4 ms·

Which wouldn't be as much of an issue if their were a lot more rental units being built each year - we have the same problem here in Toronto - changing zoning l

Which wouldn't be as much of an issue if their were a lot more rental units being built each year - we have the same problem here in Toronto - changing zoning laws to allow taller purpose built rental buildings would massively help but NIMBY's don't want to lose their view!

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
andrewla 8y ago
I'm not sure this is an accurate summary of the situation in NYC. There are large amount of units being built in new high rise buildings throughout the city. Projects like Hudson yards in Manhattan are notable; and in downtown Brooklyn new high rise apartment buildings are constantly opening up, not to mention large amounts of development in Williamsburg and the surrounding areas, and even down in Sheepshead Bay. My understanding is that Long Island City is also seeing an explosion of new highrises, but these others I've seen with my own eyes. Notably almost none of these units are "affordable", except a certain number of lottery-dispensed rent stabilized units that the buildings allocate in exchange for certain tax abatements. Even so, growth continues to outstrip housing supply, but with the exception of certain historic preservation areas, developers are putting up units as fast as they can. Real estate is still expensive, and developers can't get the land to build on for free, or force people to sell in the face of skyrocketing housing prices.
- Kalium 8y ago
  Nobody should ever use words like "large" in reference to housing construction where absolute numbers are meaningless. "Large" and "small" are useless without some agreed-upon baseline. What you're describing is a city where a large-in-absolute-numbers-by-some-arbitrary-standard amount of housing is being built while also not being enough. As sufficiency for demand is the operative question, I submit that a better set of words is "sufficient" and "insufficient". Given that it's less than the amount of population growth, I would characterize it as an insufficient amount of housing supply being built.
  - andrewla 8y ago
    > Given that it's less than the amount of population growth, I would characterize it as an insufficient amount of housing supply being built. Yes, demand far exceeds supply, even with growth. The statement that I was disagreeing with was that some outgrowth of NIMBYism or zoning restrictions were to blame for the lack of growth of supply. I feel like the developments that are in progress are indicative of the fact that those are not the problem. I don't know what the problem is or have good ideas on how to fix it. Possibly the problem is, as I outlined above, that real estate is just getting very expensive, and developers who would very much like to build large-scale housing are simply priced out by the capital expenditure to even acquire the real estate itself. Maybe the affordable housing initiatives have backfired to a greater extent than anyone realizes. Or it's possible that new supply is in fact outstripping demand, but the lead times are such that once the units come online the market will experience a pull-back as they have trouble renting or selling the new units.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      One of the things I've learned, watching real estate in the Bay, is that it's rarely one factor in particular that's to blame for everything. Instead it's the cumulative force of many factors shaping what does get built, where, and when. For instance, NIMBYs requiring near-infinite shadow studies in SF. It doesn't prevent building, but by raising the costs and extending the timelines it helps reduce the amount that gets built. What does get built costs more. The result is fewer and pricier units, and what maybe could have been a 25% subsidized building is now 10% in order to make the numbers work. Or maybe a building goes from five stories to three and no longer has any affordable housing at all. At scale, lower-margin proposals go from further down the list while still being in the black to being in the red and never being built. Which is to say that developments in progress should not be taken as proof that there are no problems with zoning or NIMBYs. Just that it's possible to overcome them if there's enough money to be made.
- bluGill 8y ago
  https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-housing https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-develo...
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  > almost none of these units are "affordable" Of course, the point of new development is to ensure the housing price house of cards continues. Unfortunately in the US, people consider their home an asset that needs to gain value, I'd actually rather have the states or the government own the property instead and just rent it to the people, but that's "COMMUNISM" and the end of the world.
  - mamon 8y ago
    How about some middle ground? In my country almost everyone owns their home/apartment, but they don't think about it about investment, because most people will live in the same home for most of their lives. So they don't care about the house price going up or down. Let people own their homes, just don't sell them bullshit that they are "investment" - regulate the financial markets, forbidding mortgage-based derivates and other instruments that artificially pump the home prices.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
      We're big on guns, prisons and real estate in the US Stock Market. I'm wondering how big the bottom falling out will be.
- writeslowly 8y ago
  Most of these new rent stabilized units aren't actually rent stabilized in practice. I used to live in one of the newer high rises in downtown Brookyln and my unit was technically rent stabilized, but since I was paying a "preferential" rent of $2500/month vs the "real" rent of $3700/month (that no one in their right mind would pay), they were able to raise my rent beyond the approved increase once the lease was up for renewal, and could have raised it far beyond the market value if they really felt like it.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  We're building several thousand new units per year. We're also seeing net population growth of around 100k people per year. Building is booming, but not nearly keeping up with demand.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

