Comments
[deleted] t1_ixfw8yq wrote
[removed]
NetQuarterLatte t1_ixd93m7 wrote
Yeah, this whole process is surely going to make every other developer go "Wow, I'm so excited to build more housing in NYC!"
Daddy_Macron t1_ixdd33l wrote
The only developers that can survive in this market are large ones with extensive portfolios that can survive NIMBY delays. Of course cue the local activists and Progressives that then cry about large developers when their actions are the biggest gift that they can receive.
NetQuarterLatte t1_ixdeuq6 wrote
It’s like they are actively working to protect those they purport to be the villains (the big developers), and actively working to harm those they purport to be advocating for (the people who wants better housing).
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_ixcnvwv wrote
I read a statistic a few years back that floored me. More money is spent to build new construction in the US on lawyers than labor to actually build the structure. Getting projects to pasted the town or community boards costs more than the labor in the construction. I expect this to be the same. Years of paying lawyers to finally get an approval. Lawyers made bank.
TinyTornado7 t1_ixco88g wrote
This is incredibly inaccurate. By this logic the lawyers here will have made over $2billion
ironichaos t1_ixdaiks wrote
Yeah just to put some back of the napkin math around this.
The top law firms in nyc charge around 2-3k per hour. So in order to generate a 2b fee they would need to spend roughly 660k hours in billed time. A lawyer typically is required to bill 1800+ hours per year at these firms. That would mean 370ish lawyers dedicated full time to this for an entire year. Im not a lawyer so who knows how many it takes for this sort of negotiation, but I would find it hard to believe that many lawyers worked on this full time.
KaiDaiz t1_ixcj1ml wrote
Won actually lost. They just don't realize yet. She moved away from her 55% red line. Her NIMBYs lost bc more units to be built. Unless they increased size of building which I see no mention, smaller units to make up increased # of units.
Devs gain more units on site and city paying for all the units from 25% affordable housing to new number.
Won barely edge more concessions from counter proposal of 40% affordable at original amount of units and city funds
Delaywaves t1_ixcmc25 wrote
> Unless they increased size of building
They did increase the building size: they converted office and community space to create the new housing units.
KaiDaiz t1_ixd02hl wrote
gotcha dev still got what they wanted....more units and city to cover the bill for increased affordable units at a tbd mechanism.
user182190210 t1_ixdcu37 wrote
This 55% to 43% argument is wrong in the bigger picture. The total units went from 2800 to 3200, affordable went from 1100 to 1400. So because total number increased so did total number of affordable, even if that as a % of the whole went down.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixdu6w2 wrote
And in the process the more luxury rentals in the area will jack up the price of market rents. There’s also no guarantee that this development will even see those 1400 “affordable” units. Hudson Yards being a prime example of the bait & switch.
KaiDaiz t1_ixea2ph wrote
Folks should stop using word luxury...it's a marketing buzzword and phrase to generate reaction from housing advocates. Luxury is basically a basically market rate unit that was recently updated in the last decade.
GND52 t1_ixeicri wrote
Seriously. “Luxury” almost always means “new counters and if your lucky an in unit washer/dryer”
user182190210 t1_ixduewk wrote
That’s the opposite of how it works. The luxury apartments increase supply which help keep lower rents stable or decrease price.
Your second point, fair enough we’ll just have to see
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixdvpv6 wrote
Oh please, the easy to see process of gentrification across the world says this supply side philosophy of increasing housing stock through luxury housing is patently false.
user182190210 t1_ixdw8kb wrote
Cities are expanding and prices going up, with lower SES residents driven out regardless of this.
I think we both agree that this is not ideal and everyone knows what actually needs to happen for housing to stabilize and be reasonable. This isn’t that and between all the politics and profit incentive I doubt we will get much of that.
I do think this helps by increasing supply especially with 1400 affordable units. But if you disagree that’s okay, I don’t know everything about this and honestly it may turn out to be wrong.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixdww5x wrote
Actually 100% agree with this take. There’s certainly no easy answer. But whatever we’re doing as a society isn’t currently working.
GND52 t1_ixeioc9 wrote
The easy-to-see process, when you look at the numbers, is that population and job growth in cities has outpaced new housing for decades.
