Politics + Housing New York City Housing Authority Then and Now
Contents
Jackson Lindsay Special thank you to: Marta Caldeira Alexander Garvin
Preface
1
PART 1 // Past and Present New York City Housing Authority Overview
4
Public Housing Typologies
18
Current State of NYCHA
36
PART 2 // Future Principles for a New NYCHA
50
Two Neighborhoods
58
Case Studies in Public Housing
East Harlem
70
Brownsville
76
Conclusion
84
Appendix
88
The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has long stood as a model for Public Housing across the United States. As the first and largest housing authority in the US, NYCHA built projects at an unprecedented scale and throughout the 5 boroughs, becoming the city’s largest landlord in the process. Despite a long and steady history, in the twenty-first century NYCHA has begun to look like other failed housing authorities across the country. Architecture’s role in the decline of public housing has long been discussed as new experiments in design typologies have been tested for mass housing. The most infamous of these typologies is the modernist ‘tower-inthe-park’ model. This model, inspired in part by utopian urban plans by Le Corbusier, is often the strongest symbol of ‘the projects’ in popular culture and their notorious blight. Design, however, is just one aspect behind the failure of public housing in New York City. In
reality, the politics of housing has turned our backs to NYCHA and its tenants, resulting in spending cuts and problematic policies which ultimately brought an end to public housing in the US. As NYCHA faces new challenges with deferred maintenance across its developments, the mayoral administration of Bill de Blasio has presented its plan for the future with Next Generation NYCHA (or NYCHA 2.0). This plan is a turn to public-private partnerships to aid in the rehabilitation of housing. Rather than presenting a new vision, NYCHA 2.0 continues the trend of the government stepping away from public housing. Where is the vision that once spurred the creation and growth of the New York City Housing Authority as a new public service? In the twentyfirst century, NYCHA must find a way to adapt to a new reality, while staying true to its mission of safe, affordable housing for all New Yorkers. |1
NYCHA
Past and Present
New York City Housing Authority
4|
Founded in 1934, NYCHA was the first public housing authority in the nation and very quickly became the largest - a title it still holds today. The shear magnitude of the authority - 316 developments spread over 5 boroughs housing over 400,000 residents - is hard to wrap one’s head around. The projects typically fell under one of three programs for construction: Federal, State, and City. The majority of pre-war public housing was Federal, originally through the New Deal’s Public Works Administration and then through funds appropriated by the Housing Act of 1937. Construction grinded to a halt through World War II, however NYCHA began making plans for developments to commence immediately. Until the Housing Act of 1949 appropriated more Federal funds, it was up to the State and CIty programs to sponsor these early post-war projects. Soon, the Federal program started back up, creating the booming construction period between 1945-1965, tapering downwards after that time.
|5
New York City Housing Authority
400,000+ 316 173,031
Residents Developments Units
Federal State City
6|
Source: NYCHA - 2019 Development Data Book
|7
Federal + State Public Housing
94,036 52,645 Traditional Public Housing funded by the Federal or State Governments is based on appropriated funds in the given budgets. This money both capital and operating funds - goes to NYCHA and is allocated to projects. All NYCHA projects have since been federalized. Tenants pay 30% of their income towards rent, with a minimum of $50 and a maximum Flat Rent set each year. 8|
Federal Units State Units
1937
|9
City Public Housing
29,272
City-funded Public Housing follows a similar mechanism as traditional forms, however capital funds are raised through bond issues. This program was largest directly after WWII before the Federal Government appropriated more funds. Early on, tenant incomes were typically higher than those in Federal or State projects. 10 |
1934
Units
| 11
Timeline
1934 - 1996
12,000
Total Units Developed by Program
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
Average Development Cost/Unit
2,000
$50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
1934
Housing Act of 1934 NYCHA is founded initially focused on demolition of slums
12 |
1937
1949
Housing Act of 1937
Housing Act of 1949
Congress appropriates funds for public housing
After a pause through WWII, federal funding for projects resumes
Federal State City
1960
1973
1975
Symbolic end of Tower-in-the-Park typology Shift in strategy
To be replaced by Section 8 Vouchers
Public Housing to become federalized
Robert Moses fired from Planning and Parks
