6 ms·

Let's just say there may be other factors to consider besides net project cost. Like, say: - The economic strangulation of entire neighborhoods - Disrupted a

by drugme 8y ago

Let's just say there may be other factors to consider besides net project cost. Like, say: - The economic strangulation of entire neighborhoods - Disrupted access to health care and educational opportunities - Disrupted access to one's place of employment (for a great many people) - All of these disproportionately affecting, you know... lower income folks (and not so coincidentally, communities of color). - The spillover affect of all of the above on the regional economy as a whole (and hence -- on tax revenues available to the same governments who need to fund this construction in the first place). Stuff like that.

ng12 8y ago
But that's exactly the problem -- local governments are powerless. They can't fix the BQE due to opposition from Brooklyn Heights community groups. Can't build skyscrapers south of Atlantic Terminal because they'd be too close to the community gardens. Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". These are all valid concerns but taken together and they prevent anything from getting done. Good intentions, bad results.
- jermaustin1 8y ago
  >Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". Are we now considering "lower Manhattan" to be south of 30th?
  - berbec 8y ago
    That's actually a bigger definition that I usually use. I typically cal 14th or Houston the cutoff.
    - jermaustin1 8y ago
      I'm a Houston and below kind of guy. Once the streets lose their numbers, its lower Manhattan (and I get lost).
      - berbec 8y ago
        I find that argument compelling, but I still vote 14th. That's where the west side starts to curve in and the streets stop being rectangles.
      - bradleyjg 8y ago
        It's true that there are numbers between Houston and 14th but they no longer necessarily make any sense. Consider the corner of W 4th St and W 13th St for example--that shouldn't exist.
        jermaustin1 8y ago
        That's just quirky West Village stuff. I'd actually love to find a book on the history of why they abandoned the 90 degree corner and went off the grid pattern just for that small section.
        bradleyjg 8y ago
        When you go east of 6th things are still screwy south of 8th because of NYU and Washington Square Park. Then along Bowery / 4th Ave (!) things are screwed up again. It ends up being between 1/3 and 1/2 of Houston to 14th street that isn't a nice neat grid. At the end of the day it's arbitrary but I'd say the core grid part of the city is from 14th to 96th. Even within that it isn't perfect, for example Broadway goes whatever it feels like going, but mostly you aren't going to get lost there.
- drugme 8y ago
  I'm not saying it's a great situation. Just not a "crazy" one. Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". You know perfectly well this isn't true. Not even half of the lots in that area meet that description. The main reason you "can't" just rip up and re-develop Lower Manhattan is... it's already one of the most sensibly built places on the planet - and so "redeveloping" anything beyond selected corners of it would basically be pretty stupid. Oh and plus the fact that it's already owned and the land is like really expensive and stuff. local governments are powerless. Also nowhere near true, but whatever.
  - ng12 8y ago
    > it's already on of the most sensibly built places on the planet - and so "redeveloping" anything beyond selected corners of it would basically be pretty stupid. What? Almost everything between Midtown and Downtown is a 4-5 story walkup, how is that ideal? It's why they're redeveloping old office buildings in the Financial District to be apartments -- it's one of the few spots in lower Manhattan that allow high density housing. > You know perfectly well this isn't true. Not even half of the lots in that area meet that description. I was being slightly hyperbolic but the effect is the same. The strict height/density restrictions are intended to preserve the "historic" neighborhoods.
    - drugme 8y ago
