NEW YORK | City and State struggle to increase residential development

[NYguy]

Keeping track of this, as they again renew calls to increase the residential FAR cap...


https://nypost.com/2024/02/14/us-new...ul-eric-adams/


By Nolan Hicks
Feb. 14, 2024

Gov. Kathy Hochul’s administration renewed its push Wednesday to overhaul a decades-old state law that she and Mayor Eric Adams argue is snarling efforts to transform empty office towers into badly needed housing for New York City.

A Post investigation found that the 1961 law — known as the 12 FAR cap — has badly backfired, trading iconic Big Apple sites for soulless pencil towers, while thwarting the construction of potentially 200,000 apartments.

Many of the historic structures that line Central Park, such as the famed Eldorado, also would be barred from being erected today under the arcane residential construction statute, which blocks new mid-sized buildings from being built.

The Post’s review comes as Hochul’s top housing official made the case to state lawmakers once again that FAR cap needs to be repealed, describing it an “outdated” restriction during a Wednesday hearing in Albany.

“What remains abundantly clear is that the state’s housing crisis will only be remedied with bold and creative solutions that significantly increase our supply and, thereby, drive down prices,” state housing commissioner, Ruth Anne Visnauskas, said from the capitol.

The law’s supporters argue it shields the Big Apple — Manhattan, in particular — from overdevelopment and protects the character of historic neighborhoods that they say would otherwise be filled with glass towers.

But The Post’s review of city records shows that the law has done the opposite: Allowing the construction of glass skyscrapers filled with just a handful of apartments, while blocking apartment buildings such as the elegant famed structures that line Central Park.

The statute restricts how high structures can be built based on the size of their footprint on the ground — the bigger the ground footprint, the fewer the stories.

That equation means many of the more spread-out 20- and 30-story historic residential buildings along Central Park West and Fifth Avenue could only be 12 stories tall if they were built today

When the law was enacted in 1961, supporters said it would prevent “vertical slums.” In practice, those tall buildings have kept sprouting while shorter designs with more units can no longer be built, The Post’s investigation found.

“I know the mayor is very enthusiastic about [a revised law]. Developers like [one]. But a lot of communities say, ‘Don’t we have enough tall buildings?’” said state Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who chairs the lower chamber’s Housing Committee and is one of the law’s key supporters, to The Commercial Observer in 2023.

“I am listening to all sides about the FAR cap,” Rosenthal said, in a statement responding to The Post’s findings. “We are in the midst of budget discussions and all these issues are open and on the table.”

Researchers at Columbia University estimated in 2015 that the building size cap, and its predecessors, has cost the five boroughs an estimated 200,000 homes and apartments over the decades.

That’s enough units to fill approximately two-thirds of New York’s housing deficit, which stood at an estimated 342,000 units in 2019, according to a study by the RAND Corporation.

Now, Hochul and City Hall have a new impetus for attacking the law.

Commercial buildings have a larger cap under state law than residential buildings do, meaning that efforts to convert empty office towers into needed apartments are now being slowed down by the statute.

“The 12 FAR cap is an arbitrary and outdated restriction on New York City’s ability to build the homes New Yorkers desperately need — and it doesn’t even reflect the reality of many current buildings either,” said City Planning chief Dan Garodnick. “It’s long past time that the state lifts this prohibition on new housing and empowers the city to create housing.”

“We hope that Albany will act on this so we can get the kind of development we need,” said Moses Gates, who authored the RPA’s study. “The FAR cap hasn’t stopped super tall development. By not changing this, we’re only going to get more of the same.”

He added: “Albany should lift the cap & give NYC the ability to better incentivize the kind of development it needs — shorter, mixed-income buildings with several times more units.”

[NYguy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/n...-bottcher.html

They’re Starting a New York ‘Housing League.’ NIMBYs Not Allowed.
Brooklyn’s borough president and a Manhattan councilman are forming a club of politicians who embrace using development to ease New York City’s housing crisis.




If you are a NIMBY, Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, does not want you in his new pro-housing club.Credit...Jason Mendez/Getty Images


By Mihir Zaveri
Feb. 13, 2024

A housing crisis threatens New York City? A pair of politicians believe they have an answer: a new “league” of officials like themselves who want to welcome development, including development of market-rate apartments.

