Someone reopened the poor door this week.
News broke that the De Blasio administration has approved the application by Extell Development to create separate entrances for market-rate and affordable-housing tenants at a new 33-story Upper West Side development. That the liberal mayor had allowed the plan to go forward shocked some people, but his staff said that they couldn’t overturn a plan that had already been green-lighted under rules from the Bloomberg administration.
“No responsible administration can require somebody retroactively to redesign their entire building. Our focus is what are we doing in the future,” Alicia Glen, deputy mayor for housing and economic development, told WNYC.
We broke the original story about the development plan at 40 Riverside Boulevard (62nd street) last year. The story quickly took on a life of its own, igniting a fierce debate over how affordable housing is built. In fact, the news just kept spreading. Pundits were talking poor doors on MSNBC and Fox, it showed up in newspapers in England, and on TV programs in Russia and Israel.
Some of the basic details got lost in the fervor. Extell is setting aside 55 of the 274 units in the building for affordable housing, which will rent to people making 60% or less of the area median income. Under the inclusionary zoning rules, the company said it had to put the units in a separate segment of the building with its own entrance and no access to amenities reserved for market-rate tenants. In exchange for building affordable units, Extell is given credits that allow it to add more apartments at another nearby development or sell it to another developer. Those credits are worth many millions of dollars. They also reportedly applied for tax breaks worth millions more.
When the story first broke, politicians like mayoral candidate Christine Quinn and Borough President candidate Robert Jackson, vowed to stop buildings from getting credits for affordable housing if they don’t integrate richer and poorer tenants. But (surprise surprise!) no laws were passed. However, discussions about this issue have shaped subsequent developments. Two Trees, which is developing the Domino Sugar site in Brooklyn, said that it would not build “poor door” developments.
With the plan making headlines again, the issue has once again become political fodder. Borough President Gale Brewer is holding a press conference in front of City Hall on Friday to demand changes to the rules for inclusionary zoning, and to rebut claims by developers that they need to separate the entrances. Alicia Glen, from the mayor’s office, also says they plan to amend the zoning code though it could take awhile. Councilman Mark Levine is attempting to make renter status a protected class, like race and gender.
For Gary Barnett, the head of Extell, the politicians and city officials are being ridiculous.
“We’re in the political silly season, to be blunt. Would you rather not have the affordable housing? Ask any one of the thousands of people who are applying for that, and they don’t give a damn [about the separate entrance.] They want to have a beautiful apartment, in a beautiful neighborhood, at a super price,” Barnett said, according to WNYC.
It’s undoubtedly true that the tenants who win the lottery to live in those apartments are lucky and won’t complain. But it doesn’t necessarily mean the city should be giving out tax breaks or overriding zoning to encourage urban planning that separates people.
The debate over whether this setup is kosher tends to get nasty. Some say that people getting a break on an apartment shouldn’t receive the same amenities as market-rate tenants. Others say that the city should make sure affordable housing is interspersed with market-rate housing, particularly given the city’s increasing economic segregation and the big tax breaks developers are getting. Mostly, people complain that the other side is acting entitled or spoiled. (Let’s keep that tired debate out of our comments section, okay? We’ve heard it again and again.)
There are bigger issues here that deserve debate, including whether inclusionary zoning is the most efficient way of creating affordable housing, particularly for luxury developments like this one. The city needs some new tools, and a whole lot more housing, to create vibrant mixed-income neighborhoods.
“Vibrant mixed-income neighborhoods.” Right. I live 2 blocks from the Douglass Houses. Vibrant isn’t the first word that comes to mind.
Douglass Houses is actually a vibrant development with seniors, families, etc. There have been some crime problems recently but let’s not stereotype.
It’s really unfortunate that a minority of thugs can cause an entire housing project and the surrounding neighborhood to live in fear. I couldn’t imagine what it must be like for a family to live in the Douglass Houses.
The vast majority of the residents are good, working class people, I’m sure they have much stronger feelings about the thugs that live next door to them.
Sam, do you know that the residents of Douglass Houses and “the surrounding neighborhood” are all “living in fear”? i don’t know that to be true. i walk through Douglass Houses regularly and have never noticed anything unusual — senior sitting on benches, kids playing in Goat Park…
I won’t waste my time continuing this conversation or future topics with you Bruce. We can counter each other until the cows come home but we won’t agree on these matters. Have a nice day.
