11 ms·

Firms envision ways for New York to absorb 9M residents

44 points by wallflower 10y ago

Retric 10y ago
Is it just me or do these all seem terrible? New transit + zoning can lead development to new areas. Add subways from queens to Manhattan and things will change dramatically, without focusing on mostly cosmetic changes. Want real changes? Extend that all the way to Manhasset.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  This is what multiple items on the list already suggest. Relating to the first proposal, from Gensler, there already exists a proposal called the Triboro RX[0] to add transit along existing freight rail lines that run from the Bronx through Maspeth and Bushwick, ending up in Bay Ridge. This sort of project, if implemented well, would bring people and development to these areas. Unfortunately, it's difficult to obtain money for a prospective project such as the RX that wouldn't immediately benefit existing NYC residents. One could make a case that residents of transit-starved Maspeth would appreciate the new train line, but they also might be politically opposed, as it would bring upheaval and development to the neighborhood. Aecom's proposal also suggests new transit: that 1 train extension could make a big difference. Red Hook has always been transit-starved, but, as with Maspeth, I can see grassroots opposition to the community upheaval that would result from a 1 train extension. Perkins + Will's proposal to rezone the Newtown Creek industrial zone would meet more of the residential need in the Bushwick area, but the transit in that region is not yet sufficient to meet a huge influx of new residents: the L and the M are already heavily loaded. The bus network would prove less useful than expected for interesting historical reasons: NYC's bus network exists along legacy streetcar routes that abruptly terminate along borough borders (for what I imagine were political regions prior to borough unification in 1898), and this section of Bushwick lies along the Brooklyn/Queens border. So, the bus lines in the area don't always make sense or take you where you need to go. Some of the other ideas don't really relate to handling an influx of 9M residents, but are in the Robert Moses vein of improvements (i.e. leveraging existing yet overlooked details creatively to benefit the public), particularly the "under highway" public space and the "subway stations as public plazas" ideas. The Javits Center and schoolyards ideas are kind-of silly, and the suspended tram line, while a cool idea, wouldn't be worth the money. [0]: http://library.rpa.org/interactive/the-triboro/ http://library.rpa.org/interactive/the-triboro/
- melling 10y ago
  Yep, more subways should do the trick. Include NJ so we need fewer buses to Manhattan. Tear down the bus station and put a smaller one in NJ; you'll get back two city blocks. If you really want to push the limits, throw in low-speed maglev so reduce rush hour commute time: http://www.china.org.cn/business/2016-11/01/content_39610565.htm http://www.china.org.cn/business/2016-11/01/content_39610565... Something that travels at 100mph would allow much farther commutes to Manhattan.
gremlinsinc 10y ago
Never been to NY, but I think they should focus more on stemming the impact from global warming than anything else... New York is estimated to be completely underwater in less than 80 years. If that happens they might want to look to Vienna for ideas on transportation, as boats will be the only mode available.
- Retric 10y ago
  Huge stretches of the Netherlands are below sea level, for some of the most expensive real estate in the world it's not going to be an issue. Further NYC is higher than you might think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/new-york-city-sea-level-rise_n_6700320.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/new-york-city-sea-l...
- vermontdevil 10y ago
  I think you mean Venice?
- krschultz 10y ago
  I live in NYC. I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, rising oceans are a big concern. That said I think the solution will be pretty simple. When we have to, humans are really good at moving dirt. We do it less often now because of the impact on the environment, but if there was a will then it's solveable. I would expect to see a dike ringing Manhattan in my lifetime. The city is currently encircling Manhattan with a "greenway" which is basically a strip of bike lanes & walking paths. Imagine that, but raised 20 feet. I think the same treatment will be useful for Brooklyn & Queens. I would close off some of the rivers that go into the boroughs (e.g. the Gowanus) to make the area that needs to be closed off smaller. That will be a bit disruptive to some industrial sites, but nothing crazy. All of this works because each square mile of NYC is worth so much money and has been built up. I'd worry a lot more about suburban coastal areas where the density doesn't rally support building protection on that level. The urban areas will justify it, but if you live on the beach in NJ or LI, rising sea levels will be a major problem.
pdog 10y ago
> The city has not completed projects on the scale of Robert Moses since his tenure. Good. I think we all learned our lesson from Robert Moses the first time around... > It's time for New York to think big again. No! Think small, local, and build from a bottom-up design.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > Think small, local, and build from a bottom-up design What does this mean, practically?
  - potatolicious 10y ago
