Submitted by psychothumbs t3_10q2iq3 in nyc
Comments
NetQuarterLatte t1_j6ofk44 wrote
>On Tuesday, Mr. Levine is releasing a housing plan that identifies roughly 171 such sites across Manhattan where he says more than 73,000 homes can be built, an aspirational vision that reflects the depths of the housing shortage in New York City.
I'm not a big fan of Mark Levine, but I commend him for this. I'm more likely to support him in the future now.
PKMKII t1_j6no2ue wrote
I’m all for adding more housing but it needs to be done in a way that ensures truly affordable and supportive housing, not the City and State burning through tax dollars just to have it handed over to private landlords reaping inflated rents off that public investment.
markbass69420 t1_j6nqz0b wrote
>I’m all for adding more housing
>but
least surprising housing comment
Status_Fox_1474 t1_j6nsk1f wrote
He's not wrong. There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that all housing stock is developed -- that the market actually works.
Currently, a housing unit that's built but not rented out can still accrue some tax benefits by sitting empty -- more than having it sell at a rate too low.
markbass69420 t1_j6nteuj wrote
>He's not wrong.
Nah, it's absolutely wrong. Wringing hands and worrying about the "buts" and vaguely gesturing at "affordability" are exactly the kind of nimbyism that cause the current shortages we have now. You don't even have to look far - blocking an apartment complex in Harlem because of "affordability" instead got us a truck depot. How many affordable units are in a truck depot?
>Currently, a housing unit that's built but not rented out can still accrue some tax benefits by sitting empty
Nah, this is some braindead Twitter shit.
Status_Fox_1474 t1_j6nyj2y wrote
It was the city that didn't let the Harlem project get built. I think they all should get built. Upzone everywhere. And then have a vacancy tax.
PKMKII t1_j6nygu3 wrote
So if the City develops these unused properties, turns them into housing, but doesn’t sell them off to the highest bidder, just collects modest rents from the tenants, you’re okay with that?
markbass69420 t1_j6ogzia wrote
What are you even asking me? If I'm ok with the concept of rental properties existing in Manhattan?
PKMKII t1_j6oho9d wrote
If you’re okay with it being publicly owned rental properties.
jay5627 t1_j6oc3id wrote
As long as it doesn't turn into a shit-show like NYCHA, sure
[deleted] t1_j6nw85u wrote
[removed]
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6nu9ux wrote
Bullshit it is. Please show us where all the affordable housing is being built.
Even_Acadia3085 t1_j6nwr9o wrote
It's being built in other cities! NYC has a lot of demand from rich people from around the world who want a place in New York. Us regular types have to make do with a patchwork of rent-controlled, public, market rate, and subsidized units that fall somewhere in between. It's a supply and demand problem where the supply is constrained by do-gooders who don't seem to realize that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Manhattan will always have a high cost of land so it'll never be truly affordable but we could in some dream world once again build Potemkin Mitchell-Lama villages...but those aren't coming given the mood in Washington. The nimbys who SAY they want affordable housing are really working to doom it. They work to stop building anything which lowers supply and do nothing to reduce NYC's insanely high cost of labor (exacerbated by union rules) that makes building anything but luxury condos prohibitive.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6nxn5p wrote
It’s not even good, though. How come the poor are forced to fight for expensive scraps while the rich get the lion’s share of housing?
> They work to stop building anything which lowers supply and do nothing to reduce NYC's insanely high cost of labor (exacerbated by union rules) that makes building anything but luxury condos prohibitive.
Ah yes, if we only got rid of those pesky unions and treated the poor like the animals they are, everything would be fine.
Give me a fucking break.
markbass69420 t1_j6nwxp7 wrote
I don't understand what point you're trying to make, and I don't think you do, either.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6nxe3v wrote
My point is you can’t just blanket throw out accusations of nimbyism at every critique of the city’s half-assed plan to expand housing. The housing market can’t sustain building only luxury apartments.
markbass69420 t1_j6ogqnp wrote
>My point is you can’t just blanket throw out accusations of nimbyism at every critique of the city’s half-assed plan to expand housing
Then it's a shitty point.
>The housing market can’t sustain building only luxury apartments.
Lmao this is exactly why it's fine to call anyone who says "I like housing, but...." a nimby. Vaguely complaining about "affordability" and "luxury" is NIMBY 101. You're literally the problem.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6oqz3f wrote
> Then it's a shitty point.
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s shitty.
> Lmao this is exactly why it's fine to call anyone who says "I like housing, but...." a nimby. Vaguely complaining about "affordability" and "luxury" is NIMBY 101. You're literally the problem.
No, you’re the problem, because you have no plan for keeping housing affordable.
markbass69420 t1_j6p34y1 wrote
>Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s shitty.
You're right. I don't like it and it's a shitty point.
>you have no plan for keeping housing affordable.
