COLUMBIA LIBRARIES OFFSITE 
 
 AVERY FINE ARTS RESTRICTED 
 
 AR01550519 
 
 {96 f 
 
 THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 Report of the 
 
 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION on the 
 
 DESIGNATION OF THE 
 WEST VILLAGE AREA 
 
 As Appropriate for Urban Renewal and as Master Plan 
 Section M-26 
 
 OCTOBER 18, 1961 
 CALENDAR NO. 3 
 
 CP-16478 
 
 OWL. X 
 
Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift op Seymour B. Di rst Old York Library 
 
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 
 
 -<1) Designation, pursuant to Section 504, Article 15 of the General Municipal Law 
 of the State of New York (Urban Renewal Law), enacted as Chapters 402 and 403 
 of the Laws of 1961, of the area bounded by West Wth Street, Hudson Street, 
 Christopher Street, Washington Street, Morton Street and West Street, Borough of 
 Manhattan, as an Area Appropriate for Urban Renewal (West Village Area); and 
 
 (2) Adoption, pursuant to Section 197 of the New York City Charter, of a modification 
 of the Master Plan of Sections Containing Areas Suitable for Development and 
 Redevelopment comprising the addition of a new Section M-26, a Section Containing 
 Predominantly Non-Residential Areas Characterised by Blight and Suitable for 
 Clearance, Replanning, Reconstruction or Rehabilitation for Predominantly Residential 
 Use, bounded by West Wth Street, Hudson Street, Christopher Street, Washington 
 Street, Morton Street and West Street, Borough of Manhattan. 
 
 (CP-16478) October 18, 1961. 
 
 General Background 
 
 1961-1962 Renezval Program 
 
 On April 4, 1961, Mayor Robert F. Wagner requested that the City Planning 
 Commission prepare a comprehensive "package" of major middle-income housing and 
 urban renewal proposals for the 1961-1962 fiscal year in light of new legislative and 
 administrative procedures which would "accelerate and expand the City's housing 
 operations and give the public an early opportunity to react to individual proposals, 
 not on a piecemeal basis, but within the framework of a total program." 
 
 The Mayor explained that the City's action was in anticipation of pending Federal 
 and State legislation which would enable the City to unify and streamline its housing 
 and renewal programs. The Federal legislation submitted by the President provides 
 major improvements and innovations in programs aimed at rehabilitating and conserving 
 existing housing, new mortgage loan programs for middle-income housing, and additional 
 aids in renewal and redevelopment. The State Urban Renewal Law, since adopted, 
 consolidates the many provisions of previous State laws into a single section with 
 uniform and simplified procedures '(Article 15 of the General Municipal Law). 
 
 On May 1, 1961, the City Planning Commission made public its renewal recom- 
 mendations involving 18 proposed study areas. Of these areas, five were already under 
 study or awaiting study approval, and one — the West Village Area — had been submitted 
 to the Board of Estimate for preliminary approval on February 21st but was referred 
 to the City Planning Commission on April 27, 1961, to conform with the procedures 
 of the new State Urban Renewal Law which went into effect on April 11, 1961. These 
 six areas were included in the "package" because they are an integral part of the 
 over-all plan for the 1961-1962 fiscal year. 
 
 This program was designed to meet the general criteria expressed by the Mayor 
 to provide a substantial number of new middle-income housing units, emphasize con- 
 servation and rehabilitation of existing housing and expand and strengthen the City's 
 industrial base. 
 
 The major features of the Commission's 1961-1962 urban renewal program include: 
 
 1. A large increase in the net housing supply. It is estimated that three to 
 four new dwelling units will be built for every existing unit in proposed clearance 
 areas. The program offers a potential of some 20,000-22,000 new units. 
 
 2. A preponderance of middle-income housing. Approximately 80 per cent of 
 all new housing proposed in the study areas will be middle-income housing constructed 
 under various publicly-aided programs. The balance will be proposed for full 
 tax-paying and low-rent vest-pocket public housing. It should be noted that the 
 public housing in the 1961-1962 renewal program represents a small part of the 
 New York City Housing Authority's program for new construction. 
 
 3. Improvement of the existing housing supply through conservation and 
 rehabilitation affecting an estimated d3,000 to 15,000 units. The Commission stated 
 that "the conservation and rehabilitation of our existing housng supply is the 
 backbone of our urban renewal program. Unless we maintain and improve our 
 
 1 
 
existing stock of fundamentally sound housing, we cannot make real progress toward 
 our ultimate objective of providing every New Yorker with a decent home." 
 
 4. A minimum of tenant displacement and relocation. This year's program 
 stresses study areas characterized over-all by relatively low population densities 
 and vacant land. 
 
 5. Application of sound land use principles. Greater attention is paid to areas 
 of mixed residential and non-residential development. Where declining non-residential 
 uses are in evidence, it is proposed to replace them with residential development 
 to consolidate the residential character of the neighborhood. Industrial and com- 
 mercial uses will be conserved and expanded in areas best suited for these activities. 
 The recommendations for the 1961-1962 program were developed as part of the 
 
 on-going planning studies of the Department of City Plannnig and the preliminary 
 studies of the Community Renewal Program, augmented by available census data and 
 other pertinent housing and planning information, field investigations and, in some areas, 
 special studies by community groups. Each proposed renewal study area was reviewed 
 to insure that it was consistent with and related to the Planning Commission's Com- 
 munity Renewal Program. This program, with the aid of a Federal grant, is developing 
 a long-range, comprehensive urban renewal plan for the City on the basis of studies 
 being carried out both at the City-wide and community level. 
 
 In determining areas suitable primarily for rehabilitation and conservation studies, 
 the Commission sought out communities with a nucleus of sound residential development 
 which was threatened in some way by blighting influences and obsolescence. While in 
 some instances the communities demonstrated an encouraging degree of self -renewal, it is 
 recognized that without an over-all renewal plan, satisfactory neighborhood development 
 would be frustrated by the inability of private individual initiative to provide all the 
 necessary improvements that characterize a desirable residential community. 
 
 If applied in time, a planned conservation and rehabilitation program can both 
 conserve and enhance the existing housing stock and provide long-term protection to 
 a community against the ravages of blight and deterioration. It can encourage, assist 
 and accelerate private home improvement efforts, and provide community and neighbor- 
 hood improvements beyond the ability of the individual residents. Spot clearance and 
 rigid enforcement of local codes and ordinances to correct unsanitary, unsafe and over- 
 crowded housing can eliminate sources of blight and protect the future of an area. 
 Additional parks and open space, playgrounds, schools and other needed neighborhood 
 improvements and services can be provided. Other factors which tend to encourage 
 neighborhood decline — intrusions of unsound and incompatible uses or excessive traffic 
 congestion — can be eliminated or reduced. 
 
