Public housing the devolution of funding & a new life for nycha by Josh Vogel

PUBLIC HOUSING: THE DEVOLUTION OF FUNDING & A NEW LIFE FOR NYCHA

BY JOSH VOGEL

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Image on cover page: (left to right) Glenwood Houses, Source: GKC Industries, Queensbridge Houses, Source: completeneighborhoods.org, Alfred E. Smith Houses, Source: The Epoch Times, Gowanus Houses, Source: Dailly News.

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA Josh Vogel The New School Eugene Lang, The New School for Liberal Arts Spring 2014 ____________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………… Page 3 II. Introduction……………………….………………………………………………………….. Page 3 III. Background & Context..…………………….………………………………………………Page 3 IV. History of Public Housing in America (Literature Review)..……..……………..…….Page 4 V. Why Does Public Housing Have Such a Bad Reputation?………………………… Page 14 A. Pruitt Igoe……………………………………………………………………………Page 15 B. Chicago Housing Authority……………………………………………………….Page 17 VI. Public Housing Today…………..……………………………..………………………..…Page 20 VII. New York City Housing Authority…………………………….……………………….. Page 22 A. Underfunding..……….…………………………………………………………..…Page 28 VIII. Methodology………..………….………………………………………………………….Page 31 IX. Findings & Analysis………….……………………………………………………………Page 32 A. Payments to City for Police Services..………………………………………….Page 32 B. Infill Plan/ Land Lease………..……………………………….…………………..Page 33 C. Selling Manhattans Projects..………………………………..…………………..Page 43 D. Eliminating Mortgage Interest Deduction………..………..………………..…Page 45 E. Zoning Incentives/ Tax Abatements………………………..……………………Page 45 X. Conclusion/ Discussion..…….……………………………………………………….……Page 47

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

! ! ! ! I. ABSTRACT: This paper will explain the cause of the federal devolution in funding public housing and analyze the different proposals to give public housing in New York City a new life. Funding capital improvements for public housing is not just about physical, but social infrastructure and should go hand in hand with reexamining the role of public housing policy in America. I will discuss how the federal, state, and city government need to take ownership and fund public housing, in addition to public private partnerships through infill development that will provide the opportunity to rehabilitate the developments and reintegrate them into the surrounding community. II. INTRODUCTION: The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has been drastically underfunded by the Federal Government over the last decade. The underfunding is due to a popular political belief that public housing is a failed program. This stigma that has become glued to public housing is actually not representative of public housing in America, particularly in New York City. Still, New York City is left to foot the bill for a public housing program originally created by the Federal Government. As a result, much needed capital improvements are being ignored as the buildings age. Recently, proposals have been made to fill the growing gap in the Housing Authorityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget.

! III. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT: Public housing is a form of subsidized housing, owned by the government for lower income families. This paper will explore the history of public housing in America since its inception during the great depression to its current state today. To fully understand the current

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

state of NYCHA, you first must understand the history of public housing in America. After a brief summary of public housing in America I will look at cities where public housing has failed, specifically Chicago and St. Louis. After discussing how these two cities impacted the public and political view of public housing in America I will explain how this is actually a fair representation of public housing in America.

! ! IV. HISTORY OF PUBLIC HOUSING IN AMERICA (LITERATURE REVIEW):

! By the end of the 19th century housing conditions had changed for the worse, becoming a major problem in cities across the country. In the attempts of improving the poor housing conditions in dilapidated tenements, the Tenement House Act of 1901 in New York City called for light, air, indoor plumbing, and adequate space. As the Great Depression hit the country leading to a national unemployment rate of 25% by 1933, the City of New York faced a worsening housing crisis. In his second inaugural address President Franklin Roosevelt declared one third of the nation as “ill-housed.” The first 100 days of Roosevelt’s presidency saw the transformation in the role of the Federal Government known as The New Deal. Government leaders such as Executive Secretary Catherine Bauer called for government intervention in housing “where the market has failed to provide a basic human need... [in the form of] well-designed mass housing for the working Techwood Homes, Atlanta. Source: Library of Congress Archives

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

class”(Heatchott, 2012). With the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) the Roosevelt administration ordered the Works Progress Administration (WPA) to construct public housing developments in major cities to tackle the housing shortage. By 1934 seven developments were underway including the Techwood homes in Atlanta, GA which were the first to open in 1936 and New York’s first public housing projects, the First Houses on the Lower East Side and the racially segregated Harlem River Houses. The original seven low-rise developments offered many amenities and have been declared, “some of the best government backed housing ever built”. (Heatchott, 2012) With the Housing Act of 1937 and the creation of the United States Housing Authority (USHA), states funded cities in order to create housing authorities that could

(Harlem River Houses, 1961 & 1936. Source: LaGuardia Wagner Archives)

use eminent domain to clear land declared blighted for new public housing developments. While most of the developments were funded through long-term interestfree federal loans, the maintenance was to be funded through tenant rents. The act also established a rent ceiling of 20% of a household’s income, which would later rise to 25% and then 30%. The USHA housing developments “opted to prioritize the production of

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

the maximum number of units, rather than to create fewer units of higher quality” (Heathcott, 2012). The USHA responded to the WPA housing developments which were of higher quality and catered to flexible income groups by targeting the “lowest income groups at much lower costs per unit.”(Bloom, 37, 2008) To cut costs the USHA built taller buildings of lesser quality with smaller rooms and fewer community spaces. Despite these cost cutting techniques the USHA was committed to providing local public housing authorities with federal funding. Although these buildings were often inferior to the early low-rise WPA developments, residents reported an increase in living conditions compared to their former tenements that often did not contain services such as indoor plumbing and heating. These high-rise developments built after 1937 such as the Queens-Bridge Houses (built in 1940) in New York City set the model for postwar developments and by 1945, 165,000 public housing units had been built. Project towers in New York City at the time “covered as little as 15-20% of sites, yet still achieved high Queensbridge Houses. Source: LaGuardia Wagner Archives

population density because of their

great height” (Bloom, 2012). This left the majority of the land, about 75%, to be used for open public spaces. The Housing Act of 1949 directed federal funds towards private housing in addition to public housing. Title 1 of the bill brought urban redevelopment via slum clearance for new “residential, civic, and commercial construction…. It required either

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

half of the area cleared or half of the units created to be residential” (Heathcott, 2012). Title II of the act authorized increased funds for the Federal Mortgage Insurance Program focusing on single-family white suburban homes. Title III “revived public housing with a commitment of 810,000 new units to be started over the next six years” (Heathcott, 2012). While this act was aimed at providing decent homes for urban

and suburban Americans, its three different sections had a great impact on one another. As seen in St. Louis, the act reshaped American cities by encouraging white flight to

Red Hook Houses. Source: LaGuardia Wagner Archives

the suburbs, leaving “working-class whites and minorities in urban core neighborhoods” (Heathcott, 2012). Slum clearance brought on by Title I of the bill ended up destroying more homes than it created through public housing. While the act committed to constructing 810,000 units in six years this target would not be reached until 1975. In 1965 Congress consolidated the various housing programs in the country into the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which remains in existence today. Following the riots in 1965 and 1967, the Johnson administration shifted focus

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

from urban renewal and slum clearance to “the War on Poverty approach”, which included social programs such as “welfare transfer payments, job creation and economic opportunity, and neighborhood planning” (Heathcott, 2012). During this time period city populations around the country including St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago, saw an extreme decrease in population as residents moved out of the urban center to suburbs. While St. Louis reflects the more extreme deterioration of the city resulting from population loss, many other major cities also saw a rise in poverty and crime as populations decreased. In the late 1960’s and 70’s public housing became notorious for drug use, gang violence and crime. With growing “political and popular discontent” with public housing, the Federal Government announced it would freeze construction of any new public housing in 1973. (Heathcott, 2012). By this time many public housing developments had physically deteriorated in addition to becoming notorious for crime, violence, and poverty. That same year the first of the Pruitt-Igoe public housing towers in St. Louis would be demolished, leaving the land barren for decades to come. Other cities like Chicago would not tear down its public housing until two decades later under the federally funded HOPE VI program. In the past quarter century public housing in the United States has focused more on demolition, redevelopment, and preservation opposed to new construction. The total number of new public housing units built peaked in 1994 with 1.4 million and by 2012 it had declined by 18%.(Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 2) Out of all the existing public housing units in 2012 only 9% were built after 1989 and most of these units replaced older developments that had been demolished.

