Expeditions are journeys with purpose. Published in Queens, New York.
Newest Podcast Episode
- Sesame Street Refresh with David Gallo
How do you redesign one of the most beloved streets in television history—without losing its soul? Scenic designer David Gallo takes us behind the scenes of his work refreshing Sesame Street, balancing history with modern storytelling.
Current Issue: Homecoming
This issue (buy here) is about Homecoming: how we design for our home, how we react to our daily comings and going, and how might we create a better native place for ourselves.
It’s a great issue.
This issue is all about how we affect our native place. D.J. Trischler speaks about Neighborhood-Centered Design, Lisa Dewey-Mattia shares her Kindergarten Commute, Marguerite Jones talks about her Metamorphosis to music, Alison Waske Sutter is interviewed about how she is helping Grand Rapids become more resilient, we share a deep dive into 5g Antennas and a provocation about how to re-wild where we grew up.
Please feel free to purchase a copy while supplies last. Your purchase helps support future issues through cash infusion, and by showing people care about this project.
Issue 3: Home Coming
About our coming and going from home.
Podcast
Listen to our ever-evolving podcast, here’s our most recent episode.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Feed
[powerpress_playlist limit=”5″ images=”true” date=”false”]
Expedition Works
A full–service design cooperative – let’s work together to make your journey with a purpose successful.
Avery’s Journey
Exploring Avery’s journey designing for the new district, with an assist from MidJourney.
-
Bundle: 1, 2 & 3$14
Previous Issue: Scorching
This issue (buy here) is about Scorching: what happens when things get out of hand, it’s hot out, and the heat doesn’t go away? How are we responding to this slowly rising catastrophe? We speak to a range of people who are working to make our neighborhoods more resilient
We spoke with Annika Lundkvist who is creating a network of practitioners at Pedestrian Space; architect Jan Kattein who is creating Temporary urbanism for a contingent community; Eric Paul Dennis writes about how Trees are Critical Infrastructure; Jason Baker, a robot, and myself wrote a poem; and we share another Tactical Democracy dispatch: Engagement Spectrum Toolkit and share The Bowerbird.
Please feel free to purchase a copy while supplies last. Your purchase helps support future issues through cash infusion, and by showing people care about this project.
Issue 2: Scorching
This issue is about Scorching, how we change the climate, and the climate changes us.
Articles from this issue
First Issue: Founding
This issue is about Founding: the beginning of new things, work, and art. Our inaugural issue is our first prototype in using print pamphleteering to create narrative.
Jason Baker wrote a poem about a village, we speak with Lara Storm & Ben Swire about their company Make Believe Works, we share two features about Tactical Democracy: an introduction, and how we used Block Builder to help people’s inner voice come to life.
Please feel free to purchase a copy while supplies last. Your purchase helps support future issues through cash infusion, and by showing people care about this project.
-
Product on sale
Issue 1: FoundingOriginal price was: $8.00.$5.00Current price is: $5.00.
Articles from this issue
Support our work
Notes
The Most Boring Idea That Somehow Became Dangerous
You should be able to get to the things you need — groceries, school, a park, a doctor, maybe a bar — within a short walk or bike ride. That’s it. No force fields. No checkpoints. No microchips. Just proximity.
And yet, somehow, this idea has become radioactive.
I spoke with writer Addison Del Mastro about the 15-minute city — and how a perfectly ordinary idea spiraled into something else entirely. “The 15-minute city is not a new idea at all,” Addison Del Mastro says early on. “It’s basically how cities functioned for most of human history.”
The problem, he suggests, isn’t the concept. It’s how the concept has been framed — and misframed.
When Jargon Breaks Trust
One of the recurring frustrations in the conversation is how planners talk about cities versus how people actually live in them.
“Urban planning has a branding problem,” Del Mastro says. “We take ideas that are pretty intuitive and we wrap them in academic language that makes people suspicious.” The moment you give something a capital-letter name — The 15-Minute City — it stops sounding like an observation and starts sounding like a program someone is running. “Once you label it, people assume there’s a mechanism behind it.”
And once people assume there’s a mechanism, they start asking who controls it.
How a Walkable Neighborhood Became a Threat
How did “walk to the grocery store” turn into a culture-war talking point? Del Mastro is blunt: “A lot of the backlash comes from people projecting a loss of freedom onto something that is actually about increasing choice.”
Instead of being framed as you don’t have to drive, it gets reframed as you won’t be allowed to. That inversion — optional becoming mandatory — is where the fear creeps in.
“The conspiracy version assumes there’s a planner somewhere who wants to trap you,” he says. “But the reality is that most planners can barely get a crosswalk installed.”
The Car Is Doing More Harm Than the City
There’s also a quiet argument running underneath all of this: the thing limiting freedom isn’t density or proximity — it’s car dependency. In many places, not having a car and not driving isn’t really an option. If you can’t get food, school, or work without a car, that’s not freedom. That’s a requirement. We mistake familiarity for neutrality, and the car has benefited from that confusion for decades.
Del Mastro agrees, noting that the car has been treated as neutral infrastructure for decades, even as it reshaped cities in profound ways. “We normalized a system where you have to spend thousands of dollars a year just to exist.”
Against that backdrop, the 15-minute city isn’t radical. It’s corrective.
What This Is Actually About
This isn’t really a debate about urban form. It’s a debate about trust. Do people believe that changes to their neighborhood are being done with them or to them?
Del Mastro puts it simply: “People don’t hate walkability. They hate not being asked.”
The tragedy is that the idea itself is so ordinary. Kids walking to school. Errands that don’t require a highway. Streets that feel like places, not conduits.
“If you describe it without the label, most people say, ‘Yeah, that sounds nice,’” Del Mastro says.
Which raises the uncomfortable question: maybe the real problem isn’t the 15-minute city at all — maybe it’s our inability to talk about cities without turning them into symbols.
A paradox
“Cities work best when they’re allowed to evolve incrementally,” Del Mastro says. “Not when every change is treated like a takeover.”
The irony is hard to miss. The most boring idea in urbanism — live closer to what you need — has somehow become one of the most controversial. Which probably tells us less about cities, and more about how afraid we’ve become of change we don’t control.
We’ve talked about neighborhood character, transplants, who gets to decide what’s appropriate for our neighborhoods. No one person (or community board) should be a veto on being able to have more freedom by not having to own a car. But right now, American land use policies is the most restrictive in generations: you can live any way you like, as long as you live in a single-family detached single-use home, with enough room for 2-4 cars.
This doesn’t smell like freedom to me. Is smacks of government overreach, and I’ve written ten simple zoning rules which would return freedom back to everyday people, so we can live the life we want to live, not the life some busybody wants you to live.
You can listen to a longer interview with Addison here, A 15 Minute Mirror.
A Short Field Guide to Joining a Community Board
Community boards aren’t glamorous and they aren’t as powerful as people assume. But in a city where most decisions are made far from public view, they remain one of the few places where ordinary residents can consistently influence outcomes. Especially on topics such as housing, street design, and neighborhood safety. Apply to join a community board to show up where the leverage is, understanding how decisions actually get shaped, and use your position to push for more homes, safer streets, and a city that works for more people.
