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.
New York City could easily add more affordable housing in Manhattan, especially below 96th Street if the mayor's office and City Council sat down and saw sense.
Instead of listening to a bunch of persons that want to see much of Manhattan frozen in a time capsule, open up zoning along some of the avenues (Third, Second, and First come to mind), to allow higher buildings. Also allow for greater density in some areas as well. If done correctly this will not result in significant loss of "light and air" that people who have nothing to do all day but inspect their neighorhoods fear.
Next tweak and bring back the J-51A program offering tax abatements for RS apartments, but solve some of the problems created by the courts and government that keep developers from getting into bed with the City on such projects. In particular the NYS court ruling on Stuyvesant Town that reversed buy outs of RS apartments even though owners had been following what they (and much established case law) presumed was the law of the land.
Third Avenue going east in particular is very under developed because of the El that once ran up that street and lack of a subway other than the IRT #6. Now that the Second Avenue subway will open in 2016, and more parts are to come much of the reasons people didn't want to live further than say Second Avenue can be handled. Yorkville above East 86th Street in particular could handle a bit more density if done correctly. Many of those old rat infested tenaments are slowly coming a part anyway.
Finally NYC needs to stop forcing landlords to run their business as a charity. By and large despite what many say most landlords do not want to evict tenants that are paying rent on time and otherwise behaving themselves. Why would they? OTOH allowing persons to drag out eviction proceedings for all and sundry reasons that have nothing to do with a landlord simply means they either won't rent or will do so only to highly qualified individuals.
City also had a golden chance with Williamsburg and many areas of Brooklyn to create and or preserve affordable housing. But no, while some is being built it is no where near enough to deal with those that are being displaced by gentrification in those areas, much less new arrivals.
At what point is enough enough? What is the obsession with trying to fit as many people into this tiny space as possible? The infrastructure of the city (roads, traffic, subways, entrance / exit tunnels / bridges) can't handle capacity as is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
New York City could easily add more affordable housing in Manhattan, especially below 96th Street if the mayor's office and City Council sat down and saw sense.
Instead of listening to a bunch of persons that want to see much of Manhattan frozen in a time capsule, open up zoning along some of the avenues (Third, Second, and First come to mind), to allow higher buildings. Also allow for greater density in some areas as well. If done correctly this will not result in significant loss of "light and air" that people who have nothing to do all day but inspect their neighorhoods fear.
Next tweak and bring back the J-51A program offering tax abatements for RS apartments, but solve some of the problems created by the courts and government that keep developers from getting into bed with the City on such projects. In particular the NYS court ruling on Stuyvesant Town that reversed buy outs of RS apartments even though owners had been following what they (and much established case law) presumed was the law of the land.
Third Avenue going east in particular is very under developed because of the El that once ran up that street and lack of a subway other than the IRT #6. Now that the Second Avenue subway will open in 2016, and more parts are to come much of the reasons people didn't want to live further than say Second Avenue can be handled. Yorkville above East 86th Street in particular could handle a bit more density if done correctly. Many of those old rat infested tenaments are slowly coming a part anyway.
Finally NYC needs to stop forcing landlords to run their business as a charity. By and large despite what many say most landlords do not want to evict tenants that are paying rent on time and otherwise behaving themselves. Why would they? OTOH allowing persons to drag out eviction proceedings for all and sundry reasons that have nothing to do with a landlord simply means they either won't rent or will do so only to highly qualified individuals.
City also had a golden chance with Williamsburg and many areas of Brooklyn to create and or preserve affordable housing. But no, while some is being built it is no where near enough to deal with those that are being displaced by gentrification in those areas, much less new arrivals.
At what point is enough enough? What is the obsession with trying to fit as many people into this tiny space as possible? The infrastructure of the city (roads, traffic, subways, entrance / exit tunnels / bridges) can't handle capacity as is.
Well for one thing unless you want Manhattan to turn into London, Paris, and Boston to name a few cities you want to create affordable housing in the core, not just way out somewhere. Otherwise you get what has happened in the aforementioned places; high housing costs means they are largely cities for the upper and wealthy classes.
