Inside NYC's Racial Equity Planning Tools: Wins, Gaps, and What's Next
A conversation with the co-authors behind Pratt Center's newest report
Four years ago, New York City passed landmark legislation aimed at addressing racial disparities in land use decisions. This law introduced two new tools—the Equitable Development Data Explorer (EDDE) and Racial Equity Reports (RERs)—designed to help prevent displacement and support more equitable planning.
Four years later, where do things stand?
Our latest report, Making the Most out of Racial Equity Reports, takes a close look at these tools and the RERs submitted over the past four years. Drawing on interviews with elected officials’ staff and community board members, the report offers a comprehensive assessment of how these tools have—and haven’t—been used, and explores ways they can be improved.
Below is our conversation with the report’s co-authors, Tara Duvivier (Senior Planner at Pratt Center) and Eve Baron (Chair of the Graduate Center for Planning and the Environment at Pratt Institute), who reflect on what motivated the research, what they uncovered, and why disaggregated data and community-centered tools are essential to advancing more equitable city planning.
****
The legislation that passed in 2021 was the result of years of advocacy by the RISC coalition. Now that it’s in effect, what motivated you to create this report tracking its implementation and impact?
EB: I came together with several planning students at Pratt—some who are now alumni—and the RISC coalition through the Taconic Fellowship. The RISC coalition was interested in a little further analysis looking at how the Racial Equity Reports (RERs) were being used by community boards and borough presidents. Then Pratt Center came in and we started the idea of developing a broader report.
What personally motivated you to want to do this research?
EB: I’ve always been interested in demystifying the planning process and breaking it down into its component parts. I wanted to understand how these new tools were being utilized by the public and also decisionmakers in the ULURP process.
TD: With our work at Pratt Center, there are so many different land use changes and legislation that gets passed and we never really have an opportunity to take stock of whether it’s working or not, and if so, how?
The Real Deal published an OP-ED earlier this year that framed RERs as a bureaucratic hurdle in the rezoning process—specifically calling them “apartment killers.” What do you think is missing from that take and why do these reports matter?
TD: The mischaracterization was completely inaccurate and infuriating. I definitely believe that some developers may feel that, with how the public review process is currently designed, community members have too much power to stop projects, but a lot of the members of the RISC coalition are not opposed to more housing—it’s the fact that they are not receiving the information they need to understand how each project risks displacing people from their own communities.
I also think that—with all of the bureaucratic processes that come with our land use processes—the RER is one of the least onerous because the information is already provided to the developers. They could literally do it themselves. Most opt to hire a consultant, which I understand costs some money, but it does not break the bank. It does not kill the project. It's a few thousand dollars in the grand scheme of millions of dollars.
EB: I agree with all of that. I felt that their vantage was just wrong because the “apartment killer” idea comes from their concerns about nimbyism, right? At the heart of it, maybe they’re more concerned about the suburban, lower-density neighborhoods that are going to resist denser development. But those communities have tons of resources at their disposal—generally speaking—and they’re not using the RERs as a fulcrum to make their case against projects.
Let’s get into the tools. What does the Equitable Development Data Explorer (EDDE) show and what are the limitations of using it to evaluate local impacts?
TD: The Equitable Development Data Explorer—also known as EDDE—shows demographic information generally at the PUMA level, which is a census geography similar in size to a community board, though the boundaries don’t always align. While the data gives a broad picture, it might not reflect what’s happening on the block level, especially in places with public housing or cultural enclaves. So if a resident looks at the data and sees that an area is described by EDDE as mostly this one thing, it might not match their lived experience. That’s why it’s difficult to evaluate whether a project will be good or bad just based on broad geography—what’s on the block or in the immediate area really matters.
For example, in Community Board 17, East Flatbush has a high rate of Black homeownership, and contains areas designated as Little Caribbean and Little Haiti. When developers build up new, multiple-lot buildings, the residents that move in often don’t reflect the longer-standing community. When we’ve spoken with community members, they’ve said, “I see those buildings, but I don’t know anyone who lives in them.” That’s displacement. That’s how people are experiencing and understanding it. So having data at a smaller scale is really important. And the displacement risk map uses a smaller geographic scale than EDDE, which is helpful, but it still doesn’t always capture that block-by-block change.
