The City of Yes. … eh, yeah, sure, it sounds positive. But you can’t judge a sweeping, citywide development program just on a catchy name.
Specifically, the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, COYHO for short, is Mayor Adams’s complex zoning reform proposal. One of its chief goals is “building a little more housing in every neighborhood.” In a sort of carrot, it’s hoped some of this housing will be affordable. But — and it’s a big but — the affordable component of COYHO is 100 percent voluntary on the developers’ part: There is no mandate to build ANY affordable housing under this scheme.
Village Preservation and Community Board 2 have both done a great job highlighting concerns about this megaplan. Andrew Berman, Village Preservation’s executive director, bluntly told us, “It would allow taller, denser, purely market-rate housing projects in neighborhoods like ours, and would ‘give away the farm’ to developers.” Meanwhile, he said, claiming COYHO would create affordable housing is simply “BS” and “magical thinking.”
“If developers don’t want to do it, there is no requirement,” he explained. This is a big departure from the city’s current Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and even the Voluntary Inclusionary Housing program, the latter which does not allow developers to build to the maximum allowable height unless they include affordable units.
Actually, the program is not novel, Berman said, noting, “They’ve come up with a way to give a gift to developers. They’re using the same sleight of hand that Mayor de Blasio and other mayors before them have used.”
In addition, COYHO would allow developers to build 100 percent market-rate housing in open areas of what would be designated as “campuses” — including, for one, Washington Square Village, home to many New York University faculty. Remember the uproar a dozen or so years ago when N.Y.U. proposed building new academic buildings in WSV’s beautiful courtyard garden?
Also problematic, COYHO would let landmarked properties transfer development rights a.k.a. “air rights” to sites farther away than currently allowed — and with scant public input. For Berman, that’s a major issue. Community Board 2, though, in its July resolution on COYHO, stated this could allow landmarks to generate revenue to maintain their historic properties.
COYHO will be voted on by the City Council before the end of this year. It’s been making its way for review through the local community boards, whose recommendations are advisory only. Next the proposal goes to City Planning, which, as we know, is just a rubber stamp for the mayor, so of course it will sail right through.
So, the only hope then to modify or stop COYHO will be at the City Council. Among Downtown Manhattan members, Chris Marte has been clear that he has issues with COYHO. Carlina Rivera, on the other hand, is the most pro-development of the three. Erik Bottcher, for his part, has been playing it close to the vest. At a recent Village Independent Democrats forum on COYHO where he and Berman were the panelists, Bottcher declined to say where he stands on the proposal.
Lately, though, Bottcher has taken to using Open New York slogans, such as “housing abundance” — i.e., the disputed notion that supercharging market-rate, “luxury” housing development “eases the pressure” on the city’s vacancy rate and will somehow “trickle down” to increase affordable housing. He has pointed to Minneapolis as an example of how this approach can allegedly keep down housing costs. But, let’s face it, building more Maseratis does not miraculously increase production of Kias.
C.B. 2 opposes COYHO because it doesn’t incentivize construction of housing versus commercial office space or require affordable housing in new residential construction projects. The board pointed to the 2013 Hudson Square rezoning, which did not lead to a promised boom of new housing in the former Printing District to create a hoped-for, bona fide residential neighborhood. And only a portion of the new housing created has been affordable. Instead that rezoning most notably yielded huge commercial projects, like the new Google and Disney campuses.
We can do better. Vote No on COYHO.
Why shouldn’t a preservation group get involved? COYHO will ruin our beautiful neighborhoods. Real Estate will now be able to develop even more at NYU and Stuy Town will lose their beautiful lawns, with few restrictions. We will lose the sky on many of our streets. Parks and gardens will be surrounded, walled off by tall buildings and will lose light and air. Sunshine and breezes replaced with shadow and wind tunnels.
Downtown Manhattan has been one of the longest-developed areas in not only our city but also in our country. It is already overdeveloped with few natural areas. The only affordable housing proposed here has been on land that was promised for parkland, and other new development will continue to be market rate.
The commercial building industry needs a boost, so why not concentrate on conversions? Much of the West Village is converted warehouses. Instead the city pushes development. Do not vote for anyone connected to the real estate industry as we might now lose the grace, style and livability of our great city. Especially as our councilmember and Community Board 2 are very pro-development.
Thank you to Village Preservation and The Village Sun for shining a light in the midst of all the hype to speak the truth.
Concerned West Villager: First of all, what difference does it make who donates to Village Preservation? Your snarky remark about the wealth of their donors is offensive. Thank goodness someone with money cares about historic preservation. Of course it takes money to fight big real estate. How else could this organization exist if they relied on the minimal donation it takes to become a member?
Concern about zoning is an important issue all across the city. Quite frankly, COY, if it continues, will destroy the streetscape, the history and the texture of New York City. As an example, the lack of zoning protection of the 3rd and 4th Avenue corridors (which Carlina Rivera swore she would protect and didn’t) resulted in the destruction of several Federal-style, rent-stabilized buildings on East 11th Street (for the Moxy Hotel), the destruction of the historic Hotel St Denis on Broadway and the soon-to-be-demolished row of buildings on Third Avenue between 10th and 11th Streets. This is turning our once-charming, historic East Village into a bland Murray Hill-like neighborhood. In addition, none of the above have or will provide affordable housing.
