Apartment seeker: "This whole Pacific Park development has broken my heart... no actual apartments for people... making under $100K+ a year."

What does it mean to be a tenant in the middle-income housing that qualifies as "affordable" in the latest Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park towers?

As I'll write separately, lottery-winning residents generally think buildings like 18 Sixth Ave. (B4, aka Brooklyn Crossing) and  662 Pacific St. (B15, aka Plank Road) are quite nice, with great location and amenities (for a fee), though in some cases the income-targeted units seem smaller and less advantageously placed than the market-rate ones. (Which is why some reject the units.)

It depends on their budget, of course. While the rents for Brooklyn Crossing/Plank Road--studio: $1,905/$1,547; 1-BR: $2,390/$2,273; 2-BR: $3,344/$3,219--may not be below some available elsewhere in the open market, they're relative bargains for well-located, new buildings with luxury finishes and many amenities. 

Hence the much higher rents for market-rate units elsewhere in the buildings. Market rents for Brooklyn Crossing/Plank Road, according to Street Easy, started at: studio: $3,095/$3,065; 1-BR: $3,590/$3,795; 2-BR: $5,995/$5,895.

And hence the marketing of "rent-stabilized luxury" for the upcoming 595 Dean (B12/B13), similarly aimed at households earning 130% of Area Median Income (AMI).

Who gains?

What many have forgotten, however, is that, rather than have all the "affordable"--er, below-market--units go to middle-class renters, they were supposed to be distributed among low-, moderate-, and middle-income households.

And it was ACORN, the advocacy group representing low- and moderate-income people, that rallied for the project, brought people to testify for its approval, and in 2005 signed the (crucially, non-binding) Affordable Housing Memorandum of Understanding, which was incorporated into the (crucially, unenforceable) Atlantic Yards Community Benefits Agreement.

Understandably, some apartment seekers are frustrated. 

"This whole Pacific Park development has broken my heart," wrote "Vanta B" on the City Data forum for the upcoming 595 Dean towers. "I’ve been watching building after building go up in front of my face but only for 130 AMI. Getting my hopes up only to realize it’s rigged, completely rigged… no community board for people that actually live in the neighborhood, no actual apartments for people and families making under 100k+ a year."

2022 AMI income ceilings for households of 1/2/3/4 people

\

Indeed, buildings with units at 130% of AMI, fueled by the 421-a tax break, do not reserve half their units to residents of the four nearest Community Boards, a preference granted to affordable units that rely on city subsidies.

Another forum participant pushed back, noting that "many of the early buildings" in Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park had units with lower AMI percentages and with Community Board preference.

Indeed, B2 (461 Dean), with half the units affordable, and B15 (535 Carlton) and B3 (38 Sixth), both "100% affordable," offered such preferences, though the latter two buildings were skewed in reserving 65% of their units for middle-income households.

"I didn’t say no buildings were lower AMI but they stopped offering them 5 years ago," responded the original poster.

That's true. The "affordable" units since then--258 at 18 Sixth (Brooklyn Crossing), 94 at  662 Pacific (Plank Road), and 240 at 595 Dean--are (or will be) all middle-income.

Note that 615 Dean and 595 Dean are now both considered 595 Dean

What next?

"And the plan is to build more of the same," the poster continued.

That's unclear. If B5 (700 Atlantic Ave.), the first tower aimed to be built over the railyard, launches and is completed by 6/15/26, it likely would include 30% of its units at 130% of AMI.

But with the 421-a tax break having expired, the affordability of future buildings is up in the air. It's a good bet that, even if the much-criticized tax break returns, the advantageous 130% AMI option will be gone, and the upper limit revised downward. 

Of course, with ever rising AMI base levels, it's unclear how much more affordable units would be in three or more years down the line.

Moreover, there are at least two nodes for future negotiation. Master developer Greenland Forest City Partners (GFCP) faces a May 2025 deadline to complete the project's required 2,250 units of affordable housing, but needs to start 876 (or 877) more units, which seems impossible. Each missing unit means a $2,000/month fine.

A renegotiation over the deadline, and/or the fines, could include a pledge for more deeply affordable units.

Similarly, GFCP's' expected plan to move the bulk from the unbuilt "Miss Brooklyn" tower, once slated to loom over the arena, across Flatbush Avenue to Site 5, longtime home to Modell's and P.C. Richard, also could involve pressure to create deeper affordability.

That said, delays in the project, coupled with the rising floor for AMI calculations, mean that rents levels once considered moderate-income now qualify as low-income, excluding more of the cohort that needs housing the most urgently.

An echo from 2018

The cited heartbreak reminded me of a quote from a February 2018 Crain's New York Business interview with entertainment lawyer and Prince's former manager Londell McMillan, who was asked:

You’ve had so much success, but what’s your biggest setback?
Atlantic Yards and Barclays Center. I am an investor in that project, and what was promised was not delivered. It was presented as a public-private partnership to create not just a sports facility but housing—affordable housing—jobs and economic opportunities to benefit the community. Today the Nets are owned by a Russian industrialist, the property sold to a Chinese conglomerate, and the public officials who advanced the project are nowhere in sight.

Do you go to Nets games?
No. It breaks my heart to have been a part of the project.