Preservationists claim the neighborhood’s quaint blocks are in jeopardy.
A zoning plan that the city says is designed to encourage development of affordable housing and apartments for seniors is raising alarms among some preservationists, who say it could undo zoning rules that protect the character of the neighborhood.
Two Community Board committees will be discussing the plan (and another city affordable housing proposal) on Wednesday, October 21, starting at 7 pm at 250 West 87th Street, 2nd Floor.
The city says that the proposed zoning rules are designed to encourage developers to build more affordable housing, and give them incentives to create attractive buildings for seniors. For many buildings, the rules would allow two to four additional stories if the builder adds affordable housing. It would also change rules that city planners say create the wrong incentives for developers — developers have an incentive under current rules to create short lobby floors that are too short for retail outlets, for instance.
In a document looking specifically at the Upper West Side, the city gives the following explanation.
“In many instances, changing regulations and building practices have made it difficult to fit floor area already permitted today within existing building envelopes. Current regulations limit design flexibility and can result in buildings that lack the variation and texture of older apartment buildings. The proposal also provides minor increases in height to encourage housing production and increase design flexibility.”
But local preservationist group Landmarks West says these changes will have a much bigger impact than a minor tweak.
“Mayor de Blasio wants to increase height limits in some cases by 20-30%. Under this proposal, swaths of landmarked mid-block brownstones (including 88th Street, above) within our West End Historic districts could rise twenty feet — two full stories taller. Skylines along Central Park West and Riverside Drive could rise forty feet.”
The group says developers are the main beneficiaries. Landmarks West also pointed to a report created for an East side nonprofit that looks critically at the zoning changes.
“Make no mistake – the Mayor’s plan is a massive give-away to developers who have been trying to ‘unlock’ the Upper West Side by overturning our neighborhood’s hard-won zoning and historic district protections for decades. The result will be higher, bulkier, out-of-character new buildings. And, because this is part of a citywide zoning plan, there has been no careful study or disclosure of the impacts these new buildings would have. What is clear is that our neighborhood will bear the burden of new development, with no guarantee that anyone – except big-money real-estate interests – will benefit.”
Landmark West’s entire presentation is here.
A spokesman for the city planning department pushed back against charges that this would affect the neighborhood’s historic profile.
“The Landmarks Preservation Commission is responsible for reviewing and approving any new construction or major alterations in historic districts, such as those throughout Community District 7. While the Zoning for Quality and Affordability proposal applies citywide, no additional height or other changes would be permitted without the LPC’s input and approval. The proposal does not alter the LPC review process nor does it weaken the rules in place to protect historic districts. Any project that would seek to implement changes under ZQA would have to go through a full public review process under the LPC, which includes feedback from the affected community boards and its elected officials.
In CD7, several major corridors, notably Broadway, are already mapped for the Inclusionary Housing program, where potential development opportunities exist. Among the factors that prevent affordable housing creation in these areas is the fact that bonus floor area frequently cannot be fit within a desirable building configuration. Under the proposal, buildings that provide Inclusionary Housing or affordable senior housing would be eligible for a modest amount of additional height –two to four floors in CD7 – to fit the additional floor area allowed. These increases are only available for buildings that include these types of affordable housing.
o This proposal will help make sure that buildings seeking to provide affordable housing will have the space to accommodate that housing, rather than passing on it due to zoning constraints. This will help residents, particularly the City’s growing senior population, by creating additional options for them to remain in their communities.
– To better the quality of our buildings, ZQA would also change rules that lead to flat, dull apartment buildings, to accommodate and encourage façade articulation, courtyards, and other elements that provide visual variety and create a better pedestrian experience. Amongst these changes is a provision to provide five feet of additional height for buildings that provide improved ground floors for retail or residential use.
– In the highest-density districts in CD7, five additional feet would be permitted to a better designed building, not only on the outside, but the inside as well. It will create a higher floor to floor height within buildings, with a cap on the number of stories to prevent a developer from trying to squeeze additional stories into the building envelope. (Only in R8 zoning districts along narrow streets in CB7, where taller non-contextual buildings are already permitted today, would be eligible for greater increases to ensure a workable contextual building envelope.)