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

The Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere or HOPE VI program was created in 1992. HOPE VI is a federal program that provides funds for the demolition and redevelopment of distressed public housing projects. The program was initially only for the 40 largest public housing authorities and 12 additional troubled smaller housing authorities. For a housing authority to apply for HOPE VI funds the housing project(s) must meet at least one of the following criteria; Families in distress, high levels of crime, management problems (including high vacancy and turnover rates) and physical deterioration.The program has changed overtime from emphasizing redevelopment to almost entirely demolition. In 1996 the program started offering housing vouchers as an option for residents displaced by demolition. Edward Goetz states that in 1994 “for the first time in the the programs history, conventional public housing was conducted on the basis of mixed financing, mixed ownership, and in many cases private management. In these respects HOPE VI became a vehicle for the privatization of public housing.”(Goetz, 2012) Between 1993 to 2010, HOPE VI provided the funding for the demolition of over 150,000 units of “distressed” public housing. HUD has also spent over 2.6 billion in redevelopment of housing projects through HOPE VI. The redeveloped housing projects were transformed from the traditional look of public housing to more low rise structures with features including “front porches,[and] bay windows… to blend in with the physical fabric of the surrounding community” and overcome and physical isolation often associated with theses projects.(Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 27, 2014) HOPE VI redeveloped projects also aimed to improve on some of the flawed designs of tower in the park public housing. For example, to improve safety, residents were given semiprivate spaces while minimizing public spaces such as

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

parking lots and hallways where residents can easily take control, leading to crime. HOPE VI also tried to tackle the problem of vandalism that is notorious in public housing by improving the standards of the units. With dishwashers, central air, and washer dryers the theory is residents will have a higher level of respect for where they live and are less likely to vandalize the building. In addition these improved amenities attracted higher level income groups. Not all public housing authorities in the country have used HOPE VI to remove or redevelop their public housing, however some have almost completely obliterated their supply of public housing. New York City for example, does not meet most of the criteria for HOPE VI funds and has removed less than 1% of its public housing. One of the few projects in New York City that did use HOPE VI funds was for building improvements and apartment modifications, with no demolition and redevelopment. Other cities with more distressed public housing like New Orleans has reduced their supply to under 1,000 units and Chicago has demolished over 20,000 units. HOPE VI has been extremely successful in rehabilitating distressed public housing projects and tackling the negative connotations that are often associated with them. HOPE VI has won awards in architecture and brought in private investors who now view public housing as a good investment. Housing expert Alex Schwartz has stated; “HOPE VI has brought the public housing program, its units, and residents into the mainstream. HOPE VI has created a new market of private investors and lenders that now view mixed-income and mixed-financed public housing as a good investment… few would disagree that HOPE VI developments represent a dramatic improvement over the distressed public housing they replaced.” (Schwartz, ch. 6, p.22, 2014)

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

! With all the physical and social improvements HOPE VI has had on public housing, there has been criticism regarding displaced public housing residents. Often HOPE VI developments have created less public housing units than the developments they replaced. A survey from the U.S. General Accounting Office found that on average public housing authorities expected only 46% of its original residents to return to the redeveloped sites. Findings also show that this percentage has decreased over time. One explanation for this is the enforcement of stricter criteria for residents in the redeveloped housing compared to the old. Residents that lived in demolished units are often not eligible for the units that replaced them. HOPE VI was eventually replaced under the Obama administration in 2012 by a new program, Choice Neighborhoods. Choice neighborhoods is less focused on public housing demolition and redevelopment than HOPE VI. Instead it focuses on the greater neighborhood and how redevelopment of public housing fits in with its surroundings. Unlike HOPE VI, Choice Neighborhoods has a one-for-one rule that requires public housing authorities to replace every unit of public housing that is destroyed. In addition to redeveloping distressed public housing the program focuses on revitalizing the neighborhood through school reform, housing assistance, and early childhood interventions.(Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 25, 2014) HUD has outlined the primary goals for choice neighborhoods; Replacing distressed public housing with high-quality mixed income housing, making sure the developments are responsive to the surrounding neighborhood. Improving education, youth and family services. 11

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Public and private reinvestment in distressed neighborhoods, improving safety, schools, commercial activity in communities. (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013) In short, the major difference between Choice Neighborhoods and HOPE VI is that it aims to revitalize the surrounding neighborhood, not just the public housing development. HOPE VI and Choice neighborhoods combined have demolished the great majority of large, high-rise developments. Outside of New York City only 48,000 units remain in projects with more than 500 units. The two programs have also demolished most of the distressed public housing. Today over 85% of public housing meets or exceeds HUD’s physical condition standards and “at least 40 percent of the developments are considered physically excellent.”(Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 30 2014) Since 1994 when HOPE VI was implemented nearly 270,000 public housing units have been demolished.(Schwartz, ch. 6, p.30, 2014) The majority of the demolished units were distressed, vacant, or plagued with crime and poverty. In 2013 HUD launched a new program, the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, or RAD. This program allows public housing authorities to receive financing for capital improvements by swapping out of the public housing program into Section 8 (a housing subsidy or voucher for rentals in the private market). The developments can still be owned by the public housing authority. There is no change to the residents, but RAD allows public housing authorities to obtain more financing for capital improvements through Section 8 than they would have as public housing.(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011) The reason for this, as I will discuss later, is the stigma that is associated with public housing in America. Public Housing today is seen as a 12

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

failed program. As a result, it is difficult to get funding for it. Although the changes are very minor, when converted to section 8, there is less of a stigma than associated with public housing, making it easier to obtain funding.

The current public housing program in the United States has turned out differently than originally intended. When public housing was created it was supposed to act as a stepping stone for working families. Public Housing initially targeted hard working families “striving for better… who, because of circumstances outside their control, lacked the income necessary to afford housing in the private market.”(Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 4, 2014) Public Housing was intended to serve as short term housing while families were facing hard times. As a result public housing authorities set strict guidelines for tenant selection, “giving priority to low-income working families who were not likely to remain in public housing.” (Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 4, 2014) In 2013 the annual household income of public housing residents averaged $13,724, far below the poverty line.(Schwartz ch, 6, p 5, 2014) The most common source of income for these residents is social security disability or retirement benefits and pension payments, much different than the working families public housing authorities initially hoped to house. (Schwartz ch. 6, p. 5, 2014) Only one third of households actually reported income earned from wages while another third reported receiving welfare.(Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 5, 2014) Public Housing is no longer a stepping stone for working families as 29% of public housing residents have lived in public housing for at least 30 years. (Schwartz, ch. 6 p. 6, 2014) The increased time residents stay in public housing has become a major criticism of the program. Critics argue that public housing deters residents from finding

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

work or making over a certain level of income in fear that they will loose their apartment. In New York City, many public housing residents would not be able to afford to live in their neighborhood if they weren't in public housing. As a result, the wait list is over 200,000 people long, and when a person is placed in public housing, they are likely to hold on to the unit. Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute writes, “public housing has bred long-term dependency; in New York City, public-housing tenants remain in the system, on average, for 20.1 years, free from the time limits that apply to other forms of welfare.”(Husock, 2009) Public housing is no longer a step on the ladder to upward mobility but an excuse to stay unemployed. Despite this criticism, many families are unable to work because they are elderly or disabled, or are unable to afford decent housing.