President Nixon places moratorium on all new Public Housing Projects
Source: NYCHA - 2019 Development Data Book
New York City comes perilously close to bankruptcy
| 13
Shifting Public Opinion
14 |
Despite its early favorability, opinions on public housing turned negative through the 1960s for a variety of reasons including shifting demographics and economic crises. In the beginning of NYCHA’s history, the authority sought to provide housing for working families across races, keeping proportions of welfare families low so as to reduce the need for subsidies. Though early projects were not integrated, the early perceptions of NYCHA were that it was housing for a wide variety of residents. With the abandonment of cities through ‘white flight,’ public housing demographics shifted largely to minority families, while federal requirements pushed NYCHA to accept more welfare families. Higher subsidies were needed, increasing expenditures at a time of fiscal uncertainty - both the federal inflation crisis and New York City’s impending bankruptcy - for residents deemed ‘others’ by white voters and politicians. With housing authority projects across the country failing, this would mark the end of large scale public housing in America. | 15
Budget + Subsidies
Tenant Rent - 32%
Federal Subsidy - 29%
Section 8 Subsidy - 34%
2018 Revenue - $3.30B
Payroll - 39%
Operating Cost - 28%
Section 8 - 30%
2018 Expenses - $3.33B
The budget of NYCHA comes mostly from collected rents and federal subsidies. Though not originally intended as a welfare program, federal laws pushed New York’s public housing to accept more low-income tenants. These laws made NYCHA more dependent on federal subsidies (which have continually been cut since the 1970s). Rents are based on 30% of a family’s income, up to a flat rent which is based on Fair Market Rent for such units. 16 |
Source: NYCHA - Adopted Budget for FY 2019
Income Eligibility Limits (80% AMI)
$100k
$75k
$50k 2019 Avg $25,007
$25k
Maximum Rent/Month (30% of 60% AMI)
1
2
3
4
5
6
$2000
$1500
$1000 2019 Avg $533
$500
Studio
1 Bed
2 Bed
3 Bed
4 Bed
Apartment Size
Source: NYCHA - 2019 Fact Sheet
| 17
Public Housing Typologies
18 |
The history of NYCHA is so extensive, and the projects themselves so diverse that there is no single typology which stands for all of the built works. While the tower-in-the-park model will forever be linked to public housing, it does not tell the full story of NYCHA’s past. In its early history, NYCHA copied the garden apartment typology which had been put to use in other private and limited dividend projects of the time. After the war, as projects sought to clear slums for even more light and air while maintaining sufficient densities, the tower-in-the-park model became the favorite. In the early 1960s, Mayor John Lindsay’s administration sought new typologies which went against the large scale, repetitive super blocks of tower-in-thepark. It is then that NYCHA developed the vestpocket model as well as seeking innovative and attractive designs in contrast to the geometric brick towers of its past projects. Behind all of these typologies lie political influence both from influential personalities and popular opinion.
| 19
1937 - Harlem River Houses Harlem, MN Program - Federal (WPA) Units - 577 Floors - 5 Density - 146 du/acre
1940 - Vladeck Houses
Lower East Side, MN Program - Federal and City Units - 1,531 (Federal); 240 (City) Floors - 6 Density - 230 du/acre
1948 - Brownsville Houses Brownsville, BK Program - State Units - 1,338 Floors - 7 Density - 168 du/acre
1951 - Ravenswood Houses Dutch Kills, QN Program - City Units - 2,166 Floors - 7 Density - 112 du/acre
1965/68 - WSURA Upper West Side, MN Program - Federal Units - 632 Floors - Varies Density - Varies
1957 - Washington Houses East Harlem, MN Program - Federal Units - 1,515 Floors - 14 Density - 164 du/acre
1972 - Boston Road Plaza Allerton, BX Program - Federal Units - 235 Floors - 20 Density - 142 du/acre
Source: NYCHA - 2019 Development Data Book
Harlem River Houses - 1937 Built in the style of garden apartment projects from before the Great Depression, the Harlem River Houses feature a large central courtyard, semi-enclosed from the street grid. Originally undertaken by the PWA, NYCHA took over the completion and management.
22 |
Harlem, MN Funding Mechanism: Administration: Architect: Units: Population: Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft : Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
Federal (PWA) Fiorello La Guardia Archibald Manning Brown 577 1,079 146 du/acre 5 32% $2,103 $37,468 $53.27 $45,802,784 $20,530 | 23
Vladeck Houses - 1940 In response to criticism that the original projects were too costly and therefore too nice for ‘affordable housing,’ Vladeck significantly cut construction costs compared to its predecessors. This cutting came despite higher land costs, necessitating one of the most dense NYCHA projects.
