The Real Estate Board of New York recently conducted a study revealing that thousands of properties will soon face higher operational costs and large fines due to new climate legislation going into effect as early as 2024.

In 2019, the City Council passed Local Law 97 as part of a larger legislative package focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Sweltering temperatures, frequent rainfall, and rising sea levels have all placed mounting pressure on NYC to act quickly and efficiently on the issue. 

The city’s response was to create a law setting limits on emissions emitted by the city’s largest buildings. The reason being, that NYC’s one million buildings account for about 70% of its total carbon emissions. Much of the energy used to heat, cool, and light these buildings comes from fossil fuels. 

In a statement made to the public, NYC’s chief climate officer, Rohit T. Aggarwala, confidently stated that “Local Law 97 is telling everyone in the real estate business: Climate change is your problem,” and that forming a part of the real estate industry in NYC meant “moving to a carbon-free future.

But, with Mayor Adams allowing select building owners to bypass Local Law 97’s emission caps, the administration’s conviction on the issue is being brought into question. Climate advocates believe that the law is being defanged before it can even begin to sink its teeth, raising serious concerns over its effectiveness. 

On the other side of the aisle, building owners and landlords have expressed their frustrations with Local Law 97, claiming that they don’t make enough money from tenants to cover the transition to eco-friendly energy sources. Some owners have gone so far as to sue the city for Local Law 97 in hope that they can at least buy themselves more time to make their buildings compliant. Although owners and landlords will be directly affected through increased costs of operation, it’s likely that tenants will be affected indirectly through higher rents. 

Overview of Local Law 97

Local Law 97 is a part of the Climate Mobilization Act, passed under Mayor de Blasio. The former mayor had pledged to make the city carbon neutral by 2050 and planned to do so through the New York City Green New Deal. Local Law 97 aims to take a stab at the city’s biggest culprit of greenhouse gas emissions, its buildings. The goal of the law is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. 

Come 2024, tens of thousands of New York’s largest buildings would have emissions caps placed on them and face fines if they were to go over said limits. These buildings include several commercial structures, such as bank headquarters and hotels, as well as apartment complexes. 

The law also states that most buildings over 25,000 square feet, whether commercial or residential, are required to meet emission caps and new energy efficiency requirements by 2024. These requirements are supposed to become stricter in 2030.

Would It Just be Cheaper for Landlords to Ignore Local Law 97?

Engineering consulting firm, Level Infrastructure, conducted a study estimating that over 3,700 buildings could face penalties upwards of $200 million a year come 2024. The Real Estate Board of New York estimates that a total of 13,500 buildings could face penalties of more than $900 million by 2030.

The city estimates that 50,000 buildings will be in compliance by the January 2024 deadline. However, there are an estimated 2,700 buildings that are not expected to be compliant by then. This will require building owners to replace windows, tune up HVAC systems, and/or install energy-efficient lighting to avoid hefty fines—an expensive and unplanned endeavor for many NYC landlords.

By 2030, emission caps are set to fall significantly, forcing building owners to not just repair building features but completely replace them in order to make their buildings compliant. For this reason, it’s expected that the second deadline will require owners to pay much more in fines. Crain’s New York reports that in order to avoid the fines, landlords will have to spend about $3 billion a year in carbon cuts, $20 billion over the next decade. 

It’s worth noting that the estimated budget for carbon cuts by Crain’s New York ($20 billion) is much higher than the penalties landlords would be responsible for ($900 million). Depending on their finances and how far they are from achieving compliance—some owners may just ignore the new climate law altogether and instead treat the fines as a business tax. 

Although this may work for landlords, this certainly does nothing to reduce gas emissions emitted by NYC buildings, and will most likely result in Local Law 97 falling short of its ambitious climate goals. 

Pushback from critics, ‘too much, too soon’

Advocates of Local Law 97 believe that the city should use even stricter measures to move NYC buildings towards a more eco-friendly future, while its critics claim that the law is already too harsh. Some say that meeting the emission limits during the timeframe outlined in the law would be near impossible and that millions would have to be paid in fines regardless of their efforts. 

According to the Real Estate Board of New York, even if every building were to reduce its energy consumption by 30%, more than 8000 properties would still face fines up to $300 million each year. 

Vice president of policy at REBNY, Zachary Steinberg, told Bloomberg that the organization hopes “the city will take action over the next 12 months to avoid damage to our local economy and unfair penalties to property owners in 2024,” adding that buildings owners will simply be unable to meet emission limits “even if buildings take meaningful steps to comply and use the tools provided by the law.”

In May of 2022, an owner of a mixed-use property in Manhattan and two garden apartment complexes sued the city, asking for the enforcement to be blocked. They claimed that the law would impose “draconian” fines that would significantly harm their ability to generate profits on their buildings. 

City officials have responded with understanding, promising struggling owners who show “good faith” efforts some wiggle room. The city is considering waiving fees and lowering fines for building owners who demonstrate a willingness to comply, but may need more time to reach denoted emission caps.

Mayor Adams Allows for the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits Amidst Pushback from Landlords

Building owner advocacy groups caught the attention of Mayor Eric Adams. He recently announced that two-thirds of large office buildings and one-quarter of multi-family buildings would be allowed to bypass Local Law 97’s emission caps through 2035.

This means that about half of the pollution cuts outlined in the law would not even come close to being met, allowing owners to forgo the need to upgrade their properties for an entire decade. Property owners would be allowed to, instead, purchase Renewable Energy Credits, or RECs, and essentially buy themselves out of the responsibility to make their properties energy-efficient. 

The idea isn’t completely revolutionary, seeing as the local government already allows for use of such credits. However, environmental advocates claim that such generous limits would “defang Local Law 97,” and encourage “future shoddy enforcement.” 

Activists believe that although Local Law 97 may be strong on paper, the administration’s extensive leniency with the industry is a grave mistake. They argue that providing real estate companies with the opportunity to purchase RECs will establish a weak precedent for the new law, causing it to fall apart in practice sooner or later. 

