Image from Yasser Amin on Pexels
As New York City continues to fight against the escalating housing crisis, Mayor Eric Adams and the Department of City Planning have unveiled an ambitious blueprint for reform: the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity. This initiative aims to eliminate several outdated zoning regulations to facilitate the construction of an additional 100,000 homes within the next 15 years. In the middle of this initiative is the introduction of the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP), which allows for at least 20 percent density bonus for developers. This bonus is contingent on ensuring that the additional housing units created are affordable. This measure is part of a broader strategy to increase the housing supply in every neighborhood, thereby directly addressing the issues of soaring housing costs, displacement, homelessness, and the lack of rights from tenants.
DCP Director Dan Garodnick emphasized the comprehensive nature of this plan when Mayor Adams announced the initiative in September. “With this zoning framework and investments in affordable housing, open space, and more, we are delivering the improvements that our neighbors who participated in the Atlantic Avenue Mixed-Use Plan engagement process have been asking for,” Garodnick noted. “this is an important step forward to create a more vibrant Central Brooklyn.” During a detailed virtual public information session held this past Tuesday, housing officials delved deeper into the mechanics of the UAP. They explained that, if ratified, this new framework would supersede the existing Voluntary Inclusionary Housing program that has been in effect since 1987. This program currently permits developers to construct additional density in designated areas if they include a proportion of income-restricted units.
However, the UAP is designed to be more expansive, applying to all high-density areas of the city, and targeting affordability for lower income brackets than those by the VIH program, which is capped at 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). This is equivalent to $101,680 for a family of three. However, an 80 percent AMI does not adequately meet the affordability needs of many New Yorkers, particularly because of AMIs having risen sharply in recent years. Unlike VIH, UAP would allow for a mix of income levels within projects that will address the over-concentration of units at the 80 percent AMI level, which would be extremely beneficial for everyone.
Though detailed affordability specifications for UAP have yet to be finalized, DCP has indicated its intention to thoroughly discuss these parameters before the proposal is forwarded for public review in spring, leading to a definitive vote by the City Council anticipated in the fall of 2024. John Mangin, the head of the housing division at DCP, pointed out the need for a flexible and inclusive approach to affordability under the UAP. He stated that “we are committed to creating affordable housing across a spectrum of incomes. We understand that the costs of housing in New York City are skyrocketing, and our aim is to make affordable housing accessible to families across various income levels.”
In conjunction with the proposed UAP, city officials are also exploring potential synergies with state-level tax abatements such as the renewal of the 421-a program. This partnership offers significant potential for launching numerous privately-supported, mixed-income housing developments. The city is currently advocating for the reinstatement of certain state-level tax incentives that would enhance the UAP and facilitate the creation of many affordable housing units over the next ten years. However, without these tax incentives for multifamily housing, the prospects for substantial new mixed-income rental projects are unlikely.
The city’s existing Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) policy, which requires developers to allocate 20-30 percent of units in newly rezoned areas for affordable housing, is also set to benefit from the integration with UAP. In areas where MIH is applicable, and where the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provided under UAP is higher, the MIH requirements will be adjusted accordingly to encourage more extensive housing development. The “City of Yes” initiative is undergoing one of the largest environmental reviews ever undertaken by the city, according to Mangin. The proposal outlines several major reforms, such as removing mandatory parking requirements for new developments, repurposing vacant office spaces into affordable housing, and eliminating other barriers to residential construction. Additionally, it aims to enable new projects on large institutional campuses, revise restrictions from the sliver law that limit building on narrow parking lots, and allow cultural heritage site to sell unused development rights.
I love it when people come together and share opinions, great blog, keep it up.
Thank you so much!
100,000 homes would mean a lot to millions of families. That’s a great leap forward.
YES!!!! It’s about time New York City took aggressive action to fix the housing crisis. If done right, the Universal Affordability Preference could make a real difference. I’m so happyyyy
Personally, I feel like 100,000 homes over 15 years is not nearly enough to keep up with demand. The city needs to go bigger and faster if they really want to curb skyrocketing rents
I agree because I read from another article on this website that there is 800,000 jobs compared to 200,000 homes so I do have to say it’s not enough, especially over the next 15 years
100,000 is still a lot and it will help millions of families so we should still be grateful for what the city gives us.
We have to consider the fact that TENANTS are getting more rights… we’ve been fighting for this for years and now it might come true
I agree. As a single mother of four, $101,680 doesn’t do much. Considering the inflation in NYC, that’s not enough to get by
This is a matter of what “affordability” means in NYC because NYC has one of the highest cost of living in the country I think
yep it is so I’m hoping that it’ll be a lot better than what it is right now
When Mangin said “spectrum of income,” I feel like instead of focusing on a spectrum, we should prioritize the low-income families and those who are homeless because they’re the one who needs it the most.
I agree. The rich don’t necessarily need more housing.
I think there is another article on this website that talks about how one of the reasons why people are homeless is because the rich neighborhoods refuse to give up spaces for more housing
That’s disappointing 🙁
I think it’s amazing because we’re finally doing something and people who are homeless or struggling can have a home!!!
Sorry I didn’t mean disappointing. I’m actually really happy what the city is doing but I’m also hoping that wages can increase because people were actually paid livable wage then maybe they wouldn’t need to depend on affordable housing
The point about taxing multifamily housing is important because we can deduct depreciation expense over time and it can lower the taxable income and liabilities.
Is that how it works? I’ve never thought of it like that
The amount of information that goes into this is amazing, especially with all the quotes. Do you listen to the recording for the speeches to get the quotes?
Yes! Sometimes I read the transcript of the video if it provides it because it’s quicker that way
Wow that must’ve taken a lot of hard work Thanks for providing these
Thank you so much!!
I have two sons and one daughter and we are by no means rich so this article means a lot. I’m not well-versed in any of this stuff even though i should be because it’s impactful especially to us lower class families. Thank you!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
I’m really glad our city is doing something about affordable housing because WE NEED IT
I agree, especially with the mandatory inclusionary housing because 20-30% is a good start. Maybe we can go for more in the future
The problem with this is that if you do dedicate too much percentage to affordable housing, it’ll demotivate others to build housing in newly rezoned areas
That is a valid concern so I think the amount we have right now is just right and balanced
The problem with this is that if you do dedicate too much percentage to affordable housing, it’ll demotivate others to build housing in newly rezoned areas
Repurposing vacant office spaces into housing is a great idea and I can’t believe we haven’t thought about that. We have so many empty buildings while thousands of people are struggling to find a place to live. This should have happened years ago.
AT LEAST ITS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!!