Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-22-2016, 10:26 PM
 
391 posts, read 282,798 times
Reputation: 192

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Yeah, those tenements would certainly be illegal to build today. The H with zoning! The H with building codes. No more water and sewage treatment. Bring back cholera and typhoid, also TB from overcrowding. LET THE MARKET DECIDE! (Brought to you by the Libertarian Party, US)
Have you forgotten basic economics? If you knew even a little about NYC's history, you would know that it attracted a ton of poor immigrants who came to the US with very little. If they could afford something better than a tenement, they would've lived in that instead. But tenements were all they could afford. Later on, as these people became wealthier, they moved into nicer places.

Also, I wasn't only talking about tenements. Unless you think every building in NYC is a tenement. Yeah no good architecture. No luxury apartments. Just tenements...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-22-2016, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstsunami55 View Post
Have you forgotten basic economics? If you knew even a little about NYC's history, you would know that it attracted a ton of poor immigrants who came to the US with very little. If they could afford something better than a tenement, they would've lived in that instead. But tenements were all they could afford. Later on, as these people became wealthier, they moved into nicer places.

Also, I wasn't only talking about tenements. Unless you think every building in NYC is a tenement. Yeah no good architecture. No luxury apartments. Just tenements...
I'm no economist, but I/we know enough to have built up a pretty good portfolio on the income of an IT person and a nurse.

No one should have to live in substandard, unsafe housing.

I certainly never said nor meant to imply that all housing in NYC is tenement housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 03:02 AM
 
391 posts, read 282,798 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I'm no economist, but I/we know enough to have built up a pretty good portfolio on the income of an IT person and a nurse.

No one should have to live in substandard, unsafe housing.

I certainly never said nor meant to imply that all housing in NYC is tenement housing.
What if substandard, unsafe housing is all they could afford? You say that no one should have to live in substandard, unsafe housing, but you don't say a solution. How does it make economic sense to forbid substandard housing? How do you do that without driving up the cost of housing? Excessive government regulation is what drives up housing costs. Instead of forbidding tenement housing, why not give people money in the form of welfare to buy better housing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 06:44 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,154,008 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstsunami55 View Post
They also were built up organically over time without excessive zoning regulations. Most buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today. I wonder how a city today would develop organically.
The number for Manhattan is about 40%, not the majority. Doing a study for the entire city would be extremely involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oday.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ilt-today.html

The tenement building with the Thai restaurant and the 20 something guy on the fire escape with his laptop is one of those 40%. Reason: "Too many apartments"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Yeah, those tenements would certainly be illegal to build today. The H with zoning! The H with building codes. No more water and sewage treatment. Bring back cholera and typhoid, also TB from overcrowding. LET THE MARKET DECIDE! (Brought to you by the Libertarian Party, US)
Again, the reasons almost all involve lot height, coverage and density*. Lol, one of those included in the "illegal to build" is the Empire State Building. Reason: "Too much commercial density"

*To be fair, the study was only looking at density-related reasons. It excluded parking as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 06:54 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,154,008 times
Reputation: 15174
Here's an article on NYC tenements today, well 17 years ago. I think many of the apartments in them today aren't as tiny as the article describes but due to the layout can often be inconveniently narrow in parts

Making Tenements Modern - NYTimes.com

The ones in Chinatown are rundown and overcrowded; tends to happen in areas of poor immigrants in old housing

Mr. Papa runs the 1904 midblock tenement at 211 Madison Street, between Clinton and Rutgers Street. It is in a section of the city that is densely populated by Chinese immigrants, many of whom are crowded into small apartments with outmoded appliances and poorly functioning plumbing. ''I see cramped apartments, rodents, broken windows,'' Mr. Papa said.