– Please note that in all districts where additional height is proposed, we will limit the number of stories – for the first time ever in zoning. No market rate development will be allowed an additional square foot of density. Furthermore, the additional height will only be allowed when the ground floor provides at least 13’ floor to ceiling height. None of these changes will alter market forces or result in a property being made substantially more valuable than it is today. Tearing down an existing building would not be made lucrative by this proposal.
This is ridiculous.
These people want cheap rents but they don’t want new housing being built.
Perhaps none of them have taken an Economics 101 class. When I took this class in college I learned on the first day that increasing supply lowers prices.
Supply has not driven down pricing. High end inventory has out priced all but the very wealthy.
Sherman,
Your narrow-view is shocking. The historical nature and unique character of our landmarked districts support the overall appeal of living in New York City, and tell a story of America itself. This is not just valuable to those of us living here, but valuable to the entire country to preserve. In addition, the smaller scale of the Upper West Side supports a community/neighborly feel that encourages people to set down permanent roots and invest in their neighborhood.
You correctly point out that a neighborhood of skyscrapers as tall as the eye can see could lower cost of living. But it may be as much because of increased supply as also because of an overall decrease in value of the neighborhood, crowding of public transit, increase of litter/garbage, crowding at schools and other institutions. Competing over sun and light becomes pretty nihilistic after a while if your 40th floor view will eventually get blocked by another building’s 41st floor. Long story short, it may just not be as attractive a place to live as it once was. Is the answer to high cost of living really to trade away what makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place?
This current boom in the New York housing market is due to many things, including demand from folks looking to invest money in the City (but not set down permanent roots), younger professionals who have no intention of living in NY for the long-term, macro-economic functions such as the global currency market and modernizing countries such as China and Russia, the prevalance of global industries such as Finance and Technology, historically low crime, good schools (in UWS), outdated and skewed local regulations, and a high quality of life of living amongst so many cultural institutions, commercial businesses, and a wide choice in jobs and employment.
It would be a shame to “trade” many of these positive virtues for taller buildings out of a belief that the only thing creating expensive cost of living is lack of supply. It’s just not the full story. The Upper West Side could knock down every historical building and build tower after tower – It would come at an remarkable cost to our country’s history and those of us living here, but would be unlikely to permanently solve affordability in the City. It would also create remarkable costs for the city to endure in terms of managing more people and public services they demand. In the end, we may be left with a neighorhood that would be much less remarkable, and no doubt cheaper to live in.
The Upper West Side should continue to be an expensive place to live, because it is absolutely worth it. I think it makes sense for the City to work on changing the incentives for people using the City for things and skew them more towards people who want to live in the City, before we give up what makes NY so different than any other place on Earth.
If you haven’t visited cities in Asia such as Shanghai or Hong Kong or numerous other places that have much denser living in NY, you will perhaps lose the notion that density automatically lowers living cost, and that density does not come with a greater public cost overall.
Urban planning? Infrastructure , schools and transportation. Have you tried getting on the trains lately?
For a person who writes so much you’re quite ignorant.
The pretty old brownstones will be around for a long time. However, the UWS is filled with dingy and ugly old walk-up apartments that should have been torn down years ago but can’t because they’re filled with tent-controlled tenants.
Sherman,
I happen not to agree that the UWS is “filled with dingy and ugly old walk-up apartments that should have been torn down years ago but can’t because they’re filled with [r]ent-controlled tenants[.]” If you have any more substantive proof of this, please provide it so that my perspective can be corrected. I live in a building that has a mixture of market-rate and regulated apartments (and happen to live in a market-rate apartment). It is a lovely building; that some folks were able to move to NY many years ago and benefit from rent-regulation in a way that I am unable to does not in any way change my opinion of them nor how I perceive my own rent costs. In the end, it costs what people are willing to pay.
Even if what you say is correct (about rent-controlled tenants), this seems to be a pretty separate issue than raising the height of the entire neighborhood. The entire character and density of the neighborhood should be changed because of rent-controlled tenants? That seems an odd connection to make.
New York City was a different place when many of the people who are rent-controlled came to live here. Today, rent-control and rent-stabilization seems like a harder commitment for the City to make. But people who were not able to benefit in this matter shouldn’t allow that to hold a negative view of your neighbors.
