I work in this space on the economics side. This isn't true at all. Affordable housing set-asides reduce the developers' bidding power for land, meaning fewer parcels are bought for redevelopment.

Here's a paper that shows just how drastic the effect is. The incusionary zoning effect was so large that it outweighed the relaxation of the zoning code.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscape/vol25num2/ch11.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49404263)

Example: https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/area-median-income.page

When politicians and bureaucrats talk about "affordable housing", this latter specific definition is what they actually mean, although they often misleadingly imply the former idea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49404414)

The real question becomes not so much the supply of housing but why is housing so difficult to build in NYC or California or metro Boston or DC. Some can point to the lack of available new lands (in direct comparison to the sunbelt) but a major factor is indisputably regulation. It's why affordable housing is so expensive to build and often more expensive than free market middle class housing in less expensive parts of the country. And in this case I wish NYC best of luck. These overeducated Gen Zs are in for a rude shock if they think anything is going to change in the next four or eight years. They are certainly not first in the queue for the handful of new affordable housing units that may crop up under Mamdani or any progressive Democrats. So, yes, any new supply is a good thing, but it's not going to shift the needle in NYC.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49404244)

A PhD student at MIT calculated all the underbuilt lots in the city that are prime for redevelopment if regulations would allow.

https://vrollet.github.io/files/city_structure.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49404288)

https://maps.app.goo.gl/XbsUMLyyz52PYrKSA

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49404329)

even the 20/80 rule (which requires 20% to go to public space or real poors) wont do anything for the 100 remaining normal people in that city

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49404249)

If you're not smart or informed enough to do that, the post isn't for you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49405196)

Builders are just supposed to, what? Install fake wood paneling in the living rooms and add popcorn ceilings?

There' definitely an argument for loosening up zoning laws, but any politician who advocates for building lower income housing or requiring set asides should be bounced out of office tomorrow.

An obvious solution to alleviate this pressure would be to tax the hell out of any property that isn't a primary home. But for some reason politicians will only push for a small discount on this.

Like Mamdani's family pretty clearly has a bunch of homes - but he wants to point to builders and politicians as the problem rather than the fact that they have 3 houses that sit empty 330 days a year.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49405428)

something like 60% of 3 bedroom houses in the US are owned by boomers with an empty nest. and they're adding, not subtracting how much real estate they have.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5793860&forum_id=2#49405479)