Pratt Institute - White Paper on Housing Policy by Pratt GCPE

Housing in New York City: In the Context of Carbon, Climate, and Social Justice Pratt Institute School of Architecture Housing Consortium, Fall 2021

Executive Summary

New York City, as in many parts of the United

in to play new tools such as mass timber; to

States (U.S.), has long suffered from a chronic

increase housing production sustainably;

shortage of affordable housing. The U.S. has

and to face up to the inevitable consequence of

never seriously embraced housing as a national

sea level rise with a humanistic planning

priority--unlike, for instance, post-war Europe

approach; all to redress the long-ignored

where recovery demanded massive government

environmental and social inequities in our city.

housing production. Even the federal public housing program was a reluctant and parsimonious effort,

It is to this end that Pratt Institute’s Housing

poorly crafted in ways that exacerbate racial

Consortium pursued the five topics that are

and social inequalities. New York City’s public

the subject of this paper. The authors are

housing program-generally seen as successful,

experts in their field and propose sound

was the result of not one federal program but

policies to address these issues. It is our

rather a series of six or seven different programs

hope that these ideas might gain traction

undertaken between 1937 and today. Financial

among politicians and policy-makers-- at

support for housing production on the supply

first in New York City, and perhaps later

side has all but ended at the federal level, with

beyond.

tax credits being the main incentive to entice private developers to subsidize some housing. Demand side subsidies such as Section-8 provide assistance to renters but have not proven

Ten Key Recommendations

successful in stimulating production of housing

1. Adopt a foundational “right to housing” policy

at affordable rents. Home ownership programs

for the city. Climate change will force increasing

have similarly fallen short of providing support

numbers of people to be displaced. Our

below the level of the working middle calls,

responsibility is to guarantee future generations

leaving lower income families in need.

of their right to housing and to make sure that their rights can be met without dramatic

Add to this long-standing limitation the further

disruptions.

problems of increasing income inequality, a steep decline in housing production, the

2. Adopt policies promoting mass timber to meet

pandemic, and climate change- particularly with

to catch up to other cities around the world where

respect to rising sea levels and flood hazard;

millions of square feet of engineered mass timber

meaning that we now face a crisis of unprecedented

buildings have been built since the 1990s. Adjust

proportions and complexity.

the City’s building code accordingly, carry out

Nevertheless, as they say, “never waste a good

zoning, and pursue public/private partnerships

crisis.” The current moment may offer an

to foster the forestry industry in New York State.

opportunity for a call to arms, to finally focus our

3. Implement, enforce, and strengthen Local Law 97 (LL97)-- the centerpiece of New York City’s

New York City’s and global climate targets, and

training and pilot projects, employ incentive

attention on “Housing as a human right;” to bring

1 Peter

Marcuse has identified seven distinct program of the New York Housing Authority (NYCHA), beginning with First Houses (as housing for working families) even before the 1937 federal housing act and including programs such as war-worker housing during WWII, post-war middle class housing, and ending with infill housing in the 1990s. At each phase the program was seen as the end of new production.

landmark Climate Mobilization Act of 2019 (CMA),

Plan for improving the communities to be

also known as the NYC Green New Deal. LL97

densified; for honoring historic resources and

and later amendments place strict limits on

narratives; and for repurposing the areas of

greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Extend the

retreat for public benefit, such as parks and a

law’s full coverage to include all larger subsidized

return to nature. Be smart: Actively discourage

housing and faith-based properties after 2035;

new development in the areas most at risk.

provide more flexibility for how compliance is

8. Adopt the principle of humanistic and

achieved; and provide financial support to help affordable housing developments comply. 4. Lobby and rally for guaranteed annual income or second income startegies, reparations, universal access to capital, etc.---to get at the root cause of inadequate affordable housing: inadequate household incomes. 5. Make mandatory inclusionary housing universal in New York City, even for as-of-right development. Require Community Boards to identify workable sites for affordable and mixed-income development to meet quantifiable objectives indicated in a “fair share plan” for New York City. To make such development more practical: eliminate parking requirements proximate to subway stations, increase funding for supportive housing, and broaden the opportunity for accessory apartments across more typologies.

. for homeownership 6. Maximize opportunities that builds intergenerational wealth, especially for BIPOC (Black, indigenous, people of color). Support tried and true as well as innovative approaches in both shared ownership and sweat equity. Lobby for a federal home ownership down payment assistance program.

to when, how, and within reason when to relocate. This means meaningful community participation especially for BIPOC populations; financing the full, true costs of relocation (not just the cost of the unit); use of Section-8 Housing Choice (or similar) funding that gives low-income households rental support not tied to an address; and creative use of easements and covenants, such as government purchase of the property with a right for the residents to remain for the interim. 9. Fully finance New York City Housing (NYCHA) building rehabilitation, while also reserving ‘upland’ NYCHA property and finding new sites to potentially accommodate NYCHA residents who will be displaced from campuses that are expected to be under high tide or often flooded as of the year 2100. As the final, tenth recommendation: This is a multi-decade effort that will prove budget-busting unless we start now and spread out the costs over decades. We recommend tapping into new revenue streams, such as restoring the New York State Stock Transfer Tax, adjustments to how property is taxed, or “flip taxes” on property sales.

7. In coastal areas that will be under high tide by 2100: Start now to comprehensively plan for

Raising taxes is never popular; it is always

both household relocation (for renters and

York City a national model for taking advantage

lobbied against. But it is necessary to make New

homeowners, alike) and whole community

of emerging technologies that can reduce the

climigration (e.g., for tightknit communities

city’s carbon footprint, meaningfully adding to

and public housing tenants). Adjust the City’s

the supply of affordable housing at multiple

review process to fully address climate change

income tiers, achieving humanistic retreat that

over the next century, to forestall treating

yields a better city and is equitable, and

climate change as “the next mayor / mortgage

demonstrating the principle of housing as a right.

cycle’s problem.”

managed retreat, hinging on resident choice as

List of Participants

Housing Consortium

Managed Relocation

David Burney, Consortium Coordinator

Deborah Helaine Morris, Group Chair

Carolyn Levine, Graduate Assistant

Moses Gates

Zein Ali Ahmad, Graduate Assistant

Sheena Kang Jessica Katz

Principal Editor

Marc Norman

John Shapiro, GCPE

Leonel Lima Ponce Thaddeus Pawlowski

The Right to Housing

John Shapiro

Ron Shiffman, Group Chair

A.R. Siders

Roland Anglin Jerrod Delaine

Whole Community Relocation

Amron Lee

Deborah Gans, Group Chair

Delaney Morris

Viren Brahmbhatt

Rob Robinson

Meta Brunzema

Sharon Egretta Sutton

Chris Cahill

Ahmedi Vawda

Theo David Jerrod Delaine

Decarbonization and New Housing Models

Ryan Devlin

Meta Brunzema, Group Chair

Fred Harris

Dylan Baker-Rice

Karen Kubey

Viren Brahmbhatt

Zehra Kuz

Christopher Cirillo

Radhi Majmudar

Jerrod Delaine

Elliott Maltby

Frances Huppert

Gita Nandan

Zehra Kuz

John Shapiro

Richard Leigh

Ron Shiffman

Radhi Majmudar

Stephen Slaughter

Eunjeong Seong

Lacy Tauber Vicki Weiner

Desegregation and Implementation Jerrod Delaine, Group Chair Meta Brunzema Chris Cirillo Ryan Devlin Fred Harris Karen Kubey Zehra Kuz John Shapiro Stephen Slaughter

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. The Right to Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Decarbonization and New Housing Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Desegregation and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. Managed and Whole Community Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 image 1

Introduction

In the spring of 2020, Dean Harriet Harris of the School of Architecture, Pratt Institute, asked

The Consortium held a symposium in late 2020

Professor David Burney to lead a consortium of

bringing together a variety of housing experts to

architects and urbanists-- mainly but not

discuss the best way to propose, and to

exclusively teaching at Pratt Institute--in an

advocate for, housing solutions. After the

exploration of housing issues, with thought to

symposium five sub-groups began independent

where Pratt may have a positive impact on

discussion of some major themes that arose in

discourse within and especially outside of

the symposium:

academia. Fundamentals- the Right to Housing Over the past several months, the Consortium

Decarbonization and new housing models and

has been preoccupied with the broad issue of

typologies

housing access and affordability in the United

Managed Community “Climigration”

States of America. While this is and has been

Process and Policies for Planned Retreat and

an ongoing concern among housing professionals,

Repositioning

the current depth of this crisis, exacerbated by increasing income inequality, a steep decline in housing production, the pandemic, and climate change -- particularly with respect to rising sea levels and flood hazard -- provokes a greater sense of urgency. Also, there is the hope that political change at both. the federal and local levels might bring about a political climate in which solutions could be implemented.

Desegregation, Financing, Implementation What follows are policy papers that emerged from each of these five sub-groups. While there is overlap between them, it seems helpful to focus on each separately as they invoke different solutions. Over the next months the Consortium will begin looking for opportunities to promote these proposals and have them adopted at the federal and local level, as well as for ways in which the thinking and unresolved issues raised in this ‘white paper’ might be reflected in the school’s own research and pedagogy, to deepen knowledge and prepare future professionals for the times to come.

The Right to Housing 6

7 image 2

The Right to Housing

The right to housing must be understood as part

effect the essential importance of internation-

of an integral and universal struggle for dignity

al co-operation based on free consent.

and justice and for freedom from want. National,

(Byrne and Culhane, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship

State, and municipal governments too often

Repository, 2011)

misunderstand the right to housing as merely a commitment to housing production programs

The difference between these 1948 Universal

and ignore the adverse impacts of racial, social,

Declaration and the 1966 ICESCR documents is

economic, cultural, and environmental discrimi-

that the Universal Declaration is not binding on

nation and the absence of access to equitable

nations; while the ICESCR requires those nations

and judicially just support systems. The right to

that ratified it to “take appropriate steps to

adequate and affordable housing is a product of

ensure the realization” of a right to housing. By

the intersection of economic, social, and cultural

ratifying the ICESCR, states not only accept the

justice. It should be conceived of as a common

principle of a right to housing, but also have a

good, universally available, and not as a

binding obligation to uphold and promote this

commodity accessible only to a privileged few.

right.

The commitment to ‘housing as a right’ was articulated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of

The United States (U.S.) Congress in the Housing

Human Rights (Universal Declaration) and again

Act of 1949, declared:

in the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). They can be summarized as follows: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 25 (1)]: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for [the] health and well-being of himself [or herself] and his [or her] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary

general welfare and security of the Nation and the health and living standards of its people require housing production and related community development sufficient to remedy the serious housing shortage, the elimination of sub-standard and other inadequate housing through the clearance of slums and blighted areas, and the realization as soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and a suitable

social services.”

living environment for every American family,

ICESCR, Article 11(1): “The States party to the

redevelopment of communities and to the

present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself [or herself] and his [or her] family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this

SEC. 2. The Congress hereby declares that the

thus contributing to the development and advancement of the growth, wealth, and security of the Nation.

As long as 50 years ago, Sharon Segretta Sutton

expected dramatic increases in the numbers of

spoke to the dissonance between these two

people being displaced due to climate change?

documents. “We need to reorient the 1949

How will we be able to assure our children and

construction industry stance to human well-be-

their children their right to housing and the ability

ing and then we can refine that stance to reflect

to live lives where dignity and justice coupled

the effects of climate change and racism on

with the enhancement of one’s ability to satisfy

people’s ability to secure their needs.” Sutton

their basic needs exists?

explained that the focus historically has been on brick-and-mortar development, responsive to the

Present programs and policies are not designed

hegemony of the construction industry inclusive

to address the wicked challenges that face us.

of developers. The deviation and slippage from

The level of funding to address the issues, while

the international focus on human well-being is

a fraction of the cost of not acting, is nowhere

significant and should be specifically acknowl-

near what it needs to be. Failure to act today, in

edged and addressed, period. This is more

turn, will be costly in terms of lives lost and in the

pressing than ever with banks and others buying

uncontrollable disruptions that will inevitably

houses as a place to park capital.

cascade throughout our planet, disrupting lives and uprooting nations.

Beyond righting a misdirection, all these foundational policy statements must be refined and updated to meet the needs and challenges of tomorrow. The interrelated

The Right to Housing underlies all of the other policy papers presented here: Decarbonization—as part and parcel of what we think of as

impacts of climate change and racism have

quality housing; housing choice for those to be

forced millions to be uprooted, while countless

relocated as a result of carbon change, including

other lives are lost and many more are

the ability to relocate as a community; and

threatened by gentrification, homelessness,

desegregation as a framework for providing

poverty, and inadequate housing. These

affordable housing.

violations of human rights, in particular the right to housing and the right to life, as well as other rights, such as the rights to health, physical integrity, privacy, water, and sanitation, are rarely addressed as such by governments, human rights institutions, or our judicial systems. The reality is that climate change will force increasing numbers of people to be displaced due to what many are calling climigratory (climate change related) issues. Given that already and increasingly grim reality, our responsibility in 2021 is to guarantee future generations their right to housing and to make sure that their rights can be met without dramatic disruptions. If we are barely able to meet the ‘right to housing today,’ how will we be able to address that right in the future given the 2

Ibid.

image 3

Decarbonization and New Housing Models

11 image 4

Decarbonization and New Housing Models Building and construction paradigms are

Mass Timber Construction

changing thanks to the ability to employ and reuse old materials in new ways (timber in

A large source of New York City’s greenhouse

particular), as well as greater understanding of

gas emission problem involves building

the impacts of past practices and potential to

construction – especially the use of steel and

retool for the better (building energy in particu-

concrete that use a great amount of energy in

lar). So must our approach to codes, construc-

their production.

tion, and incentives. The goal should be to promote housing production and modifications

The alternative is greater use of engineered

that take advantage of more sustainable

wood. Wood is a sustainable material that uses

practices, coupled with added, significant

little energy in its production and can be

benefits for owners, builders, and tenants, as well

replenished by forestry. Engineered timber

as with primary consideration for social and

products (for example of ‘cross-laminated

economic equity.

timber’ or GluLam) have increased the material strength of wood such that high-rise buildings

This policy brief covers two such topics:

can now be built using these engineered wood products. Contrary to intuition, timber performs

Mass timber construction for new

better than steel in a fire (steel buckles while

buildings and additions (through adaptive

timber protects itself with the charring of the

or in-kind reuse)

outer skin).

