NEW YORK | City to mix luxury housing with low income projects

[NYguy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...121747334.html

Funding Plan for Public Housing Draws Flak

August 15, 2013
By ROBBIE WHELANand JOSH DAWSEY

Officials here are moving ahead with a controversial plan to raise money for the financially strained public-housing system by building market-rate apartments in the backyards of project tenants. Despite protests from tenant groups and some elected officials, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York City Housing Authority, the nation's largest public-housing landlord, will officially solicit plans on Friday to lease parking lots and sports fields near housing projects to private developers.

Real-estate companies are being asked to submit development proposals for land at eight large Manhattan housing projects, a tiny portion of the 2,600 buildings NYCHA owns and operates in the city.

.....NYCHA faces a host of obstacles. It first needs the official blessing of HUD, and with Mr. Bloomberg's term running out at the end of this year, it is unclear whether his successor will champion the plan. The initiative also might be challenged by lawyers for tenants' groups.

HUD has said it can't comment on the plan until it sees a formal proposal. But in an interview in June, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan seemed open to the idea. "Obviously, any plan has to have a focus of preserving and improving housing for people who live there," he said. "It really is about doing creative, innovative things, not just producing revenues for its own sake."

Another look at some of those plans...

Originally Posted by NYguy

A better look at the massing examples...

[NYguy]

Bloomberg's proposal was dropped, but there's more at play here...


http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/1...developers.php

NYCHA To Sell Stake in Some Public Housing to Developers

December 8, 2014
by Zoe Rosenberg

The New York City Housing Authority is partnering with L+M Development Partners and BFC Partners to bring a much-needed funding infusion to several public housing developments. Under the terms of the agreement which has yet to be finalized, NYCHA is selling a 50-percent stake in six Section 8-subsidized developments where L+M and BFC will invest $100 million in renovations on the properties, WSJ reports. The deal nets NYCHA an initial $150 million from the developers' buy-ins, plus an additional $100 million over the next two years and $100 million in revenue over the next 15 years. The deal will see a co-ownership of the properties, with NYCHA remaining in control of the land and retaining the right to remove the developers if NYCHA officials are unhappy with the deal.

It sounds like NYCHA is getting the most out of this deal but here's the catch: when the developers upgrade the apartments, they're able to receive from the federal government the difference between market rate rents and the rents housing-authority tenants pay, which is about 30-percent of income, WSJ reports. Under the deal the developers will also be able to sell tax-exempt bonds and federal tax credits for the next 30 years, after which the apartments could theoretically be converted to market rate if NYCHA is on board.

The deal, which will affect Campos Plaza, East 4th Street Rehab, Saratoga Square Houses, Milbank-Frawley Houses, East 120th Street Houses, and Bronxchester Houses, will help NYCHA close its deficit while also seeing the developers make improvements in the apartments. The developers plan to invest about $80,000 in each of the 900-some apartments throughout the six buildings, with plans to make improvements to kitchens and bathrooms, building facades, and public spaces. City Council member Rosie Mendez told the Journal that while she positively views the agreement and the changes it will afford NYCHA in the short-term, she sees the agreement ultimately as "a road to privatization."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york...92483619228005

[C.]

No surprises here. There has been a long movement towards voucher based assistance as opposed to project based public housing.

[NYguy]

What was once thought to be a "dead" plan has been quietly reviving itself...


http://therealdeal.com/2016/01/28/ny...elopment-plan/

NYCHA to press ahead with infill development plan
"We believe inaction is unacceptable," Olatoye says




January 28, 2016

Whether tenants like it or not, the city is moving forward with its plan to build apartments on underutilized New York City Housing Authority land, NYCHA CEO Shola Olatoye said Tuesday.

Speaking at Holmes Towers at 403 East 93rd Street in Yorkville, which is one of the first sites NYCHA is targeting for new construction, Olatoye took heat from residents about the proposed development, according to Politico. She said that despite tenants’ concerns, the plans would move forward.
“We believe inaction is unacceptable,” she said.

The plan, which goes by many names — “infill housing,” NextGen Neighborhoods, 50/50 — is expected to bring in an estimated $300 million to $600 million in revenue for the agency. NYCHA’s has $17 billion in unmet capital needs and money brought in would be used for much-needed repairs for its facilities.

Holmes Towers has two 25-story buildings with 537 units on 2.8 acres of land, a fraction of the total 16.2 acre property. One new building with 350 to 400 units is planned there.

The second chosen site, Wyckoff Gardens in Brooklyn, has three 21-story buildings with 527 units on less than an acre of the 5.8 acres of land, and will receive 550 to 650 new units.

Other announced sites that will see infill housing include Mill Brook, Van Dyke, and Ingersoll, but Olatoye did not reveal any new names at the meeting Tuesday, saying only that up to 30 developments would lease land over the course of a decade.

[C.]

Great news!!

I'm amazed at how folks living in public housing can on one hand protest the living conditions of their buildings, but when a plan is put forward to pay for the repairs, create more public housing for others to benefit, and strengthen the resiliency of their neighborhood by making a portion of the new housing market rate, there is nonstop bitching and complaining.

What's wrong with developing an underutilized surface lot and replacing the parking underground as part of a new structure or the development of the "park" component of the "towers in the park," which has the added benefit of bringing the footprint of the building closer to the street allowing for some much needed neighborhood retail and integration into the larger community. *Sigh* There is literally nothing that can be done to make everyone happy out of pure ignorance.