Subscribe to the Newsletter
This was originally posted as Expedition Log no. 45: A Short Field Guide to Joining a Community Board on 27 January, 2026 as part of my weekly-ish newsletter, and is here to make it easy to link to.
Why I Joined
I joined my community board for a simple reason: decisions about my neighborhood were being shaped by people with more time than me, but with less relevant expertise than I had.
Democracy is a verb. It only works if people actually show up. I wanted to show up.
Community boards probably shouldn’t exist: power should be vested in the council members which are answerable to cities at the ballot box. Community Boards are an interesting experiment in post-bankruptcy NY. Across the 59 community boards they are uneven, slow, advisory-only, and too often dominated by incumbents protecting the status quo. But as long as they do exist, opting out doesn’t make them better; it just guarantees that the loudest, most conservative voices keep winning by default.
So if we have community boards, we should participate to make them better. If someone is going to shape your streets, your public spaces, and whether your neighborhood grows or stagnates, it might as well be you.
For me, this wasn’t abstract. It was about safer streets, better public spaces, and more homes. If you care about those things and you’re not in the room, then you’re outsourcing your values to people who may actively oppose them.
Cynicism feels sophisticated, but it’s cheap and useless. Participation is harder, and far more effective.
What I Wish I Knew (Tips & Tricks)
- Your professional skills actually matter here.
Planning literacy, design expertise, data analysis, facilitation, legal knowledge, and communications skills desperately need these skills. Don’t underestimate how influential basic clarity can be. - You might be in demand if you rent, are young, and have kids
It’s no surprise that community boards skew older, whiter, and have a higher percentage of home ownership as compared to NY’ers as a whole. Check out if your Borough President has any stats or data of the existing Board composition, and plan accordingly. BP Richards has current demographics for you to see and most BP’s are looking to diversify the Boards across many different means. - Process is the terrain. Learn it, don’t fight it blindly
Community boards run on agendas, committees, votes, and timing. You don’t have to love the process — but understanding it lets you move ideas forward instead of burning energy yelling into the void. Buy a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order. - Show up consistently, not performatively
Influence accrues to people who attend meetings, do the reading, and follow through. There are people on my community board who can’t help themselves but ask questions and make comments at every opportunity. Every meeting. You don’t need to speak every time, and you can work in other ways, but being reliable counts more than being loud. - Translate, don’t condescend
Many fights aren’t ideological so much as informational. Explaining tradeoffs calmly, especially around housing or street safety, is more persuasive than dunking on people. - Build coalitions quietly
The work happens before the vote: hallway conversations, committee prep, shared language. Change is usually assembled, not announced. This takes time. - Accept friction as the cost of impact.
Yes, it’s slow. Yes, it’s frustrating. Yes, sometimes it feels absurd. That’s the price of moving real things forward in the real world, not just complaining on Next Door or Facebook.
A Clear Request
If you’re a younger professional, someone who works a non-traditional job, a renter, or someone with actual expertise who complains about how cities work: this is one of the lowest-barrier ways to make your values tangible.
Don’t be cynical. Cities don’t change themselves.
Don’t look ridiculous by using the word “Transplant”
Lately, more neighborhood debates are framed around “transplants,” people who moved in later, from somewhere else. The word sounds descriptive, but it quietly does deep harm: it marks outsiders, assigns blame for change, and treats length of residency as legitimacy. What looks like a fight about newcomers is really a deeper conflict over who gets to belong, who gets to speak, and who gets to decide what a neighborhood is allowed to become.
Subscribe to the Newsletter
This was originally posted as Expedition Log no. 43: Don’t look ridiculous by
using the word, “Transplant” on 20 January, 2026 as part of my weekly-ish newsletter, and is here to make it easy to link to.
I’ve seen the word “transplant” increasingly used at an alarming rate, often replacing what would have been “gentrifier.”
Let me tell you why this is wrong.
Lately, more neighborhood debates are framed around “transplants,” people who moved in later, from somewhere else. The word does a lot of work. It marks outsiders. It implies inauthenticity. And it quietly claims that time lived confers authority.
That assumption deserves scrutiny.
the problem
Cities don’t grant legitimacy by tenure. They grant it by participation. You live here, you vote here, you send your kids to school here, you pay taxes here — you belong. Full stop.
If you live in New York City, you’re a New Yorker.
But when “transplant” becomes a category, it turns length of residency into a proxy for ownership. The longer you’ve been here, the more weight your voice supposedly carries. That’s not how democratic systems are designed to work, and it’s not how cities function over time.
the problem
Definitions
The label tends to surface at a specific moment: when tenured residents hear newer residents name problems out loud. Noise. Trash. Dangerous intersections. Unsafe conditions. Services that don’t work. These issues didn’t suddenly appear — but talking about them changes the social balance.
Calling someone a “transplant” in these moments isn’t really about where they’re from. It’s about who gets to define what counts as a problem. Seniority becomes a way to shut down critique without engaging it.
what’s really happening
Misplaced loss
Underneath this dynamic is something more human: loss.
People experience change as erosion of familiarity, of social standing, of informal control. Neighborhoods that once felt like a safe, predictable space, start to feel illegible. That grief is real.
But when loss gets reframed as an invasion, it curdles into something else. Belonging turns conditional. Participation becomes suspect. And improvement itself is treated as disrespect. That logic mirrors a broader political instinct: that legitimacy is inherited, not earned. That being “from here” matters more than showing up. It’s an instinct we should be careful with — especially in cities built by constant arrival.
Transplant as a slur comes from the same root as nativist Trumpers. It’s “blood and soil” all the way down. The ultimate horseshoe topic.
the historical reality
Ahistorical
Every “authentic” neighborhood was once accused of being ruined by newcomers. The idea of a stable, original version of the city is usually a snapshot taken mid-transition, with the earlier transitions conveniently forgotten.
Cities don’t survive despite churn. They survive because of churn and change. We might not like it, and I can tell you hundreds of stories of what my neighborhood looked and felt like 20 years ago, but the current incarnation of New York is as authentic as the 1970’s, 40’s, 20’s, etc.
levers
Mitigation
If change feels too fast or too unequal, the answer isn’t social gatekeeping. It’s policy. Many cities have policy lever which can mitigate this feeling of loss:
- Protect people who want to stay by building enough housing so newcomers don’t displace incumbents
- Invest in services so growth doesn’t feel like loss
- Create conditions to maintain connections, while fostering paths to improvement
Seniority can explain perspective. It should not confer veto power.
language to borrow
Legitimacy
“Length of residency isn’t the same thing as legitimacy.”
That sentence doesn’t deny grief. It redirects responsibility — to where it belongs.
for elected and staff
What This Means for Public Process
When “transplants” shows up in public testimony, it’s usually a signal to listen, not a policy position.
It often reflects fear of loss, distrust of change, or frustration with systems that feel unresponsive. Those feelings deserve acknowledgment, but not policy accommodation. But treating seniority as legitimacy creates a distorted public record. It weights input by accidental tenure rather than by impact, evidence, or representativeness.
For public decision-making, a few guardrails help:
- Acknowledge lived experience without treating it as a veto.
Time in a neighborhood provides context, not ownership. - Separate values from outcomes.
Statements about “respect” often mask disagreement about policy tradeoffs. - Ask who is affected, not who arrived first.
