NEW YORK : De Blasio Unveils Affordable Housing Initiative

[NYguy]

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...0m-shot-in-arm

Affordable housing gets $500M shot in arm
The New York City Housing Development Corp. approved the issuance Monday of a package of financing that will help fund construction of 1,259 apartments and the renovation of another 1,536.




Rendering for a 201-unit building that will be built at 261 Hudson St. in Manhattan by Related Cos.



Joe Anuta
June 16, 2014

The city gave the green light to finance 2,795 units of affordable housing on Monday.

The New York City Housing Development Corp. approved the issuance of tax-exempt bonds, along with other financing sources. They will be used to help fund construction of 1,259 units and the renovation or preservation of another 1,536 units in 18 developments in three boroughs.

The tranche of cash will help the de Blasio administration inch closer to its goal of building or preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing over the next 10 years, according to HDC President Gary Rodney.

"Each of these projects speaks to the core principles and values of the plan," he said.

The 18 developments all aim to provide affordable apartments for a variety of income levels, including homeless families, as well as to spur other aspects of neighborhood development—such as new retail, commercial or community space—to complement those units.

Following HDC's thumbs-up Monday, financing is expected to be completed in June for the projects, which include a 201-unit building that will be built at 261 Hudson St. in Manhattan by Related Cos., and a rehabilitation of Cadman Towers, a 422-unit Mitchell-Lama property in Brooklyn Heights.

portion of the money, which includes $372.6 million in bonds and $88.7 million in subordinate financing, will also go toward the building of a portion of Greenpoint Landing, a large and controversial development on the Brooklyn waterfront just below the Newtown Creek that was approved in the waning days of the Bloomberg administration.

About $40 million in funding was also set aside for the preservation of two Mitchell-Lama projects, including Cadman Towers.

"(HDC) provides access to capital that would otherwise be much more difficult and expensive to secure," said Vicki Been, commissioner of the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development. "And more than that, they bring incredible expertise in creating and executing complex and enduring affordable housing transactions."

[NYguy]

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/07/...housing-goals/

De Blasio makes strides toward affordable housing goals
But deregulation threatens to undermine preservation efforts, says HPD commissioner





July 10, 2014

As the de Blasio administration rounds the six-month mark, more than 8,700 units of affordable housing have already been financed.

The number signals that the new mayor’s goal to build or preserve 200,000 units of such housing is off to a strong start, with about $250 million in city investment going toward 2,600 new units and the preservation of another 6,140.

...Financing in the administration’s first six months went toward a 422-unit Mitchell-Lama co-op in Brooklyn Heights, enabling the facility to remain affordable for the next 20 years. But other complexes with rent-regulated units, such as the 11,200-unit Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village, could fall out of the system, Been said.

On the new-unit front, the de Blasio administration has pumped funds into projects like CAMBA Gardens II, a 293-unit affordable and supportive housing development at 560 Winthrop Street in Crown Heights, as well as a 134-unit, mixed-income property at 810 River Avenue in the Bronx.

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7434

Affording the Waterfront
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio issues RFP for affordable housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park.









Henry Melcher
7.09.2014

As under-construction condominiums on the north side of Brooklyn Bridge Park shatter borough sales records, affordable units are slated to bookend the other end of the 85-acre site. The park has issued an RFP for two new towers at the south end of the park. Nearly a third of this new development is expected to include affordable apartments. The towers—one 16 stories and the other twice that size—would rise on currently vacant sites adjacent the Brooklyn Queens Expressway.

Given the mayor’s plan to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing over the next decade, this news is not surprising in its own right. The inclusion of affordable housing at Brooklyn Bridge Park, though, marks a significant turn in the park’s history, and, possibly, its future.

The park was created as a public-private partnership with the city and state fronting money for construction, and property taxes from development at the park covering the upkeep—about $16 million a year. The 550,000-square-foot, Marvel Architects–designed condo and hotel project currently rising at the park is a key part of that plan.

Some local groups have opposed residential development at the park, claiming that it would block views of Manhattan and turn the public space into a backyard for the wealthy. But since the first phase of the park opened in 2010 it has been wildly popular with the public, and the planned towers at the site will likely do little to change that. In many ways, the fact that there is any green space at the site at all is a victory. When the park was being planned, the Port Authority proposed using the piers for high-rise development and parking lots.

The two new towers proposed under the de Blasio administration are also receiving their fair share of backlash, but not just for their size. Opponents point out that affordable units would provide significantly less revenue for the park, if any revenue at all. This has noticeably put community groups on the awkward side of opposing affordable housing in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city.

Creating new affordable housing and continuing to provide funds for the park is not a zero-sum game for mayor de Blasio. A spokesperson for his administration told the Wall Street Journal, “We can secure the necessary funding to maintain this world-class park while simultaneously providing an affordable housing component to ensure the community actually represents Brooklyn.”

While this plan is in its early stages, the reception it has already received foreshadows the many development debates to come. As mayor de Blasio sets out to build 80,000 new affordable units over the next decade, he will certainly get pushback from local groups about the size, location, and design of new projects.

This is nothing new—development will always have its detractors, and that is not always a bad thing. But in de Blasio’s New York, opposing new development will increasingly mean opposing new affordable housing. It is a complicated and thorny debate and one that is about to play-out all across the city.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I am sorry, but here comes the evil-no-feeling-conservative in me:

If you're poor, why the hell are you in one of the most expensive cities in the country? I have discounted NYC from my "want to move to cities" for this very reason, my income is too low. Sure, NYC needs low income workers, but if they begin to move, and their positions are harder to fill, they will either raise the wage or they will just have to contend with taking more time to fill their positions.

A poor person could move 90 miles down the road to Philadelphia and your income will almost go 50% further. It just doesn't make sense.

Several people have sort of answered this already, including kind of yourself but I must say anyone who says especially the last sentence doesn't know what it is like to be truly poor.

The whole idea of "just move somewhere else" in and of itself shows the bias of someone who is at least relatively financially stable and of moderate income. If you are poor, and by poor we are not talking about people making $40-$50K+ and claiming they are "poor" living because they live in expensive cities and cling to middle class+ suburban high maintenance lifestyles (said attitudes are pervasive on city-data).

I am talking so poor that even looking for jobs in other cities and the costs associated with the logistics of relocation are insurmountable. Let me explain; if you don't have a car and live paycheck to paycheck just to pay the basics for yourself you probably don't have the money to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to a job interview. You have airfare, trainfare, busfare to get to the city and then you have car rental/cab/public transit (if your lucky) costs to get to the job interview site. Potential lodging and food costs associated with travelling, etc. All this for a job interview for a job that most likely you have no guarantee of getting and if you don't get it you have to attempt to rinse and repeat for the next costly long distance interview. This is in addition to the simple fact that you have to pay your bills at your current place (plus take off time from your current work if you have one, possibly without pay) while you do all of this.

There are also a number of people who could technically afford a jet setting job search but don't for various reasons. For one it is cheaper to live close to your immediate/extended family/established circle of friends than to spend thousands of dollars on travelling a year to visit them for Christmas/weddings/funerals/family reunions, etc. Some people just want decent jobs and housing close to their network of family and friends, some people aren't willing to move anywhere to move up a corporate latter and/or live the typical American suburban lifestyle, some people might have career goals tied to that specific city, etc. Even in a city as global as New York City I am sure there are at least two million natives who have family roots/friends there and asking them to move is telling them to give up the support structure they need or want to keep and that is whom De Blasio's and affordable housing plans around the country are in large part meant to help.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

Even in a city as global as New York City I am sure there are at least two million natives who have family roots/friends there and asking them to move is telling them to give up the support structure they need or want to keep and that is whom De Blasio's and affordable housing plans around the country are in large part meant to help.

