A developer envisions ‘an evolution’ on the Flushing Creek waterfront
/
The development consortium FWRA LLC has proposed a large-scale development along the Flushing Creek waterfront. A piece of the plan depends on rezoning a commercial district for residential use. Rendering courtesy of F&T Group
By Victoria Merlino
Prior to the coronavirus outbreak that has upended the daily lives of millions of New Yorkers, a $1 billion development and rezoning plan along the Flushing Creek waterfront was one of the most talked-about stories in Queens.
In a series of public hearings and meetings, FWRA LLC, a partnership of three developers who own the land, promised to provide 3,000 jobs, a new road network, a major environmental cleanup of the polluted area, public waterfront access and a boost to the neighborhood economy. Their overall plan depends on rezoning a piece of the waterfront from commercial to residential use.
A coalition of housing, environmental and community advocates, meanwhile, argued that the development doesn’t provide enough affordable housing, may adversely impact the environment, and would change the makeup of the neighborhood with a flood of new luxury apartments.
For F&T Group, one of the three developers, the waterfront is the next step in the “evolution” of Downtown Flushing, F&T’s Chief Investment Officer Richard Siu told the Eagle in a sit-down interview.
“The waterfront does not look like anywhere else in Downtown Flushing,” Siu said, noting that it is the last area of Downtown Flushing that hasn’t yet been built out.
F&T and the other two members of FWRA, United Construction & Development Group and the Young Nian Group, would create a 13-tower, mixed-use complex of housing, hotels, offices and shops across the 29 acres of mostly unutilized land. Most of the land can be built “as-of-right,” meaning that the developers do not need a land use variance or rezoning to build the bulk of the project. The rezoning encompasses a section of the land that developers say is needed to make the project flow together better.
“We believe that with Flushing being complete, quite frankly, it’s going to draw more and more people to this area for commerce,” Siu said. “It’s going to be a place where tourists and everyone else will want to come.”
F&T’s long history in the Flushing area gives the company a “good sense” of what the community wants, according to Siu. F&T has had a presence in Flushing for over 25 years, with buildings including the condo and retail complex Flushing Commons and the Main Street shopping center Queens Crossing.
A major concern of opponents of the project, such as the MinKwon Center for Community Action, is the lack of affordable housing, which is a persistent issue in Flushing. In 2016, 58 percent of Flushing tenants spent more than 30 percent of their monthly income on rent, according to a Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development study.
As only one section of the development needs a rezoning, the entire project would have only 75 to 90 affordable units under the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing land-use policy. The policy guarantees that 20 percent of units will be used for affordably priced housing.
“The current plan is a shared vision and consensus, but among the large speculative developers. What’s been left out, is the community,” MinKwon Center Executive Director John Park said in a statement in February. “The 1,725 planned luxury units and hotel is clearly not for local Flushing residents, and the improved Flushing waterfront does very little for the families who moved elsewhere after being economically displaced.”
The developers argued in previous public meetings that in an “as-of-right” plan without the rezoning, they would not be required to make any affordable units. Siu reiterated that stance during the interview.
As for concerns over changing the neighborhood, Siu argued that the plan would make a positive change, opening up the currently polluted waterfront to new opportunities. Siu said the developers would court small businesses to enter the development’s retail spaces, and the privately maintained road network and waterfront areas would always be publicly accessible.
“Right now, we’re not displacing anyone. There’s nothing built there,” he said. “I think that this is going to be really good for the community long-term.”
The city has suspended Universal Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP, protocols during the COVID-19 state of emergency, but local Queens officials remain divided over rezoning Flushing Creek.
The neighborhood’s community board voted in favor of the project 30-8 following an hours-long, contentious meeting on Feb. 10.
Community Board 7’s recommendations, such as using shoreline restoration techniques like seagrass and oyster beds, exploring educational opportunities of Flushing Creek for local schools, assisting in erosion control and alloting 50 percent of the affordable housing units to residents within Community District 7 justriction, are all already being taken up by the developers. Other recommendations are currently being reviewed, according to Siu.
Acting Queens Borough President Sharon Lee rejected the project’s application, however, citing displacement and housing concerns.
“The scale and scope of the plan will significantly change the landscape of Downtown Flushing with long lasting impacts on the area within and surrounding the [Special Flushing Waterfront District],” Lee wrote in her recommendation. “Downtown Flushing, however, is not immune to the consequences of transformative large-scale new development that inadvertently leaves many behind, such as displacement of long-time residents and families.”
Local Councilmember Peter Koo has voiced support for the project, according to developers, but he has not yet released an official position. The City Council casts the final binding vote on rezoning applications, with the local community board and borough president only making advisory decisions. The council votes in lock-step with the local member.
Siu, for his part, said that he was surprised about the community pushback to the project, which has publicly been in the works for years.
“I was quite surprised,” he said. “Quite frankly, I think the opposition to this rezoning — I really don’t think represents the community. From what we’re hearing, the majority, or supermajority of this community actually supports this rezoning.”