      Almost everything between Midtown and Downtown is a 4-5 story walkup, how is that ideal? 4-5 stories (at 2-4 apartments per) is quite good density, actually.
      - ng12 8y ago
        Not when it's artificially restricting supply. It's good density for a mid-size city, terrible for a city as large (and growing) as New York.
        drugme 8y ago
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Local government is very powerful, especially in NYC. One of the features of democracy is that voters have influence over what their government does. When you think back to the days when US governments had the ability to do everything, consider the downside. You get "great men" like Robert Moses who bulldoze everything and destroy communities, or build highways to make it difficult for "undesirable" minorities to travel. Plenty is getting done in NYC.
  - drugme 8y ago
    Plenty is getting done in NYC. Indeed, the changes in the last 15 years (due almost entirely to government intervention -- mostly at the city level) have been quite profound. The idea that local government is "powerless" is simply disconnected from reality.
- mancerayder 8y ago
  But that's exactly the problem -- local governments are powerless. They can't fix the BQE due to opposition from Brooklyn Heights community groups. Can't build skyscrapers south of Atlantic Terminal because they'd be too close to the community gardens. Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". These are all valid concerns but taken together and they prevent anything from getting done. Good intentions, bad results. As someone who follows closely the real estate press news and has some sense of zoning controversies (and for what it's worth own a building), I think your comment is full of hyperbole and false commentary. There's massive development at the new "Essex Crossing" in the LES. There's massive development at Atlantic Terminal at the edge of downtown Brooklyn / Cobble Hill. Along Broadway in Brooklyn, in between the Bushwick and Bed Stuy border, tons of development. "Broadway Triangle", at the bottom of Williamsburg, tons of development. 1000 units coming online on Flushing Ave at the border of Bushwick and Williamsburg. Everything I just said is not "low density housing". It's medium and high density. Astor Pl and along Bowery has existing construction, and even more planned! Hudson Yards.. I could go on and on but your comment is hugely misinformed. The controversies in NYC around "NIMBYism" are NOT the same as California, with ideas around single-family homes and such. Suggested media sources in the future: therealdeal.com newyorkyimby.com ny.curbed.com Finally, density comes at a price. When those people leave their high density housing, where do you think they go? When they take a shit and flush the toilet, where do you think that goes? The density has made much of Brooklyn a nightmare commute as it is -- it takes a year to build a 12 story or whatever building, but it takes decades to upgrade our shoddy infrastructure.
  - ng12 8y ago
    > There's massive development at the new "Essex Crossing" in the LES. There's massive development at Atlantic Terminal at the edge of downtown Brooklyn / Cobble Hill. Along Broadway in Brooklyn, in between the Bushwick and Bed Stuy border, tons of development. "Broadway Triangle", at the bottom of Williamsburg, tons of development. 1000 units coming online on Flushing Ave at the border of Bushwick and Williamsburg. You know what the common theme here is? They're all poor or working class neighborhoods without the political organization to fight back against redevelopment. You know the only reason that they would bend over for the L is because of the trendy Williamsburg $$$.
komali2 8y ago
Well, Van Ness as an example - couple businesses are already shutting down because you simply can't see them behind the fences. Others are doing ridiculous sales and anything they can to get noticed. I only saw 3 months ago official city signs labeling the businesses hiding behind green-tarp-covered fence. I almost feel like it would have been better to shut down Van Ness north of city hall entirely, and leave the sidewalks wide open and unfenced. Or only allowed bus traffic.

