3 ms·

> NYCHA has a huge capital shortfall -- to the tune of $18B. > entire buildings are going to be uninhabitable if repairs aren't made. This isn't the problem. I

by maratd 11y ago

> NYCHA has a huge capital shortfall -- to the tune of $18B. > entire buildings are going to be uninhabitable if repairs aren't made. This isn't the problem. It's the solution. Those buildings will become uninhabitable within a few decades. They will be torn down. The land will be sold to developers, with stipulations of affordable housing as part of the deal. Mixed housing actually works. It actually has a measurable effect on the income of those residing in it. "Projects" don't work and they truly deserve their reputation. As far as the raw numbers of affordable housing being made available, the city has a lot of leeway in terms of pressuring developers. Virtually every building needs a variance of some sort. They can easily grant those in return for various guarantees.

justizin 11y ago
> with stipulations of affordable housing as part of the deal If that works out anything like it has been in San Francisco, those commitments are extremely soft, and "affordable" is often defined as a household with over $150k of income, while "low income" is literally a household with like 40k that spends its' entire income on housing. Further, luxury developers don't want affordable or low income units in their buildings, so they pay into a fund for the city to build, while there are incredibly few parcels that qualify, and the city continues to compete with developers to build them. > "Projects" don't work and they truly deserve their reputation. Valencia Gardens is a wonderful building with low-income housing in the SF Mission, and many of us would love to see more like it. There are advantages to people of different income levels sharing a neighborhood, and personally I have no problem sharing my building, but developers aren't building to my cultural taste profile. My argument for SF, and I suspect would hold as much water in NYC, is that if affordable housing is built, _then_ some poorly maintained buildings can _perhaps_ be taken down to build _future_ "market rate" housing, once people living in older buildings have had a chance to rebalance within their affordability guidelines. All in all, it's pretty insane that esp these two cities are building a disturbing amount of housing which requires two six figure wage earners living together and scraping by. de Blasio has gotten some credit for about 20k new units popping up in NYC, which is about the number we need in the SF Mission, but population wise it would be like saying that the entire Bay Area has increased affordable housing by 20k units, which would be laughable as an accomplishment.

by maratd 11y ago

justizin 11y ago

> with stipulations of affordable housing as part of the deal If that works out anything like it has been in San Francisco, those commitments are extremely soft, and "affordable" is often defined as a household with over $150k of income, while "low income" is literally a household with like 40k that spends its' entire income on housing. Further, luxury developers don't want affordable or low income units in their buildings, so they pay into a fund for the city to build, while there are incredibly few parcels that qualify, and the city continues to compete with developers to build them. > "Projects" don't work and they truly deserve their reputation. Valencia Gardens is a wonderful building with low-income housing in the SF Mission, and many of us would love to see more like it. There are advantages to people of different income levels sharing a neighborhood, and personally I have no problem sharing my building, but developers aren't building to my cultural taste profile. My argument for SF, and I suspect would hold as much water in NYC, is that if affordable housing is built, _then_ some poorly maintained buildings can _perhaps_ be taken down to build _future_ "market rate" housing, once people living in older buildings have had a chance to rebalance within their affordability guidelines. All in all, it's pretty insane that esp these two cities are building a disturbing amount of housing which requires two six figure wage earners living together and scraping by. de Blasio has gotten some credit for about 20k new units popping up in NYC, which is about the number we need in the SF Mission, but population wise it would be like saying that the entire Bay Area has increased affordable housing by 20k units, which would be laughable as an accomplishment.