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

[chris08876]

If I may play devils advocate here... wouldn't we need public housing (projects) like in the pic of St. Louis to one, keep units affordable to the masses, and two, provide the sheer numbers of units required to keep the demand at bay or even create a surplus.

As the population grows, like many other large cities, we may have to follow suit and build such housing. Granted the design is always at the mercy of how much budget there is, but housing like that might be needed as the U.S. grows to 350 million ... to 400 ... to 450 and beyond.

I could see certain urban cores or city limits becoming so expensive, that we might see the tower in the park concept sprout over in the burbs. Not the city, but the suburbs.

[C.]

Originally Posted by chris08876

If I may play devils advocate here... wouldn't we need public housing (projects) like in the pic of St. Louis to one, keep units affordable to the masses, and two, provide the sheer numbers of units required to keep the demand at bay or even create a surplus.

As the population grows, like many other large cities, we may have to follow suit and build such housing. Granted the design is always at the mercy of how much budget there is, but housing like that might be needed as the U.S. grows to 350 million ... to 400 ... to 450 and beyond.

I could see certain urban cores or city limits becoming so expensive, that we might see the tower in the park concept sprout over in the burbs. Not the city, but the suburbs.

We see a tall public housing building and think density, but the total number of units per acre may be less dense than a 2 or 3-story neighborhood of town homes. The tower in the park is an highly inefficient land-use model and it frustrates me that some communities still deploy it, especially for public housing.

My personal opinion is that mixed-income communities are most desirable. Having a single public housing complex with no market rate units can create a concentrations of poverty, disinvestment, and other society ills. We need to get away from that and look at 50/50 housing mixes. Fifty percent of the units being market rate and the other half being affordable. The Galveston example I posted earlier is one should method. I did a little work in a southern state years back where I insisted on the 50/50 concept as a condition of financing. It drove our accounts crazy, but I could not be prouder of the final product: a viable, well-maintained mixed-income community.

The Toronto region is a great example of suburban areas building dense towers. There's nothing inherently wrong with that as it's usually market rate condos that in turn are rented out if not owner-occupied. The end result is a mixed tenure high density community. It's not just the public housing projects deviating from the built form of the larger community.

Here is a neat little presentation on density and its various forms: https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ity-Screen.pdf

I found a neat quote in the presentation that speaks exactly to what I'm getting at. " Height, density and massing of new buildings respects and reinforces the existing character." The same should be true for any new subsidized affordable housing or major redesign of public housing.

On the latter issue of rehab and redesign, I'm miffed at how affordable housing residents in NYC can protest the loss of parking lots and underutilized space for infill development, especially when proceeds of said development would go to much needed housing repair and maintenance.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by CIA

In which you responded:

Why make such a statement then refuse to back it up? The units could cost more, less, or the same if such a policy was instituted. Public housing authorities and providers of affordable housing would have to make choices.

New design requirements generally result in higher prices. Otherwise, they'd already be doing those things.

You said "I wish there was a law in which new public housing and subsidized housing construction can't look different than the market rate (rental or homeownership) housing in the area." That's not specific enough to estimate costs, but it sounds like a major rethink of design and maybe square footage. Either way, major added costs.

I can't imagine what Pruitt Igoe's relevance is here. If you want to post something relevant, show something new you're arguing against.

[C.]

Originally Posted by mhays

New design requirements generally result in higher prices. Otherwise, they'd already be doing those things.

You said "I wish there was a law in which new public housing and subsidized housing construction can't look different than the market rate (rental or homeownership) housing in the area." That's not specific enough to estimate costs...

That's exactly correct. It's not specific enough to estimate costs, but that's curiously what you choose to jump to at first. No where in my post did I call for design requirements that equated to higher costs. On the contrary, without the large open space to maintain and the opportunity costs to keep the underutilized land for the towers in the park-type of public house developments, costs could be a lot less as land is one of the principle components of development.

I can't imagine what Pruitt Igoe's relevance is here. If you want to post something relevant, show something new you're arguing against.

It's the textbook example of how a public housing development ignored the existing fabric of the surrounding community. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue and on costs as I see no value in continuing the discussion.

[chris08876]

What's your opinion on DeBlasio's record with regards to housing versus his predecessor, Bloomberg?

IMO, I am quite impressed. He's actually turning into a Bloomberg 2.0. From a real estate standpoint, I think he's good to developers; has the vision, I just think bureaucracy kinda holds him back.

[C.]

Originally Posted by chris08876

What's your opinion on DeBlasio's record with regards to housing versus his predecessor, Bloomberg?

IMO, I am quite impressed. He's actually turning into a Bloomberg 2.0. From a real estate standpoint, I think he's good to developers; has the vision, I just think bureaucracy kinda holds him back.

