NEW YORK | City to mix luxury housing with low income projects

[Kingofthehill]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Just tear those monstrosities down all-together and build market-rate apartments for tax payers. Adopt a voucher-type system like Chicago for the poors. They really have subsidized parking spaces? Are you kidding me? And these people are gearing up for a fight? They live off of the tax-payers in New York and still feel entitled to live like Kings and Queens and have the nerve to be angry at NYCHA for disrupting their rent-free lives due to that little thing called budget woes? Do they think the money used to pay their rent and parking spaces drops out of thin air? Who do they think they are? Well -- they're mostly middle-school drop outs who have no clear grasp of the term budget and economics so can blame them anyway?

Idiots.

599GTO at his finest

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Just tear those monstrosities down all-together and build market-rate apartments for tax payers. Adopt a voucher-type system like Chicago for the poors. They really have subsidized parking spaces? Are you kidding me? And these people are gearing up for a fight? They live off of the tax-payers in New York and still feel entitled to live like Kings and Queens and have the nerve to be angry at NYCHA for disrupting their rent-free lives due to that little thing called budget woes? Do they think the money used to pay their rent and parking spaces drops out of thin air? Who do they think they are? Well -- they're mostly middle-school drop outs who have no clear grasp of the term budget and economics so can blame them anyway?
Idiots.

You'd have budget woes too if you agreed to wait 35 years to get paid and allowed offshore tax havens for the luxurious ones and the fake persons. It's possible that the budget is in woe because they're currently waiting for the future to come so that they can get paid the massive delayed tax on previous projects. Do the Democratic-Socialist cities in Western Europe do it like this?

Manhattan should protect as much green space as it can. Build on the parking lots and put the community centers in the new luxury structures if you must but don't touch the open green space.

FWIW, I'm not picking on NYC per se, but NYC is so far out there in front of other cities in some respects and is lifted up the highest to be emulated.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by sbarn

I know it wouldn't happen, but I think rather than put lipstick on a pig, they should replace public housing with new mixed income, mixed use towers. They probably could accommodate higher densities on many of these sites and begin the to address some of the social issues / stigmas associated with public housing.

Exactly what I was thinking. The current plans seems like a bandaid. Better than nothing I guess, but a reconstruction of the neighborhoods with at least an equal number of affordable units mixed with market rates rentals in new buildings would seem to be an ideal long term solution.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

Exactly what I was thinking. The current plans seems like a bandaid. Better than nothing I guess, but a reconstruction of the neighborhoods with at least an equal number of affordable units mixed with market rates rentals in new buildings would seem to be an ideal long term solution.

I used to be involved in the affordable housing world in NYC, and I'll tell you why I think the current plans are reasonable-

1. NYCHA housing isn't housing strictly for the poor. It's already somewhat mixed-income, and it's getting more mixed-income all the time, because 50% of all units need to go to folks with a decent salary. And the housing crunch pushes more middle class people to public housing (which never became as deteriorated or crime ridden as in other cities).

2. NYCHA housing was built so that one can build around the buildings, while not actually relocating the residents or massive disturbing routines, and enraging everyone, which is a good thing. It just seems like a waste of money and time to destroy perfectly good housing, when there's nothing inherently wrong with the housing, outside of the dated "tower in a park" design (which is being remedied somewhat by the infill).

3. The Feds don't actually allow you to just destroy public housing because you don't like it. The massive demolitions you see in other cities are only because the Feds considered these systems to be "hopeless". NYC public housing has always been the big city "model" for public housing, and there's no way the feds are going to agree to destruction of this huge federal investment just because some wealthy folks don't want mixed income housing, or because armchair urban planners don't like the street-level design.

4. This is only the beginning. They are starting "small" with some infill in some prime neighborhoods, but there are bigger plans afoot. Some of these complexes will be transformed in more radical manners, but this will be even more controversial, and so they're starting with these easier infill plans. So stay tuned. They started with infill schools and affordable housing in the Outer Boroughs, moved to bigger infill luxury towers in Manhattan, and the next step will involve some larger scale reconstruction where NYCHA sits on prime land and parking lots aren't available (if you know NYC you can probably guess the locations).