I don’t think it’s effective to point fingers at individuals instead of noticing some of the much bigger macro-economic forces at play. Most rent-controlled tenants I know work in the City and make modest salaries, and would otherwise lose their homes and need to commute long-distances to their jobs otherwise; this would no doubt drive up costs for them as well as me (since it could be reflected in increased prices or use of commuting infrastructure). The stories of rent-controlled tenants paying peanuts and amassing a small fortune on the side are few and far between; and there are bad actors in any market.
James, I’m not sure I’d call it a deal they entered into. For rent regulation to exist as it does Albany must act every few years to continue and there is no guarantee they will do this (they don’t have to). It’s a terrible economic policy and I hope it will end in the near future. Better just to give cash stipends to those truly unable to afford housing than to provide a lucky few with a very expensive/inefficient benefit.
Sherman,
I’m not sure how old you are or how much money you make; but at some point in your life your income may top-out and you may also have the desire to settle-down somewhere, put down roots, and call it your home without affixing a timeline to it. As much as we may believe that we will always be young and that our salaries will grow forever, at some point that may not happen, and we will be stuck figuring out how to manage increasing costs on the same or decreasing income. Are we ready to treat NYC as a place that is only for short-term stay and not a place where people can put down roots and spend a lifetime?
The fact of the matter is that rent-regulated tenants entered into their dwellings under a deal with the City that governs over their main cost of living, their rent. There are many reasons we could debate why it’s important that some form of rent-regulation continue to exist, but even if you disagree with it in principle, it is the deal that these tenants got.
I don’t believe it’s right to argue that because the neighborhood has changed that the City should back away from this deal, remove those guarantees, and effectively allow tenants to be forced out of their neighborhoods. The City may not be able to guarantee that you or I can move into this town with the same deal, but it’s a pretty dangerous thing to say that the City should simply pull the rug out from under it’s own citizens.
As far as people with “modest salaries” living in rent controlled apartments my response is what right do they have to live in an area they can’t afford? I don’t live in Beverly Hills because I can’t afford it. Do I insist that the residents of Beverly Hills provide me with an affordable mansion?
There are plenty of cheap and safe areas in The Bronx and Queens. Let them move there. No matter how you look at it someone else is paying higher housing costs for them to live here.
As far as old and ugly buildings have you ever taken a walk on Amsterdam Ave in the 80s, 90s and above? It is gross there. The buildings are grimy and ugly. Nobody considers them architectural gems worthy of landmark status. They should be torn down. I’m not saying Amsterdam should be lined with sixty story high rises but nicer and more efficient buildings should replace them.
Zoning for Quality and Affordability sounds a bit Orwellian to me.
Given that protected buildings are still protected there is no reasonable basis for opposition other than NIMBYism.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you’re opposed to density, why do you live in Manhattan. Manhattan is defined by its height and density. It belongs here.
The Zoning Laws are meant to define building, not the LPC.
And, Manhattan is defined by its people and their organization. If the increased density negativly affect people, those people should resist (and not be surpressed by the philosophy of “Big Buildings Good”).
Nathan,
Walk around the City and ask people why they choose to live here. I highly doubt anybody will answer directly that they live here because of density and tall buildings.
Don’t confuse the benefits of living close to other people to thinking that we are seeking out crowds. Speaking only for myself, I live in the UWS because of it’s unique character and because of the historical nature and beauty of the architecture.
Speaking only for myself, the overall quality of life is so high because density is just so to provide the benefits of living close to others while maintaining the space to breathe.
If density were specifically what people were seeking, than demand for apartments in the crowded parts of the Upper East Side would no doubt be higher than the Upper West. Obviously, that is not so.
I agree that the architecture is beautiful here, but much of it is already protected and that won’t change regardless of new development.
You’re right, people don’t live here because they love density per se, but like you said, they move here because they like what comes with it: Walkable neighborhoods, great cultural institutions, beautiful parks that we don’t have to mow ourselves! I think we should share all these things with more people. Building taller allows more people to live here and enjoy our neighborhood.
The worries over overcrowding are patently absurd. There are fewer people living here than there were in the 1960s due to a) smaller family sizes and larger apartment sizes due to combinations. And it also happens that increasing supply would help more people to afford to live here more (unlike failed rent regulations).
