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 feel I speak for many people in New York when I say these things. Feel free to disagree with me if you want in a civil way but I've had enough experiences to tell me that there is a point being reached soon when a straw will break the camel's back.
I disagree (In a civil way ).
Seriously, it all comes down to the infrastructure in the area. Back in the early 1900s, nobody owned a car, and so you were able to build a bunch of narrow streets and still accomodate all of those people. In Manhattan, it's still very much transit- and pedestrian-centric, but in a lot of areas in the outer boroughs, they are built around the car (of course, they aren't complete sprawling suburbs, but they are much more car-centric than Manhattan). Cars take up a lot of space. Near me, Richmond Avenue becomes a massive 12 lane road (not in my immediate area, but around 3/4 of a mile south of me). Think of how much you can build on 12 lanes worth of space. If you don't want to build high-rises, you can still build a decent number of houses.
So if we went back to the ideal world where nobody owned a car, we'd have more money available to fund transit, which can accomodate a very high population density if built correctly. I remember reading somewhere that Moscow (Russia)'s density was over 100K per square mile, and I'm sure some Asian cities are also able to accomodate high population densities with their good (albeit crowded) transit systems.
I think that it isn't good that many people in America have this idea that growth and development is good, but actually it is not when it is uncontrolled. I think the housing bubble happened for a reason, and New York City cannot continue to grow infinitely.
Growth isn't bad as many people who protest all the time thinks either.
Quote:
There are MANY New Yorkers who would agree that developers are in bed with government officials, and many protested against things like the Atlantic yards projects. This LIC project is similar too but there has to be limits to growth even in New York City.
I think that's a problem. Please example to me what that area was doing before this project. To my knowledge it was a big hole and it was stationary for LIRR. With 2.5 Million people what amenities/money was that bringing in?
Quote:
New York does not need to keep growing and they can revitalize their communities instead of building to the maximum limit. So these highrises will house more people in LIC or anywhere in NY's 5 boroughs will bring more people and increase tax revenue. So what? You'll need more tax revenue to support those people who add. Therefore the city government doesn't gain anything from adding more people, infact it must spend MORE per person, the more people you add to a city. NYC is ok where it is at but adding more will increase an already struggling city government even more. Go look at the threads on this forum about NYPD doing everything they can to extract money from people to fill city coffers over even the smallest thing and the horror stories about it. Want more people in NYC? Such things will happen more in order to support them.
I also disagree with this. Somewhat, if you're just talking about Manhattan, understandable. But the other 4 (3, if parts of Brooklyn isn't included) looks bleak. Some areas look run down and boarder line depressing. NYC (mostly the other boroughs) needs more amenities, especially for our population and it feels like the only time you get more amenities, is when you revitalize an area. So I ask, instead of the Atlantic Yards development - what would you have suggested?
Quote:
What about the schools? Aren't NYC's schools overcrowded and underperforming already? Adding more residential housing will add more children, and further degrade the children's learning experience. If you are a parent to these children, wouldn't you be concerned about the quality of education your children get? Adding more children will make it harder for your children to get a good education and leads to more disciplinary problems in schools and less teacher attention. It is already a known fact that smaller schools improve children's education.
I feel as if they should build more schools & cater to the arts and sciences more. With NYC, people should realize we need 2x's the amount as any other america city. So I won't suggest we stop growing, I say we accommodate + build things that's needed. Schools, retail, MORE TRANSIT, etc.
Quote:
Do I even need to tell about how many C-D posters also find the commute by subway way too crowded and terrible? It will get worse if we keep on adding more people. Not being able to move in an overpacked subway is probably not healthy.
The city should stop being cheap and hire double the amount of workers they currently have for engineers. Maybe if people weren't so hesitant about development, we wouldn't worry about them protesting about more lines/transit. THEN maybe the city & the MTA would build out with more transit. Once again with a city like NY, we need double the amount of everything. Instead of building the 2nd Ave line parts of Brooklyn and Queens would've benefited with a new line or 2/3. Which I hope happen in the future.
Quote:
It is true that sprawl is a bad thing, but we shouldn't stuff up NYC with more and more people when the cup is already full. If you look on the C-D forums there are many posters who've already said they don't want more overcrowding, and this LIC highrise redevelopment is just amongst many in NYC that will put too many people in city that is already struggling to handle what it has.