The support and expansion of energy

So why is New York not building with timber? It is

codes - especially Local Law 97 -

mostly because the City’s Building Code and

accompanied by incentives and technical

related regulations are outdated. The Internation-

assistance.

al Building Code now permits mass timber

figure 3

construction, and the City should adopt it. For both topics, New York City is the case study. We are attempting to provide greater

The rest of this section goes into more detail and

impetus and ability for the City to succeed in

lists the changes we propose to allow the

its goal of reducing New York City’s carbon

expansion of mass timber construction in New

emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.

York City. The vision is to significantly reduce

Action on reducing greenhouse gas

embodied carbon emissions in building materials

emissions in our city involves reduction in

and products to meet New York City’s and global

vehicular travel and conversion to electric

climate crisis targets.

vehicles. But as a transit-oriented city, the surprising fact is that the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions is from buildings. We applaud the 80 percent target and view it as reachable with doable (however radical) immediate action, such as that outlined below.

image 5

image 6

Objectives

Challenges

Transform New York City’s new construction

Buildings are a significant source of CO2 and

(including adaptive reuse and additions) into

other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not

massive carbon sinks by using structural

only in their operational energy consumption

timber building materials that sequester CO2,

(for heating, cooling, lighting, etc.) but also in

rather than emit CO2.

the embodied carbon emissions released before construction begins. These upfront

Implement mass timber construction

carbon emissions are created by the

technologies as well as regulatory and

manufacturing, transportation, and product

economic policies that promote mass timber

installation.

building in New York City and the sustainable management of source forests in New York

Research shows that for new buildings and

State—furthermore creating tens of

additions, policy efforts should primarily

thousands of high and low-tech jobs.

focus on reducing the embodied carbon emissions of structural building materials

Provide high-quality, healthy, and energy-effi-

(steel, concrete, and aluminum) to meet New

cient buildings.

York City’s and global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. If nothing is done to lower the embodied carbon emissions that are locked in place as soon as a building is built - those GHG emissions released will represent half of the entire carbon footprint of new construction between now and 2050 threatening to consume a large part of our remaining carbon budget.

Policy Proposals New policies that encourage mass timber are needed to meet New York City’s and global

worker training is offered in environmental justice and low and moderate-income communities, to equitably distribute the economic benefits of building decarbonization.

climate targets and to catch up to other cities around the world where millions of square feet of engineered mass timber buildings have been

Action Items

built since the 1990s. From 2021 onward, the New York City Building Congress expects that at least 56 billion dollars of new construction per year, most of which will be mid-rise construction. New York City’s mass timber policies should be formulated to carry out the following: Incentivize new construction and adaptive reuse of residential and commercial buildings with mass timber as a primary structural material. Mass timber can also be employed in combination with steel and/or concrete. Adopt the International Building Code 2021 that permits mass timber mid-rise buildings from two to 18 stories (or 270 feet high). Mass timber can be used to build walls, floors, roofs, and interior partitions of buildings. Examples: prefabricated Cross Laminated Timber solid panels, GluLam beams or columns, and other engineered timber products. Create thousands of new jobs in an emerging mass timber market in New York City. New jobs will be created in design, manufacturing, and construction. Added jobs will be created in the region’s forest areas where the timber may be sustainably harvested, as well as in factories where timber products are engineered, prefabricated, and assembled. Offer mass timber worker training to prepare for implementation of the International Building Code 2021, and to develop a skilled workforce in partnership with labor unions and manufacturers of timber

It will take considerable effort to implement these policies and bring timber-based construction to scale in a city of over 8 million people. We believe that the following actions are the first steps to be carried out in the immediate future—such as the next mayor’s first term in office. The Right to Housing underlies all of the other policy papers presented here: Decarbonization—as part and parcel of what we think of as quality housing; housing choice for those to be relocated as a result of carbon change, including the ability to relocate as a community; desegregation, as a framework for providing affordable housing; accompanied by quality education, as the key ingredient defining whether a community provides equitable opportunity for future generations of those most egregiously discriminated against in the United States: black, indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC)—whether it be for housing (the topic of this paper) or employment, education, upward mobility, access to resources, political power, and more.

Table 1. Action Items for Mass Timber Construction Action Items

Problem

Solution

New York City - all Public Agencies

New York City’s building codes do not yet allow mass timber, and the required material supply chains and labor practices have yet to be developed. Therefore, owners, builders, and designers are hesitant to adopt mass timber building systems since the established supply chains are found far from the region.

Lead by example by encouraging mass timber on larger public projects, since Local Law 86 already requires City building projects over $2 million in construction costs (public funds) to be Lead in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified. Mass timber can contribute to achieving LEED and other sustainability goals.

New York City (NYC) Department of Buildings (DOB) and the Fire Department of New York (FDNY)

To date, only a handful of mass timber buildings and additions have been completed in New York City, each of which required their owners/developers to apply for variances from the Building Code.

Swiftly adopt the latest International Building Code - IBC 2021 - which allows mass timber buildings from two to 18 stories or 270 feet high. As precedents: The IBC 2021 has already been adopted in the states of Oregon and Washington, as well as in Denver, Colorado.

The City’s current Building Code 2014 is based on the International Building Code 2009 (IBC 2009), in which most Mass Timber is illegal to build, and Cross Laminated Timber is not allowed. The NYC City Council intends to adopt its version of the International Building Code 2015 (IBC 2015); this code allows Cross Laminated Timber for buildings up to five stories.

NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)

Owners, builders, and designers are reluctant to adopt new mass timber building systems.

Lead by example by establishing HPD pilot projects that showcase mid-rise mass timber affordable housing—perhaps in tandem with architectural design competitions. Consider tax incentives (such as real estate tax abatements) tied to mass timber construction, especially for mid-rise affordable housing construction.

NYC Department of City Planning (DCP)

Owners, builders, and designers are reluctant to adopt new mass timber building systems.

Employ incentive zoning contingent on mass timber buildings and additions, applicable to all buildings but especially mid-rise, affordable housing construction.

Action Items

Problem

Solution

NYC Mayor's Office of M/WBEs (OM/WBE) and the NYC Department of Small Business Services (SBS)

Developers have a tough time meeting Minority / Women Business Enterprise (M/WBE) labor goals for mass timber construction.

On publicly funded projects, consider creating a M/WBE training program to meet potential labor goals. Also, encourage owner/developer investments in mass timber by allowing a reduction of M/WBE labor goals in exchange for the use of mass timber. This is practical since on-site construction labor will be reduced due to prefabricated building components.

NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC)

Mass timber fabrication plants are hundreds of miles away from New York City.

In partnership with the forestry industry in New York State, consider the development and investment in a City-sponsored prototype mass timber production and prefabrication facility to jump-start the adoption of mass timber in the city and state.

Outcomes Since mass timber stores, rather than emits CO2, it can be one of the most effective ways of meeting New York City, regional and global greenhouse gas emission reduction targets while significantly modernizing and decarbonizing the city’s construction industry.

Local Law 97 New York City has committed through the Local Law 97 (adopted in 2019) to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. LL 97 primarily applies to buildings over 25,000 square feet. That is an excellent start. Half of the building-induced CO2 (one-third of the total emissions) is from larger buildings.

Summary of Local Law 97 Local Law 97 of 2019 (LL97) is the centerpiece of New York City’s landmark Climate Mobilization Act of 2019 (CMA), also known as the NYC Green New Deal. LL97 and subsequent amendments will place strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from all buildings larger than 25,000 square feet. Limits effective from 2024 through 2029 will affect the largest emitters, about 25 percent of properties. Stricter limits will affect 75 percent of properties from 2030 through 2034. Emission limits for the period from 2035 onward are being developed by stakeholder working groups organized by the NYC Department of Buildings (DOB). Here are several key components of the law: (A) Covered by LL97: Most buildings larger than 25,000 square feet that report their energy and water data to the City (LL84). LL97 covers about 40,000 (or 4 percent) of the city’s one million buildings that currently contribute 33 percent of New York City’s

image 7

GHG emissions. These include commercial,

Alternative paths to LL97 compliance are

residential, healthcare, hotel, and other

offered to affordable and subsidized

use-groups. Each year, starting in May of

housing buildings that are larger than

2025, building managers must prove to DOB

25,000 SF with more than 35 percent

that their actual yearly building GHG

rent-regulated units, HDFC cooperatives,

emissions were lower than LL97 GHG

some tax-exempt multi-family rental

emissions limits, or be subject to violations

properties, New York City Housing Authority

and steep fines. LL97 supplies guidance on

(NYCHA) buildings, and buildings that take

how to calculate GHG emissions (CO2e) for

part in a project-based federal housing

each building.

program, as well as religious houses of worship. These mid-size and large buildings

(B) Flexible LL97 compliance paths are

- many of which are concentrated in the

offered to buildings that cannot meet the

City’s low-income communities of color -

required limits by (1) purchasing renewable

currently contribute 34 percent of New York

energy credits generated in NYC, or directly

City’s GHG emissions. LL97 stipulates that

feeding renewable energy into NYC’s electric

these buildings undertake a set of energy

grid (deductions up to 100 percent of GHG

conservation prescriptive measures (or

limits); and (2) by purchasing greenhouse

meet their LL97 2030 caps). These

gas offsets (i.e., tree planting, etc. -

prescriptive measures include the installa-

deductions up to 10 percent of GHG limits);

tion of insulation, sensors, or controls for

(3) carbon trading, where buildings that

existing HVAC equipment, as well as a

exceed their GHG goal can sell to buildings

series of other energy efficiency measures -

that cannot. NOTE: Details for these

to be completed by the end of December

compliance paths are not yet completed.

2024.

Energy efficiency measures to reduce building energy consumption are often limited by building insulation restrictions for a host of technical reasons or due to historic preservation protections. For these buildings, LL97 has supplied renewable energy and alternative compliance paths to meet its GHG emission goals. (See above.) Public buildings: While City-owned buildings do not have to report their emissions to

Local Law 97 Now We strongly advocate for the implementation, enforcement, and strengthening of Local Law 97 as well as related policies and incentives. Yet, to fully achieve the underlying intention of LL 97, we believe that New York City can and should do more as soon as possible.

Objectives

DOB, they are not exempt from the law. City-owned buildings are required to reduce their emissions by 40 percent by 2025, and by 50 percent by 2030, both relative to such emissions for the calendar year 2006. Federal and State buildings are exempt from LL97.

Reduce operational greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of mid-size and large existing buildings (heating, cooling, lighting, hot water, etc.) to meet New York City’s and global climate commitments.

Expand the energy retrofit market by $20 billion dollars from now until 2030, which will

Policy Framework

create approximately 140,000 design, engineering, and construction jobs.

Support subsidized housing by expanding the use of LL 96’s Property Assessed Clean

Provide valuable building upgrades and

Energy Program to supply low-interest loans

energy savings to building owners and

to buildings.

tenants.

Challenges

Further support subsidized housing by expanding and encouraging the use of New York City’s Retrofit Accelerator, which provides low- and no-cost technical advisory

Dense urban buildings are a significant

services to building owners.

source of CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Two thirds (67 percent) of New York City’s GHG emissions are caused by buildings - the equivalent of about 37 million metric tons of CO2e. Local Law 97 (LL97) places stringent GHG emission limits on building greater than 25,000 square feet, which today handle 33 percent of New York City’s GHG emissions.

image 9

Note: Local Law 84 of 2009 (and later

Action Items

amendments) mandates that energy use data for buildings greater than 25,000 square feet be collected by the City.

The City of New York and all its agencies need to

More decarbonization measures will be

barriers to the implementation of LL97, both

needed to reduce the emissions of one million buildings that are smaller than 25,000 SF. These buildings contribute 34 percent of New York City’s GHG emissions; the remaining 33 percent of GHG emissions are caused by other sectors including transportation, waste, etc.

acknowledge, respond, and resolve various political and technical by addressing the following: Continued Commitment to Local Law 97 The concern: Strong political leadership and resources will be needed to successfully implement, enforce, and strengthen LL97 and meet the City’s and global climate commitments from now until 2050. The solution: Publicly commit to the goals and implementation, enforcement, and strengthening of Local Law 97 as currently written, and invest in adequate budgetary, staffing, enforcement, training, and educa-

image 8

tional resources.

Table 2. Action Items for Local Law 97 (Now) Action Items

Problem

Solution

Information and Political Buy-In

At present, there is still a lack of understanding of the goals, strategies, timeline, and expected benefits of LL97 by many building owners, managers, professionals, non-profits, and tenants across the city.

In addition to the expansion of the NYC Sustainable Buildings website, invest in a massive information campaign about the Climate Mobilization Act and LL97’s paths to achieving the City’s climate goals, through building stock upgrades and a low-carbon energy mix. Educate, inform, and engage citizens by highlighting the benefits to owners, tenants, professionals, and labor and the planet. Outreach and education partnerships with community organizations across the city will be required to achieve these goals.