That's correct. You know, there are many people in New York who not only have never left the city, and know nothing of life outside it, but many don't know anything about the other boroughs of the city. It's different from other American cities in the sense that its almost a world unto itself. If it were a state, it would be larger than most states (I'm talking about population within the city limits alone). So the thought of leaving it may never enter the minds of some, its all they know. And btw, when they do leave? Most are miserable. Some would rather struggle in New York City than live a more comfortable lifestyle elsewhere. I've seen and heard it often.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That's correct. You know, there are many people in New York who not only have never left the city, and know nothing of life outside it, but many don't know anything about the other boroughs of the city. It's different from other American cities in the sense that its almost a world unto itself. If it were a state, it would be larger than most states (I'm talking about population within the city limits alone). So the thought of leaving it may never enter the minds of some, its all they know. And btw, when they do leave? Most are miserable. Some would rather struggle in New York City than live a more comfortable lifestyle elsewhere. I've seen and heard it often.

Chicago has some of the same thing going on with the different regions of the city, i.e. north side vs. south side, west side, NW, SW, NE, SE. Many people on the north side are probably unaware the city limits go much south of Hyde Park and people living down in Hegewisch although certainly aware of the north side would probably consider much of Indiana to be less alien to them than Rogers Park. My grandmother lived to be 93 and not only lived in Chicago her whole life but on the southwest side at that. Mayor Richard J. Daley never lived outside of the Bridgeport neighborhood of like two square miles.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by NYguy

That's correct. You know, there are many people in New York who not only have never left the city, and know nothing of life outside it, but many don't know anything about the other boroughs of the city. It's different from other American cities in the sense that its almost a world unto itself. If it were a state, it would be larger than most states (I'm talking about population within the city limits alone). So the thought of leaving it may never enter the minds of some, its all they know. And btw, when they do leave? Most are miserable. Some would rather struggle in New York City than live a more comfortable lifestyle elsewhere. I've seen and heard it often.

NYC has the titanic advantage over other US cities in that the subway and the commuting grid survived Robert Moses, et al. No where else in the US is so much urbanity reachable from the downtown core in such a short time.

I think building such housing as rentals on the East River or in Manhattan is rather pointless (if I cannot rent one for the rest of my life). I do believe that further east in Brooklyn as well as outside NYC on the Jersey side, that there should be condos whose cost is subsidized, and, payments then are made on a lower mortgage. I feel strongly that buying a home incentivizes good upkeep as well as security. While there certainly will be fraud in terms of qualification, and, in terms of owners renting out their unit at market prices, the concept, done reasonably right, is a strong net positive.

[chris08876]

This was a great article to read:
------------------------------

The History and Future of New York State’s Hard Cap on Housing Density


Midtown's Future Skyline, image by Armand Boudreaux for YIMBY, original via Google Earth

New York State has arrogated from New York City control of its transportation system and property taxation, but it’s mostly stayed out of zoning. The one exception is a little-known provision in the State Multiple Dwellings Law, which generally forbids cities from zoning any land for residential densities beyond a floor-area ratio of twelve. And according to Mayor Bill de Blasio’s housing plan, released in May, the city intends to do something about it.

“The city,” his plan read, “will propose state legislation to remove the FAR cap and permit decisions about density to be made through the local land use process.”

Any change would have relatively little impact on citywide housing growth, since most residential construction happens in areas with far stricter zoning than the FAR limit of 12 – enough or a bulky 20-something-story building, or a much larger tower.

But upzoning areas that are already maxed out according to state law could have an outsized effect on Manhattan’s skyline. These R10 zones (and their mixed-use commercial equivalents), where any change would likely be felt, are located almost exclusively in Midtown and the Financial District, and along most of Manhattan’s avenues below 96th Street.