 Areas recommended primarily for redevelopment were considered in terms of 
 bringing middle-income housing and low-income housing to those communities where^ 
 such housing is in great demand or where its presence would help create better economic 
 balance. Middle-income housing referred to in this program is that constructed under 
 various publicly-aided programs currently producing rental and cooperative apartments 
 at about $2 1 -$30 per room per month. It would complement the City's present and 
 planned low-income housing program, as well as privately developed full tax-paying 
 housing. The desire to strike a City-wide balance — providing for all types of housing, 
 a range of rentals, and both industrial and residential development — was and is a major 
 force in shaping the renewal program. The size and scope of the program was strongly 
 influenced by this effort to achieve a balanced approach, as well as by a realistic appraisal 
 of funds that can be anticipated for carrying out renewal studies. 
 
 Renewal Procedures 
 
 In order to initiate the program and establish the eligibility of the study areas for 
 requisite governmental aids, it is necessary to designate areas proposed for renewal 
 treatment as urban renewal areas under provisions of Section 504, Article 15 of the 
 General Municipal Law of the State of New York, and where necessary', to modify the 
 Master Plan of Sections Containing Areas Suitable for Development and Redevelopment 
 pursuant to Section 197 of the New York City Charter. 
 
 The designation of an area as appropriate for renewal makes it eligible for study 
 by the Housing and Redevelopment Board. If the Housing and Redevelopment Board 
 wishes to develop a renewal plan for an area so designated, it must seek authorization 
 from the Board of Estimate before it can file an application for Federal funds to cam- 
 out a study and plan. 
 
 The Housing and Redevelopment Board will prepare a renewal plan with com- 
 munity participation and consultation. The plan must be approved by the Planning Com- 
 mission and the Board of Estimate, after appropriate public hearings, before it can be 
 
 2 
 
implemented. In addition, the Board of Estimate must give specific authorization before 
 any property can be acquired in cases where the renewal plan indicates such action. 
 
 Federal approval is also required to carry out the renewal iplan with the aid of 
 Federal grants and in the case of conservation and rehabilitation area's, to make property 
 owners eligible for long-term, low-interest FHA Section 220 home improvement loans, 
 as well as technical assistance and advice in carrying out these improvements. 
 
 In summarizing the proposed 1961-1962 renewal program, the Planning Commission 
 said these proposals "seek to use renewal as a tool .to stabilize and prdtect our neighbor- 
 hoods, not disrupt or destroy them. Wherever possible, we hope to extend the blanket of 
 renewal protection to areas where, with a minimum amount of neighborhood disruption, 
 we can provide the assistance to fix up homes, to alleviate blighting conditions and to 
 create a sound residential environment." 
 
 Legislative Authorization 
 
 Article 15 (Urban Renewal Law) of the General Municipal Law of the State of 
 New York provides that the City may undertake urban renewal projects in order to 
 replan, redevelop, rehabilitate Or Conserve areas that are substandard, insanitary, blighted, 
 deteriorated or deteriorating. Under the law the governmental program may renew resi- 
 dential, non-residential, commercial, industrial or vacant areas and combinations thereof. 
 The State Legislature stated that the purpose of the program is to protect and promote 
 the safety, health, morals and welfare of the people of the State and to promote the 
 sound growth and development of our municipalities. 
 
 Article 15 was passed this year in order to eliminate differences in procedure which 
 existed in the various parts Of the State's General Municipal Law governing urban 
 renewal, (i.e., Sections 72-k, 72-1, 72 -m, 72-n and 72-o). The new law provides a uniform 
 procedure under which the Gty may undertake urban renewal, prepare a plan and 
 execute a project. Pursuant to Section 504 of Article 15, the Board of Estimate author- 
 ized the Planning Commission to designate the areas appropriate for urban renewal ; this 
 action was taken at the Board's April 27, 1961 meeting, Cal. No. 420. 
 
 The type of urban renewal action contemplated may require Federal assistance under 
 Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended. Title I of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
 amended, authorizes Federal financial aid for planning an urban renewal area or project 
 and Federal capital grants for land write-down and supporting facilities. For an area 
 to be eligible for Federal funds under the Housing Act, as well as for other govern- 
 mental aid, generally a prerequisite is the designation of the area On the Master Plan. 
 Section 197 of the New York City Charter authorizes the Planning Commission to 
 prepare and from time to time modify a Master Plan of the Qty as will provide for 
 the improvement Of the City and its future growth and development and afford adequate 
 facilities for the housing, transportation, distribution, comfort, convenience, health and 
 welfare of its population. 
 
 In the Housing Act of 1954 the Congress for the first time enunciated the concept 
 of a total approach to community improvement and blight elimination. Its major purposes 
 were to prevent the spread of blight into good areas, to rehabilitate and conserve areas 
 that were basically sound but were beginning to show signs of deterioration and to clear 
 and redevelop areas that were so far deteriorated that they could not be saved. The Act 
 referred to this new approach as "urban renewal." 
 
 The West Village Urban Renewal Proposal 
 Preliminary Proposal 
 
 The proposed West Village Urban Renewal Area, one of the 18 areas included in 
 the 1961-1962 Urban Renewal Program, is bounded by West llllth Street, Hudson Street. 
 Christopher Street, Washington Street, Morton Street and West Street, Borough of 
 Manhattan. (See attached maps.) 
 
 In its May 1, 1961 announcement, the City Planning Commission stated that: 
 
 "This proposal is made in recognition of the long expressed desire oi the 
 
 Greenwich Village community to foster the residential extension of the Village 
 
 westward, and to protect and encourage the private rehabilitation which has already 
 
 taken place in the area in recent years." 
 
 The Commission noted that the part of the area east of Washington Street contains 
 a mixture of old three- and four-story buildings of the town-house type, most of which 
 have been rehabilitated in the past decade; old-law tenements and an indiscriminate 
 mixture of warehousing, truck terminals, garages and loft buildings. Some of the 
 tenements and most of the non-residential structures are run down and deteriorated. 
 
 The Commission pointed out that "the mixture of land uses, the character of the 
 non-residential activity, the heavy commercial traffic it generates and the presence of 
 the elevated freight line to the west have unquestionably blighted this area. However, 
 
 3 
 
a well-conceived renewal program offers the possibility of creating a sound and highly 
 desirable residential environment. Such a program should encompass selected clearance 
 of blighting influences including removal of the elevated freight line, appropriate resi- 
 dential redevelopment, possible provisions for additional open space and community facili- 
 ties and assistance in rehabilitating run-down but essentially sound structures." 
 
 "The section west of Washington Street," the Commission noted, "is presently 
 occupied largely by deteriorated non-residential uses. There are also a few more sub- 
 stantial non-residential structures and approximately 60 dwelling units and three small 
 waterfront hotels. It is recommended that this section be studied with a view toward 
 industrial redevelopment and rehabilitation. It might be desirable to explore the technical 
 and economic feasibility of decking over this westward section, thus providing a resi- 
 dential break-through to the river which has been strongly urged by community groups." 
 
