Skip to main content

No "poor door" but "poor-er floors"? At "100% affordable" tower, lowest incomes on 3 lowest floors, document says (but developer says no)

Will apartments for poorest 15 households
all be below green line in 535 Carlton?
It seems another lessening of the egalitarian promises in the Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park affordable housing: call it the "poor-er floor."

In the 100% affordable, 18-story 535 Carlton tower, slated to start opening this month or next, the 15 neediest households, paying $589 for a one-bedroom and $713 for a two-bedroom, are assigned to the three lowest floors (2-4), according to a document filed with the city. See green line in annotated graphic at left.

These households are at 30%-40% of Area Median Income (AMI), for a single person starting at $20,126 and a four-person household with income up to $36,240.

The other 75 low-income units--for households at 41%-60% of AMI-- are distributed more extensively, but not randomly: 59 of these apartments are on floors 2 through 8, according to a 12/15/14 sublease filed with the city's ACRIS database, published at bottom, and excerpted below right.

The developers disagree. A spokesman for Greenland Forest City Partners took issue with my conclusions, telling me, upon being sent the sublease, "The units will not be isolated on floors 2, 3 and 4."

What that means is unclear--one unit will be/has been moved? more?--because he refused to supply any documentation. No successor sublease is available on ACRIS. Without evidence, I'll rely on the sublease for now.

535 Carlton: lowest-income households
above green line (click to enlarge)
What it looks like

There'd be no majority "poor floor," but some floors would have a disproportionate number of low-income households, while higher floors house more of the 207 moderate- and middle-income units, deemed "affordable" but closer to market rates, according to the sublease.

On the first four residential floors, above the ground-floor lobby and retail spaces, 13 of 26 apartments, or 50%, will be occupied by low-income households. A random distribution would be 30%.

The higher floors look different, according to the sublease. On floors 10 through 16, with 14 apartments per floor, there'd be only two low-income units each (14.3%) on six of the floors, with none on floor 13. Floors 17 and 18 would have five apartments each, none low-income.

That means those paying the most--top rents are $2,137 for a studio, $2,680 for a 1-bedroom, $3,223 for a two-bedroom, and $3,716 for a three-bedroom--likely will get better views.

That's not out of line for market-rate buildings, of course. But representatives of developer Greenland Forest City Partners have publicly said the units would be distributed randomly.

So did Bertha Lewis, who as head of New York ACORN had signed an Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Forest City Ratner in 2005 and in a July 2006 City Limits op-ed wrote:
More than anything, in an era of increasing housing segregation, Atlantic Yards will be one of the only neighborhoods in Brooklyn where families of all backgrounds will be able to really live and grow together. That’s because ACORN insisted, and Forest City Ratner agreed, that the affordable units be spread throughout every rental building at random on every floor. 
(Emphasis added)

That agreement was never memorialized in any official document, as far as I know, nor in that MOU, which described aspirations rather than enforced a contract.

Below is a chart of the building's units, which are disproportionately aimed at middle-income households.
535 Carlton rents
Note on the data

My analysis of both 535 Carlton and 38 Sixth is based on subleases regarding the low-income units, to new LLCs, as well as  Occupancy & Use documents that delineate the number of units per floor.  All are at bottom. In both the sublease and the graphics, I have partially obscured the specific unit numbers, in the interest of privacy, but left the first digit visible to indicate the floor.

No answers

On Thursday, I queried Lewis, now head of The Black Institute, as well as Ismene Speliotis, who heads the Mutual Housing Association of New York, who helped devise the affordable housing plan at ACORN and has been managing outreach for the affordable units. Neither responded. (It has been a busy week, I recognize.)
535 Carlton, remaining low-income units;
click to enlarge

I also queried Michelle de la Uz, of the Fifth Avenue Committee, who as a representative of BrooklynSpeaks was once highly critical of the affordability of units, but whose rhetoric became more optimistic in 2014, after getting a new 2025 deadline for the affordable housing. (That gained ten years from the previously extended "outside date" of 2035, but did not lock in affordability.)

Update: she responded Monday, saying she was unaware of the plan, adding that it wouldn't be clear if this was consistent with city policy without checking the regulatory agreement (and concurring with my observation that this departed from rhetoric when the project was first approved).

And I queried Greenland Forest City, sending the relevant documents, getting the response noted above.

Earlier, at a 9/13/16 community meeting, I asked if the different income levels were "distributed randomly" in 535 Carlton.

"Yes," replied Forest City Ratner executive Ashley Cotton. Added Greenland USA executive Scott Solish, "They're mixed throughout the building,"

Perhaps they'll be asked questions about this at today's meeting of the Atlantic Yards Community Development Corporation.