Predictability and Transparency

Many details of LL97 have yet to be identified. These include details about renewable energy credits and carbon trading, greenhouse gas offsets, distributed energy resources, and other alternative compliance paths, and whether these measures will result in an equitable share of benefits for all New Yorkers.

Swiftly develop the remaining details for all compliance paths. Clear rules will remove uncertainty and allow owners to start their long-term planning, design, and implementation work. Ensure that the fines collected from LL97 violations are equitably re-invested into technical and financial support programs to help owners comply with LL97. Also, some money could be equitably re-invested into ‘green’ industrial development, labor training, and public education. Continue to fine-tune, improve, and monitor the LL97 program, based on feedback by owners, tenants, building trades, unions, and the general public.

Building Owner Costs of Meeting LL97 GHG Limits

LL97 imposes financial hardship on those building owners that are not able to recapture their investments with energy cost savings and other decarbonization benefits.

Building owners need to invest in building upgrades to meet their LL97 legal requirements. However, COVID-19 has created hardships for many owners. DOB needs to aid these property owners with additional financial and technical support.

Action Items

Problem

Solution

The belief that the owners of covered buildings (4 percent of the city’s existing building stock) disproportionately bear the brunt of the City’s decarbonization strategy.

Secure added funding through President Biden’s American Jobs Act to fund the implementation of LL97.

Commercial Tenant Share of Emissions

For large commercial buildings, up to 40-60 percent of energy use is due to tenant-managed energy expenditures. Right now, LL97 penalties cannot be passed through to existing tenants, making it difficult for property owners to meet LL97 goals.

Provide existing and new commercial tenants with pathways for reduced consumption and ‘green leases.’ Note: A recent Carbon Trading Report suggests that allowing commercial tenants to own, buy, and sell carbon credits in the future, could incentivize tenant actions to reduce emissions.

Education About Residential Steam Heat Retrofits

Multifamily housing represents 64 percent of buildings over 25,000 square feet, and 76 percent of these units are heated by steam. Data shows that tenants often experience excessive heat and open their windows. Many steam systems function poorly, with clanging pipes, lack of temperature control by tenants, and simultaneous cold and hot apartment environments. Steam can only be generated by fossil fuel boilers, and electrifying steam is prohibitively expensive.

The DOB and its affiliates should invest in a significant expansion of their steam replacement training and education programs for multifamily housing projects, as part of the City’s Retrofit Accelerator and other programs. This means heat pumps either as a complete solution (mini-splits, VRF, etc..) or drivers for hydronic heat, converted from steam systems.

Local contractors, consultants, and engineers do not have adequate training to electrify steam buildings. Similarly, building owners and managers have little access to educational materials about converting from steam to heat pumps.

Shortage of Renewable Energy Sources (Or Credits)

In commercial buildings, most emissions come from electric generation, not on-site combustion of fossil fuels. Buildings cannot control the emissions of electricity provided by the grid. LL97 does not allow the use of renewable electricity generated outside of New York City borders for compliance, which makes it currently almost impossible to purchase renewable electricity to meet LL97 emission goals.

Invest in the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure - in New York City’s five boroughs, in partnership with the New York State Energy and Research Development Authority (NYSERDA) and other partners.

Action Items

Related Manufacturing and Jobs

Problem

There is a severe shortage of skilled workers in the building renovation, renewable energy, and related sectors and work that will be needed to implement LL97. Due to lack of adequate worker training, a majority of the estimated 140,000 building retrofit and renewable energy jobs (from now until 2030) will go to people who reside outside of the city and fail to provide the economic boost that many New Yorkers need, especially in marginalized communities of color.

Solution

Set ambitious M/WBE goals and invest in workforce development programs to train labor for the LL97 energy retrofit market in New York’s five boroughs but especially in marginalized communities of color. Invest in factories that support LL97 energy retrofits - i.e., ground and air-source heat pumps, triple-glazed windows, renewable energy components, etc.

There is a lack of New York City factories that make cost-effective products and related components for building energy retrofits and renewable energy production.

Passive Shading and Cooling Devices

Exterior awnings, shutters, blinds, or overhangs—if properly oriented to cut overheating—can be highly effective in reducing demand cooling loads in the hot weather months. Living green screens or walls can supply both cooling in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter.

The City should supply financial incentives for such passive devices, perhaps modeled on Vienna, Austria, where up to 50 percent of the costs of architectural exterior shading devices for residential retrofits are paid by the City.

Historic photos show fixed or retractable awnings on most of New York City’s residential windows. Passive exterior shading devices that cut down on heat in the summer are rare in residential building energy retrofits.

Material Recycling and Reuse Ecosystem

New York City’s building trades certainly recycle and re-use materials, but we believe that the building LL97 upgrades and retrofits will produce a huge quantity of materials that can potentially be recycled and reused and diverted from landfills.

Work with the unions, building trades, and owners to develop a mandatory recycling/reuse program that will seek to minimize construction waste going to landfills. For example, creative uses should be found for the thousands of windows and frames that will be replaced as part of LL97 upgrades.

Local Law 97 After 2035 A strong commitment to the successful implementation, enforcement, and strengthening of LL97 as written is an excellent first step. We, however, believe that the next Mayor needs to set long-term goals for the decarbonization of the city’s entire building stock. This should happen in phases and potentially be included in LL97 updates after 2035. We know that economic growth is not affected by decarbonization. In fact, since 2005, 23 countries have completely decoupled GDP growth from reductions in CO2 emissions - this list includes the United States. We also know that many countries and cities around the world are completely phasing out fossil fuels including coal, oil, and gas in their building sector to address the global Climate Crisis. Our key recommendation is that as of 2035, the City should extend the full LL 97 requirements to all properties over 25,000 square feet. On the next page, please find additional recommendations for the expansion of LL97:

image 11

image 10

Table 3. Action Items for Local Law 97 After 2035 Action Items

Affordable Housing

Problem

Currently, LL97 performance targets are not required for affordable and subsidized housing buildings larger than 25,000 SF with more than 35 percent rent-regulated units, HDFC cooperatives, some tax-exempt multi-family rental properties, New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings, and dwellings that participate in a project-based federal housing program that collectively house over 3 million people. (Source: U.S. Census). While LL97 requires some energy conservation prescriptive measures for affordable housing, this exemption leaves a great portion of the city’s housing stock without the substantial energy efficiency upgrades that will reduce energy burdens for their tenants. Affordable, rent-regulated, and public housing buildings are often older, inefficient, and in disrepair, resulting in a higher baseline consumption of energy than their market-rate counterparts. This places added burdens on low-income residents, many of whom cannot afford air conditioners to cool their apartments during heat waves. Fossil fuel HVAC equipment often contributes to bad indoor air quality, which causes asthma and other respiratory diseases, particularly in low-income communities of color.

Solution

Extend the full LL97 emission limits to rent-regulated buildings and other affordable and subsidized housing projects after 2035. This investment in increased efficiency will be essential to achieve the City’s 80 X 50 goals. Supply financial subsidies, loans, and technical support to support affordable housing owners and managers; and expand the “Property Assessed Clean Energy” (PACE) program to provide low-interest loans to affordable housing owners. Expand and encourage the use of NYC’s Retrofit Accelerator, which provides low- and no-cost technical advisory services to building owners. Ensure that the cost of affordable housing retrofits cannot be passed onto tenants as Major Capital Improvements (MCIs)—and that payment responsibilities for building electrification not be passed from property owners to residential tenants.

Affordable housing advocates fear that the costs of efficiency and/or energy retrofits could be passed onto vulnerable tenants as Major Capital Improvements (MCIs) and that building electrification could shift payment responsibilities from property owners to tenants, which may lead to the displacement of low or fixed-income tenants.

Houses of Worship

Currently, LL97 performance targets are not required for religious houses of worship above 25,000 SF. While LL97 prescribes several energy conservation measures for houses of worship, this exemption leaves churches, synagogues, and mosques without requirements for substantial energy efficiency upgrades that would reduce their operating costs.

Extend the LL97 requirements to larger religious houses of worship after 2035. Supply financial subsidies, loans, and technical support to support houses of worship to achieve the decarbonization of these semi-public spaces.

Action Items

Shared Energy Infrastructure

Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Problem

Solution

New York City lacks shared energy infrastructures, which can significantly contribute to decarbonization. We believe district heating, micro-grids, solar or heat-pump cooperatives, and other neighborhood-scale energy infrastructures should become a larger part of New York City’s energy mix.

Plan for and expand the district heating share of New York City’s energy mix.

LL97 primarily intends to reduce the operational GHG emissions of buildings. Right now, LL97 does not account for the embodied GHG emissions of the materials, products, and components used in these building and energy retrofits. Embodied emissions are released before construction begins.

The embodied GHG emission of the materials and products needed for building upgrades should be accounted for after 2035 - perhaps with Carbon Passports that include Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) accounting. LEED credits can now be gained by listing EPDs for building materials and products.

Right now, there are no incentives for owners/managers and professionals to select locally sourced and manufactured, minimally processed, low-carbon products for their LL97 building upgrades. Research has shown that choosing materials and products with low embodied emissions can have a huge impact on lowering the carbon footprint and environmental impact of the building industry.

Invest in and encourage solar or heat-pump cooperatives, which could generate profits for small investors, especially during peak loads.

Small Buildings

Small (less than 25,000 square feet) residential and commercial buildings are exempt from LL97. Yet, these buildings contribute 34 percent of the city’s GHG emissions.

Work with building owners and tenants across the city to develop long-term goals and strategies to extend the LL97 requirements to smaller (less than 25,000 square feet) residential and commercial buildings, potentially after 2050.

Negative Incentives

LL97 compliance is primarily based on negative incentives including penalties and fines when mandatory limits are not met.

Develop and implement positive incentives and rewards for early adoption of the law. Visualize, communicate, and reward innovative solutions - both at the building and neighborhood scales. Engage the entire city in joyful celebrations of LL97 milestones.

Outcomes Addressing the Climate Crisis in a swift and equitable way requires an unwavering commitment from New York City’s mayor to implement LL97 in a fair and robust way. Implementation of the law will catalyze energy efficiency building upgrades and substantial increases in locally produced renewable energy. This will not only lower building GHG emissions but will also lead to reduced operating and maintenance costs that can be reinvested in other building upgrades and repairs. It can lower utility bills for tenants and lead to quality job creation and economic development across the City of New York.

25 image 12

Desegregation and Implementation

27 image 13

Desegregation and Implementation

We need to desegregate communities and

But even were these adopted, virtually all the

municipalities to provide more access to

recommendations that follow in this chapter

opportunity, while improving the resources and

remain valid, in our view.

amenities of underinvested neighborhoods. We need more homeownership opportunities for BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color)

Funding

families to redress a century of discriminatory

As is plain from reading the recommendations

practice in urban policy, while protecting the

below and especially those in the next chapter

affordability and quality of rental housing,

addressing climate change and climigration,

particularly public housing. We need more

funding the ‘Right to Housing’ is an enormous

housing production to create a normative—not a

undertaking. It will require a federal response,

seller’s—housing market in destination cities like

which is only now being discussed in a meaning-

New York. We need to consider all the above

ful way though still paltry compared to the

through a justice and equity lens that conscien-

challenges.

tiously empowers those most discriminated against and least empowered historically and at

This does not mean that municipalities, counties,

present.

or states should be idle while waiting for a national response at the needed proportion;

The omnibus of housing proposals to address

certainly not the nation’s largest, wealthiest

these needs ranges from single site develop-

city—New York.

ments to federal policy, from tweaking rules to overhauling laws, and more. The discussion and recommendations here focus on those that fall

Action Items

within our areas of expertise as planners, architects, and urbanists. Reactivate the New York State (NYS) Stock To be clear, we are aware of and endorse

Transfer Tax a capital investment program to

‘game changers’ such as the following:

fund the Right to Housing, adaptation to climate change, Climigration, and neighbor-

Guaranteed Annual Income or second

hood quality of life in the city. This tax dates

income strategies, such as those proposed

to 1905 and is still ‘on the books.’ It charges

by proposed by Louis Kelso, and more

pennies (to be exact: five cents per share

recently popularized by Andrew Yang and

priced at $20 or more). Since 1981, the State

others including conservative and progres-

collects then rebates the tax, daily. Reinstat-

sive policy makers.

ing the tax would release billions of dollars for public purposes, with the further benefit

Reparations for slavery, Jim Crow laws,

of generating jobs.

restrictive covenants, and Redlining. First employ the Stock Transfer Tax for New Universal access to capital.

York City and the State, then for the nation—as per Michael Bloomberg’s proposal

while seeking the Democratic Party’s

The story above is acute in but not exclusive to

nomination for President. New York City

the suburbs. New York City, too, is sorted by race

anchors the nation’s economy and tax

and economic standing; and the unevenness of

revenue. Assuring the city’s quality of life,

school quality follows accordingly. In our city

competitiveness, and vitality now and in the

and across the nation, government is not

face of climate change is in the national

blameless for segregated cities, as per both

interest. Shifting it (soon after) to a national

Redlining (a government-induced discriminatory

tax has the further benefit of removing the

practice that put financial services and insurance

New York Stock Exchange’s threat to move

out of reach for residents) and highway

to New Jersey if so taxed by New York.

construction blasting through Black neighbor-

hoods. Both prompted physical disinvestment 6

Desegregation

and ghettoization.