! V. WHY DOES PUBLIC HOUSING HAVE SUCH A BAD REPUTATION?

! One of the major reasons federal funding for public housing has drastically decreased over the years is that public housing is viewed as a failed program. Because of notorious housing projects like Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis and Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, public housing today has a stigma associated with it. Despite the success of NYCHA, the public will always associate public housing with the notorious projects that failed. The images of broken windows, decrepit building and their demolition will likely always stay attached to the public’s view of public housing no matter how successful other cities have been. It is also important to acknowledge that high-rise public housing and distressed public housing are only a very small portion of

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

public housing in America. Even though this is the case, most Americans will still associate it with high-rise distressed housing projects.

! PRUITT-IGOE: Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis notoriously represents the failures of modern high-density public housing. Built in 1954 Pruitt-Igoe consisted of thirty-three 11-story buildings “built as the solution to the

Pruitt-Igoe. Source: Pruitt-Igoe Myth

overcrowding and deterioration that plagued inner city St. Louis” (pruittigoe.com, 2013). Following the opening of Pruitt-Igoe, St. Louis saw the loss of “half of its population and most of its prestige in less than a generation” (Pruitt-Igoe Myth, 2013). The housing act of 1949, which enabled funds for urban renewal and helped build the development also offered incentives for suburban development. As federal money poured into the suburbs the white middle class residents that Pruitt-Igoe planners hoped to attract moved out of the city. After being open for only four years occupancy peaked at 91% and quickly went into decline. Pruitt-Igoe was built for a city that was expanding however, with industrial 15

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

jobs leaving the city, the overproduction of “inexpensive suburban dwellings helped open up the previously tight inner-city rental market to blacks”(Bristol, 1991). As more private residences in the city became available, more black residents chose private housing over public. Pruitt-Igoe soon became a “dumping ground” for the city’s poorest residents. The decline in occupancy in Pruitt-Igoe had a direct impact on the St. Louis Housing Authority’s ability to maintain the buildings. Since maintenance costs were funded by tenants’ rents, as they moved out the amount of funds slowly declined and the Housing Authority was unable to perform basic repairs and maintenance. As a result elevators would not be repaired when they broke down and the number of broken windows made it “possible to see straight through to the other side” (Pruitt-Igoe Myth, 2011). As occupancy rates declined, violence, crime, vandalism and drugs increased. After only twenty years of use the buildings were declared unfit and demolished.

Pruitt Igoe Demolition. Source: Pruitt Igoe Myth

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

The initial criticism of Pruitt –Igoe lay in the physical design of the buildings. Skipstop elevators, which only stopped on alternate floors, that were meant to save money and encourage residents to interact with one another created a dangerous environment where residents were often mugged. Entrances in “unprotected open plazas” left residents with no “control over who entered the building”(Bristol, 1991). In the years after the demolition, designers and planners found blame in the projects design, however, social and economic problems along with declining population rates in the greater city were crucial to understanding the failure of Pruitt-Igoe. The relation between occupancy rates and lack of maintenance gives insight into why Pruitt-Igoe failed. While there are some flaws in the design of Pruitt-Igoe, highdensity public housing should not be blamed overall. In comparing high-density public housing in St. Louis to New York City, the difference between success and failure lies in daily upkeep and maintenance. CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY: Cabrini Green and Robert Taylor Homes are two of the many public housing developments of the Chicago Housing Authority that became severely distressed and eventually demolished. Cabrini Green opened in 1942 on seventy acres of prime real estate within close proximity to the lake and wealthy neighborhoods such as Lincoln Park. After completion in 1962, The Robert Taylor homes became the largest public housing project in the country, featuring twenty-eight 16-story buildings, housing 27,000 people. (Gellman 2013) In the book There Are No Children Here Alex Klotkowitz documents a family’s 17

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

experience living in public housing in Chicago. The buildings, like most high-rise public housing were described as red brick buildings with solid concrete frames, 65 apartments in one building. There was plenty of open space between the buildings with concrete playgrounds and basketball courts. Out of the six thousand people that lived in Henry Horner four thousand were children. The family moved into the Cabrini Green. Source: Time Magazine

building when it was newly built but the

buildings quickly deteriorated. Maintenance was described as a bare minimum. Klotkowitz describes familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s apartment as, not been painted for years, sewage rising from toilets, hot water that couldn't be turned off, heating that couldn't be turned down and a basement infested with vermin that had an unbearable stench. In the 1980s the Chicago Housing Authority did not have funds to maintain the buildings and couldn't even afford to to paint the buildings. Despite the fact that the buildings that were built to be vandal proof- they had fallen into disrepair. Crime and violence in these Cabrini Green. Source: Candy Man (1992)

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

buildings quickly skyrocketed, with a reported 40 violent crimes per every thousand residents, twice the rate of Chicago. The children reported having bullet holes tear through the windows and spoke of the presence of gangs in the development. There Are No Children Here is an example of the poor conditions in distressed public housing projects in Chicago, which “until recently… exemplified public housing at its worst, [being that] most housing authorities have not allowed conditions to deteriorate so severely.” (Schwartz, ch6 p11, 2014) In the 1990s Chicago’s high-rise housing projects Cabrini Green, and Robert Taylor Homes were becoming symbols of blight and crime. This same decade the Federal Government took control over the Chicago Housing Authority. Studies of the Chicago Public Housing Authority “exposed a long history of mismanagement and poor decision making that exacerbated the local conditions of an already compromised federal program” (Heathcott, 2012). The Robert Taylor Homes radiating blight, pre demolition Source: Midwestern Adventures

deteriorating quality

and high crime rates in close proximity to wealthy neighborhoods lead the city to demolish the high-rises and replace them with mixed income developments. In 2000 Chicago obtained federal approval to demolish and redevelop almost all of the city’s high-rise public housing developments. The plan aimed to replace these developments with 25,000 new public housing units by 2014. Dislocated residents were

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

given three options: firstly residents could receive a voucher for obtaining a unit in the private market, secondly residents could be transferred to other still standing public housing units, and lastly residents were given the option to come back to the new mixed income developments built on the site. (National Building Museum, 2013) These new mixed income developments offered 800 units on over 18 acres. The breakdown of the new units are, 50% market rate housing, 30% public housing replacements, and 20% affordable housing. (National Building Museum, 2013) Research has shown that many former public housing residents do not meet the requirements to move into the redeveloped units. (Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 32, 2014) Mixed-income HOPE VI development that replaced Cabrini Green. Now Referred to as part of the Old Town. Source: Ian Felmuth

The redevelopment of Chicago public housing has

also been criticized as being driven by real estate interests because of the developments close proximity to wealthier neighborhoods.

! VI. PUBLIC HOUSING TODAY:

! Housing Policy expert Alex Schwartz wrote that the most critical threat to public housing is the â&#x20AC;&#x153;accepted wisdom in many cities that public housing is a failure and

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

should be demolished.” (Schwartz, ch, 6, p. 32, 2014) This stigma associated with public housing is often associated with distressed public housing projects like Pruitt-Igoe and those of the Chicago Housing Authority. Despite the fact that Pruitt-Igoe was demolished over 40 years ago, the images of the broken windows and the vacant buildings demolition lingers in the public’s mind when they think of public housing in America. Despite this stigma, the majority of public housing is nothing like these few “bad apples” and should be given another chance. When most people think of public housing they picture red brick, high-rise, tower in the park developments like the majority of the developments in New York City. This is actually inaccurate as most public housing in the country consists of buildings types other than high-rise developments, from single family, detached homes, to low rise apartment buildings. Public housing is also widely believed to be comprised of minority residents but in fact whites make up half of the population. Recently public housing has also become less concentrated in poor, segregated areas.

