.@mitchmcewen starts by quoting Audre Lorde: “For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.” Discusses racist origins of zoning; the quote works just as well to explain why inclusionary zoning, which cannot exist without exclusionary zoning, cannot work 
She draws a line between the recently respelled cabaret law and regulation of slaves – Common Council in pre-revolutionary New York limited slaves to groups of four, dropped in the early 18th century to three
She’s leaning into this – says there’s an anti-market aspect to zoning left over from old slave codes, also something about temporary autonomous zones. Then it ends as quickly as it starts! Next presenter says he’ll propose something bold...compared to last one, I doubt it!!
Next presenter (Jack Robbins, FXCollaborative) says 1916 code was “explicit about exclusivity.” 1961 zoning based on urban renewal (presenters keep citing 1961’s theoretical 12 million-resident capacity, totally unrealistic unless the whole city was rebuilt through urban renewal)
My magnum opus!
He asks, why haven’t we done a comprehensive rewrite of our zoning code? He blames entrenched “zoning-industrial complex,” but the truth is that nobody has truly rewritten their zoning code since the postwar wave
He cites examples of cities that he says have done comprehensive rewrites, but I’m not sure he’s right. He cites Miami (which really just stuck an ADDITIONAL form-based code while leaving its old code in place) and LA (not sure what he’s referring to, don’t think this is true)
Now @SoBendito is up and we get more of me
He points out the absurdity of light and air requirements getting stricter as new technologies (air conditioning, etc.) have made rooms with less clearance more livable, and then handing out dispensations entirely if a building is old
David Karnovsky says ULURP is a “marvelous process that has stood the test of time,” then tells an anecdote about how it was well received in South Africa by Nelson Mandela when David Dinkins explained it to him. So at least it got the endorsement of the world’s worst planners??
Feels like neither David nor Mitch really understands ULURP – David paints it as a negotiation between diverse parties, Mitch as dictated by business interests. In reality it’s a two-way negotiation between the generally YIMBY mayor and the generally NIMBY local council member
Now an architect questioner is saying the presenters haven’t acknowledged that all of zoning is dictated by real estate developers. @SoBendito responds that the RE industry isn’t a monolith, says the zoning code is not serving small Albanian developers in the Bronx, for example
Joe Rose is now providing a comment instead of a question, berating the presenters for oversimplification. Seems particularly miffed at @mitchmcewen’s Cabaret Law comments. Then ends it by saying that City Council has never improved anything regarding zoning (fact check: true)
Now a preservationist & architect is says the zoning code is impossible to use, @SoBendito’s Albanian contractor can’t understand it. A bit presumptuous...NYC’s zoning code is complex, but the small actors understand it quite well. The substance is the problem, not the complexity
David says San Francisco produces very little housing, and at least NYC isn’t California. @SoBendito points out that what he said about SF is wrong – SF, in fact, outbuilds NYC. I’d point out that at least California is moving to fix its problems; what’s NYS doing?
