Off-Site Affordable Housing Moving Along on Quincy
Under inclusionary zoning codes, a developer putting up a big market-rate tower in downtown Brooklyn can put up an even bigger market-rate tower if he agrees to build some affordable housing. The kicker is that he doesn’t even have to include the affordable portion on site: He can stick the affordable units in a cheaper…
Under inclusionary zoning codes, a developer putting up a big market-rate tower in downtown Brooklyn can put up an even bigger market-rate tower if he agrees to build some affordable housing. The kicker is that he doesn’t even have to include the affordable portion on site: He can stick the affordable units in a cheaper part of town and still earn the market-rate bonus. Which is how 15 Quincy Street came to be. Instead of including the 48 affordable units in its 40-story tower at Myrtle and Prince, BFC Partners is putting them on Quincy across the street from the Salvation Army. Do you think developers who benefit from inclusionary housing should be able to build the affordable portion off-site?
Development Question on Quincy [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark DOB
PACC Keeps Busy, Breaks Ground on Quincy [Brownstoner]
Two Towers, One On, One Half Off (Site) [Downtown Star]
Michael and John are race neutral names, Tyrone is not, let’s not kid ourselves.
I do not see the word racist anywhere in any of my posts. If you feel you heard it, then check out your own comments, because that’s where the whisper is coming from.
How nice of you to mention 2 rich, worthy and acceptable black people for potential neighbors. How liberal of you. Why not mention Oprah and Denzel, while we’re here? We’re not talking about living with any of them, however.
You imply that the residents of NYCHA or low income communities are all criminals at worst, lazy bastards at best. Most people in housing projects work, and work very hard, many at crap jobs that don’t pay enough for them to live in unsubsidized housing. This is not a newsflash. Yet you take the small minority of troublemakers, criminals and gangsters to be the total undeserving population that in your scenario, are going to live in these buildings. Have you no idea how much the decent people stuck in the projects want to get away from the criminal elements? THEY are the victims 90% of the time, not the outside world. They are just as “deserving” as any hard working immigrant, and are the “working people” you favor.
As for comparisons to London and Europe, yes, many social situations are apples and oranges compared to here, but to imply that what works in London cannot work here because they are in Europe is simplistic, and a cop out. By the way, most of Europe’s major cities do have drug trafficing, areas with shitty schools, and far too many guns. Maybe not as many as here, but being shot is still being shot. Urban problems are strikingly similar all over.
I also never said that different socioeconomic groups do not mix here, of course they do – I just want that to continue. Which is why this whole discussion started – new construction should be mixed income on site more times than not.
Ahhh the internet. If someone disagrees wih you, they must be a racist.
For the record, Tyrone is a race-netural name. I’ve seen whites and latinos be named Tyrone as well, so you’re toally off base with this “race” bullshit.
I don’t care what color my neighbors are. Do you really honestly think I’d object to Spike Lee or Michael Jordan living next door?
As for the rest of your temper tanturm, London is very much up for debate. You sit here and go on about incomes mixing together, not realizing NYC aready does that to an amazing degree.
Poverty in Europe is vastly different than poverty here. They don’t have the shitty schools, drug trafficking and gun availablity that breaks down most US inner-city areas.
I mean, if we’re talking about working people or immigrants, that’s one thing. If that’s so, then the article shoud clairify who gets this housing. But don’t sit here and play like you don’t know who usually inhabits NYCHA and other “low-income” communities.
12:55, this is a whole separate program from 421-a. The changes to that program will have no affect on projects like Qunicy.
1:20, you are correct for a couple reasons that a project like this would never occur in Park Slope. First, you can only participate in the program if you have certain zoning districts, and CB2 is the only place in Brooklyn that does. Even if CB6 did have the zoning, Park Slope would be the location of the project receiving the bonus … the affordable housing would probably be built in Red Hook.
“Common Sense”, you should change your name to Gated Community Bigot, because that name is certainly closer to your opinions.
First of all, I never said I hated this country or living here, however with people like you here, perhaps a one way ticket to Europe would be nice. Hold onto that one for me, willya?
I mentioned what I saw in London, are you going to deny me my observations? Those observations have nothing to do with your “statistics” on life in London. You would probably object to someone saying the same things about New York, especially from an outsider. I don’t see people leaving London in droves for the same reason they don’t leave here, but that is all besides the point here. London is not up for debate.
“Tyrone from Attica”?? If you think all minority people who don’t make whatever your standard of quality is, are all felons, then perhaps you are the one who needs the one way ticket. I resent your condescending code words and phrases, and call much bullshit on your ennuendo. I’m not going to waste my time recounting the history or acheivements of the black working poor in this country, you obviously have made up your mind. I guess your Tyrone from Attica is your Willie Horton. I need to hear nothing more. You aren’t worth arguing with, as you aren’t debating, you are simply stereotyping.
If anyone wants to debate the merits of affordable housing, I’m game. “Common Sense” and I have nothing to talk about.
Sper in case you missed the strikes that token clerk is paid better and has a cushier retirement package than a whole multitude of people working in the private sector. Talk about overpaid…
If one more person chimes in about Europe, I’m going to by them a one way ticket. If you hate America soooo much, then leave.
BTW, a little 411 on London:
London has a higher robbery, assault and rape rates than NYC. It got so bad, that the underground dedicates certain trains cars for women to stop the sexual assaults. Not to mention “happy slapping” (Read: Random beatdowns) by local ghetto youth.
“The economics are often prohibitive of on-site affordable housing”
Really? And who is deciding what the economics are? Surely you don’t imagine we are looking at a free market here. In this case, the government is weighing in — in the form of tax abatements — and developers are more than happy to partake. The question of what the trade-offs might be — ie, economic integration versus larger numbers of affordable units — is a matter of negotiation, and can be debated, but let’s not imagine that some kind of inviolable set of economic parameters is determining the outcome.
Really SPer?
How about a convicted felon?
How about a drug dealer?
How about welfare?
Please, spare me the “token clerk” shit. They make 50-60k after a few years. It would be nice if “low-income housing” meant hard working immigrants or civil service. But immigrants have too much pride to take these units, and the civil service people make too much. Guess who’s really going to live here?
You guessed it, Tyrone from Attica.
The economics are often prohibitive of on-site affordable housing; that is, it will only make sense for a developer to do it off site in order to build a bigger market rate building (building bigger simply to include affordable housing and not much else will create a large loss on the affordable apartments). Requiring on site affordable housing to get the bonues may be meant well enough in some utopian dream of economic diversity, but will result in less affordable housing being built. Given the geographic requirements currently in effect, it is not so much that affordable housing will be built in a cheaper neighborhood, but it may be built on a cheaper piece of land, such as one with a lower permitted FAR or one that is not right on the waterfront.