! High Rise public housing only makes up 30% of public

! ! ! ! 21

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

! VII. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY:

While high-rise modernist tower-in-thepark public housing developments have received criticism in other cities around the country, they have been labeled as a success in New York City. New York City, unlike Chicago has no plans to tear down its high-rise public housing. What separates New York City from the rest is the ability of its Housing Authority to properly maintain its buildings. Created in 1934 The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA, 2013) constructed WPA Eagle on the Wallabout Houses. Source: LaGuardia Wagner Archives. February 2nd, 1942.

the city’s first public houses, aptly

named the First Houses, located on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The goal of NYCHA was “to bring forth a modern city that would provide the working class with a higher standard of living including central heating, light and air in every room, indoor plumbing, elevators, and green open spaces” (Bloom, 2012). In comparison to Chicago and St. Louis, NYCHA developments were well-built, durable buildings that received daily maintenance and renovation as they aged.

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Early on in the 1930’s New York City pushed for a federal housing program, and is credited with creating the USHA. Not only did the city take advantage of USHA funds but it also took advantage of it’s state and city programs, drawing “on three programs for support rather than just one.” (Bloom, 34, 2008) The first three developments built in New York City were the First, Williamsburg, and Harlem River Houses which were WPA projects. These low-rise housing developments have been celebrated for their design, open space, social resources and have been labeled some “of the finest American public housing.” (Bloom, 33, 2008) The First Houses (1934) although costly, were a great example of the potential for public housing. Covering 45 percent of the site, the First Houses featured 12 store fronts, landscaped public spaces and hardwood oak floors. The Harlem River Houses (1936) are similarly low in density (four and five story buildings) include a “central courtyard with seating and play areas, adorned with sculptures by artists working under the Works Progress Administration”(NYCHA, 2013). When it was first built, the development was segregated for blacks only and featured a nursery school, a health clinic, social rooms, and play areas, a New York Public Library and store fronts. (NY Landmark Preservation, 2013) With only 32 percent of the site built up The Harlem Houses have been praised by planners, mainly due to the social resources that are on site. This complex proves that public housing is more than just physical buildings. Unlike most NYCHA developments which are super blocks and cut off from the surrounding streetscape, the Harlem River Houses buildings and pathways are lined up with the surrounding street grid, making them “fit comfortabl[y] into the

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

neighborhood around it.â&#x20AC;?(Bloom, 52, 2008) Today the Harlem River Houses are a protected landmark. Despite the success of these initial low-rise developments the Housing Authority

Harlem River Houses; arial view, open space, layout and floor plans. Source: Study Blue

would soon turn to high-rise, tower in the park developments to cut costs. New York City is known for its verticality, but before the 1930â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s only the wealthy lived in tall, elevator buildings. (Bloom, 45, 2008) With rising land costs NYCHA saw that the cheapest way to house the most people, while still providing air, sunlight and open space was to build taller buildings while decreasing the size of unit. While the buildings were built to cut costs, they were still built to be durable and to last. NYCHA also built many of its developments at this time in central locations near transportation and jobs. Even though

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

the first wave of public housing developments were well built and planned, they did not get close to meeting the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing crisis. In response the following developments would not only be greater in height but would would be massive developments taking up several blocks. The First Houses offered only 123 units, with the Harlem River Houses offering 577. The Red Hook Houses built in 1939 offered 2,545 units with 75 percent open space and are still the largest development in Brooklyn to date. The Queens Bridge Houses, which followed Red Hook the next year, would offer over 25 times as many units as the First Houses with 3,149. The cost per room of these developments would be less than half of the original projects. By 1941 NYCHA set a new template for tower in the park developments with the 10 and 11 story East River Houses. This new template would soon become the standard for NYCHA developments with an explosion of new construction after World War II. Under Robert Moses the Housing Authority would build large developments all over the city, often on vacant land in the outer boroughs. By 1947 fourteen large developments had been completed with eight more being constructed and six in the planning stages. By 1961 the Housing Authority was housing 435,000 people in 105 developments around the five boroughs. That same year Jane Jacobs released The Death and Life of Great American Cities, an attack on the tower-in-the-park, super block style of planning NYCHA had become famous for. During this time period construction of new developments decelerated, with only six thousand new units built between 1965 and 1970. In the 1970â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s NYCHA along with the city of New York experienced a financial

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

crisis. The financial crisis combined with the federal moratorium on new public housing construction in 1973 would bring NYCHA’s exponential growth over the past decades to a halt. Despite criticism of crime, drugs and concentration of poverty, NYCHA would work hard to provide management and maintain their buildings over the years. Red Hook Houses showing decay in the 70’s. Source: LaGuardia Wagner Archives.

Today the New York City

Housing Authority is the largest housing authority in North America with 178,557 apartments in 2,563 buildings in 334 developments across the five boroughs. (NYCHA, 2014) In addition NYCHA represents 15% of all the public housing in the country. If NYCHA was its own city it would be the 27th largest in the country by population side, bigger than Portland, Las Vegas, and Atlanta. (NYCHA, 2014) NYCHA is unlike the majority of public housing authorities around the country, of which 90% are responsible for less than 500 units. (Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 1, 2014) According to 2010 census data NYCHA represents 8.2% of the city’s rental apartments and 4.9% of the city’s population, housing 615,199 New Yorkers. With an average income of $22,994, NYCHA residents pay up to 30 percent of this figure monthly, averaging $434. 47% of residents in NYCHA developments are working class due to strict tenant selection policies. (NYCHA, 2013) The success of NYCHA is clearly seen in the high demand for housing

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

and long wait list. With a vacancy rate of only 0.9% the wait list for a NYCHA apartment reached 247,262 families as of March 2014. NYCHA currently employs 11,605 people, many of whom are responsible for front line operations such as maintenance. (NYCHA, 2014) In the book, Public Housing That Worked: New York in the Twentieth Century, Nicholas Bloom highlights the factors that lead to the success of New York City’s public housing, including “tenant

Harlem River Houses Source: Josh Vogel (2013)

selectivity and vigorous daily management” (Bloom, 2012). The broken window theory states that when a broken window is not repaired it sends a message that encourages disorder and vandalism, leading to more broken windows. In Pruitt-Igoe, broken windows went unrepaired and similar maintenance problems soon spiraled out of control. Unlike Pruitt-Igoe, which would board up broken windows or units that caught on fire leaving them vacant for the rest of the community to see, New York City has gone through great lengths to properly maintain the buildings in their public housing system. Since the start New York City has viewed public housing as “a daily human system rather than just a set of buildings” employing staff to perform daily upkeep and maintenance “at a level commensurate with middle class buildings”(Bloom, 2012). In the 1970’s as the youth rate along with vandalism in New York City increased the Housing

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Authority installed “vandal proof” lighting fixtures, lobbies, fencing, and benches to prevent their buildings from deterioration.” (Bloom, 2012) When the New York City Housing Authority faced budget cuts it made sure to cut office staff to preserve the number of workers on the front line managing the buildings daily maintenance.

! NYCHA UNDERFUNDING Since the recession in 2008 NYCHA has experienced tremendous budget cuts from its general fund which is approximately 40% funded by the Federal Government. NYCHA is not the only housing authority that has been defunded by the Federal Government. According to the Council on Large Public Housing Authorities “at an annual funding level of 2.5 billion, it would take 58 years to bring the existing stock of public housing up to standard.” (Schwartz, ch. 6, p. 17, 2014) The Housing Authority

Insufficient Capital Funds For Rehabilitation Needs

In Millions of Dollars

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

receives two streams of 2011

revenues, operating

2012

funds, which covers the

-$100 -$200

day-to-day maintenance,

-$300 -$400

and capital funds, which

-$500

pays for long term

-$600 -$700 -$800

Underfunded by $876 Million

improvements for the

-$900 Source: New York City Housing Authority, 2013 1

Housing Authority’s developments. Since 2001 NYCHA has been increasingly underfunded by the Federal

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Government. Out of the operating budget alone NYCHA has been underfunded $937 million dollar since 2013. (Council of the City of New York, 2014) The Housing Authority reports that its operating budget for 2014 is $2.868 billion with an estimated expenditure of $3.149 billion. The capital budget is based on the current federal funding outlook, leaving much needed long term improvements unaddressed.

