Comments
notmyclementine t1_izg5xcx wrote
Eliminating parking minimums in zoning is indeed included in his plans. This proposal is overall great news.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg5zfn wrote
I thought I read elsewhere that he was just proposing to reduce parking minimums?
notmyclementine t1_izg69ax wrote
I think it’s still up in the air, tbd. If it’s “reduced” to say 1 space per building for example, it’s effectively eliminated.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg98kd wrote
Many cities in Europe have the opposite system… parking maximums. And the few spots that are allowed typically have to be reserved for people with mobility issues.
notmyclementine t1_izg9e8a wrote
That’s a great idea
honest86 t1_izg9mxf wrote
It has something about parking shortfalls no longer being an environmental issue
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg9v98 wrote
Amazing. The idea that anything with “environmental” in the name could be used to mandate parking for cars is the height of irony.
yuriydee t1_izgli56 wrote
Honestly overall that sounds pretty good. We need housing asap and things like environmental reviews are really not that important right now especially for smaller housing.
chargeorge t1_izfyds9 wrote
Like the other CIty of yes stuff... This is good...
And I don't know if he can implement it as he's essentially gutted the white collar bureaucratic jobs in city hall, the kind of people who make these changes. I wish him the best, but I'm skeptical that he can execute.
Edit: in the long run this helps get there, but in the short term do the departments that fix this stuff have the juice?
bsanchey t1_izgatx0 wrote
I work at DOB. Any construction job requires a plan examiner to make sure it’s built to code. Their were over 70 openings for that position last time I checked. HPD was gutted of people who over see affordable housing construction. The answer is no.
chargeorge t1_izgbl33 wrote
Sigh. From the outside it looks the same as DOT, which had big ambitions but dropped the ball due to insufficient staff
bsanchey t1_izgdsji wrote
They got burnt out during the pandemic. A plan examiner makes 65k starting but has to have a masters and years of experience. They have degrees in architecture. The salary can’t compete with the private sector of even other cities.
The ones who left got burnt out. During COVID the commissioner had to be reminded of overtime rules because plan examination was being overworked. The return to office was the last straw.
oreosfly t1_izhq115 wrote
So a city that taxes us so far up the ass crack that it implements its own 3+% local income tax cannot compete with other municipalities in terms of salaries for its employees? The fuck are our tax dollars paying for then?
I swear if there was one reason to live outside city lines, it’s so that I don’t have to send an additional $8000 a year in local taxes alone to the morons who run this town
bsanchey t1_izigg38 wrote
You have an 11 billion dollar police force that gets unlimited overtime. That’s what you get
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izgcp6l wrote
You mean redesigning the same bike lane 3 times in 5 years isn’t a sign of efficiency?!
Bungabunga10 t1_izh0kio wrote
Welcome to approved list of private “third party inspection” firms
IdealGuest t1_izhfe21 wrote
I want to downvote this so bad but you’re probably right.
mowotlarx t1_izjcy6b wrote
That's the Adams plan. Cull government staff --> announce major plan requiring well staffed office with appropriate budget --> point to the city being unable to accomplish lofty goal --> move it into the hands of private companies and consultants
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izfz8sh wrote
Yeah another article said that one of the biggest roadblocks is simply staffing shortages in City Hall... caused partly by his requirement of 5 days a week in the office.
BonnaGroot t1_izj1c71 wrote
Partly is an understatement. The requirement not only led to significant vacancies when people up and left at its implementation, but it’s got a number of severe downstream impacts. The city’s now understaffed to even manage hiring. Never mind how complex and long the hiring process was for many city positions before, now they simply don’t have the bodies to read applications in a timely manner.
lee1026 t1_izg29pl wrote
Just set the default to yes and have fewer people whose job it is to say no. Make the rules so that if the city don’t respond within 45 days to any permit, it is automatically approved.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg6zgi wrote
NYC does have a "right to build" system that basically says you can build whatever you want as long as it adheres to current zoning.
The big fights over development that you read about are almost always because the developer wants to change the zoning... often from industrial (think former waterfront factories) or light commercial (the single-story retail in Harlem that nearly became a big development) to higher-density residential.