 Required Formal Actions 
 
 In order to advance an urban renewal program in this area, it is necessary for 
 the Commission to take certain formal actions: 
 
 ( 1 ) Designation off the al>ove area as an Area Appropriate for Urban Renewal 
 pursuant to Section 504, Article 15 of the New York State General Municipal Law 
 (Urban Renewal Law) ; and 
 
 (2) A modication of the Master Plan of Sections Containing Areas Suitable 
 for Development and Redevelopment, as adopted by the City Planning Commission 
 December 30, 1954, revised on April 22, 1959 and subsequently amended, by the 
 addition of a new Section M-26 comprising the area bounded by West 11th Street, 
 Hudson Street, Christopher Street, Washington Street, Morton Street, and West 
 Street, Borough of Manhattan. 
 
 Section M-26 is proposed to be designated as a Section Containing Predominantly 
 X on- Residential Areas Characterized by Blight and Suitable for Clearance, Replanning, 
 Reconstruction or Rehabilitation for Predominantly Residential Use. This action will 
 place the entire West Village Urban Renewal Area as described above on the Master 
 Plan of Areas Suitable for Development and Redevelopment. 
 
 The Public Hearing 
 
 On May 23, 1961, Cal. No. 4, the City Planning Commission fixed June 7, 1961, as 
 the date for a public hearing on these matters. The hearing was duly held on June 
 7, 1961, Cal. No. 4. 
 
 In opening the hearing the Chairman of the Commission reiterated the Commission's 
 May 1 statement that the proposal's intent was "to protect and encourage the private 
 rehabilitation which has already taken place in the area in recent years." He stated at 
 that time: "I've taken the trouble to state all this for the record to assure you that the 
 Planning Commission's recommendations are not empty words, but rather a general 
 framework to which we are bound — and that no plan shall be approved by this Commis- 
 sion unless it is in conformity with our recommendations. Further, this statement for the 
 record should serve to place the integrity of the responsible planning officials of this 
 City 'on the line' so to speak." 
 
 The hearing resulted in a total of 76 speakers. Of these, 15 were generally in favor 
 of the proposal and 61 opposed it. Of those in favor, 12 represented organizations and 
 three, individuals. Of those opposed, 32 represented organizations and 29, individuals. 
 In addition to those speaking 10 communications were read into the record and 38 
 persons appeared without making statements. 
 
 Those generally opposed to the proposal included : 
 
 Senator, 20th Senatorial District; Assemblymen of the 1st and 2d Assembly Districts; 
 Manhattan Borough President's Advisory Planning Board No. 2; Metropolitan Council 
 on Housing; The Committee to Save The West Village; Washington Square Association; 
 Greenwich Village Association; Post 1212 American Legion, and individual property 
 owners and residents living in the area and in Greenwich Village generally. Many of 
 the opponents based their objection on fears that the proposal involved the clearance 
 of the area or of large parts of it for general redevelopment with large-scale housing 
 projects. 
 
 In addition to their opposition based on their fears of such clearance, the major 
 points raised by those opposed were : 
 
 '(1) Any renewal program likely to be carried on by the City will, no matter 
 what may be the objective and intention of the City Planning Commission, result in 
 wholesale demolition and the destruction of a wholesome, thriving, close-knit neigh- 
 borhood. 
 
 (2) There was no consultation with the community in developing the pro- 
 posal, the procedure followed was undemocratic and the people of the area are in 
 overwhelming numbers opposed to the entire concept of renewal. 
 
 4 
 
(3) The area does not meet die legal requirements for designation as an urban 
 renewal area under State law, as it does not evidence the requisite degree of blight 
 and the public health, morals or safety are not imperiled by its existence. 
 
 (4) The area is not in need of public urban renewal aids as it is undergoing 
 extensive private rehabilitation which will be stopped if it is designated as a renewal 
 
 ^^(5) Renewal will destroy the present low-rent but adequate housing occupied 
 by hundreds of modest-income families and replace it with housing renting at 
 levels far beyond their reach. . . . 
 
 (6) The mixed land uses and variegated building types m the area gives it its 
 character and charm and would be destroyed in the process of an urban renewal effort. 
 
 (7) The area includes many older buildings of historical and architectural 
 merit which would be destroyed. 
 
 (8) Renewal would result in the replacement of the present low buildings and 
 intimate character of the area by high-rise, lifeless, standardized projects not in 
 harmony with the surrounding area. 
 
 (9) Many residents of the study area are employed in the industries and 
 businesses within it and would lose their employment if these uses were condemned 
 or forced to relocate elsewhere. 
 
 (10) No renewal of the area should be considered until a comprehensive plan 
 for Greenwich Village as a whole, or even all of Manhattan below 14th Street, is 
 prepared. 
 
 (11) Other areas in the 'City are in far worse condition and their clearance or 
 renewal should be undertaken rather than that of basically good areas. 
 
 (12) The proposal is based not upon the needs of the people in the area but on 
 the desire of real estate interests to find land on which to build luxury housing. 
 Those generally in favor of the proposal included : 
 
 Minority Leader of the City Council; Citizens' Housing and Planning Council; 
 American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO) ; Middle-Income Coopera- 
 tive of Greenwich Village; International Long Shoremen's Association; New York 
 City Central Labor 'Council (AFL-'CIO) ; Independent Cooperators' Committee for 
 Renewal of Cooper Square Cooperative Housing; New York Chapter of Artists' Equity 
 Association and individual property owners and residents living in the area and in 
 Greenwich Village generally. 
 
 Those in favor brought out the following points : 
 
 (1) The Commission's intent to emphasize conservation and rehabilitation 
 represents an opportunity to improve the area while at the same time maintaining 
 its character and retaining most of its present population. 
 
 (2) If the area is designated as suitable for urban renewal it will be able to 
 take advantage of the many public aids available to urban renewal areas such as 
 loans for rehabilitation, provision of needed recreational facilities and general 
 replanning. 
 
 (3) If the area is not so designated and no public renewal program undertaken 
 it will undergo radical changes as private speculative builders continue to remodel 
 or rebuild for high-rent occupancy, with present tenants losing their apartments. 
 
 (4) Under a renewal program some existing loft buildings might be converted 
 to use as artists' studios and living quarters helping retain artists who are being 
 forced to leave the area because they cannot find suitable quarters at rents they can 
 afford. 
 
 (5) The present mixed uses in the area do not present a desirable environment 
 and involve hazards to mothers with baby carriages and to children who must play 
 in the streets and cross heavy truck traffic to get to school. 
 
 (6) The area has inadequate open spaces and recreational facilities. 
 
 (7) Middle-income families with children are leaving Manhattan because they 
 cannot find suitable housing at rents they can afford and only through renewal can 
 conditions be created which will enable them to remain. 
 
 (8) Under a renewal program needed middle-income and low-income housing 
 could be built on suitable sites in the area with a minimum of relocation, as non- 
 residential parcels could be built on first and displaced families relocated in the 
 housing created. 
 