    Can't speak for OP, but I take it to mean what Jane Jacobs was a proponent of, and what has been the opposite of modern American urban planning until now. The general trend in American urban planning has been highly prescriptivist and precise. Suburbs often have bylaws that prevent "too many" businesses of a particular sort in an area. It's based on a very centrally-planned vision for cities where you get your groceries from there, your haircuts there, and entertain yourself at that entertainment complex. Using a place against its original planner's precisely envisioned purpose is verboten. No, you can't have another supermarket in the neighborhood. No, there is already another coffee shop too close to this proposed one. No, you can't repurpose this land for a playground, because the children are supposed to play over there. Urban areas experience it too - if you've worked in a modern American downtown you've no doubt walked by the countless plazas that are deserted. Benches and tables that looked real good on the architectural renderings but are severely disused. Big office buildings fronted by "public space" that not even its own tenants use regularly. This has been especially severe in public housing projects - they were designed with idyllic parkland and courtyards, which their designers envisioned as isolated utopias, but ultimately ended up being deserted, dangerous, and hotbeds of crime, because they were never where people wanted to be, and was just void space. The opposite of this is something that resembles more of the free market - mixed use, relaxed zoning, so that the community can decide the amenities and businesses it needs. Maybe there should be a second supermarket, maybe that empty lot could be a playground. The struggle between top-down prescriptivist and bottom-up market-like urban planning is a huge one. In many ways Americans crave the efficiency, character, and benefits of living in the bottom-up neighborhood, but also crave the precise, reliable, and ordered nature of top-down cities.
dashundchen 10y ago
Why not better connect NYC with Upstate, Central and Western New York, and shed some of the development pressure there? If there were a true high speed rail connection to smaller, much lower cost metros it might make them more attractive as branch office/commuter cities. Amtrak as it is now frequently takes 8-9+ hours to get to across the state to Buffalo. Much slower than driving the Thruway. Intercity Amtrak service is poor due to: * Ancient rails * Large stretches of single track * Passenger rail deferring to freight * Reduced speeds due to degraded bridges and track beds, and outdated signaling A modern, dedicated track for passenger rail could be fit mostly in the existing right of way. This alone would greatly improve service. In the past few years New York State investigated several options for statewide rail improvements, and unfortunately ruled out any true high speed options. But even the most expensive improvements under consideration at $15 billion are cheaper than projects in NYC such as the Second Avenue subway (estimated completion at $17 billion for 8.5 miles!) https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751-Home/S93751--Repository/ECHSR_Public_Hearing_Brochure.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_high-speed_rail#Projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_high-speed_rail#Proje... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway
- soulnothing 10y ago
  I was in New York several months ago. I'm by no means familiar with the city, but came across a new development area Hudson Yards. There was an initiative to leave alot of room for new subway. To start with, this is more NJ to NY. But still. https://nec.amtrak.com/content/hudson-tunnel-project https://nec.amtrak.com/content/hudson-tunnel-project http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/ http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/ From what I was reading, alot of the area or new buildings is elevated. To allow for new subway and rail lines. http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/hudson-yards-city-on-stilts/ http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/hudson-yards-city-on-stilts/ There are also new units in this area. But what is the price, and how afforadble will they be. There are new apartments coming up. But how many are bare essential without amenties. Where they push forward cheap living. Rather than a lavish experience. http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/live/ http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/live/ Even with all this I look at Amtrak, and I don't see it. I mean it feels upscale compared to public transit. By that I mean there are bathrooms, cafe, business class, more comfortable chairs etc. This is priced as premium service to me. So when I look at Amtrak it's great, but it's priced out of line for a daily commute option. Daily commute, high transit is a sardine can. Pack people in tight, ship em as quickly as you can from A -> B. Some Quick Points One Way to Philadelphia * Public Transit 8$ @ 1 -> 1.5 hours * Amtrak Peak Hours 10 Minutes 50$(NE Regional) 75$(Acela) * Amtrak Non Peak 10 Minutes 100$(NE Regional) 125$(Acela) This is not New York, but I saw similar prices NYC to Phil. Look at their Monthly pass about 700$. For me DE -> Philadelphia I pay 250$ a month in transit fares. If we look at either of those numbers my base house rent is 1k in DE. I add in the cheap public transit option. I can get a no frills apartment, 15 to 20 minutes from work, compared to a 2.5 hour ride. Add in the premium frills travel package. I can get something fancier closer to center city. This is completely barring the constant budgetary issues with the public transit. That they're not making enough to support their employees. Risking constant strikes. It's cyclical. The cost of living goes up, the public transit employees need more money to live. Fares go up, and people are pushed further away. https://www.amtrak.com/take-the-trains-across-america-with-usa-rail-pass https://www.amtrak.com/take-the-trains-across-america-with-u... This is not dismissing public transit, or high speed rail. I would love to see it. But the infrastructure investment and end cost, is difficult to figure out. When I add in the cost for a monthly pass/frequent rider program. The time to travel, and everything else. Why not pay just a bit more and live near work.
pj_mukh 10y ago
San Francisco needs to re-orient its processes to include this sort of urbanization desperately.
Animats 10y ago
Wimpy proposals. In 1924, there was a proposal to fill in the East River, diverting the water to the Hudson. Now that was thinking big. The article has one of those conceptual drawings of super-lightweight monorail structures. There's nothing wrong with monorails; lots of cities in Asia have them. But the rail is far more bulky than that drawing. Here's a real suspended monorail, in Chiba.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0QXyYG3Yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0QXyYG3Yo
hasbroslasher 10y ago
Yeah, let's invest a bunch of money in this city that's going to be underwater in ~50 years. I imagine it'd work to just build upstate a ways instead of focus so much energy on the parts of the city directly facing the water.
- krschultz 10y ago
  No matter what you think will happen with global warming, there is a 0% chance we're going to let NYC go underwater.