Sam, I base my views on facts. This involves the actual views of the residents. There is a big difference between being “concerned” and “living in fear.” Maybe the residents of Douglass Houses ARE “living in fear”, but i would like to hear that from them.
At least one of the incidents you cited, “a number of armed men in conflict with a shot fired”, actually happened nowhere near Douglass Houses, though some of the DOuglass residents were involved. This might seem like a small point, but facts are important. Another incident actually involved a police ARREST of a gang leader (hat tip to Capt. Larin, once more), which makes the area safer.
I’ll link to a full report on violence at Douglass from the Columbia Spectator below, which actually QUOTES some Douglass Houses tenant leaders. Imho, this is the way to cover events at Douglass Houses — find out what the residents think. Here is what one resident said:
““What we have now are lost teens and young adults with no direction. Mayor de Blasio has to step up for the teens and young adults, or this summer will be a disaster. These kids are suffering, but no one seems to want to help,” Innocent said, advocating for increased after-school programs and ways to engage youths.
On Easter Sunday, parents and children were gathered at the buildings’ playground areas between Amsterdam and Columbus avenues, with no indication of any unrest.”
And by the way, one “fact” you have been citing, about the area where you actually live, turns out to be false. You have said many times that W 94th between W End and RSD will become much more dangerous when 125 more “mentally ill men” move in to Reston House (the former St Louis Hall).
I researched this “fact.” It turns out, as I expected, renovations at Reston House were completed in January 2014 and the place has been “at capacity” since then. The fact that you didn’t notice a difference speaks loudly about the sort of exagerations that are common.
The Spectator report on DOuglass:
https://columbiaspectator.com/news/2014/04/21/after-altercation-frederick-douglass-tenants-worried-about-increasing-violence
A 14 year old boy stabbed in the neck in their courtyard, an armed gang member arrested and a number of armed men in a conflict with a shot fired… These incidents all happened within the last month or so.
They would be out of heir minds to not be concerned or fearful of what’s going on. Bruce you continue to amaze me with your views.
“Poor Door?” How about “Lucky Door!”
This comment is going to be a little long and indulgent, so I apologize ahead of time.
I’ve lived in two 80/20 buildings on the UWS. The first was Columbus Green where the 20%-ers (affordable housing tenants) were long-established. Nobody really knew the difference between the 80s and the 20s, or really thought too much about it as far as I could tell.
Then I moved to a shiny, expensive new building. The 80s were mostly white and Asian, and the 20s were (generally) black and Latino. Everyone was a new tenant, and there wasn’t a whole lot of socializing between the two groups. The market rate people would know the other market rate people on their floor, but not the rent controlled tenants. The converse was true for the rent controlled tenants.
Over time, though, that changed. We all shared elevators and laundry rooms and barriers came down. The groups have absolutely become more integrated and friendly. In fact, I wouldn’t call them “groups” any more. On rare occasions, we’ll get a new low-income tenant that’s super deferential, calling the rich white people “sir” and “ma’am.” I think they’re surprised that they get the same respect back.
All of this is an incredibly long windup to my personal conclusion that this type of integration is exactly what our neighborhood needs. Yes, I still think that subsidized tenants should have to pay full freight for amenities that market rate tenants also must pay for, and mandatory low-income set-asides for new developments is a bad idea. However, if we’re going to have a mixed building, separate front entrances undermine so much of the benefit that comes from this type of program.
How on earth did you manage to secure 2 apartments ?~~!!
I aplied for the one on 76th, The Landstrom. There were 5000 applicants! A friend got to be accepted. Good for her! But seriously, how if you’re for real, what’s the secret!
Oops. Sorry – I’m market rate – apologize if that wasn’t clear.
And your friend is super lucky. For all the drama in the comments here about the Friedland buildings, their affordable housing units are the best deal on the UWS.
Will the “poor door” tenants have to ride in the back of the
elevator or will they have separate but “EQUAL” elevators?
How about laundry rooms? Water supplies (fountains), what
about emergency situations, will the ambulance have a different address to go to for the poor door, will the gurney
fit on the poor door elevator? In case of fire will everybody
be entitled to the most convenient and safest exit? what is the address of the poor door, is there a different mailing address? Are you willing to give every child who has to go through the poor door feeling of not being equal?
