4 ms·

> He has basically engaged in a massive gentrification of the city. Can you elaborate on that? Specifically in what policies Bloomberg supports that have led t

> He has basically engaged in a massive gentrification of the city. Can you elaborate on that? Specifically in what policies Bloomberg supports that have led to gentrification. I ask because often gentrification is an effect of making a city a nicer place to live. Better public transit, lower crime, better schools, etc. Rich people move in and outbid poor incumbent residents for their apartments. But tearing down historic houses is a signal in the other direction: the city is building new, bigger buildings to house all of those rich people moving in, thus taking price pressure off the incumbents and preventing gentrification. It's hard to simultaneously hold the ideas -- as "tons of people" apparently do -- of "I want to keep New York historic" and "I'm against gentrification" without also thinking, "I'm against making the city nicer". Unless, I guess, those are different people hating on Bloomberg from different directions? Or he's causing gentrification in some other way that I don't understand?

busterarm 13y ago
I don't know specifically what the other poster was referring to, but traditionally the Landmarks Preservation Commission hasn't given a shit about 'historic' buildings in the outer boroughs unless they can preserve an entire district. I think to get a clear answer you'd have to make sure we're all using the same definition of historic. There are definitely buildings that have been torn down for new construction that debatably should have been preserved. A lot of the area around Astoria Park has been demolished for new highrise construction that has mostly not been completed due to market events. Not only are these a blight on the neighborhood but they tore down some absolutely fantastic sites to put them there. Specifically in Astoria Village. The neighborhood, though mostly safe, has been in a shit state for decades due to neglect from the city and housing projects from the 60s. [1] http://forgotten-ny.com/1999/05/astoria-village-part-1-queens/ http://forgotten-ny.com/1999/05/astoria-village-part-1-queen... [2] http://forgotten-ny.com/2005/06/astoria-village-part-2-queens/ http://forgotten-ny.com/2005/06/astoria-village-part-2-queen... [3] http://forgotten-ny.com/2007/12/astoria-village-part-3-queens/ http://forgotten-ny.com/2007/12/astoria-village-part-3-queen...
- icambron 13y ago
  Right, so that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I don't know anything specific about Astoria Village, but if rich people want to live there (and presumably they do, or else the real estate developers who wanted to build there were incompetent), then they'll move in one way or another. And with historic Astoria being relatively low-density, they'll displace the existing residents by bidding up rent prices. Unless there's a bunch of new construction. I have no doubt that there are buildings that are of enough historical importance that they shouldn't be demolished to build high rises (i.e. that marginal bit of rent pressure is worth it). I also don't know if in this particular case -- especially given that they weren't completed due to a housing crash -- building high rises ended up being wise; sometimes developers are foolish or shit just happens. And perhaps those things really are all that happened in Astoria; I couldn't say. My point, though, still holds in the general case and certainly holds for something the size of NYC as a whole: preserving historical buildings is fundamentally in tension with preventing gentrification. It's a tradeoff. (And it's a bit of an odd one too: the people who care and should care the most about the historic value of a neighborhood are the people who actually live there. But if constrained housing supply forces them to move, they won't be around to enjoy it anyway.) This is a big issue for me because this exact conversation is happening in my neighborhood in Cambridge, MA, which keeps very strong control over new construction. Rent is skyrocketing with people like me moving in to a poorer minority neighborhood because it's nice and we like it. Developers see that as a market opportunity and the city should see it as a signal to allow more construction to reduce rents. But many (most?) of the residents oppose new construction on the grounds that it will change the neighborhood's feel and, incorrectly, that it will cause gentrification. It will certainly do the former, but it will help prevent the latter.
  - bradleyjg 13y ago
    I'm with you. The occasional building is fine, but this business with whole neighborhoods gets out of hand. The landmark commission recently created a landmark district in the east village. The east village is an ugly neighborhood of undistinguished walk up buildings. It's no historic Penn Station, that's for sure. The justification was that it was historically important because generations of immigrants had moved through the area. Generations of immigrants had moved through the area, because at the time it was built it was high density housing, and so was affordable. So to honor that history we are going to keep in as a museum that no one can afford to live in. Brilliant!
paddy_m 13y ago
Building new bigger buildings is the only way to lower the cost of living in the city. There is a massive shortage of realestate in the city. Build more and build it faster.
- icambron 13y ago
  Or making the city a worse place to live.