44 points by wallflower 10y ago

Is it just me or do these all seem terrible? New transit + zoning can lead development to new areas. Add subways from queens to Manhattan and things will change dramatically, without focusing on mostly cosmetic changes. Want real changes? Extend that all the way to Manhasset.

Nav_Panel 10y ago
This is what multiple items on the list already suggest. Relating to the first proposal, from Gensler, there already exists a proposal called the Triboro RX[0] to add transit along existing freight rail lines that run from the Bronx through Maspeth and Bushwick, ending up in Bay Ridge. This sort of project, if implemented well, would bring people and development to these areas. Unfortunately, it's difficult to obtain money for a prospective project such as the RX that wouldn't immediately benefit existing NYC residents. One could make a case that residents of transit-starved Maspeth would appreciate the new train line, but they also might be politically opposed, as it would bring upheaval and development to the neighborhood. Aecom's proposal also suggests new transit: that 1 train extension could make a big difference. Red Hook has always been transit-starved, but, as with Maspeth, I can see grassroots opposition to the community upheaval that would result from a 1 train extension. Perkins + Will's proposal to rezone the Newtown Creek industrial zone would meet more of the residential need in the Bushwick area, but the transit in that region is not yet sufficient to meet a huge influx of new residents: the L and the M are already heavily loaded. The bus network would prove less useful than expected for interesting historical reasons: NYC's bus network exists along legacy streetcar routes that abruptly terminate along borough borders (for what I imagine were political regions prior to borough unification in 1898), and this section of Bushwick lies along the Brooklyn/Queens border. So, the bus lines in the area don't always make sense or take you where you need to go. Some of the other ideas don't really relate to handling an influx of 9M residents, but are in the Robert Moses vein of improvements (i.e. leveraging existing yet overlooked details creatively to benefit the public), particularly the "under highway" public space and the "subway stations as public plazas" ideas. The Javits Center and schoolyards ideas are kind-of silly, and the suspended tram line, while a cool idea, wouldn't be worth the money. [0]: http://library.rpa.org/interactive/the-triboro/ http://library.rpa.org/interactive/the-triboro/
melling 10y ago
Yep, more subways should do the trick. Include NJ so we need fewer buses to Manhattan. Tear down the bus station and put a smaller one in NJ; you'll get back two city blocks. If you really want to push the limits, throw in low-speed maglev so reduce rush hour commute time: http://www.china.org.cn/business/2016-11/01/content_39610565.htm http://www.china.org.cn/business/2016-11/01/content_39610565... Something that travels at 100mph would allow much farther commutes to Manhattan.