Anyway, here’s my question to you: Given that we all love the brownstone-line streets of the UWS, what do you think of suburbanites who cringe at the thought that houses be built on anything less than 3-acre lots for fear of overcrowding, loss of privacy, and strains on city services? I’m not being rhetorical, do you think they have legitimate worries?
I don’t know too many suburbanites who have the same acute sense of fear over crowding and loss of sun and sky as city-dwellers. I do know many suburbanites who lament traffic on highways and country-roads. Not sure what your point was?
As long as we are comparing extremes – Take a walk down 57th street, or perhaps 2nd Avenue on the UES… It’s not quite as conducive to letting a two-year old toddle around as, for example, 69th St and CPW. That’s just ane example to illustrate a point – If we allow more big buildings in the neighborhoods of NYC that were traditionally residential mid-rise neighborhoods, and all the crowding that comes with it, are we actually compromising that walkability and livability of the neighborhood itself?
So walkability in your example is defined by the ability to let a 2 year old toddle around? That’s hilarious. And please don’t let your 2 year old toddle around 69th and CPW either – last week when I was there the buses, runners, bikes and cars streaming up and down the avenue didn’t seem conducive to treating the sidewalk like a playground.
James, don’t waste your time trying to explain historic or landmarks to certain people. It’s culture class. Some of us understand what “historic” means, and how valuable and irreplaceable it is.
And the the rest…the Nouvelles…have a totally different definition of the UWS, and its history. These “New Yorkers” usually originate from outside of New York. Their preference architecturally are glass and chrome towers that represent their alleged “social ascent”.
So trying to explain to them the historic values and preservation needs of the UWS is like trying to explain colors to a blind man. Really.
yup. Down with the immigrants who just can’t appreciate the UWS. Eyeroll. Your entire comment is a perfect example of being classless, nativist, ageist and classist. For what it’s worth I’ve lived in NY my whole life and just bought in a brownstone because I love the building and at the same time I support increased building. Does that blow your mind? Can you comprehend such a person? Not a nouvelle, owner of history AND advocate for more density? I know. I’ll give you a few minutes to digest that.
I’m more of a New Yorker than you are.
It is really very simple – in a city with a rising population, you cannot keep housing prices reasonable (or even close to reasonable) if you don’t build more housing. In a place with limited land (or if you don’t want to cover the world in sprawl), you can’t build more housing without building up. It’s a simple logical progression: If you want affordable housing in NYC, you must build up. I don’t want to lose the character of the neighborhood either, but saying that they can’t build upwards is saying that lower income (or, in this city, normal income) people cant live here. One way to preserve some of the character is to landmark buildings and areas, as we have done — although even this is putting architectue ahead of affordable housing. For better or worse, I am in favor of doing that, but I am not going to say that this meanst that ALL the neighborhood has to remain at current heights and lower-income people be damned. Maintaining diversity in our community is important to me, and I am willing to live with higher buildings as a result.
There will come a point where I probably won’t want to stay, and the things that make other parts of the world look more appealing will start to outweigh the things that I like about living here. At that point, I will probably move (some upstate towns are beginning to look more like the old UWS than the UWS). Others probably will as well. That’s how a new equilibrium will be reached.
We all want what we want, but we have to recognize that it may not always be possible. Something has to give.
Yeah, that’s the thing, the poor and the rich can afford to live here. The middle class cannot. All the income restricted buildings are limits that are too low for a couple making, say, $100k/year. And $100k/year won’t get more than a one bedroom here, which basically means they have to move out as soon as they have children.
But, you know, screw them. Joseph has his, the rest can go to hell.
Nathan,
I’m not disagreeing with what you’ve stated the problem to be. I’m disagreeing that the solution is to up-zone traditionally low or mid-rise neighborhoods.