EB: Another issue is that a project might be located within the boundaries of one district, and all the data reflects that one area—but it could have an equal or even greater impact in the neighboring district, but that isn’t reflected.
TD: That’s exactly what we saw in our case study. The site was located right on the border of two community boards in the Bronx, but technically inside just one. That meant only one community board reviewed the application, even though the project actually affected both communities. Being able to look at smaller geographic scales helps residents evaluate projects in a more accurate way—especially when you think about walkable access to schools, jobs, or other resources. You can’t just say a project “checks all the boxes” if the data doesn’t reflect the specific place it’s being built.
Why is it important to disaggregate EDDE data by race?
TD: Without disaggregation by race, there’s no way to understand how neighborhood change might impact Latino, Asian, or Black communities—which, for us, is some of the most important information. The City’s response was that the data at that scale may not be accurate, given the smaller geographic scale. While we’re not advocating for using this data to propose race-specific housing, it’s still critical information—especially since we know that Black families have been leaving NYC in record numbers for over 20 years now. Disaggregated data would help us understand trends like that in context with other factors like rising rents, stagnating salaries, and childcare. HPD and DCP have been receptive to having conversations on the data so we hope to continue once the report is officially out.
EB: I think that’s a really important conversation, and I want to also put that in the context of the City’s fair housing goals and other policies, like Where We Live NYC, which was an HPD process that set an ambitious set of goals about fair housing. We know that development impacts neighborhoods at a certain threshold, but the impact is also felt block-by-block and building-by-building. This impact accumulates. So in addition to disaggregation by race, it’s important to have a very close look at what’s happening at a smaller geographic scale.
You also took a step back and analyzed trends amongst the RERs that have been filed since the legislation first went into effect. What were your findings there?
TD: RERs are triggered by certain types of land use actions, and broadly speaking, they’re typically large-scale projects. These aren’t just projects that are adding another floor to a building, but big developments with a lot of square footage. In our analysis, we found that a lot of those developments were being proposed mostly in Brooklyn and the Bronx. But considering the demographics of who live in these neighborhoods, there was often a mismatch in terms of affordability.
EB: You could also look at it from a different standpoint where, for example, in Manhattan, there may be affordable housing developments that are potentially working and integrating different people into neighborhoods that already have a great deal of assets and are in desirable locations. I was also pleasantly surprised to see how many affordable housing projects were also happening in southern Brooklyn, which has not typically been the pattern in the last 20 years or so, especially in neighborhoods that are typically resistant to more housing.
How do you think RERs and the other racial equity tools could be used more effectively?
EB: I like to think about the RERs in a broader planning context. They’ll probably work best when they’re considered in light of broader goals—like the City’s fair housing goals, and as I mentioned earlier, the Where We Live NYC process. I think the more the data can shape what the City would like to see—and then evaluate projects coming in on the basis of their vision—the more effective the tool will be. And that cuts across the board, so not just community boards, but borough presidents, district service cabinets, City Council members. They all could use the EDDE to set goals for development.
What do you hope carries forward from this work?
EB: When we first started the project, the intention was just to focus on the public use of the reports more so than the analysis of them. But now that we had all of this data, we thought, why not do a snapshot and try to understand the patterns? I think it’ll be important to do this annually. There’s more developments and projects that are transitioning between phrases in the pipeline, so I would advocate for a consistent stream of data each year.
TD: I agree. If we collect more data, it would only help those in the RISC coalition advocate for true affordability. I also think, generally, community boards tend to feel bogged down by all of the applications that come their way. Having this data could give them the ability to look at each application more holistically, and they can assess each project as they come in and advocate for what their community needs.
Now that these racial equity tools are in use, and the legislation behind them is in effect, what final reflections or acknowledgments would you like to share about the work that made it possible?
EB: I want to give kudos to the RISC coalition. They’re working on the ground to defend their constituencies who’re experiencing displacement. They coalesced, learned, advocated—they fought for this and it’s reflected in the legislation, the tools, and the educational materials, like the guide produced by the Center for Urban Pedagogy.
TD: I agree. We talked about how community board members typically feel under-resourced, but this coalition was the same until a grant came in that allowed us to provide the training material we needed. We’re still moving forward—and that reinforces this idea that community members are the experts. And these tools that came out of this work are so important and really need to be utilized and accessed more. So we look forward to working with RISC to make sure that happens. They worked so hard and this is too good to not move further.