5 ms·

> If you stop constraining housing construction in New York Given that NYC's population density is already nearly double that of London, how exactly is housing

> If you stop constraining housing construction in New York Given that NYC's population density is already nearly double that of London, how exactly is housing construction being constrained in NYC? Housing is expensive in NYC because it's a popular place to live. > If you eliminate fares for mass transit, they're equally removed for people commuting from out of state If you make the subway free, that only helps for travel within NYC, but not for the portion of travel from out-of-state e.g. NJ Transit rail, NJ Transit bus, Port Authority's PATH subway. These are completely separate from the MTA. > Meanwhile disproportionately taxing people from outside of the jurisdiction is another disadvantage of congestion pricing, because it's taxation without representation Nonsense, this line of thinking assumes that everyone coming from out-of-state drives. I live in NJ, and am strongly in favor of congestion pricing, because I take public transit into NYC, and use public transit within NYC.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> how exactly is housing construction being constrained in NYC? Most of the existing tall buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today under the current zoning. You also can't build buildings in the other boroughs of the sort currently in Manhattan. The supply needed is relative to local demand, not relative to other cities. > Housing is expensive in NYC because it's a popular place to live. Housing is expensive because there is more demand than supply. This happens when there is high demand and increases in supply are constrained. Otherwise supply would respond to increased demand. > If you make the subway free, that only helps for travel within NYC, but not for the portion of travel from out-of-state e.g. NJ Transit rail, NJ Transit bus, Port Authority's PATH subway. These are completely separate from the MTA. If you make the subway free, you remove the fare associated with taking the subway, which is part of the cost of using mass transit. You could also remove the cost of the other mass transit. That might require you to do things at the federal level or in partnership with other states, but that doesn't mean it's something you can't do, it's just something you'd be doing in a different way. > I live in NJ, and am strongly in favor of congestion pricing, because I take public transit into NYC, and use public transit within NYC. You're in favor of congestion pricing because you don't pay it. This is unsurprising, right? It's the people who do pay it who are opposed, and that appears to be a majority of the people of NJ since the governor elected by the people of NJ is opposed, but then those people don't get a vote, which is the issue.
- evanelias 2y ago
  > Most of the existing tall buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today under the current zoning. Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up. > You also can't build buildings in the other boroughs of the sort currently in Manhattan. What type of building are you talking about here? If you mean skyscrapers, they're plentiful in Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn, among other outer-borough neighborhoods. But many skyscrapers aren't residential (regardless of borough) so I'm not sure if that's what you mean. If you mean mid-rises, there are large high-density apartment buildings in all five boroughs, in quite a few different neighborhoods. I must ask, do you actually live in NYC? > Housing is expensive because there is more demand than supply. Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great. > Otherwise supply would respond to increased demand. That doesn't happen overnight and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development, finite limitations on building rate (e.g. the size of the construction sector), and the time required for infrastructure improvements to support an even higher population density. > You could also remove the cost of the other mass transit. Paid for how, and by whom? > You're in favor of congestion pricing because you don't pay it. No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system. > that appears to be a majority of the people of NJ since the governor elected by the people of NJ is opposed Murphy very narrowly won reelection in 2021 and is now term-limited from running again. You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue. > but then those people don't get a vote, which is the issue. Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up. NYC zoning is public record: https://zola.planning.nyc.gov https://zola.planning.nyc.gov The highest density residential buildings are zoned R10. Go uncheck all the boxes and then check that one to see where they're allowed. Spoiler: It's almost nowhere and the few places that have it also already have those buildings; there is basically nowhere to put new ones and some of the existing ones aren't even zoned for their current location anymore. That is how zoning works to constrain housing supply. There will be large areas zoned R1-R5 and you can't put tall buildings there. There is a smaller amount of space zoned R6, which is kind of dense, but those areas already have those buildings too, so making them taller is still prohibited. That's the trick: In any given place, buildings are only allowed to be as tall as they currently are; little space is allowed for new buildings taller than what's already there. Another giveaway that this is done to constrain the housing supply is that the land area allocated to each zoning level is inversely proportional to the density it allows. In a dense city like NYC this means you can still see a lot of "tall" buildings, but you still can't put a 13 story building in the places where there is currently a 2-story one and you can't put a 30 story building in the places there is currently a 13 story one, so the existing density persists but isn't allowed to increase. > Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great. Well that sounds like a testable hypothesis. Why don't we find out? > That doesn't happen overnight Best to get started then. > and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development Space constraints are solved by taller buildings. They can't be infinitely tall, but neither is there infinite demand, and you don't even have to satisfy all of the demand to cause prices to be lower than they are now or allow more people to live in the city than they currently do. > Paid for how, and by whom? By taxes, the same as interstate highways or law enforcement. > No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system. You're saying different words that mean the same thing. You're in favor of it because you want improvements to the thing you use that come at the expense and inconvenience of someone else. It's the people paying the cost rather than receiving the benefit who are the ones objecting. > You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue. It's evidence that the majority of NJ residents who care about the issue are opposed to it, because the governor has reasons to satisfy constituents even if not running for another term in the same office if he wants to run for some other office or continue doing business with the representatives of various parts of the state during the rest of his term. > Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City? Because they use those roads, have an interest in government policies that directly affect them, and are citizens of the country in which New York is a city.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> how exactly is housing construction being constrained in NYC? Most of the existing tall buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today under the current zoning. You also can't build buildings in the other boroughs of the sort currently in Manhattan. The supply needed is relative to local demand, not relative to other cities. > Housing is expensive in NYC because it's a popular place to live. Housing is expensive because there is more demand than supply. This happens when there is high demand and increases in supply are constrained. Otherwise supply would respond to increased demand. > If you make the subway free, that only helps for travel within NYC, but not for the portion of travel from out-of-state e.g. NJ Transit rail, NJ Transit bus, Port Authority's PATH subway. These are completely separate from the MTA. If you make the subway free, you remove the fare associated with taking the subway, which is part of the cost of using mass transit. You could also remove the cost of the other mass transit. That might require you to do things at the federal level or in partnership with other states, but that doesn't mean it's something you can't do, it's just something you'd be doing in a different way. > I live in NJ, and am strongly in favor of congestion pricing, because I take public transit into NYC, and use public transit within NYC. You're in favor of congestion pricing because you don't pay it. This is unsurprising, right? It's the people who do pay it who are opposed, and that appears to be a majority of the people of NJ since the governor elected by the people of NJ is opposed, but then those people don't get a vote, which is the issue.