The Mayor’s administration has clarified that RECs are not a get-out-of-jail-free card for the real estate industry and that further limits on RECs will be placed in the near future, starting as early as 2024. As the main culprit of energy pollution in the city, it’s unlikely that the city’s intentions are to let building owners off the hook forever. However, letting them off the hook, for now, can still be dangerous to the survival and efficacy of Local Law 97

Not all Building Owners are Affected Equally

The city’s leniency for certain property owners has upset many environmental advocates, who claim that without strict accountability and adequate enforcement of the law, NYC will remain far from achieving its climate action goals. 

But, the truth is not all building owners will be affected equally. 

Large real estate companies often have the resources and capacity to invest in sustainability initiatives. In fact, many of them already have personnel dedicated to such initiatives, which would explain why 50,000 buildings are expected to be in compliance by the first deadline. 

However, for smaller real-estate companies that are often family-owned and operated, meeting the same emission limits will be a serious challenge. Many older buildings still run on oil or gas furnaces, requiring them to completely revamp their energy infrastructure in less than a year. 

Property owners like Debbie Fechter are wondering how they’re going to pay for capital projects they hadn’t planned for, and are even struggling to understand exactly what their new responsibilities will be. She’s been trying to get into contact with an energy audit consulting firm with no success. 

“We don’t really know what our obligations are and what our penalties are going to be,” Fechter told the New York Times. She’s a partner at Digby Management, a family-owned real estate business that owns four buildings in Manhattan subject to Local Law 97.

Who will be most affected? 

REBNY reports that condo, co-op, and rental apartment building owners will be among the most impacted by Local Law 97, should it be enforced as is. This is because of their landlords’ limited ability to fund and coordinate compliance in alignment with the stipulated deadlines. An estimated 60% of non-compliant buildings on January 1st, 2024, will be residential. 

Chances are that in order to either afford the fines or afford repairs, landlords will increase rents wherever possible, causing renters to bear the brunt of a potentially inefficient climate law.

Although some real estate businesses have sought alternative ways of complying with Local Law 97, city officials have claimed that methods such as carbon trading will not be permitted. Carbon trading is an arrangement where one building owner buys credits from a property with lower emissions. 

Purchasing renewable energy credits or certificates from the local government is currently the only way building owners will be able to legally curb responsibility for emissions. RECs would allow property owners to fund projects that will bring clean energy to one of the five boroughs. However, only a limited number of RECs will be available in the near term. 

Reducing gas emissions is a crucial component in the city’s ability to meet its climate change goals. With 1 million of its buildings contributing to more than two thirds of the city’s gas emissions, there’s no way around it—real estate companies have to be engaged. The question is how quickly, and to what extent?

The post Local Law 97: A Controversial Environmental Fix appeared first on CitySignal.

What is the difference between YIMBY and NIMBY?

YIMBYism, which stands for “yes in my backyard,” and its antithesis, NIMBYism, meaning “not in my backyard,” are two principles that, unlike their calmer and cooler cousins, “Ying” and “Yang,” tend to engender conflict, with either side hurling hyperbolic accusations in defense of its constituents while the other side tries (and often fails) to stay level-headed.

Each side propels an opinion they believe will benefit the greater good. Yet, the two camps have different objectives. YIMBYs are focused on creating density and growth in their communities, often with an emphasis on affordable housing or commercial development, while NIMBYs are focused on maintaining stability and preserving what they’ve built in the community.

Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have made their presence felt in NYC, where the two camps are at the center of debates about development and zoning. One instance saw the contentious proposal to build an Amazon headquarters in Long Island City. When tensions between the two sides reached a fever pitch, NIMBYs ultimately prevailed, leading to the project’s demise.

But YIMBYs haven’t lost steam. In 2022, the city’s Department of Buildings (DOB) approved the construction of 45,019 housing units borough-wide, according to NewYorkYimby.com. Queens leads the pack with 743 new development projects, many of which will break ground in Long Island City, the very place Amazon considered for its headquarters.

Why Do NIMBYs and YIMBYs Clash?

In New York City, YIMBYs and NIMBYs have engaged in a series of high-profile battles over the years, ranging from the development of Hudson Yards on Manhattan’s West Side to the proposed construction of an affordable housing complex in Soho.

The Soho project aka “Haven Green,” which would provide housing for low-income seniors, has pitted left-progressive NYS assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou against Habitat for Humanity, the non-profit organization behind the proposal.

Niou, who is 100% NIMBY on the issue, has joined a lawsuit to stop the project. While some Soho community members are upset about the construction taking place atop Elizabeth Street Garden, which has been around for nearly 200 years, Niou’s beef with Habitat lies elsewhere. She argues that Haven Green is an impermanent solution to a much deeper problem: the city’s lack of truly affordable housing. Once completed, Haven Green will go from low-income housing to market rate in 60 years, per the agreement between Habitat and the DOB.

Niou makes a powerful case against the project: In a city with a dearth of low-income housing, why compromise and settle for a short-term solution? Moving forward with the project would be short-sighted, like building a network of upright dominoes for the fleeting satisfaction of watching them all topple.

But YIMBYs make a powerful case, too: What’s more important? They ask. Making sure that seniors, who are among the most vulnerable communities in NYC, have access to safe and affordable housing now (and over the next 60 years) or watching yet another affordable housing project die in committee? Never mind that Elizabeth Street Garden is often closed to the public and that new projects often end up improving their neighborhoods in ways that even some of their most ardent opponents come to appreciate, adding more jobs, more housing, and more amenities than ever before.

Rarely does the debate end in a chorus of Kumbaya, however; there’s just too much passion and too many divergent interests on both sides. Take, for example, the overwhelming NIMBY argument against gentrification.

NIMBYs often see gentrification as a form of displacement, plain and simple, as the gradual transformation of a neighborhood from a primarily low-income area to one that caters to the well-to-do may drive out longtime residents who can no longer afford to live in the ever-more-expensive zip codes. This fear is especially acute in U.S. cities where the job market has been drastically outpacing the capacity for new housing, with San Francisco serving as a prime example.

Some YIMBYs, on the other hand, prefer to see a cityscape bristled with cranes rather than an ever-growing myriad of homeless encampments. To them, infusing the city with jobs and new businesses is a way to make it more vibrant and livable for all. They see value in the revitalization of a neighborhood that could use a little more TLC. They argue that gentrification, when done responsibly and with consideration for local residents’ needs and interests, can yield a net positive.

