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.

Overview of NYC’s New Short-Term Rental Registration Law

On January 9th, 2022, New York City adopted Local Law 18, also known as the Short-Term Rental Registration Law. The law is now going into effect and requires STR hosts to register with the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement (OSE) before posting their rentals on booking service platforms such as Airbnb, VRBO, and Booking.com. 

These booking platforms will be unable to process transactions for unregistered vacation rentals. Registration will open up 30 days after the final rules are published, allowing applicants to submit their information on the OSE website.

It’s expected that applications will go live towards the end of February with a $145 non-refundable application fee. Enforcement of registration requirements won’t begin until July of 2023.

Breaking Down Specifics of Local Law 18

Local Law 18 limits registration to a person who is a permanent occupant of the unit being rented. It prohibits registration for certain kinds of units, such as rent-regulated and New York City Housing Authority units. 

The new law also prohibits registration of units housed within buildings on the prohibited buildings list, which will be created by owners notifying the OSE that short-term rentals are not allowed in their buildings. 

Registration applicants will be required to confirm that they will comply with laws governing housing in NYC and commit to only hosting legal short-term rentals, specifically stays for no more than two guests hosted in the unit the host currently lives in. 

It’s important to note that the new law does not change which short-term rentals are legal or illegal, it simply strengthens current regulations for short-term rental laws in NYC. 

“Class B” multiple dwellings which have a stamp of approval from the City of New York for legal short-term occupancies are exempt from the new registration requirement. The same exemption applies for rentals of 30 consecutive days, or more. 

What is the Purpose of Local Law 18?

Despite existing regulations, New York’s short-term rental industry is anything but regulated. Illegal rentals are so common that the City doesn’t have the capacity to regulate them all, making enforcement of existing laws challenging, to say the least. 

State and city laws are clear in that rentals of 30 days or less are not permitted unless the permanent resident is living within the same space. However, that’s not necessarily clear to the millions of people looking for a short-term rental on Airbnb and other booking platforms. 

Tenants and owners listing their rentals for less than 30 days know they are breaking the law, however, they also know their chances of being caught are minimal given the vast number of illegal Airbnbs throughout the City. 

What Illegal Airbnbs Look Like in Practice

In NYC, most visitors have no way of knowing their stays are illegal. It’s also not something they are responsible for in the eyes of the law. This makes for an ideal situation where tenants with great credit scores and a healthy savings account apply to apartments, get approved, and instead of moving in, immediately list their rentals on Airbnb. 

Many of these buildings do not allow for short-term rentals. The reason being that short-term rentals usually come with increased foot traffic. This poses an inconvenience to both the owner of the unit and the unit’s neighbors, given that the space is being overused and frequented by multiple people throughout the year. 

The City and Airbnb have differed on the issue since Airbnb came into existence. Tourists who stay in Airbnb homes certainly bring activity to the local economy, but often at the expense of current residents. City officials prefer tourists to stay in hotels, as opposed to apartments, due to the tight housing supply and rising rents in NYC.

How does the Short-Term Rental Registration Law Differ from Current Regulations?

The main difference between existing regulations and the new Short-Term Rental Regulation law is that hosts will now be required to register their rentals with the OSE. Booking platforms will be prohibited from posting listings or processing payments for unregistered short-term rentals. A registration number will be given to those approved and displayed on the rental’s listing.

Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement, Christian Klossner, told the New York Post that this new law will “clarify short-term rental laws and lay out a straightforward process for hosts to obtain a registration for their legal rentals.” 

Existing Regulations Remain

The first thing to note is that Local Law 18 does not change or override previous regulations. Short-term rentals for less than 30 days are only allowed if the tenant/owner actively resides within the unit. In other words, you can only share your space with up to two guests at a time, you can’t completely give up your space to them during their stay. 

Listing an “entire place” on Airbnb for less than 30 days in NYC is illegal. However, that’s the most common type of Airbnb you’ll find on the platform. 

The new Short-Term Rental Regulation Law is aimed at changing that by implementing a registration system and banning short-term listings in certain buildings. The law also applies to one-and two-family houses.

List of Buildings Prohibited from Hosting in NYC

Local Law 18 is also meant to empower building owners by allowing them to submit their properties to an official list of buildings prohibiting short-term rentals. 

This allows the OSE to reject registration requests from tenants trying to host behind their landlords’ backs. Condo owners and co-op boards will have the same opportunity to put their buildings on the prohibited list. 

When a host submits a short-term rental application, the OSE will notify the building owner and allow them to confirm or block the request. 

What Should I Do if I Want to Host in NYC?

Hosting in the city is already a bit complicated. It’s expected that increased regulations will dissuade future Airbnb hosts from renting out their space. As part of the new law, hosts will need to do all of the following:

• Confirm they are the owner/tenant through bank statements and/or utility bills.
• Validate they are offering a short-term rental that is not in violation of the lease, laws governing housing, or zoning regulations.
• Provide plenty of information about themselves and the unit such as:
  • Identify
  • Address
  • Full names of everyone living within the unit
  • A diagram of the property showing which rooms will be rented out on a short-term basis and emergency exits

Failure to provide the information listed above will result in their Airbnb credentials being removed, prohibiting the platform from processing payments to these hosts. 

If hosts get caught renting out a unit without properly registering it with the OSE, they could face penalties of up to $5,000. Both hosts and booking platform sites that fail to comply can be penalized. However, penalties won’t be enforced until May 9th, 2023.

Airbnb’s Response and Resources for NYC Hosts

As you can imagine, Airbnb is up-in-arms about these new regulations which they argue will promote a “draconian and unworkable registration system that will prevent lawful and responsible hosts from listing their homes,” per their latest statement on Local Law 18. 

Regardless of how they feel about the new measures, they are obliged to comply, or risk losing their ability to operate throughout the City. Airbnb, along with other booking platforms will have to report on the specifics of hosts’ rental in order to corroborate the information provided to the City via registration applications. 

30+ Night Stays are Exempt from Disclosing Home Details Data Sharing

The amount of information that needs to be shared in order to legally list a short-term rental is extensive, which might put off some would-be hosts. Hosts should know that if they are considering hosting in NYC, but don’t want to share detailed information about their living space, there’s a way around that. 

By switching to 30+ night stays, hosts are exempt from data sharing requirements that disclose home details. This means that hosts can post their short-term rentals on Airbnb and other booking platforms without having to submit the information mentioned in the bullets above. 

Although hosting for 30 days or less is enticing and can often reap greater financial rewards, there are some benefits to hosting 30 days, or more. In addition to not having to share information about their home’s layout, long-term hosts will be reducing guest turnover, which could lead to lower maintenance and operating costs. 

They can also secure rental income over a longer period of time, making their rental income more stable. Stays that are 30 days or longer will likely attract a new demographic, such as remote workers and ‘slowmads,’ digital nomads choosing to stay in cities for extended periods of time. 

Is Hosting in the NYC Worth it?

According to the independent watchdog group Inside Airbnb, there are currently 40,000 Airbnb listings throughout the city. Once these new regulations go into effect, this number is expected to decrease by a fourth. 

Naturally, hosts will be dissuaded from hosting their space, given that they are facing rental income loss and privacy concerns. However, New York is still a competitive market, so some hosts will remain. 

Whether or not hosting at a time like this is worth it will depend on hosts’ financial goals, ability to keep up with new regulations, and the type of rental being hosted. RentHop recently published a study revealing that one-bedroom units were more profitable as long-term rentals in 96% of cities. New York ranked as one of the cities with the highest long-term return for a one-bedroom rental.

If you think 30+ day stays fit your financial goals and lifestyle as a host, then hosting in NYC may still be a viable opportunity for you. However, if your main concern is capitalizing on peak seasons where stays in the City are highly profitable, you may not think hosting in NYC is worth the trouble given the new restrictions. 