Source: New York City Housing Authority, 2014

In 2013 alone NYCHA lost $253 million in operating subsidy as a result of federal defunding. (Council of the City of New York, 2014) This defunding of the operating budget has caused a backlog of maintenance requests. In January 2013 there was a backlog of 422,639 non-emergency maintenance repair requests with the Daily News reporting a response time of one month to two years.(Smith, 2013) NYCHA currently reports that this backlog has drastically decreased. The under funding has not just impacted daily maintenance. In 2013 the authority announced that they planned to close community centers, senior centers, recreational

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Source: New York City Housing Authority, 2014

centers, and other services offered in public housing developments. So far fifteen community centers labeled as â&#x20AC;&#x153;underutilizedâ&#x20AC;? have been closed. In addition to serving the residents through after school programs and senior centers these community centers serve as emergency weather shelters during heat waves and storms. These community centers are vital to the Housing Authority and its residents. The community centers also increase the quality of life of the residents who are more likely to take pride in their home when they care about and are involved in their community. The Housing Authority must find a way to deal with budget issues without cutting these critical programs. While the underfunding of the operating budget has been widely publicized due to the resulting maintenance backlog, the capital budget has also been severely underfunded. NYCHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s buildings are an asset that depreciates over time, the capital budget is money that is spent to keep these buildings in good condition. In the recently released 2015 budget NYCHA estimated that it would need $400 million to fix Superstorm Sandy related damages to its developments. In addition to the damage caused by Sandy, NYCHA buildings are aging and in need improvements and

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

rehabilitation. Many of these buildings have been known to waste energy and the Authority needs to retrofit them to be more energy efficient. In 2013 it was estimated that the “backlog of unmet capital needs would reach $13.4 billion over the next five years.” (NYCHA, 2013) VIII: METHODOLOGY The majority of my research for this project came from primary and secondary research on public housing in America, the distressed housing authorities, the history and current financial issues of NYCHA and the proposed solutions for funding NYCHA’s capital improvements, with focus on the infill plan. I was lucky to be able to interview Fred Harris, who served as Executive Vice President for Development at NYCHA from 2012 through the end of 2013. Harris, who has a background in real estate was brought on to oversee the infill plan. In the press release for Harris’ appointment, NYCHA states that Harris has “spent fourteen years overseeing the development of 5,330 apartments with a total cost of $1.89 billion. Harris’s appointment represents the increasing importance of NYCHA’s effort to develop mixed-use and mixed-income housing on land owned by the Authority,”(NYCHA, 2013) My conversation with Mr. Harris was extremely beneficial to my research and understanding of the financial state of NYCHA, particularly to the infill plan. I also attended a tour with Nicholas Bloom of the Harlem River Houses, Polo Grounds Towers, and Rangel Houses in Harlem. Bloom’s tour, although before I decided to do this project, helped to change my perception on NYCHA developments and further inspired me to do this project.

! 31

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

IX: FINDINGS & ANALYSIS In this section, I will discuss and analyze the different proposals and solutions to help fund NYCHA. I am in no way inventing a brand new solution, but combining aspects of different proposals and ideas to recommend what I think would be best for the housing authority in the future. I mainly focus on the infill plan, discussing the problems with its initial rollout and its potential to be a major piece of the puzzle to remedy the problems of the housing authority. I also look at some proposals that are more utopic and not politically plausible, ultimately finding value in understanding these different ideas that have been proposed in response to NYCHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growing financial problems. When I first started my research for this project, many of these proposals seemed unlikely or far reaching. Today some of them have been implemented, one of which being termination of payments NYCHA was making to the city police services. Although only a small fix to a large problem, the implementation of this plan shows the legitimacy and potential of some of these proposals.

! PAYMENTS TO THE CITY FOR POLICE SERVICES: For years NYCHA was a syphon for federal funds to the City of New York because the Housing Authority received more money than it needed to operate. Currently the Authority is underfunded and subsidies are needed from the city. Mayor deBlasio has ended the payments the housing authority makes for police services that date back to Mayor Giuliani. Before 1995 NYCHA had its own police department. The 32

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

deal between NYCHA and City Hall to pay $75 million annually for the services of the NYPD was a way the city could obtain funds from the Federal Government indirectly. This arrangement no longer makes sense, particularly since NYCHA residents already pay for police services through taxes. The previous NYCHA Chairman declined requests to stop payment to the NYPD, citing the priority of police services in its developments and the high crime rates. Now that deBlasio has freed up $52.5 million that was intended to go to the NYPD from February through June this year, the housing authority can focus those funds on repairs and maintenance.(Stewart, 2013) The action to stop the payments for police services is an important step for the city in being more financially responsible for its public housing.

! LAND LEASE OPPURTUNITY TO PRESERVE PUBLIC HOUSING (INFILL PLAN) With the majority of NYCHA developments containing open space, real estate has always been NYCHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biggest asset. This open space includes playgrounds, pathways, benches, grassy lawns, community centers, parking lots, and trash incinerators. The infill plan calls for leasing some of this land to private developers to help fund the Housing Authority. The revenue generated from the plan would help to cover the Authorities capital budget, helping to keep the buildings in a state of good repair. Alternatively, NYCHA could sell some of its open land, which would generate short term cash, but would not fund the capital budget in the long term. The infill plan looks to lease the land, using the ground rent as a replacement for the decrease in capital funding from the Federal Government. The original infill plan was released in

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

2013 under Mayor Bloomberg. The plan proposed a 99-year lease of 14 sites on 8 developments located under 110th Street in Manhattan that would have generated $30-50 million a year in ground rent. In return one $1 billion in bonds could be issued to pay for these improvements. The revenue from the ground rent would pay the interest accumulated on the bonds.(Harris, 2014) In theory, the market rate housing that would be built on these sites would “be used as self sufficient capital” and take care of the developments’ capital needs forever.(Harris, 2014) In addition to serving the capital needs of the housing authority, infill developments would be required to provide affordable housing. All sites would meet current zoning restrictions and would provide “sufficient space” between existing buildings.(NYCHA, 2013) According to the Council of the City of New York’s Hearing on the 2014 -2018 Operating and Capital Budget & the Fiscal 2014 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report: New York City Housing Authority; of the new buildings constructed, “The largest tower would contain just over 500 units and the smallest would be as few as 50 units… The buildings will be constructed on the edge of the NYCHA developments in order to integrate with the neighborhood and provide additional security for NYCHA residents. Of the projected 4,330 new units, 20%, or 860, will be affordable to households at 60% Area Median Income (AMI) or below”. (NYCHA, 2013) Since the plan was first introduced the housing authority has stated that no residents would be displaced as a result of the plan and no buildings would be demolished. The new buildings would mostly be developed on parking lots or trash

Source: New York City Housing Authority, 2013

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

compactor sites. Currently the infill plan is the most profitable proposal to fund the Housing Authority. The eight sites that are currently chosen for infill development include four developments on the Lower East Side, two on the Upper East Side, and one on the Upper West Side. One of the selected infill sites is Campos Plaza on the Lower East Side just south of Stuyvesant Town which was valued at $73 million in 2009. The development site is “presently occupied with dumpsters, 45 parking spaces and recreational area consisting of two basketball courts. The western edge of the Site is 134’ deep and spans from 12th street to 13th street.” The original plan did not include a reintroduced streetscape, but a new plan should reconnect East 13th street between Avenues B and C to the surrounding grid. 13th Street could then serve be a pedestrian street with retail stores and seating areas, providing further use to the site. The development is only two blocks from Tompkins Square Park a

