Category: FAR

Vertically Obsolete: Part 3, The political barriers to rezoning

6 August, 2014 (09:51) | Affordability, Apartments, de Blasio, Density, Development, Economics, FAR, Housing, Inclusionary zoning, New York City, Rent stabilization, Rental, Verticality, Zoning |

[Continued from yesterday’s Part 2 and the preceding Part 1.] By:David A. Smith As we’ve seen in the preceding two parts, taking off from Josh Barro’s New York Times (June 7, 2014) article tacitly criticizing the Abington’s inclusionary-zoning affordable apartments for having ‘extremely expensive implicit subsidies’, a city must manage its verticality, both with the […]

Vertically Obsolete: Part 2, High implicit subsidies?

5 August, 2014 (09:00) | Affordability, Apartments, de Blasio, Density, Development, Economics, FAR, Housing, Inclusionary zoning, Land use, New York City, Rent stabilization, Rental, Verticality, Zoning |

[Continued from yesterday’s Part 1.] By:David A. Smith Yesterday post, using Josh Barro’s well-written if oddly titled New York Times (June 7, 2014) article about inclusionary zoning, took issue with Mr. Barro’s framing that the in-kind-in-situ (IKIS, in my acronym) inclusionary-zoning affordable apartments in the Abington, in ultra-hot West 30th Street, are ‘implicitly expensive’ when […]

Vertically obsolete: Part 1, Several families in Sunnyside?

4 August, 2014 (09:00) | Affordability, Apartments, de Blasio, Density, Development, Economics, FAR, Housing, Inclusionary zoning, Land use, New York City, Rent stabilization, Rental, Verticality, Zoning |

By:David A. Smith Despite its author, Josh Barro, writing a good article about the complications of inclusionary zoning, the New York Times (June 7, 2014) chose a headline that sends the reader on a long misdirection: Affordable Housing That’s Very Costly As we’ll see, that’s misoriented in two ways: (1) the cause isn’t the housing […]