Erica,
Thank you for your reasonable thoughts. I would like to offer that the City should at least be somewhat careful of what it has given away during boom times, in the event that real estate in this town does not rise forever. Even after the historic housing crisis earlier this century, there are some who still believe that housing within NYC will never go down; some even more emboldened by how NYC bounced back from those times compared to the rest of the country. Even putting aside some of the terrible things that could happen (Flooding, crime, war, for example), it’s possible that other less obvious things such as changes in foreign exchange rates or foreign tax law could influence our real estate market and perhaps cool it off. You are correct that the pursuit of preservation becomes less defensible if we accept that real estate shall only ever rise and always lead other locales in this country. I happen to believe that high cost of real-estate has many factors aside from inelastic demand, that much of it has to do with macro-economics and also the lack of jobs outside urban areas, and that these things are unlikely to last forever. When we look back with the benefit of hindsight, what will we have given away that cannot be taken back?
The City, and NY State, could also do a lot to help change incentives for developers in a way that would reduce pressure on Manhattan neighborhoods. For example, what incentives exist for developers to produce low-rise structures? Low-rise structures could still increase housing supply, but would be cheaper for the city in terms of putting less stress on infrastructure and schools. Investments in infrastructure in the outer-boroughs could benefit existing and future residents alike. There is a pro-development blog called YIMBY that points out that Bloomberg-era changes to zoning and development disproportionately favor large skyscrapers – It sounds like we could correct these incentives before giving away the sky. Remember, laws and rules can be changed, but once you build up, there’s few examples of it ever going in the other direction.
I’d like to see the City pursue a lot of other changes before touching zoning. NY is a great place to live; it would be sad to think that we can only live here for a certain period of our lives because the town just cannot support those of us, for example, who are not ascending in our income (and can keep up with perpetual increases in living costs), or that it will become perpetually crowded and we can only expect the stress of a rising population to continue perpetually.
Perhaps it is a testament to the lack of imagination and planning of other locales that Manhattan is such a desirable, vibrant, and comparatively exceptional place to live. There’s no limit to the number of ways our elected officials could pursue solving the problem of affordable housing without giving away the crown-jewels.
This makes no sense on so many levels. The brownstones they’re talking about would have to install elevators in order to be senior- and ADA-compliant, a huge cost to the owner. It would necessitate a gut renovation and tie the developer’s hands financially.
If this mayor wants to address rent-parity, then he should audit every rent-conrtolled or stabilized tenant before creating new plans for housing. Those I know on the UWS with protection have houses in other areas (upstate, Florida) and much more space than they need (empty-nesters). They pay less for their rent (4x the space than I have) than I do in taxes—so someone is picking put the tab for their deal. But, because they’re vocal and they vote, no politician has the political guts to face the real problems here.
I have a good friend who is a very wealthy doctor. He has a rent-controlled apartment that’s been in his family for years. He doesn’t actually live there but he keeps it to store supplies and he lets out of town visitors crash there. I actually stayed there once with my wife while my apartment was renovated.
It is illegal, of course, to keep a rent controlled apt when it’s not your primary residence. I once asked my friend how he gets away with it. Easy, he pays the super to keep his mouth shut.
I’m not sure how rent regulation is a fair or efficient way to handle NYC’s housing crunch.
Sherman,
The example you illustrate is a common way people defend victimizing a certain constituency. The Doctor that you are talking about is a “bad actor,” breaking both the spirit of and the word of the law.
To use this example to justify your position is as silly as saying we should end the use of e-mail because there are spammers or remove traffic regulations because one-time somebody ran a red-light.
so you cite a case of blatant law breaking, bribery, and a cover-up, all designed to subvert the rent stabilation laws, and you blame it on those very laws? nice logic.
The Mayor’s sudden push to raise height limits on “historic districts” and contextual zones is in complete contradiction to all he did when he was on the City Council to create those very same historic and contextual districts and zones. His sudden change of heart comes not from a serious plan to create affordable housing but from new born alliances to help the real estate industry build more high rise luxury condos. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Low-balling the price of those very same condos right now being built and marketed on the UWS-finds them selling at the low end for $1.5 million for a one bedroom. New condo prices on the UWS are from $2000 to $2800 a square foot. So for all you who believe that the reason for a rise in height limits is about building low or middle income housing-I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you! And for anyone who feels the UWS is not a place worth fighting for, and has no affordable housing-move Upstate! But for those who believe that its possible to live here with some control over the quality of the life of your neighborhoods-come to the meeting. As far as I can see, the city is at a fragile turning point. The reality of the increase in height limits is:
-Rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants are pushed out as their buildings are demolished or renovated for luxury condos.
