4 ms·

Maybe they should put housing on it. Keep the streets as they are (free for residents) but sell the air rights to a developer. That should make the other resi

• toast0 9y ago
  Housing is very unlikely to fly, the adjacent property owners almost certainly have access rights through the common areas, and the shape of the common areas isn't likely to accommodate any new residential structures with proper setbacks and what not. Zoning changes to allow for new structures would be adversarial to say the least.
  • Veratyr 9y ago
    > Keep the streets as they are (free for residents) but sell the air rights to a developer. I think OP is basically suggesting turning the street into a tunnel by building units _above_ the street.
    • stretchwithme 9y ago
      Exactly. Although I think this is useful form of property, I also think there needs to be a way to value, recognize or sell the view or open space that people think they are getting when they buy a property. A beautiful view is worth something and somebody shouldn't be able to take it away arbitrarily. But you should also be able to sell your right to it so someone can build. And the same should apply to the expectation that a 100 story building will not be constructed next to your one story house. It's inevitable that a city will get denser as time goes on. If I had to choose between developers convincing city officials to let them build or their having to buy the rights to do so from property owners, I'd go with the latter. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/realestate/the-great-race-for-manhattan-air-rights.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/realestate/the-great-race-...