May 26, 2025

Contested Territories: Race, Redevelopment, and Resistance in New York City Public Housing

As of May 2025, the future of the NYCHA Fulton/Elliott-Chelsea (FEC) redevelopment remains uncertain. While the project has made some progress, it hasn’t received final approval — and several major factors will determine whether it ultimately moves forward.

Where Things Stand Now

The redevelopment proposal, which includes demolishing existing public housing buildings and replacing them with newly constructed mixed-income units, is currently undergoing a rigorous environmental review. The Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) was accepted in April, and a public hearing was held on May 8, with the comment period extended to May 19. This step is critical in securing the necessary federal approvals.

However, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has not yet signed off. While HUD is aware of the project and the environmental review is in motion, no final green light has been given.

A Divided Community

Community sentiment around the project is mixed — and that’s putting it lightly.

On one side, there’s a strong coalition of tenant leaders and housing advocates voicing serious concerns. They argue that the proposed demolition would displace hundreds of families and could accelerate the loss of deeply affordable public housing, particularly harming Black and brown communities.

On the other hand, supporters — including some residents and local officials — point out that the existing buildings are in severe disrepair. They believe redevelopment is the best path forward to provide safe, modern, and sustainable housing for current residents, while also creating additional affordable units for others in need.

The Money Factor

The financial picture adds another layer of complexity. The estimated cost of the project has now ballooned to $1.9 billion, up from the initial $1.5 billion. Inflation, supply chain issues, and tariffs on construction materials have all contributed to the increase. These rising costs could make final approval more difficult or require additional budget negotiations.

So… Will It Happen?

In short: Maybe.

The FEC redevelopment is still in the pipeline, but it’s far from guaranteed. The outcome depends on:

Federal HUD approval
Continued environmental and legal reviews
The ability to address resident concerns and secure buy-in
Whether NYCHA and the city can manage the escalating costs

As we wait for a final decision, one thing is clear: the FEC project could set the tone for the future of public housing redevelopment in New York City — for better or worse.

#ContestedTerritories #PublicHousing #NYCHA #UrbanRedevelopment #HousingJustice #AffordableHousing #Gentrification #CommunityResistance #NYCPolitics #UrbanPlanning #Displacement #HousingRights #EquityInHousing #SocialJustice #CityHousing

May 3, 2025

Selling the Commons: Systematic Erasure of Section 9 Housing in New York City

Selling the Commons
The Systematic Erasure of Section 9 Housing

In a deal cloaked in the language of “revitalization” and “affordability,” the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has once again put public land on the auction block. This time, it’s the Manhattanville Houses in West Harlem—a public housing campus home to thousands of New Yorkers who have, for decades, weathered systemic neglect, disinvestment, and the hollow promises of redevelopment.

In October 2022, NYCHA sold seven parcels and 280,000 square feet of air rights from the Manhattanville complex to Grid Group, a private developer, for a total of $28 million. This includes $6 million for the land and $22 million for the air rights. The buyer plans to erect a 26-story tower at 1440 Amsterdam Avenue—393 units of mostly market-rate housing, with a modest 120 rent-regulated units and a few community-focused amenities sprinkled in to dress the project in the camouflage of “inclusivity.”

This is not just another real estate transaction. It is a symptom of a deeper pathology: the systematic dismantling of Section 9 housing in New York City under the guise of "preservation" and "public-private partnership."

The PACT Faustian Bargain

The Manhattanville campus is also undergoing a transformation through NYCHA’s PACT (Permanent Affordability Commitment Together) program. Pitched as a way to funnel desperately needed repairs into aging NYCHA stock, PACT shifts management to private entities and converts properties to Project-Based Section 8 under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program.

On paper, it maintains affordability. In practice, it converts collective public ownership into fragmented, privately managed assets—housing where tenants have fewer rights, less oversight, and where the promise of permanence is only as good as the next fiscal downturn or policy shift. The $445 million in financing raised for Manhattanville's rehabilitation sounds impressive, but we must ask: at what cost, and to whom?

This is not preservation. This is privatization. It is a slow, methodical displacement, carried out not by bulldozers but by contracts, conversions, and complicit bureaucracies.

Air Rights as Austerity Tool

The sale of air rights to Grid Group is often presented as a clever, non-intrusive way to generate revenue. But this logic is steeped in austerity. Why should NYCHA—created to provide public housing—have to cannibalize itself to fund basic maintenance? This is not financial ingenuity. It is fiscal surrender. The $28 million generated by the sale is being reinvested into the Manhattanville Houses, yes—but this is money extracted by selling off pieces of the commons, not through adequate, sustained federal or municipal funding.