Zoning in the United States (U.S.) and many

The New York City government (‘the City’) has

other public policies are infused with racist

carried out numerous policies to promote

outcomes if not intentions. In the suburbs and

affordable housing, most recently Mayor

auto-oriented cities, the Euclidian principle of

DeBlasio’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing

separation of land uses plus the popular

(MIH) program, which offers density bonuses if

dominance of single-family zoning were often

30 percent or more of the units are deemed

designed to separate people of different

affordable at the federally determined bench-

incomes, races, and backgrounds—sometimes

mark of up to 80 percent of area median income

accompanied by rhetoric if not regulations that

(which is as high as $80,000 for a family of four,

explicitly excluded Black people and to lesser

since ‘area’ includes the wealthy suburbs of New

extents other populations.

York). While exemplary, three major criticisms have been leveled at MIH. In increasing order of

This is a multi-generational problem. Given the

relevance to our concerns: First, it smacks of

balkanization of municipal boundaries, and the

‘spot zoning’—from an urban design point of

fact that local taxes are the main revenue

view, it is often random, driven by a transaction

sources for schools and other public amenities,

not sound planning. Second, it can be gentrify-

to be excluded in housing choice equates with

ing—the mixed-income projects often replace

being denied access to superior parks, public

affordable, lower-scale housing with luxury

services, and especially quality education—the

housing, in which the ‘affordable units’ rent at a

linchpin for upward economic opportunity for the

higher price point than what neighborhood

next generation.

residents can afford. Third, it has not been directed to the wealthier (and politically more powerful) neighborhoods, thereby it has not resulted in integration and given BIPOC families better access to superior schools, parks, etc. Pratt professors have been in the forefront of discussions about mandatory inclusionary

image 14 4

Rothstein, Richard, The Color of Law: The Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, 2017. 5 fhttps://research.steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/dk64/SeparateButUnequal_20171023.pdf 6 Ibid, and Fullilove, Mindy Thompson, Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods and What We Can Do About It, 2004.

housing of all kinds (including MIH) in both studies and in studios. Professors have been associated with the Pratt Center for Community Development—the city’s leading technical assistance organization for community planning,

and an activist voice on housing affordability.

and economic integration.

Pratt professors have been in the forefront of promoting desegregation of the suburbs. Two,

The legislation proposed by Desegregate

Ron Shiffman and Eva Hanhardt, started their

Connecticut requires that municipalities (as

career collaborating and working with Paul

is the case in New Jersey) provide opportuni-

Davidoff—the founder of ‘advocacy planning’

ties for affordable housing. The municipality

who coined the term exclusionary zoning. Most

can determine how, potentially including

recently, Shiffman joined professors Jonathan

multifamily apartment buildings, garden

Martin and John Shapiro to work on applying Fair

apartments, ‘over the store’ apartments,

and Affordable Housing principles to Westches-

three- and four-plexes (multiple units in what

ter County, on behalf of a Court-Appointed

appears to be a single-family house), and

Monitor. The Consortium Committee also

accessory dwelling units (ADUs)—which

closely followed the work of Desegregate

might be apportioning part of a house to an

Connecticut, which is seeking to build on the

apartment (often called ‘mother-in-law

seminal Mt. Laurel Doctrine involving affordable

apartments’), a garage conversion to a

housing policies of New Jersey.

micro-unit (something that Pratt professors have worked on, with national recognition),

The recommendations below build on this

and accessory buildings (such as backyard

experience and the Committee’s deliberations,

cottages).

differentiating between New York City and its suburbs.

Note: As a group, we are skeptical about the ‘abolish single family’ war cry: it can be

Tri-State Suburbs Action Items Enact State laws that the wealthier, less integrated suburbs supply meaningful opportunity for affordable housing. The States of New York and Connecticut should emulate and improve on the ‘Mt. Laurel’ legislation of New Jersey. At present, Connecticut’s legislation simply says that municipalities cannot reject housing proposals because the unit mix includes affordable housing. New York State requires that municipalities allow multifamily housing—irrespective of the fact that most are for local, luxury markets. We need to move beyond merely allowing for a mix of housing to affirmatively require a mix of housing opportunities to encourage racial 7

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/nyregion/12westchester.html. https://www.desegregatect.org/ 9 In the 1970s, the NAACP and others sued the Town of Mt. Laurel for discriminatory zoning, leading to a series of court cases and State legislations that add up to among the most progressive policies about inclusionary zoning in the nation. 8

misguided in places, it is unnecessarily threatening to the suburban way of life, and thus can lead to a universal rejection of affordable housing initiatives. Further, variety of housing is key to affordability; and of all the typologies, dispersed ADUs are the hardest to monitor for living conditions and virtually never comes with affordability requirements. The Desegregate Connecticut proposed legislation, like New Jersey, also entails a ‘builder’s remedy.’ If the municipality does not provide realistic opportunity for affordable housing, developers can sue the municipality to build that housing (typically as mixed-income housing) pretty much where they want. In New Jersey, builder’s remedy has been universally upheld by the courts, and thanks to the fear of that, municipalities have responded by planning for affordable housing. These and other provisions should be investigated, advocated, and adopted to compel municipalities to meet their ‘right to

housing’ mandate.

impacts on the list of required analysis points. Alternatively, adopt, at the state-level

For instance: The Desegregate Connecticut

(for all three states—Connecticut, New

proposed legislation improves on New

Jersey, and New York) legislation modeled on

Jersey’s in one major respect. As in New

that of New York City and Boston, Massachu-

Jersey, the State government figures out

setts that mandates an ‘equitable develop-

what each municipality’s ‘fair share’ should

ment data tool’ considering the racial impact

be to meet regional housing needs, weighing

of rezonings—but for all municipal actions,

factors such as where the jobs are. The

including capital budgets. While in New York

Desegregate Connecticut legislation also

City, the primary concern is gentrification and

factors in fiscal wealth, which means that the

displacement, in the suburbs the methodolo-

obligation will be greater for the wealthier

gy could highlight real and missed opportuni-

municipalities where schools are often better,

ties to promote equitable access to quality

and lesser for municipalities that are within

schools and services, as well as “affirmatively

easier housing-price reach for working class

further fair and affordable housing” consist-

folk. Parallel housing initiatives efforts should

ent with fair-share rules and plans as per the

be pursued to assure equitable financing of

prior two recommendations. Remedying

education through more progressive

implicit and even unintended racist govern-

educational housing strategies. The idea that

ment actions starts with transparency.

one’s education is dependent on their zip code must be addressed, equitably. (The housing / education link is the subject of a

New York City Action Items

forthcoming policy paper by the Housing Consortium.) Make mandatory inclusionary housing Require that counties market the affordable

universal in New York City, even for

housing created through the zoning

as-of-right development. Mandatory

mandates. The inclusionary zoning and

inclusionary housing is increasingly the norm

resulting projects under ‘Mt. Laurel’ yielded

across the U.S. The prevailing argument

economic diversity but not racial or ethnic

against it is that it can hurt project viability.

diversity. The affordable housing unit counts

More likely, it would diminish property values

in any single project are small; thus, best

since developers (when all is said and done)

known to local workers and residents. In

adjust their bids for property acquisition

Pratt’s work on Westchester, a key (imple-

accordingly—much as they would for impact

mented) recommendation was for the

fees. Thus, there is no need for a bonus in the

County government to affirmatively market

wealthier communities, where the driving

the units; added recommendations were for

cost is less about housing construction and

the County to partner for marketing with

maintenance than property acquisition, such

institutions and corporations that employ

that the inclusionary requirement’s impact is

BIPOC populations, such as hospitals and

on the speculative value of property rather

colleges; as well as partner with advocacy

than on feasibility. The bonus could remain in

and other groups representing BIPOC

areas where the density bonus is a matter of

populations, including in the nearby Bronx.

feasibility. The City’s J-51 Tax Exemption and Abatement Program already employs

Amend the State Environmental Quality

geographic determinants for its financial

Review Act (SEQRA) to include racism

incentives; the density bonus can, as well.

Prepare a fair share plan for New York City’s

well as consistency with its own fair share

neighborhoods also modeled on New Jersey

rules for siting of ‘NIMBY’ (not in my back

and Desegregate Connecticut precedents.

yard) uses. As discussed later, ‘housing’ is

The plan is best prepared as part of a

about neighborhood and context as well as

comprehensive plan for the city. Every

about the unit and building.

Community Board should be bound to plan for added development in its Community District. The City could identify the most practical sites / areas / corridors based on planning, environmental, and urban design criteria—from which the Community Board could choose. Failure to do so would trigger the City doing so with community input but without community authority. The Fair Share analysis should put a priority on integration of wealthier neighborhoods as well as where development of affordable housing would support current community identity rather than trigger gentrification. This cross-acceptance approach would not only help integrate New York City neighborhoods; it would also stimulate housing construction—as discussed next. Expand on the recently adopted Racial Impact Study legislation that requires that all rezonings and development be subject to an analysis of the community impacts inclusive of segregation, displacement, and neighborhood change. The legislation should also consider allocation of capital budgets, site location of community facilities, etc. to make the City more accountable for the uneven distribution of parks and other amenities, as

Housing Production and Affordability The simple fact is that New York City is a destination city. The city’s rental housing vacancy rate as of 2017 was 3.6 percent; the vacancy rate is currently, during the time of Covid19, estimated at 4.3 percent. Both proportions are well below the State-mandated benchmark of 5.0 percent at which point Rent Stabilization laws can be dropped, and well below the normative 7.0 percent representing 11

neither a seller’s nor a buyer’s housing market. As a destination city with low vacancy rates,

there is rampant gentrification and price inflation for units not subject to rent stabilization. At a typical construction of 20,000 to 25,000 units per year, equal to an increase of far less than 1.0 percent in comparison to the total number of 3.2 million units, this condition will take decades of construction to remedy, not counting the need to replace a giant loss of inventory because of climate change and rising seas (as discussed in another section of this paper). This means that Rent Stabilization laws are more important than ever and efforts to increase the State and City’s role in the production of social housing should be 12

a priority.

The City’s solution has been to offer developers 10 See

also recent proposals by Jumaine Williams /CUFHH to promote racial equity - https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/new-tool-puts-racial-equity-at-the-center-of-community-funding 11 https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/158-18/mayor-de-blasio-signs-legislation-extending-rent-stabilization-laws and https://www.globest.com/2021/03/16/nyc-apartments-look-poised-for-2021-rebound/?slreturn=20210601115125 12

The city’s population waxed and waned in the past decade. Recent decreases can be partly attributed to impediments to immigrating to New York City—as the nation’s gateway city—due to both former President Trump’s immigration policies and Covid19. In-migration will grow enormously if the United States accommodated any of the giant amount of climigration/relocation expected across the globe due to climate change. Other, more idiosyncratic trends include the removal of inventory due growing number of investment apartments; and, following Covid19-induced changes in the housing market, a growing number of apartments that are now the ‘second’ (not primary) address of the tenants. Exact predictions are thus speculative. What matters is that the long-term amount of housing production—whether market-rate or social housing or public housing—can be expected to lag behind the long-term demand, putting upward pressure on housing costs to the consumer notwithstanding immediate market conditions.

financial inducements especially for affordable housing, to upzone residential areas in working class neighborhoods that have less political clout than their wealthy counterparts, and to rezone the dwindling amount of land area available for industry. The last strategy has accommodated the spectacular building sprees in Greenpoint and Williamsburg among other places but has negative implications for the cost of living and air pollution (since more goods have to be shipped in at great cost from New Jersey, via a handful of

of Hudson River crossings), and blue-collar jobs (“replacing blue collar jobs with luxury housing for white collar workers,” as one Pratt alum says). As noted above, the incentives have also spurred gentrifying development in existing affordable neighborhoods.

Likewise, public housing will remain essential to the provision of housing for poor people in New York City. MIH and similar models are good at creating housing for the working middle class, but not the poor wherein rent rolls are diminutive. The current strategy to use federal Section 8 funds to support public housing is necessary, but in the long run will yield less housing for the poor unless federal levels of funding are increased, and rules are changed. Meanwhile, NYCHA is in a crisis created by decades of deferred mainte13

nance and the loss of federal funding. Alone, the mold conditions in NYCHA campuses amount to a national scandal in the waiting, just as water quality in Flint Michigan was ten years ago. There are explanations but no excuse for this deplorable situation. It comes down to fact that the City, State, and especially federal governments have not delivered on the financial support that was deemed necessary from the start. Housing the poor is not profitable and must be subsidized.

NYC Action Items Once again: Make mandatory inclusionary housing (not specifically MIH zoning) universal in the city. Eliminate parking requirements within (as a general benchmark) ten minutes walking distance of subway stops. Developers might still supply parking to attract the target housing market. Structured parking adds $60,000+/- to the cost of construction, per

https://rpa.org/work/reports/nychas-crisis

33 image 15

space. Reducing parking requirements

caused by ‘black swan’ events like

makes development less costly and more

Covid19—should be excluded from analysis.

realistic in many neighborhoods. Doing so at

The rate should be increased to 6 percent

subway stops promotes transit use and

and/or reflect a more nuanced and multi-year

reduces traffic.

set of statistics (e.g., be based on income cohorts and be over 5 percent for a period of

Increase funding for supportive housing.

five years, further excluding second homes).