Zoning is essentially about maintaining the status quo in an area. So if you want to increase density at all or build residential where it previously didn't exist, you typically have to go through these painful rezoning processes where every local leader gets a veto and it takes years.
I think a more serious solution would be to just loosen zoning citywide.
mousekeeping t1_izg8lhp wrote
Yeah screw zoning. We need apartments. Wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to block/delay large housing developments just to keep the neighborhood exclusive and interfere with their view of the city.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg8zyi wrote
Yep. Zoning was first invented to keep apartments from being built near rich people’s homes. Before that, the rich actually had to buy up property around them to prevent development.
And then zoning replaced de facto segregation in the suburbs when that was banned. “Poor people aren’t banned here… we just ban any housing they could actually afford.”
mousekeeping t1_izg9qbk wrote
100%. It's just a way for rich homeowners to block anything that might impact them in any way and keep their neighborhoods frozen in time. And even if not explicitly racist, it obviously keeps desirable parts of the City majority white and affluent.
[deleted] t1_izgmk2v wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izh3vz6 wrote
You’re conflating two different things.
Jacob Riis inspired basic rules around safety and crowding in apartments and light/air.
Zoning in the US absolutely started as a way to keep poor and black people out of certain areas.
> Zoning determines what can be built where, and is ubiquitous in the United States. Low-density residential zoning predominates in US cities far more than in other countries, limiting housing opportunities for those who cannot afford large homes. These zoning regulations have racist and classist origins, make housing more expensive, and reinforce segregation patterns.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-030420-122027
And NYC’s first zoning law was not inspired by Riis. It was inspired by the massive Equitable Building which was just a giant cube that blocked light on the street below. The first zoning law was primarily focused on requiring setbacks.
[deleted] t1_izhb5rz wrote
[deleted]
mousekeeping t1_izh208v wrote
First I didn't write the quote above - that was from OP.
I don't know why/when NYC zoning laws were written, but I do know that today they make residential construction much more difficult than it should be in a city with an extreme housing crisis, especially large apartment/condominium buildings that can actually add substantial housing stock.
Don't think anybody's arguing that residential zones should be opened up for factories. Also NYC doesn't have industrial revolution-like factories anymore - barely anywhere in the US does and it's ludicrous to suggest that manufacturing would take hold in Manhattan again with the cost of labor and land here. Most no longer exist in North America anymore lol.
Rich people abusing zoning is extremely common, probably the main reason these laws continue to exist, certainly not a rare byproduct. So many affluent blocks with single-family homes or townhouses should have multi-story developments.
People with money and government connections manipulate old laws and file frivolous lawsuits to protect an aesthetic that they like and artificially maintain low-density areas in a growing city with a massive shortage of housing and very limited land. Poorer neighborhoods meanwhile get almost all of the affordable/subsidized housing and other NIMBY but necessary things like homeless shelters, addiction treatment centers, massive parking facilities, industrial storage, etc. The result is racist even if the laws were well-intentioned.
I think comments like yours are just as dangerous. You raise unrealistic fears about "overcrowding, pollution, and squalor" which are often (not saying you intended this, but it's a fact) dog whistles for anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-Semitism/racism, homelessness, and addiction. You pretentiously mention an artist who died in 1914 as a way to justify fear of changes in neighborhood density while virtue signaling to avoid the guilt that people would otherwise bear knowing that they are contributing to financial stress, poverty, and homelessness.
Also cities burning down? Seriously? Large parts of modern cities don't spontaneously burn down any more unless there's a direct cause like a massive forest fire or arson on a mass scale during a riot.
[deleted] t1_izh92ut wrote
[deleted]
30roadwarrior t1_izm3lro wrote
Hmmmm that’s a lie. If you have the bucks anyone can live anywhere.
mousekeeping t1_izmcdo8 wrote
Yeah…but if you haven’t heard, wealth isn’t exactly evenly distributed among racial groups in the USA.
30roadwarrior t1_izmdjh0 wrote
You mean there are no wealthy minority celebrities, athletes, doctors, singers,network owners… if u hustle you can be wealthy.
mousekeeping t1_izmi59l wrote
For sure, I’m not anti-capitalist, but if you’re black you’re a lot less likely to have the kind family money/property that makes living in these areas possible for people who aren’t necessarily making insane amounts of money.
