3 ms·

Manhattan could be much denser. Most of Manhattan is not skyscrapers or high rises. Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 mi

by travisp 10y ago

Manhattan could be much denser. Most of Manhattan is not skyscrapers or high rises. Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million. The current density of Manhattan itself is just 12 people per 5,000 square feet. There's plenty of room to grow, plus, why just consider Manhattan? Many of us are happy to live in the nearby boroughs (which are also, unfortunately, very limited in what they're allowed to build).

greenyoda 10y ago
"Manhattan could be much denser." One big problem with cramming more people into Manhattan is that putting up new buildings isn't sufficient. All those new residents will also need to get to work, further taxing a mass transit system whose aging infrastructure is already packed to capacity. Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. There are also issues like having adequate electricity for all these new residents - on a hot summer day, NYC operates dangerously close to peak power capacity, and all those new residents are going to want to have air conditioning too. "Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million." In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions. The number of single-person households has increased significantly since the 1950s, so my guess is that many of those 400K extra residents in 1950 were kids living with their parents, who didn't require apartments of their own and didn't commute to work by subway.
- travisp 10y ago
  > Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. This is true, but essentially making it illegal for new people to move here (by making it impossible to build anything new), doesn't seem to be an appropriate solution. Rather, the MTA should be more under control of the city rather than the state. Further, increased density (and therefore more taxes and subway revenue), should in a reasonable world make it easier to upgrade infrastructure. I get this concern, but the problems of infrastructure in NYC are primarily political, and punishing everyone (including people who just want to rent out their place when they go on a trip themselves), seems unjust. > In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions. Maybe not, but many young single people would love to be allowed to live in a modern 300 square foot microapartment in Manhattan.

by travisp 10y ago

greenyoda 10y ago

"Manhattan could be much denser." One big problem with cramming more people into Manhattan is that putting up new buildings isn't sufficient. All those new residents will also need to get to work, further taxing a mass transit system whose aging infrastructure is already packed to capacity. Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. There are also issues like having adequate electricity for all these new residents - on a hot summer day, NYC operates dangerously close to peak power capacity, and all those new residents are going to want to have air conditioning too. "Manhattan currently has a population of 1.6 million. In 1910, it has 2.3 million. In 1950, it had 2 million." In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions. The number of single-person households has increased significantly since the 1950s, so my guess is that many of those 400K extra residents in 1950 were kids living with their parents, who didn't require apartments of their own and didn't commute to work by subway.

travisp 10y ago
> Life would be much more pleasant for existing New Yorkers if the city upgraded its transit infrastructure before it allowed the building of massive numbers of new apartment buildings. This is true, but essentially making it illegal for new people to move here (by making it impossible to build anything new), doesn't seem to be an appropriate solution. Rather, the MTA should be more under control of the city rather than the state. Further, increased density (and therefore more taxes and subway revenue), should in a reasonable world make it easier to upgrade infrastructure. I get this concern, but the problems of infrastructure in NYC are primarily political, and punishing everyone (including people who just want to rent out their place when they go on a trip themselves), seems unjust. > In 1910, lots of people in NYC were living in tenements with multiple families packed into a couple of rooms. We really don't want to go back to those conditions. Maybe not, but many young single people would love to be allowed to live in a modern 300 square foot microapartment in Manhattan.