andrewla 8y ago

I'm not sure this is an accurate summary of the situation in NYC. There are large amount of units being built in new high rise buildings throughout the city. Projects like Hudson yards in Manhattan are notable; and in downtown Brooklyn new high rise apartment buildings are constantly opening up, not to mention large amounts of development in Williamsburg and the surrounding areas, and even down in Sheepshead Bay. My understanding is that Long Island City is also seeing an explosion of new highrises, but these others I've seen with my own eyes. Notably almost none of these units are "affordable", except a certain number of lottery-dispensed rent stabilized units that the buildings allocate in exchange for certain tax abatements. Even so, growth continues to outstrip housing supply, but with the exception of certain historic preservation areas, developers are putting up units as fast as they can. Real estate is still expensive, and developers can't get the land to build on for free, or force people to sell in the face of skyrocketing housing prices.

Kalium 8y ago
Nobody should ever use words like "large" in reference to housing construction where absolute numbers are meaningless. "Large" and "small" are useless without some agreed-upon baseline. What you're describing is a city where a large-in-absolute-numbers-by-some-arbitrary-standard amount of housing is being built while also not being enough. As sufficiency for demand is the operative question, I submit that a better set of words is "sufficient" and "insufficient". Given that it's less than the amount of population growth, I would characterize it as an insufficient amount of housing supply being built.
- andrewla 8y ago
  > Given that it's less than the amount of population growth, I would characterize it as an insufficient amount of housing supply being built. Yes, demand far exceeds supply, even with growth. The statement that I was disagreeing with was that some outgrowth of NIMBYism or zoning restrictions were to blame for the lack of growth of supply. I feel like the developments that are in progress are indicative of the fact that those are not the problem. I don't know what the problem is or have good ideas on how to fix it. Possibly the problem is, as I outlined above, that real estate is just getting very expensive, and developers who would very much like to build large-scale housing are simply priced out by the capital expenditure to even acquire the real estate itself. Maybe the affordable housing initiatives have backfired to a greater extent than anyone realizes. Or it's possible that new supply is in fact outstripping demand, but the lead times are such that once the units come online the market will experience a pull-back as they have trouble renting or selling the new units.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    One of the things I've learned, watching real estate in the Bay, is that it's rarely one factor in particular that's to blame for everything. Instead it's the cumulative force of many factors shaping what does get built, where, and when. For instance, NIMBYs requiring near-infinite shadow studies in SF. It doesn't prevent building, but by raising the costs and extending the timelines it helps reduce the amount that gets built. What does get built costs more. The result is fewer and pricier units, and what maybe could have been a 25% subsidized building is now 10% in order to make the numbers work. Or maybe a building goes from five stories to three and no longer has any affordable housing at all. At scale, lower-margin proposals go from further down the list while still being in the black to being in the red and never being built. Which is to say that developments in progress should not be taken as proof that there are no problems with zoning or NIMBYs. Just that it's possible to overcome them if there's enough money to be made.
bluGill 8y ago
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-developers-only-building-luxury-housing https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/7/25/why-are-develo...
WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
> almost none of these units are "affordable" Of course, the point of new development is to ensure the housing price house of cards continues. Unfortunately in the US, people consider their home an asset that needs to gain value, I'd actually rather have the states or the government own the property instead and just rent it to the people, but that's "COMMUNISM" and the end of the world.
- mamon 8y ago
  How about some middle ground? In my country almost everyone owns their home/apartment, but they don't think about it about investment, because most people will live in the same home for most of their lives. So they don't care about the house price going up or down. Let people own their homes, just don't sell them bullshit that they are "investment" - regulate the financial markets, forbidding mortgage-based derivates and other instruments that artificially pump the home prices.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    We're big on guns, prisons and real estate in the US Stock Market. I'm wondering how big the bottom falling out will be.
writeslowly 8y ago
Most of these new rent stabilized units aren't actually rent stabilized in practice. I used to live in one of the newer high rises in downtown Brookyln and my unit was technically rent stabilized, but since I was paying a "preferential" rent of $2500/month vs the "real" rent of $3700/month (that no one in their right mind would pay), they were able to raise my rent beyond the approved increase once the lease was up for renewal, and could have raised it far beyond the market value if they really felt like it.
cimmanom 8y ago
We're building several thousand new units per year. We're also seeing net population growth of around 100k people per year. Building is booming, but not nearly keeping up with demand.