But the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate is incredibly nuanced, with divergent interests boiling down to two core questions: 1) How do certain forms of new development impact the needs of the individual and the greater community? 2) And what is each side willing to sacrifice to get what they want?

In a Backyard Far, Far Away

A June 2022 poll by international data analytics firm YouGovAmerica suggested an answer to question number one.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 U.S. adult citizens, asked what forms of development did they wish to see in their backyards and which ones they’d rather see at the national level instead, many miles away from their homes.

Most homeowners in the survey supported the construction of local amenities that could potentially increase their property values and add to the neighborhood’s allure. They voted “YIMBY” in favor of police stations, charter schools, and nightlife venues, but signed off on “NIMBY” when it came to large-scale projects that may bring about social change, such as homeless shelters and low-income housing.

By contrast, most renters voted “YIMBY” in favor of low-income housing and homeless shelters, according to the poll. They had no skin in the game, as it were, so why band with their home-owning counterparts and keep the status quo? For renters, subsidized housing presented a host of viable solutions that could help alleviate some of the city’s most pressing issues, such as crime and poverty.

Does this mean, then, that renters and other left-leaning voters are pro-social change and homeowners are anti?

Not necessarily.

The same poll showed that, in a country whose prison system is one of the most overcrowded in the world, both renters and homeowners voted “NIMBY” on the issue of building a new jail at the local level and “YIMBY” as long as the prison wasn’t built in their backyards. A similar consensus was reached when asked about waste management facilities, with both camps saying, “Not in my backyard, but thank you,” when presented with the prospect of having one built in their neighborhoods.

By and large, the poll results demonstrate that while the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate is often viewed as a bi-partisan issue, it’s much more nuanced than that. People’s opinions on development projects are shaped by their unique circumstances, as well as what they think the community needs. What’s best for one may not necessarily be best for another.

 Can YIMBYs and NIMBYs Reach a Compromise?

When city council members, assembly persons, and other lawmakers spar with each other at town halls and community meetings, often using rhetoric and hyperbole as weapons, it can be increasingly hard to find a middle ground.

With so many opposing voices drowning each other out, one has to wonder, is there even a middle ground?

In its Spring 2013 issue, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published an essay anthology titled “American Democracy & the Common Good.” In it, authors Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson contributed a piece on valuing compromise for the greater good. They argued that “pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy [i.e., a political system where there is more than one center of power] is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics,” to quote the essay’s abstract directly.

It goes on to say that “a common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo.”

In other words, a successful compromise requires all parties involved to recognize each other’s needs and interests, even if they don’t necessarily agree with them. In the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate, this means that developers and neighborhood advocates must come to the table and consider each other’s perspectives. Not only that, but they must also be willing to give something up to reach a solution that benefits all involved.

Easier said than done, of course, but in New York City, where urban development has been shaped by the NIMBY attitude for years, some YIMBY-friendly compromises have been reached in recent years.

The city’s 421a program, which provides tax incentives to developers who set aside 20% of their units for low-income housing, has added thousands of affordable homes to the city’s housing stock.

Moreover, NYC mayor Eric Adams, who was elected to office in 2021, is looking to #GetStuffBuilt across the five boroughs and has called on both YIMBYs and NIMBYs to work together to create vibrant, livable neighborhoods for everyone.

But the second question at the core of the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate is the toughest to answer: What is each side willing to sacrifice to get what they want?

Only time will tell, but in a city where both sides of the debate are deeply entrenched in their positions, mutual understanding and compromise may be the only way for YIMBYs and NIMBYs to get stuff built for the greater good.

The post YIMBYs vs. NIMBYs: Who’s Right in the Heated Debate Over Urban Development? appeared first on CitySignal.

On Dec.19, Governor Kathy Hochul announced construction on a huge affordable housing development in East New York.

The first phase of the $1.2 billion housing project, Alafia, will include close to 600 affordable apartments, 7,000 square feet of retail space, and an outpatient medical clinic. 

In total, the mixed-use development will include 2,400 apartments across 11 residential buildings, a daycare, a trade school, and a grocery store. The 27-acre development is being built on the former Brooklyn Developmental Center property, which would otherwise go unused.

In a statement to the public, Hochul expressed her enthusiasm for the large-scale development, which forms a part of a greater statewide initiative to address housing and health disparities in Brooklyn. 

“This truly transformative investment will put us on the path toward mending the societal cracks in the system, to ensure all New Yorkers have a chance to prosper,” said Hochul.

The Push to Become ‘All-Affordable’ & What that Actually Means

The plan for Alafia originally proposed rentals for New York residents making up to 120% of the region’s median income, or a household income of $160,000. 

But, after fierce negotiations with Councilmember Charles Barron’s office, the developer brought income limits down to a maximum of 80%, meaning that only households making up to $106,000 would qualify for residence.

According to data released by the Furman Center, around 61% of the area’s household incomes would qualify for housing at Alafia. No market rate apartments are included in the project, making it ‘all-affordable.’

The Power of the Council

Alafia developers certainly had their work cut out for them with Councilmember Barron to get through. As a former Black Panther, avowed socialist, and frequent opponent of rezonings, it was clear he wasn’t going to let the project pass without substantial benefits to the community. 

Barron reminded council members of their leverage in a statement to The City, “I keep telling them, ‘Go for 100% affordability, affordable to the income level of the income band in your community. We have all these projects that people say, ‘Oh, I got 30% affordable or 25%.’ That means you have 70% of the market. In this one here [Alafia], there’s no market rate.”

The power of the council lies in New York City’s long standing, yet controversial practice of member deference. This is when the majority of the Council follows the lead of the member representing the district in which a given project is being built. 

If a district’s councilmember doesn’t approve of a particular rezoning, it’s highly unlikely the other council members will vote in favor of it. “The City Council has the power,” says Barron, “No matter what the mayor wants to do…the mayor can’t do no rezoning.” 

Long-Term Impact of the Alafia Redevelopment

As part of the state’s Vital Brooklyn Initiative, Alafia’s redevelopment has set high expectations for local leadership and residents of the community. The initiative focuses on Central Brooklyn, one of New York’s most vulnerable areas. 