Once that land is gone, it’s gone. Once those air rights are monetized, they cannot be reclaimed. What remains is a fractured landscape, where luxury towers loom over subsidized tenements, and the public realm shrinks under the weight of private profit.

A Manufactured Scarcity

The political class often insists that we must make hard choices—that there simply isn’t enough money to maintain Section 9 public housing, so we must “partner” with the private sector. But this scarcity is manufactured. The same city that grants enormous subsidies to luxury developments, rezones entire neighborhoods for speculative capital, and bails out banks, tells public housing tenants that their only path to decent living conditions is to surrender control.

This logic must be resisted. Section 9 housing is not a failed model—it is a deliberately underfunded one. And the ongoing conversion of public housing to private control through RAD and PACT is not neutral policy. It is a political choice that prioritizes asset extraction over housing as a human right.

The Illusion of Inclusion

To mitigate tenant backlash, the 1440 Amsterdam project includes 120 rent-regulated units, some of which will be “prioritized” for Manhattanville residents. But this is not real inclusion—it is optics. It’s a fraction of affordability embedded within a structure whose existence is fundamentally hostile to the social and economic ecosystem of public housing.

Grocery stores, community facilities, parking garages—these are all useful, perhaps even necessary. But when they are packaged within developments that exacerbate inequality and accelerate gentrification, they function less as amenities and more as pacifiers.

We Must Name the Crisis

What’s happening at Manhattanville is part of a broader, national trend: the systematic erosion of public housing through privatization masquerading as policy reform. The slow death of Section 9 is not inevitable. It is engineered—through disinvestment, through administrative neglect, and through the incremental surrender of public land to private developers.

As architects, urban designers, and housing advocates, we must stop treating these transformations as technical problems to be managed. They are moral and political failures that demand resistance. We must name this for what it is: a dismantling of public infrastructure under the guise of public benefit.

Section 9 is not perfect. But its value lies not only in its affordability—it lies in its principle: housing as a right, not a revenue stream. Once we lose that, we’re not just selling land or air rights—we’re selling the very idea of a just city.

Citations:

Crain's New York Business. "NYCHA sells West Harlem site to private luxury developers for new tower." October 27, 2022. Link
NYCHA Journal. "$445 Million in Comprehensive Renovations Coming to Manhattanville Houses." December 13, 2024. Link
NYC.gov. "Mayor Adams, HUD, NYCHA Announce PACT Program on Track to Improve Living Conditions for 76,000 NYCHA Residents, Deliver $7.2 Billion in Building Upgrades." January 5, 2023. Link
HarlemView. "Manhattanville Houses Tenants Oppose Imminent PACT Conversion." October 2022. Link
NYCHA Journal. "Manhattanville Development Rights Transferred to Adjacent Site." October 2022. Link
NYCHA Journal. "Manhattanville Development Rights Transferred to Adjacent Site." October 2022. [Link](https://nychajournal.nyc/nycha-closes-on-transfer-of-manhattanville-development-rights-to-adjacent

_______________________________________
#HousingIsAHumanRight #PublicHousing #Section9 #StopPACT #DefendNYCHA #AffordableHousing #UrbanJustice #JustCity #DesignForDignity #NYCHA #ManhattanvilleHouses #WestHarlem #StopSellingNYCHA #HarlemNotForSale #HomesNotProfit #TenantPower #EndHousingAusterity #PublicLandForPublicGood #ResistDisplacement #PrivatizationIsNotPreservation

April 30, 2025

Demolishing Trust: Why NYCHA’s FEC Plan Faces a Wall of Resistance

Image Source: The Architect's Newspaper
This photo captures a protest outside New York City Hall, where public housing residents rallied against the FEC redevelopment plan. The image effectively conveys the community's resistance and the human aspect of the issue.

Will NYCHA’s FEC Redevelopment Really Happen? Here’s What We Know

The New York City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) plan to demolish and rebuild the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea (FEC) housing complexes has stirred deep controversy. With a $1.7 billion price tag and promises of modern, mixed-income housing, the redevelopment could reshape a major section of Manhattan's west side—but many question whether it will actually happen.

Community Resistance: "We Don’t Want Demolition"

A growing number of residents are standing firmly against the project. Nearly 1,000 tenants have signed petitions opposing it. Protesters have chained themselves outside City Hall. Their message is clear: they don’t trust NYCHA’s promises of relocation and return.

“This isn’t about upgrades,” one protester told reporters. “It’s about erasure.”