The post Everything You Need to Know About Airbnb Rental Regulations in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

This, of course, makes it harder for buyers to secure the financing needed to purchase new homes. As long as this continues, buyers will have to find creative ways to secure real estate deals—perhaps even open their minds to real estate solutions they hadn’t thought of before. 

The problem with waiting for the market to dip

Most buyers say that they are waiting for the market to turn. They prefer to buy when the market is low and will often pass up on properties they perceive to be overpriced in hopes that they will soon find a better deal.

The problem with this rationale is that no one knows when the market’s lowest point is until after it’s already passed. Buyers who bought homes in New York in 2002, shortly after 9/11, or in 2009 following the Great Recession, bought their homes at prices so low, we’re likely never to see them again.

There’s been a lot of talk of a potential recession in 2023. It’s normal for buyers to want to wait until after it hits. However, they should note that the dynamics of the market, specifically in Manhattan and Brooklyn, where buyers are most eager, have changed dramatically due to the large amount of condos constructed over the past decade. 

The influx of condos in highly-desired areas have altered consumer expectations. Back in the day, the only way to access the amenities offered by condos was through purchasing a co-op, a jointly owned building owned by a nonprofit corporation allowing its joint owners to live in the residence. We’re now seeing a return of the co-op in NYC.

What is the appeal of a Co-Op?

Co-ops typically come with demanding boards and strict regulations which turns a lot of buyers off. But in the ’90s, purchasing a co-op was one of the only ways New Yorkers could own apartments in the city. 

Although there’s no shortage of condos in NYC, there’s definitely a shortage of the money supply, which is making co-ops more enticing to certain buyers. Purchasing a co-op requires a different type of financing. You usually can’t finance a co-op with a mortgage. 

Instead, you’ll go through an application process involving interviews with the co-op board and financial vetting. If approved, you’ll be able to purchase shares in the company and become a co-owner of the building/nonprofit corp. The shares you purchase will determine the size of your apartment.

Given their convoluted ownership structure and sometimes lengthy approval process, fewer buyers seek out co-ops, which means less competition for the ones who do. If you’re open to it, purchasing a stake in a co-op may be your path to owning an apartment in one of New York’s historic pre-war buildings and prime location. Almost all pre-war buildings in New York are co-ops. 

Co-ops vs. Condos

Condos and co-ops share many similarities in appearance, but are fundamentally different in regards to ownership and financing structures. New York City is different from any other real estate market in the country. Co-ops are one of the reasons for this. 

Although co-ops technically outnumber condos in NYC by about 75%, you’ll find more condos on the market at any given time. The vast number of co-ops is due to the “co-op conversion boom” of the late 80’s, when developers converted a number of rentals into co-ops.

There are a few basic ways in which condos differ from co-ops. The first being that when you purchase a condo, your apartment as well as a part of the building’s common areas, belong to you. 

When you purchase a co-op, you don’t own the apartment. Instead, you own shares in the nonprofit corporation that is your building. Buying these shares allows you to occupy a unit in that building. 

If you’re thinking about purchasing a co-op with the hope of subletting your apartment in the near future, you might have to think again.

Every co-op has different rules in regards to who can utilize their living spaces. You may have to live in-unit for at least a year before being able to sublet, or may not be able to sublet your apartment at all. 

This is because the rental unit is not technically not yours. Ownership belongs to its collective stakeholders. When you close on a condo, you’ll get a deed. When you close on a co-op, you’ll get a proprietary lease.

Both condos and co-ops have a doorman and a superintendent on staff. Some have concierge, while others don’t. Amenities can range from lavish (gym, rooftop, children’s playground) to simple (storage room, laundry room, bike racks). 

Down Payment and Price

According to Castle Avenue real estate, the average sale price for a Manhattan co-op ranges from $553,734 for a studio to $5,109,433 for a 4+ bedroom apartment. Whereas, the average sale price for a condo in Manhattan ranges from $908,991 for a studio apartment to $9,846,869 for 4+ bedroom apartments. 

Condos tend to be more expensive than co-ops, but co-ops usually require a larger down payment than condos. You can put down as little as 10% on a condo, but a co-op will require a down payment of 20%-50%. Property prices ultimately depend on the neighborhood in which the condo or co-op is located. 

Closing Costs

Co-ops also tend to have lower closing costs than condos, usually between 1%-3% of total purchase price. Closing costs for a condo in NYC run between 8%-10%. The difference in closing costs between condos and co-ops is due to their difference in classification of property. 

Condos are considered real property, while co-op shares are considered personal property. It may seem insignificant, but it makes a difference when calculating closing costs for either transaction. 

Monthly Charges

Both co–op and condo owners pay a monthly fee for basic upkeep of their properties. But, co-ops usually come with higher monthly fees than condos. Co-op maintenance fees are higher because they often include part of the mortgage for the building.  

Take A Deeper Look At the Comparison of a Coop and a Condo

These two listings in the same area in the West Village have the same listing price, but you can see that the monthly costs are a bit different.

The post Growing Appeal of Co-Ops in New York City Real Estate 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.

It seems like the only thing it never has is certainty. Still, it’s useful to identify certain trends that may help inform buyer and seller decisions in the upcoming year.

What is Luxury Real Estate?

Defining luxury real estate across various markets can be challenging. Standards vary depending on the local market. What may be considered a luxury family home in a small Midwest town won’t be the same as a luxury condo in a busy East Coast city.

As a general rule, you can consider the luxury real estate market as the top 5%, or 10% of listings in a given area. In large metro areas such as Dallas and Chicago, high-end properties usually start at $1 million or more. In cities like New York, the top 5% of properties start at around $4 million. 

Luxury Real Estate in NYC

Luxury residential real estate operates a bit differently than the regular market. Although overall sales have been impacted by climbing mortgage rates and persistent inflation, top-tier real estate remains a must for NYC power players. 

“There are still bidding wars where there’s a scarcity of that type of property,” says Pamela Liebman, President and CEO of the Corcoran Group, to Variety Magazine. She finds that no bargains are being made among her clients when it comes to chasing their dream New York apartment. 

According to Compass data published by Variety, a total of 841 homes priced at $5 million+ have sold in Manhattan alone through August of this year. That’s a 35.6% increase for the first 8 months of 2022 when compared to the same periods in 2021 and pre-pandemic luxury sales in 2019. 

Jeremy Stein of Sotheby’s International Realty believes the luxury market is entering neutral territory. Unlike 2021 and early 2022, the market is favoring neither buyers nor sellers. “It’s safe to say, whichever way the market heads, it won’t be nearly as dramatic as it has been,” said Stein to Variety Magazine.

In May 2022, we witnessed the end of a volume of sales that was “historic and epic” according to Stein. It marked the end of a 16-month run for luxury real estate in NYC. By August, the market was already showing signs of cooling off, with only 15% of luxury deals closing above list price. 

Liebman adds that “2021 was the greatest year in the history of New York City real estate.” She reiterates it’s not a year to benchmark for comparison in the future.             

Luxury Real Estate Design Trends on the Rise 

Architectural Digest recently published an article on the latest trends being observed in luxury real estate. In terms of design, there were three home features that are expected to increase in popularity this year.  

Luxury Bunkers

A growing number of high-net worth individuals are investing in bunkers. It’s not surprising, given that we’ve experienced a global pandemic, a significant war in Europe, and a bleak economy all within the last three years. In fact, the demand has been so great, there are now entire companies dedicated to developing underground residences, such as the Swiss firm, Oppidum. 

In their search for enhanced security, million-dollar homeowners are building subterranean chalets with reliable off-grid power supply and military-grade technology. Some of these luxury bunkers even come with sophisticated lighting systems that mimic the daily ebb and flow of natural sunlight, as well as art galleries and wine cellars for entertainment.