Democratic legitimacy comes from participation and impact, not residency length. - Be explicit about what input can and can’t influence.
Much public anger comes from mismatched expectations, and not understanding how policy morphs into impact. - Redirect grief toward policy solutions.
Housing supply, tenant protections, and service investment address loss more effectively than social gatekeeping.
Handled carefully, these moments can clarify priorities rather than harden divisions. The goal isn’t to referee belonging, it’s to make decisions that work for the city as it exists today, and preparing it for the future.
Why Parking Debates Never Go Away
Parking fights feel intensely local, but they’re almost never unique. Different block, same script. Residents worry about spillover. New housing gets blamed. Meetings get heated. And somehow, nothing ever feels resolved.
The problem is that parking debates usually start in the wrong place.
Subscribe to the Newsletter
This was originally posted as Expedition Log no. 41: Why Parking Debates Never Go Away on 12 January, 2026 as part of my weekly-ish newsletter, and is here to make it easy to link to.
the problem
Parking First, Housing Second
Most cities still treat parking as a required accessory to housing rather than a managed public resource. Minimum parking requirements assume a fixed level of car ownership, and assumes that everyone needs to use a car to move about.
Housing approvals often hinge on whether those minimums are met. Meanwhile, curb space is free or underpriced, with demand fluctuating by time of day, and enforcement is inconsistent.
The result is a system where supply is regulated as if it’s static, while demand behaves dynamically. Housing gets evaluated through a parking lens that doesn’t reflect how streets actually work.
the pattern
It’s about anxiety
Because the system doesn’t adapt, the same conflict repeats itself everywhere.
New building proposed → fears of parking loss → calls for more off-street parking → higher construction costs → fewer units or delayed projects → curb congestion remains unsolved.
From the outside, it looks like neighbors opposing growth. From inside the system, it’s more accurate to say that parking is about people’s anxieties about change because it’s the most visible stress point. When parking feels scarce, everything else feels like a threat.
That’s why even modest projects trigger outsized reactions. The fight isn’t really about one building. It’s about a system that offers no way to manage demand transparently.
the tradeoffs
Society versus the individual
Parking policy always involves tradeoffs, whether they’re acknowledged or not.
- More required parking means higher construction costs and fewer homes.
- Less required parking can increase short-term competition for curb space.
- Free curb parking feels equitable, but often benefits a small subset of residents disproportionately.
- Pricing and permits can manage demand, but they require political will and administrative follow-through.
There is no parking solution that makes everyone happy. But pretending those tradeoffs don’t exist just guarantees the argument will come back again.
solutions
No Mandatory Parking
If cities want parking debates to stop hijacking housing conversations, the lever isn’t arguing harder: it’s decoupling parking from housing approvals.
Parking minimums are wrong, immoral, and create bad neighborhoods.
That means:
- Allow walkable and bikeable communities where cars are optional. We used to build theses communities, then we literally outlawed them. It’s time to go back.
- Evaluating housing on housing merits, not parking merits
- Managing curb space directly, with pricing, permits, or time limits
- Treating parking demand as something to be managed over time, not predicted perfectly upfront
- When parking is handled as its own system, it stops distorting every other decision.
If I was King of Zoning, I would mandate the following:
Hypothetical reader, you might be asking: so…Randy, if this is so easy, what are your policy proposals?
Great question reader!
If you want to decenter the car, allow people the freedom of movement which doesn’t require spending an increasingly large amount of money on a car, and you want energy independence so we don’t have to worry about what some Middle Eastern country is doing, then building walkable neighborhoods are key.
And we can start piecemeal! It doesn’t need a command economy to make it happen! Just re-legalizing what was already allowed 100 years ago would be fine.
My list is:
- As of Right Zoning
- Mixed Use by Default
- No Parking Minimums
- Abolish Single Family Only Zoning
- Diverse Housing Types
- More Ownership Models
- Transit Housing Bonus
- Car-free neighborhoods
- Public & Social Housing Everywhere
- No Setbacks
- LISTEN TO THIS EPISODE:
- Apple Podcasts
- Spotify
evidence
- Minneapolis (2021)
Eliminated parking minimums citywide
Result: Developers now build parking based on actual demand; housing projects face fewer cost and approval barriers. - Buffalo (2017)
Eliminated parking minimums via the Green Code
Result: Adaptive reuse and small-scale infill became easier by removing a common blocker for older buildings. - San José (2022)
Removed parking minimums for most land uses
Result: Parking supply now varies by location and transit access, without citywide parking disruption. - Portland (2022)
Eliminated parking minimums near frequent transit and for many residential uses
Result: More housing projects pencil out while still allowing parking where the market supports it. - Austin (2023)
Eliminated parking minimums citywide
Result: Housing approvals face fewer procedural delays tied to parking compliance, improving predictability.
language to borrow
It’s spatial
“This is a geometry, pricing, and design problem.”
That sentence reframes the problem without dismissing people’s anxiety.Reframing is often the most powerful policy move available.
A conversation about cities, architecture, history, and why these affect us today. Hosted by Randy Plemel and a weekly cast of characters.
Subscribe via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Feed
A conversation about cities, architecture, history, and why these affect us today. Hosted by Randy Plemel and a weekly cast of characters.
How do you redesign one of the most beloved streets in television history—without losing its soul? Scenic designer David Gallo takes us behind the scenes of his work refreshing Sesame Street, balancing history with modern storytelling.
typology.city
Parking Payment Kiosk
disputatio statio
Parking Payment Kiosk are electronic meters that facilitate payment for metered parking spaces in New York City.
Over time, the system has evolved from mechanical coin-operated Parking Meters to Pay-And-Display meters, which use a printed receipt, to Pay-By-Plate meters, which store payment information digitally using the vehicle’s license plate number.
Subspecies variations
We’ve observed two active distinct subspecies (with the mechanical parking meter being extinct) which are important to call out:
- disputatio statio ostendo
Pay-And-Display Meter - disputatio statio tabula
Pay-By-Plate Meter
§PL54t – The Pavilion
Avery confronts a strange directive: create an RF-free zone in a nearly completed park pavilion, ordered by an unknown authority. The directive is authenticated, so the team must proceed, overcoming design roadblocks with the help of ancient geometry.
Sponsored by:
Hi. We’re a full–service design cooperative – let’s work together to make your journey with a purpose successful.
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH or sometimes MIZ) is a zoning tool in New York City which Department of City Planning (DCP) can choose to include in neighborhoods which forces builders to set aside a percentage of floor area for permanently affordable housing. When this tool is included in neighborhood rezoning, MIH is generally required in high-density districts, with buildings over a certain square footage of floor area. DCP and Council can set one of four affordability options ranging from 20% to 30% of residential floor area affordable across a range of area mean incomes.
Once MIH is incorporated into the zoning district, then builders must follow these guidelines, and they are not optional. Additionally, builders must distribute MIH units throughout at least 65% of the building’s height so that they aren’t concentrated in any one place, the unit bedroom mix is set to be proportional to the other units or at least 50% of MIH units must be two-bedrooms or greater, and 75% of MIH units must be one-bedroom or greater. And remember, the so-called “poor doors” have already been banned. All of this is aimed at distributing these units across the building, making sure that the MIH units are integrated into the market-rate unit mix, and that no one is segregated into one place.