Vital Brooklyn intends to address social, economic, and health inequalities through a holistic approach. The initiative integrates eight areas of development—five of which Alafia is targeting; affordable housing, open space and recreation, community-based healthcare, healthy food, and education. When finished, the development is set to house 2,400 affordable homes, an urban farm, an outpatient medical facility, a grocery store and a trade school.

One Brooklyn Health will be in charge of the outpatient medical facility serving both residents of the property as well as those in the surrounding neighborhood. 

CEO of RiseBoro Community Partnership, Scott Short, told the Brooklyn Paper that Alafia “is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in an underserved community on a scale that’s pretty unprecedented in New York City community development work. This development really understands that health and housing outcomes are inextricably linked…”

Alafia’s First Residents

Given the size of the Alafia project, it won’t be completed for another 10 years. However, its first residents will be able to move in two years from now, after the first phase is complete. 

Phase 1 of Alafia costs $373 Million and will create 576 affordable homes across two buildings. The first is a six-story building with 124 apartments and the second is a 15-story building with 452 apartments. 

The larger structure will house a 15,000-square-foot medical clinic and 7,000 square feet of retail space. Both buildings will include geothermal heat pump systems and rooftop solar panels. A total of 136 units will be dedicated to people with mental health conditions and developmental disabilities. 

Other Housing Initiatives in NYC

While Alafia is currently the largest of its kind in New York’s history, Governor Hochul made it clear in her statement that there’s still a lot of work to be done in regards to the housing crisis.

The Governor mentioned an “ambitious goal” to introduce more than “800,000 new [affordable housing] units over the next decade,” a massive undertaking that would require collaboration from Mayor Adams, the legislature, and city council.

Hochul has already introduced a $25 billion comprehensive housing plan in the FY 2023 State Budget. The project is intended to create and/or preserve 100,000 affordable units across the state over the next five years. 

10,000 of those units will include support services for vulnerable populations and an additional 50,000 homes will be serviced for electricity. 

Logan Fountain Development

Just a few days before her appearance on Dec. 19 at Alafia’s inauguration, Governor Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams announced the construction for Logan Fountain, another mixed-use development smaller in size that will transform a defunct gas station into transitional housing for homeless families, 174 affordable units, and new retail space. 

Located on 265 Logan Street, the 13-story development will include approximately 7,677 square feet of ground-floor retail space as well as a variety of amenities to its residents. 

On the affordable housing side amenities will include multiple terraces with a garden area, a landscaped courtyard, and a children’s play area. On the transitional housing side families will have access to both in and outdoor childcare space, bicycle storage, and a laundry room. 

Vital Brookdale Development

In November, Governor Hochul attended the ribbon-cutting of yet another affordable housing development, Vital Brookdale. The 160-unit property was the first of ten projects brought into fruition through the Vital Brooklyn Initiative mentioned earlier in this article.

The majority of the 124 affordable units at Brookdale will be reserved for households earning at or below 60% area median income. A portion is set aside for residents at 80% AMI. 

The remaining 36 units are reserved for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and youth aging out of foster care. Apartments range from studios to three-bedrooms

The post Affordable Housing Plans for Brooklyn, NY appeared first on CitySignal.

Why the Plan is Controversial

There are a few main criticisms of Mayor Adams’ plan. First, critics describe the policy as a human rights violation that enables law enforcement to arrest and forcibly detain individuals with mental illness, even if they aren’t an active danger to those around them.

Rising crime and safety concerns are major factors behind Mayor Adams’ decision.

Adams, for his part, responded to his critics by framing the new policy as the most compassionate and humane way of helping people who have chronic mental illness conditions and challenges with substance abuse.

“As a city, we have a moral obligation to support our fellow New Yorkers and stop the decades-long practice of turning a blind eye towards those suffering from severe mental illness, especially those who pose a risk of harm to themselves,” Mayor Adams said at a press conference.

Critics also argue that Adams is putting too much money and emphasis on enforcement instead of addressing the root causes of chronic homelessness among people with mental illness. Adams once again disputed this notion.

“If you cannot take care of your basic needs and you are a danger to yourself- that is the small group that we are talking about,” Adams said in a radio interview. “You will be taken to the hospital where a mental health professional would make the determination on what the next steps.”

There’s also the issue of transparency. Adams said that his administration may not be able to report how involuntarily hospitalized patients are treated due to HIPAA laws and other patient privacy laws. However, activists say that the only way the government can execute the program ethically is through complete transparency.

“We want to know the length of stay, I want to know whether they’re admitted, whether they’re not admitted, whether they’re medicated, not medicated, whether they’re connected with services, what services, for how long, whether the city is finding housing for them,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in an interview with a local news station.

Are There Enough Hospital Beds?

In the same interview, Lieberman showed concern regarding the new policy’s impact on New York’s hospital system. She argued that there aren’t enough hospital beds to meet the demand.

“It’s like potentially blowing up the whole barn because the mayor is proposing, by his own words, to sweep thousands of people off the streets into the already overburdened hospital system,” Lieberman said. “That means that people who want to go to the hospital for care won’t have any place to go.”

Right now, it’s unclear what the Adams Administration plans to do regarding a shortage of psychiatric hospital beds. DailyMail reported that Adams has an agreement with an undisclosed number of private hospitals to provide psychiatric beds and that Kenneth Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, supports the mayor’s plan. However, Raske admitted that the new policy would be hard to implement and that there would need to be an expansion of psychiatric beds in the city.

Is Mayor Adams’ New Policy a Blast From the Past?

Critics argue that Mayor Adams’ new plan is reminiscent of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s homeless policies that heavily emphasized enforcement over treating the root causes. Giuliani emphasized involuntary psychiatric commitment for the mentally ill during his tenure, according to The New York Times. However, he took enforcement further than that by threatening arrest for any homeless individuals who refused housing or shelter.

Critics of Giuliani’s homeless policies argue that his initiatives didn’t address the root causes of homelessness or provide long-term solutions. Meanwhile, proponents of his policies argue that he made the city much safer by removing dangerous individuals from the streets.

New York City’s crime rate declined considerably during Giuliani’s tenure from 1994 to 2001. Crime incidents in New York fell 41% from 1994 to 2002, the year after Giuliani left office. However, crime nationally fell 36% during that time, so there may not be enough evidence to prove whether or not his “tough on crime” policies made the city safer.