Right now, supertall apartment towers like those on (or soon to be on) 57th Street often reach their extreme heights by taking advantage of looser commercial zoning. They build a hotel or department store at the base, whose density is not subject to state limits. But an allowance of more residential space would make these sorts of projects more viable.

In the absence of any competing upstate interests or anything that might interfere with Governor Cuomo’s political ambitious, the state would likely to agree to any request by New York City’s mayor to build more dense housing.
Another sign that the city could easily prevail upon the state to change the law is that it was originally passed with the strong support of New York City. The cap was added to the Multiple Dwellings Law in 1960, concurrent with the city’s own major zoning code revision in 1961, according to research done by Roman Pazuniak, a New York University School of Law student.

The 1961 zoning code was drawn up in a very different time. American cities were on the brink of steep decline, and density seemed to be negatively associated with good fortune. In all parts of the city – from middle-class, low-density outlying areas to dense low-income neighborhoods to the even denser Upper East and West Sides – density was greatly restricted.

The original FAR cap was set to equal the density of the largest apartment buildings of the time, mostly on the Upper East and West Sides. Wealthier people there could be trusted with these high building densities, one zoning proposal suggested, because for them “usable open space is not as acute a responsibility of the City.”

Today, the idea of overcrowding in luxury supertall towers is absurd. Family sizes are in decline, and the popular worry about these sorts of towers is underpopulation – that they’ll sit empty, without ever being visited by their foreign oligarch neighbors.

There are already a few old office towers on Wall Street that have been converted to residential use through some sort of exception to the law. The 1921 headquarters of the Munson Shipping Company, at 67 Wall Street, crams an absolutely massive 303,175-square foot tower into the space of about five tenements. With a gross FAR of 25, it exceeds the state limit by quite a lot.
But far from overcrowding the tiny streets of the Financial District, 67 Wall Street was one of the conversions credited for revitalizing the Financial District and turning it into a more desirable 24/7 neighborhood.

If Mayor de Blasio asks for and wins the right to upzone for even denser residential development, he would likely use it as leverage for more affordable housing. If it must be paid for in affordable housing, YIMBY would prefer the air rights rights be sold and the affordable units built somewhere cheaper than the Manhattan core.

Demanding units in the building, with all of the amenities of an ultra-luxury tower, is now in vogue, but a mixed-income tower in Tribeca or on 57th Street is just not worth the cost. The opportunity cost of an affordable apartment in a new luxury building in Manhattan is many thousands of dollars a month. The city’s shortage of housing for the poorest New Yorkers is too high for the city to forfeit larger numbers of cheaper off-site apartments in exchange for token diversity in very high-income neighborhoods.

Hudson Yards would be the most obvious place for the mayor to test any new zoning power. The cancelation of the 7 train stop at 41st Street and 10th Avenue has put office development at the northwestern edge of the rezoning area, where housing is not allowed, in jeopardy. Silverstein has already asked the city to rezone his office-zoned land on top of the nonexistent subway station for apartments, proposing a supertall residential tower at 520 West 41st Street instead.

If he’s successful – and even if he’s not – other developers are likely to follow suit. If the city could allow higher-density housing, it could afford developers more flexibility to replace office space with more lucrative apartments, which would in turn speed the build-out of Hudson Yards.

However the mayor might use the power to upzone, giving the city to allow very high density housing would be an improvement on the current situation, where there’s none allowed at all.

========================================
BY: STEPHEN SMITH
JULY 21ST 2014
http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/07/the...g-density.html

[C.]

If it must be paid for in affordable housing, YIMBY would prefer the air rights rights be sold and the affordable units built somewhere cheaper than the Manhattan core.

Demanding units in the building, with all of the amenities of an ultra-luxury tower, is now in vogue, but a mixed-income tower in Tribeca or on 57th Street is just not worth the cost. The opportunity cost of an affordable apartment in a new luxury building in Manhattan is many thousands of dollars a month. The city’s shortage of housing for the poorest New Yorkers is too high for the city to forfeit larger numbers of cheaper off-site apartments in exchange for token diversity in very high-income neighborhoods.