If all of this confusing, and hard to summarize…well…it is.
It’s helpful to think about MIH as effectively a tax or cost borne by the builder who wants to build that building, in exchange for building into a neighborhood slated for growth. The builder gets to profit, while the neighborhood gets at minimum 20% affordable units.
Before we go any further, I want to make sure everyone know this:
Note: I am a member of Queens Community Board 2, but I’m speaking in my own capacity, and not speaking on behalf of the board. These are my views only, and do not represent the views of the City of New York, Electeds, or Queens Community Board 2.
As part of the OneLIC Rezoning plan, I needed to understand MIH, 485-x, UAP, etc so I can better decide how to vote. So, this is a bit of a deep-dive into all that affordability. I’m sharing this as both a notepad, and hopefully as a guide to others.
Many programs, many acronyms
Housing costs money, and there’s lots of programs out there which aim to make it more economical to build that housing, through mandates, bonuses, through direct subsidy, or more often through tax abatements. Below are a short list of common programs:
- MIH: Mandatory Inclusionary Housing
A city-based program which requires a certain set of homes to be permanently affordable. - UAP: Universal Affordability Preference
An optional city-based zoning text change which allows a certain set of homes to be permanently affordable in exchange for being able to build more homes. - 485-x Tax Incentive
A state program which eliminates property tax if certain affordability criteria is met - LIHTC: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
A federal program that provides dollar-for-dollar tax reductions to investors who contribute capital to affordable housing projects.
There are many more programs, but these are a good short list.
On AMI
Area Mean Income (AMI) is just that: the mean income for a given area, in this case generally metropolitan statistical areas. AMI for all cities across the country is defined each year by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In NYC HPD is the lead agency which ingests HUD’s calculations: the 2025 AMI for the New York City region is $145,800 for a three-person family (100% AMI).
Every calculation about affordability is some percentage of AMI.
In Long Island City, the average family size is 2.87; so let’s use 3. Below is what an annual income for a family of three in the different income bands looks like for 2025 (it’s updated annually).
| Family Size | 30% | 40% | 50% | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100% | 110% | 120% | 130% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | $43,740 | $58,320 | $72,900 | $87,480 | $102,060 | $116,640 | $131,220 | $145,800 | $160,380 | $174,960 | $189,540 |
What MIH, 485x, UAP, and basically every other affordability program tries to do is choose income bands at some AMI and then find some way to subsidize the creation of units to house folks at that income level.
There’s certainly criticism of affordability at some level of AMI, read about that below.
Universal Affordability Preference & MIH
What’s new in the Long Island City rezoning is that this is the first neighborhood rezoning which the recently-passed City of Yes for housing opportunity is in play. The main CoY policy which is in play in LIC is the Universal Affordability Preference which is an option builders can choose to build permanently affordable units at a low AMI and get a 20% bonus, but all that bonus must be affordable housing. The housing created through UAP would be permanently affordable to households earning 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
To be clear: any UAP units would be in addition to the “as of right” MIH & market rate units.
MIH Example
I wanted to look at what a maximalist version of all this might look like. In the Long Island City rezoning plan, there is a large empty lot at 22-09 Queens Plaza North – this is a prime redevelopment site: it’s a large site, next to train lines which get you into Manhattan in either 1 stop of 3 stops, and the proposed rezoning allows for tall buildings being in a proposed R10 district.
In order to roughly figure out what type of building might go on this site, I looked at a number of recent projects in my neighborhood, and used the median values to derive the number of units per floor area, number of floors, and height. Please note: this is a rough estimation, and there’s a bunch of qualifiers. Look to the details section for how I got the numbers.
As of Right Building
This is the basic building that builders can build “as of right” without asking for a change, which would also include MIH units and market-rate units.
| Unit Type | Number of units |
|---|---|
| Total “As of right units” | 951 |
| Market Rate Units | 713 |
| MIH Units | 238 |
| “As of right” floors | 68 |
| “As of right” Height | 777 ft |
For comparison, this building would be about as tall as the recently completed Skyline Tower at 23-15 44th Drive below.
Universal Affordability Preference
Now, let’s assume that the builder wants to take advantage of UAP, which is an additional set of bonus on top of the existing market rate units and the MIH units. We’re assuming a straight 20% bonus, with all units to be set aside permanently for households earning 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
| Unit Type | Number of units |
|---|---|
| UAP Units | 190 |
| “UAP” floors | 12 |
| Additional UAP Height | 137 ft |
Total MIH + UAP Building
Let’s add together the final building, giving us the total units, broken down into market rate units, MIH units, and UAP units.
| Unit Type | Number of units |
|---|---|
| Total Units | 1,141 |
| Market Rate Units | 713 |
| MIH Units | 238 |
| UAP Units | 190 |
| Total floors | 80 |
| Total Height | 914 ft |
For comparison’s sake, here’s some recently completed buildings at this height:
| Building | Height |
|---|---|
| 22-09 Queens Plaza North | 914 ft |
| Four Seasons Hotel New York Downtown | 926 ft |
| 15 Hudson Yards | 914 ft |
| 125 Greenwich Street | 912 ft |
Asterisk
This is where things get a little…more complicated. So, if you really wanted to make the case that there’s going to be a tall building, we could do the following:
- Use the proposed active open space bonus, which would add additional units & height for giving up a set amount of space for active recreation.
- Construct a school (or other community facility) at the base, and add additional height. Schools aren’t counted against the floor area available to build, but would lift up the total building height because the school needs to be in the base of the building.
There’s also other ways to gain additional floor area and height, but these two ways would probably be the most likely.
Ultimately, any builder would pay an architect/engineer a big bag of money to do a series of studies and a group of accountants to pencil out the cost versus the expected rate of return over a short, medium, and long term.
My guess is that there’s a pretty good chance only the As of Right Building scenario gets built since there’s a lack of direct subsidies available, the 485-x program is too cost prohibitive, and building costs will continue to trend up.
Discussion
Zoning is difficult.
Good zoning isn’t proscriptive (a home does here, a fire station goes here), but rather should maximize the ability of people to build what they need on the site, and keep the populace safe. So there is a great deal of uncertainty of what could be built in the rezoned neighborhood.
Even this analysis is deficient because I didn’t go deep into the open space requirements, open space bonus which a builder would certainly take advantage of to give part of the lot back to the public in exchange for the right to build more housing, and there’s a bunch of assumptions built into the analysis.
So, I caution anyone who brings a zoning analysis to not be so sure of themselves. I also caution activists to acknowledge that there’s a ton of unknowns in building buildings which often take decades of time to go from initial idea, through to funding, through plan approval, and finally moving dirt.
Criticism
The critique of MIH comes from two distinct corners, and I’m going to try to fairly describe them both.
On one side, are folks who don’t believe MIH goes far enough, and any legal minimum of units should be increased. This group wants to find homes for people, and object that any percentage of AMI isn’t affordable enough. Their critique is that affordable doesn’t mean affordable. I think this group doesn’t acknowledge that MIH is an optional tool DCP uses when they rezone neighborhoods, and that MIH does mandate affordable units. Advocates are going to advocate, for sure.