They can leave at any time though, I don't get it. I'm a native New Yorker and I welcome these changes. Especially in areas where there is nothing there/in use! Look at the Domino Factory development in Brooklyn. What's there now?
They're still preserving the factory but building new amenities/residential as well.
Quote:
Even amongst ecologists, it was recommended in a magazine that there be mini-cities build to house a growing population but adding more to an already crowded city will just make things worse. The government's idea of straining NYC's infrastructure with more housing or office buildings will be a receipe for disaster in the long run. That is why so many people resist growth in their community because there is something innate in us that needs that, and NYC shouldn't be any different.
Mini cities? Yeah I think each borough passed this recommendation already. Maybe some where in say Kansas, this'll be more suitable?
Quote:
I feel I speak for many people in New York when I say these things. Feel free to disagree with me if you want in a civil way but I've had enough experiences to tell me that there is a point being reached soon when a straw will break the camel's back.
Fortunately, you don't speak for me or thousands of other people with my same sentiments. There's no excuse why some of the areas in the boroughs are bleak and just lackluster. NONE. This isn't the 1800's or the 80's for that matter. Manhattan (& Brooklyn, to a certain extent) has pulled it's own weight for a while now and it's about time, the city and others are investing in the other boroughs.
I guess the problem is that these developments won't be affordable to the (non-ghetto) poor to middle working class. I am glad that the development is NOT in Manhattan since this area is already overcrowded. But i do agree with others that NYC is becoming too overcrowded. We are 8.2 million strong with 40 million annual tourists (100K in a day), outside residents who come to the city for work, etc.
If you think NYC is crowded you can move to Phoenix, Arizona and enjoy your sprawl. NYC is in such a high demand because its that crowded and dense. To me, outside of certain Manhattan areas NYC isn't dense enough!
If you think NYC is crowded you can move to Phoenix, Arizona and enjoy your sprawl. NYC is in such a high demand because its that crowded and dense. To me, outside of certain Manhattan areas NYC isn't dense enough!
NYC is in high demand because it's the capital of the world. You have all the major finance, fashion, & entertainment companies in the world. You take that away and NYC will not be in demand.
I think this is a great thing I want all the outer boroughs to be more developed and have more amenities, like others have posted Manhattan and the "hip" parts of Brooklyn should not be the only laces in the city that gets great amenities as gets developed the better the rest of the outer boroughs get the better the city as a whole gets.
I guess the problem is that these developments won't be affordable to the (non-ghetto) poor to middle working class. I am glad that the development is NOT in Manhattan since this area is already overcrowded. But i do agree with others that NYC is becoming too overcrowded. We are 8.2 million strong with 40 million annual tourists (100K in a day), outside residents who come to the city for work, etc.
They won't be affordable (actually, the Hunter's Point project is going to be mostly "affordable housing", but whatever), but they will draw the wealthy out of housing that would be more affordable. Building more luxury housing alleviates the market pressures on non-luxury housing as well by lowering the price of luxury housing. The upper-middle class moves out of non-luxury housing into luxury housing, the middle class moves in where the upper-middle class lived before.
The city should stop being cheap and hire double the amount of workers they currently have for engineers. Maybe if people weren't so hesitant about development, we wouldn't worry about them protesting about more lines/transit. THEN maybe the city & the MTA would build out with more transit. Once again with a city like NY, we need double the amount of everything. Instead of building the 2nd Ave line parts of Brooklyn and Queens would've benefited with a new line or 2/3. Which I hope happen in the future.
I agree that there should be more subway lines in the outer boroughs (F extension to Springfield Blvd, 4 extension to Kings Place, 2 extension to Sheepshead Bay, etc), but I don't think it should be at the expense of the SAS. Lexington Avenue is the most crowded subway line in the country and the buses in the area aren't cutting it. Those areas are already well-developed (and has been for over 70 years), but it hasn't been accomodated for.
The upper-middle class moves out of non-luxury housing into luxury housing, the middle class moves in where the upper-middle class lived before.
That only works if demand is satisfied for the higher bracket, or if the difference is location more than amenities. Otherwise, it just makes sense for landlords to tear down their cheaper housing and build more housing for the rich. I suspect that you could probably build luxury apartments on every residential lot in Manhattan and still have enough upper-middle-class to wealthy people to fill them.
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.
).
