New York Has New Housing Tools. Now Comes the Hard Part.

Within a matter of weeks, New York City and New York state advanced a sweeping set of housing policy changes: Mayor Zohran Mamdani's Block by Block housing plan, the city’s Streamlining Procedures to Expedite Equitable Development (SPEED) report on cutting development timelines, and landmark State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) reforms at the state level.

This is a welcome burst of action following years of debate on how to accelerate affordable housing development. Together, these efforts represent a meaningful shift – not because any single proposal solves the housing crisis, but because they target the core problem that New York has made it too hard, too slow and too unpredictable to deliver housing.

For David Quart, Northeast Markets Development Lead at VHB, the takeaway is clear: New York is finally aligning around the right problems. The challenge is making the system work.

There's been a lot of housing policy news in a short period. Does this moment feel different from previous ones?

I do think it’s different, and it’s worth recognizing.

What we’re seeing is rare alignment. The city and state are moving in the same direction with reforms that reinforce each other. That does not happen often.

For years, the focus has been on the need for more housing, but action on policy at both the city and state levels didn’t match the rhetoric. What is encouraging now is the focus is also on delivery – how projects move through review, how agencies coordinate, how long approvals take and how much uncertainty gets built into the process.

This is where many good housing ideas either succeed or stall.

The SPEED report, adopted SEQRA reforms and Block by Block are different tools, but all point to the conclusion that New York cannot meet its housing goals unless the system becomes faster, more coordinated and more predictable.

That does not make implementation easy. But it does mean the conversation is finally centered on what matters – whether government can organize around community and developer needs to deliver at scale.

You have advised state housing leaders on SEQRA reform. Some critics worry that these reforms weaken environmental protections. Is that a real concern?

Environmental review exists for an important reason, to protect communities, infrastructure, natural resources and public health.

But I don’t believe these reforms weaken protections for the projects they apply to. They’re designed to separate lower-impact projects from those that still require deeper review.

Environmental reviews are essential, and the debate should not be whether the environmental review matters; it is finding a process that doesn’t create a “one-size-fits-all” policy.

The process should be focused on projects where the analysis genuinely shapes what gets built. A modest infill housing project on a former parking lot near transit is very different from a complex waterfront development project with major infrastructure issues. The process should recognize that difference.

A more targeted approach allows agencies to focus where it matters most – rigor where it is needed and efficiency where it is appropriate.

How does community engagement fit into a faster housing delivery process?

Speed and community engagement are often framed as competing goals, but they’re closely tied.

Projects slow down when engagement happens too late, and communities feel like they’re reacting to something already decided. That brings pushback and back-and forth on issues development partners could have addressed earlier.

Engaging earlier – being clear about what’s proposed, what tradeoffs exist and why – can make the process more predictable.

But engagement can’t become an open-ended process where every concern becomes a veto point. Consensus is rarely perfect, and if the conversation keeps resetting, projects won’t move forward.

The balance is taking input seriously, improving projects based on stakeholder input and then moving ahead. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

What has to go right in the next year for all of this to actually translate into housing?

Operationalizing is everything.

The city needs clear structures for implementation and decision-making: who owns the timeline, who resolves conflicts between agencies and who steps in when a project stalls.

The precertification process alone can add two or more years and significant developer costs before a shovel ever hits the ground. That has to change. More coordinated review, with agencies working in parallel and sharing accountability, is critical.

There also needs to be buy-in across agencies. From my experience at HPD and EDC, I know agency staff care deeply about protecting the public good. The task now is to channel that dedication into a process that remains rigorous but becomes more efficient and predictable across the full timeline.

The same urgency that led to these policies now needs to show up in implementation – through clear accountability, predictable timeframes, coordinated agencies, and leadership committed to making it happen.

Because at the end of the day, the measure of success is not how ambitious the policy is, but whether New Yorkers can actually move into the homes we need.