NEW YORK | City and State struggle to increase residential development

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

It's the same here in South Florida. All new developments have the description "Luxury" attached to them.

[chris08876]

Florida in that respect is a lot easier to build in. I mean we are not seeing the asinine time tables from blue print to conception that we see here in NYC. And in some respects, South Florida if I may draw a case study is pumping out the units. Seems like every other day a 500-1000 unit development has shovels in the ground. Some tall but some also bulky. Even smaller multi-families, we are talking in the range of 100-200 units. Smaller can work. When we factor in potential frequency of smaller multi-families, it starts to add up.

Getting rid of some of the tough requirements for office conversions can help. Things like bloody window lighting, having to be in a certain portion of the unit. Encouraging more micro units. Easing the process of single room units.

Some of those low rise Queens neighborhoods need to be rezoned. A lot of potential.

Kathy and the state needs to have the balls to have a heavy handed approach on this. A vacancy rate of less than 1.5 percent is ridiculous. Eventually it will cost the state tax payer dollars as folks consider other options and that is no bueno.

Way things are going, we may see a return to hyper dense building occupancy numbers due to all the recent migrants as well. The illegal housing (illegal units) market will skyrocket. 50 people living in a small unit... so on and so on. Already happening as I speak.

[manchester united]

Originally Posted by 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

Finally!!!

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Yuri

This mere discussion we're having here and the posted article itself show how denser NYC/NY MSA could become. What stop it of being denser, to build much more, is legislation, lobbies, selfish anti-urban bigoted people.

What has happened to big world-class cities like London, New York are horrible. Regular housing there has become luxury item. Whereas average income there are twice, three times higher (PPP) than metropolises on middle-income countries, housing is like 10x more expensive. That's not sustainable or desirable.

I welcomed @muppet here in São Paulo from London in December and even though we've discussed this subject several times before, visiting friends around on central São Paulo, it's crazy to compare on the ground what regular young people can afford down here and it's impossible to afford in London. And SP is perceived as an expensive city to live.

I know there are other factors on playing (e.g. foreign money poured on real estate), but what London/New York can do about it is to build more, to make easier to build all kinds of housing. It's the only possible answer. To register: even though São Paulo population is not growing fast (on the last census grew slower than both London and New York for the first time), it's building like crazy. It updated zoning 10 years ago and areas that haven't seen new constructions for decades have now new highrises popping up in literally every corner.

Cities are seriously letting society down. How many more big cities are just going to price everyone out because they encourage more conditions that uphold hurdle for building residential units and providing for a growing population? We need large cities to provide a good example of living for all income levels, yet so many are failing at that.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ocman

Cities are seriously letting society down. How many more big cities are just going to price everyone out because they encourage more conditions that uphold hurdle for building residential units and providing for a growing population? We need large cities to provide a good example of living for all income levels, yet so many are failing at that.

There is no learning curve either. People always say, well... than move to a cheaper city or region. Ok.. ok... ok... but than that cheaper region becomes expensive and eventually, it will hit a limit. I mean folks aren't going to move to Frogballs Nebraska is the economy in Frogballs Nebraska can't support or make it feasible for folks to move there in the first place.

Sad part is that that its slowly manifesting to whole states.

Gated community vibe will eventually stifle regions or cities.

Folks said... move to Texas. Now Texan cities are pricing folks out. Folks said move to Tennessee, now the only real powerhouse metro in the state is inching its way to unaffordability. Unless one wants a long commute, miles away... it can be feasible in a lot of expensive regions but is that really making a vibrant metro? Eh... not really.

No learning curve. Future generations will be in trouble if these trends keep up and that will kill long term potential and prosperity.

There is literally a fuck ton of land that could be built on or even bought out. Sometimes I see these multi-families rising and always underwhelming. Large plot... and they only build 3 to 4 floors. Why not 12. It starts to add up over "X" number of developments. Sometimes near rail lines. NJ as an example. Always underwhelming and really due to community requirements and asinine zoning. Something that should be centralized and forced by the state. For the greater prosperity of the state.