Eighteen of the 20 apartments in 211 Madison have tubs in the kitchen and tiny toilet rooms, as they did nearly 100 years ago, Mr. Papa said. Rents average only $312 a month, although the existing tenants, faithful rent-payers, could probably pay twice that amount, he said. Mr. Papa said he hopes to get a low-interest city loan of about $20,000 an apartment to improve the building. He said he considers long-term owner negligence to be the principal cause of the building's conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstsunami55 View Post
What if substandard, unsafe housing is all they could afford? You say that no one should have to live in substandard, unsafe housing, but you don't say a solution. How does it make economic sense to forbid substandard housing? How do you do that without driving up the cost of housing? Excessive government regulation is what drives up housing costs. Instead of forbidding tenement housing, why not give people money in the form of welfare to buy better housing?
No one should live in substandard housing. It's like minimum wage. There has to be a "floor" on what's considered safe. It makes economic sense to forbid substandard housing because we're supposed to be a somewhat compassionate society that cares about its members. I am always flabbergasted that people support substandard housing on this forum. We've had some threads about this too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The number for Manhattan is about 40%, not the majority. Doing a study for the entire city would be extremely involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oday.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ilt-today.html

The tenement building with the Thai restaurant and the 20 something guy on the fire escape with his laptop is one of those 40%. Reason: "Too many apartments"



Again, the reasons almost all involve lot height, coverage and density*. Lol, one of those included in the "illegal to build" is the Empire State Building. Reason: "Too much commercial density"

*To be fair, the study was only looking at density-related reasons. It excluded parking as well.
Well, there are a lot of screwy studies. I'm talking basic safety stuff-access, egress, decent plumbing, wiring and the like. Interior rooms with no outside access/egress are generally considered unsafe, especially if the entire apt. is interior. Bad wiring can cause fires. Bad plumbing can spread disease. If density is too high, diseases like tubercolosis can spread more easily. All public buildings have occupancy limits, mainly due to how long it takes to evacuate in case of a fire or other disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 12:04 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,154,008 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Well, there are a lot of screwy studies.
I think the authors know the building codes of NYC well; it's their field of work.

Quote:
I'm talking basic safety stuff-access, egress, decent plumbing, wiring and the like. Interior rooms with no outside access/egress are generally considered unsafe, especially if the entire apt. is interior. Bad wiring can cause fires. Bad plumbing can spread disease. If density is too high, diseases like tubercolosis can spread more easily.
As I said, little have that has to do with what is permissible to build today. Disease spreading isn't a big concern in very high density developed world cities. More likely, interperson contact including disease spreading is a bigger deal outside of the home regardless of density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,167,257 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I think the authors know the building codes of NYC well; it's their field of work.



As I said, little have that has to do with what is permissible to build today. Disease spreading isn't a big concern in very high density developed world cities. More likely, interperson contact including disease spreading is a bigger deal outside of the home regardless of density.
I understand about the study not talking about what is permissible to build these days. The building codes are constantly changing, one hopes for the better. Do you recall that stuff from the book about Omaha from years ago that we discussed? Dirt floors, people getting bit by rats, etc. I can probably dig it up.

Symptoms and causes - Tuberculosis - Mayo Clinic
"People who live or work in prisons, immigration centers or nursing homes are all at a higher risk of tuberculosis. That's because the risk of the disease is higher anywhere there is overcrowding and poor ventilation."

Here's something from Canada:
Housing conditions that serve as risk factors for tuberculosis infection and disease - CCDR Vol.33 ACS-9 - Public Health Agency of Canada
"Poor housing quality and overcrowding are associated with poverty, specific ethnic groups and increased susceptibility to disease4-6. Crowding, poor air quality within homes as a result of inadequate ventilation, and the presence of mold and smoke contribute to poor respiratory health in general and have been implicated in the spread and/or outcome of tuberculosis (TB)7-10."

You know, I don't know everything, even though I've been accused of thinking I do, but I do know my own stuff pretty well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2016, 02:36 PM
 
8,751 posts, read 6,668,618 times
Reputation: 8469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
No one should live in substandard housing. It's like minimum wage. There has to be a "floor" on what's considered safe. It makes economic sense to forbid substandard housing because we're supposed to be a somewhat compassionate society that cares about its members. I am always flabbergasted that people support substandard housing on this forum. We've had some threads about this too.
Yes that would be shocking.

Unfortunately, we have people who value parking and square footage requirements more than basic standards. This means it's impossible to build new housing at low rents. It's a big part of the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top