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.
The projects in NYC won't be demolished but they will be turned into high rise luxury buildings. Especially the ones Manhattan and Brooklyn. Give it about 10 years. They will push the poor and middle class out and give them money for their apartments. NYCHA is going to go under and bought by wealthy real estate companies.
A few years ago Donald Trump was looking at the Polo Grounds in Manhattan.
They will never be destroyed because some buildings have 4-5 bedrooms. These large apartments are in demand and people who have the money will buy them.
The projects will become Million Dollars Listings/Selling NYC apartments.
The projects in NYC won't be demolished but they will be turned into high rise luxury buildings. Especially the ones Manhattan and Brooklyn. Give it about 10 years. They will push the poor and middle class out and give them money for their apartments. NYCHA is going to go under and bought by wealthy real estate companies.
A few years ago Donald Trump was looking at the Polo Grounds in Manhattan.
They will never be destroyed because some buildings have 4-5 bedrooms. These large apartments are in demand and people who have the money will buy them.
The projects will become Million Dollars Listings/Selling NYC apartments.
You know ... this is not so preposterous. There are a bunch of buildings on St. Nicholas / FDB, officially Mitchell-Lama but essentially projects given the people who moved there and who maintain the dominant lifestyle. The one on St. N. and 133rd is entirely Section 8, for example, and the Hampton Houses (both) are almost entirely so.
A year ago, a very big and quite powerful developer bought these in a portfolio with several other area buildings. Everyone said, What ?! Why ? This does not make sense ! To do what with ? The entrenched culture of this area has made it rather impenetrable for gentrification or even small improvements. But it seems that they are doing something and planning more - many evictions in court. I suppose that such a person would always demand his return of investment.
The point is, I could never have imagined this happening with those buildings, but it does open a realm of different possibilities that I had not considered.
I disagree about luxury housing though. There are buildings here and there but Harlem will never be that majority-wise - too far from everything. I do now think they could be developed as middle- or upper-middle class residences, though. I think this will be the trend.
Money comes from landlords. Every day I advise people in disputes and/or housing court actions NOT to simply take the settlement money and run, but to stay and fight because it is for the good of all. You know, the concept of "future," "collective good," etc. These are the same people who babble incessantly about "Our History" and "Our Community" and everything else.
Very, very few to none take my advice. And try pointing this out to people who would like to sell everyone on their wholesale victimhood by the landlords. I observe this in Harlem every day. They are active participants in the so-called "destruction of Our Community."
The city has already started to infill public housing complexes with affordable housing units built by private developers. I forsee more of this happening. Eventually I think the city will want to pass on the burden of maintaining public housing to developers.
The city should sell off the large tracts of land to developers and mandate the same number of low income units be kept. Developers would be able infill and reconfigure the current stock of buildings with mixed-income buildings but have to replace the current street grid. The main problem with this, is that these will be very dense tracts of land since they'd have to house all current residents and build enough non-subsidized units to make the undertaking profitable.
Money comes from landlords. Every day I advise people in disputes and/or housing court actions NOT to simply take the settlement money and run, but to stay and fight because it is for the good of all. You know, the concept of "future," "collective good," etc. These are the same people who babble incessantly about "Our History" and "Our Community" and everything else.
Very, very few to none take my advice. And try pointing this out to people who would like to sell everyone on their wholesale victimhood by the landlords. I observe this in Harlem every day. They are active participants in the so-called "destruction of Our Community."
Because its all about me. If you're poor and the landlord offers you 50K for your apartment, you would take it too. Its a no brainer. Where else could an uneducated poor people get that kind of money for simply moving elsewhere. Its a win-win for both parties. Poor people are barely getting by. Offer 50K and their jaws drop. I don't blame them for taking the offer. At the end of the say they have to look out for themselves. And taking the buyout is just that.
If we did put the majority of people on government vouchers that did pay market rents (or paid up to a certain amount and the working tenant covered the remaining balance (ala, working section 8 and work advantage - which both exist), the would be an underlying problem. Many existing landlords would not take a voucher tenant over a qualified tenant without a voucher due to New York's strict laws that are in favor of the tenants.
Buildings and apartments would have to be maintained to a certain code, or rent would be withheld. As well, it is next to impossible to get rid of these tenants once they are in, especially if the apartment is rent stabilized. Additionally, landlord's would have to deal with government paperwork and abide by their policies.