 (9) Under a renewal program needed middle- and low-income housing for 
 waterfront workers, employees in the Federal Building and others working near the 
 site could be provided. 
 
 (10) The City should not and cannot discontinue its renewal program to meet 
 the objections of those who oppose any change from the status quo. 
 
 When all speakers had been heard, the hearing was closed. 
 
 5 
 
Subsequently, opposition to designation of the West Village area by individuals and 
 organizations in Greenwich Village was vigorously pursued. Mayor Wagner, in res]>onse 
 to expressions of this opposition directed to him, issued two public statements, the first 
 on August 18, 1961 and the second on September 6, 1961. Because of their significance 
 the texts are reproduced herewith. 
 
 Statement by Mayor Robert F. Wagner, August 18, 1961 
 Greenwich Village is a part of our City that for generations has had great appeal to 
 New Yorkers and to our visitors. Its small-town character, its residential qualities it- 
 local color, its rich heritage and its cultural undertone must be preserved. 
 
 By this I mean that the bulldozer approach is out, that the Village's low residential 
 structures shall not be obliged to make wav for high rise buildings and that anv con- 
 templated new improvements shall be in keeping physically and esthetically with "Village" 
 tradition. The homes and apartments of families now residing in the area, which provide 
 adequate shelter at minimum cost, must be preserved. This unique character of Greenwich 
 Village must and will be maintained. Moreover, I want to soe more accommodations made 
 available for artists, preferably studios in which they can also live. 
 
 The City Planning Commission has recently held a public hearing on a proposed 
 study covering 14 square blocks in the westerly portion of Greenwich Village. I want to 
 say for the record that I shall vigorously oppose any study which would contemplate a 
 change in the basic character of Greenwich Village. The City Planning Commission is 
 thoroughly familiar with my attitude and philosophy insofar as Greenwich Village is 
 concerned. 
 
 Recently I have appointed a "Committee for the Preservation of Structures of His- 
 toric and Esthetic Importance" under the chairmanship of Geoffrey Piatt. Other mem- 
 bers of this Committee include Harmon H. Goldstone, President of the Municipal Art 
 Society, Arthur C. Holden, Whitney North Seymour, Sr., Bethuel Webster, and Frederick 
 J. Woodbridgc, President of the New York Chapter American Institute of Architects. 
 I have requested the City Planning Commission to work closely with this Committee when 
 any area is to be studied and obtain a written report from the Committee before any 
 study contract is awarded. Thi9 will give our people the assurance that as our City 
 renews itself we shall not lose sight of the historic and esthetic values that have beep 
 our heritage. 
 
 * * * 
 
 Statement by Mayor Robert F. Wagner, September 6, 1961 
 
 I am deeply concerned and sympathetic with the people of the West Village Neigh- 
 borhood in their desire to conserve and to build constructively upon a neighborhood life 
 which is an example of city community life at its healthiest. 
 
 The City Planning Commission is now engaged in a city wide planning study of the 
 many communities that make up this city and I am recommending to the Commission that 
 under this city-wide community planning program it study the Greenwich Village com- 
 munity as a whole, with consideration for housing, traffic, parks and other needs in the 
 total Greenwich Village community framework. 
 
 I am recommending that the proposal for urban renewal in a '14-block area of the 
 West Village be withdrawn in order to include this area in the total Greenwich Village 
 program and that this action be taken as soon as possible so as not to leave an integral 
 portion of Greenwich Village in a state of limbo. I am sure that this constructive approach 
 to community-wide planning will have the sincere cooperation and will engage enthusiasm 
 and talents of citizens of the Greenwich Village community as a whole. 
 
 Only in fruitful partnership of citizens and government can our neighborhoods be 
 improved and their problems solved. 
 
 * * * 
 
 Consideration and Analysis 
 
 The Major Issues Involved 
 
 The City Planning Commission, in adopting this report, is acting affirmatively in 
 regard to the designation of the West Village area as suitable for urban renewal and to 
 its addition to the Master Plan of Sections Containing Areas Suitable for Development 
 and Redevelopment. 
 
 In the face of the extreme opposition expressed by a substantial portion of the com- 
 munity and of the request made to us by Mayor Wagner on September 6th to withdraw 
 this proposal, the Commission does not take this action lightly. We have long and earn- 
 estly considered the Mayor's request ; we have heard and examined with care the argu- 
 ments against our proposal ; and we have pondered deeply before determining the course 
 of action which we now take. The significance of our action lays upon us a special obliga- 
 tion and need to set forth its underlying basis and motivation. We shall here attempt to 
 do so. It is our hope 'that our reasons will be read and considered not alone by those who 
 have been active proponents or opponents of the West Village proposal but by all thought- 
 
 6 
 
ful citizens who are concerned with 'the renewal of our cities and whose faith rests in 
 the democratic process. 
 
 In explaining our action, it would be easy to take refuge in 'the "independence" of 
 the City Planning Commission. This has, indeed, been one consideration in our decision. 
 We highly value the considerable independence and autonomy granted the Commission by 
 the City Charter. We wish neither to diminish this independence nor to reject the duty 
 it imposes upon us to act in the best long-term interest of the City so far as it is given 
 us to see it. But neither do we wish to protest too much. 
 
 While the right to adopt the Master Plan is vested in the Commission by Charter, it 
 was by direction of the Mayor that the Commission promulgated the proposed 1961-62 
 renewal program of which the West Village proposal was one part. It was the Board 
 of Estimate, by resolution, that authorized the Commission to designate areas pursuant 
 to Section 504, Article 15, of the General Municipal Law. Further, while the Commission 
 may designate areas for renewal, any implementation by the operating agencies must be 
 authorized and approved by the Board of Estimate. So, while the Commission may pro- 
 pose, in a very real sense only the Board of Estimate — the highest elected body in City 
 government — can dispose. This i's as it should be. The Mayor, as chief executive and as 
 Chairman of the Board of Estimate, is thus within his rights in making a request for 
 withdrawal of a specific renewal proposal. Such a request does not destroy the independ- 
 ence of the Commission. But neither does it remove from the Commission the obligation 
 to decide for itself what action 'to take. If the Commission, after considering all factors, 
 found itself in disagreement with die Mayor's request but were still to accept it, its 
 action would then indeed constitute a surrender of independence and a dereliction of 
 responsibility. 
 
 The Commission would likewise be derelict in its responsibility if it blindly accepted 
 the argument that community opposition to a proposal was by itself sufficient grounds 
 for rejecting that proposal. While opposition to the West Village proposal was not 
 unanimous, it is not our intention to quibble. All indications, including the public hearing, 
 point to an opposition by a substantial majority of the local community. But the argument 
 that community opinion, as expressed at the public hearing, must dictate the Commission's 
 decision misconstrues the function and responsibility of the Commission and the nature 
 of the public hearing. 
 