The other critique is from builders, policymakers, and advocates who know that MIH makes building more expensive to build, and projects more difficult to pencil out. Absent direct subsidies – LIHTC, 485x, etc – the cost to build these extra units and rent or sell them at a lower than market rate eats into their profits. Maybe they should earn less profit, I don’t know. I would stress that funding, bonding, insurance, and completion often are based on the project pencilling out. So, absent those above subsidies, owners will pass on the cost to market rate consumers, increasing the cost of the market rate units.
Unfortunately we don’t always have a clear accounting of the actual direct costs of building units in expensive locations such as New York City. We know direct costs continue to rise: materials cost more, labor costs continues to accelerate, and there’s not a lot of pressure to reduce the cost of housing.
Absent a land value tax (which isn’t available and isn’t remotely possible to pass right now) which aims to balance profiting off of land, MIH does mandate permanent affordability through market distortion.
I would also ask those who are asking for subsidies – both the housing advocates and the builders – that they be clear on where the money should come from. If you think that the AMI bands aren’t really affordable (which is debatable!) then where is the money to make these units more affordable originate? The NYC budget? State? Feds? What mechanism should we create which can either lower the building cost or operating cost? It’s really easy to wave a magic wand and say we need cheaper housing, but let’s talk how.
How about a Social Housing Development Authority
In the spirit of sharing a policy proposal, in addition to the 10 King of Zoning proposals I want to talk social housing development authorities.
I would personally prefer a federal and/or state-level social housing development authority (SHDA) who could provide cheaper funding for units, state capacity to reduce building cost, cheaper insurance (etc) to reduce soft costs, and a way to remove the market forces for some buildings.
It would be really interesting to see what would happen if social housing development authority could build buildings, or even finance or subsidize the cost of either the MIH and/or UAP units. While the Mitchell–Lama Housing Program produced a ton of homes, after 20 years many of the homes start leaving the program.
Details
Here’s some basic information which substantiate the above numbers.
| Lot Area | 81,500 sq ft |
| Lot Dimensions | 201 ft x 416 ft lot |
| New Zoning | M1-6 | R10 |
| Item | FAR | Available floor area |
|---|---|---|
| Max. Residential FAR | 12.0 | 978,000 sf |
| MIH | 25% of residential floor area | 244,500 sf |
| Market Rate | 75% of residential floor area | 733,500 sf |
| School | Not Counted | 150,000 sf |
Below are building comparisons recently completed in Long Island City. All information is either gathered from DCP, ZOLA, or public press. The last column is calculated floor area per unit.
| Building Name | Address | Gross Floor Area | Residential Units | Floors | Height | Floor Area per Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lumen | 23-15 44th Road | 992,460 sq ft | 938 | 66 | 754 | 1,058.04 |
| Skyline Tower | 23-15 44th Drive | 707,634 sq ft | 802 | 68 | 778 | 882.34 |
| 43-25 Hunter Street | 681,188 sq ft | 974 | 50 | 509 | 699.37 | |
| 43-08 Crescent Street | 731,391 sq ft | 709 | 42 | 1,031.58 | ||
| Malt Drive | 2-20 Malt Drive | 589,727 sq ft | 575 | 34 | 390 | 1,025.61 |
| Malt Drive | 2-21 Malt Dive | 842,064 sq ft | 811 | 38 | 440 | 1,038.30 |
How long does it take to build a building in LIC?
I wanted to figure out how long it takes to build a tall building in Long Island City, because the OneLIC Neighborhood rezoning review is happening right now, and around the Hunters Point / East River area there will be development parcels which tall towers will probably be built.
The average length of time from permit to certificate of occupancy for new tall buildings along the East River in Long Island City is 4.15 years.
Methodology
I used a combination of looking up individual buildings on ZOLA and using the NYC DCP Capital Planning website which then fed into a speadsheet tracking data such as units, initial application and initial certificate of occupancy (CofO). I restricted my data collection to only the taller buildings along the East River Waterfront. There are some buildings which don’t have average time because I couldn’t find the initial permit, since it was so long ago. I then took an average of all the buildings I had duration data from initial application to CofO.
An expert of the spreadsheet is below:
| Address | Units | Year Completed | Average Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46-10 CENTER BOULEVARD | 584 | 2014 | 4.87 |
| 46-15 CENTER BOULEVARD | 367 | 2012 | 3.05 |
| 46-30 CENTER BOULEVARD | 184 | 2008 | – |
| 45-40 CENTER BOULEVARD | 345 | 2012 | 2.98 |
| 45-45 CENTER BOULEVARD | 820 | 2013 | 6.12 |
| 45-60 CENTER BOULEVARD | 345 | 2012 | 2.98 |
| 47-05 CENTER BOULEVARD | 395 | 2007 | – |
| 47-20 CENTER BOULEVARD | 495 | 2007 | – |
| 4-75 48 AVENUE | 578 | 2006 | – |
| 4-74 48 AVENUE | 522 | 1996 | – |
| 4-12 49 AVENUE | 80 | 2002 | – |
| 2-01 50 AVENUE | 503 | 2000 | – |
| 1-50 50 AVENUE | 619 | 2015 | 3.55 |
| 2-14 50 AVENUE | 199 | 2013 | 6.35 |
| 50-09 2 STREET | 177 | 2007 | – |
| 1-55 BORDEN AVENUE | 306 | 2015 | 3.40 |
| 52-03 CENTER BOULEVARD | 800 | 2021 | 4.10 |
| 5-11 47 AVENUE | 188 | 2013 | 6.21 |
| 52-41 CENTER BOULEVARD | 394 | 2021 | 3.16 |
| 2-21 MALT DRIVE | 811 | 2025 | 4.43 |
| 2-20 MALT DRIVE | 575 | 2025 | 4.43 |
| 1-15 57 AVENUE | 689 | 2022 | 3.54 |
| 56-27 2 STREET | 443 | 2022 | 3.06 |
Discussion
First of all, I need to state this:
Note: I am a member of Queens Community Board 2, but I’m speaking in my own capacity, and not speaking on behalf of the board. These are my views only, and do not represent the views of the City of New York, Electeds, or Queens Community Board 2.
The Long Island City waterfront started to change in the late 1990’s with New York State leading the Queens West project to remediate and redevelop former industrial waterfront at Hunters Point South into 4,600 units of housing, and the 12-acre Gantry State Park. In the late 1990’s and early 2000’s the city had a series of rezonings, and in the early 2010s the city began to redevelop Hunters Point South.
With the proposed OneLIC Neighborhood rezoning I’ve been interested in how the rezoning might affect the neighborhood.
It’s really easy to think that once we rezone part of Long Island City, then all of a sudden buildings will sprout. But life isn’t SimCity. The change will be felt through the following decades, and I wondered when people might be feeling the change.
So, if past is prologue, and if the OneLIC Neighborhood Rezoning passes at the end of the year, then we’ll start to feel the impacts of the rezoning in late 2029.
However, it might be useful to look at a longer time horizon: the Queens West development by the NYCEDC kicked off around 1994, so if we look at the above list and try to figure out what the average length of time from 1994 to the building opening, we get 18.52 years.
