[ue]

There's nothing particularly radical about this. It's maybe extreme, but it's nothing more than the city has already done: reclaim land. And it allows the current city to continue existing as it already has, with horrendous housing policies that squeeze the poor out of neighbourhoods and turn New York into a giant real estate scheme. And they want to do this in an era of ecological crises, including rising sea levels?

New York already has plenty of land to build on. Instead of kowtowing to the wealthy, by protecting already affluent areas like Park Slope and Greenwich Village from further densification, and only allowing significant new residential construction in middle and lower income areas (notwithstanding the skinny condo towers going up in already skyscraper-heavy areas) that push gentrification, the city could push back against developers and the market. New York could bring back strong rent control for most, if not all, new housing. It could require any development with some luxury units have >50% low-income housing (not "affordable" housing which is often unaffordable to the poorest). It could create a wealth tax that would be used to fund good quality public housing and co-ops, while the city promotes community land trusts. Instead of turning Long Island City over to the wealthy, it could be a significant salve against the housing crisis in New York.