A Few More Arguments Over 388 Hudson

By Alec Pruchnicki

So many arguments over housing at 388 Hudson have appeared recently that it’s hard to think of anything that hasn’t been covered. But here are a few that I have discovered with my limited internet search skills.

Some critics of present plans insist that housing should be permanently low income and not expire in 30 or more years. Expiration dates for low- and middle-income housing subsidies are not new. Mitchell-Lama housing tax abatements typically last for only 20 years but they have assisted in building 100,000 housing units. 421 abatements have helped build as many as another 100,000 units, including my own co-op apartment. They expire in 20 to 35 years depending on which program is involved. Landlords are not required to accept Section 8 applicants unless they can meet the same requirements as self-paying tenants. 

There is one major form of subsidized housing that is both permanent and designed for low-income residents and that is NYCHA housing. There are about 350,000 known residents in about 180,000 apartments. But NYCHA is so run down that almost $80 billion is needed for capital repairs. Since this money is nowhere to be found in the city budget, NYCHA is using the private sector to privatize certain management functions or even build new low income and market rate housing. This is what might happen when you get permanent housing but no permanent source of subsidies.

Many individuals and preservationist community organizations have suddenly become advocates for housing. They are demanding policies although they have no actual experience in housing development. It is very easy to demand permanent one hundred per cent low-income housing when you are not the one who must do the actual work of building and financing. They think they know better than government officials and political leaders who actually have to deliver on those promises. They also think they know what the economy of NYC will be in 30 years and know how to maintain housing. At the very best, this can be considered mission creep with sincere dedicated individuals and organizations becoming active in new areas of concern. At worst this can be considered sabotage of developments they don’t like by making demands that can’t be met, and so delay or destroy programs they actually oppose. 

Finally, there is the question of height. Although there is major support for building as many apartments as possible, the maximum height has been called into question. The present proposal has called for a maximum of 355 feet which will make it the tallest building in Greenwich Village according to critics. But, just two blocks away on West Street there are two buildings being built that will be 400 and 450 feet tall (“570 Washington Street Skyscrapers Begin Construction” Brian Pape, Village View June 2023). So, it will not be the tallest building in the Village, if it ever gets built. Some critics say the base of the building can be wider so the height is less, but that is a detail to be worked out. 

But there is one consideration that needs to be addressed. The days of six story tenements, like our grandparents built, or even the 12 story high rises that our parents built might well be over, at least in Manhattan. While plenty of people want to live here, many feel there is little open space for more building, but that is only if we continue to think horizontally instead of vertically. We may need to build tall if we want to address the current affordable housing crises. And there is, let’s face it, a crisis.