NEW YORK | City and State struggle to increase residential development

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

There is a bigger NIMBY problem in London & NYC compared to Sao Paulo as the NIMBYs in developed countries have a bigger say in what happens in jurisdictions. It gets downright nasty at city meetings and politicians want to keep their jobs and not piss off voters. That's the crux of it.

It depends though. Even with this incredibly liberal new zoning legislation, abolishing the disgusting mandatory setbacks and parking from the 1960's zoning law onwards that ruined SP (highrises surrounded by walls with massive and useless common areas), Jardins, the district just southwest Central SP, is as suburban as Atlanta and remained intact. Massive mansions that look like Central Park from above, remain completely out of limits even for the lightest transformation.

São Paulo can be very NIMBY (the average paulistano, the press, call short highrises "skyscrapers" in a pejorative way), but developers are a very powerful group as well and fortunately the latter is winning with the help of the new generation of urbanists and architects that embraced urban living. NIMBYs are also actively criticizing the new construction boom by supposedly changed the "character of the neighbourhoods" (where most of constructions date the 1970's...) or saying the only add tiny apartments, but this boom that keeps prices in check. Young people starting career need a place to live and fortunately they can do it in those new buildings appearing on every corner on Central SP.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by Yuri

It depends though. Even with this incredibly liberal new zoning legislation, abolishing the disgusting mandatory setbacks and parking from the 1960's zoning law onwards that ruined SP (highrises surrounded by walls with massive and useless common areas), Jardins, the district just southwest Central SP, is as suburban as Atlanta and remained intact. Massive mansions that look like Central Park from above, remain completely out of limits even for the lightest transformation.

São Paulo can be very NIMBY (the average paulistano, the press, call short highrises "skyscrapers" in a pejorative way), but developers are a very powerful group as well and fortunately the latter is winning with the help of the new generation of urbanists and architects that embraced urban living. NIMBYs are also actively criticizing the new construction boom by supposedly changed the "character of the neighbourhoods" (where most of constructions date the 1970's...) or saying the only add tiny apartments, but this boom that keeps prices in check. Young people starting career need a place to live and fortunately they can do it in those new buildings appearing on every corner on Central SP.

As soon as developers propose a highrise here (or even lowrises), the NIMBY "machine" gets moving to block it by citing things like traffic, shadows, crime, infrastructure, or neighborhood character. Many of us here on this forum battle these people on social media and other outlets.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

As soon as developers propose a highrise here (or even lowrises), the NIMBY "machine" gets moving to block it by citing things like traffic, shadows, crime, infrastructure, or neighborhood character. Many of us here on this forum battle these people on social media and other outlets.

Those people ruin entire societies. They're responsible for urban decay, inequality, urban sprawl and in the US context, for the Sunbelt success and traditional urban centres decay.

[C.]

North Jersey thanks NYC and NYS for their inaction on this effort, especially the FAR cap.

NYC is limited to 12, while it's not uncommon for Jersey City to approve developments with FARs above 20 or more. The residential FAR for Journal Square is 25!

[C.]

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/tri...uild-new-york/

[C.]

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/tri...uild-new-york/

Hot property: Jersey City’s development boom
Multifamily projects proliferate as Garden State outbuilds New York

“We have a housing crisis, that if we don’t start building now, we’re going to lose to New Jersey. And how does that feel, everybody?” Gov. Kathy Hochul quipped in January during one of New York real estate’s biggest annual events.

Her comment did not exactly resonate with the audience, which included developers who contributed to New Jersey’s superior housing production.

New Jersey has become a rhetorical rival in the housing debate because it has outbuilt New York and siphoned its residents. Census data show that New Jersey, which has 9.3 million residents to New York’s 19.8 million, issued more housing permits last year than New York for the first time since at least 1990.

Of New Yorkers who left the state between 2021 and 2022 for housing reasons, two-thirds went to New Jersey, according to a report by the Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress.

During that time, 75,103 New York residents moved to New Jersey, behind only Florida, which absorbed 91,201, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

In 2021, “Inner” New Jersey — northeastern counties including Hudson, Bergen, Essex and Union — issued 23,705 housing permits, eclipsing New York City’s 22,606, according to an analysis by the New York City Department of City Planning. That report found that per capita, the city has trailed this part of New Jersey — as well as six of the country’s 10 largest metropolitan areas — since 2012.

