Atlantic Avenue Rezoning Heightens Gentrification Fears in Central Brooklyn – New York City News Service

Report on the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan Rezoning and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A rezoning initiative in central Brooklyn, the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan, has generated significant friction between the New York City Council and local residents. The plan’s approval process and final affordability provisions have raised critical questions regarding its alignment with key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning poverty, inequality, and sustainable urban development.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The core of the conflict relates to SDG 11, which aims to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. While the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan is intended to transform an industrial corridor into a mixed-use area with new housing, its implementation has been criticized for failing to adequately address Target 11.1, which calls for access to adequate, safe, and affordable housing for all.

Plan Overview

• Objective: To create a mixed-use corridor from an automobile-oriented industrial zone.
• Housing Targets: The plan is slated to produce 4,600 new housing units.
• Affordability Component: Approximately 1,900 of the new units are designated as permanently affordable, meaning they will remain income-restricted to safeguard against market fluctuations.

Challenges to Inclusive Urbanization

The public review process, initiated in October 2024, revealed a significant divergence between community priorities and the final approved plan. This disconnect challenges the principles of participatory and integrated planning outlined in SDG Target 11.3. Community stakeholders, fearing displacement, advocated for a deeply affordable housing option that was ultimately excluded from the final version approved by the City Council in May 2025.

SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The debate over affordability levels directly impacts the plan’s potential to contribute to SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The community’s proposal was designed to serve the most economically vulnerable residents, while the approved version targets a higher income bracket, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities.

Competing Affordability Options

1. Community Board 8 Proposal (Excluded): This “deeply affordable” option would have required 20% of new units to be affordable for households earning 40% of the Area Median Income (AMI), equivalent to approximately $31,000 for a three-person household. This aligns closely with SDG 1 by targeting households at risk of poverty.
2. City Council Approved Plan: This option mandates that 25% of units be set aside for households earning 60% of the AMI, or around $47,000 for a three-person household. While this creates more total “affordable” units, it fails to serve the lowest-income residents, undermining efforts to achieve SDG 10.

Gentrification and Demographic Shifts

The rezoning occurs within a context of rapid gentrification, a trend that works directly against the goal of reducing inequalities. Historical data for the area underscores the community’s concerns:

• Between 2000 and 2023, the Black population in Prospect Heights and Crown Heights decreased from 78.1% to 45.5%.
• Over the same period, the white population in the area quadrupled.

These demographic shifts, coupled with rising housing costs, illustrate a pattern of displacement that disproportionately affects long-term, lower-income, and minority residents, further widening the inequality gap that SDG 10 seeks to close.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The controversy also highlights challenges related to SDG 16, which promotes effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The approval process was marked by what meeting minutes described as “significant confusion.”

Institutional Accountability

Council member Crystal Hudson later issued an apology for a “misunderstanding” during the vote, acknowledging a lack of clarity in the proceedings. While the council justified its decision with data from a Racial Equity Report suggesting households at 51-80% of AMI are also vulnerable, the procedural breakdown eroded trust between the community and its elected officials. This incident underscores the need for more transparent and accountable governance in urban planning to ensure that development is truly participatory and equitable.

Future Actions

In an effort to rectify the situation and better align the project with community needs and sustainability principles, Community Board 8, in partnership with the Department of City Planning, intends to file a text amendment. This “unprecedented” action aims to re-introduce a deeply affordable housing option into the Atlantic Avenue plan, demonstrating a continued civic effort to hold institutions accountable and advocate for inclusive development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the Atlantic Avenue rezoning plan in Brooklyn touches upon several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by highlighting issues of urban development, housing affordability, social equity, and community participation. The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most central SDG, as the article revolves around urban rezoning, the creation of new housing, and the impact of these changes on the community’s sustainability and inclusivity.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article extensively discusses the displacement of longtime, lower-income, and predominantly Black residents due to gentrification and rising housing costs, which directly relates to reducing inequalities within and among communities.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The debate over “deeply affordable” housing for households earning as little as 40% of the area median income connects the issue directly to poverty and the ability of the poorest residents to afford basic needs like housing.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The friction between the New York City Council and Community Board 8, the lack of transparency, and the confusion surrounding the vote highlight challenges in ensuring responsive, inclusive, and participatory decision-making by public institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.1: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.” The entire article is a case study of this target. The conflict is centered on the definition of “affordable housing,” with the community pushing for a “deeply affordable” option (20% of units for those at 40% AMI) while the City Council approved a less affordable option (25% of units for those at 60% AMI). The plan to create 1,900 permanently affordable units out of 4,600 new units is a direct attempt to address this target.
  • Target 11.3: “By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.” The article highlights a failure in this area. The community’s wishes for the “deepest affordability option” were not reflected in the final plan, leading to backlash and a sense that the planning process was not fully participatory or inclusive. The “significant confusion” during the public hearing and the subsequent need for an “unprecedented” text amendment underscore the challenges in achieving this target.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race… or economic or other status.” The article details how gentrification is leading to the social and economic exclusion of longtime residents. The demographic shift, where the Black population fell from 78.1% to 45.5% while the white population quadrupled, is a stark example of this exclusion. The fear that residents “who have actually created this community… will not be able to live in this community” directly speaks to the failure to ensure inclusion for lower-income and minority groups.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The process described in the article demonstrates a breakdown in responsive and participatory decision-making. A community board member stated the final plan “didn’t reflect the community’s wishes,” and a council member had to apologize for a “misunderstanding” between the board and the council. This points to institutions that are not fully responsive to the communities they represent.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicators for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

  • Proportion of new housing units that are affordable: The plan aims for 1,900 affordable units out of 4,600 total new units (approximately 41%).
  • Affordability levels based on Area Median Income (AMI): The article specifies two distinct indicators: one plan requiring 20% of units to be affordable for households at 40% AMI, and the approved plan requiring 25% of units for households at 60% AMI. These percentages serve as direct measures of the depth of affordability.
  • Rate of rent increase: The article cites a historical indicator of gentrification, noting that rents in nearby Williamsburg and Greenpoint rose by 78% between 1990 and 2014. This metric can be used to track housing cost burdens over time.

• Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  • Changes in racial and ethnic composition of neighborhoods: The article provides specific data: “The share of Black residents in Prospect Heights and Crown Heights fell to 45.5 percent in 2023 from 78.1 percent in 2000, while the white population in the area quadrupled.” This is a direct indicator of displacement and demographic shifts.
  • Median household income levels: The article mentions the estimated median household income in the area ($72,335 from 2017-2021) and the specific income thresholds for affordable housing eligibility (e.g., “$31,000 for a family of three”). These figures can be used to track economic changes and assess who benefits from new housing.

• Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  • Level of community participation and satisfaction in decision-making: While not a number, the article implies this through qualitative evidence such as the community board voting against the final plan, the “significant confusion” at hearings, and the need for a text amendment to address community concerns. This can be seen as an indicator of a non-responsive process.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nycitynewsservice.com