Policy Research
Live demoManhattan CB9 Housing & Supportive Resources Analysis
Data-driven housing affordability and Fair Share analysis for Manhattan Community Board 9, including a revised decision framework for project evaluation.
Role: Community Planning Fellow, Fund for the City of New York (Manhattan Community Board 9)
Visual evidence
Embedded preview of the working product. The iframe stays off until you load it. Open full-screen for the complete walkthrough.
The live demo is a third-party site. It is not loaded until you ask, so this page stays fast and private by default.
Situation
CB9 needed quantitative evidence that regional AMI-based "affordable" units and supportive housing siting patterns do not match neighborhood income realities or Fair Share goals in West Harlem.
Decision question
Do AMI-based “affordable” units and supportive-housing siting match West Harlem income realities and Fair Share goals?
Data and constraints
ACS tract income, a 12-project housing inventory (2014–2026), and a geocoded services layer; AMI labels do not equal neighborhood-relative affordability.
Method
Integrated ACS tract-level income data, a 12-project housing inventory with standardized AMI affordability testing, and a geocoded mental health/support services ecosystem. Quantified the AMI mismatch and supportive housing concentration, then translated findings into a tiered evaluation system and policy recommendations for board action.
Tools
- American Community Survey
- GIS / geocoded service inventory
- Housing pipeline database (2014- 2026)
- Data dictionaries & governance practices
- Policy decision framework design
Deliverables
- In-depth CB9 housing and supportive resources report
- Analytical memo on AMI and housing research kickoff
- Decision-making framework and policy recommendations
- Documented data sources and reproducibility notes
- Public project site
Outcome / decision value
- Identified a deep affordability gap: across 12 pipeline projects (2014- 2026), units marketed as affordable required incomes averaging $81,102 above the CB9 median income- a 125% affordability gap relative to neighborhood income.
- Highlighted severe cost burden in high-poverty tracts (e.g., Tract 219 / Manhattanville Houses, where 71.8% of renters are severely cost-burdened).
- Recommended prioritizing deep affordability at or below 30- 50% AMI and resisting further concentration of supportive housing without Fair Share accountability.
Lessons learned
- Regional AMI can hide a local affordability gap large enough to change a board’s decision rule.
- Documented dictionaries and version control are part of the analysis, not a footnote.