If the projects were demolished and buildings were put up in their place, who would finance these buildings? The city of New York? An outside source? I just can not see landlords like Beach Lane (being one of the largest in the city), Dermot, ParkOff etc wanting to have to put up with this. And these large landlords are the ones with the means purchase the buildings, or manage them for hedge-funds/REITS that could also purchase them. If the NYCHA managed them, I believe non-voucher tenants would avoid them (first off, most have signs designating them as such buildings, and secondly, a quick Google search of the address could also tell you who owns the building) and seek out buildings not owned by the city.
If you start filling them with half-hardworking families that were forced out of the projects, another 1/3rd regular qualified tenants and the last 1/3rd tenants that would bring down the quality of the building, the landlord would be in a precarious situation. People would start to move out and the building would fill up with undesirable tenants, thus returning the area to its previous state, and possibly even more squalor because now the landlord is not getting a good ROI from the building because he/she would have to drop rents. Thus leading to a decreased state in the condition of the building.
If a regular landlord bought these new buildings, in most cases they would not want to accept voucher tenants, or they would make it very hard for them to qualify, thus gentrifying the area to an extent.
Conversely, we see 80/20 buildings were people whose income varies wildly from the people whom had to go through interviews to pay the reduced rent. I have never interviewed for such an apartment, but I am sure the purpose of the interview of the see how the perspective tenant carries themselves, and their conduct. I am not sure that the people living in 80/20 buildings bring down the quality of the building, but I have friends in MiMa and Silver Towers where such apartments exist, and have not seen anything out of the ordinary (nor have they complained). While these people are not on vouchers, I am sure most are working (how else could they afford the rent) and respect their home and each others' homes. Maybe the new buildings could all be 80/20, or 50/50? Thoughts?
Regarding morally, economically and politically feasible. My visceral instinct is that this act would not be moral, because you would be displacing thousands of people from their homes. The act would not be economical upfront, because the financing would have to originate from somewhere, and banks and hard-money lenders (assuming it was a private entity that purchased the buildings with the intent of demolishing them and improving the integrity of the neighborhood) would have to prove that the end product would be profitable, identify the scope of work (which would be massive) and effectively evict every single tenant, not to mention obtaining thousands of city permits which would delay both demolition and construction. They would have to prove that their new buildings could turn a profit quickly. If the City of New York completed this project, my guess is they would try to sell bonds to raise the money. Lastly, it would not be politically feasible due to the fact that it would take a strong politician with considerable influence to get laws passed to displace people from their homes. Since a government building/highway is not going in its place, I am not sure if eminent domain could be enacted. Moreover, when the current tenants and human's rights groups get wind of what is to come, I am sure there will be a lot of rioting and protesting regarding the destroyed housing. If you destroy three 15 story building that can hold copious amounts of people, and replace them with smaller 4-5 story buildings with commercial tenants on the ground-floor, a lot of people will be displaced.
*sorry for any grammatical errors, I wrote this on my phone*
Though I do agree that there is a higher percentage of crime and undesirable incidents associated with project living, but it sounds to me like Humboldt would like to see an ethnic cleasing of sorts. Poor people have a right to be able to stay in their homes without fear of being relocated by "big brother" with questionable intentions. SMH.
Yes "poor people" have a right to have their existance subsidized by taxes of thr affluent. Is this what you are saying? Brooklyn has always been full of poor ethnic neighborhoods but since nobody subsidized it they all got better with time and some are thr most desirable areas of the city. Long term subsidies are bad.
Regarding eminent domain, a precedent was established that this can be exercised in an area defined by "urban blight." No need to necessarily be building a highway or similar. This was a major landmark decision and I think it will have major implications.
The mixed-income buildings are apparently not great (at all) for the higher income people. We never lived in one but we know many who tried them. Are the buildings mentioned actually with "very low" or "low income" tenants ? Those that contained such a mix were a nightmare for the middle- and higher-income people.
Is this not an issue for the "Bruckner by the Bridge" folks ? Apologies if I got the name wrong. I have heard stories, life with the ghetto folk and all. Not so appealing or acceptable to everyone.
Because its all about me. If you're poor and the landlord offers you 50K for your apartment, you would take it too. Its a no brainer. Where else could an uneducated poor people get that kind of money for simply moving elsewhere. Its a win-win for both parties. Poor people are barely getting by. Offer 50K and their jaws drop. I don't blame them for taking the offer. At the end of the say they have to look out for themselves. And taking the buyout is just that.
I do not blame them either. What annoys me is people insisting that "the landlords" are pushing them from their homes and that this is "racist" and everything else. It's not. It's money-ist, and the so-called victimized tenants play a very central part. If your community means that much to you, stay and fight. Otherwise, take the money and leave.
And the landlords SHOULD pay tenants for giving up their investment - because that's what it is. The landlords make the money back in very short order even with a triple-figure settlement.
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.