I think it would be accurate to say that it took just over 18.5 years from initial rezoning to what we have in Long Island City today, which is a massive amount of time. And a good reminder that the time horizons for all of this is much longer than we think.
This also might become a reason not to support the rezoning: all of this takes so long, then we shouldn’t do it. But I believe that’s a fallacy: we know we need homes. We know it takes time, so delaying creating more homes for people just because it takes too long isn’t the correct policy proposal in my opinion. The way to accelerate housing is to find new ways to fund & finance it through city & state redevelopment authorities, reduce arbitrary delaying tactics, and actually fund affordable housing through HPD at the city and state level.
Why 311 Matters
Without 311 service requests, NYC’s bureaucracy can’t substantiate facts on the ground. So they can’t take action. 311 service requests becomes data that city agencies have to deal with: either they have to fix the problem, study what is the root issue, or they have to ignore it. Without 311 service requests, agencies can just keep ignoring the problem – because they don’t know that it exists.
This isn’t about being a Karen or being a busybody: city agencies don’t always know the ground truth of what’s happening on the street. Get over yourself if you think this is snitching. The city is too big, things change all the time, and life comes at you fast. 311 is a centralized way that residents can let the city know what’s happening with non-emergency municipal services.
In New York City, there is a range of items you can make 311 service requests, from illegal parking, to broken hydrants, to unsafe construction sites, to sanitation issues, to broken walk signs. You can download the 311 app, or call 311 and an operator will take your service request.
I implore people to make 311 service requests, and if there are persistent issues then you can forward those service requests to your local community board, council member, and borough president. Without these service requests, it’s really easy for agencies or the NYPD or the mayor’s office to ignore the problem.
That doesn’t mean the system is perfect: there’s issues with NYPD closing out tickets suspiciously early or response times in weeks or months. It’s not great: I’m not defending poor municipal governance here.
But (but!) it’s currently the only tool which substantiates what’s happening on the ground, and as the adage goes, if you see something, say something (to 311). It only takes a minute, and you can be the change you believe in.
In the spirit of helping make your 311 service request better, below are some tips and tricks.
Note: I am a member of Queens Community Board 2, but I’m speaking in my own capacity, and not speaking on behalf of the board. These are my views only, and do not represent the views of the City of New York, Electeds, or Queens Community Board 2.
Effective 311
- Download the 311 app on your phone – it takes way less time to file a service request than using a phone operator.
Note: sometimes it’s difficult to categorize which service request to use, and that’s when the helpful operators are great. An example: there is a giant empty lot which every winter the sidewalks didn’t get shoveled, making the football field length of frozen ice particularly annoying. Only by calling 311 was I able to learn that HPD owned the site, and they didn’t even know it was a problem. After that the sidewalks were much better taken care of. - Download an app which puts a timestamp on the photo. Timestamp Camera (not SponCon: get it via Apple & Google) is what I use. It writes a time, date, and location onto the photo, and saves it in your camera roll.
- If possible, and it’s safe, take a picture of the service item (an illegally parked car, broken hydrant, broken walk sign, etc),
- Fill out the 311 service request on the app. try to be as specific on the details and address as you can. Sometimes you can’t find the address so you need to make a guess, and you can write a description in the details box. Don’t make anything up, be truthful, and just describe what you see.
- Add the image of the service item
- It’s up to you if you want to include your contact information or do it anonymously.
- Click Send
You can track the 311 request, hopefully the issue is fixed.
Often the problem isn’t resolved, but at least it’s a data point that the city will either have to deal with or now willfully ignore. Above is a selection of 311 service requests for the chronic situation of the Court Square Diner parking their cars on the sidewalk, right next to the steps to the 7 train. At some point there might be a street redesign, but so far it’s been a bit of an uphill battle keeping the cars off the sidewalk.
If the same thing keeps happening, forwarding the 311 service request numbers to your council member and community board, who can get it in front of the right agency. Electeds might not know it’s a problem either, and appreciate the knowledge.
I wish to implore you, however, that just because you make the machine aware of an issue, doesn’t mean that it will be fixed. Sometimes you might have a specific policy proposal to fix this problem. Calibrate your excitement on how quickly the problem might be resolved, since often it’s proportional to how emergent the problem is.
I hope that this article can sway you why 311 is a useful tool for local governance, even if there are flaws in the system.
If the city doesn’t know there’s a problem, how can they know to fix it? You can be a helper by letting the city (which is just a big collection of people trying to do a good job) know what’s going on.
Tips for Public Testimony
Note: I am a member of Queens Community Board 2, but I’m speaking in my own capacity, and not speaking on behalf of the board. These are my views only, and do not represent the views of the City of New York, Electeds, or Queens Community Board 2.
TL;DR: do a little bit of preparation, speak about how the policy affects you, and give specifics. Here’s the tips.
A large part of my work is helping people communicate with their government (local, state & federal) but also design better methods of how governments can solicit feedback. I wrote a whole guidebook to Public Participation and Community Engagement for the Biden Administration.
The most common way local governments solicit testimony is the public hearing or town hall, which I believe is a uniquely bad way to solicit public testimony and feedback. The timing (usually right after work), the location (usually an auditorium), the short duration (usually less than 2 minutes), and the performative nature of this type of public testimony pushes testimony to be performative, make people feel they have a “use it or lose it” mentality, and can often create nasty situations where the crowd gets out of hand.
There’s a reason why every local government official loves Parks & Recreation, and the public testimony scenes are part of what makes this show special. It’s incredibly close to realty.
But, the town hall format is the basic building block of current local government feedback, and sometimes we just need to have one to gather mass feedback.
With all that being said, I wanted to share my tips for speaking at a public hearing. They are based on my experience both giving and listening to testimony, both as a board member and as a resident. I’ve tried to divide the advice into general tips and then how I think about these things, to give you a full view on where the guidance comes from.
One last time: these tips are from me, are not reflective of any board guidance, guidance from any elected official, or any governmental organization. And since I’m human, I’m sure these tips-n-tricks will change as we all get better at this.
My Tips for Public Testimony
Sign Up
Where possible sign up prior to the meeting to get a testimony slot – generally you need to sign up prior to the meeting (but this isn’t always true!). This puts you on the list, and if the meeting is run well they will give you the logistics and rules of testimony.
Prepare
In order to maximize your time and impact, you should try to prepare your testimony in proportion to the type of testimony you are giving (see below). The preparation for a quick call to a council member is different than a 1 minute speaking slot at a local community board subcommittee, which is vastly different than if you are invited (subpoenaed) to speak in front of Congress. Calibrate your preparation.
When I’m listening to testimony, I appreciate when people can clearly articulate the problem, how it affects them, and what outcomes they are looking to have. It becomes really clear how prepared and serious someone is about a topic during their testimony, which is different than their nervousness/emotion about the topic. Preparation also allows you to understand what’s importation to you.
Understand why you are there
Ask yourself why you want to testify: is it to oppose or support something? Why? How does it affect you? Be clear why you are there, what your purpose is, and what you want to get out of the testimony.
Per below, please calibrate what you expect to get out of the testimony: sometimes the testimony won’t immediately culminate in a vote, and sometimes the later on vote won’t align with your desired outcome. Democracy is hard, but these sessions aren’t plebiscites, and balancing the equities is really, really difficult.
