Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-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