Critics argue the process lacks transparency and doesn’t prioritize resident voices. The fear of permanent displacement looms large—especially in a city where public housing is becoming increasingly precarious.

Legal Pushback from Advocacy Groups

Several legal and advocacy organizations have joined the opposition.

The Legal Aid Society and Community Service Society have raised red flags about the redevelopment’s compliance with commitments made by the Chelsea Working Group, which initially helped shape a vision for community-driven housing improvements.

Their main concerns:

Insufficient legal protections for tenants
A lack of meaningful community input
Potential displacement masked as “temporary relocation”

Financial Risks and Doubts

Then there’s the cost.

The FEC project is currently estimated at $1.7 billion, with significant funds going toward demolition and reconstruction. Critics argue this money could be used to renovate existing buildings rather than tearing them down.

There’s also concern that the plan disproportionately benefits market-rate housing developers—leaving public housing tenants with fewer protections and less certainty.

Political Pressure Could Shift the Outcome

As protests grow louder, elected officials are starting to pay attention. The mounting resistance—paired with legal challenges and budget concerns—could force City Hall to slow down, rethink, or even scrap the plan in its current form.

In New York, housing politics are never simple. But this project has become a symbol of broader debates around gentrification, affordability, and trust in public institutions.

Will the Project Move Forward?

The short answer: it’s uncertain.

While NYCHA has moved ahead with planning, the future of the FEC redevelopment depends on resolving some serious roadblocks:

Community opposition
Legal scrutiny
Financial feasibility
Political will

Until those issues are addressed head-on, the project’s fate hangs in the balance.

April 14, 2025

Preserving Chelsea's Public Housing:
A Call to Rethink the Plans

The Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses in Manhattan's Chelsea neighborhood are more than just structures; they are communities rich in history and diversity. For decades, these NYCHA developments have provided affordable housing to thousands, fostering a sense of belonging and stability. However, recent plans by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), in partnership with developers Essence and Related, propose demolishing these complexes to make way for new mixed-income housing. This proposal has sparked significant debate among residents and community members.6sqft+5NY1+5New York Amsterdam News+56sqft+2stopfecdemolition.org+2Harlem Tourism | Harlem Tourism Board+2

Resident Voices and Concerns

In 2023, a survey revealed that 57% of nearly 1,000 tenants who voted supported the demolition plan. While this majority indicates some level of agreement, it's crucial to note that this was a non-binding survey, and concerns persist among residents. Many fear potential loss of lease rights, increased rents, and the impact on community cohesion. A coalition of tenants has voiced opposition, presenting petitions signed by 939 residents, emphasizing the importance of preserving their homes and community spaces. Gothamist+1NY1+16sqft

Community Impact and Environmental Concerns

The proposed demolition threatens not only the homes of approximately 5,000 residents but also valuable recreational spaces and over 370 mature trees. The loss of these green areas would significantly affect the neighborhood's environmental quality and residents' well-being. Community leaders argue that the plan prioritizes new constructions over the preservation of existing, affordable public housing and the irreplaceable community fabric. midtownsouthcc.org

Alternative Solutions: Rehabilitation Over Demolition

Rehabilitation of existing structures offers a viable alternative to demolition. Renovating the current buildings would preserve the community's history and minimize displacement. For instance, the Baychester Houses in the Bronx underwent significant renovations, improving living conditions without displacing residents or altering the community's character. This approach demonstrates that with thoughtful planning, it's possible to enhance living conditions while respecting the existing community. New York YIMBY

A Call for Inclusive Decision-Making

It's essential that all residents have a say in the future of their homes. While the 2023 survey indicated majority support for demolition, the concerns of the dissenting residents cannot be overlooked. A more inclusive decision-making process is needed, one that genuinely considers the voices of all affected, addresses their concerns, and explores all possible alternatives. As civil rights attorney Norman Siegel stated, "We need to find the political will and financial resources to continue to keep public housing public." GothamistNew York Amsterdam News

Prioritizing Community and Affordability

The proposed demolition of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses represents a pivotal moment for Chelsea. It's an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to affordable housing and community preservation. By prioritizing rehabilitation over demolition and ensuring inclusive, transparent decision-making, we can honor the legacy of these developments and protect the residents who call them home. Let's work together to find solutions that uphold the values of community, affordability, and sustainability.midtownsouthcc.org+7New York YIMBY+7NY1+7

Sources

Manhattan Community Board 4 (CB4) has been actively engaged in discussions regarding the redevelopment of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses, proposing alternative solutions to NYCHA's demolition plan.