I think that's spot on. He doing a decent job and has the right priorities. Not perfect by any means, but there are many cranes in the sky and tons of rezoning plans underway.

[C.]

So this happened...

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...203-story.html

U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson took shots at NYCHA on Sunday, four days after he inked a controversial deal that came with no new federal funding for the nation’s largest public housing system.

“At one point NYCHA was sort of the shining example of what public housing should be,” Carson said on “The Cats Roundtable” on 970 AM Sunday morning. “But over the course of decades, things deteriorated very significantly to the point that it actually became dangerous.”

Thursday’s agreement between city and federal officials will bring in a Washington-appointed monitor to oversee the housing system, and requires that the city commit $2.2 billion to NYCHA over the next 10 years.

The feds stopped just short of receivership, or a full-blown federal takeover of the system.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dea...housing-system

Tenants for decades have complained about infestation, mold, heat and water outages in NYCHA apartments. A series of scandals have rocked the agency in recent years, including the resignation of former city Housing Authority Chairwoman Shola Olatoye last year after an investigation revealed false reports of lead paint inspections.

Under the terms of the agreement, the lawsuit filed by federal authorities will be withdrawn 14 days after the appointment of the monitor, who will submit regular reports to HUD.

“You will see this has a whole host of tangible goals on heat, vermin, lead, you name it. I think that's an improvement for all of us,” de Blasio said.

[Crawford]

What happened is that federal housing subsidies have declined like 80% over the last 20 years. The feds (both parties) basically gave up on public housing and only gave cities money to blow it up.

But NYC traditionally has the best public housing, and no reason (or will) to blow anything up, so couldn't avail itself of the only federal housing initiative. Now the system needs cash, so is selling available land for mixed income housing to fund repairs.

[BrownTown]

There shouldn't even be subsidized housing in Manhattan. Nobody has a right to live there. Is there subsidized housing in Beverly Hills?

[C.]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

There shouldn't even be subsidized housing in Manhattan. Nobody has a right to live there. Is there subsidized housing in Beverly Hills?

I have "mixed" feelings about this. I definitely believe people should have the ability to live where they work or near where they have connection to the neighborhood. Also a strong community should have a range of housing options. It shouldn't just be an enclave for the super rich.

But there are plenty of affordable options a half hour away by train in New Jersey or parts of Queens and the Bronx that are shunned. There is definitely a sense of entitlement. Propose that a parking lot be sold to help generate additional funds for repairs and people are up in arms for the loss of parking. In Manhattan.

I'm starting to think Chicago had the right idea. Cabrini-Green homes was in desperate need of repairs and had all sorts of socio-economic issues. Chicago demolished the 18,000 apartments and rebuilt a mixrd-income community with over 25,000. The end result resulted in better living conditions and provides more homes than existed previously.

Some of the worst housing in the city could be redeveloped into mixed-income communities providing much more housing than currently exists since NYCHA properties are notoriously inefficient on how they use the land. I don't know what they were thinking in the 1950s when they were desinging and building this crap that was so out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.

[C.]

Also a disclaimer. I'm not anti-subsidized housing. On the contrary, we need more of it along with more workforce housing and market rate housing in Manhattan and throughout the metro area. The last two seem to be forgotten by policy makers but middle class families know exactly what I mean. I would also like to see more use of housing vouchers so people can find their own housing rather than being segregated to a particular building or part of the city.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

There shouldn't even be subsidized housing in Manhattan. Nobody has a right to live there. Is there subsidized housing in Beverly Hills?

Manhattan is vastly larger than Beverly Hills. There is also an enormous public investment in the form of infrastructure associated with Manhattan that doesn’t compare to Beverly Hills. One is “America’s downtown”, the other is a residential subdivision that became famous due to its association with celebrities.

[mousquet]

Yeah, there's nothing much to do in whatever Beverly Hills. It's only mansions hidden behind a load of safety in large yards.
Boring. I don't know what they do over there. Just hiding, I guess, cause some are so famous that they can't even walk the streets at peace. Lol.
There's literally no entertainment in the district. Maybe some luxury Gucci and Chanel boutiques, I forget. It feels a little insufficient anyway.

I don't see the connection to Manhattan, except for the fact that many are filthy rich and possibly bored in there.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Yeah, there's nothing much to do in whatever Beverly Hills. It's only mansions hidden behind a load of safety in large yards.
Boring. I don't know what they do over there. Just hiding, I guess, cause some are so famous that they can't even walk the streets at peace. Lol.
There's literally no entertainment in the district. Maybe some luxury Gucci and Chanel boutiques, I forget. It feels a little insufficient anyway.

I don't see the connection to Manhattan, except for the fact that many are filthy rich and possibly bored in there.