[Dac150]

^^Great insight, thanks. This looks like a positive first step in the right direction.

[yankeesfan1000]

Thanks for the insight Crawford. In regard to the buildings themselves, I suppose it is easy to label them decrepit because maintenance has been deferred for so long. I guess I'll wait and see what the actual proposals, and final products are. I'm hoping your last point is referring to two groups of what I assume are NYCHA buildings in the teens and 20s between 9th and 10th.

[muppet]

Originally Posted by sbarn

I know it wouldn't happen, but I think rather than put lipstick on a pig, they should replace public housing with new mixed income, mixed use towers. They probably could accommodate higher densities on many of these sites and begin the to address some of the social issues / stigmas associated with public housing.

It can happen. In London all new developments over 40 units have to devote 30-50% to 'affordable' homes otherwise they won't get planning permission (allowances are made for for a few rare, extreme luxury developments where the price would be over-damaged by lack of exclusivity). This often includes social housing, and why you get luxury highrises with a good mix of people, some of the penthouses of the converted Oxo Tower went for free to people on a waiting list (theyre worth $2 million). This policy also ensures kids get fairer opportunities and ghettoes don't form for rich or poor alike.

The problem with this though is it's not always sustainable a practice - the poor often sell on at a profit and are replaced by the middle and upper classes. Central London is still an exclusive suburb for the very rich, and a few lucky benefits recipients.

In turn to curb this homes are now being made sustainably affordable with contracts that ensure when theyre sold on theyre marked down to the same artificially market-adjusted price as when first bought.

[mhays]

Also, it makes the other 50-70% more expensive, as they have to subidize the others.

[NYguy]

http://www.citylimits.org/news/artic...-on-nycha-land

Details Emerge About Plan for Private Buildings on NYCHA Land
While some agree that the plan has financial merit, others fear the social costs of mixing incomes in NYCHA neighborhoods. The authority's chairman sees it as a win-win.





By Batya Ungar-Sargon
Mar 4, 2013

Since December 2011, NYCHA has signaled it wants to lease some of its "under-used" land to private developers. In Plan NYCHA, the strategic vision the authority published around that time, NYCHA listed 10 priorities. The second was to "explore options for building mixed-income and market-rate housing, and for monetizing land and development rights to fund existing NYCHA capital needs."

The plan, according to NYCHA officials, is to send out a request for proposals to private developers for eight NYCHA sites in Manhattan that have "under-used" land and are located in prime real estate areas, such as the Upper East and West Sides and the Lower East Side.

The proposal will use the citywide 421a housing subsidy, which means that in exchange for 20-year property tax abatements, developers will set aside 20 percent of the new units for affordable housing. "Affordable" means that the apartments will be made available to families who earn up to 60 percent of the regional Area Median Income (or $49,800 for a family of four), while the other 80 percent will charge market-rate rents. The affordability restrictions will be permanent, according to NYCHA.

"If all sites currently under consideration are offered and attract acceptable bids, 4,000 to 4,500 apartments could be created," Sheila Stainback, NYCHA's spokeswoman, writes in an email. Parking lots will be the most common spot for the new buildings to be erected. "NYCHA will work closely with residents to restore green space in other parts of the developments and to replace parking," Stainback writes.

NYCHA's choice in developer will be determined by the attractiveness of each bid, a large part of which will be the price they are willing to pay to lease the land, though that price will be also determined by the market value of each site.

As an independent authority, NYCHA does not appear to need any approval from the City Council or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to move ahead with the plan.

HUD does require resident involvement and engagement when changes are under consideration, and representatives of NYCHA have begun the process of holding "town hall" meetings in each of the sites likely to be affected by the plan. Published reports indicate that the list includes the Smith, Baruch, La Guardia, Campos Plaza and Meltzer developments.