CB4's Alternative Proposal

In 2019, CB4 introduced a plan to preserve the existing NYCHA developments by utilizing Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). This approach would involve expanding the Special West Chelsea District to include the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses, allowing underutilized sites to access additional floor area ratio (FAR). The goal was to raise funds for public housing repairs without resorting to demolition, thereby maintaining the community's integrity and avoiding displacement of residents. Chelsea Community News -

Community Engagement and Concerns

CB4 has hosted multiple public forums and meetings to discuss NYCHA's proposed redevelopment plan and to gather community input. These sessions have been platforms for residents to voice their concerns, particularly regarding potential displacement and the preservation of community ties. Chelsea Community News -+2CB Manhattan+2CB Manhattan+2

Ongoing Advocacy

While CB4 has not issued a formal stance on the current redevelopment proposal, its history of advocating for preservation and community involvement suggests a continued commitment to exploring alternatives that prioritize the well-being of residents and the integrity of the community.

For more detailed information and updates, you can visit CB4's official website: CB4 Chelsea NYCHA Proposal Updates.

what do elected officials say?

Elected officials have expressed varying perspectives on the NYCHA redevelopment plan for the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses. Here's an overview:

Supportive Officials:

Mayor Eric Adams has endorsed the plan, emphasizing that it represents a historic effort to rebuild existing NYCHA developments and provide residents with modern, dignified housing. He highlighted the collaboration with Essence Development and Related Companies as a step toward transforming public housing across New York City. Related+1Welcome to NYC.gov | City of New York+1
Congressman Jerrold Nadler praised the plan for putting residents' needs and priorities at the forefront. He noted that the new apartments would offer modern, comfortable housing for existing residents while adding approximately 3,500 new units to the campuses. The Village Sun+1Welcome to NYC.gov | City of New York+1
State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Tony Simone also supported the plan, citing the majority of tenants who voted in favor and the potential for improved living conditions. The Village Sun+1www.chelseanewsny.com+1

Opposing Voices:

Renee Keitt, the newly elected president of the Elliott-Chelsea Tenants Association, has voiced strong opposition to the redevelopment plan. She criticized the process as lacking transparency and claimed that the majority of residents were not adequately informed. Keitt likened the plan to "separate but equal," suggesting it perpetuates inequality. ArchUp+2www.ourtownny.com+2Wet Satin Press+2
Community activists and some residents have expressed concerns about potential displacement and the loss of resident rights under the proposed Public Housing Preservation Trust (PACT) model. They argue that the plan prioritizes development over community needs and could lead to increased rents and reduced tenant protections.

In summary, while city and state officials have largely supported the redevelopment plan, emphasizing modernization and resident benefits, tenant leaders and community activists have raised significant concerns about transparency, displacement, and the preservation of tenant rights. The debate continues as stakeholders seek to balance development goals with the needs and rights of existing residents.

The New York City Council has been actively engaged in discussions surrounding the proposed redevelopment of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses. While some members have supported the plan, others have expressed concerns about its potential impact on residents and the community.

Supportive Stance:

Council Member Erik Bottcher, representing the Chelsea district, has been a proponent of the redevelopment plan. He has emphasized the need for modernizing public housing to provide residents with safer and more dignified living conditions. Bottcher has also highlighted the collaboration between NYCHA, the private developers, and the residents in shaping the redevelopment process. Related

Opposition and Concerns:

Council Member Chris Banks has raised questions about the approval status of the redevelopment plan. During a Committee on Public Housing meeting in February 2025, Banks inquired about the status of the RAD/PACT conversion for the Fulton/Elliott-Chelsea campuses. NYCHA officials confirmed that while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is aware of the proposal, final approval has not been granted, and the environmental review process is ongoing. citymeetings.nyc
Council Member Althea Stevens, who has a background in public housing advocacy, has expressed reservations about the plan. Stevens has emphasized the importance of resident involvement in decision-making processes and has called for transparent and equitable solutions to address the needs of public housing communities. Wikipedia

In response to community concerns, the city established a working group to ensure that residents have a voice in the redevelopment process. This group includes tenant leaders, NYCHA representatives, elected officials, and advocacy organizations, aiming to develop a plan that reflects the interests and needs of the community. Gothamist+1Welcome to NYC.gov | City of New York+1

The debate continues as stakeholders seek to balance the goals of modernization and affordability with the rights and desires of existing residents.

