It's highly unlikely. The tax benefits are enormous and last twenty years. I'd be very happy if developers choose to forgo them but I don't think it is going to happen.
See my post above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9826916). The break itself is pretty significant and, if I read it correctly, would also make their rate static/predictable for a long period. That is pretty tempting for developers.
How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same building? Assuming both rich and poor have to pay the same rent, it would be either too much for the poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will move to a more upscale property). The "segregation" just happens naturally.
receive a tax break for offering some units to low-income tenants
Literally the second sentence of the article. On top of that, units in the same building often cost vastly different amounts of money depending on the height, the view, etc.
I was talking in general, not New York specifically. Of course if a third party (the government in this case) basically pays the difference, anything can happen. But it seems like it's because you can't just build new housing in New York City, so existing houses have to accomodate the poor, which is a pretty unique situation.
I've seen buildings with separate doors and some without that have low income units. Even in the same building, the low income units are not as nice (e.g. no in-unit washer dryer, no stainless steel appliances, cheaper fixtures). Also, some buildings only provide keys to the gym and other common areas for non-low income. But I think they got in trouble for that and may have stopped.
>How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same ship? Assuming both rich and poor have to pay the same fare, it would be either too much for the poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will use a more exclusive vessel). The "segregation" just happens naturally.
My guess is that the rents in the building are not uniform.