In thinking about planning in relation to the future of NYC, the article on DiBlasio’s plan was something of a tease.  It opened up with this great proposal; new lost-cost homes, opportunities for those being priced-out of their city, and offers a solution to the problem presented by a raise in rents by 75% with an insufficient wage rage at only 31% from 2002 to 2012.  DiBlasio incorporates inclusionary zoning, which sounds great as it would demand that new construction allot space for affordable housing aimed at lower incomes.  An interesting point in the definition of this concept, however, is that inclusionary zoning dictates that zoning is currently ex-clusionary.

Thus, while it has some positive results and seems like an appeasing strategy, inclusionary zoning may do more harm that good.  Looking at the long-term effects, IZ encourages a domino-effect of causes and effects that in conclusion would displace more than it houses.  Neighborhoods are up zoned, rent-stabilized housing is sold off to big developers by landlords, tenants are evicted, and buildings are knocked down and build back up as more expensive and rich housing.

The article is harsh on DiBlasio’s plan, but doesn’t really offer up any better solutions.  Rather, the opinion is that affordable housing is a contraction and will never be successful as long as there is a profit.  The one promising suggestion made, however, is that on public housing, which not only provides affordable living, but also combats gentrification by taking the land off the market.  This got me thinking about a statistic I read previously regarding Vienna’s famous public housing plan.

In Vienna, housing is both aesthetically pleasing as well as affordable, offering many amenities and luxuries, while still catering to the majority, which is lower-income inhabitants.  This is gone by total government involvement in housing, and in their opinion, “…housing is a human right so important that it shouldn’t be left up to the free market.”  Almost half of the city’s housing stock is owned/influence by the government, which allows for residents to enjoy a way of living what would otherwise only be reserved for the well-off.  Inexpensive rent, yes, but also renter’s rights to an [attractive] home, renter’s voices in the decision making processes, renter’s rights in living in their city.

Perhaps Vienna owes the success of their situation to an early established philosophy; residents are linked to their community and the city through design, in which, “It was always about the city. It was about not just providing private living space but also public living space to people for whom they were also providing housing.”  The people and their diversity are just as important in the establishment of the building as the economic and aesthetic factors are.  With admission, speculative residents need merely meet the income requirement to move in after being on a short waiting list, but don’t ever have to move out, which means that the housing units never become ghettos.  Logistically, the plan is executed when city-owned land is sold at an affordable price to developers, who are also give a quite nice loan which covers most of the project cost and doesn’t require pay off for a long time.  The caveat: developers provide half their residences for rent.

Maybe we can learn a thing or two from this, and take away some philosophies regarding housing and how the idea is about incorporate people into their city.  Vienna has had a jump-start; their historical political movements have spurred these plans and concepts that have centered around a strong government force in society, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that planning can be about the good for the people through encouraged diversity and building for the lower-class (Jacobian) and having a powerful source of command over the city’s domain (Mosesian) produces something rather incredible.

http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/gov-affordable-luxurious-housing-in-vienna.html