I guess I’m mainly thinking of things like brownstones/townhouses on the upper west side or Brooklyn heights/park slope. Obviously there is a black upper and middle class and some of them do live in these places, and if you have enough money and don’t give a f what your neighbors think, then yea you can live where you want. But people might not be especially friendly, even if they’re not racist.
As a white and Asian couple, living in Harlem has been an interesting experience - it is a little stressful to live in a place where you’re not the majority. I’ve never experienced any crime or serious harassment, but def get strange looks and have a hard time making friends and connecting to the local community. Occasional get an unpleasant amount of attention from somebody looking for a reason to be upset when I’m chilling in the park. I imagine it would be similar but more intense for black people in majority white, old-money neighborhoods.
[deleted] t1_izgc679 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izgn2bh wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izgs9ky wrote
That's because developers know the rich neighborhoods have a much higher chance of stopping projects. So they don't even try there.
Developers go for poorer neighborhoods because a) property is cheaper and b) the locals are far less likely to have the time/money to organize opposition to projects.
Rich neighborhoods will often pool their resources to hire lawyers, lobbyists, and preservationists to fight changes around them.
Hell, the UES has successfully blocked an accessibility elevator at an existing subway station for 10 years now... because of "neighborhood character."
The Seaport area has kept a parking lot from becoming housing through similar efforts.
[deleted] t1_izgwx5m wrote
[deleted]
mousekeeping t1_izh3ghe wrote
Think it's a bit ridiculous to say NIMBYism is a not a major feature of NYC life.
There is not a single homeless shelter or methadone clinic anywhere in Manhattan except Harlem, Wash Heights, and a few remaining holdouts in recently gentrified parts of Chelsea and the LES.
Unsurprisingly, the only new one proposed by the city in recent times was right in the middle of Chinatown despite the fact that Asian New Yorkers are the most victimized people in the city.
You know why that's where they want to put it - it's the cheapest place available in lower Manhattan, and already seen as overly dense, dirty, and chaotic. There is also a shortage of bilingual lawyers who can represent Chinatown residents which has been a problem for a while.
30roadwarrior t1_izm3y08 wrote
Midtown west has severa methadone clinics, and open doors. Midtown East has Bellvue. The mess is spread evenly all over.
ParadoxFoxV9 t1_izhx9v3 wrote
Wouldn't zoning also prevent housing being built next to a loud factory? A building I work at is very active at night. A hotel was built right across the street and then they started complaining about the noise, even though we were there first. I figured good zoning would have prevented the issue.
With all the empty housing in the city, I feel the answer could be to enforce lowere rents in existing buildings. If, for example, your building has half of its apartments empty, you should have to lower your rent. Just a thought so please don't downvote me for suggesting a different way of doing things.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izjcums wrote
When people talk about zoning and the housing crisis, they’re primarily talking about arbitrary limits on density, not rules that prevent factories in residential areas. Or they’re talking about converting former industrial areas to residential like what happened on the Williamsburg waterfront.
There are not lots of empty housing units. This is a widely propagated myth. The city’s vacancy rate is extremely low.
mowotlarx t1_izjcnw2 wrote
>do the departments that fix this stuff have the juice?
No, they don't. And that is Adams intent. This plan heavily involves ignoring inspections and easing licensing requirements. The big issues caused by lack of safety and oversight won't come to light for a few years, after Adams no longer has to worry about reelection.
fernst t1_izgj6rk wrote
Remove the ability for community boards and local politicians from opposing new construction projects. If a developer meets the city rules for construction (including affordable housing quotas), let's fucking go 🚀
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izgkvqw wrote
That's already how it works. The community boards mostly get involved when the developer wants to rezone something.
Zoning is the issue where local politicians get to play NIMBY.
fernst t1_izjjgo8 wrote
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izjjy62 wrote
Yes but my understanding is that that project only went before the council because it involved rezoning.
It probably seems like I’m splitting hairs here but just wanted to explain that you can build without council approval if it meets existing zoning.