Mayor Adams’ policy has a legal hurdle to jump before officials can implement it. About a week after the announcement of his new policy, homeless advocates filed a lawsuit arguing that the involuntarily committing mentally ill New Yorkers who don’t pose a risk to others violates their constitutional rights.

The post New York Plans to Involuntarily Hospitalize Mentally Ill People Despite Challenges appeared first on CitySignal.

Mayor Eric Adams made addressing homelessness and affordable housing a central part of his campaign and early mayoral tenure. For Adams, building more supportive and affordable housing units was and continues to be a top priority. In an interview with radio host Brian Lehrer, Adams spoke about why it is so important to provide housing for New Yorkers living on the street.

“When I looked at some of those encampment sites — some of them I visited at one, two, three in the morning — looked inside, talked to people who are homeless, I saw people living in human waste. Drug paraphernalia, no showers, no clean clothing, living like that. That is not dignified, it is not acceptable”, Adams said.

Despite efforts to construct and build comfortable, affordable housing units, many occupants experience poor living conditions once they move in. This year, RentHop found that as rental prices decrease, heating violations increase, meaning those in lower-priced units are more likely to experience extreme cold.

Building affordable and supportive housing is the main solution to ending chronic street homelessness, but new city data indicates 2,585 vacant supportive housing units in NYC. Reportedly, the number of vacant supportive apartments has doubled since July, when about 1,100 supportive housing units sat vacantly.

Filling supportive housing units is just as big a challenge as building them in the first place. In January 2022, 3,400 people lived on the streets and subway stations of NYC. If all of the vacant supportive units were filled, 75% of those individuals would be in housing.

So why are there so many vacant supportive housing units in The Big Apple? Bureaucracy and red tape may be the most significant factor.

Getting access to affordable housing is difficult

The application process to acquire an affordable housing unit can be difficult. There is extensive paperwork, a lengthy approval process, interviews, multiple rounds of mental health evaluations, and a waitlist. Even after families and individuals receive approval for supportive housing, most do not actually receive housing. According to the New York Times, between July 2021 and 2022, 7,400 individuals or families were approved for supportive housing, but only 16% of them received an apartment. Some of the 16% didn’t even move in.

The most startling statistic? Only 16 people in that time frame moved into supportive housing from the street and subway stations. The application process for housing isn’t accessible for the most vulnerable New Yorkers living outside. Mayor Eric Adams previously promised to cut the red tape and make the application process more accessible and streamlined, but it hasn’t worked so far.

Efforts to build more affordable housing units continue to stall, decreasing the inventory for newer, up-to-date units that could comfortably house more potential renters. Combine a lengthy application process with lower-quality apartments where renters complain about heat, condition, and accessibility, and the city enters the current situation where too many units sit vacantly.

“How do you have a vacant apartment, when you need people to be in the apartment, and you have so much paperwork that they can’t get in the apartment?” Adams said. “That is not how I’m going to run this city.”

The post Why 2,600 Supportive Housing Units Sit Vacant in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

The New York City Council is actively considering passing a law that would ban landlords from conducting tenant criminal background checks, with a few exceptions. In effect, this would prohibit landlords from denying tenants an apartment based solely on criminal history. Council Member Keith Powers, a sponsor of the legislation titled the “Fair Chance for Housing Act,” bans “landlords, owners, agents, employees, and real estate brokers” from using arrest or criminal record information against a tenant. 

In a few cases, landlords could use criminal history against a tenant. For example, landlords can verify if a prospective tenant is a convicted sex offender. The law would not apply to single-family homes or duplexes that also serve as the landlord’s primary residence. 

New Jersey passed a very similar law in 2021. Other major cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Oakland, and Chicago also recently passed similar legislation to ban tenant criminal background checks, with limited exceptions. These laws passed very recently, primarily in the wake of George Floyd’s passing and subsequent national protests. 

Because of the recent nature of these bills, there isn’t conclusive, long-term evidence on their effectiveness. However, stakeholders on both sides of the issue in NYC both have passionate arguments in favor or against the legislation. Landlords and developers are the primary opponents of the bill, while housing and tenant advocates are the most prominent supporters. 

Even in a progressive, highly democratic city like New York, this bill faces an uphill battle. Opposition from the real estate industry helped kill a similar bill that failed to pass in 2021. In fact, there was so much opposition to the bill among council members that it never even made it to a vote. However, there is now a renewed push to ban tenant criminal background checks as of August 2022, and the New York Times reported that 30 of 51 city council members are now in support of the bill, signaling strong support. 

Landlords argue that the bill if passed, would affect their tenant quality and affect their profits. In turn, this could lower their profit margins and increase their insurance and liability costs. However, they are also framing their opposition to the bill as a tenants’ rights issue, claiming that convicted criminals moving into a building could make it less safe. 

“If crafted poorly, it could impact other residents living in the building and open up housing providers to more liability and higher insurance costs,” Jay Martin, CHIP’s executive director, said in a statement.

Proponents of the legislation argue that tenant criminal background checks keep people from fully transitioning back to society after serving their time in prison. They say that it puts people at heightened risk of homelessness and makes it more likely that they will be repeat offenders who go back to prison. 

Mayor Eric Adams hasn’t commented on the bill specifically, but it’s unlikely that he would veto the bill if it were passed by the NYC City Council. In a recent housing plan, Mayor Eric Adams signaled his support for “creating new anti-discrimination protections for New Yorkers with criminal justice histories.”

The post NYC Could Ban Tenant Criminal Background Checks, With Few Exceptions appeared first on CitySignal.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), the New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC), and homeless services nonprofit Project Renewal have worked together to create this opportunity for New Yorkers who were previously homeless, for families impacted by mental illness and substance abuse, or for those living with HIV/AIDS. Phase I of the project has 71 apartments available for qualifying individuals or families. The other 46 apartments have been designated for low-income households earning up to 60 percent of the area median income (AMI).

Unique Amenities at 2865 Creston Avenue

Located in Bedford Park in the Bronx, this building was constructed in 2019 and has a total of 117 rental apartments. Amenities in this 14-story building include a rooftop terrace, elevator, attended lobby, concierge, event room, bike storage, laundry room, and garden. Beyond the usual amenities, however, Project Renewal will provide on-site social services, including a greenhouse with aquaponic urban farming on the roof.