busterarm 13y ago

I don't know specifically what the other poster was referring to, but traditionally the Landmarks Preservation Commission hasn't given a shit about 'historic' buildings in the outer boroughs unless they can preserve an entire district. I think to get a clear answer you'd have to make sure we're all using the same definition of historic. There are definitely buildings that have been torn down for new construction that debatably should have been preserved. A lot of the area around Astoria Park has been demolished for new highrise construction that has mostly not been completed due to market events. Not only are these a blight on the neighborhood but they tore down some absolutely fantastic sites to put them there. Specifically in Astoria Village. The neighborhood, though mostly safe, has been in a shit state for decades due to neglect from the city and housing projects from the 60s. [1] http://forgotten-ny.com/1999/05/astoria-village-part-1-queens/ http://forgotten-ny.com/1999/05/astoria-village-part-1-queen... [2] http://forgotten-ny.com/2005/06/astoria-village-part-2-queens/ http://forgotten-ny.com/2005/06/astoria-village-part-2-queen... [3] http://forgotten-ny.com/2007/12/astoria-village-part-3-queens/ http://forgotten-ny.com/2007/12/astoria-village-part-3-queen...

icambron 13y ago
Right, so that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. I don't know anything specific about Astoria Village, but if rich people want to live there (and presumably they do, or else the real estate developers who wanted to build there were incompetent), then they'll move in one way or another. And with historic Astoria being relatively low-density, they'll displace the existing residents by bidding up rent prices. Unless there's a bunch of new construction. I have no doubt that there are buildings that are of enough historical importance that they shouldn't be demolished to build high rises (i.e. that marginal bit of rent pressure is worth it). I also don't know if in this particular case -- especially given that they weren't completed due to a housing crash -- building high rises ended up being wise; sometimes developers are foolish or shit just happens. And perhaps those things really are all that happened in Astoria; I couldn't say. My point, though, still holds in the general case and certainly holds for something the size of NYC as a whole: preserving historical buildings is fundamentally in tension with preventing gentrification. It's a tradeoff. (And it's a bit of an odd one too: the people who care and should care the most about the historic value of a neighborhood are the people who actually live there. But if constrained housing supply forces them to move, they won't be around to enjoy it anyway.) This is a big issue for me because this exact conversation is happening in my neighborhood in Cambridge, MA, which keeps very strong control over new construction. Rent is skyrocketing with people like me moving in to a poorer minority neighborhood because it's nice and we like it. Developers see that as a market opportunity and the city should see it as a signal to allow more construction to reduce rents. But many (most?) of the residents oppose new construction on the grounds that it will change the neighborhood's feel and, incorrectly, that it will cause gentrification. It will certainly do the former, but it will help prevent the latter.
- bradleyjg 13y ago
  I'm with you. The occasional building is fine, but this business with whole neighborhoods gets out of hand. The landmark commission recently created a landmark district in the east village. The east village is an ugly neighborhood of undistinguished walk up buildings. It's no historic Penn Station, that's for sure. The justification was that it was historically important because generations of immigrants had moved through the area. Generations of immigrants had moved through the area, because at the time it was built it was high density housing, and so was affordable. So to honor that history we are going to keep in as a museum that no one can afford to live in. Brilliant!

paddy_m 13y ago

Building new bigger buildings is the only way to lower the cost of living in the city. There is a massive shortage of realestate in the city. Build more and build it faster.

icambron 13y ago
Or making the city a worse place to live.