The city is now taking applications for income-restricted apartments at the Via, the new building shaped like a pyramid on 57th Street near the Hudson River.
The new units appear targeted to people with somewhat higher incomes than most housing lotteries. To qualify for the units people need to make between 90% and 120% of the median income. A family of four can make as much as $114,480 to snag a three-bedroom, for instance.
The Via already held a lottery for affordable apartments in 2015, but has now upped the percentage of affordable units to 25% from 20%, Curbed notes. The building’s fitness center, basketball court and some other amenities are available for an additional fee.
There are 36 units available, including studios for as little as $1,448. See the breakdown below.
Learn more here and apply by October 11.
Market-rate apartments are also still available at the Via (which, in the interest of full disclosure, is a West Side Rag advertiser).
Top photo from the Via website.
So silly. No, stupid really.
Why not have the developers give a percentage of the MONEY, not APARTMENTS. It makes no sense.
Does The Four Seasons or the Mandarin Oriental have to give 5% or 10% of their rooms to the homeless. No! Of course not. They pay various taxes that go to help fund homeless shelters. See how that works?
All this does is create animosity and more inequality. Also, the so-called “lottery” is famously fixed. A couple bucks in the right palm or the right connection at city hall or whatever. Use your imagination.
What other city does this?? It’s ridiculous IMHO. And before you all start yelling at me, I bought decades ago so I have no personal interest either way.
Developers would likely *LOVE* to give money and or continue with the old practice of building “affordable” units elsewhere; but that is not what the mayor and city council want.
Current wisdom from the progressive/democrat/liberal running NYC is “inclusion”. That is they want lower income households located in the same areas/buildings or whatever as higher. This way the former obtains all the “benefits” that normally come from living in a wealthier area/building.
Left to its own devices low income housing in NYC didn’t look much different than the projects. Indeed driving down the FDR you’d be hard pressed to tell where Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village ends and where Jacob Riis Houses begin.
In many ways this train of though comes from liberals/democrats learning from the past mistakes of urban renewal and public housing.
Many housing projects began as stable homes for working, low and middle income families. However as the decades wore on they became often segregated warehouses of low income, and in many ways just as bad or worse than the tenements/slums that were cleared to build.
Think of it as forced socio-economic integration. It is a model that is going on all over the USA. Indeed IIRC federal housing dollars no longer to building new “projects”, but things like 80/20 “affordable” housing.
Interesting, and I don’t disagree but this is not public housing. It is one of the newest and nicest buildings in the city. And absolutely beautiful if you ask me.
This level of government interference in private business is enough to turn anyone into a small government conservative. And this is from a life long UWS liberal! This is not how you help deserving people or the community.
It certainly is a sociologically complex issue. Is there a Doctor (of Sociology) in the house?? hahaha I’m looking at you Cary Goodman.:) Any thoughts on this issue, Sir, even though it has nothing to do with the Museum?
No, it isn’t “public housing” per se, but developers and landlords are receiving generous benefits that allowed these buildings to become reality. In the process they also are or will make a tidy sum of money.
What the current mayor and city council seem to be saying is in exchange for those benefits the lower to middle classes, formerly homeless, homeless veterans, and so forth are to be included.
These “affordable housing” lotteries have been around since the 1980’s IIRC. Difference was then most of the buildings for “low to middle income” were built in places like Harlem, Bronx, Yorkville, and other (then) seen as less desirable areas of the city.
As for the “social experiment” aspect of all this; been there and done that. When Boston, MA ended rent control laws that city got tons of new and or renovated housing stock, virtually none of it for low to moderate income households. That city how has basically become a place entirely of well off to wealthy households. So much so some are talking about actually bringing back some form of rent control. Otherwise housing is just too expensive for large parts of the population.
What one does find interesting is that market rate apartments for all these “luxury” or whatever buildings (including the VIA), aren’t exactly flying off the shelves. In fact there is such a glut that those who can afford market rate rents are able to pick and choose. Much if not all the drama over these buildings revolves around the “affordable” units.
The affordable component in this building is a result of 421-a, a law that dates back decades.
Almost every luxury rental built in the city has affordable units as a result. There is nothing new here.
And the fact that a grand total of zero such buildings have lost their status or desirability due to this program attests to the utter unreasonableness of those who think that lower paying tenants will disrupt the building.
Various tax abatement schemes like the 421-a are not per se about affordability. Rather an acknowledgement of the high taxes imposed on rental housing in this state/city.
Has nothing to do with “luxury” really either. Merely the fact both NYC and NYS thanks to a byzantine, complicated and oppressive tax system taxes rental housing at commercial rates.
Rental properties in New York City pay three times the national average in taxes. Therefore it just is not sustainable to build when nearly a third of gross income from rents goes to taxes.
As mentioned in another post it is only really since current mayor or maybe even Bloomberg that the city began forcing developers to include the “affordable” units onsite with luxury. Previously developers could (and did) build the affordable units way out in the Bronx, Queens or some other lower income area, but keep the “luxury” apartments in Manhattan below 96th Street.
As for the luxury tenants not “complaining” about the affordable/low income; I don’t know about that. Some don’t mind, others do; but the latter have learned in this PC environment to keep their comments to themselves.
Co-worker and his husband live in an 80/20 building in Chelsea. He was going on one day that they (meaning the 80%) know who all the “affordable” residents are via their behavior. Things like “they are always in the lobby” (free Wifi), and so forth.
Final thing to remember is that for those paying market rate rents they don’t *have* to remain in these “luxury” buildings with lottery apartments. There are plenty of buildings done “as of right” that didn’t take tax abatements where they can live.
Pharaohs?
