The Road to Affordable Housing: How to Replace Highways with Homes in New York City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban highways cause significant air, water, and soil pollution that disproportionately harm low-income and nonwhite residents. Many urban highways are reaching the end of their useful life and would be extremely expensive to repair or replace. Cities around the world have removed urban highways to improve environmental outcomes and to avoid wasteful spending. While these teardowns have improved local and regional environmental quality and local traffic congestion, they have also led to increased land values near the retired rights of way. Without anti-displacement efforts, there is a risk that the very people who have been most harmed by urban highways will not be able to afford to remain in their neighborhoods once the highways have been removed. One potential anti-displacement measure would be to build a significant supply of affordable housing on any retired highway right of way. Cities and states already own this land, so local or state policymakers would be able to build more affordable and deeply affordable housing than is typically possible given high land costs in American cities. Removing a portion of a city’s highway system represents a unique opportunity to simultaneously improve environmental outcomes and counter the affordable housing crisis. This paper reviews the thicket of local, state, and federal laws that would be implicated if New York City and/or New York State undertook a project to replace a highway with affordable housing. City actors would be highly dependent on state and federal approval and would have to navigate the city’s arduous and politically charged land use review process. The governor of New York, however, has remarkable powers over state highways. The governor could unilaterally decommission any state-owned state highway, turn the right of way over to a state development authority, and then redevelop the right of way with affordable housing without going through the city’s land use review process or even adhering to local zoning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".