24 |
Lower East Side, MN Funding Mechanism: Administration: Architect: Units: Population (2019): Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft (2017): Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
Federal and City Fiorello La Guardia Shreve, Lamb, and Harmon 1,531 (Federal); 240 (CIty) 3,439 230 du/acre 6 30% $1,276 $23,383 $64.87 $248,252,837 $34,332 | 25
Brownsville Houses - 1948 One of the first post-war housing projects. Heights are increasing while site coverage is dropping, but the site plans still feature buildings quite close together. Very typical of an earlier outerborough housing project.
26 |
Brownsville,BK Funding Mechanism: Administration: Units: Population (2019): Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft (2017): Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
State William O’Dwyer 1,338 3,166 168 du/acre 7 23% $2,054 $21,866 $30.34 $208,793,442 $33,252 | 27
Ravenswood Houses - 1951 Maintaining similar building heights and site coverage to other projects of the time, Ravenswood nonetheless starts to consider the form and quality of outdoor space rather than just overall quantity. The result is larger, more cohesive outdoor spaces, creating linear parks.
28 |
Dutch Kills, QN Funding Mechanism: Administration: Architect: Units: Population (2019): Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft (2017): Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
City William O’Dwyer Frederick Frost 2,166 4,278 112 du/acre 7 21% $2,342 $23,110 $8.09 $244,186,458 $26,734 | 29
George Washington Houses - 1957 A typical post-war tower-in-the-park project, the George Washington Houses feature towers askew to the street grid, super blocks and very low site coverage. The site strategy becomes focused on a large central outdoor space, however the setbacks and odd angles of the buildings in the site create awkward and un-usable green spaces on the periphery.
30 |
East Harlem, MN Funding Mechanism: Administration: Units: Population (2019): Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft (2017): Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
Federal Robert Wagner 1,515 3416 164 du/acre 14 14% $3,357 $30,650 $66.47 $202,965,521 $28,775 | 31
West Side Urban Renewal Area - 1965/68 As large scale slum clearance falls out of favor with the public, Mayor John Lindsay sought vest-pocket developments featuring many smaller buildings dispersed across a target neighborhood. The West Side Urban Renewal Area featured a mix of renovating brownstones and constructing new towers which were contextual to the existing towers along the avenues.
32 |
Upper West Side, MN Funding Mechanism: Administration: Architect: Units: Population (2019): Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft (2017): Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
Federal John Lindsay Various 632 1,140 200-600 du/acre Varies 30% - 60% $4,500 $34,500 $37.39 $108,702,211 $38,000 | 33
Boston Road Plaza - 1972 One of the few design focused housing projects, Boston Road Plaza’s senior housing stands out for its unique aesthetics. Though its height and low ground coverage lack cohesion with the neighborhood, as a single tower on a smaller lot it does not drastically alter the urban fabric. The high cost/unit of the design focused projects prevented wide-scale implementation.