Above Ground Pools

For a long time, above ground pools were considered tacky but it seems that their appeal is returning within the luxury market. Underground pools are more aesthetically appealing, but they’re also quite a hassle. 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Modpools (@modpools_official)

Installing and maintaining an underground pool can be a headache, especially if you don’t have the adequate space for it. As a result, some luxury buyers are choosing for a more simple look for their pools, redesigning shipping containers and stock tanks into above ground swimming pools. 

The Pied-à-Terre—with a twist

The pandemic motivated many city dwellers to move away for some time. They’re now returning, but not 100%. Hybrid living has been on the rise and has popularized the convenient idea of living in a hotel with a personal touch of a home. 

Short-term living was previously linked with unappealing corporate housing that lacked the “homey” feel so many of us want. Now that people have become more transient, working in one part of the country and living in another, short-term rental options have expanded and enhanced their offerings. 

Real Estate Agents are Hopeful for 2023

Luxury Portfolio International conducted a study among 200 member brokers to gain insight on what luxury residential real estate professionals believe is on the horizon for 2023. The report, titled the Business of Luxury Real Estate, polled brokerages, their principles, and top-producing agents. 

The study highlighted a few key findings:

• 95% reported optimism about their overall market in the next 12 months
• Signs of a shift towards a buyers’ market are starting to show due to larger inventories, increased days-on-market, and price reductions in certain markets
• Updated amenities, prime location, and size are the most common factors selling luxury homes at the moment

Across the board, real estate professionals recognized that COVID influenced an unprecedented, yet unsustainable market with most municipalities experiencing historically low levels of inventory. 

More competitive markets experienced as low as one month of available inventory at some point in time. To provide a point of comparison, a stable luxury market will generally have 12-18 months of available inventory.

Taking into account that 2020, 2021, and the first half of 2022 have represented an industry anomaly, the vast majority of professionals surveyed believe that the market will stabilize in 2023. 

The study also found that 76% of likely homebuyers admit that “even in times of personal financial uncertainty, I buy high-quality products.” Even as interest rates continue to rise, the luxury real estate buyer will remain in the market. 

Impact of International Buyers on the Luxury Market

At the time of LPI’s study, international buyers accounted for 18% of total luxury business for 79% of LPI member firms. It’s worth noting that the growth experienced by the luxury residential real estate market in 2020, 2021, and the first half of 2022 occurred without much, if any, impact from international buyers due to COVID travel restrictions.

The fact that luxury homes sales continued to be robust through this period of economic uncertainty with international buyers being largely absent from the market, speaks to the strength and viability of the luxury sector as a whole.

In 2023, international buyers are expected to continue their return to the market and search for homes offering privacy, safety, high-quality private schools, better infrastructure (e.g., medical facilities), safer investments, and cultural enhancements.

The Impact of a Recession on the Luxury Housing Market 

On December 9th, New York-based president of Luxury Portfolio International, Mickey Alam Khan, hosted the Luxury Hour Webinar on the outlook for luxury real estate in 2023. He and his team had the following to share about market expectations for the new year.

Low housing inventory, rising mortgage rates and a peak inflation rate of 9 percent have all contributed to the housing market slowing down. However, the market isn’t necessarily in bad shape. 

Despite public perception, mortgage rates aren’t at a historic high—inflation is, which means that interest rates need to be pushed up to control the money supply.

“The real problem and the real root of inflation is money,” says Gregory Heym, Chief Economist at Brown Harris Stevens in New York. “Our money supply [in the United States] has gone up 40 percent since COVID.” 

Heym also shared that over the last 50 years, the average 30-year conforming rate is at about 8%. There was a time where mortgage rates were as high as 18%. Taking this into account, 6.5% isn’t a high mortgage rate. 

Still, high levels of inflation and stock market lows are enough to plant seeds of doubt in regards to a global recession. But, Heym believes that this may not be a bad thing for the housing market. “Recessions are the only things that reset housing prices.”

Given that the luxury market historically favors all-cash buyers and caters to wealthy Americans who have access to either equity or large sums of cash, the recession isn’t likely to impair their ability to acquire new property. Rather, it may influence their decision to downsize, compromise on certain features, or wait the market out.

The post 2023 Luxury Real Estate Trends in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

According to the Central Park Conservancy, Seneca Village came into existence in 1825 when landowners started to subdivide their land and sold half of their parcels to African American families. By the early 1830s, there were about 10 homes in the area.

 By 1855, the community had grown to approximately 225 residents, of which two-thirds were African American. There were also Irish immigrants and individuals of German descent. All residents had to leave the Village by the end of 1857.

Cultural Significance of Seneca Village

New York abolished slavery in 1827, a few years after Seneca Village was settled. Throughout the mid-19th century, newspapers falsely reported that Seneca Village was a squatter camp with poor residents living in shanties. Research later revealed that the Village was, in fact, made up of working and middle-class property owners.

Census records show that residents were employed and worked as laborers or in service jobs, the main options for Black people at the time. Most residents lived in two-story homes and had their children enrolled in school.

A recent excavation revealed Seneca Village to be a highly-organized community

A consortium of three professors from Columbia University, New York University, and City College led an excavation on Central Park grounds to uncover details of the lost neighborhood.

Cynthia R. Copeland, an adjunct professor at New York University, told the New York Times that “the vast array of materials that we uncovered really gives us a true sense of a strong, stable community.”

Historical maps of Seneca indicate that the community was laid out in a grid pattern and included three churches and a school. The New York Times reports Seneca was one of the “most formal, coherent Black communities we know of”.

Seneca Village was New York’s first free Black community

It’s no secret that racism and housing discrimination continued well after the abolition of slavery. Despite slavery being outlawed, Black Americans were not able to live peacefully in most areas.

 Seneca’s remote location likely offered a refuge from the cruel social climate Black people had to endure. As one of the few African American enclaves at the time, the Village allowed residents to live autonomously and away from the unhealthy, crowded conditions of the city.

Research suggests that residents of Seneca Village likely had more space both in and outside of the home than many residents living in established parts of Manhattan.

As property owners, Black residents were able to vote

Seneca residents seem to have been more stable than other Black Americans living in New York. Their increased prosperity was in large part due to the fact that they owned their land.

In the early days, only property owners were able to vote. As legal homeowners, residents of Seneca could take to the polls—a right most Black people did not have at the time.

In the early 1800s, African American men living in New York had to own $250 worth of property and hold residency for at least three years to be able to vote. Of the 100 Black New Yorkers eligible to vote in 1845, 10 lived in Seneca Village.

The Village was around for a short period of just 32 years. But, as a tight-knit community formed on the heels of abolition, Seneca proved to be a stabilizing and empowering force for the Black community.

What happened to Seneca Village?

In the early 1850s, City officials started planning the creation of a large municipal park to counteract New York’s unhealthy urban conditions. The industrialization and population growth of American cities gave way for infectious diseases to spread. New York City was no exception.

Lawmakers started feeling pressure to respond and decided to acquire Seneca Village through eminent domain in 1853. Eminent domain allows the government to take private land for the public as long as the landowner is adequately compensated.

The New York State Legislature set aside 775 acres of land in Manhattan from 59th to 106th Streets to create the country’s first major public park. About 1,600 residents were displaced as a result.

Eminent domain was a common practice in the 19th century. Many of Manhattan’s streets had been built in the same way decades before.

However, many landowners, not just those in Seneca Village, argued that their land was undervalued at the time of acquisition. Many felt that they were not adequately compensated for their homes.

State of Black Homeownership in NYC

Despite Seneca’s disintegration, New York City remained a refuge for many African Americans at the time. As the first state to pass a law for the total abolition of legal slavery, New York became a popular destination to pursue a better life.