[chris08876]

The city needs 421a ASAP city wide and not just in Gowanus. Needs to return. Especially if they want affordable housing. That, coupled with the given... more aggressive zoning... and things will happen. With the 421A, there is a financial cushion and so your lending opportunities are more favorable as banks or lenders see this as reducing the risk... so better lending probability. City needs to return to what it was under Bloomberg, under those prime development conditions.

The city and state for that matter (NY), is also shooting themselves in the foot by not being more aggressive. The given being lost tax revenue.

[NYguy]

https://www.cityandstateny.com/polic...uttals/394869/

Although Hochul largely backed off her ambitious housing plans from last year, Democrats in the Legislature are attempting to get their own bold plans off the ground. Notably, the state Senate suggested the creation of a new public benefit corporation – the New York Housing Opportunity Corporation – to finance new housing construction on state-owned land. The $250 million proposal is characterized as a reincarnation of the successful Mitchell-Lama program established in the 1950’s that led to about 100,000 units of middle-income housing.

The state Senate signaled its support to create a new developer tax break to replace the expired 421-a program to incentivize affordable housing creation. But the Senate wants to require developers who benefit to build housing that’s more affordable than what was allowed under 421-a, and they’re tying their tax break to new tenant protections. Although the resolution doesn’t include specifics on what those protections would look like, it did say such protections would “align with the core principles of Good Cause Eviction” legislation in the chamber. Both chambers also omitted the governor’s “placeholder” proposal for a new developer tax break to replace 421-a.

The Assembly did not follow suit with its own sweeping proposal in its budget rebuttal, nor did language specifically mention “good cause” eviction in relation to tenant protections. However, the lower chamber joined with the state Senate in again advancing language to create a $250 million rental voucher program meant to help New Yorkers at risk of eviction or homelessness receive rental assistance.

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/202...et-resolution/

The Senate’s resolution includes other top priorities for the Adams administration, such as lifting the city’s floor area ratio cap on residential buildings. The maximum FAR for residential use in the city is 12, meaning that a building can be 12 times the size of the lot. Lifting this limit does not automatically allow residential towers to exceed that limit: The city would still need to decide where larger buildings are permitted.

Still, the resolution specifies that any residential project larger than FAR 12 must adhere, at a minimum, to affordability requirements under the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program. The projects must also be located outside historic districts.

We’ll see where any of that goes.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The core parts of NYC had far more people 100 years ago, so there's certainly room for growth. The last 80 years have been all about NIMBYs trying to turn the prime areas into a museum city, but finally there's significant pushback.

Uh yeah, 100 years ago when you had a family of ten immigrants living in a single room. Few people live like this today so not really applicable.

[202_Cyclist]

I haven't been following this thread but Fairfield County and northern New Jersey seem to be doing a pretty good job of adding new housing. Westchester County, on the other hand, seems to have a lot of obnoxious NIMBYs that seem intent on keeping housing prices high and people fleeing for other states.

[NYguy]

The Council Speaker proposes building housing at Aqueduct when it closes. This is where Resorts World proposes to build housing for its employees.


https://queenseagle.com/all/2024/3/1...duct-racetrack

Horse racing to housing: Council speaker proposes new housing project at Aqueduct Racetrack


March 13, 2024
By Jacob Kaye

City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams on Wednesday proposed building a new neighborhood on the 172-acre site currently occupied by Aqueduct Racetrack, as well as on an adjacent parcel of land owned by the city.

Currently used by the New York Racing Authority for horse races, the speaker said that the site, which is owned by the state, presents a rare opportunity to build much-needed housing in the city and in her council district, in particular.

The proposal was unveiled as one of the central pieces of Adams’ State of the City speech delivered from the Brooklyn Academy of Music on Wednesday afternoon. Much of her speech – her third since being elected speaker of the Council – centered on the city’s affordability crisis and the struggles of low and middle income New Yorkers to make ends meet, and how city government is poised to “get back to basics” to provide them with the services to ensure they remain in the five boroughs.

Her plan for Aqueduct Racetrack was the first proposal Adams pitched during her speech.

“As a native New Yorker who grew up in Southeast Queens, I know the possibilities and the promise this city holds,” the speaker said. “Through good union jobs, my parents were able to enter the middle-class and create a stable life for my sister and me.”

“But what was possible then is too often out-of-reach now,” she added.

As a solution, Adams said that the Aqueduct site, as well as a currently unoccupied site next door, should be converted into what may amount to a new neighborhood with housing at its center.

