‘City of Yes’ or ‘City of No’

Image from Pexels

As New York City grapples with a growing housing crisis, Mayor Eric Adams’ City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (COYFHO) has emerged as a cornerstone of his administration’s efforts to create change. Currently under intense scrutiny from community boards, borough presidents, and the public, the ambitious zoning reform proposal seeks to modernize citywide regulations and lay the groundwork for the construction of 500,000 new homes over the next decade. The evaluations is astonishing with all 59 community boards, five borough presidents, and the general public. This extensive review process was highlighted during a recent 14-hour marathon hearing where hundreds of New Yorkers passionately voiced both support and opposition. Launched for public review at the end of April, COYFHO is a crucial component of Mayor Adams’ broader “City of Yes” initiative, which also addresses the city’s carbon footprint and commercial businesses. This initiative is pivotal to Adams’ ambition to construct 500,000 new homes over the next decade to address the escalating housing crisis.

“In the face of a record-low rental vacancy rate, inaction is not an option. This proposal is timely and necessary,” stated Dan Garodnick, Chair and Director of the Department of City Planning (DCP), ahead of the July 10 hearing. Garodnick, who has been instrumental in crafting the proposal, asserts that the initiative aims to enhance housing availability while preserving the character of existing neighborhoods. “We are committed to engaging with the community as this proposal progresses through its public review. Our goal is a productive and factual discussion on how best to resolve this crisis,” he remarked. The COYFHO strategy is detailed and multifaceted, consisting of eight main components. It proposes a density bonus for developers who integrate affordable housing, simplifies the conversion of buildings to residential use, allows for the development of housing above commercial spaces, and promotes taller constructions near public transit areas. It advocates for the legalization of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) such as basement apartments and garage conversions, facilitates construction on educational and religious institution campuses, and supports shared housing arrangements.

To date, the community board feedback recorded on the DCP’s Zoning Application Portal shows mixed responses: two boards are in favor, 26 oppose, 16 support with conditions, and six oppose with conditions. In Manhattan, two boards opted to evaluate the plan on a component-by-component basis, accepting some parts while rejecting others. Seven community board opinions remain unpublished. The borough presidents of Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn have endorsed the initiative. However, Staten Island’s Vito J. Fossella has expressed opposition, and Queens’ Donovan Richards has yet to issue a formal stance.

As the citywide zoning reform continues, it is crucial to note that while the recommendations of community boards and borough presidents are advisory, they can significantly influence the ultimate decisions of the City Planning Commission and City Council, whose upcoming votes are definitive. In recent public engagements, New Yorkers have passionately debated COYFHO’s merits, with discussions often focusing on potential modifications to better serve their communities. For example, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso supports the initiative but seeks adjustments to the proposed elimination of parking mandates. Instead of eliminating these requirements entirely, Reynoso suggests imposing a maximum limit on the number of parking spaces in areas with robust transit access, aiming for a more balanced and realistic approach. Reynoso also advocates for slightly increased density near transit zones beyond the current plan, which allows for 3- to 5-story buildings within a half-mile of transit stations. He notes that in his recommendations, many eligible parcels are already developed beyond these proposed limits, suggesting that the current changes might not stimulate new development in these areas. Furthermore, Reynoso supports the “Town Center Zoning” aspect of the plan, which would reauthorize residential units above commercial spaces, recommending enhancements to allow for taller buildings and a higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR) than currently proposed.

His support also hinges on the inclusion of the ADU provision, which would offer property owners more flexibility to add units such as cottages or convert garages into residential spaces on their properties. Rachel Fee, Executive Director of the New York Housing Conference, emphasized the importance of developing transit-oriented zones, identifying these areas as ideal for increasing density and thereby expanding affordable housing options. The Universal Affordability Preference (UAP), another contentious component, would enable developers to construct 20% more housing units, provided these are permanently affordable to families earning an average of 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), approximately $76,260 for a family of three. This adjustment aims to modestly raise the FAR cap for affordable and supportive housing, enhancing the potential for greater density while ensuring affordability.

In contrast, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) has lauded the UAP but criticized the proposed elimination of the city’s Voluntary Inclusionary Housing Program (VIH), which offers a similar density bonus with stricter affordability requirements. REBNY argues that eliminating VIH could undermine a valuable tool for fostering affordable and market-rate housing development. The debate over COYFHO is complex with its interplay of urban planning, community needs, and political dynamics. We must take into serious consideration because the path we choose will be the path we take. The debate surrounding the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (COYFHO) underscores the delicate balance between fostering growth, ensuring affordability, and addressing diverse community needs. As stakeholders weigh the potential impacts of these zoning reforms, the decisions made will shape the city’s housing landscape and define its trajectory for decades to come. It is a moment that demands thoughtful deliberation to building a more inclusive New York City.