By Bob Tannenhauser
Last week, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine announced a proposal to alleviate the housing shortage throughout Manhattan’s twelve community board districts, including CB7 on the Upper West Side. The full report identified possible locations for over 73,000 new apartment units of which 40% would be affordable.
Only one site was identified on the Upper West Side at 103 W. 108th Street, a parking garage between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues. It is estimated that the site could accommodate at least 80 affordable housing units. There is already an affordable housing development on W. 108th Street, which came with a lot of controversy. This would actually be the second phase of that project, sources said. It has already been approved for development by the West Side Federation of Senior and Supportive Housing (WSFSSH).
There are requirements to fulfill before most of the housing Levine identified can become a reality. The Borough President’s Office has mitigated one by reducing the land-use review process to five days from the current thirty days.
However, city, state and federal action will also be required. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) will require additional funding to expand its capacity to implement these projects. The federal government will have to lift the city’s funding cap on Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and the city and state will be required to take action to eliminate the legal, regulatory, and land-use obstacles to the conversion of commercial space to residential use. Community Board 7 will also have to weigh in.
Listen to Levine present his proposal below.
How about 73,000 new apartment units of which 100% would be affordable?
How about people learn how to do basic math? No one is going to build something, take on tremendous risk and debt, and then sell/rent at a loss unless they’re terrible at what they do or are insane. Even the city/state as landlord has been an utter failure despite good intentions and dedicated tax revenue. Housing costs money and requires constant maintenance, and only those who can actually afford those costs and have an incentive (investment) to care about those things can meet those requirements. That’s just reality. I’d love to live in the Hamptons, but alas, can’t afford it. And if the Hamptons were suddenly full of “affordable housing,” it wouldn’t really be the Hamptons anymore, would it?
Wishful thinking for 100% subsidized housing results in nothing getting built. Better to get a mix of subsidized and market rate units than have this site remain a parking garage.
Who will develop it? The numbers don’t add up.
I read the report. Levine’s proposal is nothing more than political grandstanding that will collapse under its own complexity. Nothing will get accomplished.
The heart of NYC’s housing affordability problem is that over half of NYC residents live in either government housing or rent regulated housing. Everyone else is fighting over the remaining scraps.
Any proposal to create “affordable” housing that is dependent on costly tax breaks and complex regulations and oversight is doomed to failure.
…link to source for “over half of NYC residents live in either government housing or rent regulated housing?” Because it sure doesn’t look that way just walking around.
You can’t see rent regulated housing “just by walking around.” Many UWS co-ops including doorman or elevator co-ops have rent stabilized residents. The Ansonia is famous for this but there are also many ordinary buildings throughout the neighborhood and city where residents pay a fraction of the market rate.
I agree. It would be helpful to see the specific source that Otis is citing.
103 W 108th Street Garage is where I parked my car for many years. $99/mo. Those were the days.
“We’re not creating housing.” We? That’s an odd way to put it. Building homes and apartments is the job of real estate developers. If they’re not building, it’s either because 1.) it’s too expensive (materials, labor, land, financing), or 2.) there are few viable opportunities/sites to develop. Mark Levine clearly has no understanding of this. But not to worry. If people like Mark Levine, who apparently believes in magic beans, keep getting elected, this city will become much cheaper. I know I won’t pay these rents just to be surrounded by shuttered businesses, unsafe streets and subways, and completely blighted and frankly scary NYCHA complexes. Want more housing, Mark? Give subsidies to developers, wait for building costs to go down, and get out of the way.
You left out one major impediment, that the zoning makes it difficult or impossible for developers to build, which is exactly what Mr. Levine is trying to address. Additionally, the full report identified plenty of sites that are being sub-optimally used (vacant, parking lots, etc.).
I wish they would do away with the “renovation” clause that allows landlords to do the bare minimum and then charge obscene amounts for previously reasonably priced units. Not everyone is 23 with 5 roommates.
Why can’t landlords make money? We live in a capitalist society. Unless they are going to be subsidized by the government to make their housing more affordable, they should be able to charge what the market will bear.
Manhattan has a glut of office space. And if this ridiculous project to build un-needed super tall buildings near Penn Station goes through, the glut will be much more pronounced. Someone needs to focus on converting unused office space to residential. And when doing so, make sure that there are schools, hospitals, etc. nearby to serve them.
We can keep going the way we’re going but when the revolution comes, it isn’t the working nurses and teachers that are going to be on the other side, it’s the landlords who were insistent on making a profit instead of helping their fellow man.
The subjective “obscene” has no place in a simple arms-length financial transaction between two parties. If someone is able to “charge” it, someone is able to pay it. It becomes noone else’s business.
With today’s housing deficit, it IS obscene to leave people homeless and unhoused while luxury buildings remain empty.
ZERO to do with my point. But also no, the luxury tower (empty, half-empty, or full) on some of the most expensive and desirable location in the world, has nothing to do with the lack of affordable housing – at the price-appropriate location and of the price-appropriate built quality.
I don’t mean to sound like a nimby Republican, but as others have noted, why should the homeless and others be housed in the most valuable real estate in America? It is much cheaper and more efficient to build housing for them (and provide services when necessary) outside of Manhattan and outside of NYC in general.
The difference between me and a Republican is that unlike Republicans, I do feel like we need to do something to help, not just ignore them. I am not solely saying this because I want them out of my way. I want money to be used most efficiently and for them to be provided with the best resources possible. If someone truly has a reason to be in NYC, then we should do our best to keep them here. But if they have no clear ties to the city, then this should be a NY State or USA issue, not just ours.
Exactly. 100% right on.
The “most valuable real estate in the world”? Artificially valuable perhaps.
Let’s do the math.
Commercial real estate in office buildings that you can’t even give away at this point.