It's a no brainer. Requiring affordable housing in an ultra luxury tower development like 432 Park is silly and not a good use of resources. I agree with YIMBY that they should be built elsewhere, maybe as part of a mixed income rental development, which would increase the supply of not only affordable but also market-rate housing for those earning at the average or median income.

[scalziand]

OK, I had no idea that the 12FAR for residential was a state limit. That's ridiculous.

[C.]

Originally Posted by scalziand

OK, I had no idea that the 12FAR for residential was a state limit. That's ridiculous.

So what action must NY State residents take to get the limit lifted? Would Writing to Cuomo and assembly representatives be productive?

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by scalziand

OK, I had no idea that the 12FAR for residential was a state limit. That's ridiculous.

Agreed. It's a shame that state's biggest city is being held hostage by those in Albany. Why does the state have so much control over New York City?

Originally Posted by CIA

So what action must NY State residents take to get the limit lifted? Would Writing to Cuomo and assembly representatives be productive?

Hopefully it passes but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't.

*cough* congestion pricing, non-MTA funding slash, air right transfers *cough*

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Eveningsong

Agreed. It's a shame that state's biggest city is being held hostage by those in Albany. Why does the state have so much control over New York City?

Its the same principle that guides every other city. That cities are essentially the creations of such a state. Similar to a hierarchy.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by CIA

So what action must NY State residents take to get the limit lifted? Would Writing to Cuomo and assembly representatives be productive?

if you think Cuomo and the goons in the legislature care what you think as a constituent, you've got another thing coming. The districts are so gerrymandered that they assembly reps will remain in office until they die or go to jail. Heck, under the current "three men in a room" (link)system, rank-and-file legislators don't really have power to do anything other than collect bribes in exchange for pork barrel spending (link) anyway. All power rests in the slimy hands of Sheldon Silver, Cuomo, and the Senate president.

These are guys with no notion of the greater good. Whether you love or hate the legislation they've passed, it's been mostly the result of cynical maneuvering, not listening to their constituents. It's all about what you have to offer them (which isn't much unless you're a corporate CEO, union boss, lobbyist, or fellow politician). Doubtless Cuomo will extract some Machiavellian concession from deBlasio in exchange for this reasonable request. Then we have to remember that Silver blocked thousands of units of affordable housing on the Lower East Side for DECADES (link) for blatantly racist reasons (he didn't want Chinese and Puerto Rican residents in "his people's" neighborhood).

[C.]

Thanks for that...

Time to get Related, Extell, Vornado, Brookfield, Durst et. al. in a room in Albany and have them work their magic.

[Perklol]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1887793

Apartment listings promote East New York as ‘New Frontier’

The rentals, starting at $900, have attracted over 200 potential tenants looking to live in the hardscrabble neighborhood.

BY DOYLE MURPHY NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Thursday, July 31, 2014, 8:09 PM

This is East New York. It’s not the Wild West.

Online ads for chic, newly renovated apartments in the neighborhood invite potential tenants to boldly go where few urban pioneers have gone before.

“Check out the NEW FRONTIER!” exclaim the listings for apartments at 577 New Lots Ave.

The rentals — tricked out in promotional photos with ironic hinterland touches such as an animal-hyde rug — boast sleek finishes, stainless steel appliances and hardwood floors.

To keep it real, a newly commissioned, graffiti-style mural decorates the exterior of the brick triple decker.

With the colonization of Williamsburg and Bushwick now complete, East New York marks the logical next step for Brooklyn’s booming real estate market, said Robert Earl, the real estate agent for the rentals.

“As far as gentrification, I think it will become a nice, solid neighborhood,” said Earl of The InHOUSE Group. “Maybe it will become the next hipster haven, but who knows.

Long-time residents of East New York balked at the notion of their neighborhood being marketed as an outpost.