34 |
Allerton, BX Funding Mechanism: Administration: Architect: Units: Population (2019): Density: Floors: Coverage: Cost/room: Cost/room (2017): Land Cost/sq.ft (2017): Public Needs Assessment (2017): PNA/Room:
Federal John Lindsay Davis and Brody 235 276 142 du/acre 20 18% $8,452 $51,876 $22.96 $25,019,660 $30,736 | 35
Current State of NYCHA
36 |
Federal subsidies have been continually cut for decades, both in operating costs and capital funds. As NYCHA developments continue to age - a majority are now over 60 years old - they require large scale rehabilitation to maintain liveability. Just as they were built rapidly over a short period, they are reaching an age requiring expensive rehabilitation at the same time. In contrast, decades of cuts to federal subsidies for operating and capital costs have resulted in rapidly deteriorating properties. As the government has looked to new programs for developing affordable housing, it has turned its back on the public housing projects which already exist, resulting in excessive bills for deferred maintenance just to bring projects back to a liveable standard. In response to this, NYCHA has looked towards public-private partnerships for an influx of capital to service their needs. The solutions mainly center around three ideas: transfering unused development rights, ground leases to private developers, and conversion of public housing to privately managed Section 8. | 37
Deferred Maintenance
Due to continued cost cutting in operational and capital subsidies, NYCHA has deferred maintenance on projects throughout the system. In 2017, NYCHA published their latest Physical Needs Assessment (PNA) - a detailed report of each project which identified a capital expenditure of $31.8 billion would be required over the next 5 years. 38 |
5 Year Federal Funds 5 Year Capital Needs
$30B
$20B
$10B
2006
2011
2017
Site
$2.58B (8%)
Structural/Architectural $10.69B (33%)
2017 PNA $31.8B
Apartment Interiors $12.58B (40%)
Systems
$5.94B (19%)
Source: NYCHA - Next Generation NYCHA
| 39
Transfer of Development Rights NYCHA 2.0
$1 billion Transfer of Development Rights or ‘air rights’ is the sale of unused development area on a site to another site to allow the construction of larger buildings. Typically, air rights can only be transferred to adjacent properties, though there are exceptions like special districts within which air rights can be transferred freely. Though not specific to NYCHA projects, many feature a large amount of unused development rights, creating a potential source of funding for renovation of those projects. 40 |
Proposed revenue
| 41
Infill Development NYCHA 2.0
$2 billion NYCHA plans to lease open space on its properties (typically playgrounds and parking lots) to private developers to build new mixed-income buildings. The buildings are subject to Mandatory Inclusionary Housing levels and are permanently affordable. NYCHA retains ownership of the land rather than selling it, and all funds from the lease will go towards renovation of the adjacent development. 42 |
Proposed revenue
| 43
Rental Assistance Demonstration NYCHA 2.0
62,000 The Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program is a means of providing funds for the renovation of NYCHA projects. In the scheme, selected NYCHA projects are converted to Section 8 programs through a private developer who becomes responsible for renovation of the project, typically funded through loans. The developer then receives market rent through the tenants and federal government as in the Section 8 program. 44 |
Units to transfer
| 45
Public-Private Partnerships
Further information on publicprivate partnerships is included in the appendix 46 |
The three strategies shown in the preceding pages reflect a shift in NYCHA’s strategy to seeking out public-private partnerships to help maintain their developments across the city. Though these programs are new in the context of NYCHA, New York City has long sought solutions to housing affordability through the private market. Before the Great Depression, the belief was that government should not provide housing, resulting in the 1926 Limited Dividend Housing Companies Act. This policy - which provided tax abatements to developers in exchange for limiting their profits - saw limited success, resulting in few new developments. Nevertheless, as interest in public housing dwindled, the government again turned to the private market for its replacement. From 1974, Section 8 vouchers allow families to seek affordable rents in private buildings with subsidies to cover the gap up to market rate, and the 1986 implementation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) provides tax incentives to developers who lease a percentage of their building at affordable rents. | 47
NYCHA
Future
In its current form, the New York City Housing Authority is suffering from continual budget deficits and ever expanding capital funding needs. The authority’s strategy is therefore to find funding wherever possible, relying on the private market to provide the funds and carry the torch of affordable housing in the future. However, the private market is not capable of providing housing at the scale or level of affordability necessary. Similar to the origins of Public Housing in the 1930s, we need a large reinvestment from the government to provide affordable housing. Much has been learned from the original programs, and indeed the design of projects was shifting to better, more contextual strategies. Though design may have played a role, public housing failed because of a mix of financial crises, overdependence on government subsidy, white flight from cities, and the political image of benefitting only a select few. 50 |