by drugme 8y ago

ng12 8y ago

But that's exactly the problem -- local governments are powerless. They can't fix the BQE due to opposition from Brooklyn Heights community groups. Can't build skyscrapers south of Atlantic Terminal because they'd be too close to the community gardens. Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". These are all valid concerns but taken together and they prevent anything from getting done. Good intentions, bad results.

jermaustin1 8y ago
>Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". Are we now considering "lower Manhattan" to be south of 30th?
- berbec 8y ago
  That's actually a bigger definition that I usually use. I typically cal 14th or Houston the cutoff.
  - jermaustin1 8y ago
    I'm a Houston and below kind of guy. Once the streets lose their numbers, its lower Manhattan (and I get lost).
    - berbec 8y ago
      I find that argument compelling, but I still vote 14th. That's where the west side starts to curve in and the streets stop being rectangles.
    - bradleyjg 8y ago
      It's true that there are numbers between Houston and 14th but they no longer necessarily make any sense. Consider the corner of W 4th St and W 13th St for example--that shouldn't exist.
      - jermaustin1 8y ago
        That's just quirky West Village stuff. I'd actually love to find a book on the history of why they abandoned the 90 degree corner and went off the grid pattern just for that small section.
        bradleyjg 8y ago
        When you go east of 6th things are still screwy south of 8th because of NYU and Washington Square Park. Then along Bowery / 4th Ave (!) things are screwed up again. It ends up being between 1/3 and 1/2 of Houston to 14th street that isn't a nice neat grid. At the end of the day it's arbitrary but I'd say the core grid part of the city is from 14th to 96th. Even within that it isn't perfect, for example Broadway goes whatever it feels like going, but mostly you aren't going to get lost there.
drugme 8y ago
I'm not saying it's a great situation. Just not a "crazy" one. Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". You know perfectly well this isn't true. Not even half of the lots in that area meet that description. The main reason you "can't" just rip up and re-develop Lower Manhattan is... it's already one of the most sensibly built places on the planet - and so "redeveloping" anything beyond selected corners of it would basically be pretty stupid. Oh and plus the fact that it's already owned and the land is like really expensive and stuff. local governments are powerless. Also nowhere near true, but whatever.
- ng12 8y ago
  > it's already on of the most sensibly built places on the planet - and so "redeveloping" anything beyond selected corners of it would basically be pretty stupid. What? Almost everything between Midtown and Downtown is a 4-5 story walkup, how is that ideal? It's why they're redeveloping old office buildings in the Financial District to be apartments -- it's one of the few spots in lower Manhattan that allow high density housing. > You know perfectly well this isn't true. Not even half of the lots in that area meet that description. I was being slightly hyperbolic but the effect is the same. The strict height/density restrictions are intended to preserve the "historic" neighborhoods.
  - drugme 8y ago
    Almost everything between Midtown and Downtown is a 4-5 story walkup, how is that ideal? 4-5 stories (at 2-4 apartments per) is quite good density, actually.
    - ng12 8y ago
      Not when it's artificially restricting supply. It's good density for a mid-size city, terrible for a city as large (and growing) as New York.
      - drugme 8y ago
Spooky23 8y ago
Local government is very powerful, especially in NYC. One of the features of democracy is that voters have influence over what their government does. When you think back to the days when US governments had the ability to do everything, consider the downside. You get "great men" like Robert Moses who bulldoze everything and destroy communities, or build highways to make it difficult for "undesirable" minorities to travel. Plenty is getting done in NYC.
- drugme 8y ago
  Plenty is getting done in NYC. Indeed, the changes in the last 15 years (due almost entirely to government intervention -- mostly at the city level) have been quite profound. The idea that local government is "powerless" is simply disconnected from reality.
mancerayder 8y ago
But that's exactly the problem -- local governments are powerless. They can't fix the BQE due to opposition from Brooklyn Heights community groups. Can't build skyscrapers south of Atlantic Terminal because they'd be too close to the community gardens. Can't redevelop lower Manhattan because everything between Houston and 30th is a "historical building". These are all valid concerns but taken together and they prevent anything from getting done. Good intentions, bad results. As someone who follows closely the real estate press news and has some sense of zoning controversies (and for what it's worth own a building), I think your comment is full of hyperbole and false commentary. There's massive development at the new "Essex Crossing" in the LES. There's massive development at Atlantic Terminal at the edge of downtown Brooklyn / Cobble Hill. Along Broadway in Brooklyn, in between the Bushwick and Bed Stuy border, tons of development. "Broadway Triangle", at the bottom of Williamsburg, tons of development. 1000 units coming online on Flushing Ave at the border of Bushwick and Williamsburg. Everything I just said is not "low density housing". It's medium and high density. Astor Pl and along Bowery has existing construction, and even more planned! Hudson Yards.. I could go on and on but your comment is hugely misinformed. The controversies in NYC around "NIMBYism" are NOT the same as California, with ideas around single-family homes and such. Suggested media sources in the future: therealdeal.com newyorkyimby.com ny.curbed.com Finally, density comes at a price. When those people leave their high density housing, where do you think they go? When they take a shit and flush the toilet, where do you think that goes? The density has made much of Brooklyn a nightmare commute as it is -- it takes a year to build a 12 story or whatever building, but it takes decades to upgrade our shoddy infrastructure.
- ng12 8y ago
  > There's massive development at the new "Essex Crossing" in the LES. There's massive development at Atlantic Terminal at the edge of downtown Brooklyn / Cobble Hill. Along Broadway in Brooklyn, in between the Bushwick and Bed Stuy border, tons of development. "Broadway Triangle", at the bottom of Williamsburg, tons of development. 1000 units coming online on Flushing Ave at the border of Bushwick and Williamsburg. You know what the common theme here is? They're all poor or working class neighborhoods without the political organization to fight back against redevelopment. You know the only reason that they would bend over for the L is because of the trendy Williamsburg $$$.

komali2 8y ago

Well, Van Ness as an example - couple businesses are already shutting down because you simply can't see them behind the fences. Others are doing ridiculous sales and anything they can to get noticed. I only saw 3 months ago official city signs labeling the businesses hiding behind green-tarp-covered fence. I almost feel like it would have been better to shut down Van Ness north of city hall entirely, and leave the sidewalks wide open and unfenced. Or only allowed bus traffic.