I go back and forth on this. I am all for YIMBY and ending restrictive zoning, but NYC is not wilderness. At some point a neighborhood, city or region is just plain overpopulated and the "too damn high" rent is the market's way of asking "Do you really need to live here?"
Maybe with wall-to-wall hundred story apartment towers you'd have enough housing to substantially bring down the market rate, but are there a lot of people who really want to live like that?
As for the firefighter, maybe the most cost-effective solution is to pay him enough to live in NYC at market rate rather than build "affordable" housing.
Thanks for the comment, Bennie. High prices are a signal of desirability and value, an indicator that more people want to live in a particular place; "overpopulation" would be a negative signal. Indeed, New York City is far from built out. Much of the outer boroughs is dominated by low-density, low-rise neighborhoods—and outside of Manhattan, the population density is significantly lower than in Paris, a city typified by mid-rise apartment buildings, not skyscrapers. Even huge parts of Manhattan, especially those frozen in historic districts, are low-rise neighborhoods; this, of course, forces higher towers in the areas with fewer restrictions. So I don't think you need wall-to-wall towers to accommodate more people; allowing mid-rises in lots of places, especially around transit, could house a lot more people. Meanwhile, NYC also a ton of un- or underdeveloped government-owned land.
> Even households earning the city’s median income of $79,713 are considered severely rent burdened.
No one making $79,713 annually is paying market rate rent in NYC, though. There’s tons of public housing, programs like Mitchell-Lama, and then good old-fashioned rent control that a lot of residents - the firefighters in question - take advantage of to stay in the city.
But this makes it awfully hard for newcomers as there is a steep learning curve and a long waiting list to utilize the affordable housing that exists there. And that’s bad if we want NYC to be an engine of social mobility.
That's exactly the problem, right? No household making the median income /can/ pay market rates—because the market has been so curtailed by restrictive policy that it cannot provide housing affordably at that income level. It's not only a problem for newcomers; there are now a lot of former New Yorkers living in other states where housing is cheaper.
Got a *long* way to go to get $4540 down to affordable at median salary, though. NYC and SF are places where I’m all about expanding market rate housing, but we need to expand Mitchell-Lama and the like too, as I don’t think we’d get anywhere close to median wage affordability even if we eliminated every single land use regulation and permitting process in NYC.
This crisis has been nearly a century in the making, so it won't be solved overnight—but I think that the long-range policy goal should be broad-based affordability by whatever means necessary. I agree it's not all about land use reform, though a lot of it has to do with better land use. The city owns vacant and underdeveloped lots, for instance. I think what NYCHA is doing with the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses is promising, too. I don't know what it would take to expand Mitchell-Lama, but in a resource-strapped environment, the city and state will be limited in what they can do. Try everything!
We underestimate the effects of restrictive euclidean zoning. They damage runs broad and deep; it isn't limited to high housing costs.
High housing costs means that labor cannot move to where it will be most productive. It's a massive, albeit hidden, tax on human opportunity and prosperity.
I go back and forth on this. I am all for YIMBY and ending restrictive zoning, but NYC is not wilderness. At some point a neighborhood, city or region is just plain overpopulated and the "too damn high" rent is the market's way of asking "Do you really need to live here?"
Maybe with wall-to-wall hundred story apartment towers you'd have enough housing to substantially bring down the market rate, but are there a lot of people who really want to live like that?
As for the firefighter, maybe the most cost-effective solution is to pay him enough to live in NYC at market rate rather than build "affordable" housing.
Thanks for the comment, Bennie. High prices are a signal of desirability and value, an indicator that more people want to live in a particular place; "overpopulation" would be a negative signal. Indeed, New York City is far from built out. Much of the outer boroughs is dominated by low-density, low-rise neighborhoods—and outside of Manhattan, the population density is significantly lower than in Paris, a city typified by mid-rise apartment buildings, not skyscrapers. Even huge parts of Manhattan, especially those frozen in historic districts, are low-rise neighborhoods; this, of course, forces higher towers in the areas with fewer restrictions. So I don't think you need wall-to-wall towers to accommodate more people; allowing mid-rises in lots of places, especially around transit, could house a lot more people. Meanwhile, NYC also a ton of un- or underdeveloped government-owned land.
RE the firefighter test, you’re also leaving out the taxes on that income.
You're telling me we tax these people too?! 😂😭
> Even households earning the city’s median income of $79,713 are considered severely rent burdened.
No one making $79,713 annually is paying market rate rent in NYC, though. There’s tons of public housing, programs like Mitchell-Lama, and then good old-fashioned rent control that a lot of residents - the firefighters in question - take advantage of to stay in the city.
But this makes it awfully hard for newcomers as there is a steep learning curve and a long waiting list to utilize the affordable housing that exists there. And that’s bad if we want NYC to be an engine of social mobility.
That's exactly the problem, right? No household making the median income /can/ pay market rates—because the market has been so curtailed by restrictive policy that it cannot provide housing affordably at that income level. It's not only a problem for newcomers; there are now a lot of former New Yorkers living in other states where housing is cheaper.
Got a *long* way to go to get $4540 down to affordable at median salary, though. NYC and SF are places where I’m all about expanding market rate housing, but we need to expand Mitchell-Lama and the like too, as I don’t think we’d get anywhere close to median wage affordability even if we eliminated every single land use regulation and permitting process in NYC.
This crisis has been nearly a century in the making, so it won't be solved overnight—but I think that the long-range policy goal should be broad-based affordability by whatever means necessary. I agree it's not all about land use reform, though a lot of it has to do with better land use. The city owns vacant and underdeveloped lots, for instance. I think what NYCHA is doing with the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses is promising, too. I don't know what it would take to expand Mitchell-Lama, but in a resource-strapped environment, the city and state will be limited in what they can do. Try everything!
By Econ 101 definition, below-market housing will always be in short supply.
Nice work Ryan!
We underestimate the effects of restrictive euclidean zoning. They damage runs broad and deep; it isn't limited to high housing costs.
High housing costs means that labor cannot move to where it will be most productive. It's a massive, albeit hidden, tax on human opportunity and prosperity.
Thank you, JK! I totally agree. Through arbitrary zoning, we've short-circuited the natural evolution of cities and stunted our collective growth.