Sure I do. I'm not the one adding a "but" at even the vague notion of building housing.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6p7xd7 wrote
It’s not a shitty point, though.
> Sure I do.
By all means, show it
Sad-Principle3781 t1_j6oyhdp wrote
People always bring that harlem truck depot example, but those voters are voting rationally. They live and vote there, but they wouldn't get be able to afford the newly proposed apartments. What incentive would those voters have to support new construction. You need a new paradigm.
markbass69420 t1_j6p3dfj wrote
Yes, you're right. Having zero housing built is definitely the solution. So rational, I love traffic congestion and asthma because I am rational.
TeamMisha t1_j6peten wrote
No one has any incentive to support any new construction. Everyone is out for themselves. But the city is bigger then you, bigger then me, bigger then any one opponent to development. There are too many council persons and people believing their district is their little fiefdom. "We agree we need housing, but not in our district, go build it somewhere else". That's why we're in this mess today. One45 in Harlem was going to be 50% below market units, you're living in la la land if you think a developer will do 100% below market units without government subsidies, that's just how it works. The big issue here is you and others are envisioning private developers operating supportive or basically fully subsidized housing projects, which is not how it works right now, and is a question for council and the mayor to figure out, whether through new 421a type legislation or an entirely new housing scheme. Private developers will not build unprofitable buildings, accept this and move on so we can start addressing the problem versus just vote no to every new building.
George4Mayor86 t1_j6nfldf wrote
Anyone got a non-paywalled version?
psychothumbs OP t1_j6ng3cc wrote
George4Mayor86 t1_j6nglsw wrote
thanks
TeamMisha t1_j6pd7f4 wrote
It doesn't make sense that some of the most valuable land (Manhattan) is sitting empty. The THREE block long site south of the UN is clear evidence of real estate dysfunction. It's not even rehab development, it is literally a vacant lot. How is that possible? There's a whole slew of articles out there about this specific lot if anyone is curious. It makes total sense to me to go balls to the walls and activate or re-activate unused or underused lots and buildings. There is space to be found everywhere. The only issue is that this identification does not solve the real problem of can the government (the city) actually operate quality housing at cost that is not NYCHA? We don't want more NYCHA. All we have is the housing lottery right now that is going away as 421a ends anyways, it begs the question if a new government run system is required, but that presents many, many issues of its own. The alternative is identify these plots and lease or sell them to developers which would still create more housing which is good.
[deleted] t1_j6nts7n wrote
[removed]
elizabeth-cooper t1_j6o7388 wrote
Empty spaces are galling, but Manhattan has a 10% vacancy rate. It's the outer boroughs that need to do this.
NYCHA and HPD are working to rehab homes, but as of November, they only did 18. That's peanuts.
DookieCantRead t1_j6oh3mc wrote
Is it really that high? This article says it's 2%
https://therealdeal.com/2022/12/12/trd-pro-twists-and-turns-of-manhattans-vacancy-rate/
elizabeth-cooper t1_j6oi17u wrote
This says 10%, but it looks like it was the impact of Covid and has since rebounded.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/5/17/23108792/nyc-apartment-vacancy-rate-housing-emergency
sokpuppet1 t1_j6p7afd wrote
What about office space vacancy rate? A lot of that office space isn't coming back and while its not always ideal to convert, its certainly an option.
Deluxe78 t1_j6od1ni wrote
Where we used to talk? How shall I fill The final places? How should I complete the wall
psychothumbs OP t1_j6ng1gb wrote
In between high-rise luxury apartment buildings in Midtown Manhattan, a public university building sits vacant and boarded up. Police vehicles idle on a parking lot in the middle of a residential block in the East Village. A vacant plot between Greenwich Village and SoHo languishes just blocks away from the Hudson River.
Even in bustling Manhattan, one of the most crowded places in America, there are plenty of spaces that feel relatively empty. Now, one elected official wants to use them to address one of New York City’s most urgent crises.
“That’s a huge opportunity to put that precious land to better use: by creating housing,” said Mark Levine, a former city councilman who took office as borough president last January.
On Tuesday, Mr. Levine is releasing a housing plan that identifies roughly 171 such sites across Manhattan where he says more than 73,000 homes can be built, an aspirational vision that reflects the depths of the housing shortage in New York City.
The plan offers a counterintuitive conclusion: that even in a place where 1.7 million people lived crammed into less than 23 square miles, there are still pockets of opportunity for growth.
“Some of it is hiding in plain sight,” Mr. Levine said. “There has been a Post Office that has been closed. There’s an abandoned bus depot that is not being used. There’s manufacturing space which is empty. There are buildings that landlords surrendered to the city for back taxes decades ago.”
Mr. Levine said his team examined every lot in Manhattan. Some of the sites included in the plan were left over from previous development plans abandoned or delayed for financial, logistical or political reasons. Some are slated to be part of ongoing redevelopment plans, like a proposal passed in 2021 targeting SoHo. Others were newly identified.
