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.
Have you ever heard of the concept mixed income housing?
Who hasn't? And are you for or against it? I'm for it especially if the low-income side is highly scrutinized e.g. credit checks, criminal background checks, etc. The 421-a tax abatement program a/k/a the "80/20 program" believes in this type of scrutinization, and rightfully so. Might as well aim for the creme de la creme of low-income folks, right?
If a low-income person has a job that directly or indirectly helps a higher-income person, whether it be a delivery job or other type of service job, and both live on different floors of the same building, and the low-income person gets to work on time more often due to his/her address, in turn making the higher-income person's life easier, then it's a win-win-win situation (yeah, 3 wins) because it hinders a grotesque imbalance overtaking a neighborhood where it becomes "all one type of person". Gentrification increases the risk of that concept (in purple) taking over to the point of irreversibility. I guess you can say I'm against gentrification that's willy-nilly with little or no thought process behind it. Now if we can socially engineer aspects of gentrification in such a way that it's truly undeniably win-win and sensible and/or innovative, then hey, I'm all for that. The 80/20 program is lauded by many as one example. To my knowledge the 80/20 program is unique to New York City, and if that's true then it raises my pride as a native New Yorker. However, one of its other nicknames --the "housing lottery"-- is apropos because it's hard to win. That's one downside of that particular program.
Sometimes I think if I owned a real estate agency here in NYC, I might consider trying to market "mixed" neighborhoods as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I bet there's a market for that type of packaging, as there are many cool people in this world who genuinely think it's cool to be part of a mosaic.
If people get displaced so be it, that's capitalism. That's the way it works. Survival of the fittest, no? It's always been this way. Get with it or get out.
See, and this is nothing personal against you, but I find that attitude willy-nilly. It's simplistic in that it lacks innovation. None of us have a crystal ball and we can't plan for every future situation/exigency/trend, but we should, at the very least, analyze the ramifications of willy-nilly free-market-driven gentrification from yesteryear. This is why that thinktank event took place on 9/20/2010 on how to keep artistic capital in NYC from dwindling. Here's the link again (reposted from post #17) http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...-choosing-detr
Besides, Harlem is full of rent controlled apartments, most of those people do not have to worry about being displaced.
The kind of brownstone that a hipster is getting all wet about does not have rent stabilization. 6 or more apartments for that. As far as rent control? that will be the one single blighted building left on a block of newly brownstoned buildings, no doubt, fool.
[quote=R3ALTAWK718;17232859]Have you ever heard of the concept mixed income housing?
Besides, Harlem is full of rent controlled apartments, most of those people do not have to worry about being displaced. The community hasn't been working class in the sense of South Brooklyn for generations. It was most recently working poor with high rates of unemployment. Right now it is largely working poor with an influx of professionals and and displacement of some of the blue collar workers.
[quote]You claim to be a native NYer right? Why are you bashing your own childhood and status by saying, "It's the natives doing nothing, so infatuated with their own lives."? I realize that you're trying to separate yourself from uneducated, thugsters and whatever, but generalizing all native NYers like that is really naive, ignorant, and shallow. I'm glad to hear you've moved on, but it appears you still have a few issues.
Quote:
It's true, most New Yorkers do not understand the issues in their own city. I see this every time I visit home. It's not just a NYC thing, it's people in general.
Thats why they elected bloomberg again right?
Gentrification is not so bad. NYC will always be diverse because once again, rent control. I don't know about you but I don't mind the new business along 125th Street. Nor the greening of the outer boroughs. New bike lanes and BRT's. I also don't mind the luxury condos being built. It's nice to see successful people in neighborhoods like Bushwick and Harlem. If people get displaced so be it, that's capitalism. That's the way it works. Survival of the fittest, no? It's always been this way. Get with it or get out.
Where are the poor supposed to go if they can't live in their gentrfied neighboords?
[quote=grimace8;17234014]Who hasn't? And are you for or against it? I'm for it especially if the low-income side is highly scrutinized e.g. credit checks, criminal background checks, etc. The 421-a tax abatement program a/k/a the "80/20 program" believes in this type of scrutinization, and rightfully so. Might as well aim for the creme de la creme of low-income folks, right?
I am for low income development. Economic segregation is not a good thing (Just look at any "projects"). Low income people should be scrutinized. Wouldn't you want timely payments if you offered a service.