“It’s a constant reminder of people from outside coming here to change the face of the neighborhood, to make it ‘liveable,’ ignoring the fact that people already live here,” said Chris Banks, 30.

[....]

The apartment building is set to open next week, and Earl said a diverse group of more than 200 people had responded to the advertisement.

The 75th Precinct, which covers East New York, has seen a spike in shootings compared to last year, but Earl said the old perceptions of the neighborhood as a dangerous place are softening among Millenials.

“The younger generation does not have the same perceptions as the older generation,” Earl said, adding, “I think there’s a lot more acceptance of everybody.”

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In my experience, no. I spend around the same or slightly less in NYC.

New Yorkers are mostly renting, so they aren't in condos or rowhouses. I find everything (besides housing) to be the same or less than in Michigan.

I'm originally from Chicago and I do think that living near NYC in a hyper-dense environment is somewhat affordable (Hoboken, NJ). If we were to move back to Chicago today our expenses wouldn't be radically lowered as a percentage of our income but that's mainly because we would take a hit to our income. What we would get is cheaper restaurants and the luxury to either 1. buy a relatively large condo/home or 2. rent a larger and more updated apartment for about $500-800/m cheaper. While my taxes would be slightly higher in IL compared to NJ, they would be a decent amount less than they would have been in NYC.

Originally Posted by Crawford

You don't need a big kitchen because you're cooking less.

This is where the costs get out of control for anyone who doesn't spend their days eating pizza and other cheap street/fast foods. Being able to cook in is a massive money saver and it's how we've been able to save a lot of money.

[alex1]

I'm really liking De Blasio.

One popular misconception is that rent control and stabilization is a major reason for the über high rents in NYC (those units are fewer and fewer with each passing year). Fact is that the biggest problem in the city has been supply limitations. You want to create a more affordable housing environment in the city? Build your way out of it.

[Perklol]

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/re...s&emc=rss&_r=1

Living in the Mix
Affordable Housing in New York’s Luxury Buildings

By JULIE SATOWAUG. 29, 2014

Like most New Yorkers who live in close quarters, tenants in mixed-income buildings rarely socialize beyond a polite nod of the head or a brief wave. And while they may live in the same neighborhood, they tend to patronize different stores — Mr. Omar, for example, does his food shopping at Western Beef, a grocery store on West 16th, where prices are a far cry from the $5 iced coffees at the Chelsea Market across the street.

Yet while they may not overlap often, there is occasional friction between the two groups. At the Westminster, for example, Mr. Amico said he has heard some grumbling about the tenants hanging out in the lobby, and notices have been posted reminding residents of proper lobby etiquette, although a spokeswoman for the building’s owner, the Related Companies, said she knew of no complaints.

For Mr. Deese, who is African-American and stands at an imposing 6-foot-1, there have been some uncomfortable moments. He and a friend were walking out of Mr. Deese’s apartment and down the hallway when a white neighbor, seeing them approach, “slammed her front door, locking all the locks,” he said. “It was ridiculous, because the door locks automatically when you close it, so no one ever uses the extra locks.”

Mr. Omar, who only just moved into the AVA High Line, is still a bit self-conscious of his status. “If there was a building-wide social event, like drinks or something, I would go, but I would want to bring a friend,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to show up and stand out, like, ‘Oh, there goes the low-income guy.’ ”

Matt Amico is a market-rate tenant of the Westminster, a mixed-income building on West 20th Street. If sharing space with people who have won a housing lottery isn’t O.K. with you, he says, “then you won’t go there.” Credit Richard Perry/The New York Times

[NYguy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/op...ards.html?_r=1

Yes to Housing in Our Backyards


By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
AUG. 29, 2014

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s mission to fix New York’s affordable-housing problem is both daunting and necessary, like fortifying a sandy coastline against a rising sea. The waves in this case would include smothering rents and decades of decay and disinvestment in government-subsidized housing for the working class and the poor.