That, says Rhea, is why NYCHA has been stingy with details of the plan. As soon as stakeholders and residents have been fully informed, NYCHA plans to release the Request for Proposal.

The NYCHA boss says each new developer will improve the entire campus they join, through measures such as installing security cameras in all buildings, contributing to health initiatives and ensuring parking solutions and lighting enhancements. "The thing we're really excited about is reintegrating public housing into the broader neighborhood," Rhea says, "breaking down barriers by making these new buildings part of the fabric of the neighborhood." The new buildings would each have a street address with the hope that this will lead to greater permeability and reintegration through street life. And, contrary to a rumor, the new housing won't face away from the NYCHA buildings, he insists.

Besides overcoming social and financial misgivings, the plan might need to get around city zoning laws. Rhea says he plans to work within the current zoning regulations for the properties, out of a desire to expedite the process. (By avoiding a rezoning, NYCHA also avoids the involvement of community boards, borough presidents and the City Council in shaping the deal through the city's land-use review process.)

Yet Rhea also hopes the plan will help to compensate for the flaws in the "Tower in the Park" model of public housing. If increasing density is his goal, some wonder how NYCHA will be able to proceed without altering the zoning.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

I love the woman looking at this guy, thinking "you fucking loser".

[NYguy]

^ LOL, she could be thinking something else.



More information on the proposal from the agency's website...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/p...ing-land.shtml






NYCHA says 14 residential buildings could rise on public housing lots

March 22, 2013

The New York City Housing Authority has released details of its plan to lease public housing land for private market-rate development, the New York Times reported. All in all, NYCHA said it expects 14 residential buildings to rise in eight city housing projects.

For example, the Upper West Side’s Frederick Douglass Houses could develop three market-rate buildings with 794 units on space that is currently home to parking lots. Also, the Alfred E. Smith Houses located Downtown could have a 1,151-unit building grow on a parcel of its land.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

4. This is only the beginning. They are starting "small" with some infill in some prime neighborhoods, but there are bigger plans afoot. Some of these complexes will be transformed in more radical manners, but this will be even more controversial, and so they're starting with these easier infill plans. So stay tuned. They started with infill schools and affordable housing in the Outer Boroughs, moved to bigger infill luxury towers in Manhattan, and the next step will involve some larger scale reconstruction where NYCHA sits on prime land and parking lots aren't available (if you know NYC you can probably guess the locations).

How dependent are these plans on the stance of the next mayor? Is the NYCHA policy on infill directly under the mayor's control? I'm just wondering how likely it is that we'll see even the infill proposals on the parking lots, let alone the rest of it, in a post-Bloomberg era.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

How dependent are these plans on the stance of the next mayor? Is the NYCHA policy on infill directly under the mayor's control? I'm just wondering how likely it is that we'll see even the infill proposals on the parking lots, let alone the rest of it, in a post-Bloomberg era.

NYCHA is overwhelmingly dependent on federal (HUD) money and control. The mayor's office plays a role, but not the dominant role.

In any case, there's no money, so the future mayors have basically two choices. They can allow mixed-income infill towers on available sites, and renovate the existing housing, or they can do nothing and everything will eventually be demolished and replaced.

The next mayor is probably Christine Quinn, and she supports the NYCHA infill policy. I suspect that any mayor, notwithstanding election-time rhetoric, would also support the policy, because the alternative is no more public housing.

[NYguy]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1369946

High and mighty NYCHA: Luxury towers on leased land would 'look down' on projects
Residents outraged by plans that would block the sun and gobble up park space




A pair of 50-story buildings will grab parking lot and river views.




This 35-story tower would crowd out a ballfield.


By Greg B. Smith
June 11, 2013

THE CITY Housing Authority’s plan to lease public land for luxury housing gives new meaning to the phrase “looking down on the poor.” Without fanfare, NYCHA quietly released drawings for the first time Tuesday revealing the size and scope of the huge “market rate” towers the agency wants built on leased space at eight Manhattan developments.

