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.
Sure there's room. The sky's (literally) the limit! Most of new construction you see nowadays are not being on vacant lots. They're built where older smaller buildings were torn down. Of course, there are zoning regulations to deal with, but physically there's room.
True we can build taller. But there is just so much available land to build super, tall buildings. We need to improve our transportation infrastructure anyways. Investing in more high speed rails and mass transit option is better. I think more people would rather not live in a super high rise if given the option of using high speed rail to commute 20 to 30 mins outside of manhattan and brooklyn core.
Exactly. At some point when it gets too unbearable for their employees, businesses might think of moving back to the office campuses in NJ.
Maybe you were joking but this maybe could have been a solution in-state. But a high speed train connection between upstate and downstate is nowhere near the horizon.
Maybe you were joking but this maybe could have been a solution in-state. But a high speed train connection between upstate and downstate is nowhere near the horizon.
HSR in NYS has been studied and bandied about for years, it was one of Cuomo's signature issues early in his first term; suffice to say it went no where.
Long story short the distances are too vast, existing ROW already congested (largely with freight but also passenger traffic), and terrain options (all those hills and mountains) make things very complicated.
At best you could get trains instead of going sixty MPH up to 90 mph. That is now where near fast enough to shave any significant time off say a NYC to Albany train service to call it "high speed". Things would still take six or seven hours which is far longer than the two or less via plane.
True HSR as we see in Europe (speeds > 125 mph) requires a ROW that is mostly straight and at grade. Some gently sloping hills can be tolerated as also curves, but in general you want to avoid anything that requires slowing down the train. HSR also requires dedicated tracks with advanced in cab signaling and other safety systems. Long story short even a modest HSR from NYP to Albany would cost billions with very little benefit. New York's forgotten high-speed rail study | POLITICO
Video of Germany's ICE 3 HSR between Frankfurt and Koln. Notice the ROW is mostly at grade and straight or gently sloping. Gentle curves, lots of tunnels (going through mountains rather than over), etc..
P.S.
Forgot the most important thing about HSR; it requires electrification of the ROW. That is *VERY* expensive and not always economical.
Diesel locomotives top out at a high speed of 125mph, which translates often to them running far slower, often <100 mph.
OTOH France has TGV trains capable of reaching 574 km/hr. (356 mph), though obviously they do not run that fast in actual use.
There are only two stretches of electrified passenger rail tracks in the United States; the NEC and the Philly mainline between Paoli and Harrisburg.
Once you take electrification off the table so goes any remote chance of true HSR as the rest of world knows. Again you can get trains going between 90mph and 100mph, but that is about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE4A0nPjyqQ
True we can build taller. But there is just so much available land to build super, tall buildings. We need to improve our transportation infrastructure anyways. Investing in more high speed rails and mass transit option is better. I think more people would rather not live in a super high rise if given the option of using high speed rail to commute 20 to 30 mins outside of manhattan and brooklyn core.
I think you will find different people with different preferences. The penthouses in the new Midtown skyscrapers don't stay vacant for long. I'd prefer it to something further away even with high speed rail.
But yes, transportation infrastructure needs to be improved. That is no easy task of course...we can barely maintain the existing infrastructure as is!
I think you will find different people with different preferences. The penthouses in the new Midtown skyscrapers don't stay vacant for long. I'd prefer it to something further away even with high speed rail.
But yes, transportation infrastructure needs to be improved. That is no easy task of course...we can barely maintain the existing infrastructure as is!
Problem with transit infrastructure is that at least for rail the thing is impossible without spending vast sums. Most of the low hanging fruit (East Side Access for LIRR into GCT) has been done (or started anyway), but that doesn't solve the main problem; you need another train station/terminal.
In theory allowing the LIRR into GCT should free up some tracks at NYP. If and when the two new Hudson River tunnels are ever built *and* the original tubes are rebuilt you'll have four tunnels from NJ into NYC. Fine, but where are the trains going to go? Reopening the LIRR under Macy's could take *some* off the pressure, as will the Farley station (whenever that opens), but any large scale increase in capacity at NYP requires expanding the underground true station. For that you need land, something that is very expensive in Mid-Town NYC and thus not going to come cheap.
