mdervin t1_j1zh572 wrote
Reply to comment by Brambleshire in Opinion: New York finally has momentum on housing and it’s time for a breakthrough by King-of-New-York
What's more expensive, a new or used car? New or used clothing?
As a general rule, it's obviously new. New stuff is more expensive than old stuff.
Developers don't want to build "luxury" buildings in poor neighborhoods, they would rather build in Manhattan below 110th or certain parts of Brooklyn and Queens near good reliable transportation because they would be able to sell/rent the places for a lot more, but we don't let them. Our Zoning, Historical Districts and other laws force them to build in Gentrifying areas. Why do people gentrify neighborhoods? Because they can't afford or find anything in their desired neighborhoods.
Bubble_Bowl_MVP t1_j1zvk78 wrote
A new Lamborghini is also more expensive than a new Honda. This isn't new vs old, it's luxury vs affordable.
Developers absolutely want to build luxury housing in poor neighborhoods, just look at what's happening in Williamsburg, Astoria, and Harlem. That's what gentrification is.
In order to house everyone and avoid displacement, we need a system that is not driven by profit motive. To start, that means high vacancy taxes and building government funded housing that's affordable to most New Yorkers. To go further, it means expropriation of real estate from greedy developers.
mdervin t1_j1zwx3x wrote
And Lobster is more expensive than chicken.
Compare the price of a new 1-bedroom apartment in midtown with a 1 bedroom in Harlem, which one do you think has the bigger profit margin?
Brambleshire t1_j2104zg wrote
Who cares about poor ppl amiright? they can just go to the outer boroughs. No one but rich people deserve to live in the city. That's the kinda new York I want, all rich people no riff raff. /s
mdervin t1_j2462qz wrote
Right and the best way to care about poor people is to create a housing shortage where middle class people are forced to move to the poor neighborhoods driving up their rents.
Brambleshire t1_j259d0o wrote
Or we could just build affordable housing instead of all luxury, and we could require a unit for anyone displaced by redevelopment.
mdervin t1_j25eb76 wrote
You mean like the projects?
Brambleshire t1_j25mulm wrote
Ya dude. I want everyone to live in projects. Status quo neglected public housing all the way, how did you know??
mdervin t1_j27aexa wrote
You aren’t proposing anything else.
Brambleshire t1_j2a2c2o wrote
in every thread where this topic is brought up, and in grass roots organizing, I am advocating for affordability and protection from displacement.
mdervin t1_j2a7vt5 wrote
and how do you build affordable housing?
Bubble_Bowl_MVP t1_j20085p wrote
They're both $4000 bozo
EDIT: The one downtown might be 5k or 6k, but now we're comparing Bentley and Rolls Royce, not Rolls Royce and Ford.
mdervin t1_j2028z7 wrote
now why would the same apartment downtown be 20-50% higher than uptown?
Because landlords/developers can charge more money for more desirable neighborhoods.
Bubble_Bowl_MVP t1_j202qxp wrote
Why is an apartment in Harlem 4k/mo? My goal would be for most housing to be under 2k/mo and the average rent in Manhattan is 5k.
mdervin t1_j203lyd wrote
An apartment in Harlem is 4K a month because there are a bunch of people who can afford 4K for a Harlem apartment, but they can't afford 6K for a midtown apartment.
Between 2010 & 2020 NYC's population increased by 800,000, between 2010 & 2020 about 80,000 apartments were built.
Bubble_Bowl_MVP t1_j204hj7 wrote
The increase was about 600,000, and then we lost almost 400,000 during the pandemic. The population had been around 8M for over 20 years.
EDIT: Actually we hit 8M in the mid 1950s.
mdervin t1_j20ewcb wrote
and what happened to rents during the pandemic?
Bubble_Bowl_MVP t1_j20gw32 wrote
Literally nothing, they're higher than ever.
mdervin t1_j20h6og wrote
because the pandemic is over and those 400,000 moved back into the city and some brought friends.
Bubble_Bowl_MVP t1_j20haft wrote
"the pandemic is over" Lmao
Brambleshire t1_j210ay8 wrote
it's just the free market, nothing we can do about it 🤷🏻♂️
mdervin t1_j22ggwr wrote
Zoning is not the free market.
Brambleshire t1_j1zlk7n wrote
Why are you talking like we just have to accept the pure free market and developers whims like it's an act of God? Real estate is WILDLY profitable in nyc. Don't hit me with that crying poor shit. Theres more wealth in this city than anyone can comprehend. Not building affordable is a choice not something unfortunate that just can't be helped.
Hoser117 t1_j1zrhkt wrote
If it's wildly profitable to build affordable I'm pretty sure people would be doing it and profiting from it.
I'm not a real estate developer apologist or anything, but in general I trust their ability to make a shit load of money and if they're saying the best way to make money is to build luxury then I believe them.
Greedy people will make money however they can. If it was extremely profitable to build affordable housing they would be doing it. It's on the city to change the environment the developers are operating in so that it is profitable to build affordable housing.
Brambleshire t1_j1zwryx wrote
You missed or ignored my point. My point is that it's less profitable and that's why only luxury gets built. We have to step in, and use those things called regulation, laws, grass roots organizing, to require affordable housing that's only less profitable. Capitalism peak profitability leads us to all kinds of suboptimal outcomes. Steering it into something more optimal for public good is nothing new or radical.
>I'm not a real estate developer apologist or anything, but in general I trust their ability to make a shit load of money and if they're saying the best way to make money is to build luxury then I believe them.
oh ok, so your a developer simp then.
Hoser117 t1_j202d55 wrote
Well we're largely saying similar things then. What I imagine makes this difficult is that we're obviously not operating in a bubble. We're essentially competing with the rest of the state/country where these developers can operate to make money. If developing in NYC goes from "very profitable" to "sort of profitable" then we'll just see less development in general.
It seems like there's a balancing act to play here where it's not enough to just disincentivize luxury only developments but actively improve the profit margins for market-rate & below market-rate development. Whenever I read about the state of things here it usually sounds like what has happened is the city has either intentionally or not put developers in a position where luxury developments are really the only appealing thing to build.
I would think there's a risk that if we also make those less profitable then they're not just gonna do market-rate and below market-rate developments, they'll just slow down development all together.
Brambleshire t1_j210mwh wrote
If you think developers won't build in one of the most lucrative markets in the world if it's slightly less profitable then your just either delusional or a developers shill. Ppl like you talk about the free market like it's an act of God that we can't do anything about. it's amazing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments