Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

acheampong14 t1_je6w9kw wrote

Building housing is the suburbs is fine and needed, but it would be much more effective and more environmentally sound to just build more housing in the city.

22

UpperLowerEastSide t1_je7ytur wrote

There are a bunch of Metro North and LIRR stations in towns that ban multifamily housing. As much as I would love only The City building housing, it's a waste of the commuter rail infrastructure for these towns to ban environmentally friendly transit oriented development and lifting restrictions would allow for more choice for would be homeowners and renters.

17

myassholealt t1_jecayke wrote

Absolutely. Build along LIRR routes. But descendants of the NYC white flighters who setup camp on Long Island will fight tooth and nail to prevent what the fled moving to their town.

6

UpperLowerEastSide t1_jefsyuv wrote

Ironically with how expensive housing is on Long Island, they’re excluding their own kids. Not just the feared black families.

6

isitaparkingspot t1_je88j8x wrote

So I'm actually all for this and not a NIMBY. There is a case to be made though about congestion. Public transit in outer Queens for example is pathetic, and the area does not need more vehicle traffic. Outside the city, between MNR and LIRR those areas are covered rather well by suburban standards, but there are only few rush hour trains aren't packed as it is going in and out of the city, not to mention general congestion on local roads during rush hour for jobs that aren't based in the city.

The other thing that the city in particular must demonstrate is effectively incentivizing affordable development. All the good done by the current affordable housing program is un-done by the luxury inventory that almost always outnumber the affordable units.

Some NIMBYs will dig in their heels for a turf war, to be expected. Other reasonable ones can be persuaded to accept a plan that won't upend their way of life or their actual life itself due to displacement.

2

UpperLowerEastSide t1_je8bvfr wrote

There's research that shows that TOD leads to lower vehicle miles travelled. Which makes sense as walkable communities lead to less car usage needed. Congestion nevertheless could be an issue but at this point congestion is significantly lower of an issue than the housing crisis and can be addressed quicker by more bus service.

I would argue that both The City and Long Island need to effectively incentivize affordable development. Long Island is much, much worse than NYC at affordable housing; with Long Island having one of the lowest construction rates of any American suburb it's turning most of the island into luxury inventory.

Plus, Long Island has enough strip malls and parking lot for housing to be built without needing to tear down single family homes. Long Island residents are also significantly more well to do than the Harlem and Bed Stuy residents currently being displaced en mass.

10

D14DFF0B t1_je85rli wrote

This is why, ultimately, ESA and the third mainline track were such boondoggles.

$15 billion and basically no new riders.

1

ObjectivePitiful1170 t1_jeaay12 wrote

No, increasing the density of suburbs will spur local developments. Those suburbs will become self-sufficient, and will become cities. That will remove, for example, stress for transportation to the metropolis due to available local job market, improved local public transit, etc. The land use will be the same, since we are talking about increasing density, and not sprawl.

5

-blourng- t1_je7uttn wrote

Depends on the city, too. Why are most of Brooklyn and Queens zoned for low-density buildings (i.e., a couple of stories) only, when demand is insanely high?

19

WorthPrudent3028 t1_je8b26j wrote

A lot of upzoned neighborhoods take forever to redevelop. A street of attached single family homes by me was upzoned over a decade ago. Exactly one new building was built. One of the problems is that you can't force long time homeowners to move. The other is that you can't stop purchasers from simply living in the single family home they overpaid for. Even then, that upzone was only to 3 family. At 6 or more, keeping the single family home makes less financial sense even for people who are willing to overpay.

6

ctindel t1_je8dk62 wrote

Yeah that kind of upzone just isn't worth tearing down a house and building another small house for. Just remove the height limit entirely. If I could tear down my 2-family and replace it with a 12 story apartment building I would. The current owner doesn't even have to move, they could just keep a 2-story unit for themselves and rent the other 10 floors out.

5

-blourng- t1_je8cm2c wrote

Sure, don't think it's desirable to force people to move anyway. And rezoning all of the outer boroughs definitely won't solve the entire problem instantly, either. That said, what's the upside in continuing to make it illegal to meet demand on any given plot of land?

1

WorthPrudent3028 t1_je8dj87 wrote

It doesn't have an upside. There shouldn't be a single plot in NYC outside of SI that is zoned single family only. But I have noticed that subway stops in a lot of mid and lower density areas have new construction around them. It's mostly the standard issue 4 to 6 story cookie cutter "luxury" apartment buildings, but it's something. Even though I don't know why someone would want a balcony where they can step out directly onto elevated subway tracks.

