New Housing Goal Could Make New York World’s Dominant City

SEVEN. HUNDRED. THOUSAND.

Well, now. That’s a lot of housing units for New York City to create in 10 years.

Building 700,000 homes is the recommendation of yet another report on the housing crisis. But this draft the City Council cannot dismiss as the self-serving fantasy of an industry group or business-backed think tank.

The Council itself demanded the report in a 2023 law. Be careful what you wish for?

The lofty target set by the city’s housing and planning agencies sets the government up for criticism if it falls short of the goal — and protests by NIMBYs for trying.

Yet try it must, because 700,000 new homes in 10 years would do more than solve our housing problems. It would transform New York into the world’s dominant city.

No one is more cynical than I about mandated reports. The city has literally a thousand of them, and most amount to nothing. But this could be a watershed moment.

The Council has ostensibly embraced new housing: A spokesperson bragged this month that it has approved more than 7,000 units since January. That’s just 1 percent of the 10-year goal, but no one should think 700,000 is beyond reach, especially with reforms made during the Adams administration.

Moreover, it’s been done before: Developers built 729,000 units in the 1920s. The city also added 70,000 homes in 1961 and again in 1962, as builders rushed to beat a deadline set by the infamous citywide rezoning of 1961. We have a lot more bureaucracy and regulation now, but also much better technology.

City Planning and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development didn’t hatch 700,000 out of thin air. They started by calculating that 290,000 homes are needed just to catch up with demand. (That’s 101,000 to achieve a vacancy rate that gives New Yorkers options, 53,000 to house today’s homeless, 40,000 for doubled-up households and 93,000 for adults tired of living with parents or roommates.)

Another 240,000 over 10 years is needed to keep up with population growth. An additional 170,000 would “change how the housing market functions,” the report says. It would attract or retain productive people who otherwise would not live in the city.

Bring us your … entrepreneurs

More people means more activity, more economies of scale, more wealth and more congressional seats. But wait, there’s more.

Mike Bloomberg’s PlaNYC noted that when folks live in the city rather than the suburbs, their carbon footprint is 70 percent smaller. His point is more important than ever.

The extra homes would also accommodate more immigrants, who have fueled the city’s economy for two centuries. Imagine if they could come without adding pressure to the housing market.

Some people still think of immigrants as a cost, because they attend public schools and consume social services, but economists know better. Immigrants who drop everything to come here are strivers. They launch small businesses and startups at high rates. Some grow into major employers, like Google. And immigrants’ kids typically outperform their peers. Stop by Stuyvesant High School sometime.

Goodbye, rent control

Ending the housing emergency would end rent stabilization and all of its market distortions.

Wealthy renters would leave their formerly rent-stabilized units, opening them up for people who truly need them. Single people rattling around in three-bedroom apartments would downsize, letting families move in. About 60,000 vacant units would be renovated and rented out, creating jobs and tax revenue.

Owners of distressed buildings would have money for new boilers, roofs, facades and general upkeep. Brokers, bankers, supers, contractors and others would get more business. More insurers would enter the market, driving premiums down.

So many good things.

Besides the inconvenience of construction, what would be the drawbacks of all this new housing?

Some tenants with artificially low rents would end up paying more, but they’d get better housing. Most people would pay less. Homelessness would actually decrease: It barely exists in markets with healthy vacancy rates. Plus there would be more tax revenue to pay for vouchers and affordable housing creation — a positive feedback loop.

Some old-timers would complain about building heights and crowded sidewalks and pine for the way things were. Sorry, but New York City has been changing since it was New Amsterdam. Things have worked out, I’d say.

But they could be so much better. All we have to do is one thing. Build.