I would glady take any of the perceived slights in exchange for such a great deal.
In fact I just applied to Penn South which just opened the waiting list for the first time in years. If I live there, everyone will know I am subsidized and I think the reaction would be more jealousy then anything else. in either case, who cares what others think. If I care, I have the option of NOT moving in and taking the subsidy.
I would like to point out that this type of subsidized housing is the MOST expensive for all. the units costs millions, the area gets more congestion then zoning allows. The only real beneficiaries are the lucky few and here you are complaining about the silly poor door thing. If you really care about the poor, then build three times as many units in less costly locations..the government has stopped building housing and is relying on those so called evil developers to perform this obligation.
Want to see it in action? go the Whole Foods building in Tribeca, they have 3 entrances, one for fancy condo on Warren street, another for SUPER fancy condo on Warren street, then the subsidized 89 Murray.. I don’t think anyone cares about being in the poor door, its just the rental entrance, and again I would kill for one of the lucky units.
But, will they have access to the gym?
It is funny how this “poor door” story gets legs. In reality, there are two different buildings. One is a RENTAL (with some % below market rate apartments) and one is a CONDOMINIUM. They just so happen to be next to each other. This is not the only block in NYC that has both a CONDOMINIUM and a RENTAL building in the same block.
In fact, the building(s) just north of the subject buildingS at 60 Riverside Blvd. have a CONDOMINIUM (The Aldyn – 60 RSB) and a RENTAL (The Ashley – 400 West 63rd). The rental is market rate rental and there are no complaints about a “separate” door there.
There is not much of a story here except for those who want to stir the economic class pot.
This is exactly it: 60 RSB and 400 W 63rd are two separate buildings joined by the courtyard, underground garage and underground gym. For all intents and purposes, they are separate buildings.
Note that Extell sold 400 W 63rd (the rental portion) soon after the building was completed. Extell is *not* in the business of running rentals. Extel is in the business of building buildings. It was considerably easier for Extell to sell the rental building because *it is a separate building*. The condo building also has no interest in the rental building, so after the last unit there was sold by Extell, Extell has no ongoing interest in the management and sales of the condo and rental.
I imagine this is what the intend to do with 40 RSB and the adjacent rental.
Imagine how much harder it would be for Extell to sell the rental portion if the buildings were physically the same as the condo development. If that task is too hard, Extell would simply not bother with affordable housing, as the benefits of whatever variances they get for the condo developments would not be worth their inability to sell off any interests they have in completed developments.
Question if anyone knows:
Regarding this luxury development and other luxury developments that receive credits (to build higher) and/or tax breaks in exchange for including some “affordable” units, do the affordable units remain affordable permanently?
Or do the affordable units expire at some point (ie 20-30 years) and go to market rate?
(If the answer is that the affordable units expire at some point, then it is a GREAT deal for developers who get to build higher in exchange for 20-30 years of some affordable housing)
“Extell is setting aside 55 of the 274 units in the building for affordable housing, which will rent to people making 60% or less of the area median income. Under the inclusionary zoning rules, the company said it had to put the units in a separate segment of the building with its own entrance and no access to amenities reserved for market-rate tenants. In exchange for building affordable units, Extell is given credits that allow it to add more apartments at another nearby development or sell it to another developer. Those credits are worth many millions of dollars. They also reportedly applied for tax breaks worth millions more.”
Unless Mayor Bill has taken time out from his fight against the horses in the Park, the Bloomberg rules on affordable housing remain the same. They expire. In fact in some cases the “affordable housing” Can be off site and built at another time. The benefits and direct payments how EV are almost immediate.
If people keep complaining about this so called “poor door”, eventually developers won’t want to deal with all the hassle, and they’ll just forgot the potential for tax credits and simply not build any affordable housing at all. I’m pretty sure low income New Yorkers would rather have affordable housing in a great location that may lack some amenities, instead of having no option for affordable housing at all. Developers don’t HAVE to provide affordable housing unless they want the tax credits, and with everyone’s complaining, most likely future developers are simply not going to bother. Congratulations.
