Evaluation of NYCHA Public Housing
Opportunities for Social Mobility Improvement
Fall 2018
GSAPP Planning Core Course, Columbia University
Instructor: Leah Meisterlin, Kaz Sakamoto, Clara Chung
Group Work
Background and Scope of Study
Established in 1935, New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) dedicates to provide decent, affordable housing for low- and moderate-income New Yorkers. With 326 developments housing more than 400,000 people, NYCHA is the largest public housing authority in the nation (NYCHA, 2018). Considering the great scale of its accomplishment, this research aims to evaluate NYCHA projects through another lens: the provision of opportunities by public housing development that could enhance the residents’ social mobility.
This study targets at the 326 NYCHA public housing developments in New York City. Since most of the data collected are updated to 2018 with only one exception which is the American Community Survey 5-year Estimate in 2016, the temporal scale is defined in the year of 2018.
Research Questions
(1) Which public housing projects in New York are of high quality in terms of the opportunities provided for enhancing social mobility?
(2) In contrast, which projects are of low quality and require more improvement and investment?
(3) Finally, is there any spatial distribution pattern of the low-quality public housing projects in New York City? To be specific, is there any area where the low-quality public housing projects tend to concentrate?
NYCHA Development
Criteria / Indicators / Measurements
Based on the theoretical framework, five criteria are chosen. Each criterion will then be represented by chosen indicators. To assess the indicators, different means of measurement will be applied, and scores will be given accordingly.
Each indicator will be evaluated with scores ranging from 0 to 5. By applying map algebra, the five decision layers will make up a ranked decision model with scores ranging from 0 to 25. Higher scores of the public housing projects imply more opportunities of social mobility for the residents, whereas lower scores imply that the housing projects are located in a more segregated com
munity district, and that the residents have relatively limited access to public libraries, healthcare facilities, parks, subway stations and bus stations.
Based on the theoretical framework, five criteria are chosen. Each criterion will then be represented by chosen indicators. To assess the indicators, different means of measurement will be applied, and scores will be given accordingly.
Each indicator will be evaluated with scores ranging from 0 to 5. By applying map algebra, the five decision layers will make up a ranked decision model with scores ranging from 0 to 25. Higher scores of the public housing projects imply more opportunities of social mobility for the residents, whereas lower scores imply that the housing projects are located in a more segregated com
munity district, and that the residents have relatively limited access to public libraries, healthcare facilities, parks, subway stations and bus stations.
Decision Layers
The main body of this research is constituted of a multi-criteria decision analysis with five decision layers that show:
with each criteria represented by selected indicators shown on the right.
Each of the decision layers assigns a score ranging from 0 to 5 to each NYCHA public housing development. A ranked model adds up the scores of the five layers and yield the final score ranging from 0 to 25, indicating the quality of the public housing developments in New York City.
The main body of this research is constituted of a multi-criteria decision analysis with five decision layers that show:
A: the level of residential segregation;
B: the accessibility to public transit;
C:the accessibilit
y to public libraries;
D: healthcare facilities;
E: to public open space;
with each criteria represented by selected indicators shown on the right.
Each of the decision layers assigns a score ranging from 0 to 5 to each NYCHA public housing development. A ranked model adds up the scores of the five layers and yield the final score ranging from 0 to 25, indicating the quality of the public housing developments in New York City.
The first criterion is the level of residential segregation among different races and economic classes. The geographical unit is community district which is appropriate for analyzing the interaction among diverse groups. It starts with a Getis-Ord Gi* analysis based on the percentage of people belonging to each minority group (Black, Asian, and others for races, and people with income below the poverty level for classes) in each block group then averages the absolute Bin Value to each community district. Finally, the score is assigned back to housing projects located within each community district and reclassified into the range 0 - 5 with a higher degree of segregation being assigned with a lower value.
Score of Residential Segregation for Community Districts with NYCHA Developments
Criteria B: Accessibility to Public Transit
The second criteria is the accessibility to public transit systems, with two indicators: the subway and the bus.
The major methodology applied is the network analysis. It starts by creating a series of five service areas from each NYCHA point. Then, an original score is assigned to each service area based on its distance from the point. Next is to apply spatial join to get the count of the transportation facilities that fall inside each service area. The final score of each service area is calculated by multiplying its original score and the count of facilities. The scores of the five service areas are added up and assigned back to NYCHA point. Finally, the scores of the two decision layers are remapped, added up, and remapped again so that the final score ranges from 0 to 5.
![]()
The second criteria is the accessibility to public transit systems, with two indicators: the subway and the bus.
The major methodology applied is the network analysis. It starts by creating a series of five service areas from each NYCHA point. Then, an original score is assigned to each service area based on its distance from the point. Next is to apply spatial join to get the count of the transportation facilities that fall inside each service area. The final score of each service area is calculated by multiplying its original score and the count of facilities. The scores of the five service areas are added up and assigned back to NYCHA point. Finally, the scores of the two decision layers are remapped, added up, and remapped again so that the final score ranges from 0 to 5.
