A Bold Promise With Strings Attached
New York’s plan to transform 5 Times Square into 1,250 homes, including 313 affordable units, has grabbed headlines. Governor Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams call it a vital step to ease the housing crisis. Yet, beneath the fanfare, this project reveals a troubling trend: state officials overriding local communities to push a top-down vision. The real question is whether this approach helps New Yorkers or simply tightens Albany’s grip on the city’s future.
By scrapping the 60-year-old 12 Floor Area Ratio cap, the state has cleared the way for massive office-to-housing conversions. It sounds practical, but it sidesteps the people who live and work in these neighborhoods. Local voices, the ones best equipped to shape their communities, are being drowned out by decisions made far from Times Square. Why should Albany get to redraw New York City’s skyline?
The project’s scale is staggering, repurposing nearly a million square feet of office space. It promises jobs, transit access, and new homes. But the cost of this ambition is steep. Tax incentives and zoning changes risk destabilizing the housing market and eroding property values. New Yorkers deserve a plan that respects their communities, not one that treats them as pawns in a state-driven experiment.
Affordable Housing or Developer Handouts?
The 313 affordable units at 5 Times Square are the centerpiece of this plan. They’re meant to offer relief to New Yorkers crushed by rising rents. But with a national shortage of 7.1 million affordable homes for low-income renters, as reported by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 313 units feel like a token gesture. Is this really the bold solution we’re being sold?
The state’s 467-m tax incentive program, which fuels this project, offers developers up to 35 years of property tax exemptions. That’s a massive boon for private companies, not a direct win for renters. If the housing market is as desperate as claimed, why not let builders meet demand without public subsidies skewing the process? The market has proven it can deliver when left alone.
History offers a clearer path. In the 1990s, New York’s 421-g tax incentive converted 12,865 office units into homes by working with market forces, not against them. Today’s reliance on heavy subsidies and state mandates feels like a misstep. Instead of empowering developers to innovate, Albany’s tying their hands with red tape and taxpayer-funded perks.
The Hidden Costs of Good Intentions
Supporters tout the project’s transit-friendly location, with access to 12 subway lines, as a model for sustainable growth. Yet transit-oriented development doesn’t always deliver. Nashville’s All-Access Corridors, backed by federal funds, haven’t significantly cut car use. If similar efforts fall short, why bet so heavily on this one? New Yorkers need practical solutions, not unproven promises.
The economic trade-offs are just as concerning. The project may create 1,400 construction jobs, but most are temporary. The 830 permanent jobs projected include low-wage roles, offering little long-term gain. Meanwhile, the state’s 30 percent MWBE participation goal, while well-intentioned, often drives up costs. Taxpayers end up subsidizing these mandates, while developers pocket the benefits.
Neighborhoods around Times Square face the biggest risk. High-density projects can lower nearby property values, especially when zoning changes disrupt community character. States like Utah and Florida have boosted housing through local reforms, not state decrees. New York’s approach, by contrast, dismisses the local input that keeps communities strong.
A Smarter Path to Housing
There’s a better way to tackle the housing crisis. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 emphasizes local control, letting communities decide their own zoning and development rules. A market-driven approach, free from excessive subsidies, would spark competition and lower costs. With 5 Times Square’s 77 percent office vacancy rate, developers don’t need Albany’s nudging to see the opportunity.
The post-pandemic office market proves the point. CBRE notes that vacancy rates are nearing 19 percent, but cities like Nashville are rebounding by enhancing downtown appeal, not mandating conversions. New York could follow suit, prioritizing safety, amenities, and streamlined permitting to draw investment naturally.
The housing shortage demands action, no doubt. But state-led subsidies and zoning overhauls aren’t the answer. They breed inefficiency and resentment. Empowering local governments and freeing the private sector to build will deliver homes that New Yorkers can actually afford.
Reclaiming New York’s Future
The 5 Times Square project sums up what’s wrong with New York’s housing strategy: too much control, too little trust in communities. Hochul’s $1 billion City of Yes initiative and $25 billion housing plan are packed with good intentions but bogged down by bureaucracy. Every tax dollar spent on developer handouts is a dollar not improving schools or streets.
New Yorkers need a housing market that works for them, not one shaped by state officials chasing legacy projects. The solution lies in local decision-making and market freedom, not Albany’s heavy-handed schemes. It’s time to rethink this approach and put communities back in charge.
Will we let state overreach reshape our cities, or will we fight for a future that trusts New Yorkers to build their own way? The stakes are high, and the choice is ours. Let’s choose wisely.