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.
CAN NYC become more populated? Absolutely. A hundred years ago Manhattan had a decent amount more people living there than it does today. WILL NYC become more populated? Dunno. Probably a little.
Building more housing is a bit easy. The problem is can the infrastructure handle more people? MTA had said the subways are at capacity during rush hour. Off rush hour can be rather be packed too.
Regarding annexation in Westchester, I think it would be highly unlikely in the near future (think a lifetime), but later in this century or the next, who knows? For the next several decades, I would say it is not in the cards. There is simply no popular support and no political capital to be gained.
It is more likely that areas along existing transit in Westchester (Metro North) will develop some high density residential to their own benefit (increasing tax base) while offsetting population pressure in NYC proper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronxguyanese
NYC has lots of undeveloped land in Queens and the Bronx. Expansion can happen in those areas especially with the Bronx where 1/3 of the borough geographic area is made up of parkland. NYC can no longer expand outward and can only go up vertically. Even though NYC will be the nations most populous city for decades to come, other cities such as LA and Houston are far larger in footprint than NYC and can incorporate room for growth.
Again, who knows, but urban planning emphasizes the importance of these open spaces as a necessary stress relief and studies have proven that open space facilitates neccesary recreation opportunities for the population. I find it highly unlikely that The Bronx's park lands are any more at risk of being taken over for development than Central Park. They will not be developed in any forseeable political climate. Rather, I think the development will be focused on redevelopment of low and medium density properties closer to the city core.
In short, I see it like this. If NYC maintains its wealth, it will have the ability to grow upwards. If NYC suffers a serious economic depression, its need for residential growth will diminish. Either way, I don't see a great impetus for increasing the city's developed footprint.
Building more housing is a bit easy. The problem is can the infrastructure handle more people? MTA had said the subways are at capacity during rush hour. Off rush hour can be rather be packed too.
More people, especially educated, well employed people, mean more tax money, more transit fares, etc.. That additional income can be used to float bonds to build infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daaver
Yeah, this. There is no problem with the infrastructure here that can't be fixed with a pile of cash, should someone decide to throw one at it.
Time change. It's just not an efficient to tie up land that is convenient to transit in a high density urban area with low density single family detached houses.
And, in point of fact, I wouldn't be kicking anyone out. Just change the zoning to allow higher density. Developers will buy out the SFR homeowners and redevelop the land. Those who want to hold out can. Those that want to cash out can (because as high density multifamily, the value of the property will be higher), and, if they want the detached SFR lifestyle, can move out to the 'burbs.
You just don't know what you are talking about.
When density is increased the value of land goes up, that in turn increases taxes and in other ways forces long term residents out. Again you just don't know so please do some research.
Notice you never hear about "increasing density" in areas like the UES or other wealthy parts of NYC. No, it always falls to "under utilized" land; which is a code word for "ghetto" or "slum" which in turn are code words for urban renewal (aka "Negro Removal"). Or in some case "poor to working class white removal".
Walk yourself down to the High Line Park area and see what good increasing density did for many long term residents and businesses.
There are several books and numerous studies backing up the above. Time and time again when NYC increases density is it usually the poor, minorities, and working classes that suffer.
Case in point a tower building went up on First Avenue and 84rd Street a decade or so ago. You never saw a community move so fast to change zoning to prevent another. UES/Yorkville are still fighting that fight to keep out increase density.
Not to be outdone Spanish Harlem and other areas have and had strong objections to Bill de Boob's rezoning plans that increased density. Why is that? Long story short is people have seen that film before, and know how it ends.
^ I don't know what you are talking about. Nothing BBMW said was inaccurate.
Smart growth means increasing density in and around mass transit. The city has tried to upzone (increase density) throughout the city, however, it can get difficult if there is community opposition.
As with anything, it is more difficult to push through development projects in wealthy neighborhoods because the opposition is stronger and better funded. That is not to say the city hasn't tried. Furthermore, there is no concerted effort to target only minority/poor neighborhoods.
The areas the city has had the most success in rezoning are not necessarily poor "ghetto areas" but industrial areas where there are few residents, i.e. Hudson Yards, LIC, Williamsburg/Greenpoint, the Westside/Highline area.
When density is increased the value of land goes up, that in turn increases taxes and in other ways forces long term residents out. Again you just don't know so please do some research.
Notice you never hear about "increasing density" in areas like the UES or other wealthy parts of NYC. No, it always falls to "under utilized" land; which is a code word for "ghetto" or "slum" which in turn are code words for urban renewal (aka "Negro Removal"). Or in some case "poor to working class white removal".
Walk yourself down to the High Line Park area and see what good increasing density did for many long term residents and businesses.
There are several books and numerous studies backing up the above. Time and time again when NYC increases density is it usually the poor, minorities, and working classes that suffer.
Case in point a tower building went up on First Avenue and 84rd Street a decade or so ago. You never saw a community move so fast to change zoning to prevent another. UES/Yorkville are still fighting that fight to keep out increase density.
Not to be outdone Spanish Harlem and other areas have and had strong objections to Bill de Boob's rezoning plans that increased density. Why is that? Long story short is people have seen that film before, and know how it ends.
That's why you increase density in Manhattan below 96th st as well as Williamsburg/LIC. Let Manhattan fill up with wealthy who in turn will pay taxes to help subsidize low/working/middle class housing in the outer boroughs.
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.