The “affordable housing benefits” that developers enjoy more than pay for all the amenities and make a “poor door” Unnecessary to “save costs” for anyone. Developers run this CITY and will continue to do so.
well, then we can make inclusionary zoning mandatory! a simple change in the zoning laws…
Its happening in London too:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats
You would think Gale Brewer would have far better things to do than hold press conferences about stuff like this. My guess is this will just compel the politicians to do things like make the 80/20 rules mandatory regardless of tax treatment, or require more affordable housing than even the current laws mandate. Obviously this will lead to little to no construction, and what will be built will only be ultra high-end to make the math work, which will simply drive prices higher…oh, wait.
agree Chris. But we literally are dealing with a city council that is in reality so far left they are not democrats, they are not so undercover socialists or communists.
The reality that the 20 % makes everything more expensive for everyone else does not register with them (and their deciples ).
Power to the people, right on!
Extell will continue to get everything it wants including mega tax breaks.. I am sick of it. Aren’t you. If developers want to develop luxury housing let them do so on their own dime and with in the confines of zoning. It is time to stop pretending that the claim developers make that they are “beneficent givers” to the CITY who only happen to make billions is true. They rip up the city both literally and figuratively and the city government allows them to do so while shutting down any opportunity for the public to object or even comment. Mayor Bill is no different just look at his appointments to the various boards, commissions and departs that deal with land use.
Anyone who’s contributing housing to the UWS gets a lot of latitude from many of us. We need more apartments, and it’s hard to argue that there’s downside for anyone if the developer is building ’em out of a mud pit next to the highway.
I think we have to consider what 60% of the median income for this neighborhood equals. It’s probably not very low! I’m just guessing here, but if a family of three makes around $80,000 a year, they may qualify for a subsidized two-bedroom that will run them about $3,000/month. There aren’t a lot of cities in the world where that is considered “poor,” so “poor door” may be a misnomer in this case, but I think for $3,000/month, a few amenities are in order.
Is it a ‘poor door’ or a ‘rich barricade’?
Gary Barnett reflects a mean spirited and callous tone that I’m sure many of his tenants have as well.
Empty money trying to buy some meaning into their emptiness. I’d like to hear from any progressive tenants who don’t share Barnett’s drivel. Because if there aren’t any ‘good rich’ folk in his rich ghetto then I’m afraid the barricades will be going up on the streets and the ‘people’ will be getting the guillotines out of the basements.
It used to be that old money had the wisdom to keep their celebrations out of public view.
But this new…really new money Barnett loves to just razz it in your face. He’s the kind that old money rues the day with. But it is fin-de-cicle and let all the cookies drop.
Has anybody gone over and seen the poor door.
It’s outrageous. It’s behind a garage on the side corner. It’s a tiny one door operation. A back door to something stuck between some faceless commercial windows with major ugly street construction going on. It certainly isn’t a door that any human being would have as a front door of their home anywhere in New York City. Plus just walking there, which most tenants have to do, from the nearest subway in Lincoln center becomes a barren back street walk by the time you get there. Very depressing. This is no mere ‘poor door’ it’s an exit to nowhere.
No exaggerating folks…check it out and it will really make your blood boil.
So what? My cheapo coach-class ticket gets me a cramped coach-class seat with no champagne or access to the lounge. Will Gale Brewer and the rest of her misguided cronies go to bat for me when I complain? No. But then again, I won’t complain, because I understand the concept of getting what I pay for.
I agree Paul. The reality of our economy is that you do get what you pay for. I work hard, and I pay my bills, but no one is handing me any “upgrade”. Plus, if there weren’t subsidies, everyone would pay less(economics 101), and the market wouldn’t have an artificial supply-and-demand. Unfortunately, the middle-class, market-rate renters on the UWS are the ones who really pay. If these people don’t like the door, don’t move in!
it’s not “Economics 101” when supply is fixed, as it is with housing. if it was possible to vastly increase the supply of housing, then the price point would come down. But that is not possible on UWS.
The proof is in the pudding. large numbers of apts have come off rent stabilization in the last 10 years and become “market rate.” But rental prices continue to go up and up.