evanelias 2y ago
> Most of the existing tall buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today under the current zoning. Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up. > You also can't build buildings in the other boroughs of the sort currently in Manhattan. What type of building are you talking about here? If you mean skyscrapers, they're plentiful in Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn, among other outer-borough neighborhoods. But many skyscrapers aren't residential (regardless of borough) so I'm not sure if that's what you mean. If you mean mid-rises, there are large high-density apartment buildings in all five boroughs, in quite a few different neighborhoods. I must ask, do you actually live in NYC? > Housing is expensive because there is more demand than supply. Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great. > Otherwise supply would respond to increased demand. That doesn't happen overnight and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development, finite limitations on building rate (e.g. the size of the construction sector), and the time required for infrastructure improvements to support an even higher population density. > You could also remove the cost of the other mass transit. Paid for how, and by whom? > You're in favor of congestion pricing because you don't pay it. No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system. > that appears to be a majority of the people of NJ since the governor elected by the people of NJ is opposed Murphy very narrowly won reelection in 2021 and is now term-limited from running again. You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue. > but then those people don't get a vote, which is the issue. Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up. NYC zoning is public record: https://zola.planning.nyc.gov https://zola.planning.nyc.gov The highest density residential buildings are zoned R10. Go uncheck all the boxes and then check that one to see where they're allowed. Spoiler: It's almost nowhere and the few places that have it also already have those buildings; there is basically nowhere to put new ones and some of the existing ones aren't even zoned for their current location anymore. That is how zoning works to constrain housing supply. There will be large areas zoned R1-R5 and you can't put tall buildings there. There is a smaller amount of space zoned R6, which is kind of dense, but those areas already have those buildings too, so making them taller is still prohibited. That's the trick: In any given place, buildings are only allowed to be as tall as they currently are; little space is allowed for new buildings taller than what's already there. Another giveaway that this is done to constrain the housing supply is that the land area allocated to each zoning level is inversely proportional to the density it allows. In a dense city like NYC this means you can still see a lot of "tall" buildings, but you still can't put a 13 story building in the places where there is currently a 2-story one and you can't put a 30 story building in the places there is currently a 13 story one, so the existing density persists but isn't allowed to increase. > Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great. Well that sounds like a testable hypothesis. Why don't we find out? > That doesn't happen overnight Best to get started then. > and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development Space constraints are solved by taller buildings. They can't be infinitely tall, but neither is there infinite demand, and you don't even have to satisfy all of the demand to cause prices to be lower than they are now or allow more people to live in the city than they currently do. > Paid for how, and by whom? By taxes, the same as interstate highways or law enforcement. > No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system. You're saying different words that mean the same thing. You're in favor of it because you want improvements to the thing you use that come at the expense and inconvenience of someone else. It's the people paying the cost rather than receiving the benefit who are the ones objecting. > You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue. It's evidence that the majority of NJ residents who care about the issue are opposed to it, because the governor has reasons to satisfy constituents even if not running for another term in the same office if he wants to run for some other office or continue doing business with the representatives of various parts of the state during the rest of his term. > Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City? Because they use those roads, have an interest in government policies that directly affect them, and are citizens of the country in which New York is a city.