Nearly Half of NYC Buildings Fail to Make the Green Grade
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.
I agree, they should be torn down and new modern housing should take its place
But nahh, let the small LLs keep renting out their 60 year old properties, God bless em
The city doesn't let most of these buildings to be torn down and redeveloped. Every time it happens, there is a huge fight on Community Board level. A select few projects do manage to squeeze through over the years and for those people make whole threads online. However, NYC permits very little housing per capita, and the housing prices and the state of the old housing supply reflect that.
The city doesn't let most of these buildings to be torn down and redeveloped. Every time it happens, there is a huge fight on Community Board level. A select few projects do manage to squeeze through over the years and for those people make whole threads online. However, NYC permits very little housing per capita, and the housing prices and the state of the old housing supply reflect that.
Can you provide some examples via a link or two?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
The city doesn't let most of these buildings to be torn down and redeveloped. Every time it happens, there is a huge fight on Community Board level. A select few projects do manage to squeeze through over the years and for those people make whole threads online. However, NYC permits very little housing per capita, and the housing prices and the state of the old housing supply reflect that.
Putting up an apartment building in NYC isn't cheap. It isn't that the city 'permits very little housing per capita' but that land and labor are very expensive here, which reduces the amount of what can be built for the non-ultra-luxury market. The era of being able to construct large numbers of apartment buildings for the middle-class died in the 1970s.
Oh so you want the empire state building, The woolworth building, rockefeller center to be torn down!!
Empire State and many other office/commercial buildings mid-town or downtown are already pretty green; they don't have boilers. Instead rely upon district steam (supplied by Con Ed) for heating and cooling.
I looked up my building and it says "This building is not required to display an energy efficiency rating label." I'm not sure if it's because it's already LEED Silver certified or what. Would get a great grade though I think, A/C in summer adds less than $30 to my electric bill, and I have yet to put on the heat this season!
Empire State and many other office/commercial buildings mid-town or downtown are already pretty green; they don't have boilers. Instead rely upon district steam (supplied by Con Ed) for heating and cooling.
But this this poster posted Originally Posted by BrooklynJo View Post
Yea…no destroy all old buildings. The 1930s were almost 100 years ago. Time to move on! does that make sense??
Age of buildings is certainly a thing, but I think one thing to point out is that it's not a very unique or severe challenge for NYC versus large parts of the developed world which also have many older, in some cases, many much older buildings. The technologies and processes are there to to weatherize and make energy efficient these buildings. NYC is far from the city with the oldest or the largest expanse of oldest building stock in the world. Of course, a lot of the landmark more well-known buildings, as BugsyPal mentioned, have already gone through significant upgrades.
Among the older building stock, much of those also had to go through eras where updates of various sorts such as plumbing and wiring had to be changed out or added. There are ways to make this work and it's not just on aesthetic principles as the savings in the localized micro sense of less energy usage and costs for such and the large macro sense of needing lesser grid upgrades / augmentation are likely well worth it.
I'm still trying to understand why someone would expect a 100 year old building to meet today's standards for almost anything if it's not been rebuilt or upgraded for decades (or even in the last 10 years).
We have the same type of thinking here in Maryland so it's not New York specific.
The standards aren't that high and meanwhile there have been a lot of technology changes that make it pretty feasible to make these changes. It's not feasible, but actually already done in multiple 100 year old buildings here and around the world. A lot of it is actually easier than when buildings built prior to electricity first got wired up as a lot of those components are much cheaper, less bulky, and less risky. Same with stuff like double or triple-paned windows and seals for such.
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.