However in today’s economy, and with the continued urbanization of the country, we have an opportunity to rethink public housing and who it serves. NYCHA proposals to sell off its assets to developers is shortsighted to the value they hold for future public housing development. Rather than moving away from public housing, we must push to expand it and commit to a reinvestment in safe, affordable housing for all. The new mission of the New York City Housing Authority should adhere to the following principals: 1. Empowerment of community and tenants 2. Public housing should serve a plurality of residents of different incomes and across cultures and neighborhoods 3. Tenants should be encouraged to remain within projects or neighborhoods 4. Projects should remain contextual and contribute to vibrant and active streets | 51
Principles of a New NYCHA
A set of guidelines which govern the new mission of the Housing Authority. 52 |
1. Empowerment of community and tenants There is currently a lack of trust between NYCHA and its tenants. Decision making power should be given to local residents to take control of future development plans in their best interest. 2. Public housing should serve a plurality of residents of different incomes and cultures NYCHA residents should come from a variety of income levels, increasing economic diversity while providing larger operating funds from higher rents. 3. Tenants should be encouraged to remain within projects or neighborhoods Successful, diverse communities should be built from within, not from an injection of higher income ‘others.’ 4. Projects should site-specific, contextual and contribute to vibrant and active streets New NYCHA developments should aim to reverse the urban design mistakes of previous typologies. | 53
Community Development Board
A ‘Community Development Board’ consisting of representatives from the local Community Board, NYCHA Tenant Associations, and NYCHA. The authority acts as a development advisor to community members but development plans and decisions are coordinated as equal team members. Local residents gain autonomy over decisions which affect them directly. 54 |
Community Board
Tenant Association
| 55
Community Funding Mechanism
A model based on Community Land Trusts and Mitchell Lama,* Funds are funneled to Community Development Boards through NYCHA. The City of New York supplies vacant city-owned sites in the neighborhood (where applicable) and lowinterest loans to further subsidize development or for low-interest mortgages for prospective owners. All development decisions and funding are controlled by the community development board, as is management of existing and future public housing buildings. 56 |
*See appendix for more information
| 57
Development Case Studies
58 |
It is important to conceptualize how this new mechanism might be acted upon within the framework of existing NYCHA developments. The following pages are therefore dedicated to two case studies hypothesizing how given Community Development
Boards
might
phase
in
new
developments in their immediate neighborhoods. These
case
studies
look
at
the
phases
of
development which may take place to expand public housing based on ideas of diversifying the residents of public housing to provide more operating
funds,
rehabilitating
the
existing
developments, and using new developments to alter and improve some of the urban design issues of the original projects. Starting with an analysis of the assets within the
neighborhood
including
nearby
NYCHA
developments, vacant lots, and infrastructure, the case studies then go on to proposed several phases of built projects for each neighborhood to provide an idea for what can occur. | 59
Two Neighborhoods
60 |
For the purposes of hypothetical case studies, two neighborhoods were selected: East Harlem in Manhattan and Brownsville in Brooklyn. In general, these neighborhoods were selected for their proximity to transit lines (4,5,6, and Q trains in East Harlem; 3 and L trains in Brownsville) and their large concentrations of public housing developments. These developments are often of the ‘tower-inthe-park’ typology, creating vast urban areas of superblocks devoid of commercial activity. While
the
neighborhoods
exist
within
similar
urban environments with similar infrastructure, the underlying socioeconomics are quite different. East Harlem - particularly its southern edge - is currently undergoing rapid gentrification with development expanding north from the Upper East Side. Brownsville, by contrast, remains one of the least developed neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Finally, while each neighborhood has a number of empty lots, East Harlem’s tend to be smaller and almost all privately-owned, while Brownsville’s are larger and many are city-owned. | 61
East Harlem Assets
East Harlem features many smaller vacant lots, predominantly privatelyowned. There are some larger development opportunities along the waterfront and the FDR expressway. While there are several larger NYCHA developments, there are also many smaller ones in between. NYCHA Developments
Units
Carver Houses 1,246 Clinton Houses 749 East River Houses 1,170 Lehman Village 622 Lexington Houses 448 Metro North Plaza 275 Washington Houses 1,515 White Houses 248 Wilson Houses 398 Total shown 62 |
6,671
City-Owned Vacant Lot Privately-Owned Vacant Lot NYCHA Development Subway Line
| 63
Brownsville Assets
Brownsville features several large tracts of vacant land, including many large cityowned sites. These empty lots are concentrated along the two rail corridors. The NYCHA developments tend to be of the larger tower-in-the-park typology. NYCHA Developments
