Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rarablue0 t1_j1le30i wrote

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

There are so many more impactful places you could upzone. Queens, as the person you were replying to stated, has huge swaths dedicated to single family homes. Why are you getting so butthurt over these two small buildings and not the miles of R1 zoning in those areas? Same can be said for BX and SI.

Also, there is no realistic amount of housing that could be built in the next 20 years to adequately satiate global demand for units here. The government essentially subsidizes the rent for over 1 million units as a means of keeping blue collar workers in the city and to avoid the absolute shitshow forcing these people out would become if rent stabilization were repealed.

I’ve lived here 30+ years. I know it’s expensive as fuck, tearing down two landmark buildings will not make it cheaper for you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

1

Dracomarine t1_j1ma44o wrote

This city has risen as far as it has because of the willingness to change and adapt to new circumstances. People make the city, not buildings. Get out of here with the nonsense that we couldnt build enough. Since when has new york had that attitude(oh wait, since nimby's gained power). Until Queens gets good rail service, it isnt an option for deep development.

This city used to build things. What the hell happened?

3

Rarablue0 t1_j1mjbl3 wrote

My guy, the period you’re referring to was very well known for the existence of incredibly dense tenements. Much more so than today and with very little oversight into safety standards. The quality of life for individuals living in such buildings was quite low and their homes, in many instances, were basically firetraps.

There was more development going on but also a lot more disease, death, and suffering. This changed a bit after 1916 with the intro of the city’s zoning ordinances (the first of it’s kind in the country) and much more significantly in 61’ when the resolution was revisited and EXTENSIVELY updated. Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) established near there after (65’) and the rest, as they say, is history.

Im simply pointing out to you the reality of the situation. If you really wanted to make a dent in housing costs here, you’d upzone Queens immediately. I doubt even that would make a significant difference unless done very aggressively which would open up an entirely different can of worms.

And I don’t really appreciate your attitude towards me, calling me a NIMBY and such. I have been an advocate for affordable housing my entire life, my family dealt with tough times when I was growing up because of the excessive raising rents here. I worked as a city planner for 5 years and have a pretty good idea of how the development process works.

Regardless, Merry Christmas.

0

Dracomarine t1_j1mredb wrote

I mean, there is a middle ground between tennements and homelessness but I am done with this debate. The city needs housing and this nimbyism crap needs to end. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Just a metter of how long we are going to delay

4

kapuasuite t1_j1q503i wrote

Putting a bunch of people on the fringes of the city, where there’s limited mass transit, rather than Manhattan and the inner parts of Brooklyn and Queens, seems like a colossal mistake.

2

Wowzlul t1_j1rdft9 wrote

It's not a colossal mistake when you've got yours and wanna preserve your neighborhood character at the expense of the majority.

3