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.
LA is being rebuilt more densely and their transit system is being expanded. Other cities like Boston and Philly have gentrified. Chicago moved its housing projects out from areas near downtown and University if Chicago.
Chicago tore down about 85% of its housing projects, not just the ones near downtown and U of C. Most of Chicago Housing Authority property is mixed income. I went to NYC in August, the NYC government should start doing the same thing.
Chicago tore down about 85% of its housing projects, not just the ones near downtown and U of C. Most of Chicago Housing Authority property is mixed income. I went to NYC in August, the NYC government should start doing the same thing.
They won't because they can sell the projects here. The apartments are huge and their grounds have trees and grass. NYC sold a 50% stake to developers of 6 housing projects, and NYCHA said it was reviewing it's portfolio for more asset sales in areas in which they would get the most money. The city is converting some Far Rockaway projects to privately owned housing with a 15 year Section 8 contract. Any city has to work with the federal government for privatizations and tear downs because the people living in them have to be resettled wherever.
Stuytown was basically developed like housing projects (the buildings look identical) and it sold for 5.4 billion dollars.
If trends continue and they seem to be, in 15 years NY will be foreign oligarchs and old money on the island of Manhattan and a uniformity of yuppies (claiming to love the diversity yet they, their friends and coworkers are pretty much the same person) in the surrounding boroughs and across the Hudson. NY's greatness is in its diversity, not the yuppie definition but true diversity and that diversity is dying. What NY needs but probably won't get is a form of moderation of the classes. I'm not hating on the rich, they never bothered me living in soho or tribecca but when a city is becoming a reflection of a neighborhood in that city, you need moderation. It would be the same thing if the city was becoming a reflection of the South Bronx, I'd say "wow ny's going down the ****ter". Speaking of the "new" up and coming South Bronx, the ****ing piano district. Developers claiming it will benefit the neighborhood? The only benefits will go that developer's bank account. Talk about buying low
and selling high. Modern day Robert Moses BS. That's what the piano district should really be called, the Moses district. If you don't know what I'm talking about try Google and you'll get my reference.
It reveals how desperately boring American towns outside NYC have become for the new generation of Americans. It is time to constructa more mega and dense cities like NYC to diminish the demand on NYC.
I agree with this. I hope Philly DC and nyc can become one giant city some day. It sounds dystopian, but oh well. Also I do hope suburbs can urbanize a bit. Maybe this can keep an influx of suburban kids in the burbs instead of moving to an overpriced, competitive, rat-race city .
Last edited by Bronxguyanese; 11-21-2015 at 09:28 PM..
I agree with this. I hope Philly DC and nyc can become one giant city some day. It sounds dystopian, but oh well.
Well in that case Amtrak should change the name of the North East Corridor to the north east vapidor. And guh-ROSS, please keep the DC germs away from me!
LA is being rebuilt more densely and their transit system is being expanded. Other cities like Boston and Philly have gentrified. Chicago moved its housing projects out from areas near downtown and University if Chicago.
You know something is really happening when people start talking about places like Detroit coming back on an upswing and keeping a totally straight face while doing it.
I don't have have any real firsthand knowledge of what's happening in CA, but I know Seattle and Portland are really booming and prices are spiraling upward beyond the reach of many people.
If trends continue and they seem to be, in 15 years NY will be foreign oligarchs and old money on the island of Manhattan and a uniformity of yuppies (claiming to love the diversity yet they, their friends and coworkers are pretty much the same person) in the surrounding boroughs and across the Hudson. NY's greatness is in its diversity, not the yuppie definition but true diversity and that diversity is dying. What NY needs but probably won't get is a form of moderation of the classes. I'm not hating on the rich, they never bothered me living in soho or tribecca but when a city is becoming a reflection of a neighborhood in that city, you need moderation. It would be the same thing if the city was becoming a reflection of the South Bronx, I'd say "wow ny's going down the ****ter". Speaking of the "new" up and coming South Bronx, the ****ing piano district. Developers claiming it will benefit the neighborhood? The only benefits will go that developer's bank account. Talk about buying low
and selling high. Modern day Robert Moses BS. That's what the piano district should really be called, the Moses district. If you don't know what I'm talking about try Google and you'll get my reference.
The problem is those rich and yuppies pay property taxes and other taxes that fund education, transportation, etc. the city had an excess of poor Blacks, poor immigrants, and poor gays that were costing the city money and not paying taxes. Money talks and you know what walks. The city pushed them out if prime real estate via eviction and gentrification.
They won't because they can sell the projects here. The apartments are huge and their grounds have trees and grass. NYC sold a 50% stake to developers of 6 housing projects, and NYCHA said it was reviewing it's portfolio for more asset sales in areas in which they would get the most money. The city is converting some Far Rockaway projects to privately owned housing with a 15 year Section 8 contract. Any city has to work with the federal government for privatizations and tear downs because the people living in them have to be resettled wherever.
Stuytown was basically developed like housing projects (the buildings look identical) and it sold for 5.4 billion dollars.
Why not just tear them down and replace it with mixed income developments? NYC's projects cover large swaths of land, especially Queensbridge(its huge, I walked through).
Why not just tear them down and replace it with mixed income developments? NYC's projects cover large swaths of land, especially Queensbridge(its huge, I walked through).
You don't tear down buildings that can be rehabbed.
NYC did tear town a project development in Brooklyn that had deteriorated beyond repair.
There is nothing wrong with the physical NYCHA buildings themselves (well they do need repairs and renovations). But you just don't randomly tear down buildings. For various reasons unless the building is in structurally bad shape or unusable as is the trend is to do a gut renovation.
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.
