OneLIC Panel Discussion
Lessons from the past and visions for Long Island City's future
I got back earlier tonight from a panel discussion at Culture Lab on the future of Long Island City, centered around the OneLIC neighborhood plan — which I’ve written about extensively, if you’ve been following along. Moderator Thomas Devaney (Municipal Art Society) led the conversation with panelists Anatole Ashraf (Queens Community Board 2), Lisa Goren (Long Island City Coalition), Memo Salazar (Western Queens Community Land Trust), and Annemarie Gray (Open New York).
Lessons from the 2001 Rezoning
A major theme of the discussion was learning from the mistakes of the 2001 Special Long Island City Mixed-Use District rezoning. That rezoning over two decades ago allowed high-rise development in the area to attract commercial tenants and supposedly prevent them from moving to Jersey City. The plan faced opposition from manufacturers concerned about being displaced by rising real estate values. As a compromise, city officials agreed to develop a program to preserve the area's 17,000 manufacturing jobs. The new district, which was estimated to create up to five million square feet of new space, allowed for a mix of commercial, residential, community, and light manufacturing uses. While some manufacturers remained concerned about the impact on their businesses and relationships with local subcontractors, city officials maintained that the plan was carefully designed to minimize the effect on existing manufacturing operations.
Lisa said that, although the 2001 plan was meant to create a mixed-use neighborhood, it led to predominantly high-rise luxury residential development, which drove up housing prices instead of making them more affordable. Memo criticized the lack of enforcement of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), stating that it was ignored, leading to uncoordinated and rapid development. Anatole echoed these concerns, calling the previous rezoning a "free-for-all" that lacked proper planning and agency coordination.
Affordability & Infrastructure
On the topic of affordability, the panelists debated the effectiveness of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH). In 2016, New York City approved the MIH program as part of Mayor Bill de Blasio's housing plan. The program requires that new residential developments in rezoned areas include a percentage of permanently affordable housing units. There are multiple options for income levels and set-asides that can be applied, including 25% of units at an average of 60% AMI, 30% at 80% AMI, 20% at 40% AMI, or 30% at 115% AMI. The program aims to create more affordable housing across a range of incomes as neighborhoods are rezoned for growth.
Annemarie defended MIH as an important tool but noted that it alone cannot solve the housing crisis. She emphasized that a broader approach is needed, one that ensures a diverse range of housing options across the city. Memo questioned the notion of housing scarcity, pointing out that NYC’s population has declined by 600,000 people, yet affordability remains a challenge. Annemarie countered that, historically, New York has built significantly more housing, and current development is not keeping pace with demand.
I have to say that I agree with Annemarie here. A few points—
Despite NYC's population decline, demand for housing remains high due to shrinking household sizes and a growing number of single-person households.
Despite fewer residents, low rental vacancy rates—at 1.4%—suggest that available housing remains scarce.
NYC has historically underproduced housing, with reports estimating a current shortage of 540,000 housing units in the region.
Infrastructure was another pressing concern. Lisa stressed that before LIC absorbs thousands of new residents, existing infrastructure issues need to be addressed, particularly in transit, open space, and flood resilience. She noted that LIC ranks among the lowest in per capita open space, calling parks economic drivers that should be prioritized in the plan.
Industrial & Economic Development
Beyond housing, panelists discussed the need for economic and industrial development. Lisa advocated for strengthening the Industrial Business Zone (IBZ) to attract clean manufacturing jobs rather than focusing solely on high-rise residential buildings. IBZs were established in 2006 in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens to support industrial and manufacturing businesses by offering targeted services, addressing infrastructure issues, and providing relocation tax credits to qualifying businesses. The Bloomberg administration committed to not supporting residential rezoning in these areas to ensure land use certainty.
The panel also debated the future of the Department of Education (DOE) building in LIC. The New York City Economic Development Corporation is planning to issue a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) for the redevelopment of the 672,000-square-foot DOE building at 44-36 Vernon Blvd. The RFEI will invite proposals to convert all or part of the building into commercial, light industrial, and community-serving spaces. While some community groups (like Memo’s Western Queens Community Land Trust) advocate for the building to remain in public hands, the city views this redevelopment as an opportunity to provide LIC with additional waterfront access and amenities. The RFEI process is expected to begin this spring, coinciding with the ULURP certification of the OneLIC neighborhood plan. Memo strongly opposed selling public land to private developers, arguing that it should be repurposed for community benefit. Anatole reinforced this thought, noting that Queens receives disproportionately low city funding, and public assets should be leveraged to maximize community gain.
Equity & Community Involvement
The conversation also touched on equity and rezoning across the city. Annemarie pointed out that while neighborhoods like LIC are being rezoned for growth, more affluent (predominantly white) areas are not contributing their fair share to solving the housing crisis. Memo took a broader perspective, criticizing the city's neoliberal and austerity-driven approach, which he argued prioritizes profit over public needs. The point he was making actually reminded me of sociologist Harvey Molotch’s famous paper, “The City as a Growth Machine” — which presents cities (somewhat unfairly, in my opinion) as "growth machines" driven by land-based elites who use local government to intensify land use and attract investment, increasing property values.
Ultimately, the panelists mostly agreed that while development is necessary, it must be approached with careful planning, transparency, and a commitment to community benefit. Without sufficient infrastructure investments, equitable housing policies, and protections against displacement, OneLIC risks repeating the mistakes of the past. And it’s going to fall on the CB2 Land Use Committee (and me) to take the lead on advocating for those benefits during the ULURP process.