Analyzing the Mayor's Housing Plan - Part 1

Fostering Diverse,  Livable Neighborhoods

This is the first of five blog posts analyzing Housing New York, the Mayor’s new ten-year plan for affordable housing development, chapter-by-chapter. Up first is Chapter One: Fostering Livable, Diverse Neighborhoods.

A quantitative goal is easy to measure and understand – Housing New York is dedicated to building or preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing, and much of its success will be measured on its achieving that number. But the plan starts off with a qualitative goal as well – creating livable and diverse neighborhoods as a primary priority.

However, qualitative goals can be difficult to define, let alone measure. What the administration considers “livable and diverse” becomes the key to understanding the first chapter, and its overall goal of neighborhood building and community development.

The Mayor’s plan makes it very clear that “livable and diverse” is a synonym for “growing and dense.”  All comprehensive neighborhood development is centered around an assumption of added density and growth and the idea that growing and dense neighborhoods will provide diversity and livability is embedded throughout the chapter and the plan as a whole. Phrases such as “work with communities to identify opportunity areas and plan for growth,” and “address neighborhood needs in new development projects” make it clear that neighborhood engagement will be in the service of growth and development. This is a stark departure from the last administration, where a great many of the rezoning initiatives – especially those undertaken in conjunction with heavy community input – were focused on contextual down zonings, rather than development.

Density needs an economy of scale in order to work. Tearing down a three story building in order to build a four story building just isn’t worth it financially – especially if a strong affordable housing component is required. But tearing it down to build an eight story building can be worth it. And tearing it down to build a 30 story building is definitely worth it. There’s a tipping point. The greater the allowed density, the more feasible new development is – and the more affordable housing or other neighborhood amenities can be leveraged from the development. In order to generate the amount and type of affordable housing the administration wants, the added density will need to be significant. Addressing developers’ concerns for more market-rate housing, meeting the city’s need for more affordable housing, and keeping the overall amount of development and density in-line with community desires will be a constant, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, balancing act.

It will be interesting to see how the administration’s vision of “diverse and livable” will mesh with that of individual neighborhoods. Some communities, such as Gowanus and East New York, have been undergoing a comprehensive community planning process for years, and seem accepting of new growth and density, provided it’s well planned and affordable. But most neighborhoods have not. And in order to fulfill another goal of the chapter – pursuing affordable housing and community development throughout all five boroughs – the administration will sooner, rather than later, have to engage with communities who are not as excited or accepting of more density and development, and may even be specifically hostile to affordable housing development.

The plan gets somewhat specific about the type of growth and development it wants to see, as well as tools and resources the city is willing to commit to in order to facilitate this (which will be explored in later chapters). It is clear that mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhoods are what are envisioned in the plan.

“Mixed-Income” development is a laudable goal – however, the temptation is always to take advantage of market forces to prioritize income-mixing in currently low-income neighborhoods, while neglecting to provide many opportunities for low-income people to live in middle- and high-income areas. Simply put, it is currently much cheaper and more politically feasible to build high-income housing in low-income areas than it is to build low-income housing in high-income areas – in fact, the market is already providing a great deal of middle- and high-income housing in traditionally low-income areas. The true challenge is developing mixed-income neighborhoods in those places that are not naturally income-mixing as a result of the current market – our neighborhoods where low- and moderate-income New Yorkers have long since been priced out.

The main way the administration seeks to do this is through Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, although many of the details have yet to be resolved. Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning allows affordable housing to piggyback on the market-rate housing that inevitably gets developed in strong-market neighborhoods.

The housing plan makes it clear that there will not be a one-size-fits-all approach to Mandatory IZ – different neighborhoods have different economies, and different markets can support different ranges and amounts of affordability. Specific details – the amount of affordable housing, the depth of affordability of the housing, how the new IZ policy will be matched with tax abatements, what kind of offsite option (which is specifically mentioned) or payment-in-lieu option (which is not) may be allowed – are all left for a later day. Presumably the city will develop these details on a case-by-case basis, although the best approach would be to set a strong baseline for all neighborhoods across the city, and work up from there depending on the relative strength of the neighborhood. One very good policy detail is mentioned however – like the existing voluntary program, all units developed under the mandatory IZ program will be required to be permanently affordable.