These people all own second, third and fourth homes in "exciting" places where they can ski, dock their yachts and play with the other super rich. When they are home in Beverly Hills they are either resting up or very busy working on a media (film, TV) project.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

There shouldn't even be subsidized housing in Manhattan. Nobody has a right to live there. Is there subsidized housing in Beverly Hills?

Whether there "should" or "shouldn't" be public housing in Manhattan, there's zero political will to remove said housing. In fact you cannot build anything in Manhattan these days without providing 30% of units as affordable housing (though often offsite).

Manhattan isn't exactly like Beverly Hills. Obviously a small, affluent suburb isn't a logical place for subsidized units. Manhattan has 1.7 million residents covering a vast economic spectrum, and traditionally had large working class areas. A better analogy would be Paris, which does have a lot of subsidized housing in affluent zones.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Whether there "should" or "shouldn't" be public housing in Manhattan, there's zero political will to remove said housing. In fact you cannot build anything in Manhattan these days without providing 30% of units as affordable housing (though often offsite).

Manhattan isn't exactly like Beverly Hills. Obviously a small, affluent suburb isn't a logical place for subsidized units. Manhattan has 1.7 million residents covering a vast economic spectrum, and traditionally had large working class areas. A better analogy would be Paris, which does have a lot of subsidized housing in affluent zones.

I'm not so familiar with NYC's "affordable housing" mandate as I am with San Francisco's, but generally "affordable housing" is not "public housing" and people too often confuse the two. In SF, "affordable housing" is for the working middle class--a family of 4 that makes $150,000/yr can qualify for it. "Public housing" is for the very poor, often unemployed. They should not be talked about in the same context.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm not so familiar with NYC's "affordable housing" mandate as I am with San Francisco's, but generally "affordable housing" is not "public housing" and people too often confuse the two. In SF, "affordable housing" is for the working middle class--a family of 4 that makes $150,000/yr can qualify for it. "Public housing" is for the very poor, often unemployed. They should not be talked about in the same context.

Yeah, public housing is distinct. Public housing is a subset of affordable housing, but the mandatory inclusionary housing is income-based rent-regulated housing, and can have high income limits (I think above 200k for larger households). Outsiders have no way of telling which units are "affordable" and which aren't.

Public housing, at least in NYC, is not mostly for the poor, and definitely not for the unemployed. We have people at my workplace living in NYCHA housing, and they have relatively high household incomes. NYCHA houses nearly 10% of the city's population, and you'll have households making nothing and those in the top 20% of household income. The units are spacious and rent stabilized, and you have them for life.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by C.

Also a disclaimer. I'm not anti-subsidized housing. On the contrary, we need more of it along with more workforce housing and market rate housing in Manhattan and throughout the metro area. The last two seem to be forgotten by policy makers but middle class families know exactly what I mean. I would also like to see more use of housing vouchers so people can find their own housing rather than being segregated to a particular building or part of the city.

I'm not against public\subsidized housing. I'm just against putting it in the most desirable locations. Why should people who aren't paying market rates get these premium locations while people who are end up pushed further away?

And the argument some make that we need this housing so that low paid workers can have a place to live holds no water because if this housing didn't exist companies wouldn't suddenly stop using janitors and such, they would just have to pay them more. And even if they DID hire less of these people then so much the better because it would just make the economy that much more efficient because if these jobs aren't worth market wages then they shouldn't exist at all.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Public housing, at least in NYC, is not mostly for the poor, and definitely not for the unemployed. We have people at my workplace living in NYCHA housing, and they have relatively high household incomes. NYCHA houses nearly 10% of the city's population, and you'll have households making nothing and those in the top 20% of household income. The units are spacious and rent stabilized, and you have them for life.

Quite frankly that's disgusting. Why should these lucky souls get such great benefits while others struggle mightily? Because they won some housing lottery? Doesn't seem even remotely fair. My tax dollars should be spent in the most efficient way possible, not handed out based on luck.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Doesn't seem even remotely fair. My tax dollars should be spent in the most efficient way possible, not handed out based on luck.

As you're well aware, tax dollars aren't spent solely on what's most "efficient", unless you want to be turned into soylent green the moment you retire.

In any case, your taxes aren't directly subsidizing much of anything for affordable housing; it's almost all cross-subsidized by market rate housing.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

As you're well aware, tax dollars aren't spent solely on what's most "efficient", unless you want to be turned into soylent green the moment you retire.

I don't just mean efficient in terms of pure economics. I also mean that these benefits should be allocated equally to those who need them, not denied some while others get benefits that probably have a market value equivalent to the median household income in the US.

However I do indeed think we need to understand how the market distortions created by these policies create economic inefficiencies which IMO have more than just a trivial effect on our economy.