Within three to four years, the horse racing currently being held at Aqueduct is expected to be moved to Belmont Park, the racetrack in Nassau County, just over the Queens-Long Island border, that is currently undergoing a renovation.

The impending move has left the future of the state-owned site somewhat up for grabs.

“This presents a generational opportunity to transform this site into housing and homeownership, open space, and new community amenities,” the speaker said during her speech on Wednesday.

However, Adams’ proposal is not the first for the site.

Last month, Genting Group, the owners of Resorts World New York City, unveiled its plans to turn Resorts World into a fully fledged casino, and, in an effort to nab one of the state’s three downstate casino licenses expected to be handed out in the next year or two, Genting pitched building employee housing on the Aqueduct site.

Their $5 billion proposal – which would only be built should they be granted a casino license – would include 3,000 units of “workforce housing,” the creation of open space and improvements to local transportation.

Resorts World is largely expected to receive one of the state’s downstate casino licenses.

The speaker made no mention of the casino proposal – which has received backing from Rep. Gregory Meeks, State Senators Joseph Addabbo and Leroy Comrie, Assembly Members Stacey Pheffer Amato and Alicia Hyndman, and City Councilmember Nantasha Williams – during her speech on Wednesday.

Representatives from Resorts World did not respond to request for comment on Wednesday.

A Council spokesperson said that Adams’ proposal for the state-owned land is still in its earliest stages and could change depending on Resorts World’s ability to secure one of the casino licenses.

In a report released alongside the speaker’s State of the City speech, the speaker’s office alluded to the fact that the site’s future rests in the hands of the state.

“In anticipation of state decisions regarding use of the land, Speaker Adams will work with state partners, including state legislators, to ensure local stakeholders help in seizing the benefits from unlocking these possibilities,” the report read.

The speaker also proposed building housing on a 26-acre city-owned lot adjacent to Aqueduct Racetrack – the project may or may not be linked to the project on the Aqueduct site depending on whether or not Resorts World receives a casino license.

The site is one of the largest parcels of vacant, city-owned land, according to the speaker, who noted that its proximity to the A train “makes it a valuable opportunity for transit oriented housing.”

The proposal was met with a standing ovation from both Mayor Eric Adams – who is currently being sued by the Council over his administration’s failure to implement the legislature’s housing voucher expansion program – and Queens Borough President Donovan Richards.

The speaker said that the plan to bring the housing project to her district was her way of “lead[ing] by example” after the mayor criticized members of the Council for being reluctant to support affordable housing projects in their districts.

“The expectation must be for every district to equitably contribute to addressing the housing crisis,” the speaker said. “Every one of us, and the communities we represent, have an equal responsibility.”

Queens Community District 10, where the proposal would be located, has seen the lowest amount of affordable housing development of any district in Queens, according to the speaker, who represents parts of ​​South Ozone Park, Jamaica, South Jamaica, Springfield Gardens, Brookville and Rochdale Village.

In all, the district has seen less than 200 new units of housing since 2018.

[NYguy]

https://commercialobserver.com/2024/...unity-board-5/

New Chair Leads ‘YIMBY’ Wave at Manhattan Community Board 5


BY ABIGAIL NEHRING
MARCH 21, 2024

A young new pro-housing chair took over the helm of Manhattan Community Board 5 — set to tackle some of the city’s biggest land-use matters — as a new “Yes in My Backyard” (YIMBY) wave sweeps the city.

CB5 elected Samir Lavingia on March 14 to take over after longtime chair Vikki Barbero — a member of CB5 since 1993 — stepped down and her successor, former vice chair Nick Athanail, followed suit, Crain’s New York Business first reported.

Lavingia, 29, lives in an apartment near Columbus Circle at the northwest edge of the community district, which spans 45 blocks through the center of Manhattan to the corner of Irving Place and East 14th Street.

“Because of my experiences as a renter, I really wanted to be part of the solution,” Lavingia, who works for pro-housing group Open New York, said. “As a renter, we are constantly on the edge of losing our homes.”

That, along with Lavingia’s youth and involvement in a burgeoning pro-development YIMBY movement in New York City, makes him a little different from the older generation of community board members.

Community boards — which play an advisory role in the city’s public land use review process — have been a major bottleneck in getting new housing development approved, something many New York residents feel the city needs to clear up as the rental vacancy rate reached a historic low of 1.4 percent this year.

But the shake-up at CB5 is a sign of change across the city, with other community boards starting to adopt a pro-housing agenda.