The two officials, Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, and City Councilman Erik Bottcher of Manhattan, started the group to counter the long-held theory that opposing development is a political win. That idea, many housing experts agree, has helped create a shortage of hundreds of thousands of homes in and around the city, driving rents and home prices ever higher as residents compete for the limited supply.

On Monday, the duo sent an invitation to all 160 state and city politicians who represent some piece of New York City to come to an inaugural meeting next month. Mr. Reynoso said he wanted officials to come even if they are skeptical, but not if they only want to resist housing.

“We do not want you if you’re just a straight NIMBY,” Mr. Reynoso said, referring to the phrase “not in my back yard,” often used as a label for people who oppose development.

So far, there are few specifics about what the “league” will look like. Mr. Reynoso said much of the group’s structure would be fleshed out at an initial, closed-door gathering in March.

But he is hoping the league can build on a growing willingness to embrace development among politicians who may have been resistant in the past. Both Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams have said the city needs hundreds of thousands more homes, and Mr. Adams is pushing to rezone areas near transit stations and around low-density neighborhoods to add more housing.

Mr. Reynoso’s counterpart in Manhattan, Mark Levine, has called for the construction of housing on underused lots in that borough. Mr. Reynoso said the two borough presidents have “a healthy competition to solve for the biggest issue in our city.”

Mr. Levine said in a statement that the city “needs elected leaders who are committed to this fight to come together to support each other.”

Some things the league could do, according to Mr. Reynoso, include: issuing statements against politicians who are resisting new construction; working with colleagues concerned that development could cause gentrification; and standing with politicians who want to back controversial new housing projects.

“What we want to do is have a show of force of people who are publicly supportive of housing development,” Mr. Reynoso said.

That could be a big deal in New York City, where proposals to build on certain lots or blocks turn into proxy fights over development and are sometimes torpedoed by local officials.

Last year, a lot in Harlem drew citywide attention when it was turned into a truck depot after the local councilwoman opposed the development of a high-rise complex. This year, neighborhood groups are fighting over a proposal to transform an industrial building in Brooklyn owned by a linen company, Arrow Linen, into two new residential towers.

“Historically, what lawmakers have said to constituents is, ‘If you elect me, I will help stop new housing from being built in our community,’” Mr. Bottcher said. “We need to turn that on its head.”

[edale]

I think it's funny to read of NYC having a 'housing crisis'. It's the most densely built city in North America by a longshot, home to more than 8 million people in the city, more than 20 million in the metro...how many people is it supposed to accommodate? Other than Staten Island, there is very little low density development in NYC, and few obvious places that could absorb lots of growth. It's not like other cities that are full of single family homes and restrictive zoning. I just don't know what some of these people expect. Every desirable city is expensive.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

I think it's funny to read of NYC having a 'housing crisis'. It's the most densely built city in North America by a longshot, home to more than 8 million people in the city, more than 20 million in the metro...how many people is it supposed to accommodate? Other than Staten Island, there is very little low density development in NYC, and few obvious places that could absorb lots of growth. It's not like other cities that are full of single family homes and restrictive zoning. I just don't know what some of these people expect. Every desirable city is expensive.

New York thrives off of growth so whenever the city hits a housing ceiling it is somewhat of a crisis. (I think all cities should think that way, tbh.) NYC can also fit several million more people in the current footprint if they enable it to be done. A lot of that can be done without even affecting the historic architecture neighborhoods that preservationists want to protect.

[Crawford]

The core parts of NYC had far more people 100 years ago, so there's certainly room for growth. The last 80 years have been all about NIMBYs trying to turn the prime areas into a museum city, but finally there's significant pushback.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The core parts of NYC had far more people 100 years ago, so there's certainly room for growth. The last 80 years have been all about NIMBYs trying to turn the prime areas into a museum city, but finally there's significant pushback.

Yeah because household sizes were high and housing was woefully overcrowded. I don't think those tenement conditions are tolerable to Americans in 2024, nor should they be.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by edale

I think it's funny to read of NYC having a 'housing crisis'. It's the most densely built city in North America by a longshot, home to more than 8 million people in the city, more than 20 million in the metro...how many people is it supposed to accommodate? Other than Staten Island, there is very little low density development in NYC, and few obvious places that could absorb lots of growth. It's not like other cities that are full of single family homes and restrictive zoning. I just don't know what some of these people expect. Every desirable city is expensive.