Thousands of empty commercial retail spaces.
Thousands of empty unsold “luxury” apartments in new buildings.
Hundreds, probably thousands of rent stabilized apartments that are being “Archived” and kept vacant intentionally.
Does this add up to a healthy city? This “most valuable real estate in the country “feels more like the most expensive house of cards.
Even if you can stomach hearing people whine and moan and demand taxpayer subsidized housing, are there not parts of New York City OTHER than Manhattan where land acquisition costs would make housing inherently more ‘affordable’?
Why does taxpayer subsidized housing have to be on some of the most expensive real estate in the country?
Entitled much?
Affordable housing will be inherently more affordable when built in areas that are more affordable, i.e., not Manhattan. You can build/create more housing for more people where land (and property tax and more) is cheaper. This is not NIMBYism, it is basic economics.
It’s a fair point, Mark Levine is Manhattan borough president, so I presume that’s why his report focuses on Manhattan. Thankfully Hochul’s recently announced budget targets underutilized areas near public transit (such as Long Island) for zoning reform which should provide more affordable housing.
There are giant swathes of Long Island City that are derelict and largely empty.
(This was the area Amazon planned on building its headquarters but was chased away by AOC and other “progressives” but I don’t mean to digress).
This area has quick and easy access to Grand Central not to mention numerous bus routes that go there.
Instead of trying to build “affordable” housing on crowded and expensive Manhattan the city should offer incentives to developers and reduce obstacles for them to build in this area.
Have you been to LIC or (closer parts of) Astoria recently? Huge amount of new building. Small and larger high rises jostling to block one another’s light. Developers need no incentives here – they are and have been busy busy.
First they have to redefine affordable. I regularly look at the affordable housing and I don’t make ENOUGH money to qualify. Affordable housing is actually median housing for the neighborhood which almost always means making 75k or more to even be eligible for “affordable” housing. It’s absurd.
I agree with this, every time affordable housing lotteries come up for new development, the income requirements for most “affordable” housing for a family of four are usually pretty depressing, the theoretical family is still paying a crazy percentage of their income for rent.
To qualify for most affordable programs/lotteries, the housing cost (listed rent or co-op maintenance plus mortgage) cannot be more than 30% of household income (plus any other program-specific criteria). A household that would pay a “crazy percentage” is ineligible to apply.
There are different programs for different income levels, to make the programs economical to develop and to provide housing across range of low to middle income households.
Look for programs that target your income’s percent of Area Median Income (AMI) as defined here:
https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/area-median-income.page
And more info here:
https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/do-you-qualify.page
The garage has already gone through ULURP and was approved while I was chair of CB7. WSFSSh is the developer, it is in Mark Levine’s former Council District. HPD will turn the garage over to WSFSSH when they are ready to start construction. WSFSH agreed to build the first building on the west side of the playground, and wait until 2023 0r later to build the second building
Elected officials keep ignoring the thousands of affordable units that are lost.
For example, units kept off market by landlords for years (typically to tear down and develop luxury housing); units used completely as Airbnb (illegal); NYCHA apartments in disrepair and not yet fixed….
If history is anything to go by Developers will jump on this report to build luxury housing and leave affordable housing in the dust. The City cannot rely on developers to build affordable housing in Manhattan because they won’t! They will take all the benefits that are supposed to support affordable housing and build what they want when they want and they City won’t do a thing about it and sometimes it will be in on the scam.
The City must take maintaining social housing seriously and build more affordable housing . If Jacob Fugger could do it in 1521, the 14th century, and that housing still remains a lovely neighborhood today surely we can do it in the 21st.
Not a great example of a helpful name drop…scuse my ignorance while I google the city and place you refer to. Could the renowned NYC Mitchell-Lama housing be a more relevant reference here? It was dedicated middle income housing that was held to an income cap for many years but then residents could decide if they wanted it to return to regular market so it wasn’t a public maintenance problem long term. Great project but hard to replicate.
One solution up and running successfully in the State of Montana is a Tiny House Village
A Tiny House costs 4K to build; is permanent housing. The City is paying that
to temp house homeless in a flea bag hotel
It could be built quickly services would be on site. It’s a solution!!
City get with it!!!!!!!!!!
The city should “get with” a solution, a Tiny House Village, that worked in Montana – a state that has more land than God? Please be realistic – where would we fit these houses that a building with multiple units would not work better.
on the subject of land-use, is there any info on the City’s plan to put a food delivery e-bike charging station at the south part of the 72nd Street subway “island”?
CB7 meeting on it next week. It doesn’t make sense to put a bike charging station there.
It’s too bad that CB7 never seems to make a difference no matter how much is talked about at the meeting. They have no say for neighborhood and city issues, apparently from what I’ve seen over the last few years. Plus, isn’t time to have in-person meetings now? It’s ridiculous that residents can’t address important neighborhood concerns speaking face to face after 3 years. The rest of the city is managing to meet in person now. Come on.
so re Trumps inflate/deflate values scheme, I think the reason it went un detected or ignored is because it is common practice. which means the real estate is grossly inflated. start enforcing tax law, insurance law. tenancy laws. you will see prices come down.
It is time to stop the phony calls for “affordable” housing. The metric under which something is deemed “affordable” is as bogus as a four-dollar bill. It simply means you don’t have to be a millionaire to afford it. But you still have to make a HUGE amount of money – more than those who really NEED “affordable” housing are ever going to be able to pay. It is time to either admit that ALL housing is “UNaffordable” to most people, and just go ahead and build those condos and coops. Or else figure out a way to build ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE housing for those who really need it. Sadly, as NYC increasingly becomes a playpen for the rich, I don’t see the latter happening without some massive program supported by the federal, State and City pols, and other stakeholders. 🙁