local entrepreneurs3%

Market-rate housing (withoutsubsidy)

1%



Housing or low and moderate-income house-holds was the clear priority o workshop par-ticipants, but many other types o developmentare also desired. People want to see mixed-use

development on the SPURA site that includes op-portunities or things like community acilities andopen space but they also want to see small andlarge businesses there.

In their small group discussions, workshop par-ticipants were encouraged to elaborate on and

give more specicity to these broad developmenttypes. For example, an array o community acili-ties was suggested: day care centers, perormancespaces, ater-school activities, senior centers, andhealth centers. Some people cited the need or

a good supermarket to serve people living on theblocks surrounding the SPURA site. Other busi-ness types that were mentioned were a depart-ment store and a movie theater. Finally, othersmentioned the need to preserve the existing streetnetwork and streetscape to ensure that there is anactive street lie with small shops, etc.

PhotoCredit:GOLES



SurveyWe used a short survey questionnaire as an outreach tool so we could engage people who would notbe interested in attending a public workshop in a manner that consumed relatively little time. The sur-veys were available in English, Spanish, and Chinese (the online version was only available in English,and 22 respondents completed it).

In total, we collected 308 valid surveys. A ew o the questions on the survey did not register this manyresponses, however, because some respondents did not answer all o the questions. In other words, the

sample size or these questions is considerably smaller. Questions with less than 250 respondents aremarked with an asterisk. (Two o the survey’s questions, Q1 and Q5, could not be processed becausethe rate o response was too low to merit any analysis. In these questions, people were asked to rankdierent types o development that they wanted to see on the site, but the question was requently mis-understood, with respondents picked one option instead.)

The survey questions are presented below, exactly as they were written on the questionnaire. A narra-tive is interspersed throughout the questions to provide brie interpretations o the survey results.

>Housing

Iaordablehousingisaconcernoyours,wouldyoubewillingtoacceptacertainportionomarket- rateunitsaswellasaordableunits?(Thiscouldhelpsubsidizeaordable,orbelowmarket-rate,units.)Checkone:(Q3) 74% Yes 18% No 8% Aordablehousingisnotaconcern omine

Ihousinggetsbuiltonthesite,whatkindshoulditbe?(Q2) 60% Lowtomoderate-incomehousing 8% Market-ratehousing 32% Amixtureoboth

There is a strong preerence or housing that is aordable to households in the “low” to “moderate”income range. However, this preerence is not absolute: an overwhelming amount o people – almost75% -- said that including market-rate units would be a suitable way to pay or the “aordable” units.The survey questions were not designed to ask people what proportion o market-rate and aordableunits there should be, but the responses demonstrate the community’s acknowledgement o the impor-tance o trade-os.



The responses to the conceptual question about the trade-o between building size and variouscommunity benets again point to people’s willingness to accept some level o compromise toensure that stakeholder needs are met. Things like job creation, community services, and spaceor small businesses were all deemed valuable enough to accept in exchange or larger buildingsize. The importance o jobs being created rom development on the SPURA site was echoed in asubsequent question in which the creation o construction jobs was considered “very important” byalmost 80% o survey respondents.

Howimportantaretheollowingtoyou:(Q8)

While a quarter o respondents would like to seerental units built on the site, well over hal o themwould preer a mix o rental and ownership units.This is possibly a refection o the neighborhood’sdiversity (and thus, a range o housing needs) ando its long history as a rental community.

>Building Size

A signicant portion o people, one-third, said that the size o new buildings doesn’t matter to them.O the people who cared about building size, about 40% said they should be on the scale o theSeward Park Co-ops at about 20 stories, and 60% said they should be closer to the size o a typicaltenement building at about our to six stories.

Shouldhousingonthesiteberental,ownership,orboth?Checkone:(Q4) 26% Rentals 13% Ownership(likeco-opsorcondos) 61% Amixtureoboth

Whichotheollowingbestdescribeshowbignewbuildingsonthesiteshouldbe?(Q6) 35% Thesizedoesn’tmatter 26% SimilartothesizeotheSewardParkCo-ops(about20stories) 39% Similartothescaleomosttenementbuildings(aboutourtosixstories)

Howwillingwouldyoubetoincreasethesizeodevelopmentonthesiteiitwereaccompaniedbyanyotheollowing:(Q7)