There are plenty of room for New York metro area (and even the city) to grow. New York could and should add way more house units than it does currently. Many cities as dense as NYC manage to do it.

Unless one wants big cities to become a playground for the rich with poor immigrants on overcrowded ghettos and middle-class nowhere to be seen, than it's ok not build more.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

Yeah because household sizes were high and housing was woefully overcrowded. I don't think those tenement conditions are tolerable to Americans in 2024, nor should they be.

Correct, but that's why tenements need to be replaced by bigger buildings, which has been happening, but must be accelerated.

The big issue is that most of prime NYC is either landmarked, downzoned or special-districted. You prolly won't be able to de-landmark areas anytime soon (many were just landmarked bc they were rich and NIMBY, not bc of historical or architectural merit), but you can upzone the areas that were downzoned in the postwar era.

It doesn't make sense to have all the transit and infrastructure sitting in a geography that just gets richer, with no buildings replaced, and the units getting bigger and bigger. Units are constantly being combined, so you have 20 floor buildings now with 12 units, when the same building had 50 units two generations ago.

Or you have big subway hubs, where practically nothing has been built nearby for 80 years. That makes no sense.

[chimpskibot]

NYC has to grow or become wealthier or NYS begins to atrophy. I always relate NYS fortunes to that modern day England. Both have an extremely prosperous southern region and metro, but an anemic formerly industrial upstate/ north England Region with small prosperous towns sprinkled throughout. I do find it interesting that about 100yrs ago we were welcoming 5k people per day at the height of European immigration to NYC and today the city is felled by ~100k migrants and a growing homeless/unhoused population. And to say NYC cannot accommodate more people is ludicrous. Most of eastern queens, Brooklyn and North Bronx are not very dense compared to the rest of the core close in neighborhoods. The problem is that these neighborhoods cannot command rents that recoup the cost of investment. Odd lots by Bloomberg had a great episode on this. NYC would do well to establish a builder of last resort and take pressure off the housing market from the middle similar to Michelle-llama.

[iheartthed]

To grow the population I think New York should build more subway track in the outer boroughs, rather than focusing on Manhattan. Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx could all use at least one "crosstown" subway. Brooklyn and Queens probably need 2 - 3 of them. Also connect Staten Island to the subway system via Brooklyn.

[mhays]

The Ellis Island numbers were really people heading all over the US. NYC was still getting a lot though.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by chimpskibot

NYC has to grow or become wealthier or NYS begins to atrophy. I always relate NYS fortunes to that modern day England. Both have an extremely prosperous southern region and metro, but an anemic formerly industrial upstate/ north England Region with small prosperous towns sprinkled throughout. I do find it interesting that about 100yrs ago we were welcoming 5k people per day at the height of European immigration to NYC and today the city is felled by ~100k migrants and a growing homeless/unhoused population. And to say NYC cannot accommodate more people is ludicrous. Most of eastern queens, Brooklyn and North Bronx are not very dense compared to the rest of the core close in neighborhoods. The problem is that these neighborhoods cannot command rents that recoup the cost of investment. Odd lots by Bloomberg had a great episode on this. NYC would do well to establish a builder of last resort and take pressure off the housing market from the middle similar to Michelle-llama.

People consumed a lot less resources per capita a century ago. There were also far less financial resources and social safety nets for people to fall back on.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Yuri

There are plenty of room for New York metro area (and even the city) to grow. New York could and should add way more house units than it does currently. Many cities as dense as NYC manage to do it.

Unless one wants big cities to become a playground for the rich with poor immigrants on overcrowded ghettos and middle-class nowhere to be seen, than it's ok not build more.

The governor recently tried to mandate more municipalities outside of New York City build more housing, but that got shot down. People talk about needing more housing, just don’t put it where they are.

The statewide residential FAR of 12 shouldn’t even apply to New York City, but again efforts to remove it were shot down.

New York is dense, but it can be more dense. The irony is that a lot of neighborhoods were downzoned. But now the tide has slowly been shifting to allowing more housing. The problem is, the process to get to more housing has to cross the path of NIMBYism, where community boards are usually against it, or will harass a development down in size.

So, I do applaud those politicians who are saying NO to NIMBYism.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

To grow the population I think New York should build more subway track in the outer boroughs, rather than focusing on Manhattan. Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx could all use at least one "crosstown" subway. Brooklyn and Queens probably need 2 - 3 of them. Also connect Staten Island to the subway system via Brooklyn.