Criteria C: Accessibility to Public Libraries
In order to evaluate the accessibility to public libraries, the method of Two Step Floating Catchment Area (2SFCA) is used to take the walking distance, the capacity of facilities, as well as the demand for these facilities into consideration. A more detailed elaboration on this method (2SFCA) is provided below:
In order to evaluate the accessibility to public libraries, the method of Two Step Floating Catchment Area (2SFCA) is used to take the walking distance, the capacity of facilities, as well as the demand for these facilities into consideration. A more detailed elaboration on this method (2SFCA) is provided below:
Score of NYCHA’s Accessibility to Public Libraries
Criteria D/E: Accessibility to Healthcare Facilities / Parks
The methodology applied to evaluate the accessibility of healthcare facilities and parks is also 2SFCA. The supply of healthcare facilities is defined in as building areas, and the supply of parks as park areas. The demands of both resources are defined as
the population covered in the service area, with a radius of 5 miles for healthcare facilities and 0.5 mile for parks.
An additional step is adopted to separate the parks to two types to create service areas for parks,Parks smaller than 50 acres uses their centroid to generate service areas. Parks beyond 50 acres have their boundaries divided every 2,000-feet to create endpoints, Only endpoints that are within 110 feet from the road are selected as the access points of the parks to create service areas.
![]()
![]()
The methodology applied to evaluate the accessibility of healthcare facilities and parks is also 2SFCA. The supply of healthcare facilities is defined in as building areas, and the supply of parks as park areas. The demands of both resources are defined as
the population covered in the service area, with a radius of 5 miles for healthcare facilities and 0.5 mile for parks.
An additional step is adopted to separate the parks to two types to create service areas for parks,Parks smaller than 50 acres uses their centroid to generate service areas. Parks beyond 50 acres have their boundaries divided every 2,000-feet to create endpoints, Only endpoints that are within 110 feet from the road are selected as the access points of the parks to create service areas.
Findings
Generally speaking, the result has indicated a moderately low-quality of public housing developments by NYCHA in New York City with an average score of 12 out of 25. The highest-score development is Lehman Village located at 1641 Madison Avenue in Manhattan, and the lowest-score developments are Prospect Plaza (Phase II) at 1750 Prospect Pl in Brooklyn, Unity Plaza (Sites 17, 24, 25A) at Blake Avenue and Georgia Avenue in Brooklyn, FHA Repossessed Houses (Group IX) on Remington Street, Princeton Street, and the 147th street.
![Final Scores of NYCHA Developments]()
Final Scores of NYCHA Development
Spatial Analytics
A Getis-Ord Gi* analysis on local clustering pattern of the high-and low-quality public housing projects is conducted to identify the areas for clusters. As shown in the maps on the left, the high-score housing projects tend to concentrate in the north of Manhattan. In comparison to that, some low-quality developments tend to concentrate in the eastern part of Brooklyn.
![Gi-Bin Value Generated in Getis-Ord Gi* Analysis]()
Future Recommendation
There are a number of implications derived from this study that may serve as recommendations for future policies. Firstly, a generally poor-to-moderate quality of public housing developments in New York City should arouse our attention to public housing and especially how they provide opportunities for the residents to move upward the social hierarchy.
Secondly, the accessibility to library resources remains to be one of the most prominent issues for public housing and the site selection for public libraries in the future should take this need into consideration.
Thirdly, there does exist spatial inequality in terms of the public housing quality. While developments in Manhattan tend to have a better performance, those in Brooklyn and Queens are, nevertheless, more likely to suffer from poor quality, which should make these two boroughs priorities in future policies regarding public housing. Finally, there is also a concentration of low-quality public housing observed in east Brooklyn, Therefore, this area deserves special attention in terms of possible investment and improvement of public housing.
︎See Full Report
Generally speaking, the result has indicated a moderately low-quality of public housing developments by NYCHA in New York City with an average score of 12 out of 25. The highest-score development is Lehman Village located at 1641 Madison Avenue in Manhattan, and the lowest-score developments are Prospect Plaza (Phase II) at 1750 Prospect Pl in Brooklyn, Unity Plaza (Sites 17, 24, 25A) at Blake Avenue and Georgia Avenue in Brooklyn, FHA Repossessed Houses (Group IX) on Remington Street, Princeton Street, and the 147th street.
Final Scores of NYCHA Development
Spatial Analytics
A Getis-Ord Gi* analysis on local clustering pattern of the high-and low-quality public housing projects is conducted to identify the areas for clusters. As shown in the maps on the left, the high-score housing projects tend to concentrate in the north of Manhattan. In comparison to that, some low-quality developments tend to concentrate in the eastern part of Brooklyn.
Gi-Bin Value Generated in
Getis-Ord Gi* Analysis
Future Recommendation
There are a number of implications derived from this study that may serve as recommendations for future policies. Firstly, a generally poor-to-moderate quality of public housing developments in New York City should arouse our attention to public housing and especially how they provide opportunities for the residents to move upward the social hierarchy.
Secondly, the accessibility to library resources remains to be one of the most prominent issues for public housing and the site selection for public libraries in the future should take this need into consideration.
Thirdly, there does exist spatial inequality in terms of the public housing quality. While developments in Manhattan tend to have a better performance, those in Brooklyn and Queens are, nevertheless, more likely to suffer from poor quality, which should make these two boroughs priorities in future policies regarding public housing. Finally, there is also a concentration of low-quality public housing observed in east Brooklyn, Therefore, this area deserves special attention in terms of possible investment and improvement of public housing.
︎See Full Report
Kari Gao | New York | 2020