Potential explanation: it's business

Surely there's a business reason to concentrate lower-rent units on lower floors. After all, it may be tougher to fill "affordable" units that, while below market, are hardly cheap, so those views help.

If, as I reported, after some 30 years, those middle-income affordable units could go condo while low-income units remain under rent stabilization, surely higher-floor units would command higher prices. If Greenland Forest City wants to sell the building, this configuration offers advantages over a more random one.

Different views

Will residents complain? Maybe not. Perhaps those lucky enough to win the long odds of the low-income lottery might not complain much about the non-random location of their spanking new apartment, or even the noise of construction as the building above them is finished up.

As one apartment-seeker wrote on a forum for those seeking units in another Pacific Park building with affordable units, 461 Dean, "I don't even care if I get a unit on the ground floor with no view, i'll be happy as a clam."

Also, it's likely that, given the plan to open the building on a rolling basis, those living in the lower-floor apartments might move in a few weeks or months ahead of those on higher floors. It just doesn't match the rhetoric.

No "poor door," no requirement, but meets 80/20 standard

Indeed, there's no "poor door"--which original Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner has righteously condemned. And it's not uncommon for 80/20 buildings, with 80% market-rate units and 20% low-income apartments, skewing the latter to lower floors.

I couldn't find if there's any rule regarding the distribution of low-income units in a "100% affordable" building. When it comes to buildings with a fraction of affordable housing, the city requires that low-income units must be spread on 65% of the floors. In 535 Carlton, that standard has been met, as the low-income units--at least the ones not for the poorest--are sprinkled throughout the tower, albeit unevenly.

That 65% figure was in jeopardy regarding one of Mayor Bill de Blasio's initiatives. Manhattan Community Board 4, in a November 2015 letter (p. 6) commenting on Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH), criticized the then-plan to decrease "the requirement for distribution of the affordable housing from 65% to 50% of the floors in a building."

CB 4 called for 80% of the floors to contain affordable housing, warning, "Segregating and or relegating affordable units to lower floors creates, not a Poor Door, but a Poor Floor."

The City Planning Commission three months later defended the 50% plan: "Elements that increase the cost of providing affordable housing or diminish the revenues that can be realized from market-rate housing erode the ability to provide the required affordable housing without the need for public subsidy."

In March, the City Council approved de Blasio's MIH plan, with the 65% requirement.

Similar plans at 38 Sixth Avenue

38 Sixth; lowest-income units above
green line; click to enlarge
In the second "100% affordable" building, the under-construction 38 Sixth Avenue, the configuration also seems skewed, though not as glaringly.

In the 23-story building, ten of the 14 poorest families would be assigned to the three lowest floors, floors 2, 3, and 4, according to the sublease regarding the 91 low-income units, excerpted at right. (I've similarly obscured the actual unit numbers involved.)

Those 91 low-income units are divided among 14 apartments for households earning up to 40% of AMI, and 77 units for households earning up to 60% of AMI.

The other 77 low-income units, according to the 6/17/15 sublease, are distributed somewhat more randomly, but also are disproportionally on the lower floors: 70 of these apartments are on floors 2 through 13. That would mean 11 floors with 50% low-income units.

The other seven low-income units would be on floors 14 through 18, representing 10.1% of the total 69 units on those floors, while floors 19 through 23, with 65 total apartments, would have no low-income units.

If that remains accurate, the configuration again seems aimed to justify higher "affordable" rents on the higher floors, and to position the building for a future conversion.

A spokesman for the developers did not answer questions about 38 Sixth, which I sent after asking for elucidation of the response regarding 535 Carlton. But it's reasonable to assume that Greenland Forest City takes issue with the analysis--but won't supply evidence to contradict it.

A history of diminished affordability

38 Sixth, remaining low-income units;
click to enlarge
The affordability of the Atlantic Yards housing has diminished in several ways over the years.

First, the much-promoted 50/50 program--50% market-rate/50% affordable--was actually 50/30/20, with 20% of the units low-income, the rest moderate- or middle-income.

Then the 50/50 program was attenuated by the addition of 1,930 condos, perhaps 200 of them below market (but oriented to households earning six figures).

Then the plan for all the rental towers to be 50/50 was altered, after the new timetable was achieved in 2014, by the creation of two "100% affordable" towers, said to speed below-market housing but also creating two 100% market-rate towers.

Then, within those "100% affordable" towers, the configuration does not represent that long promised in the Atlantic Yards Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in 2005, with 40% low-income units and 40% middle-income ones, but rather with far more middle-income units.

In those two buildings, the middle-income units and low-income units, both divided into two "bands," skew toward the more expensive bands compared to what was long promised. And the ceiling for both the low-income and middle-income units has been raised.

The documents


Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.