“supply being fixed” should in an abstract Econ 101 model have no impact on DEMAND. the demand curve is the demand curve. Supply being fixed has an impact on the “equilibrium price” — where the demand curve and the supply curve cross each other.
in the real world, a fixed supply of something might increase demand because of hoarding, pre-emptive buying, etc. but even in this case the main impact is on PRICE.
Supply being fixed causes an increase in demand. Doesn’t get more 101 than that. Can you elaborate?
Housing for rich and poor is interspersed on the Upper West Side. Across from Lincoln Center there is a Housing Project. On practically all of our streets, there are rent stabilized apartments. Developers of luxury condos should not be given tax credits and extra building height in exchange for affordable housing. Why not use some of the existing buildings in Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn and parts of Manhattan, designating them for affordable housing. By the way, what is affordable housing. I can’t live at 15 Central Park West, and maybe some people can’t live in Tribeca, but there are places for all of us.
The idea of the poor door is disgusting and segregationist but should not, definitely not, be part of the larger debate about rent regulation. Designated entrances are disturbing relics of pre-civil rights era where class (in this case) defines your person; it plays into the idea that being “poor” (if the income threshold is 60% of the median that is still substantially higher than the rest of the country in a lot of cases, not to mention in new luxury developments the prices are absurd – and the market keeps going up everywhere you look) means that you are probably a criminal or at least and undesirable neighbor, and someone to be shunned. It reminds me of something we had talked about a while ago where in co-ops people of color were made to take the service elevator. It should be illegal – not through legislation but through zoning regulations. Additionally, though its reprehensible that the developer is applying for tax breaks, that is fully within the city’s area of responsibility – the completely bungled set-up of tax programs (prime example: J-51 tax benefits and subsequent lawsuit) are all the city and state not being in tune with one another and companies either taking advantage or being unreasonably punished, when the system itself is responsible.
That being said, I have to say that the amenities (if they are all-inclusive in the rent) should not be inaccessible to the people under regulation; that would mean that all the tenants in the building were entitled to use the, However, if the amenities are separately paid, all tenants should be treated equally and have to pay the same for additional features. The idea of a housing lottery and rent regulation as a system is to create opportunities for people to live in good quality homes and have access to the neighborhood, not to give them a pool and a gym. It’s the same as when you buy a car – the extra features cost more. If you can’t pay for it, you can’t have it. If the building didn’t have a gym or pool, no one would say, “NYSC, Equinox, whoever, you have to give all these people discounted membership because they make %60 or lower of the median income.” And no one would say that because their is no legitimate entitlement to facilities like those.
Finally I want to make a point about the link that they are talking about in reference to rent regulated tenants becoming a protected class. This is a ridiculous and terrible idea for numerous reasons.
One: to tell people that their income does indeed define them and they are part of this common class is furthering the notion that the wealthy are perpetrating and creates an idea of identity.
Two: there is NOTHING in common about people in this class. The cutoff itself would be arbitrary because life and circumstances dictate when, why, and for how long someone is in this class [rather than the color of your skin or your gender (not going down the road of the question of trans in this argument), which in the basic sense is unchangeable and visible; a constant regardless of what you do in your life]. Consider the college student vs disabled vet vs drug addict etc etc…
Three: why should protections be afforded when someone can easily (not personally necessarily, but easily in the sense that there is one simple change that would need to happen) fall out of being part of this class?
Four: The level of determination needed to maintain the people within the class then becomes arduous and any circumstance then becomes a hinging point (ie income sheltering, fraud, etc) in any case where it is used as a defense – does due diligence and discovery then include someone presenting tax returns and the like? Or is the class assumed because of the original status, in which case there is unending room for people gaming the system…
but that’s just my take on it.
This poor door story has made the news nationally – and was featured on “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” as a story that almost cannot be believed.
That should tell you something about the disparity between the haves and have-nots and how the rich treat the less wealthy, the working poor, the lower middle class, the low income workers who repair their apts, take care of their children, porter their buildings, work in the schools their children attend, retired artists and musicians, etc. It’s disgraceful and to have it happen on the UWS is a shameful mark on this area.
guess which political party all these “greedy” developers vote for…..
It seems a simple way to solve this is to charge a membership fee for the amenities and whoever can pay it gets a key card to that space. Then it is a matter of who wants to and can pay the fee for the extras and there is no taint of discrimination caused by the separate building entrance.