The first announced neighborhood to go through a comprehensive rezoning for affordable housing, presumably with a strong Mandatory IZ component, is also one of our poorest: East New York. Because East New York’s market cannot be expected to leverage the amount of affordability that a stronger market could, this presents two challenges: first, the administration must be careful to establish that the IZ policy set in East New York will be a baseline for other neighborhoods, not a ceiling.And second, even the affordable component will most likely be unaffordable to current residents of the neighborhood, who make less that 50% of AMI on average.Fourteen more neighborhoods will be announced shortly. It will be a measure of the administration’s dedication to a truly equitable city to see if these neighborhoods will also be predominantly low-income neighborhoods, or if the administration is dedicated to building truly affordable housing and mixed-income communities throughout the city, including middle- and high-income neighborhoods, or in heavily gentrifying neighborhoods where low-income communities are currently under severe pressure to leave.

Another point of emphasis is on mixed-use developments, with possible zoning and rules changes allowing for easier development of first-floor commercial uses, and incentivizing more commercial and community facility space. Financially, this also creates a positive feedback loop – commercial uses, which generally generate more income-per-square-foot than affordable housing, are able to cross-subsidize affordable residential development, development which in turn creates a market for the local commercial spaces.

While it is not mentioned in the plan, it would also be beneficial to see a pilot program mixing light, neighborhood industrial uses with housing as well. This would also fit in with another point of emphasis in the section – creating quality jobs and workforce development opportunities through the plan. The focus in the plan is mostly on temporary construction jobs, which are projected to be 96% of the jobs created though the program, however chances are there to create more permanent jobs as well. The greatest barrier to growing the industrial jobs sector – a sector that pays well and provides middle-class jobs – is the lack of available space. Even when an area is zoned for manufacturing, it is often under enormous pressure to convert to residential development, and spaces are left vacant and warehoused in anticipation of cashing in on a residential rezoning. A way to create a win-win rezoning situation – combining stable, quality manufacturing jobs and affordable housing in one mixed-use development – would truly be a game-changer.

Finally, there is a heavy emphasis on good neighborhood planning principles, a reflection on Commissioner Vicki Been’s background and focus. Proper funding for infrastructure improvements, transit-oriented development (including incorporating the administration’s ‘vision zero’ and additional bike lanes, Select Bus Service, and possibly ferry service), fulfilling additional community demand for services like schools, libraries, and day-care centers which inevitably come with added density, and addressing coastal protection and storm resiliency round out the first-chapter’s emphasis on neighborhood-building. These are all excellent and necessary components of smart development, and the administration is to be commended on their inclusion in its housing plan.

What is missing, however, is a specific commitment to partnering with nonprofit community groups in the plan. If the City wants to build neighborhoods, it must partner with these neighborhoods, and this partnership, just like the plan, must be comprehensive. Local neighborhood groups and CDCs need to be involved throughout: from neighborhood visioning and planning, to bricks-and-mortar development and construction; and from doing small infill development, to doing the large-scale, new construction that needs a comprehensive neighborhood context.

This failure to utilize New York’s best neighborhood resource in a neighborhood-centric plan is the biggest missing piece of the plan, and one we hope the City will address going forward. Ever since the City partnered with local non-profit organizations to rebuild our communities devastated by the disinvestment of the 1970s and 80s, local neighborhood CDCs have lead the way when it comes to smart and comprehensive neighborhood development. A strong and quantifiable role in the new housing plan for local not-for-profit developers, with experience working in the community, is a must for any housing plan that seeks to go beyond just building brick-and-mortar to truly build the neighborhoods New York City needs to thrive.

Overall, it is left to be seen how the plan’s two primary goals – an aggressive construction target and an emphasis on comprehensive and correct neighborhood planning – will fit together. While these two goals are not necessarily in conflict, the fact of the matter is that in the drive to meet a quantitative goal – such as a unit target – sometimes the qualitative goals can fall by the wayside. It will be up to local neighborhood groups and civic-minded organizations to make sure the administration’s promised focus on engaging with communities, planning comprehensively, and committing to creating mixed-income neighborhoods throughout the city (not just our currently low-income neighborhoods) is as much of a priority as reaching its 200,000 unit goal.

ANHD’s blog schedule on the Mayor’s Housing Plan:

• Wednesday, May 28th:  Fostering Diverse, Livable Neighborhoods
• Wednesday, June 4th:  Preserving the Affordability and Quality of the Existing Housing Stock
• Wednesday, June 11th:  Building New Affordable Housing for All New Yorkers
• Wednesday, June 18th:  Promoting Homeless, Senior, Supportive, and Accessible Housing
• Wednesday, June 25th:  Refining City Financing Tools and Expanding Funding Sources for Affordable Housing