Lifting the FAR Cap, Part 3: Getting the Most Housing Bang From Our Zoning Bucks

Another follow-up to my article The FAR Cap Is Not The Problem; Lifting It Is Not The Solution and follow-up post regarding the Furman Center report on the city's low density neighborhoods (https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/frank-chaney-5719635_new-york-citys-low-density-neighborhoods-activity-7181347984993832960-V475?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop), in both of which I argue that instead of increasing density in neighborhoods that already have the highest density, a better solution to the city's housing crisis would be to increase density in the city's lowest density neighborhoods - i.e., the neighborhoods of the outer boroughs that the Bloomberg administration spent 12 years downzoning and which, as previously noted, cover almost half the city's residential land area but contain only 28% of the its population.

Champions of lifting the FAR cap and mapping two new super-dense zoning districts in Midtown Manhattan say it will "open many avenues for us to provide far more housing," "maximize new housing" and "deliver homes that New Yorkers need and deserve.” So, let's take a look at some rough numbers to see how those claims might stack up.

Using City Planning's PLUTO property database, we looked at all the properties in Manhattan community districts 4, 5 and 6 - Midtown Manhattan from 59th Street to 14th Street, river to river - that are in zoning districts that currently allow 12 FAR for residential use. If every one of those properties were developed to the maximum 12 FAR, at the allowable density factor of 680, approximately 79,000 apartments could be developed. Now, what if all those properties were rezoned to allow 18 FAR? At the same density factor, a maximum of approximately 118,500 apartments would be possible - an increase of approximately 39,500 apartments.

Now, let's look at properties in the four "outer" boroughs that are currently zoned R4, which in most cases allows an FAR of 0.75. (Why R4? Because a fairly common feature of many of the Bloomberg rezonings was downzoning R5 (1.25 FAR) to variations of R4.) If all those R4 properties were developed to the maximum 0.75 FAR, a total of approximately 531,000 housing units would result. Now, what if all those R4 districts were rezoned to R5? - i.e., modestly increasing the maximum allowable FAR by a mere 0.5? If all were developed to the maximum 1.25 FAR, they would produce slightly more than 1 million housing units, an increase of approximately 482,000 - 12 times as many new units as would be created in the new 18 FAR districts in Midtown Manhattan. Even if these R4 properties were rezoned to increase the FAR by 0.15 to the 0.9 FAR allowed in R4B districts, an additional 198,000 units would result, five times as many as would be added by increasing Midtown Manhattan FARs by 5.0.

Not only that, such new housing, including 25-30% affordable units, would be built in neighborhoods that, according to the Furman Center, between 2010 and 2020, produced a mere 7% of multi-family housing units and 9% of the affordable housing units created city-wide during the decade.

Granted, these are very raw numbers that don't account for existing use and floor area (i.e., whether properties are "soft sites" likely to be redeveloped or converted). They are not intended to show what is likely to be built, only to illustrate the outer parameters of what could be built under the respective FARs. What they are intended to show - and do show - is how the benefit of lifting the FAR cap pales in comparison to the benefit of modestly increasing FARs in the lowest density 45% of the city. If we were to add in additional upzonings - say, for example, R5 (1.25) to R5D or R6B (2.0) - the benefit "gap" would be even greater. A more refined analysis would almost certainly come up with different, probably smaller numbers, but relative to one another they will be the same. That is: modestly increasing density in the large, low density portions of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island will always produce significantly more new housing than increasing density in a small portion of Manhattan alone.

The only realistic way for the city to grow is up, not out, so by all means, let's talk about increasing density. But at least let's talk about it from a comprehensive, city-wide perspective. If the city wants to get the most housing bang for its zoning bucks, it needs to look at all the boroughs, not just Manhattan.