4

FreeDarkChocolate t1_je8fja3 wrote

>outside of SI

Why should SI remain SFZ either? Setting it aside from the rest of the city means that the rest of the city would be legislatively destined to further subsidize SI's infrastructure to the benefit of existing landowners.

Designate a park as a park, industrial areas, farmland, reserved undeveloped areas, or preservation sites but otherwise let the market build up.

This is why measures that CA is taking (similar to "increase housing or your zoning is nullified") apply to the entire state; picking and choosing which areas should be zoned as what creates an artificial cap that exacerbates the problems we see today.

6

TizonaBlu t1_jearaps wrote

Always love it when this sub wants to tear down Village, Chelsea and UES townhouses.

Even though I hate LPC, I’m somewhat glad they’re standing firmly in the way.

1

WorthPrudent3028 t1_jeb4rhi wrote

It's not about those neighborhoods which should be historic. It's the countless neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens filled with Archie Bunker and attached garage houses. That housing stock isn't particularly historic or attractive and is already priced well beyond the means of the lower middle class they were built for.

Woodside is a prime example.

3

-blourng- t1_je8esbn wrote

Think those same buildings could have been 10-20 stories in the absence of overly-strict, self-defeating regulations. On some level we’re going to have to get over being allergic to new density and new mid to high-rise construction, if we ever want the city to become remotely affordable again

0

toastedclown t1_je6ye6g wrote

So are we going to extend the subway up to Scarsdale? No? Well then, why don't we concentrate on the vast swaths of the outer boroughs that are built essentially at suburban density?

17

CactusBoyScout t1_je7jwt5 wrote

The plan Hochul proposed would also impact the city and force it to build more housing as well.

This housing shortage is so severe that it really shouldn’t be an either/or thing.

According to the article, Scarsdale hasn’t increased its housing supply since 1990. Why is the state financially supporting Scarsdale’s infrastructure if it’s not doing anything to help with the statewide housing crisis?

13

The_Question757 t1_je7pv1b wrote

not to mention scarsdale isn't built for this kind of infrastructure. the traffic on post road or palmer avenue is bad enough as it is. Some sections only have one side of a sidewalk (guess where the snow plows put the snow?) Then you have white plains which is more urban so you're going to have this high density urban area surrounded by suburbs with roads that can't handle the increased traffic of personal vehicles which would be needed to go to nearby stores and it's just a recipe for a disaster. Scarsdale is rich town with a village aesthetic. just dropping an apartment tower in the middle of it isn't going to work.

​

Especially when All Westchester seems to focus on is high rise luxury condos. Look what they did to the south broadway area in Yonkers. They pushed out all the lower income people near the metro north station and put up ridiculously priced condos to attract the 'my daddy owns a dealership' Brooklynites because it's one train ride away from the city.

1

mowotlarx t1_je84l7n wrote

>Scarsdale is rich town with a village aesthetic.

And 90% of Manhattan used to be farmland. It's time to grow, adapt and change. Scarsdale isn't a precious gem. They can build 180 more units of housing and survive.

8

The_Question757 t1_je8ir2z wrote

In the last ten years they built a ton of apartments In white plains and it's still expensive as hell to live there. If people think they are going to build low income housing in a village with a household median income of 150k good luck with that. Not even the democrats in Scarsdale want this let alone the republicans

1

mowotlarx t1_je9b3u4 wrote

The requirement isn't to build low cost housing. It's to build any housing. Being a NIMBY cuts pretty evenly across the political spectrum so I'm not surprised.

4

mehkindaok t1_je9fgjk wrote

I would be extremely surprised if there’s no requirement for a certain non-trivial percentage of all newly built housing to be low-income.

1

mowotlarx t1_je9klqm wrote

And what exactly would happen to Scarsdale if people who are less than millionaires were able to live in their Metro-North train station town? Or is this really just dog whistling about how to prevent wealthy assholes in Scarsdale from having to live anywhere close to "certain people."

1

mehkindaok t1_je9p0n9 wrote

Buyers are paying seven figure prices and five figure property taxes so their kids can attend public schools that rival some of the best private schools in the US. It only takes a few violent, disruptive students to ruin an entire school and that is exactly what low income housing brings - why would current homeowners not fight it tooth and nail? If you disagree with that, would you like to pay $500K for a Ferrari that will be taken away and replaced with a Fiero in a couple months?