-Our dwindling middle class in New York is further threatened into extinction.
-Our neighborhood character, our light and air suffers.
-Our historic buildings are removed from their designated historic districts with a full frontal assault. We can no longer hold on to even 100 years of our history despite a landmark law.
-Our infrastructure, already stretched to its limits is taxed to its breaking point. The density increases while the services decline. Sidewalks and streets are impassable. More traffic accidents and fatalities arise.
-There is an insidious transfer of public landmarks to private ownership.
It seems to me that the enormous explosion of high rise luxury condominiums is co-opting vast amounts of space (complete with tax abatements) for billionaires who will not live or pay taxes here. Should we be putting our focus on a city of empty apartments that produce no income to the government coffers that could be better used for middle and lower income housing. Is the Mayor’s personal ambition at the bottom of a sudden change of heart to put real estate ahead of his commitment to the actual citizens of NY?
There is no explosion of new construction in NYC. There are a few notable luxury buildings that make up a small percentage of the total land available. Our infra-structure is not taxed to the limits. The last major blackout did not occur because of lack of capacity. We have plenty of water, gas and electricity. The city has implemented new standards for conservation and use of these utilities. The old infra structure does on occasion break and needs repair.
The streets and sidewalks are crowded during the day, but after business hours there is little or no traffic at all. A few thousand additional residents on the UWS will not make a dent in the total population. The total city population has slowly and finally returned to the 1950 levels that were before 1970 from a low in 1980. Changes in scheduling of shopping and work can reduce the crowding during the busiest times of the day.
Mass transit has its problems. The UWS subways were built before 1940 utilizing older standards and technology. The IRT cars are of smaller capacity. The trains and platforms were lengthened many years ago to accommodate additional people. The tunnels need to be expanded for larger size to accommodate IND and BMT subway cars. Building more small business space uptown can significantly reduce the numbers of people commuting downtown.
Our housing is aging. It has problems accommodating current needs and standards. It is fragile when emergencies do occur and costly to fix. Many are potential death traps and need to be replaced. They are not fireproof nor meet modern earthquake requirements. This past year’s disaster on the Lower East Side is a perfect example of the potential resources needed to put out a fire in an old building. The building with an occupancy of four apartments required over 250 firemen possibly 50 fire trucks to put out. The amount of water, resources, air pollution and traffic problems it caused were substantial. Lets not forget the affect on the surrounding neighborhood and the displacement of the tenants in the neighboring buildings. People died as a result.
The fire at CitiBank on 111th and Broadway another old building that taxed the city’s resources. It is a perfect opportunity to build on under utilized land needed local infrastructure of housing and local small business space. Local politicians are against adding a valuable new building to the neighborhood.
Old building are not energy efficient and cannot serve an aging population. People are being displaced everyday without any hope of staying or returning to their community. Our current zoning ordinances date back to 1961 with some changes during the years. It is time to update them to new standards that serve todays needs. Mandatory inclusionary housing is a necessity as well as finding ways to finance these projects. Without action it will only get worse.
nycissue.org-
I appreciate your views and don’t agree with them. I believe these proposed changes signify that the real estate lobby has prevailed upon the Mayor to open up large swaths of contextually, and historically zoned neighborhoods, which he btw helped to create when he sat with mere mortals on the City Council. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and it would seem the Mayor is not exempt. The plans claims that this is being done for the sake of building low income housing. That is about as sincere as Extell’s taking $65 million in tax abatements to build $14 million dollars worth of low income apartments in the Bronx. If my math is right that is a windfall profit of $51 million dollars for the developer to build $90 million dollar apartments paid for by the taxpayers of NYC and NYS under the guise of building low income housing! These developers have worked this system, and apparently now they have worked this Mayor. I am sure our protected neighborhoods have already been red-lined or mapped, and there are buildings which are targeted and in the process of being sold to the highest bidder with rent stabilized and controlled renters being pushed out or bought out as we speak-that would be in advance of this proposal coming into effect. There are currently numerous buildings in New York which have for years been rentals which are being converted into condos where the per square foot price is $2000-$3500 a square foot. There are 2 such developments within one block of my apartment. And that is the plan of developers who are chomping at the bit to get a hold of this real estate-develop the ground floors into commercial space wherever they can, with a few floors of low or moderate income apartments with the remains high end rentals/condos. This is a New York that will push out more than it will take in. It is a cynical ploy, and beneath the Mayor’s progressive promise. It will ruin the character of our neighborhoods, and I’m not sure where you live, but where I do on the UWS, our streets are daily impassable, our sanitation services are poor with garbage often overflowing, our subways are like the third world in many stations, and our streets are overridden with rats they contend are coming from all the construction. Build Baby Build? I don’t think so.
