Thirty-Five Stories of Apartments at 388 Hudson

By Alec Pruchnicki

As a supporter of the Abundance Movement and a dedicated YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard), I have frequently had arguments with NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) opponents over housing proposals. They always start their positions with something like “I am in favor of affordable housing, but…” and after that “but…” comes the reasons why they don’t like some particular proposal. This is the very definition of NIMBYism. The history of proposals for housing on 388 Hudson Street illustrates this “but…” rhetorical tactic.

Several years ago, when housing there was first proposed by the city’s Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD) department, a meeting was held for community residents. Besides myself and local residents, Village Preservation Director Andrew Berman was present. I have been a supporter of VP as far back to when it was the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. Its victories to get major areas of our community designated as historical have been spectacular and deserving of widespread public support. But when VP doesn’t just stick to Village preservation and begins to affect housing policies in general, I often oppose its actions.

At the initial meeting about 388 Hudson, HPD asked about a variety of architectural and service issues and gave two general guidelines. First, since the building was going to be 100% affordable, it had to be large enough to bring in rental income and be financially viable, presumably without additional subsidies. Second, they reported that Community Board 2 had requested that the maximum number of affordable housing units be included. I had hopes that VP would not object to these conditions too much.

This didn’t last long. The first “but…” objection was to the height. At about 35 stories, the initial projection, it would be significantly taller than the 12-18-story office buildings or the six-story public schools immediately adjacent to the site. In a recent article (“Forty Stories of Problems at Planned 388 Hudson Tower Project,” Village View April ’26) the height and style of the building was compared to a new one at Sixth Avenue and 14th Street, about a mile away. It was not compared to the two 40-story market rate buildings being completed at the former St. John’s Center site on West Street, three blocks away. Even on the VP website which shows an illustration of the proposed building compared to the immediate surroundings, the view is looking south for miles ─ not facing west which would show the nearby West Street 40-story buildings. Yet, according to VP, the proposed building would be the tallest “in Greenwich Village” although it is just outside the very southern border of the West Village historical district.

The HPD says that the building will be permanently affordable, but gives no details. How this can be guaranteed is unclear and VP demands that it be made explicit. There are several problems with this demand. Very often, affordable housing is guaranteed for 30-40 years and needs to be renewed periodically. Whether there is an absolute guarantee of permanence or need for a renewal every 30 years, the basic financial fragility of affordable housing is significant and unpredictable. The initial rents might be adequate to make the facility financially viable, but sometimes only barely. In the assisted living facility where I worked for 21 years, subsidies were barely adequate and major problems and cutbacks occurred frequently (“A Tale of One Assisted Living Facility,” Village View, Jan. ’25). Residents who can pay the rent initially can lose their jobs, have wages cut, experience illness, family breakup, or death of a family member. As a result, about a third of all non-payment problems in housing court involve people who live in affordable housing. Fortunately, payment schedules can be arranged and only about 5% result in actual evictions.

Unforeseen events can also effect viability. A Sandy level hurricane, a Covid level epidemic, a recession, mandated wage increases for staff, energy improvements, or other building code upgrades can all be significant problems. Routine maintenance is required for repairs of the roof, wiring, insulation, heating system, or brick work, and this can be unpredictably expensive.

Between problems for the residents or unforeseen emergencies the future viability is impossible to predict. No VP position paper, YIMBY supporter, NIMBY opponent, or any human being can predict what the economic situation of the city, state, country or world will be in 30 years. And what happens when you guarantee affordability without guaranteeing funding? You end up with the financial situation NYCHA is in ─ with $80 billion needed for capital repairs alone. How are they doing?

The “but…” complaints piled on. The architectural style of the building is compared to a “cheese grater” or “measles sores” in the eyes of opponents. I, and apparently the architects, would prefer some variety so that it doesn’t look like the nearby dull box-like office buildings. They believe it should be shorter and squatter instead of tall and thin. Beauty, and ugliness, is sometimes in the eyes of the beholder and YIMBYs and NIMBYs might have different aesthetic tastes.

The developer has been criticized in the past and the reasons for their selection is questioned. I don’t know what process was used to pick the developer but there must have been some vetting process by the HPD, and probably more detailed than anything VP could do.

But most seriously, the slanted attack on this building occurs when it ignores the benefits of the building and only focuses on the deficits. It will have a state-of-the-art public athletic center to replace, or possible supplement, the nearby Dapolito Center. Those four or five stories for the gym will raise the height to about 40 stories instead of 35. And those 35 stories will have apartments, the purpose of this building in the first place. A while back, VP proposed that the building be six stories to be similar to the nearby public schools. This would go against the demands of CB2 for maximum apartments and, I believe, has been dropped as a suggestion from VP.

For years NIMBY opponents have argued against various housing proposals because they were not 100% affordable and not permanent. Now we have a development which is 100% affordable and although not absolutely guaranteed to be permanent, possibly long-term if 30-year renewals can be done. But, it’s not enough. Now the goal posts have been moved because of height, design, shape, and developer history. Build housing on 388 Hudson already.