Consider the ESA project has cost > 10 billion USD (to date) and counting, and the WTC subway station cost 4 billion, shouldn't hold your breath waiting for anyone to finance any more large scale NYC rail projects. Feds anted up half the projected cost of the Hudson River tunnels, that is probably where things will end for a long time.
No, I didn't say NIMBYs are necessarily clueless (although some maybe). The regular NY'er is clueless. They see rents go up but don't know the real reason why so they blame it on greedy landlords, developers, transplants/gentrifiers/white people, etc.
Those are all just players/supporting cast. They are not the root cause for high housing costs.
There are other reasons of course, such as unions and bureacracy but the main culprit is zoning.
I agree. The average person needs to read an economics for dummies book. After reading about supply and demand, they'll understand that the problem is that zoning is restricting supply.
Solution is simple. For high-density cities like NY, people will have to move to lower-cost, less dense communities. NYS has dozens of towns with low densities that are affordable. When enough people leave and work together to establish vibrant communities in other places, NYC and other expensive towns will have to come down in price because demand will be lower. After moving to and from NYC on multiple occasions, I had enough of the high prices and keeping up with the Joneses. So I moved to a smaller city. Likely, I will move again to an even smaller town. The rich and greedy can keep their big cities. I'm done with the rat race.
I agree. The average person needs to read an economics for dummies book. After reading about supply and demand, they'll understand that the problem is that zoning is restricting supply.
Zoning is not the entire problem to NYC's "affordable" housing problem. Large parts of Chelsea and other former commercial areas of Manhattan were rezoned to allow residential and you don't see much "affordable" housing.
Frist and foremost thing affecting housing in NYC, in particular Manhattan is the cost of land. No one is making anymore of it and those that own it aren't giving it away cheap.
Next comes the very high cost of building *anything* in NYC which includes labor, logistics, community involvement, materials, compliance with various anti-discrimination rules, etc...
Assuming you manage to get around all of the above and more once the property is developed comes taxes and other associated costs of running a building which are very high in NYC.
Oh and finally there is the persistent and deep interference in at least rental housing by NYS and NYC via rent control laws.
When you factor all those and other things into the mix it becomes very expensive to build residential in NYC much less affordable housing. Even that word is rather a moving target. Large numbers of NYC households need *low income* housing because no matter how much supply is created they cannot afford anything remotely near market rate. Once you start going down that route it means getting into bed with NYC and NYS, not something every developer wants (again, see RC and RS).
Zoning is not the entire problem to NYC's "affordable" housing problem. Large parts of Chelsea and other former commercial areas of Manhattan were rezoned to allow residential and you don't see much "affordable" housing.
Frist and foremost thing affecting housing in NYC, in particular Manhattan is the cost of land. No one is making anymore of it and those that own it aren't giving it away cheap.
Next comes the very high cost of building *anything* in NYC which includes labor, logistics, community involvement, materials, compliance with various anti-discrimination rules, etc...
I both agree and disagree with your points. I said before that zoning is a major reason in the high cost of housing by limiting supply but not the only reason and I cited several other reasons mainly unions (you use labor), bureacracy (you use community involvement).
You mention high land prices, which is correct however high land prices can be attributed to zoning (and location). Let me explain why. Eventhough like you said the West Side was rezoned to allow for residential use, the zoning still doesn't allow for enough density. On a given piece of land, if you can only build, for example, 10 units of housing instead of say, 20 units of housing, then the 10 units will cost more per unit than it would if 20 units were allowed.
Many people think Manhattan is full of skyscrapers but that is simply not true. Vast swaths of the middle of Manhattan is still relatively low rise. Outside of the Midtown and Downtown peaks most of the areas in between is too low rise as you can see from these two pics:
Last edited by antinimby; 05-18-2016 at 09:19 PM..
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.
