5 ms·
Because it's an island with no infrastructure. There's still tons of cheap real estate in the Bronx that's pretty close to Manhattan. That'll get gentrified wel
by joonix 13y ago
Because it's an island with no infrastructure. There's still tons of cheap real estate in the Bronx that's pretty close to Manhattan. That'll get gentrified well before a poorly located abandoned island with no transit connections would.
- maratd 13y ago> Because it's an island with no infrastructure. There was a hydrant in the pictures, so they had water and most likely, sewage. Electricity as well, based on the appearance of things. Remember, the island was actively used up until the mid-sixties. > There's still tons of cheap real estate in the Bronx that's pretty close to Manhattan. This is mostly the reason. People who aren't local don't understand that while real-estate prices are sky-high at the center of town, you really don't need to go far before they come down to earth.
- tnorthcutt 13y agoFifty year old pipes that haven't been maintained make for a crumbling mess.
- hristov 13y agoCorrect. Also it seems that the whole island is covered by a marsh. The island's location is technically a river but it is very close to the ocean and ocean levels have risen quite a bit in the past 50 years. So one can expect that the whole thing will be mud and it will be expensive to build anything useful on it. But it would be interesting if some billionaire buys it to build a mansion on there. That would be the ultimate mark of exclusivity.
- jacques_chester 13y agoWhen I first read about these uninhabited islands, I had the same thought. The ultimate status symbol: private island in sight of Manhattan. And I imagine commuting isn't a problem if you can afford to get around by helicopter.
- rdouble 13y agoCommuting still would be a problem because you have to land the helicopter somewhere. There are only 3 heliports in Manhattan.
- jacques_chester 13y agoA lot of skyscrapers have private helipads, is my point. For a sufficiently-expensive executive officer, it actually makes sense to pay for a 15-minute skyscraper-to-skyscraper flight vs losing 45 minutes in a taxi.
- rdouble 13y agoSkyscrapers don't have private heliports in New York. That was my point. Even the "Goldman Sachs" heliport is in New Jersey.
- jacques_chester 13y agoOh, then I was wrong. I hate that. :|
- rdouble 13y agoIf you're looking for a city with rooftop helipads, that would be Los Angeles. Although they aren't really for executives. http://clui.org/newsletter/spring-2010/elevated-descent-landingscape-helipads http://clui.org/newsletter/spring-2010/elevated-descent-land...
- JackFr 13y agoThey used to, until a pedestrian was killed during an accident and it occurred to them that it might not be the best idea. http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-helicopter-accident-on-top-of-pan-am-building-kills-five/ http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/may-16-1977-hel...
- deleted 13y ago
- chaz 13y agoIncluded in "infrastructure," but worth noting separately: NYC real estate prices are very dependent upon transportation time. Without any bridges, tunnels, or public ferry service here, actual distance from Manhattan doesn't really matter -- it's very far away.
- nawitus 13y agoIs infrastructure really that expensive? I thought it was normal to lay new cables, pipes and build new roads whenever there's new development. A nearby new area build a new bridge, even underground pipes that transfer garbage, new roads and of course fiber for internet. Of course, an island is another thing..