I’m not sure how these apartments are “affordable” as someone is paying for them.
The Via set aside 36 so-called affordable apartments. I’d love to know how many millions of dollars in tax breaks the developers received for these apartments.
Needless to say this is tax revenue the city desperately needs.
Foregoing millions of dollars in tax revenue to put a handful of people in a brand new luxury building is not a very smart or efficient way of solving our housing problem.
No other city on earth has such a program – but our genius mayor will boast how he created “affordable” apartments.
GG = Sherman. Anyway, what an elitist!! As though people who make a modest income don’t deserve to be in a nice building. I think this is great for people.
You’re 100% correct.
I think I’m going to move to Beverly Hills. I’ll tell the city that I’m entitled to live in an affordable mansion so they should provide one to me.
I know, Sherman.
I think I’m gonna go to Nobu or Le Bernadain tonight and insist I get a discounted meal!! I mean, don’t I deserve to eat in a nice restaurant even though I only earn a modest income?? cue eyeroll
Only in NYC…oh well, what can we do except continue to point out how silly and unjust the whole thing is. It serves nobody except the lucky and corrupt. Is that who we need to be helping in this city?? with amenities and luxury living?? Puh-Leeeeese.
if all apartments were the proper market rate there wouldn’t be any need for these ridiculous affordable housing rates. All this does is raise the rents of those paying market rate. And the developers receive tremendous tax cuts. Everyone should simply live in the building and/or neighborhood they can afford……. the way I did and my entire family and many of my friends. Everyone does not have or earn the same amount of money. It’s just simple reality. Some are smarter and/or have a stronger work ethic. Some have no desire to work. It’s insane to think that everyone should live in the same neighborhood and in the same building.
the idea that affordable housing somehow raises the market rate is a myth in NYC, and especially in Manhattan, where the demand for housing remains much greater than any supply.
the housing market in NYC does not reflect the classic supply /demand curve. Many people have noted this in comments.
IIRC actually something along the lines of sixty percent (give or take) of all rental housing in NYC falls under some sort of government control. This includes RC, RS, NYCHA, SCRIE, Section 8, and various other systems.
As such it could be said that yes, RS and RC along with the rest do distort the housing market in NYC. Economists of all backgrounds generally agree government intervention into markets causes distortions. That has proven true for New York and its rent control laws.
Problem for NY is that having allowed the thing to go on for so long, they are too deep down that rabbit hole. Ending just RC and RS now would throw thousands of persons out of their homes; mostly middle aged to seniors.
Those are the households living in pre 1972 rent controlled/stabilized apartments. The new “affordable” or whatever units are a different story. In any event those numbers are rather small in comparison.
Again when Boston ended rent control it cleared that place out of nearly any sort of “affordable” housing. Only those who received some sort of subsidy remained IIRC.
Simple problem is NYC does not have nearly the funds to even keep up public housing it has, much less expand. So it must turn to the private sector. The federal government long has pretty much washed its hands of major housing funding for low income households. So what is left?
Even if the city wanted to build more low to moderate income housing it does not own nearly enough land, and with those costs very high at the moment cannot afford to get much or any either.
There is the option of going nuclear (using eminent domain), but that process took on nasty connotations and caused hurt feelings when “urban renewal” was used to claim vast swaths of NYC real estate for housing.
Pity really because urban renewal is probably New York’s best shot at creating the huge amount of low to middle income housing this city requires.
Supply does meet demand, even in Manhattan. It’s just that when supply is as restricted as it is here, exacerbated by 50% of the apartments being rent-regulated in some way, prices skyrocket. New York is not a special snowflake where the law of supply and demand ceases to exist. It’s just that there’s no realistic chance the supply will increase enough to make a significant impact on prices in desirable neighborhoods.
The problem with your comment is that the “market share” rate for apartments even outside Manhattan are all unaffordable!! Tell me, where are people supposed to live….in the streets?? Even with these middle-class “affordable” apartments listed here would mean that a single person would need 3/4 of his/her salary to cover the rent leaving not much leftover for food and other necessities. So what you’re really saying is that only well-off and rich people BELONG in Manhattan and the rest of the people can just leave. My guess is you are one of those “implants” and not a native New Yorker.
Wow, what a revolutionary idea!! People living where they can afford it. Mind blowing!
It just amazes me how people can have such strong opinions about something they know so little about. When did we become such a “feel good” society? My grandparents and parents (from Brooklyn by the way) would be so disappointed to see how entitled and whiny many of us have become.
And by the way, it’s “transplants”. Just another thing you missed in your hysterical and ignorant comment. And as a native of NYC for generations…they have just as much of a right and contribute just as much, if not more, than all the NY’ers born and raised here.
EPIC FAIL
Gorgeous!
Affordable should also be in quotations.
I can’t get my head around how someone earning a six figure income qualifies for affordable rent. If you can’t manage your money at that earning level well enough to swing the rent on the UWS then you’ve got bigger issues. Get real.
Read and you’ll learn a few things:
https://www.brickunderground.com/rent/how-are-80-20-rents-and-incomes-calculated
Also if you read the above income guidelines carefully you’d see the annual household income for those earning “three figures” applies to two or more persons.
That could mean a teacher and RN, NYPD and RN, FDNY and teacher, etc….
You also forget the insane HCL for NYS/NYC which brings that “three figure” income down rather quickly. We’re talking about the low 100k’s here anyway. Not someone or a household pulling three, four or five hundred thousand per.
I really believe that in 20 years people are going to look at that building and say what the heck were people thinking that they allowed that thing to get built? (Perhaps they’re already thinking it)
sorry but the design of this building makes it look like it was built in 1986