Lessons from New York City on Up-Zoning Housing Policy

Photos source: Village Preservation, New York City

​​In its New York City ventures, Blackstone  has faced legal problems for housing overcharges.  Indeed, less than a month ago, on November 27, 2024 we read that Blackstone paid $15 million after alleged rent overcharges, “one of largest settlements of its kind in NYC”: HERE. Soon after, on December 5, 2024, New York City passed its controversial “City For All Housing Bill” that has been “[e]stimated to create over 82,000 New Homes, Tackling Affordability Crisis throughout City. HERE. While this move  is celebrated as something that will bring new housing to existing neighborhoods, as in Cambridge, it also will encourage the demolition of existing housing (and tenant evictions) in order to build larger and more expensive housing. Their $5 billion dollar plan none-the-less is far more viable than what Cambridge pro-builder councillors are supporting, including focusing specifically on prioritizing housing in neighborhoods with nearby public transit, taking measures to address flood risks, and incentive for inclusionary in low density areas, as well as greater affordability financing for those with incomes below 40% area median income (c. $43, 000 per person and $62,000 for families of four). They also have  furnished critical funding to rehabilitate and renovate some existing multi dwelling buildings, updated flood and sewage flooding plans, support for Older Adults Aging in Place, PLUS a transparency resolution for organizations that receive funding. Changes to residential height and density in some parts of the city are also part of this plan as is the ability of property owners to build multi-family apartments on their property. Developers can also build 20% MORE housing in construction companies as long as it is “affordable.”

Read more HERE. The plan will also bring buildings to vacant parking lots, “From that $5 billion pool, $2 billion will go toward affordable housing, $2 billion will go toward infrastructure projects (updating flood and sewer maintenance programs) and $1 billion set aside for public housing, vouchers, and tenant protections.”
As noted by New York City’s Public Advocate, stated that “[T]he City Council has taken a significant step forward to increase housing production, and should be applauded for it...At the same time…we cannot simply build our way out of the affordability crisis. Today’s plan, and the City for All investments paired with it, must be part of an overall strategy that includes preservation, voucher expansion, tenant protections….” HERE

                  Strong criticism of the plan has come from the local preservation lobbying group in New York City known as 
Village Preservation, even though the recently approved NYC plan is far more nuanced and wholistic than that promoted by Cambridge’s pro-builder councillors. The criticism of this group includes the fact that the new bill transfers air rights from individual buildings to surrounding blocks with little public review or oversight. It allows new developments (or existing ones) to encroach even more on limited back yard open spaces and brings new development into existing open space now required in schools and universities, religious institutions and other properties owned “in common.”  Some districts also will become “super dense” zoned areas, with permitted development “50% larger than current allowable maximums everywhere in NYC. The Preservation group also criticizes the premise of this plan noting that it is based on the faulty notion “…that NYC is not building enough market-rate housing (i.e., generally expensive and unaffordable to most New Yorkers), and that building more of it, no matter how expensive, will have beneficial trickle-down effects for everyone.” This in spite of the fact that “…as we showed” NYC is already on target to add another 183,000 units by 2028 and “…has the capacity to add another 2 million more under the pre-existing zoning rules.” The group also explains that

• Neighborhoods that have experienced the kinds of upzonings and stimulated increased housing development that “City of Yes” will enable citywide have overwhelmingly tended to become less Black and Hispanic, and more white.
• Our city does not suffer from a housing shortage, but a shortage of affordable housing, and our current approach only exacerbates this problem by adding more housing that only the wealthiest New Yorkers (and non–New Yorkers) can afford, and by encouraging the demolition of existing affordable housing.
• Other cities that have gone this route of adding tons of new market-rate housing have not found that it brings prices down for everyone; frequently prices go up for everyone, or in a best-case scenario, prices go down for the most expensive housing and up for the least expensive — hurting those who need help most. 

The group adds that “[t]he City’s predictions about the impact and effect of its rezonings are consistently wildly inaccurate, especially when it comes to claims about housing and affordability. Not only is Greenwich at risk, but so also is the famous “High Line” park.

Cambridge needs to address come of the range of issues in play in other centers of the country, such as New York City.

Photo source: Village Preservation