City of Yes: A brief analysis
There are 3 proposals included in Mayor Adams and the Department of City Planning “City of Yes”: For Carbon Neutrality; For Housing Opportunity; For Economic Opportunity. These proposals will eliminate (or “simplify”) most of the zoning laws currently in place.
From what I read on their website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/city-of-yes/city-of-yes-overview.page) the first proposal, Carbon Neutrality, has already been passed by the City Council. The City of Yes for Economic Opportunity is currently in public review, with the City Council vote anticipated to take place in March 2024. The Housing proposal is entering public review in spring (April) of 2024, receiving input from community boards and borough presidents before going to the City Planning Commission for a vote.
But what exactly are these proposals and how are they supposed to help ease the housing and economic crises in New York City? The following are the main points gleaned from their official website documents, with some comments concerning them.
Despite all this, I still have a few questions. Will the bulk of building in “market” rate continue to be luxury market rate? How will all these zoning changes/removals affect the homeless housing crisis and how? Next time, City of Yes Economic Opportunity.
There are 3 proposals included in Mayor Adams and the Department of City Planning “City of Yes”: For Carbon Neutrality; For Housing Opportunity; For Economic Opportunity. These proposals will eliminate (or “simplify”) most of the zoning laws currently in place.
From what I read on their website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/planning/plans/city-of-yes/city-of-yes-overview.page) the first proposal, Carbon Neutrality, has already been passed by the City Council. The City of Yes for Economic Opportunity is currently in public review, with the City Council vote anticipated to take place in March 2024. The Housing proposal is entering public review in spring (April) of 2024, receiving input from community boards and borough presidents before going to the City Planning Commission for a vote.
But what exactly are these proposals and how are they supposed to help ease the housing and economic crises in New York City? The following are the main points gleaned from their official website documents, with some comments concerning them.
- Universal Affordability Preference: Allow buildings to add at least 20% more housing if the additional homes are affordable, delivering affordable housing to high-cost neighborhoods.
- This will apply to medium and high-density zoned areas.
- Office-to-Residential Conversions: Make it easier for vacant offices and other non-residential buildings to become much-needed homes.
- Actually, this could make sense, because since the pandemic many more people are working from home and remotely, leaving thousands of sq feet of office space empty in Manhattan in those huge office towers.
- Town Center Zoning: Legalize housing above businesses in low-density areas, creating vibrant mixed-use corridors.
- This will affect communities such as ours in CB 10 and elsewhere in the city. This calls for up to 4 floors of housing added to existing single-story storefronts. There will apparently be no upgrade to infrastructure to account for these new apartments. A red flag.
- Remove Costly Parking Mandates: Reduce housing costs by making off-street parking optional in new buildings.
- Although the city would like us to become more like a European city, with everyone getting around on bikes and using mass transit, this is not reality. Especially when our subway system continues to be a source of crime and violence, so that many people avoid taking the subway. Also, some communities are transit “deserts,” with very limited mass transit options. People have a right to have a car, and this will be a recipe for parking disaster and garage price gouging. Another red flag.
- Accessory Dwelling Units: Allow backyard cottages, garage conversions, and basement apartments, giving homeowners extra cash and providing space for multi-generational families. From the official press release: “Owners of 1- or 2-family houses should have the option to add a small second home, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), to their properties. These small units would be limited to 800 square feet and could come in a variety of types, including backyard cottages (made from garages), attached in-law suites, basement apartments, and attic conversions. These units would be subject to safety inspection and approval.
- There is a lot to unpack here. While it may be true that some families would use it to add space for a family member (up to 61% in California they say), there is always the opportunity to add the space as a lucrative rental, and to take advantage of both the renter and the city housing reimbursement policies to make a tidy sum. Also, the space would have to meet all safety regulations. There is already a number of illegal apartments in our area. Remember that some people died in the past due to flash flooding in unsafe basement apartments. This is one aspect that is fraught with unsavory possibilities and consequences and should raise a big red flag.
- Transit-Oriented Development: Legalize 3-5 story apartment buildings on qualifying sites near public transit in low-density areas.
- This would seem to be logical, provided that these residents ARE IN FACT near public transportation that they can utilize easily, and do not go over 5 stories. But how extensive would these transit sites be and are they practically near the transit that determines this status? Will the proposed Metro North stations become an excuse for massive development? This vagueness is another cause for concern and a red flag.
- Small and shared housing: Lift restrictions on homes with shared kitchens or other facilities.
- This will allow and encourage boarding-house or dormitory style small apartments, with a communal kitchen, shared bathrooms and several bedrooms. This might work in areas where the apartment is really a “bedroom” for people who work many hours, as in some financial district areas. Again, there are possibilities for abuse here and rent gauging. A red flag.
Despite all this, I still have a few questions. Will the bulk of building in “market” rate continue to be luxury market rate? How will all these zoning changes/removals affect the homeless housing crisis and how? Next time, City of Yes Economic Opportunity.