Aquaponics Farming System

The 1,500-square-foot rooftop greenhouse features fish, vegetables, herbs, and microgreens that will allow residents to grow fresh food all year long. The vertical farming system will allow residents to raise vegetables and edible fish in an ecosystem. The fish’s tanks are connected to a bio-filter that breaks down their waste and carries the nutrients to the plant roots. The space outside the greenhouse will be used for organic farming for vegetables that do not grow well via aquaponics. Residents will work with the horticulturist provided by Project Renewal to learn to grow their own food.

Environmentally Friendly

Greenery has been planted to grow from the top floors to the ground, reducing the energy use for the building and pollutants surrounding the building. Bedford Green House also features continuous exterior insulation, lowering energy use and reducing the building’s carbon footprint.

Streetscape

Bedford Green House’s streetscape includes landscaping along the sidewalk and seats at the setbacks that encourage residents and neighbors to gather outside the building. The colorful community playground will be accessible to the children who live in the building as well as other children of the surrounding neighborhood.

Social Services

Project Renewal will also offer case management, occupational therapy, and horticultural therapy. Phase II of the project will include even more amenities for the residents with 116 additional apartments, a 5,000-square-foot medical clinic, a fitness center, and a library.

Safe, High-Quality, Affordable Housing

The project’s goal is to create a safe and positive environment for its residents, who have previously struggled. Project Renewal hopes that shared activities that support healthy living will help bring residents of the building together.

Mayor Adams commented: “Affordable housing, homelessness, public health, and our environment are all connected, and Project Renewal demonstrates the kind of creative thinking we need to tackle all of them together.”

The building reflects the ongoing goals that the mayor has for getting New Yorkers into safe, high-quality and affordable housing.

The Neighborhood of Bedford Park

Bedford Park is a quiet community in the northern section of the Bronx with small residential streets that feature old Victorian and Tudor-style homes. Surrounded by parks like Jerome Park and the New York Botanical Garden, this area has plenty of green space. Bedford Park has several nearby bus stops and is close to the 4 subway line. Bedford Park is home to several prestigious colleges, high schools, and some of the city’s oldest churches, reflecting the diverse cultures in this community.

Future Housing Projects

There has been strong support for the vision of Bedford Green House, and those who are passionate about this project are hoping it leads to more of its kind. Studies have shown the healing benefits of being connected to nature, and that is what Bedford Green House serves to accomplish.

HPD Commissioner Adolfo Carrión Jr. says it serves as a model: “This development is a model for housing New Yorkers with dignity while providing the services needed to live healthy lives. Thanks to Project Renewal, our partners at the city and state, and the entire development team for making this innovative and sustainable project a reality.”

Future housing developments may take note of the special amenities and services Bedford Green House provides to its residents. These services are meant to stabilize their lives, so they can function in the community while also receiving the support they need.

The post Bedford Green House Provides Affordable and Eco-Friendly Housing appeared first on CitySignal.

In 2014, Dell Technologies founder and billionaire Michael Dell bought a condo in the One57 tower that sits just one block south of Central Park, in a neighborhood nicknamed Billionaires’ Row. At the time, Michael Dell’s purchase was a record-setting transaction, reaching a $100.47 million price tag. 

The Park Savoy Hotel, situated just behind the One57 tower, is a clear contrast to the opulence of the surrounding neighborhood. A former budget hotel, the modest property opened in November 2021 as Billionaires’ Row’s first homeless shelter, with enough beds for 80 men. However, it only opened after years of delays and appeals from the powerful, wealthy residents that surround it. 

Years of Delays and Appeals

The Park Savoy Hotel was originally supposed to reopen as a shelter in early 2018. The project was part of former NYC mayor Bill de Blasio’s 2017 plan to open up 90 new homeless shelters in the city, with an emphasis on adding more shelter beds to wealthy neighborhoods. 

Instead of opening in 2018, the project was stalled for years because Billionaires’ Row residents took legal action to try to stop the homeless shelter from coming to their neighborhood. Their 2018 lawsuit alleged that the Park Savoy building wasn’t safe enough to house a shelter and that it would bring crime and loitering that would lead to what the Guardian reported as “irreparable injuries.” By irreparable injuries, the lawsuit is referring to property values.

After the Park Savoy Hotel officially reopened as a shelter, Michael Fischer, a leading resident opposing the project, sent a statement to THE CITY. He alleged that the shelter was a “fire trap” because of its single entrance and staircase and that it was a safety hazard to “both the lives of residents, neighbors and first responders.” 

However, Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance spokesperson Anthony Farmer responded by saying that his agency deemed the building safe after reducing its capacity from 140 to 80 residents. 

“The decision to approve this shelter while limiting capacity balances the ongoing need for additional shelter beds in New York City and protecting the safety of residents,” Farmer said.

According to The Nation, neighborhood residents spent up to $400,000 opposing the homeless shelter, including at least $287,000 in lobbyist and lawyer fees. Most astonishingly, their community group spent $100,000 on a billboard campaign in Iowa attacking Mayor de Blasio’s 2020 presidential bid, even though he wasn’t considered a legitimate contender for the nomination.

Mayor Adams’ Initiative to Fight Homelessness

As a mayoral candidate, Adams supported an initiative to turn underused hotels into affordable housing and homeless shelters. The Park Savoy Hotel is clearly an important part of the Mayor’s efforts, but it is a relatively low-scale project with room for only 80 beds. In March 2022, New York City’s main municipal shelter system housed 48,524 homeless people on an average night. 

In his latest budget, Adams proposed an additional $171M in funding to combat homelessness. The money would primarily go to adding 1,400 new shelter beds as part of the city’s Safe Haven Program which offers more comprehensive services and enforces fewer restrictions than typical shelters. 

The post Homeless Shelter In Former Park Savoy Hotel Creates Costly Debate appeared first on CitySignal.

On the first of June, Adams took his affordable housing agenda a step further, offering a blueprint of where NYC’s affordable housing units could go. The Mayor’s “City of Yes Plan,” which also focuses on sustainability and small business investment, aims to counter NIMBYism, otherwise known as “Not In My Back Yard”.  Proponents of NIMBYism are typically against large-scale or even smaller-scale developments in their neighborhoods due to concerns about local character, increased crime, excessive traffic, noise, environmental pollution, and more. An example of this would be the recent claims against the One45 development in Harlem claiming it would promote gentrification.