Source: New York City Housing Authority, 2013

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Campos Plaza parking lot. Site of proposed infill development. Source: New York City Housing Authority,

desired location for many local businesses. Despite the profits that can potentially be gained from the infill plan, there has been an increasing amount of disapproval since the plan first presented. The Housing Authority made an effort to present the plan to the community and engage in a discussion. The meetings were scheduled with little notice and were held in gyms with no air conditioning on hot summer nights, which led to poor attendance and therefore ended up being a NYCHA monologue which caused residents to feel excluded from the process. (Miranda, 2013) From the start residents felt distrustful of the Housing Authority, sensing the loss of land to infill development would not outweigh the potential positives from increased funding. While many residents fear that they will lose open green space, and parking spaces, others worry about what how this plan will impact the community. In February 2014 a tenant leader of the Lower East Sides Smith Houses announced the community would not back any infill plan, despite the terms. Some residents have expressed fears that the infill plan would â&#x20AC;&#x153;feed a spiraling process of gentrification and displacementâ&#x20AC;? with increased rents and displaced local businesses.(Angotti, 2013) NYCHA officials have stated that the targeted sites are in post-gentrified neighborhoods. While this is 36

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

mostly true, the concern is somewhat valid, as businesses that are located in close proximity to the developments and primarily serve NYCHA residents could be displaced. Critics of the plan have also voiced a concern of conflict between new residents and NYCHA residents. New York City has a history of pushing out communities of color to make way for wealthier, often white developments. Many of the sites that are targeted were once black or Puerto Rican communities until they were displaced to make room for Jewish or Italian residents. To address these concerns the Authority must put a greater emphasis on assuring current residents that they will not be displaced. Further, a portion of the funds must be used for community development and social resources. The infill plan stated it would significantly reduce the rents of affordable units in the new developments and provide preference to current NYCHS residents. This statement must be taken seriously. The Housing Authority has often been criticized because residents stay in their apartments for years, instead of using them as a stepping stone towards acquiring an apartment in the private market. The infill plan is an opportunity to provide affordable apartments to those residents who are able to make the step out of public housing. Other concerns of the infill plan are centered around the loss of open space. The tower-in-the-park model that these developments are planned around has been criticized by planners, with the one positive feature being the open space provided. Eliminating the park from the tower-in-the-park would be devastating. This is a valid complaint, but only a small part of the picture. Open space will be lost from the infill plan, but the majority of the lost space will be parking lots. Most residents in public housing do not own a car, and those who do should not be given a free parking spot

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

from the city when there is street parking. Car ownership should not be incentivized by the housing authority with parking spaces when the land has more valuable uses. Despite this, many of the infill developments, if not all, will replace the parking spaces that are lost. Public housing should not be planned around the automobile, but around the community. Out of the 8 developments chosen for infill development, four will only lose parking lots to infill development. The remaining four development sites also include mainly parking lots with two basketball courts, one paved baseball court, a seating area, a landscaped area, a garbage compactor yard, and a community center and health clinic at the Washington Houses on the Upper East Side. Residents at the Washington Houses have been rightfully upset about the loss of their community center and health clinic. These are two very important social resources that the community relies on. Through the infill plan the community center and health clinic will be relocated and likely improved. In addition to the capital needs improvements that will result from infill development, one of the best, and often overlooked outcomes of the plan will be the restructuring of the super-block. The tower-in-the-park design has been criticized for many reasons. The design combines city blocks into one super block that becomes isolated from the community. Towers that are only used for public housing residents deters the outside community from entering the site. As a result super blocks are often removed from the rest of the neighborhood and have been known to cause crime and isolate poverty. In addition the community aspect and social interaction that is often associated with sidewalks in the city, is often absent in NYCHAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s developments. The infill plan therefore, gives NYCHA the opportunity to reinstitute the grid back into its

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

developments. Many NYCHA super blocks are built over the pre-existing grid, often leaving the infrastructure buried under the street. This would make it easy to rebuild the streets that once ran through these developments. Not only would it help to make NYCHA buildings less isolated from the surrounding city, but it would give a streetscape for residents to socialize. With trees and benches these public spaces would be a huge addition to the housing development. Adding mixed uses like stores, gardens, and seating areas along these new streets would bring a flow of traffic and the life of the city back into these developments.

Rendering of a reintroduced streetscape from infill development. Source: Municipal Art Society

Infill development can further add to the developments by adding commercial development to the ground level of its new and preexisting buildings. Commercial leases will provide revenue for the housing authority, services for its residents, and help to build community interaction in the developments. Today only 28 of the NYCHA developments in the city offer commercial leases. In 1992 urban planner and tower in

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

the park critic, Jane Jacobs stated that NYCHA could “rectify this commercial absence” by relinking the developments to the city with through streets and adding “diverse commercial facilities along the newly built streets.”(Galef, 2010) Many of the buildings that were demolished to make way for public housing in New York City had commercial storefronts on the ground floor. According to former New York City housing commissioner, the Federal Government wouldn't pay for commercial space, so they were never built. Infill development is a perfect way to make up for this absence of retail space throughout NYCHA developments. If store fronts are planned to coincide with new streetscapes these two additions will provide space for community interaction within NYCHA developments. The idea of reconnecting the grid is not completely new to infill development. In 2011 the Harlem Children’s Zone charter school purchased a plot of unused land in the St. Nicholas Houses in Harlem, building a

Reintroduction of 129th Street by the Harlem Children's Zone in the St. Nicholas Houses in Harlem. Source: Architects Newspaper

school and community center in the middle of the development. 129th street, which had been built over when the housing project was erected, was put back on the map. When discussing the plan at St Nicholas Ilene Popkin, NYCHA’s assistant deputy general

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

manager explained super-blocks can be isolating and difficult to police. “The idea [to reconnect West 129th Street] is that you would have more lighting, more eyes on the street, and more activity, which would help increase the level of safety,” (Galef, 2013) Infill development can also help to eliminate the physical stigma that is often associated with public housing units by reintegrating them back into the fabric surrounding neighborhoods. Often the physical appearance of NYCHA developments “differs sharply from the rest of the neighboring housing stock.. isolated from the surrounding streetscape.. {and} devoid of decoration and amenity.”(Schwartz ch. 6, p. 8, 2014) The physical quality of public housing is often also inferior to that of the surrounding neighborhood. The infill plan gives NYCHA the chance to fuse NYCHA developments into the surrounding community and rehabilitate the buildings to a higher standard. Reconstructing these developments will not only improve the quality of the buildings but will make it harder for the public to identify what is or is not public housing. One of the largest complaints with Bloomberg’s Infill Plan is the amount of affordable housing that will be made available in the new developments. Fred Harris stated that “there is a group of housing advocates who say the land should only be used for highly affordable housing.”(Harris, 2014) The current plan calls for eighty percent of the new apartments to go at market rate with only twenty percent affordable housing. The goal of the plan is to profit from new developments so that NYCHA can get much needed funds, but it should be able to address affordable housing issues at the same time. To get more community support, a new plan under Mayor deBlasio must offer more affordable housing while helping fund the housing authority at the same time.

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

More affordable housing however, is easier said than done. When asked, why doesn't deBlasio just add more affordable housing to the infill plan Fred Harris explained; “The problem is that the incentive is a step function… if you do 20% affordable you get tax abatement. If you do 30% you don’t get a bigger tax abatement. If you do 19% you get nothing… You can write the rules so that you get some benefit at 10% and better at 20%, and even better 30%… You Can also redefine affordable to be a higher income level. Some people say we need more middle income housing.” (Harris, 2014)

! If developers are looking for a tax abatement to build affordable housing, one option may be building more commercial, and including it in the total number of units that the 20% affordable is based off of, similar to what deBlasio recently did with plans for the Domino Sugar site in Williamsburg Brooklyn. (The Domino Effect, 2014) In addition to providing more affordable housing, a new infill plan must also build an alliance between the NYCHA residents and the housing authority. One of the reasons why Bloomberg’s plan failed was that it lacked community understanding and involvement. One of the main regrets of Fred Harris was the lack of communication between the housing authority and its residents. Harris stated that if he did it over again “the key would be to make the residents understand that 100% of the money would be spent on improving their homes. This message never got through to them. The message should be that it benefits the people who live in the buildings.”(Harris, 2014) From an outside perspective it is clear that all the funds from the infill plan would go towards capital improvements of the buildings and residents would not be displaced. Everything I read about the plan stressed the importance of these two points. Still the residents did not get the message or did not believe it. This really highlights the distrust the residents have of the Housing Authority and of city hall. Not only should the Housing

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Authority work with the community to plan and implement infill development, but it should use it as a tool to form an alliance between the residents, the outside community and the housing authority. If residents are able to be a part of a plan that they benefit from, the infill plan can actually be a success for everyone involved.

