Despite record-breaking housing production, New York City’s zoning and political structures keep steering new development into working-class neighborhoods while wealthier areas remain largely untouched. Rents are rising, long-time residents are being displaced, and new construction, concentrated in lower-income communities, isn’t enough to keep up with broader demand. As long as high-opportunity areas remain off-limits to new housing, the burden will continue falling on the people least able to absorb it.
In 2024, 33,974 homes were completed in new buildings across the five boroughs, including both market-rate and affordable units, the highest total since 1965, and the first time since 1966 that completions surpassed 30,000. Brooklyn accounted for 40% of the city’s new housing, while Manhattan trailed behind Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens for the third consecutive year. But while production is happening, it’s not happening evenly. New development continues to be concentrated in working-class and low-income neighborhoods, while wealthier areas with strong infrastructure and job access have largely shielded themselves from growth through zoning and legal resistance.
Where housing gets built, and who it’s built for, shapes the impact that an increased housing supply can have on the city. Working-class neighborhoods are seeing more construction, but much of it is targeted toward higher-income renters. With limited new housing in areas like the Upper East and Upper West Sides, wealthier renters are increasingly turning to the outer boroughs, where access to transit still offers convenient commutes, to find new homes. That dynamic intensifies demand in working-class neighborhoods, raising prices and accelerating displacement. If more housing were built in high-opportunity neighborhoods, even at market rates, it could help absorb demand that’s currently spilling into lower-income areas. In other words, building where we haven’t built before would relieve the pressure where it’s building up the most.
In SoHo, for example, a 2021 rezoning aimed at creating about 3,500 new apartments, including an estimated 900 affordable units, became one of the city’s most hotly contested land use debates. It was the first major rezoning under the de Blasio administration to focus on a wealthy, majority-white neighborhood after years of targeting lower-income Black and Latino areas. Opponents argued that the plan would encourage luxury development and alter the neighborhood’s character, even though most past rezonings have focused on historically marginalized communities. The backlash was so intense that lawsuits and protests continued even after the City Council’s approval.
The Upper West Side tells a similar story. A proposed 775-foot tower at 50 West 66th Street faced years of legal challenges, community petitions, and zoning appeals. Critics denounced the project’s use of oversized mechanical voids to inflate height, even though it complied with existing zoning. Meanwhile, at 200 Amsterdam, developers assembled a gerrymandered 39-sided zoning lot to push their tower to 668 feet, sparking a drawn-out legal battle that reached the New York Supreme Court. A judge initially ordered the top 20 floors removed, but the decision was reversed on appeal. These projects ultimately progressed but faced years of delays and increasing costs. It also sent the message that even by-right development encounters challenges in affluent areas.
On top of all this is the cost of simply getting housing approved and built. According to Turner & Townsend, it now costs more to build in New York City than anywhere else in the world, averaging $5,723 per square meter. Zoning changes can take more than two years through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), and lawsuits under environmental laws can add two or three more. That six-year timeline can raise construction costs by more than a third, adding up to $67,000 per unit. Delays make it nearly impossible to provide affordable and middle-income housing without significant subsidies. Consequently, many developers will likely build only in areas with minimal resistance.
In a city where the most powerful neighborhoods can stall or kill housing with lawsuits, design complaints, and procedural roadblocks, it’s no surprise developers default to building in communities with fewer resources to push back. That’s exactly what’s happening. Working-class neighborhoods that have historically absorbed new housing are now facing growing pressure as higher-income renters move in, driving up rents and putting long-term residents at risk of displacement.
Rising demand and limited options have created pressure across the entire income ladder, not just at the bottom. Much of the new housing that is built is targeted toward high-income renters or tied to deeply subsidized units, leaving little for those in the middle. This “missing middle” includes moderate-income earners who earn too much to qualify for programs like housing vouchers or income-restricted affordable units, but not enough to afford market-rate rent in most neighborhoods. With few options available, many remain in rent-stabilized or modest older units that might otherwise serve lower-income families, further tightening supply at the bottom of the market.
Even rent control, which is intended to provide stability, can have unintended side effects that worsen the crisis. Because the benefit is tied to the unit instead of the renter, some tenants hold onto deeply discounted homes regardless of income level. Many of these apartments never return to the open market. And as demand spills over into the remaining unregulated stock, market rents climb even faster. Ironically, this pushes affordability further out of reach for the very people rent control was intended to help.
So yes, more housing is needed, but not just anywhere. The city continues to greenlight growth in specific neighborhoods while others remain off-limits, protected by outdated rules and political resistance. That uneven pattern deepens inequality and worsens the crisis for those already struggling.
To move forward, New York needs a more consistent, citywide framework that prevents wealthier areas from opting out of growth. That could mean strengthening state-level zoning mandates, reforming ULURP to limit discretionary approvals, or setting baseline density requirements for high-opportunity neighborhoods. Until the same rules apply across the board, efforts to address the housing crisis will continue to encounter the same roadblocks.