Understand the stakes
It’s important as you write out the testimony to clearly understand the stakes of the problem, and calibrate accordingly. There’s a difference between replacing a fountain in a public park, to installing a bike lane, to allowing multifamily housing on a lot, to changing the zoning of a neighborhood, to changing the law on immigration. All of these issues are important to people, but my advice is to understand the stakes and time horizon of the proposed policy.
The risk to not clearly understanding the stakes and context is that your testimony will sound like a crank, or sound inhumane. You might be very passionate on the subject, but it’s helpful to understand the larger context and stakes surrounding what you are testifying about.
The audience
Don’t forget people’s humanity.
As you define the stakes, really think of the audience you will be giving the testimony to. In the end, you probably want your testimony to either change or maintain a policy you care about. Understand who you are giving testimony to: if it’s a NYC Community Board, please understand that these are volunteers. If you are testifying to professional planners or transportation officials, understand that they are here to help implement policy which people want. Even if the testimony is to paid politicians, please remember that they are people too, and calibrate how you think you can persuade them to your policy preference.
I’ll say this again: you are testifying to people who have feelings, expertise, knowledge, and finite energy.
Be humane.
Understand the limitations
Part of preparing is understanding the stakes and your audience, and what their limitations might be. NYC Community Boards are advisory boards, which can write letters and help coordinate across city agencies. Professional staff can answer questions, clarify policy, and help explain the policy, but generally don’t set policy but deploy tactics to bring policy into action. City council members generally can vote on ordinances or local law, budgets, can hire consultants, etc. State legislators can do this at the state level.
It’s very important to calibrate your testimony and your request to the audience and what they can action within their power. Sometimes this is squiggly, since electeds and professional staff can hide behind process, rules, etc to dodge requests, so your job is to try to use their position to further your desired outcomes.
If I’m listening to testimony which is asking me or the body the person is testifying to do something which is wildly outside our/their power, then that creates a point of friction, and your message will be diminished.
Calibrating your request to what’s actually possible helps action your testimony.
Focus on one topic
For any subject, the potential policy areas might be huge and diverse. It’s easy to try to create the Everything Bagel of testimony to try to share everything. My advice is to pick one part of the subject at hand, and clearly outline how this connects to the larger subject, how it affects you, and what you would like to happen. Be specific, since most people’s experience might be different than other neighbors, and there’s value in hearing different experiences.
For example: in a neighborhood rezoning, you might have opinions about many parts of the plan, and how it affects you. Resist the urge to kitchen-sink your testimony. You can clearly articulate that there are many parts of the proposed policy which you agree/object to, and share a very specific part: Maybe you agree with the rezoning because it allows a school to be built. Maybe you object to it because you think it will add too many people. Be specific on how the policy affects you.
Write out your testimony
It will be helpful to write out your testimony, so you can organize your thoughts. My advice is to at least create an outline of your testimony, so you can figure out what’s the most important part, what you want to highlight, and to organize any facts or information you want to share. The best case is to not just read your written testimony into the oral record, but I acknowledge that not everyone is comfortable with public speaking.
We’re all cheering for you to share your testimony!
Writing out your testimony is also helpful so that in the case you might not be able to offer oral testimony, you can often email written testimony to the board or government body. There’s been times where I’ve signed up for public testimony and haven’t been able to make the speaking slot because the session went long and I had kid duties to deal with, and I was able to mail in my written testimony (which is just as important as oral testimony).
Writing, as usual, is a process which helps you organize and refine your thoughts.
Using Talking Points
Sometimes advocacy groups will write out a set of talking points, for or against a policy. My advice is to only use these as guides, and not wholesale copy and paste them into your oral or written testimony.
As someone who wants to understand your situation, and how this policy affects you (I know I keep saying this), regurgitating talking points doesn’t do anyone favors at this. At best it will be repetitive, and at worst it gives electeds the excuse to ignore your testimony.
Testimony sandwich
Great testimony often has what I call the Testimony Sandwich, which allows you to tell a complete story in a very limited amount of time. When I’m listening to testimony (as a member of a board or the public) I’m listening for the following:
Who you are
Oftentimes you might be required to state your name and sometimes your address, and I do think it’s valuable to give us a little bit about yourself. When I listen to testimony I’m really only listening for who people are, and what type of connection to the project area (community/neighborhood) they have (do they live here, work here, etc) so I can understand how it affects them.
What I’m not listening for, and will frankly throw me off listening to the content of your testimony, is telling us that your situation somehow gives you more weight or insight than your neighbors. This might be telling us that you lived here all your life, that you were born here, that you lived here some amount of years and therefore you have some special insight or should have a louder voice than other neighbors. I believe that there isn’t some special extra value that people born in the community get over people who moved into the community recently.
You are giving testimony, so I automatically assume that you really care about your community and this issue is important to you. We’re all neighbors, and all bring value to the community.
The topic you are testifying about
Be specific about what topic you are testifying about (see above), give the bill number, topic, subject, etc. This might sound duplicative, but assume that your testimony will live in a transcript separated from any context. This also allows you to focus the audience to the specific subject, especially if there’s a lot of testimony about different topics occurring during the session.
You also will be focusing on a specific part of the subject, so please tell us about that specific subject.
Why this topic is important to you
You are here to give testimony, and it’s helpful to explain how this subject/topic affects you specifically, and how action or inaction will affect you or your immediate family. Your unique experience is valuable: I want to hear about you and how this policy affects you.
I personally don’t think you should testify how a piece of policy would affect other people, since I can’t trust that at all. It’s a bit like hearsay: since your describing something affecting a third party, with a lived experience all their own, I can’t trust that you fully understand their lives and the impact of that policy on their lives. Maybe you are an expert in this subject, and have done scholarly work, but that’s different case than public testimony.
I would prefer to hear your first person information – since you are the expert in your life.
If you are worried that the point of view of a person or a group won’t be heard, by all means try to get that person or group to offer testimony. Even better, contact the board or governmental body before the town hall sharing your concern, and I guarantee you that they will do their best to try to get that person or group to offer testimony.
What result are advocating
Share what outcome you are advocating: maybe it’s a bike lane, or cheaper housing, or a new street light, or increased safety, or the retention of free street parking. Oftentimes you might not be an expert in the tactics of how to make that outcome possible, but you might have examples from other cities, or from standards bodies (NACTO for example for street design), or you might offer a solution.
Telling me what good looks like as an outcome is important, so I can understand your preference. The more specific the better and how that will improve your life is extremely important.
Example
Good [time of day], my name is [state your name] and I live in [part of community] and I am here to speak about [topic].
I [support or oppose] [the hearing topic] because [reasons].
[focused set of reasons based on your personal experience, and how the proposed policy will affect you and your immediate family].
My preferred out come would be [state what you would prefer, and if there are specific policy tactics, be brief with them].
I hope that you will vote [for or against] [this topic / policy].
Thank you.
Rehearse (but don’t over prepare)
You only get one or two minutes. Please rehearse a bit so that your message can be adequately heard.
I personally don’t mind if you read off your page of testimony, but please do some preparation so I can understand and clearly hear your point of view. I’m not expecting perfect enunciation or presentation, we all get nervous, but I’m rooting for you to give clear testimony so I can understand your view.