Units
Brownsville Houses 1,338 Glenmore Plaza 440 Howard Houses 815 Hughes Apartments 513 Long Island Baptist 232 Low Houses 536 Tilden Houses 998 Unity Plaza 629 Van Dyke Houses 1,715 Woodson Houses 407 Total shown 64 |
7,623
City-Owned Vacant Lot Privately-Owned Vacant Lot NYCHA Development Subway Line
| 65
Affordable Rent Scales
For the purposes of calculating levels of affordability, Area Median Income (AMI) is used to create tiers. Rents for a given tier are based on 30% of the monthly pay for that AMI. These calculations are used for determining eligibility for housing programs including LIHTC (50%, 60%, or 80% AMI) and NYCHA (80% AMI). Of note is that while public housing has a high cap, in reality most residents are far below that line (average rent was $533 in 2019). 66 |
Rent Levels
40% AMI
60% AMI
100% AMI
Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
$747 $800 $961 $1,110
$1,120 $1,200 $1,441 $1,665
$1,867 $2,000 $2,402 $2,775
Brownsville
East Harlem
$1,900 $2,200 $2,400 $3,200
$2,200 $2,400 $3,380 $6,900
Average Rents Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
Average Rent for the purposes of the case studies: 2 Bedroom at 60% AMI
Source: as published by HUD + City Realty See AMI data in Appendix
$1,441
| 67
Development Possibilities
There are several possible development strategies which can be undertaken. While some of these - infill and selective demolition currently face large opposition by residents, in a new locally developed and managed program, residents are the ones who make decisions. This removes elements of mistrust between tenants and the authority. Phasing of the project ensures that all residents stay within the community for the entire transition period. 68 |
1. New Development Off-site One of the first development strategies which could be implemented would be construction on nearby vacant lots either transferred from the city or bought on the private market. These can provide new homes for tenants currently in oversized, deteriorating apartments. 2. Rehabilitation of Existing Projects Money from increased rents in the new developments can be used to fund the rehabilitation of existing NYCHA buildings 3. Infill Development On-site Under-utilized space on NYCHA property like parking lots and leftover open space can provide free sites for new construction. 4. Selective Demolition and Reconstruction In some cases, demolition can provide the opportunity to better utilize the site, whether building residential on top of an existing community center or reorienting to the street. | 69
East Harlem
East Harlem’s many small vacant lots provide a framework for a scattered-site development strategy. As they are privately-owned, the local Community Development Board can leverage the sale of unused development rights on-site to fund the purchase of small nearby parcels. The rights can be transferred to nearby larger sites along the waterfront which are capable of receiving added density with less negative impact on neighbors. The second phase provides for the selective demolition of Washington Houses buildings. These buildings could be replaced by tower and podium construction to better use the site and hold the streetfront. 70 |
First Phase Construction Second Phase Construction Air Rights Receiving SIte
| 71
East Harlem - Phase 1
Infill Row Houses Units: 5 Floors Residential: Net Unit Size: 1 Floor Commercial:
50 42,500ft2 765ft2 8,500ft2
Construction Cost/ft2 : $250 Total Development Cost: $12,750,000 Residential Development Cost: $10,625,000 Cost/Unit: $212,500 Total Rent/Month: $72,050
Row houses constructed on a vacant lot across the street from NYCHA development. The bottom floor can maintain commercial presence along the street. Purchase of property funded through sale of NYCHA air rights to private developers.
72 |
| 73
East Harlem - Phase 2
Tower and Podium Units: 10 Floors Residential: Net Unit Size: 2 Floors Commercial:
210 162,000ft2 700ft2 60,000ft2
Construction Cost/ft2 : $350 Total Development Cost: $77,700,000 Residential Development Cost: $56,700,000 Cost/Unit: $270,000 Total Rent/Month: $302,610
Corner tower and podium replaces existing Washington Houses 14 storey tower. The new tower creates an additional 102 affordable units and makes better use of the open space. Holding the corner with commercial space creates a larger, more useable green space behind. The large podium creates a large space for the on site health center to move into. 74 |
Existing public housing tower 108 units
| 75
Brownsville
Phase 1 of a Brownsville development strategy could include large scale construction on the vacant city-owned lots nearby. Revenue from new tenants and their higher rents could supply funds for large scale rehabilitation of the many NYCHA developments nearby. In phase 2, the community development board could infill the existing NYCHA land, adding housing in under utilized open space and above existing community amenities. This strategy could increase the number of affordable units, and increase space for more amenities. 76 |
First Phase Construction Second Phase Construction
| 77
Brownsville - Phase 1
Semi-Fireproof Building Units: 5 Floors Residential: Net Unit Size:
115 89,405ft2 700ft2
Construction Cost/ft2 : $250 Total Development Cost: $22,350,000 Cost/Unit: $194,000 Total Rent/Month: $165,715
Semi-fireproof building on a vacant city parcel, maintaining street front on three sides. Creates a large courtyard on the interior of the block for building residents. Building on north end of block and does not block sunlight to lower density neighbors.
