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.
Contrary to popular but incorrect beliefs, Bloomberg did not destroy NYC. No NYC mayor (in my lifetime anyway) has done anything to destroy NYC.
All that's happened to NYC is that the city was losing population through the 1970's and into the 1980's. Urban decay, crime and poor quality of living had driven many city people out to the suburbs (and beyond) during that period.
Real estate was cheap because there was not much demand. Once NYC became safer and city living became a trend again (I'd say around late 90's and early 2000's) people started to flock back to cities. With greater demand, real estate prices rose.
Instead of making room for the growth, NYC (as a result of NIMBYism) decided to put even more restrictions on growth and development under the guise of "controlling overdevelopment." This put even greater pressures on existing housing and costs went through the roof.
That is where we are now.
Last edited by antinimby; 12-06-2018 at 02:38 PM..
Contrary to popular but incorrect beliefs, Bloomberg did not destroy NYC. No NYC mayor (in my lifetime anyway) has done anything to destroy NYC.
All that's happened to NYC is that the city was losing population through the 1970's and into the 1980's. Urban decay, crime and poor quality of living had driven many city people out to the suburbs (and beyond) during that period.
Real estate was cheap because there was not much demand. Once NYC became safer and city living became a trend again (I'd say around late 90's and early 2000's) people started to flock back to cities. With greater demand, real estate prices rose.
Instead of making room for the growth, NYC (as a result of NIMBYism) decided to put even more restrictions on growth and development under the guise of "controlling overdevelopment." This put even greater pressures on existing housing and costs went through the roof.
That is where we are now.
So basically the city should bulldoze every park and bulldoze every low rise building and build 70 story apartments for people to live in?
Not a solution.
If the city massively built housing to the point where housing costs significantly dropped, you’d be lowering g rents to the point where people on government programs could easily afford them. You’d have the next wave of welfare people wanting to live in NYC.
Also all 300 million of the US’s people cannot live in NYC. Invest money in making other places more attract able.
So basically the city should bulldoze every park and bulldoze every low rise building and build 70 story apartments for people to live in?
Not a solution.
If the city massively built housing to the point where housing costs significantly dropped, you’d be lowering g rents to the point where people on government programs could easily afford them. You’d have the next wave of welfare people wanting to live in NYC.
Also all 300 million of the US’s people cannot live in NYC. Invest money in making other places more attract able.
That's not even close to being what was said. The city isn't doing anything. The private industry is doing most of the bulldozing and it is already happening except instead of 70 story buildings it is mostly for 5-10 story buildings, which does little to alleviate the housing shortage but destroys as many existing buildings just the same.
Also, bulldozing parks is not even legal so no one is even calling for that. As for 300 million people wanting to live in NYC, that's just absurd. At a certain point, the limits of how many people who would want to live in NYC would reach a limit through natural market forces.
Destroying? Nah, it's already destroyed. We had a nice middle ground by the end of Gulliani but after Bloomberg the city is no longer NY. It's just some land mass full of uber rich and uber 3rd world poor.
The day of the authentic "New Yawker" is gone, and, after all, it was the people that made the city it was.
Totally agreed with this. All of you those greedy people cause this, so don’t complaint about tenant not able to pay their rents, shoppers not buying iPhone any more because major of their income goes to housing, employees no longer royal to their employee because they don’t make enough. All these unintended consequences are going to be a long term problem down the road.
Not destroying the city outright, but currently detrimental. It’s made homes partially into an investment and money laundering vehicle rather than just housing and the real estate board of New York with our ridiculous campaign financing system is a corrupting force that comtinually works for the benefit of a fairly small group of people.
Lazy, ineffective, and inefficient government is holding back NYC. (not destroying it)
Congestion, over-development, the transportation crisis, and poor sanitation all stem from our bloated incompetent local government (and de Blasio most of all). It's a free for all of greed.
Contrary to popular but incorrect beliefs, Bloomberg did not destroy NYC. No NYC mayor (in my lifetime anyway) has done anything to destroy NYC.
All that's happened to NYC is that the city was losing population through the 1970's and into the 1980's. Urban decay, crime and poor quality of living had driven many city people out to the suburbs (and beyond) during that period.
Real estate was cheap because there was not much demand. .
So basically the city should bulldoze every park and bulldoze every low rise building and build 70 story apartments for people to live in?
Not a solution.
If the city massively built housing to the point where housing costs significantly dropped, you’d be lowering g rents to the point where people on government programs could easily afford them. You’d have the next wave of welfare people wanting to live in NYC.
Also all 300 million of the US’s people cannot live in NYC. Invest money in making other places more attract able.
Agreed. And realistically, many of those supertalls don't even have that many units. They're for higher income people which means less units and less people living in each unit.
Agreed. There would have been no need for NYCHA and RS if that weren't the case.
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.