> although the housing stock grew by about 8% between 2000 and the end of 2016, the adult population grew by almost 11%, and adult-only households made up almost 71% of all the households in the city in 2016. The number of jobs in the city grew by more than 16% during that time period. The growth in both the number of adults and the number of jobs signals increasing demand for housing
> new supply in the city is not growing fast enough to adequately moderate the pressures on rent and housing prices created by increasing demand. Household size has increased, and more renter households are living in severely overcrowded units; the city’s vacancy rate remains very low; and the share of recently available housing units in the city affordable to low- and moderate-income households has fallen significantly since 2000. The report also highlights a mismatch between incomes and the cost of housing units on the market. Median monthly rents have risen in real dollars by about $300 since 2000, at the same time that the median income of a renter household has only increased by $145 per month
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/1/5/22869518/housing-trends-to-watch-for-the-future-of-nyc
> The number of housing units grew by 7% in the past decade, even while New York City’s adult population grew by 10%
> And in the past 10 years, the city added fewer apartments and houses than it had the decade before
> The number of new unit permits fell as well –– while the coronavirus pandemic and the temporary construction halts had an impact too, leading to a decline in the completions and permits in 2020 from the year before.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixeqxoz wrote
New York City population has dropped the past few years especially since the pandemic began and yet your tHeOrY about supply & demand hasn’t lowered housing costs despite a construction boom in the city. Not even close.
GND52 t1_ixf0o6o wrote
There in fact was a huge drop in rental prices associated with the pandemic that was widely reported on. A massive drop in demand resulted in lower rents, just as the “tHeOrY” would predict. And as the pandemic abated and the city became desirable again, rents returned to their previous highs. Again, as the “tHeOrY” of market forces would predict.
Sure, one solution to the rent problem is to make the city very undesirable, reducing demand. That’s not a very good solution, however.
A much better solution is to simply allow supply to grow. It doesn’t even require a big plan. Just upzone the whole city. Easy shit like rezoning LIC from industrial use to high density residential. It makes everyone better off.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixf3g7x wrote
The city has not had an uptick in population as the pandemic abated! What is this desirability you’re talking about?! Unbelievable.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixf3sov wrote
Rentals during the 00’s in L.I.C. were reasonable. As soon as the high rises that replaced the warehouses of the area spread like wildfire the rental costs skyrocketed with the luxury building boom. Your talking points are completely disingenuous.
b1argg t1_ixly8jv wrote
Do you want people moving into new units or outbidding existing residents for theirs?
Pizzaratismysoulmate t1_ixfjuhv wrote
“Affordable” Rents will go up around surrounding area.
PM-Nice-Thoughts t1_ixde8nr wrote
Great, more housing
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixdtpsm wrote
More housing at higher monthly rents raising the market rents for the area. Supply siders are so disingenuous it’s sad.
PM-Nice-Thoughts t1_ixdvzdj wrote
>here's why the basic laws of supply and demand work everywhere except NYC
What an insightful comment, thanks
ChrisFromLongIsland t1_ixe2yx9 wrote
Right we should be advocating for less housing and then prices will go down?
Maybe we should have a lottery for housing like this project is essentially. What happens to the people who don't have a winning lottery ticket I am not sure.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixe3zxx wrote
Absolutely not!!! Society should advocate for more affordable housing. There are smart people around who should and can devise new ways to incentivize building affordable housing instead of the endless luxury high rises popping up like weeds. The current model is NOT working.
hannibalbaracka t1_ixejhsk wrote
yes, because the current model is NYC not building enough of any type of housing
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixercyn wrote
Can’t stop laughing at this insane take. You must be a real estate broker or developer🤮
GND52 t1_ixeit94 wrote
You’ve got cause and effect backwards.
GND52 t1_ixcz195 wrote
What a disaster of a process. I love to see more housing, but a years-long negotiation over a few percent of "affordable" housing is precisely the reason rents keep going up.
We need dozens of projects like this going up in every neighborhood every year just to match population and job growth, requiring each new housing project to get the blessing of the local council member has proven time and time again to slow development and raise rents.
We need comprehensive zoning and building regulation reform to enable serious growth in a way that will actually make a difference to all of our working and middle class neighbors, not just the lucky few who happen to win the housing lottery.