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 hope it won't gentrify in the sense that it will turn yuppie and overly expensive more than anything, NYC needs good, stable, working/middle class neighborhoods, and Bronx, being the final frontier of affordability, just might be the place. I'd look for any inklings of the development of new middle class housing, as opposed to low income housing, a sign of things to come. Also, if middle income FAMILIES move there, you get people who want to put down roots and build a community, as opposed to neighborhoods that attract very young, singles, who are in and out like a revolving door.
I hope it won't gentrify in the sense that it will turn yuppie and overly expensive more than anything, NYC needs good, stable, working/middle class neighborhoods, and Bronx, being the final frontier of affordability, just might be the place. I'd look for any inklings of the development of new middle class housing, as opposed to low income housing, a sign of things to come. Also, if middle income FAMILIES move there, you get people who want to put down roots and build a community, as opposed to neighborhoods that attract very young, singles, who are in and out like a revolving door.
Queens and Staten island are still very affordable and with Queens, there are less than a handful of neighborhoods going through what Manhattan and currently Brooklyn is going through... Off the top of my head the only areas I can think of experiencing a significant amount of gentrification is LIC and Astoria, other than that, the rest of it is just talk with no show... Queens has been and remains a steady working to working middle class borough for the most part and the only thing that separates this borough from Staten Island is its relative proximity to Manhattan...
Not really. A one family house in Queens and co-ops are upwards of $200k. There needs to be middle income designated housing because the 80:20 in higher end housing is not enough to meet the demand. The tune I hear from developers is its not worthwhile to them to build such housing because of their desired profit margin.
If you know specifically which neighborhoods can house all of these families, that list would be useful to a lot of people. Think teacher and postal worker + 2 school aged kids.
Think dual income family of moderate means like a teacher and a postal employee with two kids.(
Not really. A one family house in Queens and co-ops are upwards of $200k. There needs to be middle income designated housing because the 80:20 in higher end housing is not enough to meet the demand.(
$200K is too much for a teacher and a postal worker?
$200k is on the low end and hard to find. I would live in the Bronx but where can I find this is my Question. I don't know of too many in Queens at this level. The few remaining Mitchell Lamas would be perfect but the wait list is probably ten years long.
$200k is on the low end and hard to find. I would live in the Bronx but where can I find this is my Question. I don't know of too many in Queens at this level. The few remaining Mitchell Lamas would be perfect but the wait list is probably ten years long.
Let's say the husband makes $75,000 in a management/supervisory position at the Department of Sanitation. And let's say the wife makes $65,000 as a school administrator. Those are both solidly middle-class jobs. You don't think that two people earning $140,000 per year (likely without any student debt) could afford a home in the $300-$400K range in Queens or SI?
I just did a search on Craigslist for a single family 3-br home in East Elmhurst, Queens to get some prices, and $429K is a common price. Some are in the $550K range.
I don't know SI. Maybe someone else can answer that part of your question.
If they could find a 2 - 3 br co-op, their outlay of cash would be lower, but most still want 20 percent down. That was the beauty of Mitchell Lama. The gateway to enter is a lot less.
I hope it won't gentrify in the sense that it will turn yuppie and overly expensive more than anything, NYC needs good, stable, working/middle class neighborhoods, and Bronx, being the final frontier of affordability, just might be the place. I'd look for any inklings of the development of new middle class housing, as opposed to low income housing, a sign of things to come. Also, if middle income FAMILIES move there, you get people who want to put down roots and build a community, as opposed to neighborhoods that attract very young, singles, who are in and out like a revolving door.
Economically, it makes more sense for people of all income brackets to be in favor of gentrification. Now that makes no sense at first, but hear me out:
Until the post-war period, the vast majority of city dwellers, in turn a large proportion of the population, lived in mixed-income neighborhoods. While some areas tended to be richer or poorer than others, slums that we saw at the time of urban renewal in the '50s to the '70s did not exist. Yes, there were neighborhoods like the Lower East Side that had tenements, but that was the result of economic and cultural factors that are not in play anymore (high birth rates, lack of housing standards etc). As it stands, wealth was distributed relatively evenly in terms of geography, although enclaves such as Fifth Avenue and Riverside Drive did exist. Coupled with a lack of widespread automotive transportation, land use was based on the concept of efficiency. In turn, high density was profitable and such development could occur rapidly at a rather low cost when indexed to inflation, although income levels were also lower. Essentially, the market solely dictated housing and growth, which will never happen again.
With the boom of suburbia in the mid-20th century, economic stratification became standard in the US. For those who remained in the city, there were essentially two categories: the über-rich, who continued to live in prestigious areas such as Fifth Avenue, and the very poor, who weren't able to leave. This left middle-class and those not in either of those two income brackets with little choice in urban places to live. In New York, this was less so due to infrastructure and cultural reasons, but urban neglect certainly took its toll.
Now let's look at gentrification since then. The underlying elements of urbanism that many gentrifiers find attractive were only available in limited geographic quantities where safety and amenities could be assured. As a result, supply and demand for non-geographic reasons (mainly that Manhattan is an island) rapidly drove up the cost of urban living after the supply of cheap housing in areas that never experienced the same drop in value. As a result, gentrification continued in the aim of finding cheap housing. The reason that the process doesn't stop is that the demand for the urban lifestyle is faster than there is new development and rehabilitations and conversions.
When we ask or demand to stop gentrification, we're distorting the market in such a way as to actually increase rents, home prices etc. Yes, it seems that protections should help the lower class, but at the same time, withstanding increased tax bases and other arguments in favor of gentrification, it accelerates the process, but simply in other areas. In essence, it's reverse developmental NIMBYism. If we do actively incentivise new development and gentrification, what you'll see is a buffering of those spikes in prices. Eventually, if we let the market take its course, for lack of a way of sounding less libertarian, ideally there should be an equalisation of wealth geographically which will make every neighborhood the same price. Now in reality this isn't the case as common sense would dictate, but nonetheless the absorption of demand in a wide range of neighborhoods rather than a concentrated few is actually better for all urbanites. Not only does it increase the tax base that in turn pays for social services, but it spreads out positive amenities that come from gentrification more than it would had investments been concentrated in one "trendy" area.
What is the likelihood that most people will latch onto this idea? Little to none. But when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
Eventually, if we let the market take its course, for lack of a way of sounding less libertarian, ideally there should be an equalisation of wealth geographically which will make every neighborhood the same price.
Do you really think this has any chance of happening? A big part of gentrification in NYC is due to 20somethings that want to live within proximity to Manhattan for 2 reasons: a short commute to work and a short commute to the bars (the bars being in their newly gentrified neighborhood). They can stumble home late, and have more time to sleep because they're closer to work. Others just want the shorter commute (either because they work long hours or just hate traveling), and more living space, but the above reason is the majority IMO.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Do you really think this has any chance of happening? A big part of gentrification in NYC is due to 20somethings that want to live within proximity to Manhattan for 2 reasons: a short commute to work and a short commute to the bars (the bars being in their newly gentrified neighborhood). They can stumble home late, and have more time to sleep because they're closer to work. Others just want the shorter commute (either because they work long hours or just hate traveling), and more living space, but the above reason is the majority IMO.
That's why I qualified it with the reality of the situation. Sure those drive up numbers, but part of it is still the seeming inadequacy of space. I remember not even too long ago when being in most of Brooklyn, even in very trendy neighborhoods nowadays, was considered odd or removed. Now it's readily accepted.
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.