 While the Commission does have quasi-judicial functions, its role in regard to adop- 
 tion of a master plan and designation of areas suitable for renewal is primarily a planning 
 function. It is our responsibility to initiate such matters. We must propose areas for 
 master plan adoption or renewal designation before we can hold the public hearing 
 precedent to final action. Obviously, we do not propose areas without at least thinking 
 that there is a sound basis for doing so, nor do we hold public hearings on such matters 
 with our minds wiped clear of the judgments that led us to initiate them in the first place. 
 Does this then make 'the public hearings a mockery, as some have suggested, if we do not 
 then act in accord with the sentiment of the majority— even the overwhelming majority — 
 of speakers? It moist emphatically does not. 
 
 The purpose of such hearing is to afford all interested and affected persons an oppor- 
 tunity to make their views known in order that the Commission may weigh all relevant 
 evidence before coming to a final determination. The prevailing sentiment of a community 
 is, in itself, an important factor to be considered in reaching a determination. But it 
 cannot be the sole factor. It seems to us a matter of fundamental public policy that the 
 Commission must always consider the validity of local sentiment as well as the needs of 
 the greater community and the city as a whole in reaching a decision. It must maintain 
 objectivity in the face of conflicting pressures. 
 
 In stating this we are not proclaiming a doctrine of Commission infallibility. We can 
 make mistakes, we have made them before and undoubtedly we shall make some again. 
 It so happens that we are convinced that our designation of the West Village area as 
 suitable for renewal is supported by the facts as brought out by this report, by field 
 examination of the area and by the photographic survey of the entire area which we 
 have compiled and which is available for inspection in our office. 
 
 In a way, this is beside the point. We have no wish to exaggerate the importance 
 of a renewal study in the West Village area. Whether or not one is made at this time 
 will not, of itself, make or break The City of New York. The heart of the issue in 
 the nature and underlying basis of the opposition. 
 
 To those of us who sat through the public hearing until its termination at four o'clock 
 in the morning on June 8, 1961, with fresh relays of speakers called in by telephone by 
 the opposition, it had a certain unreal and almost dreamlike quality. The Commission was 
 again and again passionately condemned for doing, or implored not to do, what it, in fact 
 had no intention of doing, and, indeed, had repeatedly stated publicly and on record that 
 it would not do. It was likewise assailed for not doing many of the things that it was 
 in fact proposing. 
 
 / 
 
Now to the extent that such expressions were based on ignorance or misunderstand- 
 ing of the proposal, they arc understandable. Many residents of the area, particularly 
 those called down to testify in the small hours of the morning, seemed honestly convinced 
 that the Commission was proposing to bulldoze the entire area. Their fear of losing 
 their homes and their determination to defend them was real and honest. The Com- 
 mission can comprehend and sympathize with the fears brought on by honest misunder- 
 standing. 
 
 But this was not the nature of the criticism expressed by the highly sophisticated 
 and articulate opposition leadership. They knew what the Commission was proposing. 
 They had read all the proposals, all the statements. Indeed, they gave evidence of having 
 analyzed them paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, word by word. Their 
 opposition was based on two premises which, whether explicitly or implicitly stated, 
 provided the basic theme for most of their statements, arguments at meetings, letters 
 to editors and the impressive number of articles, columns and editorials they placed or 
 inspired in various periodicals. 
 
 The first premise was that neither the City Planning Commission nor the Housing 
 and Redevelopment Board nor, by implication, any public officials, mean what they say, 
 can be believed or can be trusted to do what they say they intend to do. It seems to 
 us that this premise was common to almost all the opposition statements. 
 
 The second premise, less widely shared but still pervasive, was that any public 
 intervention for renewal is [>cr se harmful, that all public renewal and housing programs 
 are by nature destructive and that only local residents, if left to their own efforts 
 without the interference of government, can bring about the renewal of the City, 
 This might be considered the luissez fairr theory of urban renewal. 
 
 It is with these arguments that we are particularly concerned. In regard to the first, 
 we have no intention of self -righteously laying all blame on local community leadership. 
 We can and do understand how suspicion was aroused by the unfortunate manner in 
 which this proposal was first made, by the lack of advance consultation and coordination 
 with the local community and by the questionable decision to first process it under old 
 Section 72-k which, while actually permitting conservation and rehabilitation, was 
 popularly associated with the bulldozer approach. The City made the first mistakes 
 and we must share the blame. 
 
 But this suspicion need not, and should not, have been fanned into the consuming 
 fire of irrational opposition. The City is now committed to a renewal program based 
 on full and active citizen participation. This is something in which the Commission 
 deeply believes and for which it has long fought. But it can only succeed if it is based 
 on mutual understanding, respect and trust between citizen and public official. The 
 Commission must reject attacks on the basic integrity of public officials, not out of false 
 pride, but because they undermine both the hope of successful citizen participation in 
 renewal and more important, the very foundations of the democratic process. 
 
 We reject the second theme, that any public renewal program must be destructive, 
 as false and self-defeating. It represents the full swing of the pendulum. The early 
 housers claimed that housing projects would cure all the ills of an urban, industrialized 
 society. The new critics claim that housing projects are the cause of all urban ills, 
 crimes, maladjustments and tensions. They seek refuge in a sentimental nostalgia for 
 a past that never existed. They say in effect that our generation is incapable of providing 
 an urban environment which improves on what we have. 
 
 Perhaps our efforts to renew our cities will fail. Certainly, they may succeed far 
 less and more slowly than we desire. What we reject, however, is the advice to stop 
 trying. If, in past efforts, the City has neglected the sense of community and human 
 scale, we are now moving toward the correction of these faults. Undoubtedly, new 
 problems will arise as we go along. But of one thing we are sure. The problems of 
 the 20th century urban revolution will never be solved by a modernized version of 
 laisses faire. To accept this is to abandon our cities to the very process which created 
 the slums of the past and necessitated housing and urban renewal programs to bring about 
 their elimination. 
 
 Other Issues 
 
 In addition to these major arguments, which we felt must be answered, there were 
 several other arguments to which we now direct attention. 
 
 With respect to the allegation that private rehabilitation alone can accomplish the 
 renewal of the area, and that such private efforts will be hampered by its designation 
 as a renewal area, the Commission has noted that there has indeed been considerable 
 private rehabilitation of the residential structures in the area, but that such private 
 efforts cannot correct all the basic blighting influences in the area — the admixture of 
 non-residential uses, the lack of recreational and open space facilities, the existence 
 of the overhead track on Washington Street, the obsolete traffic pattern and truck traffic 
 
 8 
 
permitted thereby and other adverse conditions. In addition, the fact that even after 
 the considerable amount of rehabilitation already accomplished, 35 per cent to 40 per cent 
 of the existing housing units in the area are classified as deteriorating or dilapidated 
 by the United States census points to the need of taking advantage of the various public 
 aids available to help improve the environmental conditions in the area and also to 
 make easier the private rehabilitation of individual structures. 
 