Finding or hanging on to a decent place to live in is hard and getting harder for those on the wrong side of the city’s income divide. Mr. de Blasio’s ambitious answer is to ramp up supply over the next 10 years. He wants to preserve 120,000 affordable units and build 80,000 new ones, much of them in developments of greater height and density than many neighborhoods outside Manhattan have seen.

It’s a plan for big changes in the cityscape, and as it gathers force, it will meet resistance.

We have already seen flare-ups of not-in-my-backyard syndrome across the boroughs. In Brooklyn Bridge Park, where the administration’s plan adds subsidized units to two planned luxury high-rises, there are lawsuits from 1-percenters who don’t want more people crowding the gleaming waterfront. Residents in East Harlem, including the City Council speaker, Melissa Mark-Viverito, worry that three planned 50-story towers will drive out the poor. In Queens, people are skeptical about how much of a proposed megaproject called Astoria Cove will truly be affordable. And on Manhattan’s West Side, where developers are grafting a six-story affordable-rent building onto a luxury tower, some are objecting to the project’s separate entrances. They say “poor doors” are repugnant and stigmatize those who can’t afford the units with the concierge.

Nimbyism has its place — when the offending structures are illegal toxic-waste dumps or brothels. But with the housing need so dire in New York City, a more farsighted and flexible approach to change is called for. The city needs to grow, which means growing (literally) up. The way to get units built now, in quantity, for low- and middle-income families is by inducing the private market to supply it. And that means cutting deals with developers. The rich will get richer, but the poor will get apartments.......

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...ets-on-density

Builder de Blasio bets on density


Greg David
August 31, 2014

"The problem with Michael Bloomberg is that he turned the city over to developers,'' said an acquaintance of mine recently in a discussion of the former mayor's legacy.

"No,'' I replied, "he didn't. But Bill de Blasio intends to do just that.''

As New York nears the time when the mayor will begin to detail his plan to build or preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing, it is remarkable how few people understand what is happening in the city and how Mr. de Blasio intends to fix it.

Begin with the Bloomberg legacy. Yes, Mr. Bloomberg opened up many high-profile areas for development, especially along the waterfront. But he also downzoned many areas as well. A 2010 Furman Center study found that from 2003 to 2007, development capacity in the city had been increased by less than 2%. City Planning doesn't have updated numbers, but there were many downzonings in Mr. Bloomberg's last term, and the overall impact is probably in the ballpark of the Furman study's figure.

Move on to the de Blasio plan for "mandatory inclusionary zoning,'' as it was called in the campaign. Many people seem to think that the new administration is just going to build affordable housing. No, the mayor is going to require developers to do that. Here's how it works. In the Bloomberg era, developers committed to reserving about 20% of new units for affordable housing, which they did when they took advantage of bonuses to allow them to construct taller or larger buildings. In the de Blasio era, developers will be required to set aside units—at least a third and maybe more—as affordable. Developers will only be able to afford that when they are allowed to build more market units.

In fact, the de Blasio plan requires a lot more density than was contemplated in the Bloomberg era because it intends to reserve many new units for lower-income residents. The lower the rent in the affordable units, the more units you need and at higher rents.

That's why the city's Planning Department won't identify 14 of the 15 areas it is targeting for the new affordable housing. It is a good bet those are the very neighborhoods where zoning density was reduced by the last administration.

Finally, most New Yorkers don't know that economists of all political persuasions are now agreed that cities like New York need much more density. Paul Krugman made that case in The New York Times recently, quoting Edward Glaeser, who is associated with the Manhattan Institute. Talk about strange bedfellows. The rationale is that high housing costs in the Northeast are the primary reason why people are moving to Texas and Florida, despite the fact that employment opportunities and pay are worse there.

The solution is much more housing through increased density.

That's the de Blasio plan.

[Perklol]

I keep seeing "In a few weeks", "soon" the housing plan will be unveiled or something for the past 4 months. Is this all talk and not enough "do".