gremlinsinc 10y ago

Never been to NY, but I think they should focus more on stemming the impact from global warming than anything else... New York is estimated to be completely underwater in less than 80 years. If that happens they might want to look to Vienna for ideas on transportation, as boats will be the only mode available.

Retric 10y ago
Huge stretches of the Netherlands are below sea level, for some of the most expensive real estate in the world it's not going to be an issue. Further NYC is higher than you might think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/new-york-city-sea-level-rise_n_6700320.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/new-york-city-sea-l...
vermontdevil 10y ago
I think you mean Venice?
krschultz 10y ago
I live in NYC. I'm not sure why you are being downvoted, rising oceans are a big concern. That said I think the solution will be pretty simple. When we have to, humans are really good at moving dirt. We do it less often now because of the impact on the environment, but if there was a will then it's solveable. I would expect to see a dike ringing Manhattan in my lifetime. The city is currently encircling Manhattan with a "greenway" which is basically a strip of bike lanes & walking paths. Imagine that, but raised 20 feet. I think the same treatment will be useful for Brooklyn & Queens. I would close off some of the rivers that go into the boroughs (e.g. the Gowanus) to make the area that needs to be closed off smaller. That will be a bit disruptive to some industrial sites, but nothing crazy. All of this works because each square mile of NYC is worth so much money and has been built up. I'd worry a lot more about suburban coastal areas where the density doesn't rally support building protection on that level. The urban areas will justify it, but if you live on the beach in NJ or LI, rising sea levels will be a major problem.

pdog 10y ago

> The city has not completed projects on the scale of Robert Moses since his tenure. Good. I think we all learned our lesson from Robert Moses the first time around... > It's time for New York to think big again. No! Think small, local, and build from a bottom-up design.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> Think small, local, and build from a bottom-up design What does this mean, practically?
- potatolicious 10y ago
  Can't speak for OP, but I take it to mean what Jane Jacobs was a proponent of, and what has been the opposite of modern American urban planning until now. The general trend in American urban planning has been highly prescriptivist and precise. Suburbs often have bylaws that prevent "too many" businesses of a particular sort in an area. It's based on a very centrally-planned vision for cities where you get your groceries from there, your haircuts there, and entertain yourself at that entertainment complex. Using a place against its original planner's precisely envisioned purpose is verboten. No, you can't have another supermarket in the neighborhood. No, there is already another coffee shop too close to this proposed one. No, you can't repurpose this land for a playground, because the children are supposed to play over there. Urban areas experience it too - if you've worked in a modern American downtown you've no doubt walked by the countless plazas that are deserted. Benches and tables that looked real good on the architectural renderings but are severely disused. Big office buildings fronted by "public space" that not even its own tenants use regularly. This has been especially severe in public housing projects - they were designed with idyllic parkland and courtyards, which their designers envisioned as isolated utopias, but ultimately ended up being deserted, dangerous, and hotbeds of crime, because they were never where people wanted to be, and was just void space. The opposite of this is something that resembles more of the free market - mixed use, relaxed zoning, so that the community can decide the amenities and businesses it needs. Maybe there should be a second supermarket, maybe that empty lot could be a playground. The struggle between top-down prescriptivist and bottom-up market-like urban planning is a huge one. In many ways Americans crave the efficiency, character, and benefits of living in the bottom-up neighborhood, but also crave the precise, reliable, and ordered nature of top-down cities.