I still think they should put it in for a vote - support the development and the public housing authority can fix the backlog of repairs or not support and the building falls into further disrepair because the low rents being charged are not enough to cover the maintenance and management of the building.

The sooner HUD moves to 100% voucher based from the project based system the better. Good riddance.

[RobEss]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

Just tear those monstrosities down all-together and build market-rate apartments for tax payers. Adopt a voucher-type system like Chicago for the poors. They really have subsidized parking spaces? Are you kidding me? And these people are gearing up for a fight? They live off of the tax-payers in New York and still feel entitled to live like Kings and Queens and have the nerve to be angry at NYCHA for disrupting their rent-free lives due to that little thing called budget woes? Do they think the money used to pay their rent and parking spaces drops out of thin air? Who do they think they are? Well -- they're mostly middle-school drop outs who have no clear grasp of the term budget and economics so can blame them anyway?

Idiots.

I'm not even going to begin to pick apart this diatribe. It's awful - classist, racist and bombastically ignorant, all wrapped up in one nasty paragraph. Day-ruining material, really.

[Busy Bee]

Welcome to Trump world.

The low information grievance voter at its finest.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by CIA

I'm amazed at how folks living in public housing can on one hand protest the living conditions of their buildings, but when a plan is put forward to pay for the repairs, create more public housing for others to benefit, and strengthen the resiliency of their neighborhood by making a portion of the new housing market rate, there is nonstop bitching and complaining.

That's just New York in general, and probably most other places. They're doing just as much bitching on the eastside of Manhattan where a new tower is proposed to break a "shocking" 900 ft or more. Or take a look at the Seaport proposal where even a 400 ft tower caused enough outrage for the plan to be shelved. People in general (except us folks here on this board and others like it) aren't going to be happy about new developments.

But this would be a win for the Housing Authority, which could use the money for upkeep, and for the city in general, where land to build housing is in short supply. The City simply can't afford to let that land remain underutilized.

[C.]

Not sure what's really going on here?

http://www.njherald.com/article/20160130/AP/301309926

NY assembly person to file a bill to seize NYCHA from the city and give to the state to stop the development of the open lands. Funny, I would of thought a union would support the construction jobs???

[antinimby]

NY State Assemblyman Keith Wright representing the Harlem area of Manhattan. Figures. They don't get more useless than that.

It's an example of why the leadership in New York State and in some ways, New York City, are so dysfunctional.

They're full of these politicians that don't do anything to solve the problems but just there to put more layers upon layers of bureacracy and drive up costs (and thus taxes).

Here is a great plan that is a win-win and they have to play the obstructionist.

[NYguy]

http://therealdeal.com/2016/05/05/ny...n-public-land/

NYCHA picks three private developers to build on public land
BFC, Dunn and West Side Federation to construct 500 affordable and senior units

May 05, 2016

[C.]

I wish there was a law in which new public housing and subsidized housing construction can't look different than the market rate (rental or homeownership) housing in the area. There are parts of Maryland that do an excellent job on this - other parts it's obvious when you enter a public housing complex. Why does it have to look so different than the surrounding neighborhood?

[mhays]

So you want fewer affordable units, because each one costs more?

[C.]

Originally Posted by mhays

So you want fewer affordable units, because each one costs more?

I thought we got away from the fallacy that dumping large number of affordable units on a plot of land is a good thing.

I rather well designed affordable and market rate units for attractive housing options. All those underutilized plots of land and well below market parking spaces as a design consequence are huge opportunity costs in the long-run.

[C.]

Below is a new mixed-income development funded by the Galveston Public Housing Authority called the Strand




Can you tell the market rate units from the public housing units? The only reason why there isn't more units (affordable or market rate) is due to zoning restrictions, not the cost or financing made available from the housing authority.

[mhays]

My point is that your requirement will tend to cost a lot of money. That's unrelated to zoned capacity and whatever else you want to bring up.

[C.]

So building a tower in a park costs a lot more money than a zero lot line building? You are mistaken. And zoning has many cost implications for housing development costs.

I'm not saying affordable housing should have granite countertops and vanity bathrooms. I am saying they can do a much better job for the built form than towers in the park.

[mhays]

I said none of what you think I did. Take my comment only as written.

It was purely in response to your post #52.

[C.]

In which you responded:

Originally Posted by mhays

So you want fewer affordable units, because each one costs more?

Why make such a statement then refuse to back it up? The units could cost more, less, or the same if such a policy was instituted. Public housing authorities and providers of affordable housing would have to make choices.

There is also many hidden costs by PHA tower in the park developments. It costs more to service and maintain. There is also a safety issue a la Jane Jacob's eyes on the street.

Another image from St. Louis of the since demolished Pruitt-igoe housing project.



Thankfully many communities have learned from that mistake and would never build something like that again, but there are still some affordable or subsidized housing developments to this day that take the tower in the park approach, even though the built form is dramatically different than the build form of the surrounding area. It's like the architects want to make a statement: this is public housing. Why?

[tdawg]

This is happening organically in Long Island City and Astoria. The Queensbridge and Ravenswood public housing complex is the largest in the country and new mid- to high-rises are sprouting up all along the perimeter of both. The new Astoria ferry terminal and Halletts Cove developments are right at the base of a large public housing complex.