Mayor throws support behind Innovation QNS as potential rejection looms

Submitted by Groundbreaking_Tank2 t3_ylh1lq in nyc

​

>“I wanted to come out here and see it for myself – when you walk through this location, this is a prime example of the type of spaces we should utilize and build affordable housing, jobs [and] build park space,” Adams said. “This is a good place to build.”
>
>Adams was joined by Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, several labor union representatives, a couple of Astoria residents and representatives of the developers – all of whom support the proposal to build.

https://queenseagle.com/all/2022/10/31/innovation-qns-gets-visit-from-mayor-adams

24

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Lower-Bad-4388 t1_iuyensa wrote

Its a no brainer of a development. Its mostly empty parking lots and big box stores which would be way more useful as housing. We simply need more housing in NYC if we want to prevent gentrification from bulldozing even more communities in the outer boroughs.

27

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuygsuy wrote

So to prevent gentrification we have to gentrify? Got it.

−25

hannibalbaracka t1_iuyj19b wrote

If we don’t build more housing, then the same number people will move to the area but there will be less housing, so more displacement will occur

18

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyjq1v wrote

“If we don’t build more affordable housing” fixed it for you!

Building more luxury housing with an inevitably high avg monthly rent will actually cause the displacement of the area.

−10

hannibalbaracka t1_iuyr0gg wrote

Hi friend!

Here's all the best data on how "luxury housing" decreases rents! Just from a basic level, if you build no housing, and more people come in to the area, displacement will increase. If you build more housing, there will be less displacement. Really simple!

https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/

12

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyrl15 wrote

Who’s this “more coming to the area”? The city population has dropped the past two plus years.

There’s already displacement BECAUSE of these units. Rents are rising artificially through these developments. This UCLA “study” is conveniently ignoring that fact.

−7

hannibalbaracka t1_iuysgkx wrote

The UCLA research roundup (it's not a single study) actually talks very specifically about the role of development on displacement. If you think it "ignores that fact" it means you didn't actually read all 18 pages! Which makes sense considering you responded to my comment 4 minutes after I made it.

>There’s already displacement BECAUSE of these units. Rents are rising artificially through these developments.

It would be really great if you could provide any evidence of this fact, beyond "I've seen an apartment building in the area, and also my rent has increased" which is a correlative statement, not a causal one.

Your anecdotal evidence means nothing when we have actual clinical data points that prove the reverse of your argument.

9

BraveSirZaphod t1_iv1ph35 wrote

>Which makes sense considering you responded to my comment 4 minutes after I made it.

Jesus Christ, just take the poor lad out back and put him out of his misery at this point lmao.

Thanks for bringing some actual research into these discussions though. That doesn't happen nearly enough.

4

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyv7od wrote

Show me where this so called research roundup shows data from the rising rent of western Queens where there are thousands of new units built since ‘01.

−4

hannibalbaracka t1_iuywj65 wrote

The research roundup shows that market-rate housing (that you call luxury housing) is not responsible for increasing rents!

If you have particular evidence (not anecdotal data, but actual proof that rents are rising not because of increased demand because of increased supply) that this is untrue in Queens, the burden is on you to show that.

9

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuyl18f wrote

There is zero reason not to build housing there. It's a bunch of parking lots. Building housing there (especially housing that is 40% affordable housing) is not ever going to hurt anyone.

8

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuymtb5 wrote

It’ll hurt the renters of Astoria who when their lease is up will see the average monthly rent will go up with a development that has 60% of it’s units guaranteed to be listed way above the $2.5k avg monthly rent currently paid by Astorians.

1

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuyng24 wrote

The residents of Astoria are seeing massive rent increases because there's a massive shortage of housing in New York City. Being a NIMBY and blocking every new apartment proposal (especially when it contains 40% affordable housing) hurts every renter in New York.

11

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyou3k wrote

LOL!

Astorians are seeing massive rent increases because of the major influx of luxury apartment complexes that were built or being built.

These new complexes raise the avg monthly rent of the neighborhood. And when new tenants come along landlords will ask for market rent which was artificially inflated by the new developments.

There’s no guarantee that this development will even create 40% affordable housing.

The only way to help renters is through building AFFORDABLE housing not majority luxury housing that’ll increase the rents of a neighborhood.

The supply side lies about new units lowering rents is so absolutely hilarious!

