3 ms·

You're absolutely right, but I dont see what is wrong with that. When you build high-density luxury towers, it creates capacity and fewer people "push out" into

You're absolutely right, but I dont see what is wrong with that. When you build high-density luxury towers, it creates capacity and fewer people "push out" into bordering areas. Contrast this with the Bay Area where the lack of high-density luxury towers causes people to push miles out and buy homes. Would the Bay Area have a housing problem if there were ~20 more luxury high rises Palo Alto? Seems to be that would greatly relieve the upwards pressure on the locus around Palo Alto. Also, forcing people to move into low-density homes seems regressive. It can be an option.

leereeves 8y ago
I think that's probably true, and the Bay Area needs more high density housing, but lessening the impact is not eliminating the impact. So perhaps it's less harmful for the current residents of Queens, but it's still negative. Why should they not oppose that?
- TuringNYC 8y ago
  If we're trying to oppose all gentrification, we'd also have to - stop all jobs growth in Manhattan (10min subway ride to LIC) - and/or we'd have to put a cap on salaries (what happens to doctors? minimum wage? how do they pay med school loans?) - and/or ensure LIC residents dont commute to well-paying jobs in Manhattan - and/or ensure only low paying jobs are created in LIC (how many mechanics jobs and other non corporate jobs can LIC support? Why havent they already been created?) All of the above seem silly. At some point, you'd almost be breaking off LIC into a self-sufficient fiefdom in itself. The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. This seems quaint but doesn't feel right to me.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    > The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. I suspect we could find many people who do think life was better before tech and finance took over. Not only in LIC, but in blue, pink, and even some white collar neighborhoods around the country. Whether their opinion feels right to us here on Hacker News is only relevant to the extent that our political influence outweighs theirs (if it does).

leereeves 8y ago

I think that's probably true, and the Bay Area needs more high density housing, but lessening the impact is not eliminating the impact. So perhaps it's less harmful for the current residents of Queens, but it's still negative. Why should they not oppose that?

TuringNYC 8y ago
If we're trying to oppose all gentrification, we'd also have to - stop all jobs growth in Manhattan (10min subway ride to LIC) - and/or we'd have to put a cap on salaries (what happens to doctors? minimum wage? how do they pay med school loans?) - and/or ensure LIC residents dont commute to well-paying jobs in Manhattan - and/or ensure only low paying jobs are created in LIC (how many mechanics jobs and other non corporate jobs can LIC support? Why havent they already been created?) All of the above seem silly. At some point, you'd almost be breaking off LIC into a self-sufficient fiefdom in itself. The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. This seems quaint but doesn't feel right to me.
- leereeves 8y ago
  > The assumption would be that all the benefits that came from banding together as a city and creating a modern society were net negative to the residents of LIC. I suspect we could find many people who do think life was better before tech and finance took over. Not only in LIC, but in blue, pink, and even some white collar neighborhoods around the country. Whether their opinion feels right to us here on Hacker News is only relevant to the extent that our political influence outweighs theirs (if it does).