[lio45]

I could google it but I'd rather have someone from SSP explain it to me: clearly this 12 FAR rule does not actually apply strictly, otherwise all those towers that recently went up in NYC just couldn't exist.

Is it because all those supertalls for billionaires bought the air rights of every other property around them all the way to the point where they literally meet the 12 FAR cap with all the land square footage whose 12x area they control via air rights?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly. 100% correct.

Even in much cheaper markets than NYC, it's quite hard to justify building anything non-luxury. I'm looking at building a 10-story tower (~150 units) in my hometown's downtown, and the math doesn't work out unless I can tap into that new $15 billion that was just announced by the Feds to help developers build stuff.

The worst part is that unlike NYC, where luxury will always find buyers, in my hometown, non-luxury doesn't have a good business case (like everywhere else, construction costs being crazy high), but luxury ALSO isn't that safe a bet, because I can't be sure there'll be enough interested wealthy people.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by lio45

I could google it but I'd rather have someone from SSP explain it to me: clearly this 12 FAR rule does not actually apply strictly, otherwise all those towers that recently went up in NYC just couldn't exist.

Is it because all those supertalls for billionaires bought the air rights of every other property around them all the way to the point where they literally meet the 12 FAR cap with all the land square footage whose 12x area they control via air rights?

1. Some areas have height limits greater than 12 FAR.
2. Some programs let you increase height limit if you have a portion of affordable units.
3. Some buildings buy air rights.
4. Some buildings have setbacks, such that they get higher height but narrower building on a bigger lot.


Its usually a combination of the above.

[chris08876]

City did okay this quarter. Relatively speaking, compared to the last 3 to 4 years.

= = = =

New York YIMBY’s Q1 2024 Construction Report Tallies Record-Breaking 19,819 Residential And Hotel Units

New York YIMBY has tallied the records for new building permit filings for the first quarter of 2024, and the results are one for the record books. According to data compiled from permit filings submitted to the Department of Buildings, during the three-month period from January through March, builders throughout the city filed a combined total of 19,819 residential and hotel units, the highest total for any three-month period since YIMBY started tracking the statistic in 2020. Similarly, the combined filed-for square footage of 26 million is also the highest quarterly tally for the decade so far.

Of the 1,044 new building permits, 57 were filed for high-rise buildings standing ten stories and higher, which will boost the skyline and contribute much-needed density in some of the city’s most pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented communities. Below we break down the data via a series of charts and analyses that track the city’s development trends during the year’s first quarter.

The third quarter of 2023 saw a record-setting average of 345 new building permit filings in New York City per month in July, August, and September. The following three months (Q4 2023) further shattered the record with an astounding monthly average of 507 permits, with 794 permits filed in December alone.

While the first-quarter average for 2024 fell well below the previous quarter outlier, its total of 348 new building filings still slightly surpassed the 2023 Q3 total to rank as the second-highest quarterly average since YIMBY started keeping tally in 2020. With a total of 389 filings, March 2024 holds the third-highest monthly count since YIMBY began keeping track, reflecting the enduring strength of the city’s construction and real estate industries.

[...]

============

Below, the filing size categories are compared between Q4 2023 and Q1 2024 individually:

Single-family: 65-percent decrease (482 to 167 units)
Two-family: 49-percent decrease (442 to 224)
Three to nine units: 3-percent increase (172 to 177)
Ten to 49 units: 19-percent increase (126 to 150)
50 to 99 units: 3-percent increase (36 to 37)
100 to 499 units: 25-percent increase (36 to 45)
500 to 599 units: 400-percent increase (1 to 4)

Single-story: 3-percent decrease (183 to 177 permits)
Two-story: 40-percent decrease (379 to 228)
Three-story: 59-percent decrease (553 to 225)
Four-story: 7-percent decrease (177 to 165)
Five to six floors: 8-percent increase (90 to 97)
Seven to nine floors: 4-percent increase (91 to 95)
Ten to 19 floors: 14-percent increase (36 to 41)
20 to 29 floors: 200-percent increase (5 to 10)
30 to 39 floors: 60-percent decrease (5 to 2)
40 to 49 floors: 300-percent increase (1 to 3)
50 to 59 floors: no change (1)

=========================
NYY

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by lio45

Exactly. 100% correct.