Apart from the basic issue of affordability, there is a need for housing of a more

Study the impact of banks, hedge funds, and

specialized nature for groups such as the

conglomerates of small-time investors

elderly, AIDS victims, victims of domestic

increasingly buying housing units as a place

violence, and the formerly incarcerated, to

to park capital. Our fear is that this commodi-

name some.

fication of housing will push out small-scale property owners who often have ethnic,

Allow more variety of housing typologies in

personal, or other ties to tenants that lead to

New York City, not just to increase supply,

a check on rising rents and tolerance for

but also to reflect the diversity of the city’s

missed monthly payments and such. This

populations. Based on the work of the Pratt

needs study and a response at the City and

Center and Pratt studios, the Building Code

State level.

should in locales—such as parts of northern Queens not subject to flooding—be amended to ease the legalization of basement accessory units. Accessory units already exist illegally; the City might supply grants to homeowners to carry out the improvements necessary to make accessory units safe. In several markets, such as the city’s Chinatowns, extended family living could be aided by allowing connected units (such as a studio attached to a one-bedroom apartment). Live-work space has been on the agenda for over 30 years, and post Covid19 will become normalized for a vast population.

image 16

Those same attached studio apartments

Lobby to revise the Community Reinvestment

might be offices instead. And so on.

Act’s (CRA’s) rules to help low- and moder-

Strengthen the protections of the State’s Rent Stabilization Legislation. Mayor DeBlasio has made proposals to reduce tenant harassment and decrease workarounds that allow for escalating rents. We urge the State to recognize that the stipulated threshold of 5 percent vacancy rate for ending the legislation still falls below the normative 7 percent vacancy rate for a

ate-income residents of an area, and not the area occupied by low-income residents. The CRA requires federal banking regulators to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they do business, regardless of prevailing incomes there. Written in the 1970s, the legislation increased the flow of money and investment to these areas. Given gentrifica-

balanced housing market; and that sudden

tion, these rules today help to displace those

spikes in vacancy rates–such as those

folks. (Housing decommodification is the

subject of a forthcoming policy paper by the

officials should lobby hard for federal

Housing Consortium.)

infrastructure dollars to be allocated for overdue repair.

For the same reasons, either end or redesign federal Opportunity Zone (OZ) legislation. The intent should be to benefit low-income residents, not the geography. Supply universal free access to Counsel for renters looking to prevent eviction. Renters lose cases in housing court because property owners are represented by counsel, which

Employ ‘Participatory Budgeting’ and other participatory methods to assure that the NYCHA campus and housing improvements are made in accordance with resident priorities, needs, and wants—mindful that these residents are traumatized by decades of neglect and broken promises; in addition to their having social and other networks that provide resiliency and which warrant creative

renters cannot afford. The current program

support, such as through the creation of

of free access to counsel for low-income

community gardens, daycare centers,

renters should be expanded so that any

community kitchens, cooperative grocery

qualified renter can have representation in

stores, etc.

court. Supply emergency rental assistance to prevent eviction. In addition to ongoing rental assistance, supply up to (say) $5,000 to cover rental arrears. New York City’s congresspeople should lobby to allow welfare relocation funding to be fungible so it can be used to finance supportive housing. Such tenant assistance would also help

As emphasized in the next chapter in this report, NYCHA should plan now for replacement of those campuses that will prove untenable due to climate change, if not initiate the relocation now using unused air rights that (in NYCHA’s financial desperation) are being eyed for revenue production that should come from government, not public-private endeavors. These are tough decisions that hinge on NYCHA taking a

small landlords to remain solvent. And it

50-year view to planning, beyond crisis

would reduce public expenditures: it can cost

management.

taxpayers several times more to place a family in a shelter than it would cost to provide rental assistance and prevent eviction. Allocate $2 billion per year for NYCHA—as per the City’s capital plan—to forestall loss of public housing stock—until public housing is returned to first-rate condition. Multiple revenue sources could be tapped. As one ready source of revenue, NYCHA as well as other public housing agencies from around the nation should have access to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LITCH) that are allocated but otherwise go unused at the end of every fiscal year. The City’s elected

Prepare a comprehensive plan for the city that assures that every neighborhood has a beneficial quality of life. ‘The Right to Housing’ is more than a housing unit; it includes the right to live in a safe neighborhood, without environmental hazards, with ample services and amenities such as parks and good schools, and with transportation alternatives (in New York City, that means reliable transit). The plan should be predicated on robust partnership between the City and local communities—balancing mutual obligations, fair share policies, and community empowerment. Council Speaker Corey Johnson’s proposal is a step in that direction.

It should be adopted barring a better

of isolating black neighborhoods or clearing the

proposal (in real time). It should be

way for new development. The result: the largest

followed-up with complementary revisions to

infrastructure project of the 20th century United

the New York City Charter, such as restoring

States embodied racism.

capital budget review to the Department of City Planning, further empowerment of

These and other biased policies of government

Community Boards, diversification of their

were matched by private malfeasance, such as

membership, etc.

block busting, foreclosure schemes, predatory lending, prejudicial appraisals, and insurance companies denying claims; and further on top of

Homeownership and Wealth

bigotry in hiring practices, lack of access to quality education and services, and relegation of

Owning a house has been part of the American Dream since Thomas Jefferson’s advocacy of the ‘Agrarian Ideal;’ and it has been the principle means for cross-generational accumulation of

Black communities to housing and neighborhoods with environmental hazards. Nothing short of a full-throttle reversal will do.

wealth. BIPOC and particularly Black people have been denied from taking part in this dream by policy.

Action Items

From 1934 to the Civil Rights Act of 1968,

Support new forms of shared ownership.

mixed-use working class and Black neighbor-

These can include cohousing schemes,

hoods were excluded by ‘Redlining’ from Federal

mutual housing models, community land

Housing Authority mortgage lending and

trusts (CLTs), and ownership by local

insurance. The result: “just 2 percent of the $120

community development corporations.

billion in FHA loans distributed between 1934 and 1962 were given to nonwhite families.”

Support sweat equity models for homeowners, including in multifamily buildings of all

In 1944, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (the

sies. These should learn from the successes

‘GI Bill’) supplied guaranteed mortgages to

(and failures) of sweat equity in the 1970s

veterans of World War II veterans but allowed

and 1980s as well as draw inspiration from

discrimination. The result, by example: “In

the work of architects such as Alejandro

Mississippi, just two of the 3,000 mortgages that

Aravena—in which construction crews

the Veteran’s Administration guaranteed in 1947

(perhaps job corps linked to training and

went to African Americans, despite the fact that

entry into the relevant unions) create the

African Americans constituted half of the state’s

foundations, shells, and basic infrastructure

population.”

(plumbing, electricity, wastewater) and residents do the finishing and even

While the federal government built new highways

extensions as a group or individually, all at

to open the suburbs to white suburbanization,

once or over time.

highways were built often with racist intentions Massively expand mortgage assistance, 14

https://www.nareb.com/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-and-segregation/ 15 Ibid. 16 https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/role-of-highways-in-american-poverty/474282/

counseling, and related subsidy programs to prevent mortgage default.

Create a home ownership down payment assistance program. As proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the program would be targeted to homeowners in former Redlined areas and in low-income areas. Interest rates are quite low at present, but new homeowners are constrained by the large down payments required. As proposed by now Vice President Kamala Harris when a candidate for the Democratic Party’s nomination to be president, the program could be as large as $100 billion, targeted to Redlined areas that remain low-to-moderate income today. Should interest rates rise, create a low-interest loan program directed to low- and moderate-income households. To promote integration, it might not be geographically constrained as per the prior recommendation nor limited to first-time homeowners. Update the homesteading programs in places of abandonment, such as those evident in a number or Rustbelt cities. As proposed by now Cabinet member Pete Buttigieg, the federal government would buy abandoned property and then sell it at below-market costs to low- and moderate-income residents. Tap into impact investment to fund sustainable affordable housing.

37 image 17

Managed and Whole Community Relocation

39 image 18

Managed and Whole Community Relocation Introduction This chapter outlines the critical forces shaping and constraining New York City’s ability to respond to the effects of increasing physical/climatic risk on New York City’s residents and the city’s existing housing supply. This document poses the considerable challenges facing the safety and welfare of current and future residents, the relationship between current actions and future conditions, and considerations for changes that maximize choice in housing opportunity. While our expertise and thoughts were primarily about New York City, many of the suggestions here have bearing on other geographies, not necessarily as complex in variety but that face much the same issues having to do with the simple fact that rising tides and more frequent storm events will render some waterfront neighborhoods uninhabitable in the long run, forcing relocation of residents, businesses, and public infrastructure. Responding to this trajectory can take multiple forms: from a ‘managed retreat’ where swaths of housing may need to be decommissioned, to building level improvements that may reduce a building’s overall unit count to benefit most tenants, to the development of new resilient housing inside and outside communities of risk. This paper outlines considerations for New York City’s next Mayor and their successors to socialize these challenging compromises, create new avenues for effective and meaningful resident participation, catalyze improvements and dramatically increase the city’s housing supply to respond to the threat of flood risk while maximizing choice and opportunity for existing residents affected by risk.

Two basic approaches are embedded in the discussion: Giving people choice to relocate as single households Giving people choice to relocate as community (sometimes referred to as ‘climigration’) They interrelate: people in an ethnic, social, or public housing enclave may vary in their preference. They have common denominators: the necessity to conduct comprehensive planning inclusive of empowering communities; to create multiple regulatory and financial tools that work in concert for a place as varied as New York City; and to devote the resources necessary to the task. This chapter may include seeming, but we would argue constructive redundancy. The relocation of people and communities from extreme risk is complex especially as it will happen over a period of decades, therefore under differing economic, market, societal, technological, and political circumstances. As daunting as this effort will be, the dangers of inaction are even more severe—in the order of dealing with catastrophes involving over hundreds of thousands of people, a great many of whom have been subject to social, racial, and economic inequities curtailing their economic and housing opportunity now and for the foreseeable future.

Problem Statment

Queens, the southeast shore of Staten Island, and southeast Brooklyn. To understand the

Increasing flood risk will reduce the footprint and potential habitability of a sizable part of New York City’s residential land area. Inundation from daily tidal flooding poses an existential threat to extremely low-lying neighborhoods. Without significant investment in buildings and infrastructure, flood risk from tropical storms, high-volume precipitation events, and tidal flooding may have catastrophic consequences for the lives of many New Yorkers. While all of New York City’s 500+ miles of coastline are vulnerable to flooding, the city’s historic patterns of racial and economic segregation have concentrated low-income BIPOC (black, indigenous, people-of-color) communities in the geographies of highest hazard—such as in The Point in the Bronx, Red Hook in Brooklyn, Far Rockaway in Queens, the Lower East Side in Manhattan, and Stapleton in Staten Island. The floodplain also includes most of the city’s relatively affordable communities of home ownership, including communities in southeast

scope of the challenge: 26,000 multifamily buildings with over 300,000 housing units—of which one-half are rent-regulated or in public housing developments—are in the 100-year floodplain. Of course, many risks can be managed (though not eliminated) through building improvements, such as the elimination of basements and ground-flood dwellings, the relocation of utility systems, improvements in stormwater management and street drainage, the development of natural buffer areas, and flood management infrastructure such as berms, levees, and diversionary measures such as flood ways. The need for coordinated investment, in retrofitting existing housing and the development of new housing in the city’s upland communities, is significant. But flood risks are not always mitigatable. In those cases, for example when water levels rise but do not recede, the only solution is for residents to move away, as per the focus of this chapter. The administrative, legal, and regulatory structures that undergird potential public action are ill-suited for responding to a crisis at the intersection of both housing and the environment. A rapidly changing coastline combined with an irretrievably inequitable housing economy make the case for a new order. Unfortunately, the legal framework for action in planning, housing, and the environment lacks the capacity for the intensity of change needed. New York City’s regulatory systems and operational silos are problematic: from local agency structures where there is no clear jurisdiction for risk mitigation, to outmoded state governance policies for housing, tenant protections, and conservation, to a suite of federal programs that

image 19 : Potential Future 1-in-100 years flood zones in New York City.

are not designed to work in tandem. At this moment, neither New York City nor citizens are

equipped with the tools for a successful

Channel, Edgemere, and Old Howard Beach in

response. affordable, lower-scale housing with

Queens—already experience significant

luxury housing, in which the ‘affordable units’ rent

disruption and damage from daily tidal flooding,

at a higher price point than what neighborhood

as this risk increases, portions of these

residents can afford. Third, it has not been

communities are likely to become uninhabitable

directed to the wealthier (and politically more

as it becomes impossible to keep passable

powerful) neighborhoods, thereby it has not

streets. More broadly, communities on Coney

resulted in integration and given BIPOC families

Island in Brooklyn, the Rockaways in Queens, and

better access to superior schools, parks, etc.