78 |
| 79
Brownsville - Phase 2
Tower and Podium Units: 7 Floors Residential: Net Unit Size: 2 Floors Commercial:
140 108,640ft2 700ft2 53,542ft2
Construction Cost/ft2 : $350 Total Development Cost: $56,800,000 Residential Development Cost: $38,000,000 Cost/Unit: $270,000 Total Rent/Month: $201,740
Tower and podium replaces existing community center, expanding amenity space on first 2 floors while providing 140 new affordable units above.
Existing community center
80 |
| 81
Conclusion
82 |
| 83
The scale of the New York City Housing Authority is vast - as the largest housing authority in the United States and the largest landlord in New York City, it is reductive to judge the entirety of the system based on a single design typology. In reality, the decline of NYCHA can be blamed on a collective abandoning of the system, both in the 1970s as public housing was replaced by other programs, and in more recent decades as subsidies for operating and capital funds have been cut time and again by the government. The result is hardly surprising as developments face countless challenges in deferred maintenance and safety of their residents. So far, the political response to this crisis - and to the housing affordability crisis generally - has been to further rely on short sighted publicprivate partnerships. However, these two crises are related, and provide an opportunity to reimagine NYCHA’s mission for the twenty-first century. 84 |
Public housing does not need less buy-in from the government, it needs more. There is now an opportunity to use NYCHA’s significant assets to expand the system and the role of government subsidized housing. Learning from the mistakes and successes of NYCHA’s past, a new methodology can be formed in which community residents and tenants are given a voice and control over their neighborhood’s future. In this new vision for NYCHA, there is the potential to provide affordable housing to more of the population than just the lowest income brackets while simulataneously encouraging community growth and repairing some of the damage of outdated architectural and urban design theories. While housing alone cannot automatically improve a community or fix urban inequality, it is a powerful first step and provides a foundation for future progress. | 85
Appendix
86 |
| 87
Affordable Housing Mechanisms
88 |
| 89
Section 8 Housing Voucher
83,000+ Started as an alternative to public housing meant to spread Low-Income families across the city as opposed to concentrated in large projects. Residents with vouchers may find any apartment up to a set rent limit - typically median rent for apartments in the city - and pay just 30% of their income towards rent. The remaining rent is covered by the Federal Government. This mechanism assumes that private landlords can better maintain their properties. 90 |
1974
Section 8 Households
| 91
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
105,000+ Tax Abatements such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and the 421a Property Tax Abatement attempt to incentivize the construction of affordable housing through tax relief. Looking specifically at LIHTC, the program requires a certain percentage of the building (50-60%) be rented at affordable rates set by the government in exchange for tax credits which can be traded. The program expires after either 15 or 30 years at which point the units can be leased at market rate. 92 |
Units built
1986
| 93
Inclusionary Zoning
Similar to tax abatements, Inclusionary Zoning create incentives for new housing within a designated area to contain a certain percentage of units set aside for rent at affordable rates. Affordable units may also be located offsite elsewhere in the district or within 1/2 mile. In exchange, developers receive bonus square footage to build larger buildings. These apartments must be permanently affordable. 94 |
| 95
Mitchell Lama Program
105,000+ 20,000+
A program run by New York State, Mitchell Lama was focused on providing middleincome housing. The program mainly provided low interest loans to developers, requiring them to cap prices for the sale or rental of units. 96 |
1955
Units built Since deregulated
| 97
Community Land Trust
A relatively new proposal non-profit Community Land Trusts (CLTs) provide a method for ensuring affordable housing remains on a given site. CLTs acquire land through a sale or in this case through the city for the purpose of constructing affordable housing. They can then sell or rent housing on these properties while retaining ownership of the land. The residents therefore pay a certain limited amount, and agree by the terms of rental or resale. Members of the CLT typically include local residents, CLT residents, and management advisors. 98 |