The same people who go all for “build them higher/faster/everywhere”, these people swoon over European capitals where the officials did not blow up, say, old opera house to build Madison Square Garden. How do you think Paris or Florece would look if they decided that a few blocks of “old” buildings had to go to make space for something like 2nd avenue? America developed a disposable culture.
As for the rent stabbies: supremely New York-only abomination. By the same logic, ey have the right to free designer clothes, The best restaurants, etc. Why not? Someone else is paying for it.
There’s a balance that must be reached. I think most everyone has accepted that historic structures should be preserved. But that means there’s much more pressure of the few developable parcels. So they should either be allowed to build taller, or we need to accept that the city simply won’t be affordable.
Those of you thinking that building up is the only solution to housing demand should give this article a thorough read –
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/05/why-billionaires-dont-pay-property-taxes-in-new-york/389886/
There are many incentives that are helping to increase demand in an artificial manner. Before the City gives away it’s treasures, it should pursue fixing these incentives to make sure that we are dealing with a properly aligned market and not fabricated notion of supply and demand.
@ James –
Tenants in rent-controlled apartments did not enter into any “deal” with the city.
Rent regulation laws were never intended to be permanent. They were originally a short term ( misguided but well intentioned) perk to alleviate shortages for returning WWII vets. Unfortunately, instead of letting these laws expire there are pandering lefty politicians who keep them alive.
Yes, I agree that neighborhoods, especially the UWS, change dramatically over the years. But that’s life. If they become unaffordable you move elsewhere. There should be no lifetime guarantee that you have a right to remain in a dwelling even if your neighborhood becomes unaffordable.
My parents moved into their suburban home in the 1970s. Since then property taxes have gone thru the roof. They’re thinking of moving to a cheaper locale because of these costs.
Why should the UWS be any different?
Sherman
Just wondering…when did you move to NYC?
Sherman,
We are getting somewhere in our discussion. I don’t disagree with you about rent-regulations originally being a temporary idea but becoming permanent due to lefty politicians. I myself am a liberal but cannot dispute this.
I also don’t disagree that there shouldn’t be a guarantee that you can always afford to live in your chosen locale. That said, I think it’s reasonable for elected officials (elected by those living in the locale) to try and control the incentives for development such that we make this as scarce a reality as possible.
I don’t agree that we should lift existing rent-regulations for existing-tenants, but perhaps could agree that it is not efficient from a market-perspective to continue these incentives for new tenants or for people who move. This may mean we have people holding on to their rent-regulated apartments and never moving, but it would at least mean that in a generation this issue would not exist.
That said, I think it would be more effective to remove incentives that promote high-density building and change the tax code governing expensive properties such that we make it more expensive for the ultra-wealthy to invest in and live in NY City. Call me a redistributionist liberal; so be it.
Clearly Sherman doesn’t want anyone to have anything that he doesn’t have.
He also doesn’t like living around poor people.
@dannyboy I think it is sort of a joke to say that uwser’s don’t live around poor people. Within 2 block radius of my west 90’s apartment I have a higher density of halfway/homeless and projects houses than most places in the city. I get that affordable housing is important but that is a relative term. Median incomes in new york are just generally higher. Not everyone can or should be able to live in manhattan just based on supply and demand. Regardless as to how many people would like to have an apartment on the uws, the reality is that queens or brooklyn are more affordable. That’s just the way it is. Let the rent controlled apartments expire and require a percentage of units in new developments represent “affordable” based on actual salaries that include the lower range of middle class new yorkers.
Keith,
Again you restate your preference for getting rid of poor people.
Do you know how that sounds?
