Quote:
Originally Posted by tackledspoon
I'm not dealing with anitNimby's bullshit style of argument anymore (even in responding to my critique of your argument, you relied on the same fallacies and low-blow tactics as you did in formulating your original argument), but I would like to make one final statement about this tower:
My concern is not so much founded on the individual tower as what it signifies and what it could easily lead to. Developers are notoriously unconcerned with the human element and pander to the crowds that are likely to make them the most money. This tower, individually, does stave off village-style gentrification in Fort Greene by providing holdover for the yuppies who are moving in, but I fear that other developers will see the financial success of this tower and emulate it by building more large towers- a phenomenon that has been occuring in many gentrifying areas over the past decade. So long as these towers are going up on formerly abandoned/severley blighted lots, then they represent an improvement, in strictest terms, but as has historically been the case, demand for luxury condominiums in New York will far outstrip the supply of empty lots to be built upon and landlords will begin raising rents, evicting tenants and doing whatever possibly to cut a deal and make a buck. I actually believe that this tower is designed to stimulate just that sort of growth. It's an opinion that really can't be verified, but one that many people share and that should not be dismissed or reduced to some illogical fear of development or tall towers. My fear of this building has little to do with design (its blandness offends me) and more to do with the social and economic implications of a luxury condominum development in a clasically low rise, lower-middle class neighborhood. If it were an office, governmental or hotel building, I would feel differently. I do understand that it can meet the ground in a way that is amenable to the current streetscape and that a thirty story tower is, in and of itself, not imposing, but the social implications of a condo tower in which prices for a one bedroom apartment start at $600k going up in a clasically working class neighborhood are pretty huge.
I realize that developers, in a capitalist system, have the most to gain by catering to the rich and expecting them to do otherwise of their own accord would be, within our economic system, irrational. However, the role of the government is to protect its people and I strongly believe that the government of New York City is capable of striking a compromise and regulating development so that it occurs with humanity (all of it- not just the richest 10%) in mind.
|
Your argument is based on several false assumptions
1)Building a luxury condo building only benefits those who have the current means to buy into the building
2)Creating a building boom sparks a upward move in pricing resulting in building owners have more reward for "selling out" to developers.
3)Policies toward housing in NYC have been beneficial to the working class communities.
1)While the only people to directly benefit from luxury housing being build is those who want to buy the housing, every aspect of the market is benefited by additional supply coming online to fill the need. Building a luxury building with say 2k sq ft condos will cause prices in the 2k sq feet market to come down relative to where they would have been if that supply had not been created (simple economics, if that point isnt agreed on then this post is useless), but what many miss is that it means that people who had been in the 1k sq ft market can now afford to move up to the 2k sq ft market and this thus creates downward movement on pricing in that market, and so on and so on, until you reach the very bottom. Given, this may not be the short term best way to get working class people into affordable housing, it does in the long term present very favorable results for everyone. Also this means that more people, will, long term, have more access to better accommodations.
2)In the short term when an area is seeing a great resurgence, it will spark up prices in all the different cost sectors of the market. But, with this spark in prices comes a spark in development. This development thus lowers the price off all housing in the market relative to where it would have been if the housing had been restricted from construction. It is not construction that creates an increase in prices, its an increase in prices that create construction. (though there are some instances (such as a warehouse district revitalization), where both are true at the same time, but that is the exception, not the rule, and has not to do with economics but cultural/social reasons.)
3)The restrict housing policy of NY over the last hundred years has produced some of the priciest housing in the nation. Because NYC is such a favorable place to live there is a great increase in demand to live there, and thus supply must be able to grow with demand, or prices will force the demand to fall. If NYC allowed for more urban, dense construction, like the market is demanding, then prices would be kept in check by the constant supply of new housing.
Personally I believe, if the right policies are taken by the city from here on out, by allowing very dense construction in D-town Brooklyn, practically unlimited density construction in Manhattan, and mid rise to small high rise towards everywhere else, NYC could become affordable to most all possible residents, have a population over over 12 Million, and become the best city in the developed world for a person of "average" wealth. In this scenario the current home owners would not gain much, but those who cannot currently afford to buy or even rent in the city will benefit beyond imagination. For example a single mom teacher will be able to buy 3 bedroom condo, in most all parts of town, without chunking over more than 1/3rd of her pay check to a mortgage.
Prev
Linear Mode