 With respect to the objections that any renewal program will result in wholesale 
 demolition and destruction of the neighborhood, the Commission reiterates its firm 
 dedication to the principal that preservation of sound residential structures be a paramount 
 consideration in any renewal plan developed for this area. 
 
 With respect to the fear that adequate low-rent housing in the area would be 
 destroyed and replaced by housing at far higher rents, the Commission recommends, in 
 addition to the above, that, in making its studies and plans, the Housing and Redevelop- 
 ment Board make every effort to provide a balanced ratio of low-rent and middle-income 
 housing in any new housing built in the area and in the surrounding area, so that such 
 families as have to be displaced from their present quarters may have an opportunity 
 to continue living in or near the neighborhood. 
 
 With respect to the argument that the mixed land uses in the area are an asset 
 rather than a liability, the Commission must reject this argument as opposed to sound 
 community planning. We would also point out the overwhelming support publicly 
 expressed by the people and organizations of the area and Greenwich Village generally 
 for the recently enacted Comprehensive Zoning Amendment, one of whose cardinal and 
 most widely hailed principles was the separation of residential and industrial land uses. 
 It was, in fact, requested by some of the same groups and individuals making this argu- 
 ment that the new "residences" zone mapped between Hudson and Greenwich Streets 
 should be extended westward in this very area. They contended that continuation of 
 the present mixed pattern permitted by the old "unrestricted" zoning designation was not 
 desirable. 
 
 The Commission is quite aware of the charm of diversity. It sees no objection 
 whatsoever to mixtures, so typical of Greenwich Village, of residential structures with 
 small arts and crafts shops, book stores, eating and drinking places, art galleries and 
 other establishments serving the local neighborhood or contributing to the area's diverse, 
 interesting character. This kind of mixture, however, is of an entirely different quality 
 from mixtures of residential uses with industrial warehousing and automotive uses, 
 which have a completely different physical aspect — the creation of noise, dirt, traffic and 
 other conditions incompatible with residences. 
 
 In connection with fears that renewal will destroy many older buildings of historical 
 and artistic merit, the Commission recommends to the Housing and Redevelopment Board 
 that in making a renewal plan for the area special consideration be given to the pres- 
 ervation of any such buildings having genuine historical significance or architectural 
 merit, and notes that Mayor Wagner has stated that a written report from his Com- 
 mittee for the Preservation of Structures of Historical and Esthetic Importance will be 
 required prior to awarding any renewal contract. 
 
 With respect to fears that renewal would replace the present low, intimate resi- 
 dential buildings in the area with high-rise standardized "projects," the Commission rec- 
 ommends that in planning the area's renewal, efforts be made to design it so as to 
 maintain the character of Greenwich Village and to avoid the "institutionalized look" 
 feared by those who oppose it on these grounds. The Commission urges that any studies 
 and plans for the area reflect the fact that here is a neighborhood where people have 
 been able to find relief from the immensity and overpowering effect of the City. Main- 
 tenance of this "human scale" should be a primary objective of a renewal plan, even if 
 this would represent a marked departure from previous renewal practice. Here is a 
 challenge to our architects and planners to work with the community to develop a sat- 
 isfactory plan. 
 
 With respect to fears of loss of employment if existing industries or businesses are 
 removed from the area, the Commission calls attention to its previously stated recom- 
 mendation that efforts be made to find suitable sites in the western portion of the area 
 for such uses being eliminated from the eastern portion. 
 
 With respect to the suggestion that designation of the area be delayed until com- 
 prehensive plans for Greenwich Village as a whole, or for even larger areas, are com- 
 pleted, the Commission is of the opinion that a sufficient framework already exists to 
 enable the detailed re-planning of the West Village area pending completion of broader 
 plans for the entire Greenwich Village community. Even after an intensive area-wide 
 study, the land use decisions already made would not be affected. Hudson Street will 
 have to remain as a major surface thoroughfare in any over-all plan for the village, so 
 that the area west of it, to the river, can be planned as a sub-unit of the whole com- 
 
 Q 
 
munity plan which will be made as part of the Commission'! three-year Community 
 Renewal Program. 
 
 Even while recognizing that no segment of an area can be treated in isolation, any 
 more than a whole community be planned without reference to the City of which it is a 
 part, the Commission feels that when a segment can be treated so as to strengthen the 
 surrounding community and at the same time so as to be in keeping with its obvious 
 foreseeable needs, more is to be lost than gamed by delay. 
 
 With respect to the argument that other areas in the City are in worse condition and 
 should he renewed first, the Commission feels that until the present housing shortage has 
 eased, it is impossible in many cases to renew areas in such dilapidated condition as to 
 require relocation of large numbers of families. It is for exactly this reason that the 
 1%1-1%2 renewal program was designed to include sites whose existing development in- 
 cludes a large quantity of non-residential uses in areas whose best future development is 
 clearly residential and which offer good possibilities of adding to the total supply of low- 
 and middle-income housing with a minimum of relocation. The West Village area meets 
 these criteria admirably. 
 
 The allegations made at the hearing that the proposal is essentially based on the 
 desires of real estate interests to find land on which to build luxury housing is certainly 
 not compatible with this Commission's policies or intentions. It is the Commission's 
 recommendation, as stated repeatedly and publicly and officially for the record, that in its 
 renewal program new housing shall contain a balanced ratio of low-rent, middle-income 
 and fully tax-paying units, in order that the housing needs of all the City's families 
 shall, in time, he met, and in order that a broad cross section of the population shall be 
 accommodated in every community. 
 
 In its May 1 announcement the Commission stated: "Three proposals are made for 
 the Lower Manhattan area, two in the Lower East Side and one in Greenwich Village. 
 Their prime purpose is to provide middle-income housing to meet the housing needs of 
 local residents, create a better economic balance, ami help provide a source of relocation 
 housing for families displaced by the Broome Street Expressway. The Greenwich Vil- 
 lage proposal has important conservation elements as well." 
 
 With respect to objections based on the allegedly undemocratic procedure followed 
 in initiating this proposal, the proposal that this area be studied for possible urban re- 
 newal was originally made to the Board of Estimate on February 21, 1961 by the Hous- 
 ing and Redevelopment Hoard. It was based on recommendations made by the Depart- 
 ment of City Planning. They were a result of the Commission's preliminary work in 
 developing a slate of sites for study for the City's 1961-1962 program, before the pro- 
 cedures governing site recommendations were formalized in April. With consolidation of 
 the various urban renewal laws in the new State Urban Renewal Law adopted April 11, 
 1961, the Board of Estimate on April 27, 1961 referred the proposal to the City Planning 
 Commission. It was then included in the 1961-1962 package of proposed sites for urban 
 renewal study. From that point on, the new procedures were followed, including the 
 hearing held June 7, 1961. Questions relating to the legality of the procedures originally 
 followed have been the subject of court review and were found to be academic in the 
 light of subsequent actions conforming to the new urban renewal legislation as noted 
 above. The merits of the proposal should not be obscured by consideration of procedures 
 no longer in effect. 
 