@dannyboy. I will move past the fact that you have implied I am not a human being. The reality is that there are a lot of other human beings in the uws that have no where near the financial wherewithall to be living in an NYC neighborhood. They also do not have enough money to afford to shop in the stores and help to maintain prosperous businesses. It is no surprise that there are empty storefronts along amsterdam and broadway as well as a proliferation of 7-11’s. Go stand on the corner of 92 and broadway for 15 minutes and count how many times you see someone walking around who is obviously from a serious level of public assistance. What justification is there for housing the poorest people here. It creates a huge disparity of wealth that affects the whole neighborhood. So call me inhuman, but yes if there is a way to increase the number of obviously richer middle working class new yorkers to the uws I am all for it.
Well stated Keith.
Keith,
To make it simple:
The proposed rezoning is intended to REPLACE Poorer people with RICHER people.
Perhaps the ensuing suffering counts for nothing to you, but does to a human being.
Why is it always about the UWS? What about the other boroughs? We keep building but don’t improve our infrastructure. Now we have subways more crowded than I’ve ever seen them, overcrowded schools, apartments only foreigners and finance people can afford, crazy crowded stores and sidewalks – it’s too much. What about neighborhoods like Williamsburg, Cobble Hill, Fort Greene, Sunnyside, LIC, etc? They don’t get the homeless shelters or the senior living apartments. They get tax incentives that make their maintenance less that $100 a month…Why does everything get dumped on the UWS?
It never ceases to amaze me how the discussions on this thread devolve to infantile ad hominem attacks.
ie, “He also doesn’t like living around poor people.”
Always indicates loss of the argument.
Incorrect.
case proven
drg,
Your contribution to the Discussion has been noted.
You enter the Discussion a day and a half after it’s is underway. OK, but probably would be better if you reviewed the Comments before jumping to the last one.
OK, but then you decide unilaterally which arguement is correct.
OK, then you proceed to confirm your unilateral decision with yourself.
OK. Evert consider engaging with others?
Just a suggestion.
Forty feet is, on average, the height of only sfour floors.
Doesn’t seem like much of a threat when we have obscenities like the 38-story Ariel East looming way too far above Broadway between 99th-100th Sts.
Built ten years ago, that building is a testament to what can happen when the greedy (“Fat John” Catsimatidis, a corrupt Episcopal priest and Gary Barnett of Extell shame) conspire with the indifference and ignorance of local politicians and inept bureaucrats.
There was nothing the public could do to stop it then, nothing we can do now… except try to stoke a little outrage. Yes, I know I sound like a broken record about the Ariel condos.
This zoning change will not cause a stampede to the building department for permits. There are many areas on the UWS that allow buildings greater than double the existing height for over 50 years, few landlords have taken advantage of it. Deregulation of existing apartments by renovation is cheaper and takes less effort to accomplish. Nothing terrible is going to happen to the UWS as implied by the opponents of the zoning changes.
Why are we the target? Why can’t they build something brand new near Hudson Yards? There is plenty of space there.
Look – I’m happy the mayor is finally “doing” what he says he’s going to do for once. But this is not the way to do it. Can you imagine the kind of construction nightmare this is going to be? Streets closed, jack-hammering in the morning…why does affordable housing have to be in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the US? Why can’t they just go to Washington Heights? We work hard to pay for rent here.
I hope some of the more influential residents in this neighborhood stop this from happening.
Leah. Every neighborhood deserves affordable housing. Those folks up in Washington Heights work hard and pay rent too. The underlying tone and implication of your post is rather discriminatory. It is a – don’t put them here in my neighborhood- mentality that does not serve this discussion well.
Sherman you really don’t know economics 101. Have you not seen the development being done on the Upper West Side? And every single new apartment building has driven rents higher not as you suggest lower. Increasing supply does not lower prices. Nice thought but it just does not happen especially in housing.
The notion of wealthy developers and affordable housing is a sham. The Mayor and the council give them huge tax breaks to build these huge pricey apartment buildings that have 500 apartments and of those 8 are for affordable housing. With this new plan 25% would be set aside which is still not enough. This past year this inclusionary housing for new market rate buildings only gave us 3,205 affordable housing units. At least DeBlasio is finally doing something just not enough. Let see what happens when all the middle class residents of the Upper West Side get pushed out even more than they are now.