April 2, 2025

Zoning Reforms NYC Needs to Build More Affordable Housing

New York City is in the midst of a housing crisis, and zoning laws play a crucial role in shaping how (and where) we build new homes. If the city wants to create more affordable housing, it needs to rethink outdated zoning rules that limit density, drive up construction costs, and make it harder to build where housing is needed most.

Here are the most effective zoning changes NYC can implement to unlock more affordable housing:

1. Upzone in Key Areas

New York needs to allow taller, denser residential buildings, especially near subway stations and high-capacity transit lines. Expanding Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policies can encourage the construction of more multi-family housing where people already commute. Neighborhoods with good infrastructure should be prioritized for increased height and density allowances.

2. Eliminate Parking Requirements

NYC still requires many new buildings to include a minimum number of parking spaces, even in areas well-served by public transit. This adds unnecessary costs—parking garages can cost $50,000+ per space to build—and takes up space that could be used for more apartments. Removing or reducing these mandates would lower construction costs and make affordable housing projects more feasible.

3. Strengthen Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH)

NYC’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program requires developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units when building in upzoned areas. However, the program could be more ambitious. Increasing the required set-asides for affordable housing while offering developers more flexibility (like increased Floor Area Ratio or tax incentives) would lead to more mixed-income developments citywide.

4. Legalize More Housing Types

NYC’s zoning laws often prevent homeowners from adding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), like basement apartments or backyard cottages. Legalizing ADUs citywide would allow more affordable, small-scale housing options. Additionally, rezoning low-density areas—like parts of Queens and Staten Island—to permit small apartment buildings instead of just single-family homes would significantly boost housing supply.

5. Convert Underutilized Commercial & Industrial Spaces

Many office buildings, hotels, and industrial spaces sit underused or vacant, yet zoning restrictions often prevent them from being converted into housing. Rezoning these areas to allow residential development—especially near transit corridors—could create thousands of new affordable homes.

6. Reform the 12 FAR Cap

New York State law currently limits the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for residential buildings to 12.0, capping how dense housing developments can be. This outdated rule prevents the construction of more high-rise apartment buildings in areas where they make sense. Lifting or modifying this restriction would allow for greater density and more affordable housing units.

7. Streamline the Approval Process

Many housing projects in NYC face years of delays due to a slow and unpredictable approval process. The city should establish more as-of-right zoning rules for affordable housing, allowing projects that meet clear criteria to move forward without lengthy discretionary reviews. Reducing community board veto power over projects that meet affordability goals would also speed up much-needed housing production.

8. Prioritize Affordable Housing on City-Owned Land

NYC owns a large amount of underutilized land, including vacant lots and underdeveloped sites. Prioritizing these properties for 100% affordable housing projects—with long-term affordability guarantees—would be a game-changer. The city could also partner with non-profits and mission-driven developers to ensure that new housing remains accessible to low- and middle-income New Yorkers.

Conclusion

NYC’s housing crisis isn’t going away on its own. The city needs bold zoning reforms to allow more housing—especially affordable housing—where it’s needed most. By updating outdated rules, streamlining approvals, and making better use of available land, NYC can ensure that more people have access to safe, affordable places to live.

The time for action is now. Will the city rise to the challenge?

March 28, 2025

Art of Forgetting

The Art of Forgetting is not simply an act of memory loss, but a profound and intentional process of release. In a world constantly filled with noise, obligations, and distractions, the ability to forget serves as a form of liberation. To forget is not to erase, but to unburden oneself from the weight of past wounds, regrets, and unnecessary attachments. It is a delicate dance between remembrance and release, where one learns to let go of what no longer serves them, creating space for healing, growth, and new experiences.

Forgetting, when done consciously, allows us to preserve our mental and emotional well-being. It is an art of discernment: knowing which memories, thoughts, and emotions to hold on to, and which to let slip away. It does not mean ignoring or dismissing the past, but rather choosing not to let it dominate our present or future. It is about embracing impermanence, understanding that life is fluid, and the moments that once shaped us no longer need to control us.

In the act of forgetting, there is freedom. It is in this space of release that we cultivate resilience, wisdom, and an openness to the present moment. Through the art of forgetting, we learn not only to forgive others, but also to forgive ourselves, allowing for transformation and rebirth. Forgetting becomes an art form in itself—a beautiful, subtle process of shedding, evolving, and living fully in the now.

December 28, 2016

Viren Brahmbhatt Interview Featured in December 2016 issue of Steel Structures & Metal Buildings

LINK to the interview

December 25, 2016

FloatSpace | Project by de.Sign featured in iDecorama Magazine

December 2, 2016