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.
All these developers are too late; they should have snapped up and built when property owners in Williamsburg were begging anyone to take their buildings. The next four years are going to be hell for any one doing residential development. Well at least those whose projects have not started or are near completion. Those even *THINKING* of purchasing and or developing property are going to have to deal with de Blasio and his progressive administration, City Council and that body's speaker.
On top of that, at least in Manhattan rents have been down for the past few months. The market may be softening. The number of jobs on Wall Street have shrank and tech and media jobs on average don't pay as much. Some of the developers that are too late may end up biting huge losses if the market declines, on top of having to deal with de Blasio's administration.
That happens in the market all the time. Those who come late to the party always get SCREWED.
There are a number of problems with a pure free housing market. One is that we have certain standards for what we consider acceptable housing for humans. The last time we had a pure free market in New York was the 19th century tenement days. There is no market pressure to build housing any better than that for the working or even middle classes. You can pass housing codes to make apartments better, but people will still overcrowd in them, which indeed is what happens in outer borough immigrant neighborhoods.
Another reason is that if you actually maxed out development to what the market would bear, the city would look like Blade Runner and people just don't want that, which is totally valid.
Market-rate housing doesn't mean there's no housing code! It just means not rent-regulated. Nothing in my post even remotely suggested changes to the housing code. Some aspects of the housing code are due for revision (and not all in a pro-developer manner; the code is just outdated and laden with interest-group riders), but it has very little to do with the housing problem. Thus, talk about tenement housing is not really relevant. Certainly rent regulation doesn't do anything to solve the problem of substandard housing; if anything, it exacerbates the issue as (i) landlords are incentivized to skimp on maintenance of existing rent-regulated units as much as legally possible (and a small number also take illegal actions) and (ii) developers of new rent-regulated units are incentivized to build the absolute minimum size and quality needed to meet standards rather than larger or higher quality units that might otherwise rent for more on the open market.
Also, the market would not bear a Blade Runner-esque city. You could double the population of NYC without the overall "feel" changing, and there's no way the market would bear enough development to double the population, at least not within the next 50 years. A rough rule of thumb is two people per new unit of development, thus even building 1,000,000 new units wouldn't come close to doubling the population (increasing from just over 8 million to just over 10 million), and that many units would easily overwhelm the market. The job market isn't there to double the population, for one, and plenty of people do want their picket fence and front yard in the suburbs. This is a common fear, but one not really grounded in the reality of the situation.
Last edited by BrownstoneNY; 02-28-2014 at 03:17 PM..
Funny, I was just wondering to myself riding into Brooklyn on the J train today why a long-ago shuttered factory on a prime piece of waterfront property still sits undeveloped in 2014.
Funny, I was just wondering to myself riding into Brooklyn on the J train today why a long-ago shuttered factory on a prime piece of waterfront property still sits undeveloped in 2014.
You can find prime water front real estate even in Manhattan lying about spare. The old Keller Hotel on West Street/West Side Highway has been sitting empty for decades now rotting away. This despite that are of the Village being so hot not even Super Storm Sandy could hold it down for long.
Market-rate housing doesn't mean there's no housing code! It just means not rent-regulated. Nothing in my post even remotely suggested changes to the housing code. Some aspects of the housing code are due for revision (and not all in a pro-developer manner; the code is just outdated and laden with interest-group riders), but it has very little to do with the housing problem. Thus, talk about tenement housing is not really relevant. Certainly rent regulation doesn't do anything to solve the problem of substandard housing; if anything, it exacerbates the issue as (i) landlords are incentivized to skimp on maintenance of existing rent-regulated units as much as legally possible (and a small number also take illegal actions) and (ii) developers of new rent-regulated units are incentivized to build the absolute minimum size and quality needed to meet standards rather than larger or higher quality units that might otherwise rent for more on the open market.
I know there's a housing code. What I mean is that, right now, a 1 bedroom apartment in a place like Elmhurst, for example, costs 1200 to 1400 which is very expensive for low-wage workers. So you have multiple families living in such apartments, which is good for landlords but bad for tenants' quality of life. Also, over half of New Yorkers pay more than a third of their income in rent, and some alarmingly high fraction, I think close to a third, pay over half. This is bad, not only for tenants' quality of life but for the city's economy as a whole. Some kind of subsidy and regulation system can remedy this, even if the current system is flawed.
You're right about Blade Runner, I should have thought that through. I did some quick arithmetic and found that if you built out the entire city to the density of the Upper East Side, it could hold almost 36 million people!
There are a number of problems with a pure free housing market. One is that we have certain standards for what we consider acceptable housing for humans. The last time we had a pure free market in New York was the 19th century tenement days. There is no market pressure to build housing any better than that for the working or even middle classes. You can pass housing codes to make apartments better, but people will still overcrowd in them, which indeed is what happens in outer borough immigrant neighborhoods.
Another reason is that if you actually maxed out development to what the market would bear, the city would look like Blade Runner and people just don't want that, which is totally valid.
