A modest proposal to subdivide apartments that are too large for their current tenants
Affordable housing is a central issue in the New York mayoral campaign. Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani has offered the most ambitious — and expensive — proposal: a bond-financed $100 billion initiative to build 200,000 new apartments, to add to what is already by far the nation’s largest (177,000 units) public housing stock. There’s a lot to question about it: NYCHA already faces massive capital repair needs and such large borrowing would require state permission that’s unlikely to be forthcoming.
But there’s a way that the current public housing system could accommodate thousands more people, an approach that private developers are well familiar with: subdividing large units into smaller ones. It’s a way to get more from housing that already exists — and, in the process, to give those on the NYCHA waiting lists what the Authority’s records show they really want.
To be clear, this is not an approach that has previously been tried, which is why it may require unusual arrangements to accommodate tenants. But creativity is in order given the city’s huge housing challenges.
To appreciate why it’s worth considering, one must start with the little-known fact that a great many NYCHA tenants are what is technically called “over-housed.” Specifically, 30% of tenants have empty bedrooms. That reflects the fact that many tenants have aged in place and now live alone after their children have grown up and moved on. 10% of tenants have lived in their units for 40 years or more.
Understanding that this is precious space, NYCHA has tried, with little success, to convince these older tenants to relocate to smaller units. But what if, as tenants vacate units voluntarily or pass away, modest construction projects could carve out smaller units from their 3-bedroom apartments?
That would not make sense, of course, if large families were cued up on the waiting list. But NYCHA records show that’s not the case. The largest group of tenants, per records not previously made public, want small apartments. Many more want studios and 1BR units than 3BR ones. Small unit turnover, as indicated below, is extremely slow. The units that most potential tenants want are occupied.
NYCHA’s current mix of apartments is a reflection of its original vision as a long-term home for large families. NYCHA’s apartment stock has many more large units than small — even as tenant preferences have downsized. It’s a mismatch for the needs of the city’s current population.
A quick comparison of the two above tables underscores the disconnect between what potential public housing tenants want and what NYCHA can currently offer. These figures show, for instance, that there are extremely few (4,903) studio apartments in the NYCHA system, but that 47% of those on the waiting lists (84,923) prefer such units.
The math of subdivision could begin to align supply and demand. If 30% of units — those now characterized by “overhousing” — could be subdivided into additional units, that would mean, at minimum, 53,000 new units, if even only one new 1-bedroom was carved out of each unit. 2- and 3-bedroom units could be further subdivided, yielding more. It might not add up to 200,000 units — but it would be a big number.
Subdividing is far easier said than done. More would be required, of course, than simply slapping up additional walls. Apartments need bathrooms and kitchens. And in most cases, it’s probably folly to believe that people could stay in their units while they’re being worked on.
But it might get easier if paired with other creative ideas, such as dormitory-style shared common areas. A walk down the hall to shower is better than a homeless shelter. In at least some NYCHA units, one can imagine whole floors converted to SRO-type housing, though that would require working front door locks; the Housing Authority has often struggled to maintain these.
Among the most serious drawbacks to public housing has been the fact that it is a kind of frozen city — its sites cannot be adapted for new purposes even as the city has changed. The Ingersoll Houses were first built, for instance, to house shipyard workers at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, long since closed. Subdividing units is at most an “unfreezing,” but it could be a useful one.
Financing such internal reconstruction may even be practical. As now planned, NYCHA will include 140 of its 335 developments in its Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) renovation plans, through which private funds will be funneled into developments that remain publicly owned. (This is New York’s version of the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program initiated by the Obama Administration.) These extensive renovations could serve as vehicles for requests-for-proposal specifications that call for subdivision cost estimates and plans.
No tenant should be involuntarily evicted. But it’s worth considering using public funds to buy out long-time tenants — who might use the funds to help with relocation. It’s also worth considering whether larger scale buyouts in order to free up whole buildings on high-value real estate — to produce revenue NYCHA so desperately needs, including to undertake subdivision.
Subdivision could also help NYCHA in meeting a difficult challenge looming from a Trump Administration proposal: to impose a two-year time limit on public and subsidized housing tenancies. HUD Secretary Scott Turner has called this a way to ensure that subsidized housing is a “trampoline, not a hammock.” Creating new units from existing ones would provide a means to relocate tenants—and comply with the time limit by starting the clock anew.
It’s worth saying that NYCHA should want its non-elderly, non-disabled tenants to do what Turner suggests: move out and up. It will help, however, if those in desperate need of housing have a chance to move in at all. Creating new, small units that align with the preferences of those on waiting lists could provide that opportunity.