Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
This morning, the NY Times takes a look at the Mayor's $7.5 billion affordable housing plan four years since he announced it and one year since he expanded it to 165,000 units of low- to moderate-cost housing. About one third of the projected units, or 55,000, have been financed to date, and 41,366 have been completed.
But the 10-year plan may not succeed in producing a net increase in affordable housing. The problem is that rents in the city have risen so fast, and older programs such as Mitchell-Lama and rent control have been allowed to lapse in favor market-rate conversions. And land has been sold to non-profits or developers. The commissioner of housing preservation and development acknowledged to the Times, "We are moving from a problem of abandonment to a problem of affordability."
Still, there have been several individual examples of progressive projects that could inspire further advancement in the field. One such case is the proposed Via Verde apartment complex in the Bronx, which arose out out an international architectural competition sponsored by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, the Bloomberg Administration, and the American Institute of Architects. A innovative fruit-bearing program in Los Angeles, with affordable "Skidrow" housing designed by Michael Maltzan, was recently reviewed by Nicolai Ouroussoff.
Back in 2003, Gotham Gazette reviewed the Mayor's plans for affordable housing.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
What a joke.. There is no affordable housing unless you can afford to pay $2,000 or more in rent or over $3,000 to 'own' a co-op where you must put down at least 20%..
Those lotteries are a f***king joke anyway. A family of one or two can't make more than $50,000 a year for these so called affordable housing programs.
I make about $75,000 a year and pay $840 for a studio in Flushing Queens. One bedroom apartments the same size as mine are at least double and require that you make well in the six figures to get approved.
Living in NYC or LI is great if you are filthy rich and make in the seven figures.
we all struggle to find housing and pay to be here ,but i think there should be no subsidies or controls at all and things will work themselves out. people will decide whether things are too expensive and choose to move elsewhere bringing demand down and keeping prices under control (and also salaries would have to begin to reflect the reality of unsubsidized housing - or positions wouldn't be filled). people predicted disaster in Massachusetts when they finally got rid controls and guess... everything was fine. i never understand why the government would subsidize housing thus keeping its price propped up at the tax payers expense. it makes no sense, costs us all and becomes a lottery for the lucky few who get chosen or happen to be in the right place at the right time.
tommy I agree 100%
plus, and subsidy based upon salary is severely flawed.
If i inherit $10M and decide to spend my days freelancing as a tatoo artist, I qualify....Yet a recent college grade making $50,001 with 20K in student loans and no savings is thrown out to the wolves....brilliant
Restrictive zoning and rent control makes it easy for developers to maintain high profit margins.
If we eliminated rent control and bulk/height restrictions tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of new apartment units would be available in just 1-2 years. There be no need for affordable housing because demand will have been met.
You want affordable housing? Harass your local city council person to get rid of height and density restrictions, as well as all rent control/rent stabilization laws.
Please, no granny comments - of course elderly will be given exemptions.
Just to focus back on the question raised - If affordable housing is a policy goal, then more of it certainly needs to be produced. The buildings that are exiting out of program have mostly been affordable for 20 or more years and have fulfilled legal obligations that they have to remain affordable.
Under the way that we finance and produce it, there needs to be a steady stream produced to counter the units that leave at the end of the lifecycle.
What a bunch of sane, smart comments that reflect the economic reality of housing.. that it's a matter of supply and demand.
For a moment, I thought I was on another website.
I was expecting a bunch of comments about how there should be no development that creates traffic, changes the flavor of any neighborhood, tears down some unutilized or underutilized questionably historic building, blocks views of water, buildings... and at the same time, prices need to come down