 Description, Analysis and Recommendations 
 
 The proposed West Village Urban Renewal Area lies on the western fringe of 
 Greenwich Village. The area comprises 16 city blocks. It contains 18 net acres, of 
 which nine are in the eight blocks west of Washington Street and nine in the eight 
 blocks to the east. According to 1960 United States Census data there are 1,741 people 
 living in the proposed renewal area. It contains 746 housing units, of which approxi- 
 mately 3 per cent are owner-occupied. 
 
 Non-residential uses, with manufacturing, truck transfer depots, warehousing and 
 automotive uses predominating, occupy 13.99 acres or 78 per cent of the area's 17.95 
 net acres. East of W ashington Street, non-residential uses occupy 5.79 acres and resi- 
 dential uses, 3.23 acres. West of Washington Street, the corresponding acreages are 
 8.20 and 0.73, respectively. Thus, non-residential uses occupy 64 per cent of the land 
 in the eastern portion of the area and 92 per cent in the western portion. There are only 
 two blocks in the area in which the residential uses occupy more than 50 per cent of 
 the land. 
 
 1960 United States Census data indicate that almost 42 per cent of the housing units 
 in the area are deteriorating or dilapidated. Of the non-residential structures, prelim- 
 inary field surveys showed about 40 per cent to be in poor condition. Assessed valuations 
 of residential uses averaged $13.80 per square foot and of non-residential, $12.70. Non- 
 
 10 
 
residential uses are assessed at $7,743,400, accounting for 76 per cent of the area's total 
 assessed valuation of $10,129,900. Building valuations averaged 58 per cent of total 
 non-residential assessed valuation — 53 per cent in the portion of the area west of Wash- 
 ington Street and 62 per cent in the portion to the east. 
 
 There is lack of open space in the area for active or passive recreation. An exces- 
 sive proportion of the land is in streets and many of the streets carry heavy truck traffic 
 through the area. 
 
 Hudson Street, the eastern boundary of the area, is a major heavy traffic artery 
 carrying north-bound traffic to and through the area from the Holland and Battery 
 Tunnels and downtown. Within the area, and to the south, are several major truck 
 terminals. West, Washington, and Greenwich Streets all carry some truck traffic through 
 the area as do the east-west streets which are used by trucks going to and from the 
 docks to Hudson Street and 7th Avenue. 
 
 Washington Street, two blocks to the west of Hudson Street, is characterized by 
 automotive uses on its east side and a little-used elevated freight line of the New York 
 Central Railroad along its west side. West Street, the area's western boundary, lines the 
 dock area along the river to the west and presents the possibility of breaking through to 
 the river at some point within the area, possibly by decking over the non-residential 
 uses and creating park and residential areas above them. 
 
 The portion of the area east of Washington Street is generally occupied by mixed 
 uses, with 64 per cent of the net land area in non-residential use. Approximately 39 
 per cent of the industrial and business structures in this portion of the area are in poor 
 condition. 
 
 Residential buildings in this portion are for the most part brick row houses dating 
 back to the early and middle Nineteenth Century. A fairly large portion of these have 
 been privately remodeled and represent desirable housing types with evidence of efforts 
 to keep the property well maintained. Others, not yet rehabilitated, could be made 
 similarly attractive. This section also contains several large tenement structures, some 
 of which have been well maintained, with others in poor condition. Data from the 
 1960 United States Census indicate that over 35 per cent of the dwelling units in this 
 section — which contains approximately 80 per cent of the entire area's residential land 
 use — are deteriorating or dilapidated. 
 
 The portion of the area west of Washington Street is generally non-residential in 
 character, with over 90 per cent of its net land area in manufacturing, warehousing, 
 or automotive uses. The small number of three- to five-story residential structures in 
 it vary in quality, with 80 per cent of the housing units in the area dilapidated or 
 deteriorating. This section also contains three water-front hotels. 
 
 The West Village area is an exceptionally desirable location for housing, close as 
 it is to both downtown and midtown Manhattan and the varied educational, cultural 
 and recreational facilities of Greenwich Village. Parts of the area possess some of the 
 same elements of intimacy and human scale characterizing other portions of Greenwich 
 Village. It should be helped to continue its rehabilitation efforts, with any plans for 
 rehabilitation and redevelopment reflecting the general character of the Village. How- 
 ever, the combination of the still existing deterioration, mixed incompatible uses in most 
 parts of the area, lack of open space for active or passive recreation and adverse traffic 
 conditions inhibits private renewal and indicates the need for a publicly assisted urban 
 renewal program. Such a program, utilizing the full range of available government 
 renewal aids, would provide the public facilities presently lacking and prevent further 
 deterioration, permit a sound land use pattern, eliminate the blighting influence existing 
 in the area and offer a planning and architectural challenge to make it possible for the 
 entire area to realize the full potentialities of urban 'renewal. 
 
 With respect to the many arguments raised against the proposal, the Commission 
 reiterates its recommendation that in the eastern part of the area, any renewal plan 
 emphasize conservation and rehabilitation wherever possible. Spot clearance should be 
 limited to those uses which are incompatible with the area's residential character or 
 which represent a blighting influence which cannot realistically be eliminated except by 
 clearance. Needed recreational and community facilities and street improvements should 
 be provided. Consideration should be given to the possibility of closing some of the 
 interior streets in the area to traffic and recapturing the land for parks and play- 
 grounds. Construction of new housing for families which must be relocated should 
 be programmed before displacement takes place. 
 
 The Commission^ feels that a unique opportunity exists in the area for conversion 
 of existing commercial or industrial structures to artists' studios and living quarters. 
 With the City's increasingly greater emphasis on cultural values, the need of facilities 
 for creative artists upon whom these cultural pursuits depend deserves primary con- 
 sideration. Because the Village has traditionally served as a center for these activities 
 
 11 
 
its position should be maintained. The lack of studio and living quarters for artists has 
 become a matter of urgent concern, not only for the artists themselves but for the 
 City as a whole. The Commission feels that the provision of suitable facilities for 
 artists is a matter of urgency. The large number of loft structures in the area are 
 suggestive of a solution which would benefit the artists, the village and the City's 
 cultural contribution to the nation. 
 
 With respect to the section west of Washington Street, the Commission recommends 
 that the possibility be explored of achieving a residential break-through to the River 
 also including a riverside park on the deck above street level non-residential uses. The 
 existing overhead railroad structure on Washington Street should be eliminated and 
 there should be an appropriate buffer between the residential area and the street level 
 industrial or commercial uses to the west. The possibility of relocating in the western 
 portion of the area any non-residential uses eliminated from the eastern portion should 
 be studied. Rcplanning of the traffic movement from the waterfront so as to prevent it 
 from flowing through the residential area to the east should be carried out. 
 
 In connection with its recommendations for a conservation and rehabilitation pro- 
 gram for sections of the West Village area, the Commission wishes to note the public 
 aids available under such a program. 
 