Even in much cheaper markets than NYC, it's quite hard to justify building anything non-luxury. I'm looking at building a 10-story tower (~150 units) in my hometown's downtown, and the math doesn't work out unless I can tap into that new $15 billion that was just announced by the Feds to help developers build stuff.

The worst part is that unlike NYC, where luxury will always find buyers, in my hometown, non-luxury doesn't have a good business case (like everywhere else, construction costs being crazy high), but luxury ALSO isn't that safe a bet, because I can't be sure there'll be enough interested wealthy people.

so you were planning on building a 10 story apt tower on spec?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

It's the same here in South Florida. All new developments have the description "Luxury" attached to them.

I used to think it was a silly marketing term until...

I moved into a place that wasn't labeled as such, BIG difference.

Perhaps we are so used to "luxury" that it appears normal now?

[ilcapo]

Im curious to know how many people actually live inside the new "luxury" developments.

A 20 story building with just 1 apt each floor seems like alot of wasted space.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

Im curious to know how many people actually live inside the new "luxury" developments.

A 20 story building with just 1 apt each floor seems like alot of wasted space.

Why would it be "wasted space"? The kind of household living in in a 3-4,000 sq. ft. full-floor urban unit would otherwise be in a 12,000 sq. ft. multiacre SFH.

Also, these types of units are a tiny proportion of overall multifamily housing stock.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

Im curious to know how many people actually live inside the new "luxury" developments.

A 20 story building with just 1 apt each floor seems like alot of wasted space.

AFAIK, only the billionaire towers are built like this in NYC, and they're all way taller than 20 stories. They have to be that tall in order for the developments to be financially viable.

The "luxury" apartments that I mentioned above are really just regular apartments with premium finishes that are marketed to middle and upper middle income people.

[chris08876]

Aside from the city itself, the real pressure needs to be on Nassau County to get its act together and build, especially within a 2-3 mile radius of transit nodes. Not including Queens/Brooklyn, Long Island itself has been massively wasted potential and hasn't contributed much towards the overall region. You tend to see big resistance there.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Aside from the city itself, the real pressure needs to be on Nassau County to get its act together and build, especially within a 2-3 mile radius of transit nodes. Not including Queens/Brooklyn, Long Island itself has been massively wasted potential and hasn't contributed much towards the overall region. You tend to see big resistance there.

Huge resistance in Nassau County and Eastern Queens. The residents all have an "I moved here because it's SFH suburbia with quiet streets, and you'll pry it from my cold dead hands" attitude.

[Crawford]

I'm hoping this lessens as the demographics turn over. The ascendant demographics in Eastern Queens & Nassau are East Asian, South Asian and Orthodox Jewish, and all three groups are far more open to intergenerational living, accessory units and new housing.

Also, it's mean, but housing production will be easier when the boomers die off. They're old enough to remember the bad old days of urban decline and still equate SFH and suburbia with "moving on up". They don't get that they're harming their property values and increasing their property tax burden by blocking new housing.

[dchan]

^ Yeah, some people on Nextdoor & Reddit (Eastern Queens) argue that that maintaining their home in SFH suburbia with quiet streets is the key to keeping property values up. I doubt they really believe that horsesh*t reasoning, but rather that they just don't want to live any other way.

[mhays]

Ideally, the state would mandate that cities have to allow a certain amount of growth. In that scenario, cities would upzone by mandate, and typically focus their growth around transit and in existing commercial areas (avoiding most SFR areas). In other words, like Washington state has been doing for many years.

Then maybe you could pass legislation mandating that SFR areas allow let's say four to six units in any significant city. Like several states have done.

[Doady]

Pressure to increase density will come naturally to places that become unaffordable due to increased demand, which comes from increased desirability.

What pressure is there to build transit-oriented development in Nassau County when transit is basically non-existent there?

At the same time, it will become profitable for developers to build higher density when there is less demand for parking and less space needed to accommodate cars. Such can only be achieved by increased transit.

And when I say transit that frees up parking space for redevelopment, I don't mean commuter rail stations surrounded by park and ride lots.