 Black communities started establishing themselves in neighborhoods such as Crown Heights, Bed Stuy, Jamaica, and Harlem, many of which remain majority-Black neighborhoods today.

Although Black communities are abundant throughout New York, Black homeownership is not. Over the last 20 years, Black homeownership has declined not just in the City but throughout the country. In 2021, New York homeownership rates were 34% for Black households and 67% for White households.

Commonly regarded as the largest source of intergenerational wealth for families, it’s troubling to see such a stark contrast in rates of homeownership. According to a 2015 census report, the median net worth for white households was $139,300 compared to just $12,780 for Black households.

Experts point towards gentrification, limited housing inventory, and predatory lending as precursors of these statistics. With a history as rich as the one Black Americans have in New York, it’s important to understand what is causing low homeownership rates in the Black community.

Gentrification makes it harder for Black homeowners to keep property in the family

Tenants are arguably more susceptible to displacement because of the power landlords have to raise their rents. However, Black homeowners are not free from the pressures of gentrification.

As the price of real estate rises, communities surrounding Black homes start to change, causing Black families to feel out of place within their own communities. As a result, many choose to sell their homes and move elsewhere.

But, the transition can be bittersweet. In today’s market, sellers have to face the harsh reality that selling to the highest bidder could mean contributing towards Black displacement.

Professor of sociology and public service at New York University, Jacob Faber, told the New York Times that, “once Black people move out, it’s hard for them to get back into the neighborhood because the gentrification completely prices them out.”

Professor Faber explains that Black communities have historically been excluded from the opportunity to build wealth, which is why passing property along to family feels especially important. “There’s so much history that it’s not just a financial transaction. It’s a cultural transaction. And it’s a familial transaction,” says Professor Faber.

In the case of Shayla Mulzac, she was proud to buy into the historic Black community of Bedford Stuyvesant she’d been a part of for years. However, it is a tough realization for her as she is unsure how many more young Black homeowners will join her in the neighborhood.

Black neighborhoods suffer from higher rates of mortgage distress

Even when Black families are able to acquire a property, they’re at a higher risk of losing it. According to the latest U.S. Census Household Pulse Survey, 9.4% of Black homeowners reported they were afraid they would have to leave their homes sometime in the future, and 17.4% voiced similar concerns regarding mortgage payments.

The same survey revealed that only 3.4% of white homeowners in New York were likely to leave their homes due to foreclosure in the next two months.

Many Black neighborhoods struggling to meet mortgage payments are concentrated in eastern Brooklyn and southeast Queens—two areas previously targeted with subprime loans leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

Evidence suggests that the subprime mortgage crisis disproportionately affected people of color by stunting new home-buying possibilities and pushing out long-time owners.

After the Great Recession, some homeowners benefited from an Obama-era program promoting loan modifications, but the majority of qualifying homeowners did not receive large-scale reductions. As a result, they remained in precarious positions and continued to be at risk of foreclosure.

Rezoning in historically Black neighborhoods leads to displacement

With such strong barriers to successful homeownership in the Black community, the only option for many Black New Yorkers is to rent. But long-term renting isn’t ideal, especially in a city as populated as NYC. As populations increase, governments rezone areas to accommodate for growth.

Grassroots organization, Churches United for Fair Housing (CUFFH), analyzed two major rezonings that took place during New York’s Bloomberg era.

Their report, “Zoning & Racialized Displacement in NYC,” revealed that the 2003 Park Slope and 2005 Williamsburg rezonings displaced thousands of Black and Latino residents as each neighborhood’s population grew.

From 2000 to 2015, the populations of Williamsburg and Greenpoint increased by over 20,000 residents. In that same period of time, about 15,000 Latino residents had left the neighborhoods.

In Park Slope, 5,000 Black and Latino households left the community from 2000-2013, despite the neighborhood’s population growing by more than 6,000 during the same time span.

Is ‘buying the block’ the answer?

The rapid progression of gentrification and subsequent displacement of Black communities has inspired influential Black figures such as Jay-Z and the late Nipsey Hussle to ‘buy the block.’

Black investors across the country have started buying property in Black neighborhoods to help curb gentrification. However, some experts believe that “buy the block” movements aren’t enough to lift neighborhoods out of poverty.

In the book Whiteness of Wealth, Emory University Professor Dorothy Brown claims that the benefits of homeownership are not evenly distributed between Black and white homeowners.

She notes that “When neighborhoods remain predominantly Black, the housing stock has lower value.” Even when they buy their homes, Black communities are still subject to the dangers of gentrification.

Government efforts that incentivize private investment, such as Opportunity Zones (a federal program rewarding developers who invest in poor areas with generous tax cuts), don’t necessarily have a mass effect on poor Black communities.

Although private investment is critical to improving disinvested neighborhoods, it always comes with the risk that most of the wealth accumulates with those who already have it.

A recent study conducted by the University of California Berkeley confirmed that the Opportunity Zones program has failed to stimulate meaningful investments in poor neighborhoods. Additionally, most of the tax benefits have gone to areas that were likely to have improved without the need for a tax break.

If not private investment, what mechanisms can strengthen rates of Black homeownership in NYC?

The post Seneca Village and Black Homeownership in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

Despite working in similar fields, city planners and real estate investors are often at odds with each other. Planners tend to focus on creating more equitable and inclusive real estate options, while developers naturally aim to make a return on their investment. 

While not completely contradictory, there are instances where the two priorities cannot coexist. In a place as densely populated as New York City, quality real estate is expensive and scarce, making it harder for planners and developers to work in unison. 

Since commercial development’s ‘post-pandemic’ comeback, competition for land in New York City has done everything but slow down. To add fuel to the fire, the average size of new apartments has shrunk, despite exorbitant demand for housing units. 

Developers across the country are criticized for their lack of concern for meeting community needs, while planners are denounced for not doing enough to stop them. 

But how much can we blame either side?

When from a legal standpoint, developers aren’t doing anything wrong, and planners are professionally bound to roles of ideation and advisory. 

History of Urban Planning in the U.S.

Urban planners are tasked with the responsibility of developing land use plans to help sustain communities, revitalize metropolitan areas, and accommodate population growth. In their earliest days, planners dealt with the allocation of land in a vastly different manner, focusing on the domestication of forests and management of river dams.

City planning, as we know it today, emerged in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution. As people started moving into the city, issues of congestion, poor sanitation, and dangerous construction became important to address. Urban planners soon became advocates for the urban poor, many of which were factory workers working in deplorable conditions. 

Many planners openly condemned sweatshops and called for government control of the land upon which factories were built. They also voiced their support for a progressive tax on land values to help fund the social needs of workers, hence property taxes. 

Despite their many efforts to protect the common worker from capitalistic ambitions, power imbalances remained, resulting in a complicated relationship between urban planners and real estate developers, a contradiction which persists until today. 

The contradictory relationship between planners and developers

As employees of government entities, planners are expected to ensure the community’s well-being and present development plans that benefit the general public. Developers, on the other hand, aren’t necessarily obliged to the community or public well-being. They’re instead focused on making a return on their investment, a natural consequence of operating in a free-market economy. 

Despite having competing interests, nothing stops either party from pursuing their objectives. However, problems arise when developers push for local governments to create legal infrastructure needed to support their development plans while fiercely guarding their property rights. 

Government control over land in any capacity is usually not well received among developers. This makes it difficult for planners, who work in the interest of the public, to see eye-to-eye with developers, who expect a return on their investment. The government owes itself to the people, not to developers. But, many developers seem to believe that if it weren’t for their developments, cities wouldn’t prosper. 

This line of thinking, although not completely flawed, gives way to the pull-push relationship we see between planners and developers today. In theory, planners serve the public, but in practice, planners are bound to developers and their ideas on what kind of development(s) would be favorable to a given community. 

