Anyone got an affordable home where we can put this couch? Photo by mattjiggins.
Community Board 7 is holding a meeting on Thursday to try to decide where the city should spend $50 million it expects to receive from the Collegiate School as part of the private school’s proposal to build a new building at 61st street.
The board had expected that Collegiate would build the units inside the Riverside Center development where it plans to build the new school, but city officials allowed the school to finance affordable housing off-site. Initially, officials had planned to put the affordable housing on 108th street, but the community board wants it to be closer to the original development site to maintain some diversity int he Riverside South area.
On Thursday night, a community board committee plans to consider and rank proposals for where to put that housing, and it’s urging community members to get involved:
CB7 and the elected officials of the Upper West Side have an opportunity to submit recommendations on how this $50 million should be spent to provide new units of affordable housing. We have been compiling a list of potential projects and this Thursday night, we will rank those projects in priority order for submission to HPD. We invite all interested parties to submit ideas to office@cb7.org in advance of the meeting.
Meeting details:
When: Thursday, May 7th, 6:30pm
Where: Community Board 7, 250 West 87th Street, 2nd FloorThe site selected will be located within the CB7 district; however, our hope is to keep the affordable housing as close to the original location as possible.
Not in my backyard.
Bad news. The city voted to put the housing literally in “Jeremy’s backyard.” Sorry.
LOLOLOLOL
But what about the toxic dust? And the children! Won’t anyone think of the children?
whoever said it was your backyard. jerk
Riverside South has enough “diversity” with the Amsterdam Houses…. keep them at 108th St
of course the Amsterdam Houses were there 40 years before there was a “Riverside South.”
it should be where the most units of affordable housing can be built. and i hope the developer is a not for profit with a condition to keep the building 100% affordable, in perpetuity. no “inclusionary zoning” controlled by the developers.
Sooo…Detroit? Texas? Iowa? Sounds like a plan I will sprint to the polls to vote for. I’ve never understood building falsely cheap housing in very pricey zip codes – it means spending much more than necessary on too few beneficiaries
I agree Bruce, where the most units could be built is the best solution – how about West Virginia!!!
Detroit. (Former Michiganian, so I’m allowed to use that word.)
Can someone explain, why would a school give the city money for affordable housing?? And this school is for kids, so it’s not for its students!!!
i think the city gave the school zoning allowances that allowed it to build in the way it wanted to. affordable housing was originally included as PART of the project but then later it was changed to a payment.
What is wrong with the idea? we need affordable housing. this is a private school and the Board of Directors (Trustees) obviously felt this would benefit the school, as they wanted this location.
it amazes me that anyone would complain about a new affordable building. do the posters WANT to pay higher rents?
What makes you think that we would qualify for these subsidized apartments? If not, how would they lower our rents?
There are a number of affordable housing under the 80/20 program that have income levels in the $40,000.00 to $80,000.00 range. So that could even apply to some of the Affordable buildings to be built along with the lower income bracket.
$50 million should be able to add 100 or more new units of available affordable housing to the community. this is a substantial amount. usually people up to and including middle income (60K or more) qualify for some of the units.
if you are much higher income and do not qualify, theoretically that number of new affordable units coming onto the market could have a leveling effect on the overall market, at least in the immediate area. but there is such demand on the UWS right now that you are right in that the secondary effect might be minimal. but it would be an undeniable good for lower and middle income people.
I think you misunderstand the rental market. These apartments aren’t available to most of the members of the WSR community, so they’ll neither be additive nor “affordable” for us. In fact, new market rate apartments are pretty much the only thing that would provide the opportunity for lower rents. Not sure why this is so difficult for you. If the choice is a building I legally have access to, or one that I legally don’t, why would I want the one that’s off-limits by statute?
Not sure if you understand – “affordable” in this context is kind of an imprecise marketing term, not a description of the price. These apartments are generally better-described as “low income.” Some of these terms can be very confusing to the layman – don’t feel bad!
sure, if it is so important to you, let me rephrase the statement. it was not phrased very clearly.