I really don’t understand why you have a problem with Village Preservation taking on COY, developers and big real estate. Yes, their main mission is landmark preservation, but if they help stem the tide of the destruction and homogenization of our city with their efforts, bravo to them.
Thank you, Carol from East 5th Street.
I agree with you that it is common for America’s wealthiest to support the arts and historic preservation. Not only are they stewards of the arts but, after all, they also live in many of the remarkable (and multimillion dollar) properties in our neighborhood. I am glad they have an organization that, as you note, protects the “streetscape, the history and the texture” of the neighborhood. VP has been very effective in preventing change to the neighborhood and ensuring this distinctiveness.
However, I am confused by how that mission intersects with affordable housing and developers. Preserving the beauty of the Village will not, in itself, lead to affordable housing. And, conversely, building affordable housing may diminish the beauty of a neighborhood (see Elizabeth Street Garden).
For that reason, I think it would be helpful for VP to focus on the goals of its donors and speak on those terms.
No need to pretend to be a social justice organization. It’s OK to oppose COY on aesthetic grounds if you are an arts organization!
Yes! Call your councilmember and say, “Vote No on CoYHO!” Whoever votes yes, is tied to OpenNY.
FYI, Erik Bottcher partnered with Antonio Reynoso to form an “Anti-Nimby Housing League” (NYT) earlier this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/nyregion/nimbys-pro-development-housing-league-antonio-reynoso-erik-bottcher.html
This editorial is just recycling lazy NIMBY talking points. I am not sure when supply & demand became “magical thinking” but housing prices in both Austin and Minnesota would beg to differ.
The car analogy is just laughable.
Keep up the great work in our neighborhood but this is a blind spot!
Carlina Rivera’s first big boondoggle, Zero Irving, apparently still stands empty — with the exception of the food court (yeah, we needed that): https://zeroirving.com/availability/
Thx for highlighting this ridiculous concept. The city will build market-rate housing in every nook and cranny, since there will be no requirements for affordable units. The Mayor needs to go!
Timely and true editorial. Thanks, Village Sun.
#Adams is a liar, unreliable and not fit to serve.
The City and elected officials do nothing to protect housing that is lost (won’t even acknowledge it) — and then insist there is need for more development.
Landlords hold apartments vacant for years — then sell buildings for luxury high-rises. Entire blocks of Manhattan with luxury high-rises are proof of housing lost. And of course it continues. (See Kips Bay example — Crain’s article link below.)
The City has done nothing for residents at 642 East 14th Street who were forced to vacate due to structural issues caused by construction of a luxury high-rise next door. Now the landlord wants to tear down the building.
Borough President Mark Levine is among elected officials who call for more development but do nothing to protect housing or help residents who are losing their housing.
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/holdout-tenant-digs-against-developer-excel-massive-23-story-kips-bay-project?utm_source=trending-now-&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20240906&utm_content=article1-readmore
Great editorial! Tell city officials why you also oppose the plan and that they should too: https://p2a.co/wg0x0lz
Mr. Berman,
I thought Village Preservation was an institution dedicated to architecture funded by hedge fund-affiliated foundations like the Dalio Family Foundation. Those are not my politics, but I understand the mission, and I can appreciate why having an aesthetics-focused organization with expertise in the landmarking process would be helpful.
I am unclear on why the organization is taking a stand on citywide zoning issues. City of Yes is meant to make New York more affordable by increasing the supply of housing. (I have seen your report suggesting that it would not achieve this goal.)
The proposal is fully outside the scope of the organization’s work. First, it’s citywide, not Village-specific.
Second, the size of NYC’s population, the amount of units in the city, the cost of rent and the role and profits of developers are separate, complex issues that do not seem applicable to VP’s work.
To the extent that you believed that it would make NYC uglier by allowing denser/taller buildings, I would understand. You are, after all, an organization focused on a specific neighborhood’s aesthetic heritage.
But your opposition appears to be based on social considerations and opposition to “developers” that seems incongruous to your mission. Village Preservation is an arts organization.
Some historians have suggested that preservation is a Trojan horse that serves solely as an excuse to increase inequality and keep people out of neighborhoods (see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/historic-preservation-has-tenuous-relationship-history/629731/).
I know that this is not the case with you and that your commitment to the beauty of the Village is genuine. As a result, if you oppose City of Yes, I would urge you to focus on those aesthetic arguments rather than economic and social considerations.
Is this Ryder Kessler? Haha
Mmm… did you just move to the neighborhood?
Dear Ms. Ryan,
I have lived in the neighborhood for about seven years.
I am simply unclear why a preservation society that is focused on the aesthetic beautification of a neighborhood thanks to the support of the neighborhood’s wealthiest residents (such as Ray Dalio and Rachel Maddow) is focused on zoning issues. It seems beside the point.
If GVSHP believed that COY will make the Village uglier, they should say so. I think their point of view would be taken well because people care about architecture.
However, I don’t see why a preservation group is talking about affordable housing or developers or density.
As I said, people say that a focus on preservation is cover for NIMBYism. I disagree. For that reason, I think the group should focus on aesthetic arguments and not give ammunition to the skeptics. After all, why should a preservation group care about the number of residents in a neighborhood? They should care about the facades of landmarked buildings.
Thanks to the Village Sun for the insights to this insult. Vote no on COYHO. Give us a more clear way to the road for affordable housing.