Yes No Itdepends82% 9% 9% Additionalcommunityservices*76% 14% 10% Low-incomehousing76% 12% 12% Moderate-incomehousing*85% 6% 9% Well-payingjobsorlocalresidents*76% 11% 14% Morespaceorsmallbusinessgrowth*55% 28% 17% Anattractivedesignornewbuildings*75% 13% 12% Preser vationorent-regulatedhousingunits*

* Questions with less than 250 respondents



Newjobsthatarecreatedromdevelopment(construction)gotolocalresidents 79% Veryimportant 15% Somewhatimportant 6% Notimportant

Newspaceorretailandothercommercialactivi- tiesismadeavailableorlocalentrepreneurs* 53% Veryimportant 33% Somewhatimportant 14% Notimportant

Newbuildingsarebuilt“green”* 70% Veryimportant 19% Somewhatimportant 11% Notimportant

Just over hal o respondents reported that it wouldbe very important to create new space or retailand other commercial activities in uture devel-opment at SPURA. About a third said it wouldbe “somewhat” important. Only 13.6% said itwouldn’t be important.

Finally, the growing popularization o the con-cept o “sustainability” and green developmentis refected in these survey results: about 70%o people said that it was very important that thenew buildings that are designed or the SPURAsite are “green.”

Pleaseeelreetoaddanythingelseherethatisimportanttoyou(Q9)(anopenquestion)

Only about 50 people responded to it, but theanswers to this open-ended question were airly diverse. Many o the comments repeated or elabo-rated on the themes covered in the survey: therewere several comments that avored housing orlow-income amilies, the need or community acili-ties or youth and seniors, and the desire to creategreen spaces. Other responses introduced newideas, some o them making specic suggestionsabout what should be on the SPURA site (e.g.,a dog park, a health clinic, community gardens,parking or shoppers o local businesses). Peopleshared broader suggestions and ideas about howthe SPURA site should be redeveloped, too:

“TheSPURAareashouldresultinaneighborhood.”

“ThispropertyshouldactasanArcDeTriomphethatcelebratesthehistoricLowerEastSideandthepassagetoBrooklyn.Growth,prosperityandacelebrationothe21stCenturywouldbefttingandproper.”

“It’simportantthatwhateverisdonewiththespacebeneftstheentirecommunityandnotjustasmallportionoit.”

* Questions with less than 250 respondents



>Demographics of survey respondents:

Pleaseindicateyourhousehold’sannualincome:(Q12) Lessthan$25,000 44% $25,000to$49,999 34% $50,000to$100,000 14% Morethan$100,000 8%

HowlonghaveyoulivedintheLES?(Q13) Lessthanfveyears 17% 5to10years 18% 11to20years 25% 21yearsormore 40%

o The people who completed the survey largely represent the working age population: almost 80%o the respondents are between the age o 25 and 64.

o The vast majority o survey respondents are split three ways between Latinos, Whites, and Asians.Only 6.5% o respondents identied as Arican American.

o Survey respondents tend to be part o working class households: almost 80% o respondents live inhouseholds that make up to $50,000.

o A majority o the respondents are long-time Lower East Siders: almost 65% have lived there orover a decade, and 40% have lived there or two decades or more.

Howoldareyou?(Q10) Under18 2% 18to24 5% 25to34 19% 34to64 60% 64orolder 14%

Whatbestdescribesyourraceand/orethnicbackground?(Q11) Latino/Hispanic 27% Arican-American 7% Asian-American 30% White 30% Other 6%



Wheredoyoulive?(Youdon’thavetogiveyourexactaddress,justthecrossstreets.)(Q14)

Oral HistoriesGOLES created the Seward ParkOral History Project as part o SPU- RA Matters as one method or get-ting people’s voices about the LowerEast Side and the SPURA site heard.The lead interviewer, ethno-linguist

Kara Becker, conducted over 100hour-long interviews with communityresidents and asked them a serieso questions about growing up andliving in the ever-changing neighbor-hood.

Overall, the interviewees expresseddeep enthusiasm or the Lower EastSide and its ormer and current resi-dents and institutions. They spoke

passionately about how importanta place it has been in their personal

development and how they becameactive in various community issues, and

they addressed their hopes and desiresor its uture.