Next door, Manhattan Community Board 4 recently drew up its own plan to address the city’s housing crisis by adding some 23,000 homes to its west side district.

And the changes at CB5 and CB4 could soon spread to other parts of the city after a 2018 ballot proposal introducing term limits for community board members begins to take effect in 2027.

Yet, the shakeup at CB5 has not been without friction. Along with vice chair Athanail, longtime land use chair Layla Law-Gisiko resigned last week, with transportation chair E.J. Kalafarski announcing he was throwing in the towel two days later.

[NYguy]

The FAR proposals are timid, but the NIMBYs are outraged already.


https://www.villagepreservation.org/...neighborhoods/

Tell State Lawmakers Not to Give City Hall the Power to Allow Supersized Development in Residential Neighborhoods — WRITE NOW!





March 29, 2024

Not big enough? Proponents of lifting the residential cap say that supersized super-luxury buildings like the 1,550-ft.-tall Central Park Tower (l.; tallest residential building in the world), The Sky at 605 West 42nd Street (m.; 1,175 units and the largest residential building in America), and Silver Towers at 620 West 42nd Street (r.; 1,359 units) should be even bigger, and such allowances would make NYC a more equitable and affordable place.

In the week ahead, lawmakers in Albany are expected to decide whether or not to approve Governor Hochul’s plan to gut a long-standing rule that prevents NYC from upzoning residential neighborhoods, to allow oversized development EVEN BIGGER than the gigantic towers current rules allow.

Mayor Adams, real estate interests, and even some local elected officials have joined with real estate front group Open New York to lobby furiously to get the legislature to remove the cap, which would allow NYC to change the zoning for any residential neighborhood to allow new development as large as it likes.

WE MUST ENSURE THEY DON’T GUT THIS CRITICAL NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION!

TO HELP:

Why is this important?
If the state lifts the residential floor area ratio (FAR) cap as proposed, it would allow NYC to rezone any residential neighborhood to as great a density as it wants — the sky would literally be the limit.

Isn’t the cap preventing NYC from building more housing?
With the cap in place and under current zoning rules, NYC can add about 2 billion sq. ft. of new residential development, enough to house 4 million additional New Yorkers. The cap is not preventing housing from being built, or creating a housing shortage. In the almost 65 years the cap has been in place, literally hundreds of thousands of housing units have been built in NYC.

All nonsense, of course. The FAR for residential needs to be a minimum of 20.



https://nypost.com/2024/03/28/us-new...ly-megatowers/

City Hall touts changes to zoning laws, saying they won’t lead to ugly megatowers


By Nolan Hicks
March 28, 2024

City Hall tried to assure critics Thursday that a possible end to residential building size restrictions now being debated in Albany won’t lead to a forest of 1,500-foot-tall towers blighting Manhattan — but will encourage the construction of wider classic buildings.

Deputy Mayor Maria Torres-Springer tried to put a rosy spin on plans in the state legislature to lift a decades-old cap that limits the size of structures in the five boroughs — saying that it will help the housing crisis but not cause “vertical slums.”

The newly allowed buildings would be short but wide, similar to places like The Dakota on Central Park West, and not skinny and mega tall like the 1,000-foot-plus “Billionaire Buildings” in Midtown, she said.

“Our failure to build homes is at the core of our housing crisis,” she said in a speech to the Association for a Better New York on the New York University campus in Greenwich Village.

Albany lawmakers are considering the zoning change as New York City attempts to dig itself out from a housing deficit that’s been estimated at 342,000 units.

Torres-Springer said the regulations would have to be approved by the City Council before they could become law and, that lawmakers would get a second bite at the apple because they would have to sign off on using the new zonings in any neighborhood.

Additionally, any building constructed under the more generous zoning would be required to set aside 20-30% of their units for working-class or middle-income households.

She said this would be a great way to get more space for badly needed apartments without ruining the feel of New York.

“Our failure to build homes is at the core of our housing crisis,” she told the room.

Albany lawmakers are considering the zoning change as New York City attempts to dig itself out from a housing deficit that grew by 100,000 over the most recent decade.

https://www.habitatmag.com/Publicati...Housing-Crisis

City Says Denser Buildings Will Ease Affordable Housing Crisis

March 29, 2024

Mayor Eric Adams has proposed lifting caps on the density of apartment buildings as a way to alleviate the city's affordable housing crisis. Enacted in 1961, the existing floor area ratio, or FAR, cap allows buildings up to 12 times the size of their lot. The Adams administration called on state lawmakers to eliminate the cap and proposed two new zoning districts in the city that would permit buildings to be constructed up to 15 and 18 times their lot size, while also including affordable housing, 6sqft reports.