! SELLING MANHATTAN’S PROJECTS Even more radical than the Infill Plan are the proposals to completely tear down the developments in gentrified neighborhoods in Manhattan. While these plans are not politically feasible, because of the residents that would be displaced from their homes, it is still important to understand the more extreme proposals for NYCHA. Architect and urban planner Vishaan Chakrabarti has discussed the idea of selling off Manhattan’s highest priced developments to build mixed income buildings at increased densities: “Sell off Manhattan’s projects and build bigger, better housing in the boroughs… It’d be close to politically impossible, but relocating 115,000 NYCHA residents to the outer-boroughs could generate enough money to build several times as many units of affordable and true project housing in less expensive parts of the city. Consider: The housing projects of the Lower East Side are bigger than Stuyvesant Town, which sold for $5.4 billion.” (Bonanos, 2013) The idea of rebuilding the NYCHA developments is justified. Not only would more people be able to live on the sites, but the sites could receive upgrades similar to 43 Wall of Public Housing along the East River; Baruch, Riis, and Wald Houses. May 25th, 1954. Source: Laguardia and Wagner Archives.

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

those I discussed in the infill plan. Newer buildings would also need less maintenance over time and consume less energy. Still, there are many problems with this proposal. First, the land should not be sold. If the land was to be redeveloped it should be leased by the city, similar to the infill plan, giving the city ultimate control over what is built and guaranteeing revenue in the future. If private developers were to build mixed -income housing on these sites, they must replace, if not add to the current amount of public housing units on site. Open space cannot be substituted for increased density. Removal of parking lots for new apartments is justified, but taking away valuable playgrounds, green space, or community centers would take away one of the best design features these developments have to offers. The residents greatly benefit from these spaces and they cannot be developed. Instead, the city must make sure that the open space on site is upgraded, making similar improvements to the ones I have previously stated could be beneficial from infill development. The biggest issue surrounding this proposal, that also makes it the most controversial and politically impossible would be the displacement of residents to build these developments. Even if the developments were built one at a time, temporarily moving the

Smith Houses nearing completion, October 17th, 1952. Source: LaGuardia and Wagner Archives

residents from development to development, it would end up in a massive displacement. Further more, Chakrabarti

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

calls for selling off the land and moving the residents to the outer boroughs were land is cheaper. Howard Husock at City Journal has an even more extreme solution than Chakrabarti. Husock states that instead of infill development the city should outright sell the developments with the highest land values; “to sell these eight public housing complexes outright and to relocate the tenants, either to other NYCHA projects or to rental units covered by the government,” not replacing the redeveloped sites with a portion of public housing.(Husock, 2013) If this were to happen, almost the entirety of Manhattan would no longer have a lower-income population. As housing prices skyrocket and affordability becomes more of an issue, NYCHA provides residents in Manhattan with decent housing that they would otherwise be unable to afford. Just because a family does not make over a certain amount of money, is disabled, or elderly, does not mean that they should not live in Manhattan. New York City has always been known for its diversity- cultural, racial and economic. If NYCHA residents in Manhattan were pushed out of the borough, there would be no more economic diversity. As Chakrabarti states in his book Country of Cities, “once all the poor have been forced out… the city becomes more cultural artifact that cultural hotbed, more museum than metropolis.” (Chakrabarti, 192, 2014)

! ElIMINATE MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION FOR HIGHER INCOME LEVELS Most people are surprised to learn that the largest federal housing subsidy is not public housing, or even section 8, but the homeowners mortgage interest deduction at over $100 billion a year. The mortgage interest deduction incentivizes homeownership

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

by reducing taxable income by the amount of interest that is paid on a mortgage. In his book “Country of Cities” Vishaan Chakrabarti proposes gradually eliminating the mortgage interest deduction entirely, as “tax credits and other subsidies for low-income Americans shamefully pale in comparison to the housing subsidies given to the middle and lower class… [Mortgage interest deduction] is disproportionately used by wealthier Americans who buy far more expensive homes.” (Chakrabarti, 203, 2013) Mortgage interest deduction does promote homeownership and sometimes is the difference between renting and buying for lower-middle income families. Because of that it should not be totally eliminated. The problem with mortgage interest deduction is that, as Chakrabarti notes, is predominantly used by wealthier americans, to buy expensive, large houses, sometimes second homes. While these federal subsidies are going to wealthy homeowners, public housing residents are often stigmatized as “victims” who are living off of government assistance. If the mortgage interest deduction were phased out for higher income levels and second homes, it would still promote homeownership for those who may otherwise rent, with the remaining subsidies going towards people more in need, improving public housing developments, building schools and community centers. Mortgage interest deduction is not only the largest housing subsidy, but in fact the largest federal subsidy of any type. Countries without mortgage interest deduction like Canada, Australia, and the UK have similar homeownership rates, proving that a phase out of this subsidy for higher income levels and second homes would not have a catastrophic impact on homeownership in America. The willingness of the Federal Government to defund public housing while providing subsidies to wealthy homeowners raises many questions about housing policy in the United States.

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

ZONING INCENTIVES - TAX ABATEMENTS In addition to federal policy, city and state housing policy needs to increase support for public housing. Another possible solution the city might use to get funding for NYCHA capital improvements is to offer zoning and tax incentives for rehabilitating NYCHA developments. Currently New York City offers incentives like zoning bonuses or tax abatements for providing affordable housing. Similarly in the 1980’s zoning incentives were offered for developers who built public plazas or rehabilitated subway stations. As more new developments are going up in neighborhoods nearby NYCHA developments, developers should be offered incentives for work done on NYCHA developments including retrofitting old buildings to be more energy efficient or making much needed repairs, rebuilding old community centers, and retrofitting buildings to be energy efficient.

! X: CONCLUSION Public housing in New York City has always played an important role and over 615,199 people still depend on it today. New York’s housing authority provides housing for those in New York City who cannot afford decent housing without external support. Given the massive scale of NYCHA, which is the city’s largest landlord, there is bound to be problems, however these problems do not equate to those of the notorious and now demolished projects in other American cities. These projects such as Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini Green have implanted a negative connotation in the general public’s mind of what public housing represents. This is not representative of public housing in New York City and therefore NYCHA needs to find a way to be disassociated with the Pruitt-Igoes and Cabrini Greens of the world. Similarly, there needs to