dashundchen 10y ago

Why not better connect NYC with Upstate, Central and Western New York, and shed some of the development pressure there? If there were a true high speed rail connection to smaller, much lower cost metros it might make them more attractive as branch office/commuter cities. Amtrak as it is now frequently takes 8-9+ hours to get to across the state to Buffalo. Much slower than driving the Thruway. Intercity Amtrak service is poor due to: * Ancient rails * Large stretches of single track * Passenger rail deferring to freight * Reduced speeds due to degraded bridges and track beds, and outdated signaling A modern, dedicated track for passenger rail could be fit mostly in the existing right of way. This alone would greatly improve service. In the past few years New York State investigated several options for statewide rail improvements, and unfortunately ruled out any true high speed options. But even the most expensive improvements under consideration at $15 billion are cheaper than projects in NYC such as the Second Avenue subway (estimated completion at $17 billion for 8.5 miles!) https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751-Home/S93751--Repository/ECHSR_Public_Hearing_Brochure.pdf https://www.dot.ny.gov/content/delivery/Main-Projects/S93751... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_high-speed_rail#Projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_high-speed_rail#Proje... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway

soulnothing 10y ago
I was in New York several months ago. I'm by no means familiar with the city, but came across a new development area Hudson Yards. There was an initiative to leave alot of room for new subway. To start with, this is more NJ to NY. But still. https://nec.amtrak.com/content/hudson-tunnel-project https://nec.amtrak.com/content/hudson-tunnel-project http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/ http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/ From what I was reading, alot of the area or new buildings is elevated. To allow for new subway and rail lines. http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/hudson-yards-city-on-stilts/ http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/hudson-yards-city-on-stilts/ There are also new units in this area. But what is the price, and how afforadble will they be. There are new apartments coming up. But how many are bare essential without amenties. Where they push forward cheap living. Rather than a lavish experience. http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/live/ http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/live/ Even with all this I look at Amtrak, and I don't see it. I mean it feels upscale compared to public transit. By that I mean there are bathrooms, cafe, business class, more comfortable chairs etc. This is priced as premium service to me. So when I look at Amtrak it's great, but it's priced out of line for a daily commute option. Daily commute, high transit is a sardine can. Pack people in tight, ship em as quickly as you can from A -> B. Some Quick Points One Way to Philadelphia * Public Transit 8$ @ 1 -> 1.5 hours * Amtrak Peak Hours 10 Minutes 50$(NE Regional) 75$(Acela) * Amtrak Non Peak 10 Minutes 100$(NE Regional) 125$(Acela) This is not New York, but I saw similar prices NYC to Phil. Look at their Monthly pass about 700$. For me DE -> Philadelphia I pay 250$ a month in transit fares. If we look at either of those numbers my base house rent is 1k in DE. I add in the cheap public transit option. I can get a no frills apartment, 15 to 20 minutes from work, compared to a 2.5 hour ride. Add in the premium frills travel package. I can get something fancier closer to center city. This is completely barring the constant budgetary issues with the public transit. That they're not making enough to support their employees. Risking constant strikes. It's cyclical. The cost of living goes up, the public transit employees need more money to live. Fares go up, and people are pushed further away. https://www.amtrak.com/take-the-trains-across-america-with-usa-rail-pass https://www.amtrak.com/take-the-trains-across-america-with-u... This is not dismissing public transit, or high speed rail. I would love to see it. But the infrastructure investment and end cost, is difficult to figure out. When I add in the cost for a monthly pass/frequent rider program. The time to travel, and everything else. Why not pay just a bit more and live near work.

pj_mukh 10y ago

San Francisco needs to re-orient its processes to include this sort of urbanization desperately.

Animats 10y ago

Wimpy proposals. In 1924, there was a proposal to fill in the East River, diverting the water to the Hudson. Now that was thinking big. The article has one of those conceptual drawings of super-lightweight monorail structures. There's nothing wrong with monorails; lots of cities in Asia have them. But the rail is far more bulky than that drawing. Here's a real suspended monorail, in Chiba.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0QXyYG3Yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR0QXyYG3Yo

hasbroslasher 10y ago

Yeah, let's invest a bunch of money in this city that's going to be underwater in ~50 years. I imagine it'd work to just build upstate a ways instead of focus so much energy on the parts of the city directly facing the water.

krschultz 10y ago
No matter what you think will happen with global warming, there is a 0% chance we're going to let NYC go underwater.