For the proposed new zoning districts to move forward, state lawmakers must lift the FAR cap. Then, the city council would need to approve them as part of the City of Yes housing proposal; a vote is expected this fall.

As part of the mayor’s FAR proposal, new housing projects would be mandated to construct permanently affordable housing through Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH), which requires that 20 to 30% of housing in a new development is affordable for New Yorkers earning between 40 and 80% of the area median income.

While some critics fear that raising the FAR cap will bring a deluge of faceless glass towers, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, along with other 10 representatives of Manhattan on the city council, penned a letter to the governor detailing the restrictive nature of the FAR cap. The letter states: “New York City used to create large apartment buildings. In fact, there are over 1,000 buildings in Manhattan alone, built before the cap went into effect in 1961, which exceed 12 FAR. These include such icons as The El Dorado on Central Park West and 825th 5th Avenue in Lenox Hill, both so celebrated that they are designated as landmarks. Neither could be built today because of the cap.”

[NYguy]

https://w42st.com/post/hells-kitchen...ousing-crunch/

Hell’s Kitchen Skyline: NY Lawmakers Consider Lifting Building Height Restrictions Amid Housing Crunch





by Dashiell Allen
April 3, 2024

Lawmakers in Albany are considering lifting a restriction on the density of residential buildings in New York City, known as the Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) cap, that could potentially allow more tall residential towers to rise across Manhattan, including at sites in Hell’s Kitchen. Those in favor of nixing the current rules say it would help the city build desperately needed housing, while retractors fear it could alter the character of low and mid-rise districts, without yielding enough affordable units.

.....Currently, all new residential buildings in New York City can be built at a FAR of no higher than 12, thanks to a state law passed in the 1960s. That could change soon — and as some see it, alter the size and scale of NYC neighborhoods.

Lifting the residential FAR cap would not immediately change New York City’s zoning, but it would allow the City Council to rezone individual plots of land, or entire neighborhoods, to a higher density than is currently permitted.

“[The FAR cap] is basically a guard rail against the real estate industry being able to destroy the incredibly modest protections that New York City residential neighborhoods have against grossly out-of-scale overdevelopment,” Andrew Berman, executive director of The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, told W42ST. Without the cap, developers could in theory build towers as tall as they’d like to, “with literally the sky as the limit,” he added.

State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who represents Hell’s Kitchen said he is aware of concerns that eliminating the FAR cap could incentivize the development of areas, and potentially the demolition of buildings with rent-stabilized apartments in the process.

The State Senate’s proposed budget included lifting the cap, but requiring that new development adhere to “Mandatory Inclusionary Housing or equivalent affordability requirements,” and be “constructed outside of historic districts.”

“I’m a strong proponent of protecting our historic districts,” Hoylman-Sigal said. “This is not black and white, it’s a nuanced perspective that engages more people than just 63 senators sitting in their leather bound seats. … by lifting the FAR cap and providing guardrails, I think we can have engagement that allows for the creation [of new housing].”

Hell’s Kitchen Assemblymember Tony Simone told W42ST on Tuesday that he supports the measure passed by the Senate, and thinks any new development should be subject to the city’s Universal Land Use Review Process (ULURP), which requires input from the community board and an opportunity for the public to weigh in.

“I think it would be determinative on the scale and character of the neighborhood,” Simone said. “I just think a broad cap is kind of yesterday — we should look at a forward-looking way of increasing density.”

Another strong supporter of lifting the FAR cap is Councilmember Erik Bottcher, who would be influential in determining how local zoning on the west side will change once Albany greenlights greater residential density.

“The crisis in housing that we’re experiencing now is going to pale in comparison to what’s coming unless we take bold action,” Bottcher told W42ST.

Bottcher and six other councilmembers signed a March 19 letter penned by Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine calling on Albany to lift the cap, not just to build new buildings but to convert old ones from commercial into residential uses.

“We’ve got office buildings that are ready to convert to residential, but only a portion of the office building can convert to residential because of the nonsensical 12 FAR cap,” Bottcher said.

If the residential FAR cap were to be lifted, the measure would most likely be included in New York State’s annual budget deal, which was due earlier this week and is still being negotiated. It could be passed alongside myriad other housing measures, such as good cause eviction protections for tenants of unregulated units and creating a new tax incentive for developers to build housing that includes a percentage of affordable units.