Development often charges forward with little to no regard for public opinion

The term ‘developer’ has almost become synonymous with ‘greedy’ in cities such as New York, where development projects tend to disregard the immediate needs of the communities in which they are built. 

In a piece published by the New Yorker, former community organizer, Nikil Saval states that development projects often require “catastrophic, violent interventions in the lives of the very people that planners are trying to help, limiting the public’s ability to deposit full trust in developers, or even planners, for that matter.” 

Such is the case with the demolition of a 120-year old mansion in Bed-Stuy that left neighbors heartbroken. The historic structure had been a peculiar, yet cherished sight for many Brooklyn residents. Neighbors were in the process of getting the Jacob Dangler House landmarked when the demolition began. 

A lifelong resident of the neighborhood told CBS News, “For them to tear it down, it’s awful.” According to several neighbors protesting the demolition, the mansion had rentable value up until the pandemic. It had also recently become the home of a masonic organization, belonging exclusively to African American and African Caribbean women.

Several Bed-Stuy residents were infuriated to find out that the French gothic-inspired mansion was going to be destroyed in order to build yet another condominium building in the city—especially since the property was not vacant nor was it without value. 

In a statement to CBS News, a spokesperson from the mayor’s office confirmed that “as the Landmarks Preservation Commission considered this building for potential designation as a landmark, the developer was able to legally obtain demolition permits.’’ This occurred despite continuous efforts from residents and community leaders to delay the work. 

CBS reporter, Hannah Kliger, asked developer Tomer Erlich to comment on the demolition, to which he responded, “No. There’s no point.” When Kliger pressed for Erlich to at least respond to the community’s strong opposition to the demolition he said, “The building department issued a permit, we’re doing our job, and that’s it.” 

Urban planners have tried to make development more equitable, with minimal success

The concept of zoning emerged in the early days of urban planning as the first real attempt to protect communities against the dangers of unregulated real estate development. 

Zoning was intended to counteract racial segregation as much as it was meant to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. In practice, however, zoning remained exclusionary, especially for low-income communities and communities of color. 

Modern-day planners have tried to improve the efficacy of zoning by promoting inclusionary zoning, which allows developers to exceed zoning restrictions and even receive subsidies on their development projects if they reserve a portion of their real estate for ‘affordable’ housing. 

In 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio implemented the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program, requiring developers to “build permanently affordable housing in areas zoned for growth to ensure that all of the city’s neighborhoods will be diverse and inclusive.”

Although the mandate marked a significant move in the fight for affordable housing in New York City, the MIH program has been criticized for its lack of efficacy. According to several community leaders, the program allows developers to bypass zoning requirements and push forward projects that provide little to no benefit to local communities. 

Another key criticism of the MIH mandate is the ability developers have to conveniently miscalculate income thresholds, which disproportionately affect black and Latinx New Yorkers. Such was the case with the One45 development in Harlem. 

New York City’s Luxury Development Boom

The New York Times dubbed the 2010s as ‘The Decade Dominated by the Ultraluxury Condo.’ It was during this time that developers started to reshape NYC’s skyline by building towering luxury condos all across Manhattan. 

The 2010s were also categorized by widespread gentrification in Manhattan’s outer boroughs. The pursuit of cheaper land spurred development in places like Brooklyn, Queens and now, even the South Bronx. 

Although well-intentioned and, in many cases, deemed necessary, surges in development drive up the cost of living for local residents and ultimately push them out of their own neighborhoods. 

Although COVID halted commercial development in NYC for some time, the industry has made a comeback in the past year, this time with taller towers and fewer units—a trend that has made urban planners especially critical of new development.

Low-density, luxury towers wipe out market-rate housing options

Once they obtain a land’s property rights, developers have the right to tear down whatever was there and build their new project. But, with the MIH program in place, it’s expected that new developments should work to alleviate the housing crisis to some degree. 

According to some urban planners, developers are misusing the last of Manhattan’s valuable sites for new construction—sites upon which multiple units could be built. On the Upper East Side and West Sides of Manhattan, soaring towers are replacing buildings that previously housed more units than the new condominiums going up. 

The Benson, Naftali Group’s first Upper East Side condominium, houses just 15 units. According to zoning calculations, the development site could have supported up to 83 apartments. Units in the 19-story tower are either full-floor apartments or duplexes ranging from $12.75 million for a 1,770 sq.ft. 3-bed to $35 million for a 6,600 sq. ft. penthouse. 

The same development group has plans to demolish 128 rental units located on West 84th Street to erect a 210-foot tower with just 45 apartments. The new tower could potentially house more than 220 apartments, given it will nearly triple the height of the current building. 

Similar projects are taking place along Madison Avenue, where developers are building a 13-story building with 11 units and a 210-foot building with 13 units. Zoning analyses reveal that a total of 163 housing units could have been supported between the two towers. 

Lesser rental units are being built despite extraordinary rental demand

In 2021, the New York City Housing Vacancy Survey revealed that two out of three households in the City rented their homes, revealing an exceptional demand for rental apartments. Additionally, a report by REBNY found that NYC would need 560,000 additional housing units by 2030 to keep up with the expected population and job growth.

The New York Times reports that from 2010-2020, the Upper East Side lost more housing units than any other community district in the city. According to the Department of City Planning, this reduction in units was caused mostly by demolitions and the combination of smaller apartments to create larger ones. 

Developers maintain that the cost of land in Manhattan is too high to build anything other than luxury condominiums. They claim that without more favorable zoning regulations or new tax incentives, diverting from high-end residences would be financially disadvantageous. 

Housing proponents counteract developers’ claims by stating that there are steps both the city and state could take to incentivize or simply require developers to do more. 

In an interview with the New York Times, Gale Brewer, who is currently a city councilwoman for the Upper West Side and was formerly Manhattan borough president exclaims that, “the idea that these people can get away without building anything affordable is mind-boggling to me. In a city that’s desperate for housing, all kinds of housing, how can you allow a builder to build fewer units?

How do developers get away with it?

Brewer raises an interesting point. The purpose behind the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program was to force developers to participate in the fight for affordable housing in the City.

How are they getting away with building sky-high condominium towers housing less than a few dozen apartments when homelessness in New York City has reached the highest levels since the Great Depression?

“It’s a very simple answer: It’s the market demand,” says Miki Nafalti, whose firm is building a variety of high-rise condos with minimal units across Manhattan. Following this line of thinking, developers have the right to pursue the best return on their investment. 

Georgia Janes, an urban planner who has studied a number of the new towers going up, believes that the City suffers from “a scarce resource of floor area that could be used for housing people, and it is being used, essentially, for people who are super wealthy.”

The truth is that many of the development projects mentioned above are being built on sites that are “as of right,” which means they don’t require zoning changes or public review that could potentially require the builder to at least match the number of units previously built on those same sites. Hence, the loopholes to the MIH program mentioned earlier. 

Are Real Estate Developers the Real Urban Planners?

Competing perspectives among developers and planners beg questions of who is at fault, and perhaps more importantly, who controls land development in NYC?

Cincinnati Developer, John Blatchford, believes that although development is guided by local laws, zoning, and building codes, private real estate has more control over urban environments than anybody else and that developers are the ones shaping the way cities look and function. 

He says that in more conservative cities like Houston, “it’s rare that private development companies will have urban planners involved unless it is a really big project, which is not always good.” 

This capitalistic perspective has long been criticized as lining developers’ pockets at the cost of displacement and gentrification, to which developers respond is a natural cause of the free market economy we live in today. 

Author of Capital City: Gentrification and the Real Estate State, Sam Stein, presents the hopeful idea that “although gentrification has become a generalized fact of urban life in the 21st century, we can stop it and build cities that work for all.

