Gansevoort Square Affordability is Built on a Shaky Foundation

By Jack Lourie

It can be confusing trying to understand whether a new development will serve the best interests of its community. After all, there are fundamental differences in strategy amongst New York City politicians to deal with the affordability crisis. One side takes market-based approaches, and the other sees the market as the very force that will lead to future displacement. Both groups have Democrat marked next to their name at the ballot box.

Being honest, I am hard-pressed to find examples in our history where making deals with the ultra-wealthy has led to better outcomes for everyone else. That brings us to Gansevoort Square and its developers.

The Gansevoort Square development was a request for proposal (RFP) put together by the NYC Economic Development Corporation (EDC) after the Gansevoort Market Co-op left their site prior to a lease expiration (EDC). During the first hearing on potentially developing the site, City Official Gigi Li noted that our area came last in Manhattan in permitting and developing affordable units (EDC).

The winners of the RFP were Douglaston Development and Kinwood Partners. Douglaston Development is part of a privately held three-pronged business known as The Douglaston Companies. Douglaston Development develops sites, Levine Builders does the construction, and Clinton Management are the landlords.

A new luxury building can be a cocktail of financial and psychological stress for its residents — not only eventually leading to higher rent, but also a symbol that the previous era of the neighborhood is being left behind. Douglaston Development builds structures that often do not honor the historical culture of a neighborhood. And the idea that a private real estate investment company revitalizes areas such as Central Harlem or Williamsburg — a claim they make throughout their website — indicates a preference towards the people moving into their buildings rather than the long-time residents who are being priced out.

One building in their portfolio, Atlantic BK, is a 17-story apartment complex that extends for over half a block in the historically residential Bed-Stuy — which is currently experiencing rapid gentrification. Their website has a video showcasing their offered amenities and ends with the slogan, “at home, at work, at play,” perhaps a nod to the managerial class they hope to attract. This is similar to how they are marketing Gansevoort. But unlike Atlantic BK, Gansevoort Square is meant to be inexpensive for at least half of its tenants.

The developers have promised up to 55% of housing to be affordable (EDC). Proportions of affordable housing depend on how much housing is allocated between those who are at 40%, 60%, and 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). A family of three making $83,880 a year would fall into the 60th percentile, and they would spend $2,097 on rent for a two-bedroom (EDC). What this does not account for is an area’s cost of living.

In a neighborhood such as the Meatpacking District where everyday purchases are more expensive, parents will not have financial wiggle room for their children if they live in Gansevoort Square. If you were raising a kid in this area on $83,880 spending $2,097 a month on rent, could you do it? The pre-defined bounds of what is deemed to be affordable favors developers over tenants. The city must account for these costs with their AMI proposals if they want to attract people of all incomes.

Gansevoort is using a cross-subsidy model to fund the housing for the people who would pay below market rate. Cross-subsidy models “use income from market-rate units to help finance affordable housing” (Housing Policy). This begs the question, if a developer can afford to charge over 50% of its residents below-average rent, how much profit are they making off those who are paying market rate? Are we sure they are not profiting off those who are in affordable housing?

Let’s go further.

How many homes across the city are developers and landlords making revenues off of that far exceed their inputs? This complex is not only promising affordable housing, but also to donate to further develop the High Line and Whitney. If they have this much money, they are making far more than they should. Are New Yorkers comfortable with a city that prioritizes real estate profits over quality of life? We all want affordable housing, but this proposition is defined within such narrow terms that squeezes as much cash as it can out of people from all income levels.

The project is aiming to certify Uniform Land Use Review Procedure by early 2027, with construction starting by the end of that year (EDC). A public campaign has been launched by Village Preservation to pressure Mayor Mamdani, City Council, and Erik Bottcher to change the plan. You can find the petition linked on their website.