Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's not a monolithic consensus on this. There are people in NYC that want the poor out in general, though I doubt that's the majority. Then there's a portion who want to figure out a way that the poor can stay in the city and eventually become not poor. Then there are a portion who feel like the poor should always have a place as it's inevitable there will be poor people. Then there are a portion who seemingly want the poor to not just stay but remain poor (also, very small portion of people). Then there's a lot larger portion who don't give it much thought at all.
In terms of policies, NYC is very developer friendly, and compared to perhaps most US cities, has a lot more policies in place to keep and or build affordable housing.
Brooklyn is red hot it consider cool Harlem is getting hot also hipsters want re-brand Harlem as SoHa 110-125th street area lol but Harlem residents not having it.
Oh God..... I really hope SoHa doesn't stick.
That's worse than DoBro
I've considered Harlem and I've also considered going back to Queens, but at this point of my life it's best for me to stay around Lower Manhattan + North Brooklyn
DC is already pretty dense the height issue isn't the driver
The height restrictions are a well known issue. Density has nothing do with it, it's about how many housing units you have, and the restrictions limit DC's housing and office stock. That raises DC's prices. Atlanta doesn't have that issue.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jandrew5
The height restrictions are a well known issue. Density has nothing do with it, it's about how many housing units you have, and the restrictions limit DC's housing and office stock. That raises DC's prices. Atlanta doesn't have that issue.
This being very true. DC, for the first time in years saw apartment rents drop 0.8% in the first two quarters due to over supply in such a short span. The city simply needs more housing to be built to keep up with demand, only now is supply slightly catching up.
The height restrictions are a well known issue. Density has nothing do with it, it's about how many housing units you have, and the restrictions limit DC's housing and office stock. That raises DC's prices. Atlanta doesn't have that issue.
Height restrictions only kept the downtown core of DC from having high-rises to skyscrapers there. Neighborhoods would have remained similar. Atlanta did NO density in high-rises in its neighborhoods and changes nothing as no high-rises outside the core make any difference it they could have them? Most Big cities restrict height in its neighborhoods to maintain their common scale. But their cores let them do high unlike DC.
Generally cost is by location..... location. Proximity to the cores have some highest values. The difference in housing varieties between cities play little roll unless demand for a limited amount is factored in. DC would have still had its quaint low-rise neighborhoods in NO height restrictions. Just a core area of high-rises to skyscrapers might have developed. But would not mean much more in high-rise living? As Philly's neighborhoods would be the same low-rise housing and its restrictions anyway ....only limited skyscrapers not high-rises till the 1980s in merely tradition and not by ordinance.
But of course if DC today ..... could do more high-rises? That would have lead to more housing units and might have eased demand more? But definitely its quaint row-housing neighborhoods would have had NIMBY'S and Preservationist prevent a whole lot of high-rises built still I'd say?
I think the answer to the OP is more simple than a lot of people here seem to think.
Chicago is cheaper because of location. Lets be honest.. its in the middle of no where. If you want to visit another city from Chicago the only close enough to drive to is Detroit.
Philadelphia is sandwiched between Washington DC and NYC. Those two cities suck up most of the air in the room and push Philly into the background making it cheaper.
Chicago is cheaper because of location. Lets be honest.. its in the middle of no where. If you want to visit another city from Chicago the only close enough to drive to is Detroit.
Philadelphia is sandwiched between Washington DC and NYC. Those two cities suck up most of the air in the room and push Philly into the background making it cheaper.
Chicago is cheaper because of the harsh winter weather. The central location is perfect since flights to both coasts and the South are equidistant. (Typical snobby Bi-coastal elitism!)
Why live in just Washington or just NYC when you can have easy access to both? I can see both cities converging here eventually.
I think the answer to the OP is more simple than a lot of people here seem to think.
Chicago is cheaper because of location. Lets be honest.. its in the middle of no where. If you want to visit another city from Chicago the only close enough to drive to is Detroit.
Philadelphia is sandwiched between Washington DC and NYC. Those two cities suck up most of the air in the room and push Philly into the background making it cheaper.
The middle of nowhere for whom? Certainly not me, when I lived in Milwaukee...it was where I could go for lunch, and then back home to make dinner. Maybe the middle of nowhere for you, but there are over ten million people within an hour's drive of Chicago's metro, so that's hardly the middle of nowhere. Or, just an attempt on your part, to get a little dig in?
I think the answer to the OP is more simple than a lot of people here seem to think.
Chicago is cheaper because of location. Lets be honest.. its in the middle of no where. If you want to visit another city from Chicago the only close enough to drive to is Detroit.
Philadelphia is sandwiched between Washington DC and NYC. Those two cities suck up most of the air in the room and push Philly into the background making it cheaper.
Did St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis just vanish into thin air?
The middle of nowhere for whom? Certainly not me, when I lived in Milwaukee...it was where I could go for lunch, and then back home to make dinner. Maybe the middle of nowhere for you, but there are over ten million people within an hour's drive of Chicago's metro, so that's hardly the middle of nowhere. Or, just an attempt on your part, to get a little dig in?
Can't compare to the dense populations and MAJOR cities on the East and West coast. Its the middle of no where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Did St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis just vanish into thin air?
None of those cities are "destination" cities. Maybe St. Louis.. but barely.
No one really cares about Milwaukee, and Indianapolis. Not places on most people's bucket list to visit before they die. People outside the U.S. probably don't even know those places exist lol.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really hope SoHa doesn't stick. 
