Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ssn156357453 t1_j1kpc1q wrote

Reply to comment by Dracomarine in Development v. Historical Preservation? 14 Gay Street in Greenwich Village by BarbaraJames_75

Why can’t we tear down the single family homes in ozone first, then the historic townhomes in Greenwich village?

−1

Rarablue0 t1_j1legel wrote

Agreed. If any borough needs to be upzoned, it’s Queens.

You’ll get the same complaints from them though. I know many Queens natives who were born and raised there who complain nonstop at the sight of any new development. Same way I feel about these landmark buildings in the village.

It’s basically human nature to not want your childhood home/neighborhood to change. Unfortunately it’s a part of life, but if it’s gonna happen let’s at least start where it will actually make a small dent (Queens) rather than no dent at all (these two landmark buildings)

2

Wowzlul t1_j1ot2p1 wrote

> Why can’t we tear down the single family homes in ozone first

Because Ozone doesn't have the same access to world-class transportation and commercial districts holding metric fucktons of jobs and opportunity?

Wtf is this thread? It's like a lobbying group put it up

2

ssn156357453 t1_j1p4em2 wrote

Not true. A,J,Z, and E trains all go to the general area. And ozone is still in the city proper-it’s not like some far out suburb.

Queens has a Manhattan-sized region of inefficient housing. Why not start fixing that first before we start destroying old apartments and townhouses which have a smaller footprint and are historic.

2

Wowzlul t1_j1re778 wrote

Honest question. Have you ever been to Ozone Park? Do you know what it's like getting around in that part of the city compared to Manhattan? What's out there in terms of culture? What it's like taking the bus from strip-mall to strip-mall for your daily comings and goings? The long train ride to Manhattan to get to work?

Not saying that we shouldn't be striving to densify and improve Ozone. Of course we should. But Greenwich Village is situated in such a superior location as concerns jobs, amenities, and transportation - the three things that lift people out of poverty and allow for thriving communities - that it seems preposterous to wall it off from the same process of upzoning and redevelopment that you admit must take place in the outer boroughs.

There's a place for historic preservation. We all know the history of Robert Moses, Penn Station, the LOMEX, urban renewal gone too far. It's all very well known to anyone discussing these topics. But there's a balance to these things, and in the decades since then we have swung so wildly far in the other direction that I gotta admit that preserving every single historic building in the Village so some affluent boomer artists can live out their last days is very low on my priority list.

1

ssn156357453 t1_j1riknl wrote

Yes i have. And I don't just mean ozone. I mean flushing, jackson heights, maspeth, corona, elmhurst, forest hills...

And no one ever suggest destroying these communities when they are so inefficient. And all of these neighborhoods have parts very accessible to manhattan by train. It's also wrong to think that everyone would be taking the subway to commute or would be trying to get to Manhattan.

Upzoning the Greenwich village doesn't allow for affordable housing. It creates more expensive housing. This wouldn't be the case in corona.

Historic preservation shouldn't just apply to monuments or important train terminals–this was clear to Jane Jacobs.

1

Wowzlul t1_j1rjgn5 wrote

I'm not gonna respond to most of your comment because I feel like we've both made our points on those topics by now.

But there is one argument in here that drives me nuts:

> Upzoning the Greenwich village doesn't allow for affordable housing. It creates more expensive housing.

This has to be the most dangerous slogan to come out of the last twenty years. In our current economic reality, you have to build more units, of all types, in order to have a chance at driving rents down.

Yes it's "supply side." Yes it's "trickle down." But it works, at least enough to make a dent in the problem. Up-market units will house high income people, making fewer of them compete with lower-income people for older, less desirable apartments.

Is it perfect? No. Is it going to result in a completely fair and just world where everyone has low rent and can live wherever they want? No. Is it better than our current plan of building absolutely nothing new anywhere near anything? Hell yes.

The cold hard truth is that in our current reality if you stop building new cars then used cars are going to become astronomically expensive. A similar logic applies here unfortunately.

I really don't think we have a choice in the matter. At least, not if we're gonna have any hope of nyc not going the way of San Francisco: a NIMBY retirement community for people who got in when the getting was good and have locked the gates behind them.

2

ssn156357453 t1_j1rkeyq wrote

at basic level greenwich village is pretty. most of queens is ugly. Rather destroy ugly that pretty neighborhoods.

1