Great post, but a 600’ building wouldn’t need to be 100% affordable to have at least as many affordable units as a 100%150’ building.
I know that you’re intentionally exaggerating for the sake of point-making, but still...
I’ll add too that the HarborTowers are 400’ buildings that were originally built to be 100% affordable. 200’ short, I know, but much taller than the res buildings in CX.
Thanks. But to be clear, I am not exaggerating that point... there are actually posters on this forum who one post are saying/liking "we need affordable housing here" and either in the same post or one after it saying "they should've gone supertall here." My point is they need to pick one, because they can't have it both ways. Not without a radical shift in the way the United States finances and develops affordable housing through HUD (among other needs).
RE Harbor Towers... interesting choice example. They were constructed nearly 50 years ago, and without the protective covenants that conventional affordable housing features today. The listings at Harbor Towers today (per
Zillow) range from $699,000 for a 750 sq. ft. 1-bed to $3M+, with most listings lingering near $1M. AND are you familiar with the Special Assessment to unit owners at Harbor Towers in 2007?
Boston City Properties has a nice summary, but the short of it is that long-neglected maintenance needs for the building were assessed at a replacement cost of $75.6 million. "Bills for individual units ran between $70,000 and $400,000. Many residents literally couldn't afford to pay their share and were forced to sell and move out."
Not affordable.
Affordable housing financing is complicated... I took a graduate course exclusively on the topic. The devil is in the details, and--to Boston's credit--requiring on-site affordable housing minimums of 13% to 20% for new large developments has been one of the most sustainable and effective measures nationally for adding affordable housing stock, because developers can offset the high cost of new development of affordable units with the return they'll earn on renting/selling the luxury ones. Admittedly there are the occasional mid-size and large buildings that are 100% priced affordably (most recently
The Beverly comes to mind), but the available cash infusion, grants, and other affordable financing dollars required to construct affordable housing is scantly available to address the needs, and is often best invested in smaller multi-family development projects because they can be delivered more quickly and financed sustainably over time.
I maintain that the most effective strategy to increase affordable housing options regionally is for the region to take an aggressive pro-growth strategy for housing construction; abolish parking minimums (especially within 1/2 mile of transit facilities); communities need to exercise their
Chapter 40B regs; and communities with incoming
Community Preservation Act dollars need to not only develop prioritization strategies of how to use those dollars, but also actually implement them.