Following through with the plan would require significant construction work and coordination between city, state and federal officials. It would undoubtedly generate numerous political and financial complications, particularly if the city wants the homes to be relatively affordable. But the plan comes as key leaders agree that building many more homes must be part of the plan to curb exorbitant housing costs.
The New York metropolitan area needed more than 340,000 additional homes in 2019, according to a 2022 estimate from Up for Growth, a Washington policy and research group. The vacancy rate for apartments renting below the citywide median of $1,500 is less than 1 percent, while tight supply has helped send the typical rent on new market-rate apartment leases in Manhattan to nearly $4,000 in December, according to the brokerage firm Douglas Elliman.
In his State of the City address last week, Mayor Eric Adams reiterated a call for the redevelopment of Midtown to bolster his push for 500,000 additional homes over the next decade. Gov. Kathy Hochul, in her State of the State speech earlier this month, made addressing the housing crisis one of her top priorities, unveiling proposals that she hopes could make way for 800,000 more homes across the state in the next decade.
Some neighborhood groups and members of the City Council, who in the past have been among the most visible opponents of new housing projects, appear to be warming to new development.
Mr. Levine’s plan appears to be one of the first to outline in detail where homes could plausibly be built in Manhattan. But he is not the first to be drawn to the allure of vacant or “underutilized” lots.
In his housing plan released last year, Mr. Adams said the city will identify properties owned by the government where housing can be built, citing a 340-unit affordable complex being developed on a former Police Department parking lot in East Harlem, first announced in 2021. The city says about 810 lots are under the housing department’s purview, and many are already slated for development.
In 2016, the city comptroller, Scott Stringer, released an audit that said that the city Housing Department and other agencies manage more than 1,100 vacant properties citywide he said could be turned into more than 57,000 affordable homes, a conclusion that was disputed by the administration of former Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Before he became mayor, Mr. Adams, as the borough president of Brooklyn, identified in 2014 parking lots and vacant land in Brooklyn as possible sites for affordable housing. That included a former hospital in East Williamsburg currently being turned into hundreds of affordable homes, and the site of a former manufactured gas plant along the Gowanus Canal where the City Council in 2021 approved a nearly 1,000-unit development.
Mr. Levine’s plan is helpful because “he is proposing the actual sites,” said Moses Gates, the vice president for housing and neighborhood planning for the Regional Plan Association, a nonprofit. “It’s vitally important that you have somebody willing to say out loud ‘You can build something here.’”
About one quarter of the sites would not require a zoning change or similar public action, according to Mr. Levine’s office. More than 40 percent of the homes could be developed as “affordable” units, meaning they would target people with lower incomes, largely because a public entity, like the city or state, owns the land. Mr. Levine also said that three-quarters of the homes proposed are on sites south of 96th Street — an attempt to make sure people of more modest economic means are not shut out of wealthier parts of the borough.
Almost 27,000 homes included in the plan would require the city to rezone chunks of neighborhoods, including Chelsea, Kips Bay and Yorkville.
The path forward will be difficult. For example, the report acknowledges that developing nearly 3,000 homes on a site near the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the agency that runs the city’s subways, would require the complicated engineering feat of constructing a deck over the tunnel’s entrance.
That could require a significant amount of public money at a time when New York City’s financial future appears precarious. The city’s housing and buildings departments are both grappling with staffing shortages that have slowed affordable housing development.
Mr. Levine’s office could not immediately provide an estimate of how much the full plan might cost.
There are also political constraints. Many of the sites need changes to zoning rules, requiring the support of the local City Council member. Council members hold enormous sway over land use decisions in their district and may push back on a plan they had less input in creating. In many cases in the past, development proposals have resulted in fraught negotiations that lead nowhere.
Shaun Abreu, a Democrat who represents Washington Heights and parts of the Upper West Side on the City Council, a seat previously held by Mr. Levine, said that local influence is important, but that his colleagues should also address the region’s overall needs.
Mr. Abreu, a tenant’s rights lawyer who was once a member of Mr. Levine’s campaign team, said he supports the Manhattan plan. He said that standing up to influential groups opposing development who are “acting in bad faith” will be crucial to the city’s health going forward.
People living next to these sites may also influence the plan’s success. Mr. Levine’s plan envisions the Police Department parking lot in the East Village, for example, could become a 70-unit apartment building, with all of the units affordable to people with lower incomes.
Melanie Montero, 48, has lived on 5th Street across from the lot all her life. She said several residents living nearby oppose the construction of housing on the site, which has been floated for at least seven years, and some prefer a park.
But Ms. Montero said her feelings are mixed. She knows the city needs more homes, and believes the apartments will ultimately be built. But she is worried about the noise from the construction, and how a new building might change the feel of her street.
“It’s tough because it’s right in front of me,” she said.
But, she added, “At least it’s not going to be a big development that’s going to be a 20-story condo.”