The city is going to look like bladerunner esque 2019 L.A eventually. In matter of fact some of NYC infrastructure looks like that of Blade Runner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownstoneNY
Market-rate housing doesn't mean there's no housing code! It just means not rent-regulated. Nothing in my post even remotely suggested changes to the housing code. Some aspects of the housing code are due for revision (and not all in a pro-developer manner; the code is just outdated and laden with interest-group riders), but it has very little to do with the housing problem. Thus, talk about tenement housing is not really relevant. Certainly rent regulation doesn't do anything to solve the problem of substandard housing; if anything, it exacerbates the issue as (i) landlords are incentivized to skimp on maintenance of existing rent-regulated units as much as legally possible (and a small number also take illegal actions) and (ii) developers of new rent-regulated units are incentivized to build the absolute minimum size and quality needed to meet standards rather than larger or higher quality units that might otherwise rent for more on the open market.
Also, the market would not bear a Blade Runner-esque city. You could double the population of NYC without the overall "feel" changing, and there's no way the market would bear enough development to double the population, at least not within the next 50 years. A rough rule of thumb is two people per new unit of development, thus even building 1,000,000 new units wouldn't come close to doubling the population (increasing from just over 8 million to just over 10 million), and that many units would easily overwhelm the market. The job market isn't there to double the population, for one, and plenty of people do want their picket fence and front yard in the suburbs. This is a common fear, but one not really grounded in the reality of the situation.
I agree, that the city rental market is not going to bare a Blade Runner esque city. In 2019 Blade runner their is no housing shortage in L.A, however there is an housing shortage in NYC in terms of affordability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BinxBolling
I know there's a housing code. What I mean is that, right now, a 1 bedroom apartment in a place like Elmhurst, for example, costs 1200 to 1400 which is very expensive for low-wage workers. So you have multiple families living in such apartments, which is good for landlords but bad for tenants' quality of life. Also, over half of New Yorkers pay more than a third of their income in rent, and some alarmingly high fraction, I think close to a third, pay over half. This is bad, not only for tenants' quality of life but for the city's economy as a whole. Some kind of subsidy and regulation system can remedy this, even if the current system is flawed.
You're right about Blade Runner, I should have thought that through. I did some quick arithmetic and found that if you built out the entire city to the density of the Upper East Side, it could hold almost 36 million people!
Downtown Brooklyn is not middle class family friendly and supply for renters are already on the way. At least a year ago when I was there 11 hi-rise going up which were all rental geared to bring online more than 2,000+ rental units. Also most of the units are either studios or 1BR since it is rental focused building. And all the new stuff being built, typically 2BR is smaller than 900 sq ft. In addition, there's at least one or two hotels being built there as we speak.
Going market rate for sale price for 2BR condo in Downtown Brooklyn is above 700 to 800k+ if you could even find one. I believe its about 900+ per sq ft in Downtown Brooklyn now.
Need to consider elsewhere and further out if city wants to try to get some middle class friendly homes built. Honestly if Brooklyn Red Hook would be good. That area lacks good mass transportation which is one of the reason why it has been slow on gentrifying and that area has lot of space. Just need a good solid bus system or perhaps city considering the trolly plan that's been proposed before to connect trolly to MTA station.
Not sure how DTB will look like when those 11 towers are built but likely will still be sparse with room for more. Or if the market for 1BR is saturated, developers can combine units to create 2BRs. Fewer people are having families and kids so that could be a reflection of today's realities. And as I mentioned earlier there are larger swaths of lower Manhattan and southern Bronx within transit hubs that have very sparse skylines and can accommodate 50+ story apartments so one can bring new supply in those areas online to either compete with or provide an alternative to DTB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
There's absolutely no rational reason for the government to step in. Either you can afford to live in NYC or you can't. Having a NYC apartment is not a God given or constitutional right. If more people faced the reality that they can't afford to NYC and left, real estate prices would go down if the demand went down.
Isn't the government already involved in the real estate market and hasn't it been involved in literally every major project?
Believe they were also involved in the campus expansions of Columbia U, NYU and the new Cornell-Technion graduate school, as they had been with Battery Park City. Were it not for the government, none of these would have come to fruition.
New supply to meet demand would never be freed up without the help of the government given that supply does not immediately or perfectly respond to demand.
The other thing is - the government is already and ultimately responsible for maintaining a vast expanse of roads, bridges, sewers, schools and drainages so effectively it is subsidizing the housing of people in the fringe areas - those who own SFHs and MFHs. That includes expensive road repairs, infra maintenance, law enforcement, 911, snow plowing, garbage collection, state aid to public schools, etc. If supply were brought closer to the center of the city, there would be less need to maintain the *expensive* infrastructure and other services on the government's dime in the fringes and you end up reducing government involvement and spending.
Last edited by Forest_Hills_Daddy; 03-01-2014 at 05:28 AM..
A compromise has been reached - 40 more apartments
[T]he developer will provide an additional 110,000 square feet of affordable housing as part of the project, for a total of 537,000 square feet of affordable housing. The proposal will create 700 affordable apartments covering a range of incomes, including a significant number of units sized for families. Affordable apartments will be integrated throughout the complex, ensuring a dynamic mixed-income community. Unlike prior proposals, all of those units will be permanently affordable. Work on the first building will begin in December 2014.
As one has been saying "across a wide range of incomes". That does *NOT* mean all these *affordable* units will equal low income housing. The latter sadly is what NYC is in most dire need.
Am betting you'll see a greater weight of things skewed towards the average income of $70K for a single person than <$40K.
That happens in the market all the time. Those who come late to the party
always get SCREWED.
Live long enough and you see that cycle repeated over and over and OVER again.
RELATED is starting with an immense buiding "next door," destroying a park in the process. I hope it falls on its face and takes the company down a few pegs.
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.
A compromise has been reached - 40 more apartments