Quote:
If a low-income person has a job that directly or indirectly helps a higher-income person, whether it be a delivery job or other type of service job, and both live on different floors of the same building, and the low-income person gets to work on time more often due to his/her address, in turn making the higher-income person's life easier, then it's a win-win-win situation (yeah, 3 wins) because it hinders a grotesque imbalance overtaking a neighborhood where it becomes "all one type of person". Gentrification increases the risk of that concept (in purple) taking over to the point of irreversibility. I guess you can say I'm against gentrification that's willy-nilly with little or no thought process behind it. Now if we can socially engineer aspects of gentrification in such a way that it's truly undeniably win-win and sensible and/or innovative, then hey, I'm all for that. The 80/20 program is lauded by many as one example. To my knowledge the 80/20 program is unique to New York City, and if that's true then it raises my pride as a native New Yorker. However, one of its other nicknames --the "housing lottery"-- is apropos because it's hard to win. That's one downside of that particular program.
I think the problem with you is that you think all the low income people will be displaced. Impossible with NYC's current housing situation. It will remain this way for some time considering the city is still pumping out low income units.
Quote:
Sometimes I think if I owned a real estate agency here in NYC, I might consider trying to market "mixed" neighborhoods as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I bet there's a market for that type of packaging, as there are many cool people in this world who genuinely think it's cool to be part of a mosaic.
Mixed income housing is huge in NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimace8
See, and this is nothing personal against you, but I find that attitude willy-nilly. It's simplistic in that it lacks innovation. None of us have a crystal ball and we can't plan for every future situation/exigency/trend, but we should, at the very least, analyze the ramifications of willy-nilly free-market-driven gentrification from yesteryear. This is why that thinktank event took place on 9/20/2010 on how to keep artistic capital in NYC from dwindling. Here's the link again (reposted from post #17) City fathers scramble to keep New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by modsquad81
The kind of brownstone that a hipster is getting all wet about does not have rent stabilization. 6 or more apartments for that. As far as rent control? that will be the one single blighted building left on a block of newly brownstoned buildings, no doubt, fool.
[quote=Bronxguyanese;17234994][quote=R3ALTAWK718;17232859]Have you ever heard of the concept mixed income housing?
Besides, Harlem is full of rent controlled apartments, most of those people do not have to worry about being displaced. The community hasn't been working class in the sense of South Brooklyn for generations. It was most recently working poor with high rates of unemployment. Right now it is largely working poor with an influx of professionals and and displacement of some of the blue collar workers.
Quote:
You claim to be a native NYer right? Why are you bashing your own childhood and status by saying, "It's the natives doing nothing, so infatuated with their own lives."? I realize that you're trying to separate yourself from uneducated, thugsters and whatever, but generalizing all native NYers like that is really naive, ignorant, and shallow. I'm glad to hear you've moved on, but it appears you still have a few issues.
Where are the poor supposed to go if they can't live in their gentrfied neighboords?
I think you guys are taking the displacement aspect too far. Your worried, "the Man is going to kick me out because I can't pay the high rent".
Some may loose their apartments but again, from rent control (which I include NYCHA, Mitchel Lama, Section 8, and many other programs, some newer than others). A lot if not most of these people in quiet a few neighborhoods have nothing to fear. For those that get kicked out, NYC is always building affordable housing units, or they can move out the city somewhere more affordable.
Even areas like the LES still have heavy populations of low income and working class people. Even a "gentrification Mecca" like East Williamsburg.
R3ALTAWK718, I ask once again: Are you okay with a good new building being mixed, let's say 80% market-rate and 20% income-restricted? By the way, the text in hot pink is the actual terminology used for the 80/20 program, plus it's a convenient example for my question..
I ask because I didn't see you clearly state whether you're anti or pro. If you clarified your position before post #75, then I apologize for not having seen it.
I for one feel there are enough areas in NYC that are more or less "all one type of person" (UES, S.Bronx, G.Village, W'burg) ... It doesn't behoove NYC to have too many of these types of areas IMO. Remember, while my name isn't Mr. Balance, it might as well be.
Edit: Just adding a peculiar comment about the UES, but in a way I think the UES is necessary. My friend from high school (female) married a man who has an 8-figure salary and they live near Museum Mile in the lap of luxury (maid, nanny in the near future, you get the idea). I just can't picture him living anywhere else (or I should say "them" since they're a couple). He's the type that "does business" even when he's supposedly at a dinner party (also on the UES) so they (8-figure salary types) kinda need to be around each other I guess.
Honestly to me all i see in NY is rich and poor. To me its either your poor and live in the projects or you poor and you live in a brownstone that your parents use to live in and now you live in it. Then your rich and live in nice appartments, or Nice Victorian homes or even Mansions. Thats the way i see it. NY is half and half to me. Sadly i'm in the poor group like most New Yorkers.