“If the FAR cap were to be lifted beyond conversions, there should be at the very least two restrictions attached to it,” Berman said. “It should only be for new construction that is 100% or mostly affordable. Secondly … it should be limited to areas that already allow dense commercial development. One could make the argument that if you’re already allowing commercial development at that high of a density, what’s the difference if there’s residential development at that high of a density as well?”

Hoylman-Sigal said it is unclear if lawmakers, tenant activists, and the Real Estate Board of New York will come to a deal this year, and if that deal will include removing the residential FAR cap.

“I think if the concerns around preservation [and] affordability … could come together in a final product, I think it would have a chance,” Hoylman-Sigal said.

[chris08876]

I hope they act soon on all this. Easier to build in Jersey City vs NYC these days.

What the state needs to do is stifle community input on all this, provide incentives to build, make the zoning much more favorable for density and return 421a. Sort of embarrassing how much hinderance there is.

This is also a good opportunity for NJ to kick things into high gear. Ease the demand because there is plenty of demand and plenty of building opportunity.

If they allow developers to build units in mass, a portion will be feasible for affordable housing but the development itself must be profitable. Its how it works. If they want more affordable housing, they need to incentivize either via taxes or ease of building... to allow for those units... considering its the private sector building these.

Seems like nothing but talk these days from NYC. Action is needed ASAP.

And forget Manhattan, how about the outer boroughs. That is where a lot of new housing should be. A ton of potential for building. Doesn't even have to be tall but it needs the density.

Encourage developments with schools/medical clinics in them. Turn nodes into functional mini cities. Multi-node nature is needed... like in Tokyo as an example.

A ton of potential for NYC but its being held back by idiots these days (and in the state).

[chris08876]

On a philosophical and scientific note, I don't think I'd ever focus on the news if I worked at Fox5.

= = = = =

NYC's affordable housing crisis: Deputy Mayor Maria Torres Springer on solutions

• Video Link

A lack of affordable housing is one of the biggest issues facing New York City, and now Mayor Adams is hoping to turn things around with an ambitious plan to build 500,000 homes over the next decade. FOX 5 NY's Morgan McKay sat down with the city's Deputy Mayor to talk about how the administration is tackling the housing crisis.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by chris08876

What the state needs to do is stifle community input on all this, provide incentives to build, make the zoning much more favorable for density and return 421a. Sort of embarrassing how much hinderance there is.

Also streamline permitting process, shrink community input times and public comment waiting period, etc.
There is a lot of improvement in every area, from tower crane operators to paperwork, 421a, and zoning. Just make it easier, faster, and cheaper to build. Everyone will benefit.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Also streamline permitting process, shrink community input times and public comment waiting period, etc.
There is a lot of improvement in every area, from tower crane operators to paperwork, 421a, and zoning. Just make it easier, faster, and cheaper to build. Everyone will benefit.

Part of me thinks the city overthinks this.

They just need a crap ton of these, near rail lines and with schools/medical clinics built into them. Grocery stores and so on also included. Mini cities within a big city.

They can all go into Queens or portions of Brooklyn. Maybe add more frequent service to the various transit stops to account for the extra people.


Problem is... PROBLEM IS... everyone these days wants that luxury nomenclature attached to their tower but really what this city needs (and others) are just units. This is something that the Garden State could also capitalize on. I mean when we think of the potential, it is there.... it is there.

Long Island City is a good example of rezoning done right. Now yes, if the whole process could just be reduced in terms of time, we could be seeing good movement. Good conditions to also offset the expenses at the moment. Everyday that goes by just adds expenses, they need to reduce the time.



Credit: hongkongfb

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Problem is... PROBLEM IS... everyone these days wants that luxury nomenclature attached to their tower but really what this city needs (and others) are just units.

Yep, exactly. Everything being built in the city right now is "luxury" and being priced as such. Not only is it putting price pressure on long time residents, but attaching "luxury" to everything is also making the developments easy targets for residents to organize opposition against.

[Crawford]

There is no way to build anything but luxury. Nothing pencils out. They got rid of 421-A. So it's luxury or heavily subsidized, nothing else.

Ironically, it was allegedly pro-housing liberals who got rid of 421-A. The narrative was that it was a giveaway to evil developers, who apparently prefer remaining solvent and building with a reasonable potential for profit. So now nothing is built.