NEW YORK CITY-Several weeks ago, Eldad Gothelf, a senior planning and development specialist and a member of the Herrick, Feinstein Land Use Group, penned a piece for GlobeSt.com on his vision for zoning in the city. Framed in the context of the 50th anniversary of the 1961 Zoning Resolution, Gothelf outlined several key concepts to keep New York City vibrant in the future. GlobeSt.com caught up with him to follow up on these concepts and to find out why he advocates for bigger, taller buildings and more conservative landmark preservation.

GlobeSt.com: What part of the 1961 Zoning Resolution had the largest impact on the City in your view?

Gothelf: The 1961 zoning was a complete overhaul of zoning as it was known here in New York City. There was zoning before that—there was a 1916 resolution. But in 1961, the zoning resolution that passed revamped completely the way that zoning was looked at in New York City. It introduced everything we know about the specific technicality about zoning—height and bulk and floor area ratio—in ways that didn’t exist previously in and it dealt with use in ways that didn’t exist previously in New York City. It separated uses in a way that the City wasn’t used to and it created new zoning for every part of New York City, which was obviously a massive undertaking and it really began to shape the City in a completely different way moving forward.

GlobeSt.com: Some of the transportation considerations in that zoning resolution must have been new from the 1916 resolution?

Gothelf: That’s exactly right. There was a huge change in transportation issues and where people worked and where they lived. So there was a big emphasis on parking. In 1961—the post World War II era—if you could achieve automobile ownership that was a status symbol. And the zoning resolution in 1961 planned for a lot of car ownership and we’re dealing with a lot of those issues now. Fifty years later car ownership in New York City is an issue and parking and traffic are big issues. In fact the Department of City Planning is today undertaking several different parking studies to see what they can do to revamp the parking regulations so that they don’t encourage parking in ways that are now frowned upon by planners.

GlobeSt.com: In addition to the parking, are they any other parts of that 1961 zoning that in your view need to be updated or looked at again?

Gothelf: That’s an issue that came up this past year with this discussion of the 50-year anniversary of the zoning resolution—should it be scrapped or should it continue to be amended? Because basically it was a couple of thousand pages in 1961 and it’s been amended ever since, hundreds and hundreds of times. Neighborhoods have changed so dramatically in the last 50 years that the zoning has had to change but the resolution itself as a whole has maintained the same format. But it’s just amendments on top of amendments. The question over the last year was if it makes sense, like was done in 1961, to start fresh. It seems like there is no political will or any major movement to start fresh but there are certain issues that are very relevant today that were not addressed in 1961. The sustainability issue is a big one and affordability and affordable housing—the City has begun addressing those over the last couple of years. But those are issues that need to be addressed moving forward.

GlobeSt.com: You mentioned the importance of three concepts in the piece that you wrote for GlobeSt.com: density, sustainability and affordability. Is there one of those that you can pick out as being most crucial?

Gothelf: I am an urban planner. I have a background in planning and training in planning, so density is the one, if I had to chose one, that I would point to. But it’s important to remember that these three concepts—density, affordability and sustainability—all are interrelated and focusing on one really will improve the others. If you focus on density, then you definitely improve the sustainability issues just because the more people who live in the urban centers, the less we have development of previously undeveloped land and we have less people traveling to work in cars. In terms of affordability, if you have a denser environment it’s just the very basic concept of supply and demand. If there’s more housing then the price will reflect that—there will be lower prices for the housing.

A big concern for me and for planners in general is a lot of the landmarking that’s happened in the last years and decades. Large swaths of the city are now part of these historic districts, which freezes these neighborhoods in place. It becomes a snapshot, so that’s it—this is how we want the neighborhood to stay. It becomes very difficult to get any development through those neighborhoods. That in a sense raises the cost because the amount of housing is static, so the supply may not meet the demand.

GlobeSt.com: Which leads to a concept that might be controversial for those landmark advocates you mention: upzoning. Can you talk about what it is and why it’s important in your view?

Gothelf: Upzoning means that we increase the density—meaning you’re allowed to build more and greater and taller buildings. The issue there is that New York City has, especially relative to the rest of the United States, fantastic public transportation. New York City subway and the bus service are really a great way to transport people throughout the city. The infrastructure is there. If we do upzoning they’ll have taller buildings, bigger buildings and more people. There are concerns from neighborhood groups who say that they’re against this because they like the neighborhoods the way they are. And that’s nothing new. That’s the way neighborhoods have been for a long time. But neighborhoods change, they always change. We have to wise about how we do it.

GlobeSt.com: Do you have any idea what incentives and bonuses the City might offer developers to entice them to build more affordable housing?

Gothelf: Today the City has an inclusionary housing program, which applies in some districts and neighborhoods in the City. Where it applies, basically you are allowed to increase the density of the building if you provide 20% affordable housing, either onsite or offsite. And you get a bonus of about 33%. That’s been successful at times. It has to do with how good the real estate market is, so if there’s a lot of demand for development, then developers will want get every square foot they can and it will be valuable to them, valuable enough that they’ll use the affordable housing bonus.

It seems to me that the inclusionary housing program should be applied throughout the city. I don’t know why it’s limited to some. But I believe the bonus should be available city wide. And then the bonus should be increased. To me it’s win-win because it will entice more developers to use the program, it increases more affordable housing and it increases density.