−3

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuyqqqu wrote

When vacancies are low, rents go up. When you build more housing, you get more vacancies, and rents go down.

​

No matter how much mental gymnastics you try, you will never get around that fact. Stop being a NIMBY.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/9/27/23373855/affordable-housing-crisis-city-council-eric-adams-throgs-neck

13

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyr6tn wrote

When you inject more units with a high avg monthly rent, rent in the neighborhood will go up.

No matter how much mental gymnastics you try, you will never get around that fact. Stop being a greedy developer.

1

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuys1m1 wrote

The data proves you wrong again.
If you can put all your brain cells together you should try this thing called "reading".

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01055/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/gentrification-wars-studies-doubt-new-yorkers-are-being-pushed-out

6

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuysvp5 wrote

LOL! I can’t stop laughing at this so called “data” which is really just corporate talking points behind paywalled websites. You are unintentionally hilarious!!!

2

[deleted] t1_iuyth2e wrote

[removed]

2

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyuuqd wrote

LMAO! What facts??? There are thousands of new units built in western queens and the rents have skyrocketed because of them. None of this so called data shows what’s going on there. Keep your developer talking points, don’t need them.

1

koreamax t1_iuyi7v5 wrote

Have you ever been to this stretch of road? There's nothing to gentrify..

17

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyiiwi wrote

Was referring to the second part of that particular post. It didn’t make sense.

−2

KaiDaiz t1_iuyhdmi wrote

More like to not accelerate the rate of gentrification. Gentrification is going to happen with or without building. The rate of gentrification will be slower with development vs none.

6

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyn7gr wrote

Let that gentrification take place on it’s own w/o city subsidies & tax breaks. The development can be funded by private financiers and or banks.

−2

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuyooqs wrote

/u/Head_Acanthisitta256 you obviously don't know anything about this development. The developer is giving a long list of concessions, it's not getting subsidies. It's the opposite of what you're claiming.

I've noticed NIMBYs never have their facts straight. I wonder why.

9

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iuyptg6 wrote

Looks like you don’t know the facts!

https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/10/19/23413936/innovation-qns-fight-pits-donovan-richards-against-julie-won?_amp=true

“The Innovation QNS developers won over some former opponents, including Borough President Richards, by increasing the projects’ share of affordable housing units from the mandatory 25% to 40% through prospective city subsidies.”

−3

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuyqi2a wrote

The subsidized units are affordable housing units, not the market-rate units you claim are "gentrifying" the area. Not to mention the developer is building the 25% affordable units on their own dime and providing several other major concessions to the community after receiving feedback.

You're learning the basics of housing in your city, congratulations.

I will now await you moving the goalpost.

5

KaiDaiz t1_iuynph8 wrote

They would if they can. The area is not zone for housing and they want to change it. Criteria to change zoning was to allow the affordable housing which they met criteria with proposed plan

Would you rather they build a truck parking lot? that don't require zoning change and unmet demand. They make a killing off all the idle trucks that park side of highway right now

6

Spatsnation t1_iuyvlrc wrote

Shit Adams doing something useful it really is the end of times. Hopefully this gets built because NYC needs more housing and 2800 units is more than 0 last I checked. I thought it was pretty good at 25% affordable but the recent increase to 40% to me is a no brainer.

20

donttouchthirdrail t1_iv1ea75 wrote

I think we're just hitting the end of the line for anti-housing stuff. No way this would have happened in 2019.

I will continue to push my controversial opinions on the subject: blaming Bloomberg.

3

TeamMisha t1_iuyqscs wrote

Wow an actually useful presser by the mayor for a change, I hope this is enough of a push to council to override Won's opposition if she votes no.

15

Groundbreaking_Tank2 OP t1_iuyrlne wrote

Yeah I have actually never heard of council member deference or "community input" being used for something positive. It's always used for NIMBYism to block bike lanes, bus lanes, housing etc.
The housing shortage affects all New Yorkers so why should one woman have the ability to kill home for thousands of people?

8

NetQuarterLatte t1_iuygmvu wrote

This is good, Eric Adams.

Please keep up the effort to help increase the housing supply in NYC.

8

Knoxcore t1_iv0c5nj wrote

It’s simple build it and you add 500 affordable units. Don’t build and you add 0. Doing nothing is not the answer unless your goal is to turn this space into truck warehouses.

8