City Island in the Bronx face significant risks from severe coastal storms that cannot be fully

A Spectrum of Risk and Spectrum of Potential Response Flood risks are not uniform across New York City, although the effects of flooding are citywide, as significant city infrastructure (power generation, waste treatment, and sanitation facilities) sit in the floodplain. The combined storm risk and daily tidal flooding challenges facing communities around Jamaica Bay and the barrier islands/peninsulas of the Rockaways and Coney Island / Brighton Beach are significantly different—requiring very different forms of interventions in the short, medium, and long term—from the storm and precipitation risks facing the riverine, canal-side, and harbor communities of Astoria, College Point, Harding Park, Linden Hill, Midland Beach, and Spring Creek in Queens; Bushwick, Gowanus, Red Hook, and Sunset Park in Brooklyn; Chelsea, East Harlem, the East Village, the Lower East Side, and Wall Street in Manhattan; and western Staten Island. To be sure, the public sector will play a critical

mitigated. In these communities, the citywide and local elected officials and leaders will face significant challenges socializing understanding of these risks and balancing critically needed short-term investment needs with long-term risks. Flooding risks will, over time interact with market forces. A cycle can happen in which successions of owners and tenants the coastal areas most at risk increasingly house those with lesser economic and housing choice, including a shift from ownership to rental housing. This is not without precedence, as per the decline of New York City’s prosperous subway beach ‘resort’ areas following the introduction of the automobile age. Further, without transitional investments in areas of risk, the City would de-facto engage in infrastructure disinvestment. The result could be newly blighted areas, yielding a fresh injustice akin to that engendered by Redlining. Much of this chapter addresses this conundrum—avoiding the trauma of disinvestment while promoting movement away from extreme risk.

role in developing and supporting assistance that reduces the potential flood risk of the city’s most vulnerable communities while increasing affordable housing supply so that the city’s residents are able to make choices and find meaningful housing opportunity in areas with less or no flood risk. Yet, as there is a significant gradation in risk and physical conditions, the potential responses cannot be uniform. Portions of neighborhoods—like Bayswater, Broad

image 20

NYCHA Housing

tenant/resident partnering, a variety of strategies

This conundrum is especially meaningful for

social capital, and considerable funding are all

including community relocation to maintain

residents of the New York City Housing (NYCHA)

necessary.

public housing campuses. The statistics are daunting. Over a half million New York City residents in 166,000 households

Moment of Truth: Recognizing Long Term Risk in the Next Disaster and Response

are housed by NYCHA. But while NYCHA units amount to 5 percent of all housing units in New York City, they account for 20 percent of the units in the present 100-year floodplain, and 12 percent of those damaged by Superstorm Sandy—which is a fair surrogate for the number of units that will be in buildings under high tide by the year 2100. That 12 percent equates with 35,000 units housing 80,000 people. Entire NYCHA campuses, such as those in Coney Island and Far Rockaway, will be subject to high

ty crisis, the Bloomberg administration and then the DeBlasio administration responded to Superstorm Sandy recovery with a program known as ‘Build it Back,’ which focused the vast majority of $2.2 billion in housing recovery funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on repairing, reinforcing, and rebuilding existing housing. Although this stabilized the lives of numerous

tide flooding and unsustainable by 2100.

New Yorkers and supported the communities

And the problem is urgent. By as soon as 2050,

little to tackle the long-term challenge of coping

less than 30 years from now, one-fourth of NYCHA’s entire inventory will be vulnerable to 19

flooding when over 500 NYCHA buildings will be 20

within the floodplain. The Sandy damages amounted to $3 billion—$85,000 per unit, on average; this does not include remedying mold, since the Federal Emergency Management Agency took the position that it is a worsening of

where they live, this significant investment did with increasing risk. One of the major lessons learned from Superstorm Sandy is that the moment to make significant policy changes is in the immediate response to the disaster, as, without any change of course, building owners will at once begin to invest in repairs to their homes and buildings.

a pre-existing condition.

For this reason, it is essential that the next

Beyond statistics, the residents of NYCHA

responding to the next disaster in a manner that

housing represent the very poor of New York City, have negligible housing mobility, and are overwhelmingly made up of BIPOC populations who suffer from racism, limited economic opportunity, and a history of government negligence if not malfeasance as per police brutality, Redlining, and Urban Renewal. As outlined later, long-range planning now,

administrations take seriously the critical role of meaningfully protects New Yorkers from long-term risk. This requires tackling extraordinarily challenging issues: from how to assist homeowners and tenants who live in communities where there is no way to mitigate flood risk, to making investments in existing buildings which may reduce the unit count by removing basement and ground floor dwellings, to recognizing that certain structures are simply not

designed to meet the needs of tenants while

protecting them from weather hazards and

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nycha/downloads/pdf/NYCHA-Fact-Sheet_2020_Final.pdf Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy, and the Moelis Institute for Affordable Housing Policy, New Yirj University: Sandy’s Effects on Housing in NYC; and The Nation, “Is NYC’s Public Housing Ready for the Next Storm” 19 https://www.togetherresilient.org/why-nycha 20 https://rpa.org/work/reports/nychas-crisis

Given New York City’s overall housing affordabili-

supporting demolition and construction of new resilient structures. As there is no one single

solution, these issues will require significant

Robert Moses to modernize New York City with

leadership and sensitivity to the challenge that

highways—must be avoided lest racist history

risks across the city are heterogenous and will

repeat itself.

require different responses and supports. The rest of this document explores specific housing challenges and solutions. While these focus on the physical and built environment, it is important to recognize that the challenges and solutions are on top of inequitable, often racist policies yielding trauma and understandable distrust. Responses to climate risk, therefore, must be conducted in a way that respects human rights and experiences, empowers BIPOC (Black Indigenous and People of Color) communities, and provides choice, especially for those who do not have the wealth to freely move in the housing marketplace. This can be as individuals, or as communities at large (what we call ‘whole community climigration’). Either way, it must be carried out with communities, not happen to

engagement and planning that will differ among the communities; as will the outcomes. Notwithstanding such variety, the following principles must be respected, especially but not only when whole community climigration is the choice: Respect the great diversity within communities during the planning process-including the will of those who do not want to join in the shared relocation. Build bridges to the whole community beyond its leadership. Continue to engage experts and stakehold-

them.

ers such as environmental justice groups.

Community Planning and Partnerships Are Necessary

standards of housing and services. As part of

The relocation transition should be understood in the context of all forced migration or internal displacement as defined by the United National High Commissioner for Relocation (UNHCR) and should forward according to the larger framework of International Human Rights Law. (Refer to Chapter 2.) It must include sufficient timelines, which are key to the execution of a humanistic and equitable displacement. It must execute its planning and relocation process in ways that minimize disruption to daily life, economic and social well-being, and political voice. It must involve meaningful community engagement. It must be viewed as long-term, beginning well in advance of any potential relocation and continuing long after it in support of the community transition. The political/governmental temptation to employ a top-down, efficient, ‘master builder’ approach—such as that of

It will also require multiple types of

Redress historical inequities including the these considerations, account for legacies of serial displacement that have afflicted communities. Address issues of cultural identity, heritage preservation, and historic resource stewardship. Respect community self-determination as regards cultural heritages, social structures, ways of life among other factors. Provide meaningful responses to community needs, desires, and vision. Consider community voices in planning for the use of the land left behind. Account for the extended time frames of the transition through budgeting and policy.

The need for meaningful community participa-

methods recognizing the justice of empowering

tion (as outlined above) bears emphasis and

communities to decide their own future within

elaboration as it is applied on behalf of working

the context of climate change realities that need

class, Black, Latinx, and immigrant communities.

to be honestly but mindfully presented.

The groups and stakeholders who stand for

It is difficult to create the time and a safe space

BIPOC and community interests do not

within which economically vulnerable popula-

necessarily have the resources to take part

tions can engage and confront the potential

effectively given the complexities of climate

losses of displacement and the benefits of a

change, infrastructure investments, and

whole community transition. Yet, because these

relocation; and the pressing problems of the

same populations often rely on their robust

moment (crime, housing quality, underperform-

social networks and their collective voice to

ing schools, under- and unemployment) perforce

effect change, they well understand the value of

take precedence over contingency planning for

whole community action and the power and

decades in the future. The environmental justice

agency they will lose without it. We need to

community is rightly suspect of discussions

provide them with the support they need to first

about managed retreat in large part because of

envision a better future and then achieve whole

past Redlining, neighborhood disruption by

community relocation in pursuit of it, if they so

highway and other infrastructure construction,

choose.

and discriminatory planning policies. The City policy since the Bloomberg mayoralty to upzone

Community engagement far in advance of any

working class waterfront areas for flood-resist-

displacement will serve multiple functions

ant luxury housing sends a signal that working

especially should the population opt to relocate

class folk are being displaced by higher-income

together. It builds the capacity for resiliency in

residents in the name of climate adaptation. The

response to short term disaster and long-term

relocation of more affluent residents from at risk

transitions. It informs and educates residents as

prime coastal areas to inland working-class

to immediate issues of sustainability and

neighborhoods is a new form of

resilience as well as longer term climate change

(climate-change-induced) gentrification.

impacts. It helps a community to self-organize and develop the capacity for decision-making

Discussions about climate change are difficult

and planning.

because they elicit the trauma of displacement. Since the specter of displacement has seemed an event that will affect future generations of residents and political administrations, the public conversation has not begun. Yet, while the unpredictability (or unfathomability) of the timeline for climate change timeline might suggest extreme impacts may not be felt for several mortgage cycles, a storm disaster could make retreat an immediate concern. This adds up to supplying resources for the participatory planning to be community driven (not top-down) and employing a multiplicity of partnering approaches and participatory

image 21

This process requires climate experts, political

positioned them in low-lying vulnerable areas

representatives, and other stakeholders to help

bereft of opportunity to begin with: It is no

the community explore relocation options. It

accident that one-half of the publicly-supported

could require the leadership and initial participa-

housing in Queens is in the Rockaways—the

tion of a smaller group of willing residents in

borough’s most remote locale.

advance of establishing a wider dialogue with the whole community. That larger dialogue has a

As per the examples above, we have given

focus on better futures for families’ children and

special consideration to residents of NYCHA

grandchildren within a context of comprehensive

campuses, roughly one-fourth of which were

planning, one scenario being whole community

built in such vulnerable coastal areas to rehouse

climigration.

residents displaced through Urban Renewal and highway construction. Over the interceding

Why Whole Community Climigration

generations, the increasingly diverse residents of these campuses have often developed strong internal social networks, agency, and a political

Climate change will inevitably force relocation

voice. Whole community relocation will support

from some waterfront neighborhoods, as noted.

their agency to better their future and simultane-

Most of this paper postulates incremental

ously address the inequities of the past.

strategies as both practical (given that the necessity for retreat will unfold over time) and

This paper identifies the qualities of potential

desirable for most people (as it preserves

locations for community relocation. The urban

individual decision making). But what about

design features of these ‘new towns in town’

communities with strong social ties evidenced in

developments might vary. Several design goals

many ethnic and beach communities as well as

emerged, including incorporating the principles

in public housing? We believe that within the

of the ‘15-minute neighborhood,’ supporting local

context of providing substantive choice to those

employment and entrepreneurship, parks and

residents, whole community climigration needs

recreation, superior school facilities, and we urge,

to be an option if we are to achieve an equitable

a center providing socio-economic and cultural

transition and future city.

support services. It could be the focus and organizing agent of continuing community

Many if not most of the communities who favor

engagement.

holistic resettlement will be on the lower end of the economic spectrum, in which social capital matters even more in the absence of financial capital. Examples could include the residents of

Towards a Wholistic Implementable Physical Plan

the Franklin Houses public housing in East

Harlem, ethnic enclaves such as the Chassidic

Long-time calls for New York City to undertake

community in the area to the east of the

comprehensive planning have gained momen-

Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the tight-knit communi-

tum this past year thanks to legislation

ty of Hunts Point, the Bronx. Many of these

introduced by the NYC City Council Speaker. We

populations often face a multiplicity of daily

fully concur with this direction given that it is

life-challenges from lack of economic opportuni-

necessary to proactively address climate change

ty to racism to food insecurity to environmental

and relocation. Decades of investment and work

injustice (including the presence of extreme mold

will be needed to address climate change

conditions). These challenges often derive from

inclusive of managed retreat. The absence of a

a legacy of governmental inequity that has

long-term plan would mean that this work will be

done late in a crisis mode, at much greater

socio-economic sustainability. They should serve

expense, with more errors, and with far greater

as models for our future.

trauma for residents. 3. NYCHA Housing: A key part of the comprehenTrue comprehensive planning entails an

sive planning effort should be addressing the

integrated vision of social and physical

impact of climate change—especially rising seas

infrastructures, built and natural environments,

and increased flooding—on public housing in

and scales of community, all linked to a road

New York City. What is the plan for the relocation

map for implementation. It is predicated on

of these 40,000 or more households? Will it be

cross-acceptance between the aspirations of

relocation to existing NYCHA campuses; in

individual communities and citywide considera-

which case the sale of NYCHA land and

tion of transportation, energy, education, health,

development rights is premature? Will it be

and welfare as well as housing. Directly relevant

relocation to new campuses as per whole

to relocation, comprehensive planning would

community climigration; in which case the

clarify which areas face flooding or high tide

question arises as to what sites should be

conditions that necessitate relocation; it would

secured or set aside now (such as Sunnyside

address the fact that relocation will add to the

Yards in Queens)? Will it be a dispersal strategy;

pressure on housing supply (not even Covid19

in which case the challenge is how to avoid any

seems to have truly diminished our city as a

decrease in the supply of housing for the very

destination); it would empower communities to

poor? Such and many more questions can only

shape their relocation; and it would determine

be addressed through coordination of NYCHA

the best use of the territory that is left behind.

and citywide comprehensive planning.

The complexities of managing physical

4. Rezoning within a Comprehensive Plan: New

relocation over time requires a robust tool kit of

York City has the potential to become a

planning prophylactic, current, interim, and

multicentric, resilient city through the careful

longer-term measures, as per those outlined

re-imagining of density and bulk in less

below:

developed areas such as along under-utilized commercial corridors but also in high-opportuni-

1. Prophylactic Planning: Plans should anticipate

ty (more affluent) neighborhoods. Both could

and address site vulnerabilities–flood hazard and

include provisions specifically for relocation

otherwise—that produce the needs for serial

communities. Both the host and migrating

displacement. One obvious planning principle

communities must be part of this planning

would be to stop further development in flood

process.

zones; or to limit such development to low- and mid-rise structures that can be readily reassem-

5. Environmental Review: The City’s City

bled or moved.

Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Act mandates a brief and often a detailed analysis of

2. Planning Standards: There should be

zoning, public land disposition, and other actions

standards for our shared future as part of the

subject to the Uniform Land Use Review

comprehensive planning process in advance of

Procedure (ULURP).

relocation. There should be standards for

buildings, social infrastructure, and spatial

CEQR is poorly suited for managing the scope of

amenity that correct for earlier inequity. New

district level or citywide issues created by the

community planning should incorporate

City’s changing flood plain. As generally adopted,

state-of-the-art approaches to physical and

the 20-year horizon for analysis is simply wrong

when it comes to dealing with climate change,

shopping centers as well as aging and obsolete

since zoning is rarely changed in terms of land

urban locales. Commercia corridors are

use once enacted, and buildings last hundreds of

inviting—especially those parallel to subway lines

years—both well beyond the period of impact

or where trackless tram or bus rapid transit

under logical consideration: the years 2050 and

(BRT) are practical. Examples include Coney

2100. This would simply require that the NYC

Island Avenue and Utica Avenue in Brooklyn, and

Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination

Liberty Avenue and Northern Boulevard in

modify the CEQR Technical Manual that guides

Queens, Bay Street and Victory Boulevard in

CEQR reviews.

Staten Island. In such cases, while the pre-existing urban services like schools and libraries

6. Assessing Sites of Relocation: In a city that is

could fill some community needs, there will also

already so dense and built, how will we find sites

be the need to provide additional facilities in

for relocation that do not jeopardize our ecology,

support of the community transition and future.

landscapes, and valuable open space? Appropriate sites of relocation are not just about

8. Available Land for Whole Community

allowable and available development potential

Relocation: There are underutilized publicly

under zoning—as per Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in

owned sites, such as Floyd Bennett Field in

the Zoning Resolution. We need to address what

Brooklyn and Aqueduct Raceway in Queens, that

is needed for communities to reposition not just

could be considered for ‘new town, in town’

their households but also their related physical

development. Brownfield sites, like railroad yards,

assets of open space, amenities, and social

also present opportunities for development with

infrastructure. In assessing a potential site, we

funding via environmental mitigation and other

need to consider:

sources. These sites provide the opportuni-

The environmental impact of its development on natural, historic, and cultural landscapes. If it can provide sufficient social as well as physical infrastructure. Potential burdens on a host community The ability to provide economic/ job opportunity and the ability to build equity. The potential to intensify gentrification or the displacement of BIPOC or other marginalized households.

ty—but also requirement—to build not just housing but a complete community with new social and physical infrastructures, including schools, social and recreation centers, commercial uses, places for religious institutions, parks, and a robust public realm. 9. Sites Left Behind: Within the context of a comprehensive plan, the City needs to beware of policy that disinvests in communities and housing slated for relocation, thereby increasing their economic and physical vulnerability in advance of relocation. Consideration must be given to when and how infrastructures are abandoned. As discussed earlier in this white paper about timber construction methods, this

7. Underutilized Urban Fabric: There are

might involve methods of construction where

underused typologies of sites that could serve

needed facilities (and even housing) are built

the needs of large-scale whole community

using typologies that allow for their ready

development. Some typologies, like under-uti-

relocation.

lized office buildings, offer pre-existing

infrastructures and central locations; others, like

The sites abandoned to water are not without

parking garages, dead malls, and under-tenanted

value. The former residents should be key

shopping centers, could breathe new life into

players in deciding their future use—which might

be ecological, recreational, or even memorial. 10. Regional Considerations: The ultimate count of those in whole communities displaced by climate change could be upwards of 100,000 units affecting hundreds of thousands of people. Likewise in the region, hundreds of thousands of more housing units will be affected. For instance, most of Hoboken, NJ and all of Long Beach, NY, in addition to many other smaller oceanfront communities in the region, will be below high tide in 2100 according to current projections. Upland places where higher densities might be plausible (like Secaucus, NJ) may prove workable as areas to promote relocation to, thanks to excellent transit; as might other places where major transit improvements have been proposed (like Roosevelt Field, Long Island). A regional perspective will prove necessary. Multi-jurisdictional authorities, policies, financial structures will be needed for such a regional approach. For this reason, we should be strengthening our regional connections as part of comprehensive planning for New York City. Municipal and even state boundaries may prove irrelevant.

Funding the Just Transition 1. Thinking “Beyond” Relocation: Now is the time to conceive of alternatives to the status quo understanding of community in transition. Why can’t the transition be not out of place but out of poverty—i.e., instead of publicly building and buying new housing, increase the wealth of lower income resident so that they can afford to decide for themselves where to live? If we invest in alternatives to poverty and inequity now, the burdens of climate-change related relocation will dramatically decrease. (Refer to the opening chapter on the Right to Housing.) 2. Planning Timelines: The time frame for a community transition could be between 30 and 50 years, or two mortgage cycles, as long as a

49 image 22

catastrophe such as Superstorm Sandy does not

For most BIPOC and working-class neighbor-

accelerate the timetable. This timeline supports

hoods accommodating new development,

rational investment in a resilient present even as

investments that assure a net improvement

we plan for future migration. We need to invest in

in the neighborhood, recognizing that these

existing building stock in ways that redress

neighborhoods are often deficient in public

unsustainable and unhealthy conditions for the

investment and amenities such as parks and

current residents and increase the resiliency of

newer schools.

building stock for its projected inhabited life future use—which might be ecological, recrea-

Note that these reflect the true costs of

tional, or even memorial.

relocation. A simple housing replacement approach creates the logic to build in BIPOC

3. The Full Costs of Relocation-Related

communities that have few amenities (such as

Development: Billions of dollars will be needed to

Bushwick in Brooklyn, which is severely deficient

buy property in high-risk areas as well as to build

in parks and open space), since the cost of land

or subsidize replacement housing. But there is

is less there. The more complete cost profile

more at stake than just housing units.

above (especially the last item) creates the logic to find opportunities to supply replacement units

We urge that a different financial outlook be used

in more expensive neighborhoods that have

in connection with relocation—one that recogniz-

greater wealth of amenities and services. This

es the full complexity of what is involved. These

could promote greater integration across the

added costs include:

city, consistent with one of the major thrusts of this white paper.

Land acquisition of the site left behind, not just the relocation site

4. Funding Instruments: Money is not the issue: New York is one of the richest cities in one of the

Support for social services for the communi-

richest nations of the world. There have been any

ty in transition.

number of taxing ideas that have been raised and might be employed to raise the revenue

Interim uses for this land that maintains the

needed for relocation. Listed below are such

quality of life in the community over the

ideas (some of which were also raised in the

decades during which relocation will take

earlier chapters).

place A tax on nonresidents / absentee owners / The permanent repurposing of the land left

second homes

behind A floor of 1 percent of assessed value as Relocation of heritage assets wherever

Real Estate tax, including for property owned

possible

by nonprofit institutions

The honoring of historic narratives and

A graduated real estate tax in which the

identities

higher the value of the property, the higher the mill rate.

Compensation for disruption of livelihood and other dimensions of daily life

A real estate transfer or flat tax at point of sale for all manner of property, graduated or

Social and physical infrastructure investment in the host communities

pegged to start at a specific value

A tax on stock transfers devoted to infrastruc-

covenants and easements to provide compensa-

ture, as discussed elsewhere in this white

tion and maintain some community continuity in

paper.

the interim. The NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) already employs covenant

Each of these (or other) funding strategies would need its own feasibility and trade-offs analysis. This should be done simultaneous with the comprehensive planning process, not after. While 2050 and 2100 seem far away, time is still of the essence. Construction of flood mitigation in addition to relocation will prove necessary and will take decades to implement. We cannot count on the federal government since climate change—droughts, fires, extreme heat, coastal flooding, increased storm actions—is a growing national problem, unlike singular events (such as Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina) that neither add up to budget-busting nor compete

and easement programs, in the lands surrounding the City’s water supply reservoirs within Catskill, Croton, and Delaware watersheds 21

upstate. This existing program illustrates a potentially useful compensatory model for managing development over time in the most vulnerable sections of New York City’s floodplain. Purchasing covenants and easements can, over time, allow the City to manage risk while supplying financial resources to property owners. Easements could be used in multifamily rental projects to compensate for decreased unit counts in a gradual relocation scenario. As units

across the nation for emergency funds.

of multifamily housing naturally turnover and

Raising taxes (in whatever form) is always

for permanently removing vulnerable units from

unpopular and lobbied against. But waiting just assures draconian money revenue strategies later. The long-term nature of this planning requires that policies and funding be crafted in acknowledgement of the need to persist across

become vacant, owners could be compensated service, through a public purchase of an easement that prohibits reoccupation. Easements might also be used at all scales for requiring building or site improvements that

many election cycles.

better protect the building or even the neighbor-

Covenants, Easements, and Transfer of Development Rights

moving utilities)—i.e., these improvements are

The strategies above mainly addressed financial

enforcement.

hood from the impact of flooding (such as not just subsidized, they must be maintained thereafter. Note that this begs the issue of

mechanisms to raise the necessary billions of dollars needed to finance relocation. There are

Covenants might be used in which the City

also mechanisms that can allow these public

(State, others) buy an option on the property for

funds to be employed in ways that take

its present value contingent on the primary

advantage that relocation can unfold over time

tenant/occupant moving or the tenant being

rather than happen as a single event, with benefit

forced to vacate due to an extreme weather

to both the people to be moved and the

event / fire / etc.

communities in which they now live. Given that many owner-occupants of properties 1. Covenants and Easements: There is signifi-

may have significant balances on mortgages, the

cant potential in using a combination of

development of new easement and covenant programs must work with the lending communi-

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. New York City’s Land Acquisition Program: Protecting Water Quality in the Catskill, Croton, and Delaware Watersheds. Accessed Online: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/watershed-protection/assistance-for-homeowners-landowners/2010_lap_brochure.pdf

ty on new forms of flexibility to allow potential mortgage subordination.

2. Transfer of Development Rights: Additionally,

housing construction program in areas with

pairing conservation easements and even

limited risk, while also supporting programs to

purchase of flood prone property with some

help physically vulnerable communities in the

expanded transfer of development rights (TDR)

near term.

program could provide a way to maintain housing supply in the City over all while providing

To place economic equity and racial justice at

some compensation for homeowners in severely

the center of these incremental and new

risk prone areas.

long-term plans, several considerations and approaches follow.

For legal nexus issue, this approach can only work if the TDR sending and receiving sites are

1. Programs Driven by Property Values: Most

within the same neighborhood, and where the

public investment programs use some form of

value of the TDR is greater at the receiving than

cost-benefit analysis to figure out whether an

at the sending site. A City-sponsored TDR ‘bank’

improvement is a reasonable use of public funds.

would be needed to carry out the recommenda-

Using property values as the significant driver of

tion given the legal and other transaction costs

cost-benefit analysis, as done by the FEMA,

associated with TDR; even so, TDR works best

drives mitigation (flood walls, etc.) investments

where the values to be transferred are the

to real estate-rich locales, such as Lower

greatest.

Manhattan and Chelsea, instead of lower-value locales, such as Red Hook and the Rockaways.

Thus, this tool could be effectively used in places

This makes it impossible to resolve prior

like Chelsea and East Harlem in Manhattan, and

inequities and legacies of disinvestment. Instead,

Columbia Street and Gowanus in Brooklyn; more

public programs (especially FEMA) should

so than at all in places like in Red Hook in

consider the significant costs of temporary and

Brooklyn, southeast Staten Island, and Jamaica

permanent damages and disruptions to low- and

Bay / Rockaways in Queens. Nonetheless, these

moderate-income households that will not have

are the neighborhoods where the purchase of

the resources to weather climatic shocks or

easements, convenants or outright ownership of

stresses, and instead, will depend on emergency

units is most expensive. Thus, using TDR here

resources to compensate for unmet needs.

freeds up more money to be spent on other less affluent areas, inclusive of the social, physical,

Similarly, property purchase programs, which

and economic compensations called for earlier.

transition high-risk properties into open space, are designed around compensating owners

An Equity and Justice Approach to Buyout Programs

based on their property’s market value rather than the actual cost to rehouse in an area with fewer physical or social vulnerabilities. Instead,

Although buyout programs and managed retreat

such programs should be designed around the

initiatives may be a logical and fiscally responsi-

actual costs of rehousing, recognizing that newer

ble solution to changing landscapes in high-risk

property owners may have significant mortgage

communities over the next decades, without a

balances and that disasters can also create a

significant investment in the development of

significant amount of financial distress. As New

comparably priced housing in communities

York’s real estate market is subject to significant

without flood risk, reducing the available housing

national and international speculative pressures,

inventory displaces the problem and does not

it is also possible that market actors could, at

reduce overall human vulnerability. The next and

certain moments, inflate property values. For this

later administrations must spearhead a

reason, property purchase programs cannot

substantial and radically inclusive affordable

exist alone and need to pair with comprehensive

changes in land use and building controls.

will also reduce building revenues while not

Finally, as noted earlier, the public programs

expenses, there is a need for new subsidy

should employ a broader financing definition, inclusive of the repurposing of the land left behind, relocation of heritage assets, and compensation for disruption of livelihood and other dimensions of daily life, in addition to the typical combination (for condemnation) of only property purchase and direct relocation

programs to help with this thoughtful transition. Innovation variations in the spirit of Section-8 housing choice vouchers could provide low-income tenants with the resources they need to rehouse while also supplying revenues to an owner to remove a unit. Expansion of and

expenses.

modifications to the Section-8 program could

2. Programs for Rental housing: Over 65 percent

tenants, as described later.