The reason so many of these projects involve the council is because they’re in former industrial/commercial areas and the developers are asking for permission to change that zoning to residential.
fernst t1_izjkxdz wrote
I see. In my mind, the only limitation for industrial/commercial -> Residential rezoning should be an environmental assessment. This is so we can ensure ensure soil is safe to build on and that the proximity of other industrial/commercial activity will not harm residents of the new development.
And just to clarify, I'm not saying you are wrong or think you are splitting hairs. It simply pisses my off to no end that some local politician gets to grandstand and block development if they don't get kickbacks or a huge stroke to their egos.
GettingPhysicl t1_izhontx wrote
our zoning sucks. if its nyc, 5 stories should be legal by right not exemption. if you like suburbs go move to one
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izhozu0 wrote
Agreed. Cities like Minneapolis and Portland managed to end single-family zoning. Yet NYC still has it in places like Staten Island and East Queens.
Accurate_Walk6563 t1_izjbw2p wrote
East Queens is considered the suburbs. Staten Island is practically a mirror of Long Island; also considered the suburbs.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izjcey1 wrote
So what? That can and should change. The state is likely going to pursue a law in the near future that would force increased density near transit anyway. So all those areas (including Long Island) would have to allow apartments within walking distance of trains.
Accurate_Walk6563 t1_izjddqd wrote
Unfortunately for your unrealistic expectation, more than most of the houses in these neighborhoods are already multigenerational or bought by the children who grew up in them. And actually, most are already renting out a floor or two to non-family residents. Have you ever walked or driven through these residential areas? Anywhere east of ENY or Forest Hills?
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izjdjwh wrote
What does anything you said have to do with increasing density?
Accurate_Walk6563 t1_izjdvj4 wrote
That there’s absolutely no way they’re going to start demolishing residential, suburban areas out of nowhere to prop up 5+ story apartment buildings across East Queens and Staten Island. Duh.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izje0wb wrote
It worked great in suburban NJ when they passed a similar law. Now most train stations there are surrounded by big new apartment buildings.
Accurate_Walk6563 t1_izjejuy wrote
I see what you mean. Truth be told, train stations do not stretch out far into East Queens . Farthest is the J to Jamaica/Archer or the A to Lefferts or Aqueduct. And the Aqueduct station is off a service road. And where I live, I have to take a bus to reach a train. They need to work on stretching transit lines in Eastern Queens first before building apartments anywhere near here.
[deleted] t1_izjehxx wrote
[deleted]
GettingPhysicl t1_izhof22 wrote
Abolish community boards as a veto point for housing. Old fucks pulling up the ladder behind them.
iv2892 t1_izlh6jj wrote
We need to get rid of NIMBYs
miltonfriedman2028 t1_izgdmmp wrote
These rules should reduced permanently, the amount of red tape to build in nyc is absurd.
mousekeeping t1_izg8a7k wrote
Thank god. Glad to see that people aren't voraciously opposing this while also protesting against the homeless policy change. Almost everybody opposed to that says the cause of homelessness is housing shortage and cutting red tape for housing developments is the only way to directly address the severe housing shortage.
huebomont t1_izh3jk9 wrote
It all sounds good but the man is the king of all talk no walk. Don’t give him credit for announcing plans. Wait to see results.
Pool_Shark t1_izgsijs wrote
So no one thinks removing safety rules is a bad thing?
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izgsq6g wrote
Which safety rules are being removed?
Most of what I've read so far has said it's about removing environmental impact studies for smaller developments, removing/reducing parking minimums, and consolidating existing rule enforcement under the DOB.
Pool_Shark t1_izgwr2s wrote
Well I guess the question is do we trust the DOB to enforce the safety rules
agpc t1_izhl15r wrote
Yes Please Thanks
LunchMasterFlex t1_izh1wap wrote
Build as much as you want, but as long as VC and developers are allowed to hold a percentage of their stock vacant to drive up scarcity, the prices will only go up. Tax pied a tierres, tax vacant rentals and real estate.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izh2hgs wrote
The vacancy rate is at historic lows and decreases every year.
What you’re describing only happens in noteworthy numbers on Billionaires Row.
Everywhere else, landlords are renting out as many units as they possibly can to take advantage of high prices.
