After a summer of public input, discussion, and other programming, Providence City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan at 5:30 pm this coming Monday, Sept. 16 at 25 Dorrance Street.
To gain a broader understanding of what comprehensive planning can look like across the country, the Providence Preservation Society hosted a Zoom panel Thursday evening titled “The Intentional City: Learning from Brooklyn and Austin.” Audience members got to hear from three urban planning and design experts about their experience drafting comprehensive plans in their respective communities.
Juan Camilo Osorio, associate professor at Pratt Institute’s Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment; Cara Bertron, manager of the Equity-Based Preservation Plan for the City of Austin; and Spencer Williams, director of land use and topography for Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, participated.
The conversation was moderated by PPS Executive Director Marisa Brown and Daniela Coray, a landscape architect and urban designer.
The panelists emphasized the importance of equitable and inclusive planning, with specific examples from Austin’s forthcoming Equity-Based Preservation Plan and Brooklyn’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan. The conversation emphasized the role of comprehensive planning in creating roadmaps to address housing, health, and environmental justice, while also serving as a moment to involve people in the process of creating their cities.
New York City
Osorio discussed the lack of a comprehensive citywide plan in New York City, and how planners have instead relied on mayoral initiatives from different administrations and capital plans from several agencies. The city’s zoning ordinance is modified roughly every two weeks from public and private applications.
“One of the biggest challenges that we have is actually evaluating whether or not we’re moving in the right direction” with each of those zoning changes, he explained, “without a comprehensive plan that could serve as a blueprint” for evaluation.
Osorio described the policy landscape for advancing planning change in New York City, noting that the Brooklyn Borough comprehensive plan is the “only one of its kind” in the city.
He said that the multilayered process of urban planning and environmental impact investigations permeates the federal, state, and municipal levels. The approval process for land use changes can be additionally complex.
But he emphasized the importance of grassroots movements particularly focused on environmental justice, such as UPROSE and the Green Resilient Industrial District for Sunset Park. Osorio described how the NYC Comprehensive Waterfront Plan showed that there were six neighborhoods that especially “have historically been drastically impacted by noxious sources of pollution, and where this potential contamination has been exacerbated by climate change impacts.”
Osorio highlighted the importance of addressing environmental inequity thoughtfully. “This is really important, but … has to be approached with caution not to result in the accidental displacement of the communities that have been affected by these legacy issues.”
Residents should not “be displaced by gentrification or green gentrification, once those improvements hit the ground,” he said.
Austin
Bertron discussed Austin’s preservation-focused comprehensive plan, describing the in-depth community collaboration that went into the plan’s creation over several years.
She highlighted that the plan was in large part crafted by citizens who volunteered to create a more equitable vision for heritage and preservation in Austin.
“The thing that I think makes this plan really different from most city plans is that it was not developed by city staff. It was not developed by consultants. It was developed by community members on our historic landmark commission,” she said. “When they initiated the creation of this plan, they created a community working group” with 26 members from 19 different zip codes from across the city.
The plan begins with an in-depth, 14-page account of the unjust history of planning and preservation policy in the city of Austin. Red-lining policies and racial covenants instituted by those in power resulted in a largely segregated city, with wealth and power concentrated in white neighborhoods. “An important next step for us was then to look at how that history has resulted in our landscape today,” Bertron said.
Systemic racism also had influence over the distribution of historic landmarks in the city and the application of historic tax credits. “These landmarks and historic districts designated at the local level, only 16% have known associations with historically marginalized communities,” Bertron explained. “That means that 84% of our historic resources celebrate the accomplishments of white men.”
Bertron explained that the working group paid community ambassadors to solicit input on the plan and spread the word. Throughout the planning process, the committee established its vision of preservation in the city: “Historic preservation in Austin actively engages communities in protecting and sharing important places and stories. Preservation uses the past to create a shared sense of belonging and to shape an equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and economically vital future for all,” Bertron shared.
She detailed the specific modifications and action items of the plan, ranging from changing landmark status criteria, anti-displacement policy, to making preservation more accessible. The 14 recommendations can be read in the plan online.
We are “hoping to get to city council in a couple of months for adoption of the plan,” she said, “when the real work will start at implementing the plan.”
Brooklyn Borough
The Office of the Brooklyn Borough President drafted a Comprehensive Plan for the borough, which Williams described. It was the first of its kind in New York City and remains the only plan in the city.
“The comprehensive plan for Brooklyn is the vision for equitable growth. It’s a guiding document for decision-making, and it’s a source for borough-wide data,” he said. “It is not, however, a substitute for citywide planning. It’s not a rezoning proposal, and it’s certainly not something that the borough president can implement or accomplish on its own.”
Williams emphasized that a central value of the plan was that a person’s life span should not be determined by their address and that folks throughout the borough should have access to robust public transportation and other services.
He showed the audience various maps displaying existing and historic conditions in Brooklyn, showing patterns of race, density, tree canopy, and life expectancy.
Williams described how preservation in the borough is largely focused on maintaining historic industrial sites in addition to heritage recognition.
“There are parts of neighborhoods that don’t have any historic districts or any historic landmarks, but it’s not because they don’t necessarily have the history and the quality of the built environment. It just is a reflection that we face some of the same challenges, I think, as Austin when it comes to recognizing the diversity of our built environment.”
“How can we preserve the people, the histories, the culture, as well as really important buildings and landmarks? We are looking for solutions to do that as the city grows and changes,” Williams said.
He highlighted that the plan must be a living document and adapt to the changing needs of the borough.
“It’s a plan that is for the community and therefore must be by the community of Brooklyn. That is something that we continue to take feedback on this plan, and then it’s a living plan,” Williams said. “It’s going to have to continue to live and evolve with the needs and hopes of the people of Brooklyn.”
Looking Ahead
All three speakers emphasized the necessity of accountability and community involvement in shaping future urban development and how comprehensive plans can be a vehicle for that work.
They additionally touched on the importance of collaborating with big community organizations, such as hospitals, universities, and other institutions, to chart out growth in an equitable and thoughtful manner.
Each emphasized that the discussions that come out of comprehensive planning in themselves can be valuable for creating a roadmap for improving communities.
“I feel that cities are also spaces of dissent. They’re not necessarily spaces for consensus and something that [Williams] said really clearly in his profile reminded me that one of the amazing things about the Brooklyn Comprehensive Plan is that it invites people to frame their own discussion by creating a platform for them.”
Attend the City Council hearing on Monday to voice your opinions on Providence’s Comprehensive Plan. You can read the draft plan here.
By Katy Pickens / Preservation and Planning Writer