London has bad food last I was there. But their infrastructure seems to be a bit better. They have a direct train to the plane from the city's core. Never been to paris. Wanted to take amtrak to boston on the acela and get clam chowder and a lobster roll.
London has bad food last I was there. But their infrastructure seems to be a bit better. They have a direct train to the plane from the city's core. Never been to paris. Wanted to take amtrak to boston on the acela and get clam chowder and a lobster roll.
Well yes England has never been known as a hub of great food! *LOL* Historically down the years there have been many comments/complaints about what passes for good eating in those damp and cold islands.
However to be fair many modern chefs and restaurants in London at least are trying to change things, but there is still room for improvement. First time had a full English breakfast managed to get most of it down but couldn't deal with having beans that early in the day.
Well for one thing unless you want Manhattan to turn into London, Paris, and Boston to name a few cities you want to create affordable housing in the core, not just way out somewhere. Otherwise you get what has happened in the aforementioned places; high housing costs means they are largely cities for the upper and wealthy classes.
There was plenty of affordable housing in Manhattan. It was called rent stablilization. Only affordable housing isn't that PROFITABLE. Who wants to operate affordable housing in the most expensive part of the United States?
Many of the rent controlled units were converted into co ops, and some buildings were torn down and replaced by luxury housing.
There was plenty of affordable housing in Manhattan. It was called rent stablilization. Only affordable housing isn't that PROFITABLE. Who wants to operate affordable housing in the most expensive part of the United States?
Many of the rent controlled units were converted into co ops, and some buildings were torn down and replaced by luxury housing.
Should like to clear something up; just because an apartment is RS does not mean it is "affordable". What tenants can pay in rent reflects their household income. Many of the seniors and others you see digging through rubbish bags for food live in RS apartments. However their monthly income is such that rent, even if only $500/month consumes a vast part of their funds. Now for a person earning $3K per month a rent of that amount would be very affordable.
Know of persons living in RS apartments paying >$1800 per month in rent.
The chief benefit of RS comes not only in the controlled rent increases but the fact absent violation of one's lease and a few other things you cannot be evicted and must be offered a renewal lease under the same terms as the original. You just don't get those sort of protections with open market rentals. Knew persons living in Yorkville in the East 80's when it was mostly young persons and trannie hookers. Their rent (co-op or condo rental) was very cheap. Once the area became hot they go renewal notices with increases of 100% or more. One guy's landlord wanted $2K when the rent was only $900/month before.
Indeed for many living in RS apartments due to stagnant wages, inflation and general increased cost of living in NYC more and more of their income goes towards rent. There has not been a rent freeze in NYC RS apartments even during the worse economic times. So even when wages flat, rent increases.
There was plenty of affordable housing in Manhattan. It was called rent stablilization. Only affordable housing isn't that PROFITABLE. Who wants to operate affordable housing in the most expensive part of the United States?
Many of the rent controlled units were converted into co ops, and some buildings were torn down and replaced by luxury housing.
First you probably mean RS as rent control was ended years ago and any tenant in such an apartment would likely be a senior citizen which adds another layer of protection.
Yes, many RS apartments were "emptied" but in many cases tenants took offers of buy outs or other arrangements were made. If my landlord offered to meet my number I'd be gone in a shot. Am getting kin of over Manhattan and would love to buy property in the South or somewhere else than here.
Building *ANYTHING* in NYC is more expensive than any where else in the country. Between zoning, unions and dealing with the City it just takes ages and everyone wants their taste.
Right now considering the above and the high cost of land it just does not make sense to build rental much less low to even middle income housing. Current demand is for condos and perhaps high end rentals. If you are a developer looking at the vast debt it takes to build anything in this city you are going to go with what you hope will move.
Manhattan and many other areas of NYC used to be mainly a rental market, but slowly that is changing. People want to own, and the current low mortgage rates are making that easy. If a household can pay $3K in rent they probably can afford a mortgage and why then throw that money out the window paying a land lord?