Stein centers his book around the contradictory role of the urban planner who operates in a political economy where state powers have turned the devaluation of urban land into a profitable commodity. 

Stein essentially makes the argument that perhaps neither the developer nor planner is at fault, but rather the state and local powers for fomenting their contradictory relationship.  

He makes the bold claim that to cut the cord between urban planning, commercial development, and gentrification, the city would have to reject the concept of private land ownership—an idea that sends chills down the spines of developers and other faithful capitalists. Is New York ready for that?

The post The Beef Between Urban Planners and Real Estate Developers in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

On September 8th, 2022 Queen Elizabeth II passed away at Balmoral Castle in Scotland, making history as Britain’s longest reigning monarch. Located in the Scottish highlands, the castle is of great significance to the Royal Family, serving as a primary location for family vacations in the summers.

Prince William and Prince Harry were both at the Balmoral Castle when they learned of their mother’s death in 1997. Princess Eugenie previously stated that her “Granny is the most happy there.” After the Queen’s health began to decline late last year, she reportedly moved to the Scottish estate because it made her “feel comfortable.”

By all accounts it seems that Balmoral Castle was a place of solace and respite for the Queen, but it was just one of many lavish properties owned by the Crown. Across the Atlantic on American soil, the Queen reportedly owned 24 residences across some of Manhattan’s most affluent neighborhoods. 

A Closer Look at the Queen’s Lavish NYC Properties

The Queen’s abundant properties are scattered across the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, and Midtown East—several of which offer expansive views of Central Park. Some of the Queen’s Upper West Side lofts are located on the upscale streets of West 89th and West 71st. Her homes in close proximity to Central Park include the Evans Towers, Le Chambord, and the Wakefield.

The Crown’s Midtown properties include a unit at the Dag Hammarskjold Tower and three apartments at the International Plaza, both of which are located near the United Nations. Given the Royal Family’s hush-hush policy on the purpose of their real estate, it’s not clear what purpose these many properties served. Although the apartments close to the UN were likely residences for diplomats representing the Commonwealth of Nations. 

Upper East Side

Evans Tower

The Queen seemed to be a fan of the Evans Tower, having owned a total of 5 units in this full-service, 36-story luxury condominium. Located west of Third Avenue on 171 East 84th Street, the modern structure offers outstanding services and facilities; including a rooftop health club and lounge with skyline views as well as an indoor atrium swimming pool with a retractable dome. The lux building also has two sundecks for residents to enjoy in the warmer months. 

Le Chambord

Owning 4 units in this modern, high-rise condominium, the Queen seemed to be equally as enchanted with Le Chambord. Located in the heart of the Upper East Side on 350 East 72nd Street, this boutique residence only has two units per floor. The 22-story building is within walking distance of several international, 5-star restaurants such as Mission Ceviche, Oda House, and Hui. 

The Wakefield

The post-war building has a total of 68 apartments across 13 floors. The Queen owned two condos in this unique, red-brick condominium located in the neighborhood of Yorkville. Most of the Wakefield apartments on the market sport recently renovated kitchens complete with stainless steel appliances, marble countertops, and efficiently designed cabinetry, such as the 4-bed flat currently up for rent. 

Upper West Side

The Lincoln Park Condo

Conveniently located in the heart of the Upper West Side, the Lincoln Park Condo stands 16 stories high and has 58 units in total. Each floor has a maximum of just 4 units, allowing for both privacy and ample living space in each one of its units. The doorman condominium sits just a few blocks South of the Beacon Theater and a few blocks up from the Vanguard Wine Bar. The Queen owned just one unit here. 

113 West 89th Street 

The Queen owned 3 units at this intimate, 5-story building located just one black away from Central Park. Although we may never know what the Queen’s apartment at this building looks like, judging by the apartment currently on the market, it was nothing short of lavish. The 3-floor penthouse up for sale by the Corcoran Group has 26-foot ceilings, a wood-burning fireplace, and Caesarstone countertops.

Midtown East

Dag Hammarskjöld Tower

Named after the infamous Nobel Peace Prize recipient who served as the second Secretary General, the Dag Hammarskjöld Tower stands 45 stories tall at the southwest corner of 2nd Avenue on 240 East 47th Street. The white-glove condominium is often sought after due to its proximity to the U.N.

The structure displays a two-toned, chamfered façade accented by solid balconies and staggered black glass along with a brick rooftop. Architecturally speaking, it’s one of the most intriguing buildings in New York City, adding a distinguished aesthetic to the consular neighborhood in which it resides. The Queen owned just one unit here. 

The International Plaza Condominium

Similar to the Dag Hammarskjöld Tower, the International Plaza Condominium was built in the early 80’s and is a white-glove building in its own right. Located just a block away from the UN, Grand Central Station and Tudor City Park, it is strategically placed for its residents to enjoy a variety of neighborhood amenities. Standing 29 stories tall, the building sports an outdoor garden and greenhouse-style lobby. The queen owned 3 condos here, in total.

50 United Nations Plaza

One unit at 50 United Nations Plaza was owned by the Crown. Having been designed by renowned architects Foster + Partners and developed by legendary Zeckendorf Development and Global Holdings, its an enviable midtown location. From its shimmering exterior class to its burnished gold and stainless steel appliances, the 43-story tower possesses a commanding energy. 

309 East 49th Street

Located on a quiet, tree-lined block off of Second Avenue, this luxury boutique condominium sits in close proximity to a variety of upscale retail options such as Lexington, Madison, and Fifth Avenues. Many of the building’s residences enjoy wrap terraces for panoramic, outdoor entertaining and dining. The Queen owned 2 units here. 

The Horizon

Offering outstanding amenities, the Horizon is yet another white-glove condominium in which the Queen owned a residence. It’s located at 415 East 37th Street right between First Avenue and East River Drive. On its 44th floor resident’s will find a rooftop pool and a resident’s lounge complete with a bar and kitchen setup. The building also offers a fully equipped gym and health club with a dedicated spinning room, and even a children’s playroom. 

The Queen also owned two units at 309-321 E 49th St. located in Midtown East, totaling 24 properties on record owned by some version of “Her Majesty” at the time of her death. 

Understanding the Breadth of the Royal Family’s Real Estate Holdings

While the Queen’s NY real estate portfolio is in the millions, the Crown’s combined real estate portfolio is estimated to be in the dozens of billions if you can believe it! Putting a definitive value on the total value of all homes owned by the Crown is difficult if not, impossible. 

Most royal properties have never been sold. They’ve instead been passed down through generations of the royal family. The Crown is known for passionately guarding its privacy. They’re reluctant to reveal basic facts such as the amount of rooms in their private homes—much less their worth. 

However, experts suggest that the Royal Family’s overall property holdings total much more than what the average person could ever dream to afford. The royal family’s real estate portfolio includes country estates, townhouses, city apartments and, of course, castles.

The post Queen Elizabeth’s Opulent New York Real Estate Portfolio appeared first on CitySignal.

According to the ASCE, New York’s infrastructure hasn’t improved much since 2015. Having improved only slightly from seven years ago, the city’s infrastructure is lagging considerably. A state as large as New York and a city as developed as NYC should be better positioned to meet key infrastructure needs. 

Civil engineers evaluated New York’s transportation capabilities, water regulation, and public space. In total, there were 11 categories assessed. Of those 11, only two were in ‘good condition’—public parks and solid waste. The rest were either in mediocre or poor condition. 

For the first time in 20 years, American infrastructure is out of the D range, receiving a nationwide score of C- in 2021. With New York scoring slightly higher than the nationwide average, the city is doing relatively well at providing residents with critical services, given NYC’s infrastructural challenges. 

Why did NYC receive such a low score?

