This work was originally published in a city state.
In metropolitan politics, housing does not fit properly along existing ideological lines.
This dynamic was particularly vivid in the New York City mayoral race, culminating in tomorrow’s primary.
I wrote about the mayoral candidate housing policy in a recent CityLab work. Among them, I recently noticed how much progressive has shifted towards development. It is a sign of the growing influence of the Immy (or perhaps now “rich”) movement, and the depth of the urban housing crisis. Empirically oriented progressives can no longer deny the housing shortage in New York, along with many other structural issues regarding housing ecosystems.
In contrast, people on the right side of the political spectrum have embraced the mantle of the nimbie. Perennial Republican candidate Curtis Swawa has opposed the recently passed city of Jesus, which is at the centre of his campaign.
Former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has taken centrist/moderate lanes in the Democratic field, is also honoured in this direction. He speaks in broad strokes about going for a home building boom, like his democratic rival, but he distinguishes himself by wanting to protect low-density neighborhoods from new developments. This is a powerful message for borough voters outside the detached neighborhood where YES’ relatively modest cities were perceived as a major threat.
Despite his offering comfort to this constituency, Cuomo has simultaneously won huge donations from some of the city’s largest real estate developers and construction associations. Obviously, these development groups also feel that Cuomo will serve their interests.
Somehow, Cuomo was able to become a traditional Nimby homeowner, a large developer, and a preferred candidate for a building deal. Perhaps this ability to bring together seemingly conflicting groups is a sign of wise political manipulation and victory coalition. (Cuomo was at the forefront of the primary, but electricity young socialist council member Zoran Mamdani is catching up quickly, and Director Brad Lander has recently been able to arrest ice agents.)
However, I think Cuomo’s strange Bedfellows Coalition is not a political outcome, but rather a reflection of the current state of housing politics. The housing future, implied by Cuomo’s policies, is very similar to what is now, with a little more being built in the same handful of hot spots that have been concentrated in recent decades. The future of this housing will help all three of the above mentioned constituencies.
Along with a team of lawyers and lobbyists, the sophisticated megadevelopers are well equipped to navigate the management and political hurdles of buildings under existing policies. These appropriately capitalized companies make money by building a handful of billion dollar skyscrapers (mostly homes these days) including traditional high-rise districts like Midtown and Downtown’s Brooklyn, and post-industrial areas such as Long Island City and the Waterfront of Williamsburg. These high-value projects require long-term legions of skilled workers, which often lead to projection agreements with trade unions.
As a high-rise construction boom in some of the city’s centres, Cuomo promises that the rest of the city (most of its land area) will be left more or less intact. For many people living in those areas, or at least the older homeowners who are most likely to vote, that sounds quite a bit.
Housing is widely viewed as one of the most important issues in the race, but it would be wrong to suggest that Cuomo’s housing policy is the only or the main reason these districts support him. Voters weigh many other issues, ideology and personality traits. Nevertheless, it is clear to see how housing politics and policies overlap.
Cuomo’s coalition looks like a product of a metropolitan development bargain, as Michael Bloomberg was mayor. Bloomberg has enabled tower crafters to follow the East River along 125th Avenue in Hudson Yard, Harlem. In exchange, his administration zoned many surrounding areas, which happened to be disproportionately wealthy and white, including Brownstone Brooklyn and parts of Staten Island. Incidentally, Bloomberg is Cuomo’s biggest single donor, giving the Alliance Super Pack $8.3 million.
The Bloomberg Growth Machine, which has been tinkering with Bill de Blasio and Eric Adams, is mostly stored in place during those conditions, is better than without a Growth Machine. The city’s housing crisis would be even worse without it. However, as rents continue to rise and vacancy rates drop, it was clearly not enough to meet housing demand as homelessness increased and housing costs consume a large portion of household income. The theory that allowing large buildings in some areas can provide ample housing for the city and everyone in the area has proven wrong.
Almost every other major US city has made similar bargains over the past 20 years, with a few notable exceptions. New developments are often permitted in downtown and surrounding majority minority districts after the Industrial Revolution. These policies have created some very large, very visible new buildings, conveying the impression that cities are in the midst of a development boom. Politicians these days have begun to admit that their appearance can be fooled.
Housing policy conversations in New York and across the country are moving into a new phase. Yes Cities represent the first modest attempt to open up more cities to new developments, as Adams puts it, by adding “a little more housing in every region.” Housing policy experts and increasingly political leaders are realizing it is a step in babies. Cuomo’s major rival in the Democratic primary says he wants to expand all cities and spread housing production more evenly across the city.
But as I wrote in my work on CityLab, Senator Zellnor Myrie candidate only one candidate laid out in detail what this would look like, showing that he was ready for the tough battle that his plans would come with. That means hitting for large mixed income projects on Nicha land and other public sites. Rezoning more industrial areas for Brooklyn and Queens homes. And most importantly, allow more small apartments in any neighborhood.
In other cities, housing policies are also beginning to move in this direction. In San Francisco, a rezoning plan expected to pass later this year will allow apartments to rise in some cities that have not seen new construction in decades. In Portland, Oregon, the boom in small “middle-middle” homes in detached-family neighborhoods helped lower prices. The same story is also found in Minneapolis. There, citywide zoning reforms led to rent for many small apartment buildings and flatlines.
This is cutting edge and best practices in modern urban planning. It remains to be seen whether that is the best politics.
Source link
