Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
Q&A
Council member inquires about the evolution of the 341 10th street housing proposal
1:09:43
·
166 sec
Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration 0:00
Loaded: 0%
0:00
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time -0:00
Â
1x
- Chapters
- descriptions off, selected
- captions settings, opens captions settings dialog
- captions off, selected
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
End of dialog window.
Council Member Kevin Riley asks Benjamin Rubenstein to explain how their housing proposal evolved over time. Rubenstein details the progression from MIH option 1 to a more complex arrangement involving 100% affordable housing, workforce housing, and the use of Article 11 for existing units.
- The proposal started with MIH option 1 but evolved based on stakeholder feedback
- A 100% affordable building was introduced, exceeding MIH requirements
- Workforce housing option was added to provide additional affordability
- Article 11 was applied to existing units, evolving to a method 1 option where all units are income-restricted
Kevin Riley
1:09:43
Mister Bernstein, I think you were elaborating to this.
1:09:47
But if you could just explain a little bit more.
1:09:49
Can you explain how this proposal evolved over time?
1:09:53
And why did you decide to shift from the original originally proposing to Mih option 1?
1:09:59
Build into 1, a 100% affordable HPD sponsored building, and one building under the NIH workforce option.
Andrew St. Laurent
1:10:07
Sure.
1:10:09
Nope.
Benjamin Rubenstein
1:10:10
I have.
1:10:12
Thank you for the question.
1:10:13
So we started off with NIH option 1 because we were really drafting off of Golanus Neighborhood Resounding.
1:10:21
And we knew that an area like Park Slope would would would really has a need for deep affordable housing.
1:10:28
We presented this option to key stakeholders, we were we were tasked to oops.
1:10:36
We were tasked to do better.
1:10:38
And we then creatively thought if we could develop one building as a 100% affordable building with very deep affordability that could then exceed the MIA requirements.
1:10:52
At that time, that Ninth Street building was generating the MIA for the entire site.
1:10:59
Then through talks with more stakeholders, council members, HPD, they were then tasked to provide additional affordability on top of that.
1:11:08
And that's when we introduced the workforce house housing option.
1:11:13
To the 10th Street building so that the 9th Street building, which would be 100% affordable, would not generate NIH requirements to the 10th Street building.
1:11:22
It's worth noting that the 9th Street building is 30% of the floor area.
1:11:28
That is gonna be of new new build floor area on the site.
1:11:31
And that we are giving that floor area to HPD at 0 acquisition cost.
1:11:38
And one other thing that was kind of layered on, somewhere in the middle was when we're speaking with residents and and and other council members, council member, and if There's a request to do something for the existing units as well.
1:11:53
And that's when we approached HPD for an article 11, that Article 11 has evolved from being a method 2 option where, you know, there would be some of the fair market units would remain fair market to being now method 1, where every single unit in that building is is reregulated income restricted.
Kevin Riley
1:12:12
That's what you're using the article 11 4.
Benjamin Rubenstein
1:12:14
Correct.
Kevin Riley
1:12:15
Okay.
1:12:15
That was my second question.
1:12:16
So you answered that.
1:12:17
Thank you.
Richard Lobel
1:12:18
Appreciate it.
Benjamin Rubenstein
1:12:18
So so we started off doing, you know, from WebEdge option 1, nothing on the existing billing to to what we proposed.
1:12:24
Today.
1:12:25
And again, we ask that that it's it's really viewed kind of collectively as 1.