The report acknowledged that city agencies had made significant progress in modernizing the city’s infrastructure, especially over the last decade. However, the ASCE concluded that there is an inability to keep pace with capital costs and, thus, the growing needs of the New York population. 

Capital investment currently needs a total of $64 billion throughout 2024—a value far exceeding any infrastructure funding plans on behalf of the federal or state governments.

As one of the most densely populated and largest metropolitan areas in the country, it’s no surprise NYC has a complex, ground transportation system. What might come as a surprise is that ground transportation scored considerably low. Transit, Rail, Roads, and Bridges scored between C and D+, highlighting sizable strain on existing resources and an immediate need to improve a public service that’s crucial to New Yorkers.

Understanding the impact of poor infrastructure in NYC 

Although state and local agencies have coordinated funding solutions to improve New York’s transportation system, the ASCE reports there is still “serious concern for the adequacy of future funding.” Out of the four recommendations the ASCE made for New York State to improve its infrastructure score, increasing funding is the first. 

Ridership across transit and aviation entities have diminished significantly after COVID. As a result, engineers are encouraging state officials to not only increase funding for existing infrastructure projects but also take a step back to reassess infrastructure goals as a whole; while taking into consideration lifestyle changes ushered in by the pandemic. 

Hybrid and remote work has taken many New Yorkers out of the city and into the suburbs, placing an unexpected strain on roads and bridges connecting the two parts of town. New York state and city officials will likely need to reassess the longevity of intrastate infrastructure in the near future. 

Transit, Roads, & Bridges

New York City Transit Authority remains the busiest and largest transit system in North America. Its 100+ transit systems are currently wrestling with a $62.1 billion funding backlog across 12 counties. With an annual ridership of 640 million, these backlogs leave many residents at a transportation disadvantage should funding backlogs persist.

Freight rail transportation is well-positioned to deliver key services to New York customers. Two railway developments in particular marked significant improvements—the opening of Moynihan Train Hall and the Gateway Program. The Moynihan Train alone facilitates the daily movement of 650,000 passengers through Penn Station. 

About half of New York’s major highways are considered to be in fair or poor condition. Lags in maintenance have resulted in congestion, rough roads, and safety deficiencies across New York’s 240,000 miles of road. Congestion and rough roads are estimated to cost New York motorists $7.7 billion annually statewide. That comes out to about $759 per driver every year.

Similar to rail transportation, New York State’s bridge program has advanced substantially with high-profile replacements of Governor Mario M. Cuomo and Thaddeus Kosciuszko Bridges. Both are considered critical lifeline bridges in the city. 

With bridge and tunnel traffic approaching pre-pandemic levels, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is dealing with up to 10.1 million vehicle trips a month. The city’s smaller bridges spread across the boroughs of Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, and Ed Koch Queensboro bridges started to record close to 250,000 monthly vehicle crossings headed to Manhattan in May of last year. 

About 60% of the city’s bridge infrastructure is in fair condition. The remainder is either ‘good’ or ‘very good.’ Just 1 structure of the 799 surveyed was found to be in poor condition. 

The reconstruction and replacement of hundreds of smaller bridges have also strengthened the city’s flood resistance which is becoming increasingly relevant given New York’s coastal geography and rising climate concern. Despite these advancements, almost 10% of the state’s bridges are in poor condition, which is above the national average of 7.5%.

How is President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law going to benefit New York?

This July, the Biden-Harris Administration announced $5.9 billion in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding for the State of New York. 100 specific projects are identified within the funding plan, promising significant infrastructure improvements over the next five years. 

By the end of this year, New York is expected to receive more than $5 billion for transportation dedicated to the enhancements of roads, bridges, transit, ports, and airports. Additionally, New York is set to receive $420 million for clean water initiatives. 

Public Transit

Over the next five years, New York will receive $11.2 billion for public transportation improvements across the state, making it the largest investment in public transit in U.S. history. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is intended to expand healthy and sustainable transport for all New Yorkers, including non-white households which are 2.5 times more likely to commute to work via public transportation. 

Transit Funding Gap ($52.8 billion)

As of July 2022, New York has been allocated $2.2 billion to improve public transportation options across the state in fiscal year 2022. Although federal funding for NY public transit is significant, it still falls short of New York’s transportation capital investment needs of $64 billion. Through 2024, New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority will need a total of $62.1 billion to close funding backlogs. The remaining $1.7 billion funding deficit belongs to Upstate and suburban transit agencies.

Roads & Bridges

In allocating $13.6 billion in federal funding for New York highways and bridges, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is making the single largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the interstate highway system. At the moment, there are 1,702 bridges and over 7,292 miles of highway in poor condition in New York. 

Bridges & Roads Funding Gap

As of July 2022, New York has been granted $2.2 billion in highway funding and $408 million in funding for bridges. New York’s State Budget for 2022/2023 increases direct support for local roads and bridges to more than $6.1 billion and adds nearly $2.5 billion to the existing BRIDGE NY program. The combined efforts between state and federal funding programs go a long way to strengthen the state’s bridge and road needs in the short term. However, the ASCE has determined that funding still falls short of total need, overlooking the need for what they refer to as long-term fixes. 

Water

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law promises to replace lead service lines and address dangerous PFAS chemicals found in drinking water across America. For New York, this translates into $116 million for lead pipe and service line replacement and $73 million for safe drinking water investments for fiscal year 2022. As of July of this year, approximately $427 million has been made available for clean and safe water across the state. 

Water Funding Gap

The need for drinking water infrastructure is estimated at $44.2 billion over the next 20 years. Although current funding efforts are certainly enough to sustain clean water provision across the state, lack of sufficient water system revenue is concerning. Water system revenue is only growing at about the rate of inflation. 

Airports & Ports

As one of the most visited countries in the world, it’s surprising to discover that no U.S. airports rank in the top 25 of airports worldwide. American ports and waterways are in need of much needed repair and innovation, as well. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is allocating a collective $25 billion in airports and $17 billion in port infrastructure to address supply chain challenges and reduce congestion and emissions near airports and ports. 

Aviation & Port Funding Gap

As of July 2022, New York has received more than $155 million in funding for airports and $63 million in funding for ports. With an estimated infrastructure funding gap of $13.7 billion from 2017-2026 for New York airports, federal funding falls short of meeting demand. As mentioned above, the Port Authority of New York New Jersey has identified a capital need of $20 billion to replace mission-critical wharf structures, making federal funding for ports insufficient as well. 

What’s next for New York infrastructure?

The ASCE made clear that New York’s infrastructure transportation network, particularly in the NYC metropolitan area, is experiencing considerable pressure given that current needs far away available funding. 

Even with local, state, and federal funding joining forces to tackle the infrastructure funding problem facing New York, it seems that funding is simply inadequate for the depth of improvements that would need to take place. 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor alone is facing a $38 billion backlog. The passenger rail is a vital aspect of transportation to and from New York state, connecting rural communities to the rest of the country, supporting economic development, and reducing vehicle congestion. More than 840,000 commuters reach their destinations every weekday on an Amtrak train. 

With ridership making a comeback across several transportation sectors across the state of New York, decision-makers in the city are going to have to carefully consider the impact of budget shortfalls on a variety of infrastructure systems, but especially transit and aviation.  

The post NYC Ranks an Overall GPA of C on ASCE’s Infrastructure Report Card appeared first on CitySignal.

Located along Jamaica Bay, Rockaway Beach offers a convenient escape from the suffocating summers in the city. As the only true beach community in NYC, its expansive, high-tide oceanfront has attracted a number of amateur and semi-professional surfers from all parts of New York. 

Surf-related commerce such as the Rockaway Beach Surf Club and the Rockaway Brewing Company has started to pop up, accommodating the rise in surf culture. Despite new business ventures being introduced into the community, the Rockaways is still among the city’s poorest, with an 18% poverty rate. 

In Far Rockaway, the percentage of people living in poverty reaches 25%, and in Edgemere, 34%. Four-star hotels, chic bars, and luxury apartments are starting to line the streets of Beach 69th Street and Rockaway Beach Blvd., further encouraging enchanted newcomers to plant their roots. 

However, as with any simultaneous surge in development and migration, the question remains whether these seemingly positive changes will improve the existing community or eventually push it out. 

Climate Gentrification and Hurricane Sandy Redevelopment

In 2012, Hurricane Sandy quite literally took the East Coast by storm, resulting in the deadliest and most destructive natural disaster in the Atlantic that year. Although located much farther north than the southern states, New York was hit hard, sustaining an estimated $19 billion in damages. 

With the support of FEMA, city and state governments implemented retreat programs that relocated coastal residents living in low-lying areas where they would remain susceptible to rising sea levels. The city spent approximately $350 million on home buy-outs across 800 homes designated as high-level risk and damage.

Demographic information on the Hurricane Sandy buyouts is scarce, but studies suggest that retreat programs often worsen existing inequalities within a given community. 

Rice University published a study in 2020 examining 40,000+ FEMA-funded buyouts. Researchers discovered that over time, federal buyout assistance has become increasingly focused on white neighborhoods. Secondly, residents of color within those communities receiving buyout assistance were much more likely to accept buyouts than their white counterparts. 

As the effects of climate change spread beyond the equator and into the northern parts of the world, it’s worth noting that climate-related studies continue to suggest white residents receive more government assistance in the rebuilding and recovery of natural disasters than non-white residents. 

As a result, racial and ethnic minorities are being pushed out of the places they once, and perhaps for a long-time, called home. Activists in the Rockaways have started to monitor and advocate for the regulation of climate gentrification in their neighborhoods to avoid further displacement. 

Controversy Around the Resilient Edgemere Community Plan

Four years after the initial buyouts, the city announced a new initiative to purchase damaged homes near the coast. The Resilient Edgemere Community Plan was intended to relocate residents to newly built homes on higher ground and convert bought land into marshland as a way to mitigate future storm damage. 

Once this new plan was introduced, many homes in Edgemere as well as other parts of the Rockaways, were no longer eligible for repair assistance from the Build it Back program, NYC’s signature Hurricane Sandy relief program. As a result, many Rockaway residents felt like a buyout was their only option, prompting the sale of their homes and relocation to other parts of the city. 

Community leaders, such as Dr. Edward Williams, president of Regional Ready Rockaway, have expressed their disapproval in regards to the lack of support for residents who would rather remain in their native communities. As director of the disaster preparedness organization, his professional assessment is that the Resilient Edgemere Community Plan is contributing to further gentrification in Far Rockaway. 

“How can you embrace rebuilding, when you have a part of your community that is still impacted economically, physically and socially as a result of Hurricane Sandy?” said Williams to the Guardian. “You have this infusion of development taking place, but who’s going to benefit?”

President of the Edgemere Community Civic Association, Sonia Moise, agrees with Williams in that she believes the community plan’s emphasis on buyouts strengthens historic inequalities between rich and poor in the Rockaways. “I feel that they are trying to push out many of the residents [of Edgemere],” she told the Guardian. 

Edgemere is a majority Black coastal community where 34% of residents live below the poverty line. Just a 20-minute drive west lies Breezy Point, a gated community where the average annual household income is $152,227.

Do recent developments prompt growth or risk gentrification?

Arverne by the Sea

Arverne by the Sea is one of the largest and sturdiest developments in the Rockaways. The 120-acre master-planned, mixed-use community was designed to withstand water, wind, and fire damage. After Hurricane Sandy devastated the Rockaways in 2012, Arverne by the Sea remained largely intact, prompting inlanders to relocate to the beachfront community in droves.  

The large-scale waterfront development includes a Super Stop and Shop, a YMCA, and a variety of restaurants and retail stores. Its commercial entities accommodate surf culture and support those looking to escape the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. 

Although many have found ease and convenience in the Rockaways, the migration of surfers into the beachtown has placed a strain on the community’s long-standing local businesses. 

When asked about the retail developments at Arverne by the Sea, Far Rockaway resident Walther Guerrier tells Tia Tijhani in a Medium Article, “It has introduced these ‘trendy’ hipster-type stores that take away from the preexisting deli and bodega types in the community.” 

Arverne residents enjoy all the amenities a beachfront community provides, without having to sacrifice proximity to Manhattan. Newcomers get the best of both worlds. 

The Tides

Within Arverne by the Sea, you’ll find the Tides, an eight-building luxury apartment spread located above cafes and shops. Its owners advertise the new residential development as “spacious, modern, amenity-rich apartments offer[ing] beachfront living with all the convenience of the city.” Apartments range from $3,000 for a 940 sq. ft. 2-bed, 2-bath, to $3,750 for a 1,186 sq. ft. 3-bed, 2 bath.

According to Zumper, the average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in Rockaway Beach is $2,425. Objectively speaking, rents at the Tides aren’t that much more expensive than the citywide average. 

However, the number of developments and the rate at which they have been sprouting up could be contributing to the high-rental rate of $2,425. Just two years ago at the beginning of 2020, the average rent for a 2-bed in the Rockaways was $1850. 

Rockaway Hotel and Spa

Having opened just two years ago in September of 2020, the Rockaway Hotel and Spa host 53 guest rooms and 8-long stay residences. Although it’s not a huge development, it’s certainly a popular one, allowing for the 4-star hotel to charge its guests upwards of $300/night. 

According to LinkedIn, the luxury hotel and spa employs somewhere between 51 and 200 employees, but there’s no way to tell if these employees are originally from the Rockaway community or if they’re recruited from other cities. 

The NYC Ferry

The NYC Ferry released the Rockaway Rocket, a new summer pilot for reserved, direct service between Wall Street/Pier 11 and Rockaway on weekends and select holidays. City dwellers who prefer an ample beachfront with fewer people than Coney Island can now head to the Rockaways for just $8.00 a ticket. 

Facilitating the entry of newcomers to the Rockaways could certainly bring new business opportunities and strengthen the tourism sector, but with the Rockaways’ charming appeal, more and more tourists are interested in permanently relocating. Migration to new neighborhoods can be a benefit, but in the case of ferry routes expanding to the Bronx, concerns over gentrification also arose.

How this influx of new residents will shape the future of the Rockaways is up for discussion, given that some parts of the Rockaways, such as Arverne and Rockaway Park, are witnessing notable development, while others, such as Edgemere and Far Rockaway, are experiencing significant erosion. 

Programs such as the one implemented by Citizens Bank in partnership with Rockaway Development & Revitalization Corporation make sure Rockaway residents aren’t left behind in the midst of ambitious development. Still, it’s hard to determine whether targeted workforce development programs (as deliberate and clever as they may be) are enough to compensate for the negative impacts of gentrification—both man-made and climate-related. 

Decentralization of New York City and the Future of Rockaway Real Estate 

As the Rockaways become an increasingly popular place of residence for surfers, retirees, and city-dwellers looking for a laid-back vibe, community leaders must cautiously mitigate the effects of gentrification. Real estate in the Rockaways has nearly doubled in the last decade.

With Hurricane Sandy having left many homes in disrepair and its owners forced to agree to government buyouts, long-time Rockaway residents are being placed between a rock and a hard place.

The recent, yet widely accepted work-from-home employment model will likely contribute to further interest in living in the Rockaways. New York City hasn’t lost its charm, but it has undoubtedly experienced significant decentralization, encouraging local residents to move further east and experiment with surfing and coastal living. 

The post Are the Rockaways Experiencing Surfer’s Gentrification or Restorative Development? appeared first on CitySignal.