CLT
| 99
Financial Information
100 |
| 101
Area Median Income Levels
Area median income is calculated based on incomes from an entire city. Tiers are formed around percentages of the median income and are used to determine eligibility and rents for affordable units. 50% AMI is considered by HUD as ‘Very Low Income’ (VLI). Because this is not calculated on a neighborhood level, apartments in gentrifying neighborhoods are often not affordable to the existing residents, even at the VLI level of 50% AMI. 102 |
Family Size
50% AMI
100% AMI
1 Person
$37,350
$74,700
2 People
$42,700
$85,400
3 People
$48,050
$96,100
4 People
$53,350
$106,700
5 People
$57,650
$115,300
6 People
$61,900
$123,800
Source: as published by HUD - 2019
| 103
Section 8 - NYCHA Payment Standards
These values are the maximum total rent that NYCHA will allow Section 8 landlords to charge for an apartment of a given size in New York City. This amount will be split with voucher holders paying 30% of their income towards rent and the Federal government subsidizing the rest. 104 |
Studio
$1,668
1 Bedroom
$1,711
2 Bedroom
$1,959
3 Bedroom
$2,487
4 Bedroom
$2,648
5 Bedroom
$3,045
6 Bedroom
$3,443
Source: NYCHA - Housing Choice Voucher Program Briefing - 2019
| 105
Sources Journals and Publications The Avery Review City Lab Jacobin Magazine – Spring 2019 The New York Times (particularly work by Luis Ferre-Sadurni) Urban Omnibus
Data and Reports from NYCHA A Handbook for Residents, 2017. Design Guidelines: Rehabilitation of NYCHA Residential Buildings, 2016. Development Data Books, 1940 – 2019. Fact Sheet, 2019. Fiscal Year 2019 NYCHA Budget and Five Year Plan, 2018. Flat Rent Schedule, 2017. Next Generation NYCHA, 2015. NYCHA 2.0 Part 1: Invest to Preserve, 2017. NYCHA 2.0 Part 2: Fix to Preserve, 2017. Physical Needs Assessment Summary by Development, 2017. Tenant Selection and Assignment Plan, 2016.
106 |
Sources Data and Reports from other sources Citizens Budget Commission. Cleaning House: How to Close the New York City Housing Authority’s Operating Gaps, 2015. Citizens Budget Commission. Stabilizing the Foundation: Transforming NYCHA to Address Its Capital Needs, 2018. Citizens Housing Planning Council, Public Housing Revolution: Lessons from London, 2019. Congressional Research Service. Introduction to Public Housing, 2014. Newman, Oscar. Creating Defensible Space. HUD Office of Policy Development and Research, 1996 NYC Housing Preservation and Development. HOME and LIHTC Income and Rent Limits, 2019. NYC Planning Commission. Zoning for Housing Quality, 1975. NYU Furman Center. Directory of NYC Housing Programs. Municipal Arts Society. Public Assets Interactive Map. Studio Gang. Neighborhood Activation Study. Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, 2017.
| 107
Sources Books Bauer, Catherine. A Citizen’s Guide to Public Housing. Vassar College, 1940. Bauer, Catherine. Modern Housing. Arno Press, 1934. Bernheimer, Andrew, and David Leven. Nychapedia. Independently Published, 2014. Bernstein, Levitt, and David Levitt. The Housing Design Handbook: A Guide to Good Practice. Routledge, 2010. Bloom, Nicholas Dagen. Public Housing That Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Bloom, Nicholas Dagen, and Gordon Lasner, editors. Affordable Housing in New York: The People, Places, and Policies That Transformed a City. Princeton Press, 2016. Davis, Sam. The Architecture of Affordable Housing. University of California Press, 1995. Ford, James. Slums and Housing. Harvard University Press, 1936. Friedman, Lawrence. Government and Slum Housing. Arno Press, 1978. Garvin, Alexander. The American City: What Works, What Doesn’t. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2013. Genevro, Rosalie, and Carol Willis, editors. Vacant Lots. Princeton Press, 1989.
108 |
Sources Halprin, Lawrence. New York New York: A Study of the Quality, Character, and Meaning of Open Space in Urban Design. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1968. Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies. Another Chance for Housing: Low-Rise Alternatives. New York State Urban Development Corporation, 1973. Logue, Ed. Let There be Commitment: A Housing, Planning, and Development Program for New York City, 1966. Madden, David and Peter Marcuse. In Defense of Housing: The Politics of Crisis. Verso, 2016. Martin, Reinhold, et al. The Art of Inequality: Architecture, Housing, and Real Estate. Buell Center, 2015. Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Macmillan Company, 1972. Plunz, Richard. A History of Housing in New York City. 2nd edition, Columbia University Press, 2016. Rapkin, Chester. The Real Estate Market in an Urban Renewal Area. NYC Planning Commission, 1959.
| 109
110 |