R3ALTAWK718, I ask once again: Are you okay with a good new building being mixed, let's say 80% market-rate and 20% income-restricted? By the way, the text in hot pink is the actual terminology used for the 80/20 program, plus it's a convenient example for my question..
I ask because I didn't see you clearly state whether you're anti or pro. If you clarified your position before post #75, then I apologize for not having seen it.
I for one feel there are enough areas in NYC that are more or less "all one type of person" (UES, S.Bronx, G.Village, W'burg) ... It doesn't behoove NYC to have too many of these types of areas IMO. Remember, while my name isn't Mr. Balance, it might as well be.
Edit: Just adding a peculiar comment about the UES, but in a way I think the UES is necessary. My friend from high school (female) married a man who has an 8-figure salary and they live near Museum Mile in the lap of luxury (maid, nanny in the near future, you get the idea). I just can't picture him living anywhere else (or I should say "them" since they're a couple). He's the type that "does business" even when he's supposedly at a dinner party (also on the UES) so they (8-figure salary types) kinda need to be around each other I guess.
I support mixed income housing. Even the Upper East Side, though affluent has moderate and low income earners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkvillian718
Honestly to me all i see in NY is rich and poor. To me its either your poor and live in the projects or you poor and you live in a brownstone that your parents use to live in and now you live in it. Then your rich and live in nice appartments, or Nice Victorian homes or even Mansions. Thats the way i see it. NY is half and half to me. Sadly i'm in the poor group like most New Yorkers.
Do you fit this definition.
Moderator cut: Copyright issue
I know for a fact most New Yorkers do not fit this definition. The vast majority of New Yorkers have a supportive income, maybe too much nonsense, have a roof over their head and are nourished.
Poor/poverty is so exaggerated.
Now what I see in NYC are:
-An increasing number of professionals (Of every race, ethnicity, age, nationality, ect)
-An increase in immigrants (Usually entering into the lower income strata but also moderate and very wealthy)
-The same people who utilize rent control (+ NYCHA, Section 8, ect) are still doing so.
-Some up and able to or struggling families or individuals leaving for cheaper, larger or just different housing/lifestyles else ware.
-Some people doubling/tripling up for lower rent (Either for better location, displaced due to rising rents, fires, ect)
This city is not so B/W. Everyone is different but I would not say most New Yorkers are at risk of being displaced (ending up on the streets at the extreme end).
Glad to hear it. What many folks in NYC should realize and smile about is that some of these low income programs are quite selective (e.g. strict credit checks, no illegal aliens and other blockades), resulting in the "better" subsets being let in while keeping the "riff raff" out. The more selective, the better, IMO. I know that sounds kinda mean, but let's be real. Only riff raff likes riff raff. I've heard hard-working Jamaicans say intensely negative stuff about hoodrats, gangstas, welfare mommas, etc and who can blame them? They're speaking their minds as we all should. For the record, and because you were kind enough to answer my question R3ALTAWK718, I'll just go ahead and say I support a carefully monitored and controlled partial semi gentrification. Not to be confused with willy nilly full frontal gentrification. But then it'd be an "incomplete" gentrification, which really isn't bona fide gentrification. ...I guess. ... Just call me Mr. Balance. Anyway, my gut instinct says the newer programs are the ones keeping the riff raff out, a result of painful lessons learned (from past programs). I think when folks hear the word "programs" welfare mommas and thugs immediately spring to mind. This is not 100% true.
Glad to hear it. What many folks in NYC should realize and smile about is that some of these low income programs are quite selective (e.g. strict credit checks, no illegal aliens and other blockades), resulting in the "better" subsets being let in while keeping the "riff raff" out. The more selective, the better, IMO. I know that sounds kinda mean, but let's be real. Only riff raff likes riff raff. I've heard hard-working Jamaicans say intensely negative stuff about hoodrats, gangstas, welfare mommas, etc and who can blame them? They're speaking their minds as we all should. For the record, and because you were kind enough to answer my question R3ALTAWK718, I'll just go ahead and say I support a carefully monitored and controlled partial semi gentrification. Not to be confused with willy nilly full frontal gentrification. But then it'd be an "incomplete" gentrification, which really isn't bona fide gentrification. ...I guess. ... Just call meMr. Balance. Anyway, my gut instinct says the newer programs are the ones keeping the riff raff out, a result of painful lessons learned (from past programs). I think when folks hear the word "programs" welfare mommas and thugs immediately spring to mind. This is not 100% true.
How 'bout I call you Mista Wishy Washy.
Quote:
I support a carefully monitored and controlled partial semi gentrification
What the hell???
Can I get a T shirt?
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.