1

mowotlarx t1_je9utom wrote

>only takes a few violent, disruptive students

So you're suggesting people who are middle class or even slightly lower than middle class are all violent criminals? Or just non-white people?

Honestly, I'd rather these Scarsdale NIMBYs just say what they really mean.

2

mehkindaok t1_je9vv9t wrote

I am talking about the low-income section 8 renters - are you telling me with a straight face every last one of them is a star student heading to Harvard or Yale?

0

mowotlarx t1_je9w2vd wrote

The housing requirement isn't for low income. It's not requiring section 8 housing. It's requiring they build any housing. But the fact that you jumped there and made the assumption that everyone in section 8 is a violent criminal pretty much proves my point. Just admit that the push to stop any housing is because of straight up racism and stereotyping of what poor or lower income people are like.

I assure you Scarsdale is full of criminals. But we call them white collar despite the destruction they do getting into the millions and billions of dollars in theft.

2

mehkindaok t1_je9xauk wrote

I along with anyone else reasonable have nothing against 100% market rate housing as long as there's infrastructure to support it - the more, the merrier. Currently everything comes with inclusionary zoning strings attached meaning any apartment building comes with a potential mini-NYCHA in it. No thanks!

0

mowotlarx t1_jec9arv wrote

>the more, the merrier

Then Scarsdale really has nothing to worry about, since they're not being asked to make housing for anyone less than a millionaire (ickyyyyy!)

2

mehkindaok t1_jecdsaf wrote

Let’s be honest here - there is a very good chance of ending up with some rather “icky” characters when dealing with the 0-30% AMI crowd that’s typically mandated by inclusionary zoning.

1

The_Question757 t1_je9t2mr wrote

I would be highly highly surprised if the building requirements didn't require a set standard of low income housing.

1

UpperLowerEastSide t1_jeac32c wrote

>In the last ten years they built a ton of apartments In white plains and it's still expensive as hell to live there.

What do you think housing costs are gonna be if nothing's built like wealthy Westchester residents seem to want?

>If people think they are going to build low income housing in a village with a household median income of 150k good luck with that. Not even the democrats in Scarsdale want this let alone the republicans

Wow, rich Democrats and Republicans supporting housing segregation by class? I'm shook.

2

mowotlarx t1_je84e3r wrote

Because New York state is more than NYC. Suburbs need to do their fair share. It's long overdue. Scarsdale hadn't raised the number of homes there since the 90s. It's ridiculous.

0

thenewyorktimes OP t1_je6qdav wrote

Gov. Kathy Hochul plans to solve New York City’s housing problem by forcing suburbs like Scarsdale to build 800,000 units over the next decade. She faces heavy resistance.
Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, a Democrat who represents Scarsdale and other parts of Westchester County, said the “proposal would change the complexity of our county in a way that doesn’t make sense.”

Read the full story, without a New York Times subscription, here.

8

soren7550 t1_jebtycm wrote

Can we please just get some actual affordable apartments in every neighborhood (none of that “you have to make at least $60k a year to qualify” bull either)? In my neighborhood, they just keep making luxury $1M apartment buildings that are typically at least half empty.

2

[deleted] t1_je6wqkc wrote

[deleted]

0

mowotlarx t1_je6ywhp wrote

>The total number of homes in Scarsdale — about 5,750 in 2020, according to the Census Bureau — has barely changed since 1990.

We're taking Scarsdale build 170 more homes. They'll survive.

Of course, it's not about hardship it's about racist and xenophobic suburbanites trying to keep "certain people" out and we all know it.

2

collegedropoutclub t1_je6yvo7 wrote

That area is an ATM for Democrat party fundraising so they will back down on this.

−1

Appropriate-Let-3855 t1_je8cio4 wrote

Build a fast train to upstates like Korea Europe or Japan. Hire cops base on population breakdown of race. Because every minority knows upstate could be just as bad as Alabama.

−3

EndCalm914 t1_je7bd8f wrote

They are pretending to fix the housing crisis. Hotels are getting built everywhere that will only house the homeless.

−6

D14DFF0B t1_je85v03 wrote

Thanks to BdB, it's basically impossible to build new hotels in NYC.

3