Affordability Is Not a Pricing Problem. It’s a Supply Problem, and Policy Keeps Missing the Root Cause.

Affordability has become the dominant lens through which New Yorkers talk about housing. It shaped the most recent mayoral campaign, and it has been the stated objective of housing policy for decades.

Yet despite sustained attention and repeated interventions, the cost of living, particularly rents, has continued to rise.

That’s not because policymakers lack intent. It’s because, time and time again, policy has failed to address the root driver of cost: supply.

At its core, housing affordability in New York is a math problem. Demand remains strong, and supply remains structurally constrained. According to the 2023 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, approximately 64% of the city’s housing stock is rental, with about 36% for-sale. Within the rental stock, only about 48% of units are free-market and unregulated, and the only segment that fully absorbs market pressure. The remaining 52% consists of rent-stabilized, rent-controlled, public, or subsidized housing.

Cost reallocation is not cost reduction

Recent legislation has focused mainly on redistributing costs within this constrained system. But reallocating costs within a fixed shortage does not increase supply.

The FARE Act illustrates this clearly. Its goal was to reduce the upfront cost of renting by preventing landlords from passing their broker fees to incoming tenants. In practice, many free-market landlords responded predictably: they passed that cost on to tenants in the monthly rent.

For renters who move frequently, this is beneficial. But for tenants who stay multiple years, the higher monthly rent can exceed the lifetime cost of a one-time broker fee. The expense wasn’t eliminated; it was capitalized over time, in some cases to the landlord’s benefit for longer-term tenants.

Similarly, the 2019 Tenant Protection Act, while providing important safeguards, reduced the economic feasibility of renovations and unit upgrades for some rent-stabilized properties. One unintended consequence has been the warehousing of inventory: apartments that physically exist but remain off-market because improving them no longer pencils out.

Again, the issue isn’t intent. It’s outcome.

The supply pipeline tells the real story

If affordability is the goal, the most important metric isn’t rent regulation or cost allocation; rather, housing production.

New York City’s overall rental vacancy rate now sits at 1.41%, the lowest level since 1968. But that headline number masks a more important reality: vacancy is highest at the top of the market and lowest where renters need housing the most.

A March 2024 analysis from the Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD) shows that while higher-rent units have measurable availability, the bottom of the market is effectively frozen. Only 7% of available vacant units rent for less than $1,100 per month, yet 65% of rent-burdened households would need rents at or below that level to no longer be rent-burdened. In raw terms, 703,628 households need rents under $1,100, but there are just 2,297 such units available citywide. To achieve a 5% vacancy rate across rent bands (high by NYC’s standards but not by national standards), the city would need more than seven times as many units renting below $2,400 as above it.

In other words, we have the least housing where renters need it most.

The development gap and what it reveals about incentives

Against that backdrop, the production data is concerning. According to the REBNY New Housing Development Pipeline Report:

• New York City has committed to 500,000 new housing units by 2034, yet as of Q3 2025, only 66,162 units had been completed since Q1 2024, roughly 13% of the goal.





• The city is completing approximately 9,452 units per quarter, while the required pace is 13,147 units per quarter, a 28% shortfall.





• The estimated housing gap now stands at 433,838 units, reframing affordability as a shortage rather than a pricing failure.





• 31% of pre-development units have been stalled for more than five years, suggesting that a meaningful share may never be delivered.





• With an average 3.4-year timeline from pre-filing to completion, today’s permitting and feasibility environment effectively serves as the affordability outlook for 2028 and beyond.

The permitting history behind these numbers reveals an additional, important pattern: housing supply in New York is highly sensitive to incentives.

The two largest spikes in permitted units over the past two decades occurred in 2015 and 2022, both immediately preceding the expiration of the 421-a tax program. In each case, tens of thousands of units were pulled forward as developers rushed to file projects that would otherwise not have been economically viable.

When those incentives expired, permitting fell sharply.  Not because demand disappeared, but because feasibility did. Projects were delayed, downsized, or abandoned altogether.

The takeaway is not that tax incentives alone solve affordability. It’s that without aligned incentives, supply has repeatedly failed to materialize at scale. In a high-cost, highly regulated environment like New York, incentives often determine whether housing is built at all.

This is the crux of the issue: policy has not moved the needle enough to ensure that sufficient housing actually gets built.

A necessary reality check

None of this is easy.

Increasing housing supply, especially in a dense, fully built-out city like New York, is complex, capital-intensive, and slow. It requires balancing safety, labor standards, environmental review, neighborhood concerns, and long-term resiliency. Those constraints are real, and they matter.

But difficulty does not change the underlying math.

If affordability is the objective, the conversation has to shift from whether we should increase supply to how we incentivize the right development, in the right places, while ensuring projects can be built effectively, safely, and cost-efficiently.

That means aligning policy with feasibility, so regulations, labor requirements, financing structures, and timelines work together rather than against one another. When development becomes economically unviable, supply doesn’t slow gradually; it stops.

Supply is not just about quantity, it’s about mix

Not all housing is interchangeable.

Just as not all food is created equal, not all apartments serve the same need. A studio does not solve the same problem as a two-bedroom. A luxury unit does not function the same way as more affordable housing. Affordability depends not only on how much we build, but what we build.

A healthy housing ecosystem requires the right mix of unit sizes, price points, and locations, so families, singles, workers, and retirees are not competing for the same limited inventory. When production slows or skews too heavily toward one segment, that mix deteriorates, and pressure cascades down to the most constrained and affordable parts of the market.

The question that should anchor the conversation

Affordability will remain central to New York’s political and economic future. But clarity matters.

A useful test for any housing proposal is straightforward:

Does this policy meaningfully increase the number of homes that will actually be built, and does it support the delivery of the right types of homes at the right price points? Or does it primarily reshuffle costs within an existing shortage?

Because in a city defined by renters and constrained by supply, we cannot regulate our way to affordability without expanding housing supply. 

To truly make renting in New York more affordable, we must build more housing, deliver the right mix, and do so consistently over time.

That is how affordability becomes structural, not symbolic.

Click here to connect with Jared Antin