The “City of Yes” plan aims to turn NYC into a more equitable, inclusive city with updated zoning regulations. The three new citywide zoning amendments include Zoning for Economic Opportunity, Zoning for Housing Opportunity, and Zoning for Zero Carbon. The zoning will focus its sights on emerging employment centers and commercial corridors in all five city boroughs. According to the mayor’s plan, the new zoning regulations will start in the Bronx, the borough with the highest poverty rate. 

“We are going to turn New York into a ‘City of Yes’ — yes in my backyard, yes on my block, yes in my neighborhood,” said Mayor Adams. “These proposals focused on economic recovery, affordable housing, and sustainability will remove red tape for small businesses, expand housing opportunities in every neighborhood, and accelerate the transition to our energy future”. 

How Will the Updated Zoning Affect Housing Production?

The city’s Zoning for Housing Opportunity amendment will incentivize more housing construction in neighborhoods within all five boroughs. Although the portion of the plan available to the public is devoid of many details, the mayor’s press release touches on a few main ways they plan on reaching this goal. 

First, the administration wants to widen the acceptable variety of housing types and sizes, including studios, to accommodate a wider range of families and households. This may mean allowing studios or one-bedroom apartments in neighborhoods primarily zoned for single-family use. In practice, this change would allow a greater variety of people to live in neighborhoods that were previously only reserved for households that could afford a larger home. 

The plan also calls for expanding the eligible floor area ratio for affordable and supportive housing, allowing eligible, larger households to live under one roof. This sort of policy is already allowed for affordable housing for seniors. 

Another proposal is reducing overreaching parking requirements for buildings that don’t need it. Many zoning laws include mandatory minimum parking requirements, but with land at a premium in NYC, surface parking lots are a major waste of space. The city hopes that by reducing parking requirements, more parking lots can turn into future homes, both affordable and market rate. 

Lastly, the plan calls for simplifying the process of converting underutilized commercial buildings into homes. Not all commercial buildings can realistically convert into homes. For example, developers won’t be able to feasibly redevelop most vacant office buildings into housing without a substantial financial subsidy, but other types of commercial properties are easier to convert. 

NY Governor Hochul recently released a plan that would turn more underutilized hotel space into affordable housing. The new law allows Class B hotels that meet certain criteria and are within 400 feet of districts that permit residential use, to apply their existing certificates of occupancy to become permanent residential spaces. Eligible Class B hotels can provide permanent housing if they receive state funding or enter into an agreement with the City’s government. 

Will the Updated Zoning Reduce NYC’s Housing Shortage? 

Critics argue that changing zoning laws to specifically allow more affordable housing units is crucial. Otherwise, new affordable housing units aren’t likely. For example, the former Long Island College Hospital site in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn didn’t go through rezoning to allow for a larger project with affordable housing, so it ended up turning into a smaller luxury housing project instead. 

The most recent citywide rezoning aimed at increasing and preserving affordable housing was the 2016 passing of the mandatory inclusionary housing program (MIH), which built on the existing inclusionary housing program (IHP). It was meant to promote affordable housing construction in three main zoning districts:

• R10 zoning districts, which are outside of IHP areas and were formed in 1987 along with the original Inclusionary Housing Program. R10 was expanded in 2005 with the passing of IHP “Designated Areas”. Affordable housing in these districts isn’t mandatory. 
• IHP districts also don’t mandate affordable housing creation, but merely encourage and incentivize it. 
• Mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) zones are different from IHP, as it often mandates affordable housing. In MIH districts, affordable housing is mandatory for residential developments, enlargements, or conversions. In select circumstances, a developer can pay into an affordable housing fund if no affordable units were built. Affordable units are not required for smaller, new residential developments, enlargements, or conversions that are less than 12,500 square feet, and contain fewer than 10 residential units.

The city is clearly on the right path by further updating its citywide zoning for more affordable housing production, but more work is needed to address a growing affordability problem in one of America’s most expensive cities. 

The post Mayor Adams Hopes to Incentivize More Affordable Housing Development With New Zoning Laws appeared first on CitySignal.

Cleanliness aside, living in easily accessible and affordable locations seems to be a thing of the past for people living in the five boroughs. WIth remote and hybrid work now a common job perk, what does the city really have to offer?

Designing New York City For The Future

For NYC to surpass its former glory, it will need to lean heavily into the programs from NYCxDESIGN. Many are familiar with their work without even needing to walk a few blocks down the street, as the non-profit helped found the Design Corps, a small business reopening network that assists restaurants with design-related needs for updates such as the highly popular al fresco sidewalk dining spaces.

Mayor Adams seems to understand New York City is at a precarious tipping point. On May 10th, Adams delivered remarks at Pearl Alley to open the 10th Anniversary of the Annual Design Festival by NYCxDESIGN, addressing the importance of the organization and what they do for the community. 

“We can’t stumble into a post covid New York City. We must move into post COVID, by design,” stated Adams. “We must design not to leave anyone behind. Because historically, when we designed the city, we designed it without thinking about of those communities that have historically that have been part of the design.” Mayor Adams then spoke on the significance of the fashion industry to New Yorkers transitioning out of homelessness and domestic abuse shelters and the necessity to pay the workers in the garment industries an adequate wage to survive. 

Andrew Kimball, former longtime CEO of Industry City, and Adams’ selection for CEO and President of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) re-iterated Adams’ thoughts, “it’s not enough to get back. We need to come back with a more inclusive design plan.”

While the fashion aspects Mayor Adams spoke of only encompass a small part of what NYCxDESIGN is all about, the sentiment rings true. New York architecture, such as the 25 billion dollar project that is Hudson Yards, has received harsh criticism for its development as a “billionaire’s playground” directed towards affluent New Yorkers. Even developments such as One45 in Harlem propose to bring climate justice, green jobs, enhanced social consciousness, and increased equity to the uptown neighborhood, are met with skepticism from the community due to concerns of gentrification and local resident displacement, among other things.  