On emotion
Government is looking for public testimony on a subject because either that’s the process and/or the subject is contentious. It’s ok that we don’t agree with each other. In any community, we’re not going to see alignment on any one subject. There’s some disagreement on how or when to bring emotion to testimony.
I fully expect people to share their full range of emotion during testimony, and for me, emotion doesn’t impact what I comprehend from listening to your testimony.
My advice is to try to calibrate your emotion with your message: if I can’t understand your message, then it will be difficult to make sure your voice is heard. People are not automatons, but this is where rehearsing and practice will help you get your message heard.
Don’t go over time
Time marches forward, and you have a room of people who want to share their testimony. When your allotted time expires, please stop and thank the body for hearing your testimony and end your testimony.
Sharing is caring.
For me, if you go a few seconds over time no biggie. But if you are warned that your time is up and you keep talking, and we have to cut your microphone, then for me your testimony has just been compromised. I’ll unfortunately remember your actions, and not your content.
Understand the constraints
It’s extremely important to understand the rules around public testimony, and the constraints on those who administer the public forum. Often, elected officials, board members, or experts aren’t allowed to or can’t respond to your public testimony. There’s all sorts of reasons for this, but this is why public hearings are particularly bad ways of gathering feedback from the public.
These are your neighbors
While you might have calibrated the stakes, your emotion, and your preferred outcome in preparing, public testimony can still be incredibly frustrating. People will have different views than you, the stakes might feel incredibly high, or this might feel like the only time your voice could be heard.
I implore you to assume good as a starting point, and act accordingly civil.
These are your neighbors. So please don’t yell at them, accuse them of something (e.g. being a paid protestor), diminish their voice (e.g. call them a transplant), don’t pick a fight, and be civil. Please don’t interrupt their testimony, cheer or jeer, or disrupt other’s testimony.
Seriously, be civil.
If your testimony begins to disparage a person, a group, a position, or centers anger at a person then as a board member or a member of the public I’m doing to discount your testimony. I fully dislike the heckler’s veto at a public testimony session because this is a moment to allow people to share their view.
Direct action has its place in civil discourse, but not at a public testimony session, which hopes to gather testimony from a range of residents. By shutting down other’s speech, it does a disservice to your community.
It’s not about “winning”
I’m not sure what winning looks like here, and for public testimony I would guide you not to try to “win” at testimony. This isn’t a zero-sum situation! You being here is winning enough.
We’re all neighbors.
Make connections
One valuable part of public testimony, is that you can make connections with your electeds, the press, and other neighbors. Especially in-person sessions allow you the opportunity to meet your neighbors. Please take advantage of this opportunity.
Virtual Meeting Tips
The proliferation of virtual and hybrid meetings means that it can open up access to testimony to a wider range of people who can’t physically access the testimony site, have ambulatory or accessibility concerns, are caregivers who can’t drop an evening to testify at a senior center, or a thousand other reasons.
I love hybrid meetings, especially when they are well run with good amplification and cameras at the venue.
And just like remote work setups, there are some considerations for virtual testimony to think about.
Quiet Space
Just like work: find a quiet space for your testimony and use noisecancelling headphones/AirPods.
I like to find a place on the dining room table where I can post up for the testimony, but where I can also make dinner and be with the kids. Telling the kids that I have 2 minutes to speak to council gives them a heads up on when they can give me 2 minutes of calm (does it always work? No, they’re kids).
Mute your microphone when you join the Zoom/Teams meeting.
Camera posture
When it’s your turn to testify, turn your camera on and unmute yourself. Look right at the camera during the duration of your testimony, and when finished go on mute. Sometimes people might have followup questions, so standby.
I like to keep my camera off before and after my testimony, especially since many hybrid meetings are recorded for YouTube or other locations.
OK, I hope this helps you prepare and deliver your testimony.
If you have any other feedback, tips-n-tricks, please feel free to email me:
randy AT plemel DOT com
Sesame Street Refresh with David Gallo
How do you redesign one of the most beloved streets in television history—without losing its soul?
Scenic designer David Gallo takes us behind the scenes of his work refreshing Sesame Street, balancing history with modern storytelling. From relocating Oscar the Grouch to uncovering forgotten set details, Gallo shares how he approached updating an iconic space while preserving its magic. Plus, hidden Easter eggs, unexpected storytelling opportunities, and what Stephen Colbert had to say about it all.
Show notes & links
- David Gallo Design
- Stephen Colbert’s Hot Takes: Sesame Street
- Read: Street Gang: The Complete History of Sesame Street by Michael Davis
- Watch: Street Gang: How We Got To Sesame Street
- Around the Corner in Season 25
- 456 Sesame Street, a brownstone that houses the Day Care Center, operated by Angela.
- The Furry Arms Hotel, a Muppet hotel owned by Sherry Netherland, with her employees Humphrey, Ingrid, Benny Rabbit, Otis the Elephant Elevator Operator, and a Dinger.
- The Birdland jazz club, which featured live music hosted by Hoots the Owl.
- 10 Sesame Street, a two-story building. The lower floor is occupied by Finders Keepers, a thrift shop full of objects from fairy tales and nursery rhymes, owned by Ruthie. The top floor contains a dance studio owned by dance teacher Celina.
- A Subway Station.
- The Park, which has a jungle gym and a pond. The Squirrelles live in a tree there.
- A newsstand, run by Oscar.
- Clock Tower.
- An Electronics Store (seen only in Sesame Street Stays Up Late as a part of the 456 building)
TYPOLOGY.CITY
Where public policy meets our bodies.
- Massive pieces of rock, concrete, steel, or other durable materials deployed to demarcate pedestrian zones, secure perimeters, and intercept or redirect vehicle movement. The post The Bollard appeared first on Typology City.
- A rectilinear, front-loading waste receptacle. Specimens come in different finishes based on location, generally featuring a monolithic powder-coated steel body with gently curved edges and a convex lid that forms the receptacle cover. The post Prax Waste Receptacles appeared first on Typology City.
About
Hi. My name is Randy. Nice to meet you.
I’m a design and innovation consultant which owns Expedition Works. I specialize in solving hard and complex problems for people in elegant, and hopefully simpler ways. Depending on the problem need, this might look like user and customer experience design, product and interaction design, service design, strategy, or environments design.
I consult and advise, having worked with a wide roster of organizations after leaving IDEO after 12 years of exciting work. Prior to this, I worked as an architect in NYC, for 8 years.
I’ve done extensive work in the public sector working with great partners from the Knight Foundation to reimagine the civic commons across eight cities, Bloomberg Philanthropies to cultivate city-based innovation in the U.S. and India, AARP to evolve their role in creating livable communities for all, and the City of Los Angeles and NYCHA to make cities better through design.
I’ve also completed a range of new products and services with a diverse set of clients—including State Farm, Steelcase, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Tata, Citibank, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, and Walgreens—on a variety of design challenges, from new digital communication tools, to blended digital and physical experiences, to entirely new retail strategy and concepts.
Holding a BS in Architecture and Masters of Architecture from the University of Cincinnati, I’ve worked worldwide for firms large and small. I have extensively taught in the past, most notably as a Part-time Studio Lecturer at Parsons the New School, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.