Skip to main content

Featured Post

Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park graphic: what's built/what's coming + project FAQ (pinned post)

More from BP Adams's call for deeper affordability at 840 Atlantic: Pacific Park "affordable" units not geared to those facing most displacement pressure

There are two intriguing references to Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park in Brooklyn Borough Eric Adams's recommendations on the proposed 840 Atlantic Ave. development, on the southeast corner of Vanderbilt Avenue, which I covered yesterday.

Pacific Park helping fuel displacement

On page 8, it stated:

Ensuring an MIH Option that Provides Significantly for Very Low-Income Households and More Effectively Targets Income Tiers

Borough President Adams has heard a great deal of concern about ongoing gentrification and displacement in Crown Heights and Prospect Heights. The influx of wealthier individuals to the area, through the many units developed to date as part of Pacific Park, together with increased land values, has led to the replacement of longtime, low-income tenants, with new residents able to pay higher rents. influx of wealthier individuals to the area, through the many units developed to date as part of Pacific Park, together with increased land values, has led to the replacement of longtime, low-income tenants, with new residents able to pay higher rents.
(Emphases added)

So far, the four towers open in Pacific Park include one luxury condo building (a good portion of which is rented out), one 50% market/50% affordable rental building, and two "100% affordable" buildings, albeit with 65% middle-income housing.

Those buildings, with half the income-targeted units for middle-income households earning up to 165% of Area Median Income (AMI), are well above Adams's target for affordable units at 840 Atlantic: 40% of AMI, as opposed to two other potential configurations, averaging 60% of AMI or 80% of AMI.

Future Pacific Park "AMIs greater than 100 percent"

On page 9, it stated:

In its M-Crown framework, CB 8 has stipulated that affordable units resulting from private rezonings should be indexed to the district’s median income. Such strategies would help ensure that affordable housing created in the district is accessible to tenants experiencing the most displacement pressure, rather than those able to pay higher rents to stay in the neighborhood. This is particularly important as much of the anticipated affordable housing in the Pacific Park development will be geared toward AMIs greater than 100 percent. 

That's... interesting. Keep in mind that four residential buildings are under construction, and at least six more are expected, possibly seven. (Those six would be over the railyard, Then there's the Site 5 tower, which has been promoted as office space but could contain residential.)

I'm not sure whether that statement is based on having seen documentation regarding the next four buildings or whether it's simply a reasonable assessment of the fact that 30% affordability, under the 421-a program, most likely delivers affordable units aimed at households earning 130% of AMI. 

After all, I've already reported evidence that the largest tower, 18 Sixth Ave. (B4), would contain units at 130% of AMI.

There are no public clues yet regarding the configuration of the six (or seven) future buildings, but those if any start before June 15, 2022, they can similarly serve households at 130% of AMI--and it's reasonable to think that any future towers will be configured to deliver the most revenues allowable under housing regulations.

It might take extra subsidies--plus an argument for directing them there--to deliver more affordable units.

Comments

  1. 70,75, and 80 AMI is also considered lowincome, but you rarely see them in these new towers going up by the Barclay's center, us single people also need apartments

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment