Atlantic Avenue Mixed‑Use plan (AimUp) proposes rezoning, 4,600 homes and public‑site affordable units; borough board discussion focuses on open space and jobs

City planning and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development presented the Atlantic Avenue Mixed‑Use Plan (branded “AimUp”) at the Brooklyn Borough Board public hearing on Jan. 7, 2024. The agencies described rezoning and complementary investment strategies they say are intended to produce housing, jobs, street‑safety improvements and tenant protections in a roughly 21‑block industrial corridor in central Brooklyn.

“...in total, we estimate about, 4,600 new homes, 800,000 square feet for commercial or community facility space. Over, 2,800 new jobs would be created as part of this plan,” said Jonah, a team leader in the Brooklyn office of the Department of City Planning, during the presentation. Jonah (DCP) described the plan area as generally bounded by Vanderbilt Avenue to the west, Nostrand Avenue to the east, Bergen Street to the south and Atlantic Avenue to the north, and said the plan responds to long‑running pressure for housing and commercial growth along Atlantic Avenue.

The plan includes a zoning map amendment that would rezone a large M1‑1 manufacturing area to several residential and mixed‑use districts with the greatest densities concentrated on Atlantic Avenue. DCP said the rezoning would be accompanied by a special district with additional rules — for example, mandatory building setbacks to widen sidewalks and requirements for active ground‑floor uses — and an optional open‑space bonus intended to incentivize new public open space in exchange for additional development capacity subject to city review.

HPD described housing strategies that pair the rezoning with mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) on private sites and several public‑site developments. “Most of the new affordable housing in the AMUP area, actually over 1,000 units is going to be part of the mandatory inclusionary housing program, or MIH,” said Sarit Plotkin, director of neighborhood planning at HPD. HPD also outlined six public or city‑owned sites identified for development or redevelopment, including Dean Park Edge (51 affordable homes for older New Yorkers targeted to around 50% AMI), Bergen Green (an 11‑story mixed‑use project with affordable units and a cultural center), and a Department of Education parking lot at 457 Nostrand that HPD said could yield 160–200 affordable homes with community‑facility space.

HPD also described tenant‑protection and anti‑displacement strategies. The department said it would allocate $3 million to a “partners in preservation” program to fund local community organizations for tenant organizing and anti‑harassment work, and that it expects a $7 million reinstatement for legal services addressing landlord harassment and eviction defense as part of the plan’s complementary measures. HPD also cited a $10 million citywide homeowner help desk and expanded low‑interest home‑repair loans for eligible homeowners.

Board members who spoke in the hearing expressed mixed but conditional support. Yrsa Weatherspoon of Community Board 8 said, “we at Community Board 8 support the AimUp with conditions,” citing streetscape improvements, tenant protections, a workforce program and concerns about open space and shadows. Anthony Busser, chair of Community Board 3, said his board likewise supported the plan with conditions and urged stronger front‑end community input and developer commitments to maintenance funds for new open space.

DCP and HPD said the plan has already gone through community‑board review and a public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement; next steps identified by presenters included City Planning Commission review followed by City Council action. Presenters said written testimony would be accepted through the borough president’s published deadline and that agencies would continue outreach and technical work in response to community comments.

The hearing did not include a formal borough board vote on the plan at that meeting; several community boards had submitted positions as part of the public review. Board chairs asked for additional detail about open‑space proposals, public‑site timelines, project maintenance commitments, and coordination with Landmark Preservation and transit agencies for sites adjacent to historic districts and transit facilities.

Presenters provided contact information for written testimony and said more detailed materials on the sites and MIH options would be circulated to the borough board.