To meet city housing goals, do we simply have to build bigger? What about infrastructure (and the region)?

At a press conference last week organized by BrooklynSpeaks, as I wrote (link), Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon pointed to the state's failure to collect damages for unbuilt affordable housing

"We want this housing," she said. "We want it built now. It was a public benefit that was promised to everybody and whether you like the project or not, whether you wanted it here, there or whatever, this is a public benefit that was promised to the people of New York and it has not been delivered on."

She's right that, the longer the wait, the longer it takes to serve people vulnerable to displacement.

Not so fast

As I wrote, that statement deserves a "Yes, but." If the only way to get that housing is to build at Site 5, catercorner to the arena, at unprecedented density, then, no, not everyone wants the housing.

(Quick, who said of Atlantic Yards, exaggerating the numbers, "If it’s built the way it was approved, we’re going to end up with 16 60-story buildings, making it the most dense census tract by two in North America. There’s a point at which things get ridiculous in the conversation"? That was Michelle de la Uz of the Fifth Avenue Committee at a November 2008 panel. She's a key BrooklynSpeaks leader, but was not representing the organization at the time.)

Or: if the only way to get that housing is to grant the development team a huge amount of additional square footage, which previous developer Greenland USA sought in 2023, well, not so fast.

First, that's a giveaway of development rights that were previously sold. Second, there's a tension between scale and livability.

No, that's not a NIMBY thing. Even Greenland recognized that an even larger number of residents would require additional open space; hence it sought help converting a public street into another stretch of "Pacific Park."

Embracing more housing

In a recent Bloomberg article, NYC Mayoral Candidates All Agree on Building More Housing. But Where? Benjamin Schneider noted the general policy drift but noted some, like Zellnor Myrie, are focusing on supply, while others want to freeze the rent (but only for rent-stabilized tenants).

From the article:

“For the first time, we’re seeing every mayoral candidate recognize our housing shortage and include building more homes as part of their housing plan,” says Annemarie Gray, executive director of Open New York, a pro-housing advocacy group. “Four years ago it would have been inconceivable to see every mayoral platform across the spectrum feature strategies to build more homes, and faster.”

Ben Max, program director at New York Law School’s Center for City and State Law, and the host of the “Max Politics” podcast, said everyone agrees that "New York needs a lot more housing supply, which is a pretty remarkable shift....Why? Because the data has simply become too overwhelming.”

Bigger vision needed

At some point, piling the region's need for housing on a limited number of sites in the name of "abundance"--the new buzz word, thanks to a book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson--ignores alternatives. (Hey, mayoral candidate Brad Lander wants to build on golf courses. That's fine, at least the ones closest to transit.)

The suburbs haven't kept up, rejecting even modestly scaled apartment buildings near train stations, and Gov. Kathy Hochul has given up on sticks and instead has resorted to carrots.

At that same November 2008 panel, I quoted Jerilyn Perine, then director, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and a former commissioner of the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development. 

She also argued for extending the 7 subway train, both westward, as already planned to support the Hudson Yards development, “but also bring a transport system to Eastern Queens. To be honest, I think if you just did that, a lot of things would take care of themselves.”

Learning from London

No, infrastructure has not kept up. In a June 2 essay for the New York Daily News, London built a transit marvel; NYC, do you see?, consultant Thomas Ableman, former director of strategy & innovation at Transport for London, describes how half a billion journeys "have been made on the Elizabeth line since it opened in May 2022, transforming travel through London."

That's right: you can go from Heathrow Airport into Central London, but also continue to the rest of the city and then well beyond, including "Farringdon, a new mega-interchange serving 173 stations across London and the Southeast." 

During peak service, trains leave every 40 seconds from four platforms. "The Elizabeth line," he writes, "represents what cities like New York and London can achieve when ambition and consensus align."

The Elizabeth Line

What does it mean for New York City? Well, the notion of through-running from New Jersey to Long Island, with trains not ending at Penn Station, has been discussed of late.

The larger issue is that investment in infrastructure drives housing.

What if the New York City subway system were more like the DC Metro, connecting the city to suburbs and towns in other states? What if even PATH trains were integrated into the system, thus connecting Newark?

And in Brooklyn

Asked about ideas to foster affordability at a recent forum on Brooklyn held by the Center for an Urban Future, de la Uz cited the potential for capping the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway: "imagine literally acres and acres of land that is returned back to the community for other uses."

The planned IBX rail line between Brooklyn and Queens, connecting Bay Ridge and Sunset Park to Woodside and Jackson Heights, could cause displacement pressure, she noted. "Should we be land banking now for affordable housing, for open space for businesses that we want to support?" 

Once we electrify the bus fleet, that opens up development space at buildings that now rely on gas, like the giant Jackie Gleason bus depot in Sunset Park. "All these bus depots that are in predominantly communities of color across the city become a resource to help solve our affordable housing crisis," she said. 

"We need to open up our imagination and really have equity at the center as we think about these really significant transportation investment projects and leverage them to help address our affordability crisis," she said, drawing applause. 

She also talked up the Brooklyn Marine Terminal proposal that would transform 122 acres of underutilized waterfront land that "we should be putting to good use and addressing our needs here in Brooklyn." That's a tougher question, actually, and one that raises significant questions about whether we should trust its proponents.