It amazes me that anyone would complain about a new affordable building. do the posters WANT a neighborhood that only has sky-high rents?
As I said earlier, “Personally, I don’t really care one way or another.”
But I found and continue to find it curious that you’re criticizing fellow posters for being averse to potentially lower rents for themselves, when this project clearly would no such benefit to virtually (if not actually) all of us. If you misspoke, that’s fine and you can just say that, but I’m finding no inherent logic in your statements.
Let me recast your phrase with your logic intact. Here you go: “it amazes me that anyone would complain about birthday cake. do the posters WANT Nazis?”
whether or not it directly impacts your rent — and it WILL directly impact the rents of the 100 or more families who get in — it indeed amazes me that anyone would complain about this. what, precisely, do you see as the problem here?
Actually, you said, “it amazes me that anyone would complain about a new affordable building. do the posters WANT to pay higher rents?”
In fact, it wouldn’t impact most of our rents at all. Your amazement is misplaced.
i said that i don’t understand how anyone can complain about a new affordable building or buildings. And that is true. what is the problem? what are people objecting to?
Ok. So you understand why your comment doesn’t really apply to most of the posters that you were sort of hostile-y responding to.
Personally, I don’t really care one way or another, although I think it’s a little curious that there’s not the typical pearl-clutching sturm und drang about the lack of mixing the richies and the poories in this proposed project. They’re all gonna be poor doors in that place.
i just read the full article here…seems it’s in exchange for permits so that the school can build a bigger campus. And of course the school doesn’t want this housing anywhere near its campus…pretty messed up. NYC real estate is NUTS.
Not sure I understand the CB’s reasoning. In fact, there’s plenty of diversity down there. You have the housing projects (nearly all folks of color) from Amst. to West End, and then the wealthy professional folks (various ethnicities, mostly white) from West End to Riverside Blvd.
I think some people are confusing affordable housing with homeless shelters. But I also placed my vote to have it placed in Jeremy’s “backyard”.
Fine. But will I have access to the pool?
what about the gym?
The affordable housing should be mixed with several levels of socio-economic demographics. Concentrating poverty is a bad idea and has been shown to be poor urban planning by many studies. The housing should have a few different income brackets along the spectrum with some kind of stabilization built in to prevent the market from driving up the price 15 years from now.
The existing “middle income” restrictions for affordable housing are a joke and must be based on what would be considered middle income anywhere outside of the city but what in effect would have you living in a shoebox with crappy conditions in NYC. How about some variety in the income restrictions?
Housing should shift into a redevelopment phase instead of a development phase. Redevelop the SROs into something useful for seniors and finanicially sustainable, tear down low-rise public housing and replace it with airier, more livable, and more energy-efficient buildings, and replace parking lots with new buildings.
Good reasons to support the new zoning for affordable housing proposed by the DeBlasio administration.
Nowhere.
Nowhere Man. Living in a Nowhere Land… 😀
The problem comes down to allowing the school to “buy” their way out of a policy issue with a wad of cash that, unfortunately, will be of NO benefit whatsoever to any current resident of the UWS. Why should any of us care to address this?
Sure, we say we are for an affordable city, but if we allow the “city officials” to de-link actual, legal requirements for payment, then we are shipping our problem elsewhere (less desirable blocks) in the interest of political expediency.
If however, we are going to allow this faux “compassion play” to pass, then forget the “affordable housing” and give us (and by us, I mean current UWS residents) $50 million of street / park/ safety improvements and call it a shakedown payment – which is what it is. Anything else is lip service.
BTW – Who actually agreed to this swap?
Put it on the Upper East Side.
Put it in DeBlasio’s neighborhood. Why shouldn’t lower income people be able to enjoy the beautiful environs of Gracie Mansion?
Lets deal with the mostvimpirtant firstly , a 50 million lunchin buffet for the u.w.s. congress people . they are so overworked and under compensated . They should serve lots of shrimp and finger food….