The planned towers rise as high as 50 stories, looming over their public housing neighbors, blocking out sun and eating up parking lots, basketball courts and community centers.

The tallest would be a 700,000-square-foot behemoth at Smith Houses right next to the Brooklyn Bridge — a building that clocks in at an amazing 500 feet tall.

That’s 50 stories. Trump Tower on Fifth Ave. is just eight stories taller.

NYCHA noted that because the new Smith buildings would be located “at the foreground of the Manhattan Skyline,” their design “must achieve a high standard of architecture and design.”

By comparison, tenants in the Smith Houses live in buildings built in 1953 that rise no higher than 17 stories. Conditions are so bad a judge last week ordered NYCHA to fix thousands of backlogged repairs for 320 tenants.

“It’s appalling,” said Aixa Torres, Smith Houses tenant president. “We won’t have any sun. They’re going to literally squeeze my residents like they’re roaches and then they’re going to build this huge beautiful complex. You want to talk about the ‘Tale of Two Cities’ ”?

The 50-story giant at Smith would be built on what’s now a parking lot next to two NYCHA buildings that were severely damaged during Hurricane Sandy. Another 35-story building would be packed in on the same lot, while a third 35-story tower would take root on what’s now a baseball diamond.

Across Manhattan, the agency wants to lease out 18 plots of land at eight developments to developers to build housing that would be 80% market rate, 20% affordable. The agency hopes to raise $50 million a year this way to fund repairs. The authority originally planned to seek developers in mid-April, but tenants began complaining that the agency wasn’t providing details on how the plan would affect their neighborhoods. On Tuesday, NYCHA spokeswoman Sheila Stainback claimed the authority has been “closely engaged” with tenants at the affected sites about the plans, but tenant leaders at some of the developments told the Daily News that residents had yet to see the drawings of the new towers.

At the Washington Houses in East Harlem, NYCHA is proposing a 500,000-square-foot, 41-story mega tower that would dominate the entire neighborhood.

It would rise above the 14-story buildings in NYCHA’s development, and displace a community center on E. 99th St. NYCHA says the developer must replace the center at Washington Houses “or another NYCHA location.”

At a City Hall press conference Tuesday, several elected officials called for an “immediate halt” to the plan, noting that tenant leaders at seven of the eight affected developments have officially rejected it. That included Jane Wisdom, tenant president at Douglass Houses on the upper West Side, where NYCHA envisions three towers ranging from 20 to 30 stories tall. Douglass buildings top out at 20 stories.

“My thing is don’t take our sun away, because that’s what the hell you’re doing,” Wisdom said.

[NYguy]

A better look at the massing examples...

[sbarn]

^^ Those look great!

However, I wonder what the chances of these getting built will be given the political headwind.

[J. Will]

If anyone's seen "Broken City", it involves a story of shady dealings to tear down one of these huge projects and replace it with new development.

[babybackribs2314]

I would tear down every single project in the city & replace them all with 5x as much housing. These entitled people are beyond ridiculous - they are living on the dole, and should have zero say re: neighborhood developments.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by babybackribs2314

I would tear down every single project in the city & replace them all with 5x as much housing. These entitled people are beyond ridiculous - they are living on the dole, and should have zero say re: neighborhood developments.

I see what a lot of you don't understand is that the "working poor" also live in these developments. There is a misconception of what the projects really are but I would suggest talking to some of the people who actually live there to get an understanding. I wouldn't call the people living there "entitled" any more than I would a company or developer that gets assistance from the city or state in some form or another. There are people who work to pay ridiculous rents to live in these projects. Getting a unit there is also not as easy as you may think.

[chris08876]

I never understood the "don't take my sun away". These people should realize all this influx of new people is good. Brings in capital, diversity, and new opportunities such as shops. Not to mention makes the area more desirable especially near the "projects" as the article states.