As of March 31st, 2022, the median 1 bedroom rent for an apartment near the 34th street Hudson Yards MTA station was around $4,153. This puts Hudson Yards as one of the least affordable areas to live in, which is no surprise considering the skyscrapers like 15Hudson Yards that surround the compound carry apartments with 1 bedroom rents at $6,300. The website claims Hudson Yards is a model for “future global cities,” but what does the average working class New Yorker gain from this area?

Are these developments being designed with the community in mind or in partnership with the community? The two are very different things. 

The Tin Building and the South Street Seaport Neighborhood

Among the speakers at the opening of The Festival were notable members involved in the creation of the Tin Building, Seaport’s newest building to open this July (provided they can hire 700 workers). The Tin Building is “designed to delight and engage every one of your five senses in the most delicious way.” Curated by acclaimed chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten, the claims are that it will be “a never-before-seen culinary experience.” But as the “spot to shop, sip, savor, and feast while soaking in the recently revived landmark’s rich history,” what will it really provide for the community? 

Robin Standefer, Co-founder of Roman & Williams, the design firm that worked on the Tin Building with Vongerichten, recounted her own personal history with the building and stated that this location will offer everything from “high food” to “low food” and will allow New Yorkers of all walks to enjoy diverse cuisines. She likened it to “peeling back all parts of the city from an economic point.” Mr. Vongerichten and the developers expect a mix of locals, tourists, and other New Yorkers, including Brooklynites arriving by ferry, to be drawn to the market, according to the NYTimes. 

But after over 1,000 restaurants have closed their doors since March 2020, does the community need another location pulling traffic away from local businesses? No doubt the local economy will benefit from an increase in traffic looking to spend, but might this be another carefully curated New York “experience” that takes away from the locally born and housed businesses that make up the city’s backbone.

Could the Tin Building Fall into the same realm as the Hudson Yards project? The 2016 Economic Impact report for Hudson Yards quoted Tom Wright, President of the Regional Plan Association, saying, “Hudson Yards will play a vital role in New York City and the region by revitalizing Manhattan’s Far West Side and by creating the type of modern, mixed-use district that is being built by our competitors around the world.”

Revitalization or Tourist Magnet? The Responsibility of Design

But now, with luxury businesses like Equinox and a shopping mall filled with ultra-high-end labels and bucket list attractions, Hudson Yards has turned into part luxury destination and part tourist magnet. It seems that the Tin Building, with its mixture of “high-end” food curated by an acclaimed chef, lesser counters and cafés such as T Café and Bakery, a space for cooking classes, and a museum of the building’s history call more to tourists and wealthy elites than everyday New Yorkers out for a quick run to the market. 

Is “community revitalization” purely a code for tourist attraction? Is New York City officially “back” and better than ever when the streets are swarming with confused tourists? It seems that when designing for the future of economic growth, it’s really just a massive marketing campaign directed at the short-term visitors with full wallets and a desire to spend. 

Hopefully, the topic of inclusive design for NYC residents will be broached on May 13th, for the Festival’s “The Responsibility of Design” directed at designing for the environment, well-being, and community. Among the speakers will be Michael K. Chen, Principal for Michael K. Chen Architecture (MKCA).

Chen also co-founded Design Advocates, a network of independent architecture and design firms collaborating on pro-bono projects for small businesses, institutions, and organizations that serve disadvantaged communities to help them adapt their spaces and operation to COVID-19 and beyond. Chen has led projects such as the Children’s Library at Concourse House in the Bronx to provide a new children’s library for families transitioning from homelessness. MKCA also has a project called “Biodiversity City” that showcases the relationship between future development and what impacts it can have on ecological conservation and urban biodiversity. Clearly, a portion of their work focuses on the lasting impact. While perhaps not realized until the distant future, it is a far cry from the immediate gratification of an infusion of foreign cash like so many recent developments. 

Is Designing for the Elite the Key to Community Success?

But Chen and MKCA also have many other projects that one would think provide the majority of their profits. From a re-invention and gut-renovation of an East Village Townhouse to a Clinton Hill brownstone, many of the projects on their website are located in wealthy neighborhoods and cater to individuals with deep bank accounts. After all, the money needs to come from somewhere.

Chen has shared that he was introduced to the charity that was spearheading the Bronx Children’s project by donors Kate and Julie Yamin, two founders of the charity Cause for Celebration which is proud to be almost completely self-funded. A self-funded charity requires considerable assets and funds to direct to their chosen causes, and in a town where money is power, Chen may have brushed elbows with the donors when running in the circles of elite New Yorkers. It seems that catering design and development towards a small portion of the New York population can in fact be the means to an end in terms of inclusively designing for the community.

Revitalization Through Strength

But maybe what the community needs right now is a display of strength to engage the working class. Lindsey Greene, CEO and President of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, spoke on Tuesday at the NYCxDESIGN Festival about how this week “showcases how resilient this group of people [designers] are.” Half of the businesses in the Navy Yard are of the creative design sphere and provide the “different flavors of what design really means.”

It’s no secret the large economic impact the Brooklyn Navy Yard has. The Navy Yard provides thousands of New Yorkers with economic opportunities for manufacturing owners, tech startups, artisans, and other small business owners. This week, the Brooklyn Navy Yard Design and Architectural Tours will explore the Brooklyn Navy Yard’s unique architecture, both historic and contemporary, and provides visitors with a look into what makes the Navy Yard an economic powerhouse. This is a rare moment for the doors of the Navy Yard to be opened for the average passerby to enter and fully relish the creation and innovation that is happening on the edge of Brooklyn. These are the less glamorous industries and projects that aren’t gracing the covers of trendy magazines but are offering up the chance to create an impact on both a micro and macro level. From the hiring of an individual to guiding inspired designers to change society, the Brooklyn Navy Yard is a deeply influential part of the New York community. 

As Adams’ said on Tuesday, “when we designed the city, we designed it without thinking about those communities that have historically not have been part of the design,” and New Yorkers must not forget this.

Moving forward can only happen by design, albeit carefully planned and executed, working to fix the city’s image problem of being dirty, expensive, and crime-laden to one of glittering lights and endless possibilities. Only then will the visiting populations slow to run to worship at the towering monuments of the rich who barely tread on the streets. A pride for the city will be reinstated, and the diverse community of New York City will truly thrive.

The post From Dirty To Designed, How NYC Will Come Back Stronger appeared first on CitySignal.