Also, people who repeat this never seem to be able to explain why rents went down substantially in 2020. Did landlords withholding things not work then? Surely that would’ve been the ideal time to do it, right?
LunchMasterFlex t1_izh86qu wrote
Yeah. It didn’t work then because you can’t withhold things people don’t want. People left faster than they could replace and they already held some stock vacant. Look at commercial rentals in manhattan. Land lords would rather hold a storefront empty and wait for another Starbucks than lower the price and give it to a small business owner.
And what’s the metric for vacancy? Actual empty units or units left in the market? Who reports the vacancies?
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izhbop1 wrote
The state tracks housing vacancy rates. I don’t know the exact criteria but they’ve tracked it for decades.
The rent stabilization law has a stipulation that stabilization ends automatically when vacancies reach a certain percentage that’s considered healthy for a housing market. That has never happened, obviously. They came close during 2020 but still short.
And we saw what happens to rents when vacancies actually increase significantly.
Scruffyy90 t1_izhehgg wrote
More ridiculously priced luxury apartment? More apartments being warehoused? Is this really the right way to tackle the issues?
Edit: grammar For those down voting me, comment why
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izhgwr3 wrote
Luxury apartments still take pressure off the market. Those rich people will just outbid you for your next apartment if they don't get built.
And vacant apartments are a vastly overstated problem. The city's vacancy rate is extremely low.
KaiDaiz t1_izfj2fg wrote
421a if returned, should only apply to developments in the 1hr+ zones from midtown. Devs will build buildings in the trendy zones regardless of the subsidies. If the goal is to build more housing and it actually affordable, we are simply building and offering incentives to build it in the wrong place. Also pass a land value tax and up zone everything. It will fix most of our underutilized land issue.
[deleted] t1_izfqdei wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izfu2qe wrote
This is just inaccurate, sorry.
NYC's population has grown by hundreds of thousands while housing supply has grown far more slowly.
We need 400,000 new housing units just to make up for the deficit we got ourselves into over the last decade.
There aren't half a million vacant apartments lying around. Supply is absolutely the problem. And there are only 38,000 rent-stabilized units being held vacant... mostly because the rent doesn't justify the renovations required.
[deleted] t1_izfujy8 wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izfv2kk wrote
Sure. Here's a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_housing_shortage
> Between 2009 and 2018, according to the New York City Comptroller, New York gained 500,000 new residents, but built only 100,000 new housing units.
And for vacant stabilized units: https://citylimits.org/2022/11/17/empty-rent-stabilized-units-in-nyc-decreased-this-year-as-warehousing-debate-rages/
> Property owners have registered 38,621 of the city’s roughly 1 million rent-stabilized units as vacant, according to the 2022 records provided by New York State Homes and Community Renewal (HCR).
WikiSummarizerBot t1_izfv482 wrote
New York City housing shortage
>For many decades, the New York metropolitan area has suffered from an increasing shortage of housing. As a result, New York City has the second-highest rents of any city in the United States. Shortage has long been usual. World War I and World War II left housing shortages that persisted in peacetime.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
[deleted] t1_izfvv6c wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izfyyze wrote
You're not going to get super accurate population numbers after 2020 because that's when the last census was done. So it's just estimates after 2020.
But that census showed a growth of 629,000 people between 2010 and 2020.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/new-york-city-population-growth.html
And housing supply grew by 193,000 in that same period.
Source: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/1c9138dc24064b2e8142ff156345a719
colourcodedcandy t1_izg1weh wrote
Do you realize why landlords have so much power? Because the supply is restricted. Even peer reviewed research doesn’t seem to get through people like you.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izfgtm0 wrote
> He noted that the creation of new housing has lagged far behind population growth.
> “There is nowhere for people to go,” he said. “It’s not complicated. We have more people than homes.”
TL;DR the proposal would basically remove a lot of roadblocks for smaller residential developments like exempting them from environmental impact requirements. It would also bring more of the process under one roof… the DOB would take over some fire safety stuff from FDNY.
I just want to know about parking minimums. Those have got to go. More and more cities (all with worse transit than NY) are eliminating them entirely. But we still have minimums everywhere except Lower Manhattan.