This. The 2nd Avenue subway extension boggles my mind when you the city should just extend the 5 all the way down Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn. There's also no (easy) way to get from Central Brooklyn to north Brooklyn without going into Manhattan, taking a bus, or getting on the A eastbound to Broadway Junction then transferring to the L...which lots of people hate.

I suppose there's the G but it very much does not go to prime areas in North Brooklyn in particular.

[mhays]

An FAR of 12 would be highrises, and not towers in the park.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The governor recently tried to mandate more municipalities outside of New York City build more housing, but that got shot down. People talk about needing more housing, just don’t put it where they are.

What do we want?

MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING!!!

where do we want it?

SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

It's not like other cities that are full of single family homes and restrictive zoning. I just don't know what some of these people expect. Every desirable city is expensive.

They just want attention. Pretending that you're a victim and pretending that you alone have the answer to this or that "injustice" is a great way to get attention.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by NYguy

The governor recently tried to mandate more municipalities outside of New York City build more housing, but that got shot down. People talk about needing more housing, just don’t put it where they are.

The statewide residential FAR of 12 shouldn’t even apply to New York City, but again efforts to remove it were shot down.

New York is dense, but it can be more dense. The irony is that a lot of neighborhoods were downzoned. But now the tide has slowly been shifting to allowing more housing. The problem is, the process to get to more housing has to cross the path of NIMBYism, where community boards are usually against it, or will harass a development down in size.

So, I do applaud those politicians who are saying NO to NIMBYism.

This mere discussion we're having here and the posted article itself show how denser NYC/NY MSA could become. What stop it of being denser, to build much more, is legislation, lobbies, selfish anti-urban bigoted people.

What has happened to big world-class cities like London, New York are horrible. Regular housing there has become luxury item. Whereas average income there are twice, three times higher (PPP) than metropolises on middle-income countries, housing is like 10x more expensive. That's not sustainable or desirable.

I welcomed @muppet here in São Paulo from London in December and even though we've discussed this subject several times before, visiting friends around on central São Paulo, it's crazy to compare on the ground what regular young people can afford down here and it's impossible to afford in London. And SP is perceived as an expensive city to live.

I know there are other factors on playing (e.g. foreign money poured on real estate), but what London/New York can do about it is to build more, to make easier to build all kinds of housing. It's the only possible answer. To register: even though São Paulo population is not growing fast (on the last census grew slower than both London and New York for the first time), it's building like crazy. It updated zoning 10 years ago and areas that haven't seen new constructions for decades have now new highrises popping up in literally every corner.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Yuri

This mere discussion we're having here and the posted article itself show how denser NYC/NY MSA could become. What stop it of being denser, to build much more, is legislation, lobbies, selfish anti-urban bigoted people.

What has happened to big world-class cities like London, New York are horrible. Regular housing there has become luxury item. Whereas average income there are twice, three times higher (PPP) than metropolises on middle-income countries, housing is like 10x more expensive. That's not sustainable or desirable.

I welcomed @muppet here in São Paulo from London in December and even though we've discussed this subject several times before, visiting friends around on central São Paulo, it's crazy to compare on the ground what regular young people can afford down here and it's impossible to afford in London. And SP is perceived as an expensive city to live.

I know there are other factors on playing (e.g. foreign money poured on real estate), but what London/New York can do about it is to build more, to make easier to build all kinds of housing. It's the only possible answer. To register: even though São Paulo population is not growing fast (on the last census grew slower than both London and New York for the first time), it's building like crazy. It updated zoning 10 years ago and areas that haven't seen new constructions for decades have now new highrises popping up in literally every corner.

There is a bigger NIMBY problem in London & NYC compared to Sao Paulo as the NIMBYs in developed countries have a bigger say in what happens in jurisdictions. It gets downright nasty at city meetings and politicians want to keep their jobs and not piss off voters. That's the crux of it.

[mrnyc]

even under the best of development circumstances nyc would have a hard time keeping up with housing needs.

fwiw there are big redevelopment plans for rather vast ‘forgotten’ north shore staten island and the mayor is all about it and funding it, but frankly this area could handle 3X as much pretty easily. affordable housing just isnt so easy to develop quickly —

https://edc.nyc/sites/default/files/...ction-Plan.pdf