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

be reinvestment and re-interest in New York public housing on all levels including public perception. Through the right program and changes NYCHA can be given a brighter future. NYCHA buildings have many positive aspects that should be held on to. They were built to last and with needed improvements can continue to house those who are unable to afford decent housing. Because of this the buildings should not be torn down, but improved upon. Although the infill plan under Bloomberg was thrown out by deBlasio, the new mayor referenced the need for infill development in his recently released affordable housing plan, stating a new proposal would be released within a year. The initial infill plan had many positive qualities and does not need to be reworked but should just be improved upon. The longer City Hall and the Housing Authority waits, the worse condition the buildings will be in, translating to a higher cost to fix them. The failure of the infill plan under Bloomberg can be attributed to poor community involvement rather than any inherent problems with infill development on NYCHA sites. However, there is now an opportunity for the Housing Authority to make physical and social improvements to the infill plan. When implementing these changes, planners and politicians need to understand that infill development is not just about the physical buildings that will be constructed on public housing sites but more importantly about the social interactions and sense of community that a new landscape could create. This is the challenge, and what needs to be understood, is that for infill development to succeed it must be integrated into the community physically and socially. Part of infill development should require refurbishment and redesign of existing NYCHA developments including through streets to be reintroduced to the preexisting super blocks. Mixed-income and mixed-use buildings including community centers and other social resources and infrastructure will play an important role as well. The Harlem River Houses are a great example of what public housing in New York City can accomplish. What makes the Harlem River Houses so successful is that they are not just physical buildings, but a mixed-use development with community centers, a library, a daycare center and welcoming open space. It is not just physical infrastructure but social infrastructure. Infill can make NYCHA developments

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

more like the Harlem River Houses -not just buildings, but communities that are integrated into the surrounding city. NYCHA cannot and will not survive it if does not take advantage of its biggest asset, its land. Some would argue that inherently public housing cannot be a profit making enterprise, but that does not mean it cannot leverage its assets. When these developments were built, no one foresaw the value they would be worth today. In response to the rise in land values and growing budget deficit, NYCHA needs to redesign its approach to utilizing its assets. The infill plan is an important part of the puzzle. In my opinion it is the single most, reliable and plausible way of funding and improving public housing in New York. Still, it is important to remember, that it cannot be the only solution. The infill plan will help to make NYCHA financially self sustainable, however the Housing Authority was not designed to generate its own capital, but to be subsidized by the city, state, and Federal Governments. As a mayor who ran on a campaign of improving affordable housing for New Yorkers, deBlasio needs to acquire city and state funding immediately. The Housing Authority has to be a bigger priority and should be a larger part of the city’s budget. When deBlasio ran for Mayor he called for “a total reset of public housing”, in fact ,what is needed is a total reset of city, state, and federal policy towards public housing. As I have stated, distressed public housing is not representative of the majority of public housing in the United States. The government should not let this stigma get in the way much needed funding. America has a sense of political apathy towards public housing and even though the Federal Government created public housing it will no longer stabilize it. Public Housing is criticized as being a failed program and a waste of federal funds, even though it provides housing to those most in need while the wealthy are receiving mortgage interest deductions for mansions and second homes. New York City public housing is proof of why public housing should be given a new life, and cannot be given up on. As Vishaan Chakrabarti concluded, public housing is necessary to give all Americans an equal opportunity. “Opportunity is the most American of values, and providing it fairly is the true meaning of social equity… No environment can better yield equal

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

opportunity, with greater access to economic productivity and lower cost to achieve it, than the American City. We can build prosperous, sustainable, joyous cities for all Americans. We can do it with the tools and the funds at hand. And we should do it, because it is the right thing to do.â&#x20AC;? (Chakrabarti, 206, 2014)

! ! ! ____________________________________________________________________________ BIBLIOGRAPHY

!! Angotti, Tom. Stop NYCHA Infill Plan, Save Public Housing. City Journal, 2013. https:// www.citylimits.org/conversations/201/developing-public-housing-land

Bloom, Nicholas. Public Housing That Worked. New York: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. Print.

!Bloom, Nicholas. A Call to Order: What the History of the New York

City Housing Authority Teaches About the Future and Past of Social Welfare Policy. 2013. http://www.adelphi.edu/peoplematter/pdfs/Bloom.pdf

!Bloom, Nicholas. Learning from New York. Journal of the American Planning Association. New York, 2012. !Bonanos, Christopher. The Affordable City. New York Magazine. December 29, 2013. http:// nymag.com/news/features/affordable-housing-2014-1/ !Bristol, Katherine. The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. University of California, Berkeley, 1991. http://www.pruitt-igoe.com/temp/1991-bristol-pruitt-igoemyth.pdf !Caro, Robert A. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York: Vintage, 1974. !Chakrabarti, Vishaan. A Country of Cities. New York: Metropolis Books, 2013. Print !The Council of the City of New York. Hearing on the 2014 - 2018 Operating and Capital Budget

and the Fiscal 2014 Preliminary Mayors Management Report: New York City Housing Authority. March 21, 2014.

!The Domino Effect. TWO TREESâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; DOMINO COMES TO CITY HALL. 2014. http:// thedominoeffectmovie.com/two-trees-domino-comes-to-city-hall/ !! 50

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Goetz, Edward. The Transformation of Public Housing Policy,1985–2011. Journal of American Planning Association, 2012.

!Gellman, Eric. Robert Taylor Homes. Encyclopedia of Chicago, 2005. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2478.html !!

Husock Howard. The Frozen City. City Journal, 2013. http://www.city-journal.org/2013/specialissue_housing.html

!Husock, Howard. Project Phaseout Selling New York’s Vast Public-housing Stock Would Generate Enormous Revenues and Help the Poor. City Journal. 2013 http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_project-phaseout.html

!Galif, Julia. CHARTER SCHOOL SET FOR HARLEM HOUSING SUPERBLOCK. October, 7th, 2010. Architects Newspaper. !Edward Goetz, The Transformation of Public Housing Policy,1985–2011. JAPA 78, (2012): !Heathcott, Joseph. Strange Career of Public Housing. Journal of American Planning Association. 78:4, 360-375. 2012. !U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Rental Assistance Demonstration. 2011. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=rental-assist.pdf !! National Building Museum, Cabrini-Green & Parkside of Old Town, Chicago, IL -- House & Home. Oct 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTQ8rlxzvz4

!Navarro, Mireya. Land Leases Are Deferred to deBlasio. December 20, 2013. The New York Times. !Navarro, Mireya. Affordability Will Be Focus For New Housing Leaders. February 8, 2014. The New York Times !New York City Housing Authority. Land Lease Opportunity to Preserve Public Housing. http:// www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/preserving/leasing-land.shtml 2013 !New York City Housing Authority. Fact Sheet - New York City Housing Authority. 2014 <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/factsheet.shtml. !New York City Housing Authority. Historical Information - New York City Housing Authority. 2013. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/about/nycha70_hist_docs.shtml

!New York City Housing Authority. LAND LEASE INITIATIVE—PRE-RFP DISCUSSION

DOCUMENT. 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/land-lease-initiative-pre-rfpdiscussion-document.pdf

!New York City Housing Authority. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NAMES

FREDERICK S. HARRIS AS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR DEVELOPMENT. February 1st, 2013. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/news/pr-feb12-01.shtml

Public Housing: The Devolution of Funding & A New Life For NYCHA

Popkin, Susan J. Race and Public Housing: Transformation in the United States <http://www.eslarp.uiuc.edu/courses/FAA391_Spring11/Popkin.pdf 2011.

!Pruitt-Igoe Myth. The Pruitt-Igoe Myth: an Urban History. 2011. pruitt-igoe.com !Schwartz, Alex. Housing Policy in the United States. Third Edition. New York. Routledge, 2014. !Smith, Greg. Two Reports Expose City Housing Authority Management… The Daily News. August 17, 2013. !Stewart, Nikita. With His First Budget, de Blasio Hews to Familiar Campaign Themes. New York Times, February 12th, 2014. !The Economist. Why the Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project Failed. The Economist Newspaper, 15 Oct. 2011. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/10/american-public-housing>.

!Terry, Don. The Final Farewell At Cabrini-Green. The New York Times. 2010. !Vitullo-Martin, Julia. Linking a City Housing Authority’s Money Woes and a Jacobs Complaint. NY Sun, September 13, 2007. !Vogel, Josh. Interview with Fred Harris. March 17, 2014. !Vinnitskaya , Irina. New York City Preserves Public Housing by Leasing Infill Land. ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/363950 24 Apr 2013.