Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

capttony84 t1_j7gfsgb wrote

This should be interesting to see how it goes. Having worked with similar style groups to both of these it is good to see that that are acknowledging reality. Density itself will not reduce rent. New buildings are way to expensive to build to have anything but the highest, achievable rents. The key to more affordable housing is some sort of subsidy whether it is a true subsidy like an old Sec 8 deal or modern 4 or 9%'s. I like the inclusionary zoning that some cities are doing because it tends to work for everyone if executed properly. The price of deals is artificially deflated by forcing X amount of units to be available to people below 80% or 60% or whatever % of AMI so the developer can build that rent into the model and adjust acquisition costs respectively.

−6

queensnyatty t1_j7gj93a wrote

Maybe we should work to lower the cost of construction.

19

capttony84 t1_j7gnmrv wrote

I'd love to see that, no idea how though

5

ctindel t1_j7gu0lx wrote

Less community/city review and need to payoff politicians by donating to their non-profit to get anything done. As long as plans are up to code you should be able to build as tall as you want for residential buildings, no FAR maximums or air rights nonsense.

15

_neutral_person t1_j7hh0i1 wrote

The cost is going to be the cost. I rather not live like people in Florida, wondering if my building is going to come down on me because of deregulation. We should expand transit so "high demand" areas can be spread out.

−2

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j7k7wh1 wrote

Where do you propose to expand the transit?

1

_neutral_person t1_j7lbzur wrote

They should expand access to Rosedale, masbeth, flatlands, marine park, flushings, Corona and areas in between with lines that connect interborough areas like the G train.

One of the biggest determinants for rent is time from apartment to job. If you reduce travel times, you will reduce rent demand.

Edit: We can also stop treating SI like NJ and add a tunnel for cars AND trains.

3

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j7lm5nf wrote

My house's value is in the fact that it's remote and low density, with ample street parking. A train would harm that. So no.

−1

_neutral_person t1_j7mcnzq wrote

Yeah. I don't care about your house's value. We need housing. You can always sell now if you want.

5

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j7n4nuj wrote

Nah. It takes years to get anything done. I made a cool hundred grand flipping my first house and my current one has gone up around $200,000 in 10 years. I get a sweet ROI. Why sell? It's safe, quiet, with parking, good schools and nice neighbors. I'll sell when I retire and leave the city.

BTW...Who's "we"? You need housing. Not me. I have a nice place with a garden and yard.

−1

_neutral_person t1_j7nazbe wrote

I don't need housing, but I don't care about ROI and would gladly fuck up yours. I don't care. The best part is most of the NYC voters don't care either. So sell now. Heard flordia RE is hot!

4

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j7p32i5 wrote

Why when I'm making a cool ROI? I like it here. My sheer existence (never mind presence) irks the likes of you. I was born and raised, son. I'm not leaving!!!

My mom's house in Brooklyn (which she and my dad bought for $25,000 in '49) snookered 7 figures, too, so my share of the inheritance will fund a renovation on the kitchen, a new sidewalk, and some landscaping on the garden. My fig and crapapple trees provide nice (but now too much) shade, so I have to move the vegetable plot (kale, collards, tomatoes, potatoes) into standing planters. It'll be sweet. And guess what? You're not invited!

−1

glmory t1_j7j5glq wrote

New buildings don’t lower prices because they are cheap. They lower prices because the residents of those new buildings are no longer trying to out bid you for your home.

15

djdjddhdhdh t1_j7hbuud wrote

They really need to relax it and provide more options like equivalent exchange. I remember reading about a jc developer who negotiated with the city that instead of designating 20% I think it was in 2 buildings they were building they would instead build another building in the cheaper part of town which will be 100% affordable and have double the units

5

[deleted] t1_j7gklul wrote

[deleted]

1

capttony84 t1_j7go431 wrote

I'd love to see the government subsidize the affordable units. I don't think you understand my initial point. IZ reduces the acquisition cost by requiring X amount of affordable. Believe me if I could pass on the costs to my market rate tenants I would but they would just go somewhere else so my market units are at market and the affordable are less thus forcing the buyer to lower their acquisition cost

0