Rethinking Affordable Housing in NYC: Can 485-x, LIHTC, and Zoning Reforms Truly Work Together?

by Esra Karagöz

Harnessing the power of AI-enhanced design, a new generation of MWBE innovators is leveraging visual coding and machine learning to strategically optimize zoning, unit mix, and capital stacking — delivering data-driven, neighborhood-specific housing solutions that challenge and outperform legacy development models.

New York City is at a pivotal moment in its effort to produce affordable housing. As the city grapples with a housing shortage, rising construction costs, and deepening inequality, a new generation of tools — including the 485-x tax abatement, City of Yes zoning reforms, MWBE mandates, and both 4% and 9% LIHTC programs — are meant to work in concert. But do they? After reviewing the full spectrum of these programs across different zones and project types, I’ve come to understand that while each tool addresses a specific challenge, the key to meaningful impact lies in how thoughtfully we layer them — and who we empower to lead the process.

Let’s begin with 485-x, the tax exemption that replaced the long-standing 421-a program in 2022. This new version aimed to correct the loopholes of its predecessor by adding stronger affordability requirements, geographic tailoring, and — importantly — prevailing wage and MWBE participation goals. In theory, it rewards housing production in areas that need it most, while ensuring that both labor and community benefit. But in practice, the way it’s applied across zones has created new frictions.

In strong-market areas like Manhattan, Gowanus, and Long Island City, 485-x requires both on-site affordable housing (often targeted at 60–80% AMI) and compliance with prevailing wage or union labor rules. Developers in these zones say the numbers don’t pencil out — not unless the project also secures additional subsidies like LIHTC, city capital loans, or vouchers. Meanwhile, smaller developers — particularly MWBE-certified firms — often lack the upfront capital and institutional backing to even compete for such layered financing. This has the unintended effect of reinforcing reliance on large, consultant-heavy development teams — the very same players whose models have produced formulaic, costly, and risk-averse housing for decades.

But here’s where I challenge that logic. What if the path forward isn’t bigger and safer — but smaller, faster, and smarter?

As a certified WBE (Women-Owned Business Enterprise), I believe that if the city truly supported the inclusion of small, innovative MWBE firms — not just on paper, but structurally — we could break out of the inefficiencies of status quo development. Many MWBEs operate lean, integrate architecture and project management under one roof, and aren’t stuck repeating the same outdated construction models. Our agility, creativity, and lower overhead should be seen as assets — not liabilities. We are already acting as consultants, design-build strategists, and community connectors. We’re not asking for a seat at the table — we’re building better ones.

And let’s be clear: MWBE inclusion isn’t optional in many public programs. City-financed projects through HPD and HDC require MWBE participation goals. But in as-of-right 485-x projects without public capital, those mandates can be circumvented — especially when developers use private equity or select in-house design teams. Even when MWBE goals exist, some developers treat them as checkbox requirements, outsourcing only low-fee scopes like signage or surveys while keeping core design and construction decisions in-house or within large firms. This isn't just a problem of compliance — it's a missed opportunity for real innovation.

Smart recalibration in action: Leveraging spatial data, zoning intelligence, and economic modeling, small MWBE teams can lead the shift toward affordable housing strategies that align feasibility with equity — proving that precision, not size, is the future of development.

So how do we rebalance?

We need policy fine-tuning. NYC already attempts to balance prevailing wage, affordability targets, and location economics by waiving wage requirements in weaker markets like The Bronx or parts of Staten Island. But in middle-market areas — where land is still relatively affordable but zoning allows density — the prevailing wage requirement can tip a project from feasible to infeasible. That’s where small MWBE teams, modular techniques, and integrated project delivery could step in — if empowered. Instead of relying on the same high-cost firms, let’s give smaller, nimble teams the chance to deliver better results.

Take the Bronx, for example. With lower land costs and flexibility around labor rules, this borough has become a hub for supportive housing projects using 9% LIHTC, city vouchers, and capital subsidies. Developers here often work with mission-driven teams and MWBEs. Meanwhile, in parts of Queens, like Jamaica and Flushing, zoning overlays and transit access create perfect conditions for mixed-income projects using 4% LIHTC, 485-x, and inclusionary zoning bonuses — provided the development team can strategically layer those tools.

City of Yes adds another layer of potential. By expanding zoning flexibility — especially through the Universal Affordability Preference (UAP) — developers in certain zones can increase FAR in exchange for deeper affordability. Yet to maximize that potential, we need these zoning bonuses to be paired with capital resources that MWBEs can actually access. Without it, zoning becomes permission without power.

Zoning without access is just permission without power. To unlock the full potential of tools like City of Yes and UAP, MWBE teams must be given the capital, coordination, and streamlined processes to lead — transforming fragmentation into integrated, innovation-first solutions.

Ultimately, the biggest issue isn’t the tools — it’s the fragmentation. LIHTC, 485-x, HPD programs, zoning bonuses, union mandates, and MWBE policies all operate in parallel, with different agencies, application cycles, and approval workflows. Even experienced developers struggle to braid them together. For small firms, the learning curve and administrative burden can be crushing. We need better inter-agency coordination, streamlined processes, and incentives that prioritize innovation, not repetition.

Because in today’s complex environment, the old way of doing things won’t deliver new results. Developers may have once favored large, risk-averse firms for their track record of repetition, but this is a different moment. The challenges are more nuanced. The trade-offs are more layered. And that means the solutions must be more creative — and more inclusive.

It’s time to stop treating MWBEs as peripheral contributors and recognize them as central problem-solvers. The housing crisis in NYC isn’t just about building more — it’s about building better. And to do that, we need new voices, new partnerships, and a city that’s willing to let the most innovative players lead.

Contact onE.GLobe

© 2025 by Esra Karagoz | All Rights Reserved.