For the purpose o this report, we reviewedalmost one-quarter o the lengthy interview

transcripts, paying particular attention to the sec-tions that ocused on the Seward Park site. Thelead interviewer asked people specic questionsabout what they knew about the urban renewalsite and its history as well as what their personalvision or developing the site would be. Severalthemes about the uture o SPURA emerged romthese interviews, and they are described in moredetail below.

This map shows where the survey respondentslive, by indicating the intersection that is closest to their home.



>Affordable and mixed-income housing O the 25 oral histories that we reviewed orSPURA-related commentary, the desire to de-velop aordable housing was the most dominanttheme. Several interviewees specically men-tioned that at least some portion o new hous-ing units should be reserved or long-standingresidents o the area and their children; they sawthis as a way to help alleviate the eects thatgentrication is having on the Lower East Side.A ew people were concerned about the potentialghettoization o very poor people and mentionedthat new housing should not solely be or verylow-income households, but more reported thatpreerence should be given to low-income house-holds who have a strong need or housing. Themajority o those interviewed said that a mix olow, moderate and middle-income housing wouldbe highly desirable.

>Scale of new buildings Several people indicated that the size and den-sity o new development was important to them.While some said that they wanted to see low-riseaordable housing and expressed concern thattall buildings would obstruct views, others men-tioned that they would be more willing to acceptat least some taller and/or bulkier buildings i itmeant that low and moderate-income units couldbe developed. A couple o people even men-tioned that building height and size were not anissue or them.

>Mixed-use development While it was clearly the development type thatwas discussed most oten, housing was not theonly thing that the interviewees want or theuture o the SPURA site. Most o the people

whose interviews we studied see the large site asan opportunity to create what would essentiallybe a micro-neighborhood within the context othe surrounding existing neighborhood. As such,they said that open/green space, communitycenters, and businesses would be appropriateand desirable complements to housing on thesite. There was no clear consensus on what typeso businesses would be ideal: some want small,local businesses to stimulate the local economy;one person mentioned that “more upscale” retailis needed; and a couple o people mentioned theneed or ood-related retail such as a supermarket.While one person supports the idea o a HomeDepot or a Costco on the site, another specicallymentioned opposing big box stores. At least oneperson cited that job generation would be a posi-tive outcome o putting businesses on the site.

>Diversity and inclusiveness

When talking about the character o the LowerEast Side, many o the interviewees cited its longhistory as a culturally and ethnically diverse area.Not only was this mentioned several times, but itwas clearly something that is highly valued andthat people want to continue into the uture. Thisis refected in the act that many people said thatdevelopment on the SPURA site should be done ina way so as to attract a diverse population andthat it should benet the entire community, notjust certain groups. The desire or diversity andinclusiveness was not limited to housing. It wasparticularly discussed in terms o building commu-nity spaces and multi-cultural community centers.In act, one woman said that there should be noreligious institutions on the site because it wouldby denition exclude some groups o people.



CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

Summary of FeedbackThe local stakeholders that participated in the SPURA Matters initiative have many ideas or how theSPURA site could be redeveloped in a way that is benecial to the community. While the most popularone seems to be creating housing or working-class and moderate-income households, many peopleavor mixed-income housing on the site. In addition to residential development, space or communityactivities and businesses is also desired. Finally, people want to see development generate jobs or lo-cal residents.

Obviously, not every participant agreed with this summary. There were dissenting opinions voiced

in the surveys and public workshops, i.e., that there should be no aordable housing built because“there’s too much already” on the Lower East Side. However, there was broad agreement that sometype o mixed-use development that includes a component o housing or low and moderate-incomehouseholds should guide planning or the site.

Next StepsThe community engagement process that is documented in this report is the rst step in a renewedpublic conversation about redeveloping the SPURA site. Partially because o the SPURA Matters initia-tive, Community Board 3 is now engaged in an active planning process or the site that has includeddiscussions with the relevant city agencies (e.g., the Economic Development Corporation and the De-partment o Housing Preservation and Development). The Board is working to nalize a set o planningprinciples or the site by the end o 2009, in order to ensure that a uture city-issued RFP is in line withcommunity goals or its redevelopment. Concurrently, the community groups who collaborated on theSPURA Matters initiative are organizing a campaign to ensure that the planning process or the site isopen, transparent, air, and ultimately results in something that can benet the community.



0

SPURA Report - Second Edition [ENG] [FINAL] [2009]

Documents

Transcript of SPURA Report - Second Edition [ENG] [FINAL] [2009]