4 ms·

Not in Manhattan. They could be 10x the size and still get filled.

• drugme 8y ago
  The point is that when you're looking to redevelop, you go after low-hanging fruit -- like, for example, low-rise / brownfield industrial districts where the industry and people left decades ago and would otherwise never be coming back in great numbers. Like say the waterfronts in Brooklyn / Queens (which are of course exactly the areas the city is focusing on). You don't just seize and destroy neighborhoods that have been thriving and integrated for 150+ years, like the East Village for example. Which seems to be what you're proposing. (BTW I say "seize" because what you're proposing would never happen alone on any significant scale without eminent domain).
  • ng12 8y ago
    > (BTW I say "seize" because what you're proposing would never happen alone on any significant scale without eminent domain). How so? Landlords would jump to sell their rent-controlled buildings to developers who are champing at the bit. City programs are the only thing preventing development from happening.
    • drugme 8y ago
      Landlords would jump to sell their rent-controlled buildings to developers who are champing at the bit. This is wishful thinking, on a number of fronts. For example one does not simply "sell" (meaning, in the context of proposed redevelopment: purge all the tenants from) a rent-controlled building in NYC. Or even an existing coop or condo building, for example.