of New York City’s residents live in rental housing, yet there are no robust examples of public, climate transition programs for tenants or for rental units at risk. Helping permanent relocation prior to a disaster will reduce the substantial socio-emotional risks as well the financial costs of aiding families in the aftermath of a disaster, particularly in consideration of extremely challenging to rehouse supportive and senior populations. Pre-disaster relocation programs can supply incentives while also supporting families and communities in making the choices that are most appropriate to meet their own needs. Rather than creating programs with a single option or requiring consensus on a community move, public programs should have the flexibility and resources to promote housing

also be used to supply greater housing choice for

3. Private Financing: Private owners of market-rate and naturally affordable units will be looking for aid and direction from traditional sources of capital. As a national and international center for financial institutions, New York City has the potential to work in partnership with conventional and institutional lenders to incorporate equity-minded flood risk standards and limitations into local lending practices. A natural place to start may be within the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) practices of local lenders, as well as with Program Related Investments and Impact funds at philanthropies working locally. As a part of these discussions, substantial attention must be paid to issues of mortgage/debt subordination on existing

choice.

properties in extremely high-risk areas, so that

For owners of medium and larger size multi-fam-

community planning outcome, owner liabilities,

ily housing, particularly rent-regulated (non-public) housing, there is a substantial gap and limited regulatory flexibility in allowing the decommissioning of the ground floor and basement dwellings most at risk to flooding to allow improvements that reduce the overall building unit count but allow retrofits that promote the safety and well-being of tenants in most units. The City must work with the State Department of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to create and manage flexibility to protect most units through thoughtful retrofit programs. As there are few incentives for owners to remove units, since reductions in unit count

reducing a proportionate amount of operating

there can be greater alignment between and capital markets. 4. Flood Insurance: Another challenge is finding a productive way to interact and influence changes in flood insurance. Small building owners (buildings under ten units), if they carry flood insurance, only buy flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Established in 1968, NFIP supplies federally subsidized flood insurance for property owners who could not get flood insurance from private insurance companies. Problematically for places like New York City, the NFIP insurance products have capped payouts, thusly primarily

assist the owners of small homes and buildings and leave owners and renters in larger multi-family buildings with limited financial protections from flood risk. As changes in the insurance market can diminish the potential for new construction and reduce investment in the maintenance and improvement of existing structures, while also creating challenging affordability considerations for existing owners, the City will have limited regulatory avenues for providing assistance. Potential interactions with the New York State Department of Financial Services, which regulates the insurance markets allowed to operate within New York State, could allow avenues for short-term affordability or continuity of service issues. But as the primary insurance market is federally subsidized and regulated, changes to this market will require significant

preliminary flood insurance rate maps for purposes of its Zoning Resolution and building codes. This effort assures that, at a minimum, newly constructed buildings will be designed to minimize damage from flooding. But these maps are snapshots in time. As the global climate evolves, New York City’s floodplains will expand in response to rising seas and increased frequency and intensity of storm events caused by the rise in global temperature. Each new Mayoral administration should systematically update correct flood maps for the purposes of the zoning and building code so that new development and substantially improved structures are required to meet contemporary flood risk safety standards and continue to coordinate with State and federal regulators to ensure the accuracy of these efforts in order to ensure the safety of New Yorkers.

federal lobbying. 5. FEMA Mapping for Insurance Coverage: NFIP also promotes unified local floodplain management to reduce property at risk in flood areas. The pairing of insurance and floodplain management was meant to make it easier and more affordable for existing property owners in high-risk areas to buy flood insurance while helping communities to better prepare for and avoid damage from flooding. But the combination of subsidized insurance rates, out-of-date and increasingly inaccurate flood maps, and policies that fail to discourage repetitive loss risks have effectively subsidized development and redevelopment in high-risk areas. New York City is updating its flood insurance rate maps for the first time since they were created in 1983 in coordination with FEMA as required for continued participation in NFIP. It is projected that the geography of flood risk in the city will expand significantly, nearly doubling in size, creating a new affordability challenge, particularly for owners for small homes—while also still potentially not capturing the full extent of the city’s flood risk. The City has adopted the

image 23

Public Subsidy of Existing and Future Housing

Voucher would require changes to allow

Policies, regulations, and housing subsidies can

City’s source of income discrimination laws,

be powerful signals to the housing market about

and the development of new affordable

the severe need to consider risk management in

housing.

broader access to the city’s housing supply in high-opportunity areas, enforcement of the

the development and maintenance of housing. Potential affordable housing tools to consider are

Adjustments could be made to assure the

as follows:

availability of units in the lottery system for publicly supported housing units and

Modifications to the City’s Qualified Allocation Plan for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The City should consider disallowing the use of 9 percent credits for new construction in the floodplain, or the creation of geographically specific flood risk requirements that exceed the current code for projects in the floodplain. The City should consider requiring that 4 percent projects in the flood plain include flood mitigation work, such as utility elevation; and the City should allow the reduction or relocation of existing units to benefit the long-term safety of the

come housing, such as those enabled by Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH). The units are marketed citywide with some weighting in favor of neighborhood residents. The weighting could also be in favor low- and moderate-income households relocated as a result of managed retreat. Modification of Project-Based Section-8 Housing Choice vouchers and the lottery system for a portion of the affordable units in mixed income projects could help transition specific units or

total number of units.

even entire buildings out of use while granting

Expansion of Section-8 Housing Choice

owners. But only if there is expansion of both the

Vouchers could provide significant opportunities for residential mobility out of the flood plain. Housing Choice vouchers allow low-income residents to find housing in communities they select. Within the operation of the voucher program, modifications to the Decent-Safe-Sanitary standard used to inspect potential units for Section-8 could include flood risk mitigation requirements including disallowing habitation of basement or ground flood dwellings, requiring elevated utility systems and installation of backflow preventers. Expanding the availability of Section-8 Assistance, while, over time, restricting the use of vouchers in the most vulnerable of units and/or neighborhoods can support low-income renters and help in their transition away from the areas of highest physical risk. A successful expansion of Section-8 or creation of another form of Housing Choice

affordable units created through mixed-in-

tenants housing mobility and compensating Housing Choice vouchers and number of units available through the lottery system. Employment of these tools for people relocating out of the high-risk areas should not be at the expense of other high-need populations, such as the homeless. Modification or expansion of project-based conversions to finance substantial renovations could also encourage necessary investment in flood-prone structures. Local Congressional representatives might join the City to argue for change to federal regulations to allow HOME funds to be deployed in this manner. This incremental approach to relocation is not without tradeoffs that would need addressing. As noted earlier, the City must, with the affected communities, plan for a transition that does not yield disinvestment as well as depopulation, and instead lead to improved preparedness for

flooding. For instance, it is possible to imagine how removing several floors of units will allow movement of utility systems so that the rest of a large multifamily building could better absorb

As always, it will be necessary to figure out how to make the most of limited incentives and subsidies for the upgrade of existing housing versus the development of new housing. It is

flooding from a significant event.

essential that existing residents have access to

Opportunities to Improve Existing Housing

shelter during and after extreme weather

As much as 17 percent of the City will by the year

addition to allowing for the relocation of building

2100 be under high tide unless safeguarded with

mechanicals in buildings with moderate flood

floodworks like sea walls and berms, and vast

risk, spaces may need to be retrofitted or

new areas now outside of the floodplain will be in

developed new to allow residents to stay cool

the new floodplain. Truly little of this housing was

during extreme heat events. There will also be

built since floodproofing (aka waterproofing) was

the unintended consequences of undesirable

incorporated into either the Building Code or

inflation in housing rents as the costs are

Zoning Resolution. All of it will be newly vulnera-

amortized across rental units, or conversely the

ble.

inability of property owners to remain solvent if

quality housing that supplies a safe space to events—not limited to flooding. For instance, in

the costs exceed what can be passed on to As a housing code regulator and enforcer, the City

tenants (i.e., exceed the thresholds of substantial

has the potential to pass legislation and make

improvement). The City should develop flexible

updates to the Building Code that require

incentive programs, including density bonuses,

compliance for new structures, not just in the

to allow the replacement of housing that has

existing floodplain but in the future floodplain as

exceeded its useful life while ensuring that

well. The legislation and updates can also be fore

existing tenants are affordability rehoused in the

existing construction, requiring compliance within

new and improved structures.

a specified timeframe; for instance, New York State legislation allows for municipalities to

Socializing and Messaging Change

require compliance with regulations for pre-existing signs after a specified time associated with

Finally, it is critical that elected officials,

the ‘life’ of the investment. Thirty (30) years may

advocates, as well as residents all develop

be reasonable for existing buildings as it

awareness and literacy in the challenge and need

coincides with the typical mortgage cycle.

for action in response to flood risk. Socializing a shared understanding of flood risk and its

Such regulations add to cost. In the city’s present

relationship with the broader housing crisis will

hyper real estate market, most of the impact will

help foster more inclusive and comprehensive

be on the speculative and inflated value of

community-led solutions.

property (due to the practice of calculating the

residual value of property after factoring all

Socializing and communicating how to mitigate

revenues and expenses). But what about

manageable risks versus unmitigable risks will

affordable and rent-regulated housing—in which

facilitate broaching issues of increasing (like

such regulations can have punitive effects for

erosion and natural transformation of barrier

owners, higher rents for tenants, or create

islands/peninsulas – the Broad Channel, Coney

financial insolvency? In these instances, it is

Island, the Rockaways) versus geographies

critical to pair these regulations with incentives

where combinations of neighborhood scale

and subsidies to help finance these improve-

improvements (berms, levees, etc.) and building

ments in affordable and rent-regulated housing.

improvements can reduce risk to a more

manageable (less disruptive, less likely to be fatal) level? The post-disaster context is ill-suited for thorny long-term planning discussions, as it is extremely hard to meaningfully consider long-term needs while facing urgent recovery. It is critical that the City use pre-disaster mitigation and potential compliance with FEMA floodplain regulations to socialize and unify potential responses in the next disaster. To productively create plans for growth, it will be necessary to connect low-risk communities with higher-risk communities, to foster dialogue and understanding around changing community needs across the City. Transparency and public process are a critical part of successful change, and the City’s current tool kit provides a limited way to recognize the scope of challenge or incorporate the substantial extents of affected people and neighborhoods. To conclude: Climate risk demonstrates the limitations of New York City’s existing built environment and housing stock. The City’s prior efforts to produce and rehabilitate housing neither meets local demand, nor supplies housing that is safe, high quality, and affordable. No one rationally chooses to live in unsafe conditions, rather, the conditions of New York City’s housing reflect the dearth of choice and opportunity. Climate risk mitigation is a necessary and right opportunity to improve the quality of existing affordable housing.

References image 1: https://nextcity.org/urban-

image 12: https://www.differencemaker-

ist-news/entry/nycha-de-

sny.org/programs

sign-guide-public-housing image 13: https://andrewprokos.com/phoimage 2: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/hous-

to/midtown-manhattan-skyscrapers-3/

ing/action/housing.page image 14: https://www.blackpast.org/afriimage 3: https://www.worldatlas.com/arti-

can-american-history/naacp-si-

cles/us-states-most-prone-to-flooding.html

lent-protest-parade-new-york-city-1917/

image 4: https://www.de-

image 15:

zeen.com/2016/12/02/michael-green-archi-

https://ny.curbed.com/2020/6/12/21287712

tec-

/new-york-city-evic-

ture-t3-largest-mass-timber-building-usa-min

tion-housing-court-reopening-coronavirus

neapolis-minnesota/ image 16: https://inhabitat.com/coastal-areimage 5: https://www.firefighterclose-

as-of-nyc-could-be-underwa-

calls.com/pro-

ter-if-another-sandy-like-storm-hits-in-2100/p

posed-wood-hi-rise-in-nyc-illegal-under-curre

rint/

nt-laws/ image 17: image 6: https://netgen.io/-

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/12/20/1679299

blog/bird-s-eye-view-on-ez-publish-fu-

0/new-york-affordable-housing-mitchell-lama

ture-the-new-york-trip image 18: https://wwimage 7:

w.alamy.com/stock-photo-any-nice-panora-

https://ny.curbed.com/maps/nyc-architec-

ma-illustra-

ture-world-trade-center-brooklyn-bridge

tion-of-a-skyline-144058117.html?irclickid=S UnV8hwKNxyIWE81SHXeNRLDUkG2U80Zxz

image 8: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/-

Q%3A2U0&irgwc=1&utm_source=77643&ut

content/air-pollution-makes-you-less-smart/

m_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20a t%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact

image 9: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/01/16/green-new-deal-in

image 19: https://www1.nyc.gov/as-

-em-

sets/planning/download/pdf/plans-stud-

pire-state-doubles-distributed-solar-power/

ies/climate-resiliency/flood-risk-nyc-info-brief .pdf

image 10: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/retrofitting-build-

image 20: https://www.us-

ings/retrofitting-buildings.page

news.com/dims4/USNEWS/e088304/2147483647/thumb-

image 11: https://www.central-

nail/640x420/quality/85/?url=http%3A%2F%2

parknyc.org/articles/central-park-lawns

Fcom-usnews-beam-media.s3.amazonaws.c

om%2Fd2%2Fdd%2F603245e146c4af1c97e57f46840b%2F1 90419-nyc-editorial.jpg image 21: https://assets.teenvogue.com/photos/6025461655dea667f5038529/1:1/w_128 0,c_limit/GettyImages-1171576155.jpg image 22: https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/4Fq6FOyoZH2B6AX-jD2LdX4ZBKs=/1400x1050/filters:format(jpeg)/cdn. vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/192 15804/GettyImages_1146326587.jpg image 23: https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/feds-to-finally-start-long-due-cleanup-of-brooklyns-toxic-g owanus-canal/

https://www.pratt.edu/academics/architecture/

Pratt Institute - White Paper on Housing Policy

Articles inside

References

Managed and Whole Community Relocation

The Right to Housing