The Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn has become both a cautionary tale and a reminder: environmental justice and urban redevelopment cannot be disentangled. Once one of the most polluted U.S. waterways — with its infamous “black mayonnaise” sludge choking its bottom — Gowanus is now ground zero for a massive clean-up and rezoning project, led by NYC and federal environmental agencies. Designation as a Superfund site in 2010 meant responsibility: dredging contaminated sediment, installing systems to deal with overflow sewage, isolating toxic land. But the transformation isn’t just ecological. Alongside clean-up, over 8,500 new homes are in the works across about 82 blocks — over 3,000 of them promised permanently affordable. Warehouse, industrial, artist communities: they’ve watched time and neglect, and now opportunity (and risk) are arriving fast. Redevelopment has brought new green spaces, repurposed cultural landmarks (like the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Powerhouse turned art space), and subsidized studio space for long-standing creative residents. Yet some warn: what if clean water and new apartments come at the expense of displacement? What if rising property values push out the very people who stayed during the worst of Gowanus’s environmental neglect? Also, environmental uncertainty persists. Contamination is being addressed, but the soil, vapors, overflow issues all take time and money. The community benefits that accompany the rezoning are encouraging, but their enforcement, the depth of affordable housing, and long-term maintenance will be decisive. Do the environmental and housing promises stick? Or do they become pledges on paper only? For planners, Gowanus shows how redevelopment can bundle many things: ecology, housing, affordability, culture. But the mix is delicate. Without careful policy design — inclusionary zoning, strong tenant protections, community benefits agreements — the risk is that the “redeveloped” future becomes unequal.

Read full article here.