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.
now, almost every morsel of land in SI has some sort of house on it, now they are starting to make all townhomes all attatched together, just like the row houses of brooklyn, no lawn, all concrete.
there are so many new developments of SI that have really ruined the whole concept of the island.
In the 60's Hyland Blvd had hardly any light, you could breeze right thru, Amboy Rd was considered the back road and had almost no lights...
Homes had property, and grass and trees.....................................not so much when they build now.
All fugly ass townhome all stuck together, fugly.......
To all this you are going to get upwards of 250 new homes when the Savo Brothers finish developing the Mount Manresa site. If past is any judge it will be all those god awful duplex townhouses. Or worse four family townhouses.
The problem with Staten Island is that the city has allowed zoning to increase density, making billions for the already rich developers, while simultaneously refusing to make the necessary infrastructure and transportation improvements necessary to support the increased population.
Staten Island needs a direct subway link to Manhattan, period. No matter how many express buses or HOV lanes the MTA and DOT throw at us, traffic will remain a nightmare until residents can get on a train in Tottenville and get off at Bowling Green or Whitehall Street. The ferry will never cut it, especially with the big, slow finicky boats they insist on using. Yes, the billions of dollars it would cost are a scary thing, but the City needs to either take a serious interest in Staten Island's transit situation or allow Staten Island to secede once and for all.
The problem with Staten Island is that the city has allowed zoning to increase density, making billions for the already rich developers, while simultaneously refusing to make the necessary infrastructure and transportation improvements necessary to support the increased population.
Staten Island needs a direct subway link to Manhattan, period. No matter how many express buses or HOV lanes the MTA and DOT throw at us, traffic will remain a nightmare until residents can get on a train in Tottenville and get off at Bowling Green or Whitehall Street. The ferry will never cut it, especially with the big, slow finicky boats they insist on using. Yes, the billions of dollars it would cost are a scary thing, but the City needs to either take a serious interest in Staten Island's transit situation or allow Staten Island to secede once and for all.
New York City had no choice is "allowing" developers, but will concede certain persons got their tastes.
Not sure under which administration but *think* it was Rudy G's the City did propose a moratorium on building but that got scrapped. Lands Letter - 10/15/2003
Developers threatened to sue claiming among other things (IIRC) disparate impact on minorities and others seeking "affordable housing" of which there was little in NYC. Thinking went that Staten Island had plenty of available land and could therefore support more housing.
You see this playing out with the Mount Manresa site in that the City did not step in and change the zoning to prevent all those proposed townhouses from going up. That is what the zoning allows, and is why Savo Brothers paid 15mil for the site and that is what is going to happen.
now, almost every morsel of land in SI has some sort of house on it, now they are starting to make all townhomes all attatched together, just like the row houses of brooklyn, no lawn, all concrete.
there are so many new developments of SI that have really ruined the whole concept of the island.
In the 60's Hyland Blvd had hardly any light, you could breeze right thru, Amboy Rd was considered the back road and had almost no lights...
Homes had property, and grass and trees.....................................not so much when they build now.
All fugly ass townhome all stuck together, fugly.......
What kills me is these new arrivals from Brooklyn or God only knows where purchase property than proceed to pour concrete and cover their front and backyards. Why? To make room for parking the three or four cars for a two person household. God forbid Tony Jr. or Angelina gets a car, then you've got more autos with no place to park.
The problem with Staten Island is that the city has allowed zoning to increase density, making billions for the already rich developers, while simultaneously refusing to make the necessary infrastructure and transportation improvements necessary to support the increased population.
Staten Island needs a direct subway link to Manhattan, period. No matter how many express buses or HOV lanes the MTA and DOT throw at us, traffic will remain a nightmare until residents can get on a train in Tottenville and get off at Bowling Green or Whitehall Street. The ferry will never cut it, especially with the big, slow finicky boats they insist on using. Yes, the billions of dollars it would cost are a scary thing, but the City needs to either take a serious interest in Staten Island's transit situation or allow Staten Island to secede once and for all.
Staten Island does not need a subway to bring yet more trash onto the Rock. Problem there is it will only encourage *more* persons to move onto SI further congesting roads, streets, and straining local infrastructure.
Staten Island does not need a subway to bring yet more trash onto the Rock. Problem there is it will only encourage *more* persons to move onto SI further congesting roads, streets, and straining local infrastructure.
That's always been the argument but that ship has sailed long ago. It is long past time to de-zone to lower density so that what little single-family neighborhoods remain stay put and link the SIR to Manhattan.
Keep in mind the actual road deck of the lower level was built at the time of the opening in 1964; however, the ramps that connect to that were not yet built.
Originally, the lower level was reserved for future usage. It was supposed to open to traffic in 1975. This did not happen, though, since heavy usage was first noted on the upper level, so the lower level officially opened to traffic in 1969.
Any idea why the original plan was to wait 11 years?
One year after the bridge first opened to traffic, calculations were made to estimate when it would be ideal to open the lower level. In 1965, nearly 50,000 vehicles crossed the bridge on a daily basis. It was said vehicular traffic would steadily increase one year after the next. The ideal year was 1975 based from estimations, but there was a significant rise in traffic volume before 1970. It was then decided to open the lower level 6 years earlier, in which was not anticipated.
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.
