Good piece. It’s hard to fully internalize the tradeoff of the alternative of nothing getting built.
To specific recommendations, what about this:
1. Eliminate the Architectural Standards Technical Manual and most of the other requirements and preferences that encourage above code development. To overcome the historical tendency to prioritize cost and political expediency over tenants, why not replace it with a simple line that says affordable units must be substantially similar to the market rate ones? Presumably the manual is trying to accomplish this same goal, but is being prescriptive about what that means. Leave it open ended but require city approval of the units after they are built. If it’s good enough for the market rate tenants it should be good enough for the below-market rate tenants. If there are tenants with truly unique additional needs, that seems like it really should be addressed in a separate facility designed for their situation, rather than trying to shoe-horn them in to a predominantly market rate building.
2. Eliminate additional sustainability and transit preferences. Don’t we have other incentives to locate close to transit and achieve higher sustainability standards? Let’s let those do the work rather than adding a second layer on top.
Hey thanks! On #1, my understanding is that this is how it already works for buildings subject to the ARO that build affordable units on site (i.e., units have to be broadly the same, and of the same mix as the market rate units). I think dramatically loosening the ATS manual is a good idea - but some basic standards are likely necessary in situations where market pressures aren't at work (i.e. building is all or mostly affordable). And a situation where a developer builds something, and then has it invalidated by DOH after the fact is likely an outcome we do want to avoid.
On #2, it's hard to see why this stuff should be hard requirements, instead of a small number of points on an overall score. There are cases where there are principal-agent problems with sustainability in market rate buildings (landlords don't want to pay for weatherization upgrades because tenants pay utilities, etc.). But right now we aren't making any choices or putting a price on anything... so we end up sacrificing units which is the worst tradeoff.
Good piece. It’s hard to fully internalize the tradeoff of the alternative of nothing getting built.
To specific recommendations, what about this:
1. Eliminate the Architectural Standards Technical Manual and most of the other requirements and preferences that encourage above code development. To overcome the historical tendency to prioritize cost and political expediency over tenants, why not replace it with a simple line that says affordable units must be substantially similar to the market rate ones? Presumably the manual is trying to accomplish this same goal, but is being prescriptive about what that means. Leave it open ended but require city approval of the units after they are built. If it’s good enough for the market rate tenants it should be good enough for the below-market rate tenants. If there are tenants with truly unique additional needs, that seems like it really should be addressed in a separate facility designed for their situation, rather than trying to shoe-horn them in to a predominantly market rate building.
2. Eliminate additional sustainability and transit preferences. Don’t we have other incentives to locate close to transit and achieve higher sustainability standards? Let’s let those do the work rather than adding a second layer on top.
Hey thanks! On #1, my understanding is that this is how it already works for buildings subject to the ARO that build affordable units on site (i.e., units have to be broadly the same, and of the same mix as the market rate units). I think dramatically loosening the ATS manual is a good idea - but some basic standards are likely necessary in situations where market pressures aren't at work (i.e. building is all or mostly affordable). And a situation where a developer builds something, and then has it invalidated by DOH after the fact is likely an outcome we do want to avoid.
On #2, it's hard to see why this stuff should be hard requirements, instead of a small number of points on an overall score. There are cases where there are principal-agent problems with sustainability in market rate buildings (landlords don't want to pay for weatherization upgrades because tenants pay utilities, etc.). But right now we aren't making any choices or putting a price on anything... so we end up sacrificing units which is the worst tradeoff.
Brilliant, Conor. Affordable housing is the most complex of financing.