 Section 220 of the Housing Act provides for Federal Housing Administration mort- 
 gage insurance on rehabilitation loans for homes which are located in areas designated 
 as urban renewal areas. This allows the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee 
 larger loans and for longer periods than could normally be possible under conventional 
 lending practices. Also under this special assistance program, the Federal National 
 Mortgage Association is authorized to support Section 220 loans by purchasing mortgages 
 insured under the provisions of this law. The Planning Commission has received assur- 
 ances from major savings banks in the City that they will give sympathetic consideration 
 to applications for home improvement loans in designated urban renewal areas. 
 
 In addition, the Housing and Redevelopment Board will work out a special assistance 
 program within such conservation and rehabilitation areas to provide technical aid in 
 the form of architectural and engineering services and consultation. Under this program, 
 a home owner who wishes to rehabilitate his property and has difficulty in obtaining 
 assistance may avail himself of the services of a team of experts in preparing his own 
 individual rehabilitation plan. 
 
 The provision of more open space and community facilities and amenities by the 
 City will provide a more desirable environment to further encourage rehabilitation and 
 conservation. 
 
 With appropriate renewal treatment there is every reason to expect that the West 
 Village area will be able to continue its improvement beyond present limitations while 
 retaining the special character for which the Village is noted. 
 
 Findings and Adoptions 
 
 01) The City Planning Commission hereby finds, pursuant to Section 504, Article 15 
 (Urban Renewal Law) of the New York State General Municipal Law that the area 
 bounded by West 11th Street, Hudson Street, Christopher Street, Washington Street, 
 Morton Street and West Street, Borough of Manhattan, is a substandard area by reason 
 of the large number of structures therein that are deteriorating or dilapidated, the mix- 
 ture of incompatible land uses, the lack of open space for active and passive recreation, 
 the unsatisfactory traffic conditions and the other factors noted above. Pursuant to 
 Section 504, Article 15, the Commission further finds that the designated West Village 
 area is appropriate for urban renewal. 
 
 The Commission recommends that the use and re-use of the designated area be 
 predominantly residential. In case a deck is found feasible, the residential and recrea- 
 tional area can be extended above the non-residential uses to the river. The Commission 
 further recommends that existing residential structures in the area east of Washington 
 Street be conserved and rehabilitated when feasible. 
 
 The Commission wishes to note that the ;present action does not constitute approval 
 of an urban renewal plan. Such a plan would be subsequently prepared by the Housing 
 and Redevelopment Board and submitted to the Commission for review and certification 
 after a public hearing in accordance with provisions of the law. Final determination 
 would subsequently be made by the Board of Estimate, after another public hearing, as 
 provided in the Urban Renewal Law. 
 
 (2) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 197 of the New York City 
 Charter, hereby adopts a modification of the Master Plan of Sections Containing Areas 
 Suitable 'for Development and Redevelopment by the addition of Section M-26 com- 
 
 12 
 
Fact Sheet on Urban Renewal Designation 
 
 Recently the word has spread that urban renewal involves razing of all buildings 
 in any area so designated. This is simply not the case. 
 
 Designation of an area for urban renewal and its inclusion on the Master Plan 
 are prerequisites for obtaining government assistance in its renewal. The language 
 which must be used in such designation is prescribed by statute. 
 
 Urban renewal, under the law, is not limited to the clearance of buildings on the 
 site — the bulldozer approach. It includes conservation, rehabilitation and new construction. 
 It also makes available government insured loans on favorable terms to individual owners 
 of property in the area— loans that would enable them to remove violations, make 
 alterations or rehabilitate their property. 
 
 When an area is designated for urban renewal and a renewal plan is prepared, 
 tliis plan must be approved by the City Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate 
 after public hearings. Only then can the renewal of the area be implemented. The 
 lapse of time between designation of the area for urban renewal and the approval of 
 the renewal plan is usually at least one year and may extend to several years. 
 
 Concern is often expressed about the effect that an urban renewal designation may 
 have on an area. Some owners are still under the impression that it involves immediate 
 condemnation of their holdings. Some tenants have been led to believe that they will 
 be required to move and that a stigma will be attached to their neighborhood because 
 they will be living in a "slum" or in a blighted area. Quite the contrary — the City is 
 striving to remove blight where it exists by means of the renewal process. Blight may 
 take the form of a deteriorated residence, of an outmoded loft building, of a factory 
 or of a railroad spur. 
 
 Renewal designation helps the neighborhood because it gives its people the hope 
 and promise of improvements. Some of the finest residential buildings in New York 
 City are in areas recently designated for renewal by the City Planning Commission. 
 Outstanding examples are the groups of attractive low residential buildings on the 
 southerly fringe of Brooklyn Heights. These houses are in an area recently designated 
 for urban renewal by the City Planning Commission — the Cobble Hill-Brooklyn Heights 
 area. They were not excluded from this area on the ground that they were in good 
 condition. On the contrary, they were included because they were part of an overall 
 neighborhood that was subjected to blighting influences. 
 
 On Wednesday, October 18, the City Planning Commission designated the area 
 extending from 86th Street to 104th Street from Amsterdam Avenue to Riverside Drive 
 as an urban renewal area. This adjoins the West Side Urban Renewal Area that 
 extends from 87th to 97th Street between Central Park West and Amsterdam Avenue. 
 These areas include some of Manhattan's finest apartment buildings, particularly along 
 Central Park West, Broadway, West End Avenue, Riverside Drive, 86th Street, 96th 
 Street and many of the side streets. Such a designation does not transform attractive 
 residential buildings into slums, nor does it cast any pall over them. These areas were 
 designated for renewal so that we might make sure that whatever blighting influences 
 existed were corrected or removed. 
 
 Where conservation and rehabilitation are proposed, the claim that designation of 
 an area as appropriate for urban renewal casts a pall of blight over such an area has 
 no valid basis whatsoever. 
 
 October 24. 1961. 
 
 TAMES FELT, Chairman, City Planning Commission. 
 
prising the area bounded by West 1 1th Street, Hudson Street, Christopher Street, 
 Washington Street, Morton Street and West Street, Borough of Manhattan, to be 
 designated as a Section Containing Predominantly Non-Residential Areas Characterized 
 by Blight and Suitable for Clearance, Preplanning, Reconstruction or Rehabilitation for 
 Predominantly Residential Use. 
 
 JAMES FELT, Chairman; FRANCIS J. BLOUSTEIN, Vice-Chairman ; ELINOR 
 C. GUGGENHEIMER, LAWRENCE M. ORTON, MICHAEL A. PROVENZANO, 
 TAMES G. SWEENEY, Commissioners. 
 
 13 
 
GENERAL GREENWICH VILLAGE AREA Jf* 8 ^ 
 
 (Proposed West Village Urban Renewal J 
 Study Area shown in black ) 
 
 iLto 
 
 14