It would be idiot to put housing into mid-east midtown (west of Third Ave.) That area should stay designated at commercial/office. This should be a engine of economic growth, not a bedroom community..
You're correct that the office space may not be necessary in the short term, but we want to make sure it can be made available in the long term.
And I'm sick of people who think any part of NYC should be "reserved" for any particular economic group. In point of fact, most of the government manipulations of the real estate market (rent regulation, landmarking, public housing, and good sized chunks of the zoning code) should be eliminated, and the market allowed to build what there is the most demand for. The reason that the NYC real estate market is a screwed up as it is, is sixty years of ill conceived interference from the government. There would be a lot more affordable housing then there is now, if the city and state had stayed out of the real estate market.
It funny how you're calling some of the most desirable new neighborhoods screwed up. In point of fact, I want as many wealthy people in NYC as we can possibly pack in. They pay a lot more taxes than the poor would. Makes it easier to keep up the services and infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
City Council was correct in killing Bloomberg's last minute legacy of rezoning Mid-Town East. The thing is not *dead* by all means. It just now can go back to the drawing board and have something that comes out to benefit all New Yorkers, and not just the real estate lobby/property owners.
Once these rezoning plans are done and allowed to proceed the effects will be felt for decades and often things both unforeseen and warned about do happen.
Right now the office leasing market in many parts of Manhattan is slow to weak as companies downsize, move out of NYC and find ways of operating with fewer employees. Just look at how many former office buildings in the Wall Street/Financial District have been converted into housing. That and or torn down and housing built in it's place.
Then there is the fact you've got the World Trade building coming on line soon, and whatever is being put up at the Hudson Yards. In short there may not be a need for vast rezoning of Mid-Town East for yet more office space.
If you want to put housing in that area then you need to consider infrastructure and services. Schools, shops, etc... In particular schools as there are precious few in that part of Manhattan.
Bloomberg and his cronies in the various city agencies regarding real estate, zoning and so forth have already wrought havoc on many NYC areas over the past twelve years, usually pushing middle class and below out in favour of the wealthy. Williamsburg, Far West Side, Meat Packing District are all examples. Better to take some time and do the Mid-Town East thing right.
Right idea, wrong neighborhood. The UES is much higher density than Hell's kitchen, the LES, the East and West Villiages, SoHo, TriBeCa, etc.. Those areas need to be greatly opened up to development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
New York City could easily add more affordable housing in Manhattan, especially below 96th Street if the mayor's office and City Council sat down and saw sense.
Instead of listening to a bunch of persons that want to see much of Manhattan frozen in a time capsule, open up zoning along some of the avenues (Third, Second, and First come to mind), to allow higher buildings. Also allow for greater density in some areas as well. If done correctly this will not result in significant loss of "light and air" that people who have nothing to do all day but inspect their neighorhoods fear.
Next tweak and bring back the J-51A program offering tax abatements for RS apartments, but solve some of the problems created by the courts and government that keep developers from getting into bed with the City on such projects. In particular the NYS court ruling on Stuyvesant Town that reversed buy outs of RS apartments even though owners had been following what they (and much established case law) presumed was the law of the land.
Third Avenue going east in particular is very under developed because of the El that once ran up that street and lack of a subway other than the IRT #6. Now that the Second Avenue subway will open in 2016, and more parts are to come much of the reasons people didn't want to live further than say Second Avenue can be handled. Yorkville above East 86th Street in particular could handle a bit more density if done correctly. Many of those old rat infested tenaments are slowly coming a part anyway.
Finally NYC needs to stop forcing landlords to run their business as a charity. By and large despite what many say most landlords do not want to evict tenants that are paying rent on time and otherwise behaving themselves. Why would they? OTOH allowing persons to drag out eviction proceedings for all and sundry reasons that have nothing to do with a landlord simply means they either won't rent or will do so only to highly qualified individuals.
City also had a golden chance with Williamsburg and many areas of Brooklyn to create and or preserve affordable housing. But no, while some is being built it is no where near enough to deal with those that are being displaced by gentrification in those areas, much less new arrivals.
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.
