Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ainsel72l t1_j8zzcme wrote

Reply to comment by Blecher_onthe_Hudson in Why is planning allowing this building? Eli5 by Jctexan

That's interesting because a lot of the "incumbents" living here are not wealthy or white. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j9010tc wrote

I have, which is why I qualified the remark with 'often' instead of saying something like 'always', which would indeed be idiotic.

The NIMBY movement, particularly in California, has done a good job of convincing that segment that dense development poses more of a risk of gentrification than them being displaced from their low density rental homes by rising rents or sale of the property. In my observation this is not the case. Displacement gentrification precedes development not follows it, an area like the Heights is a prime example.

3

Ainsel72l t1_j94kqmi wrote

Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing. Displacment gentrification or development, it doesn't really matter which comes first. The end result is pretty much the same. Call me NIMBY if you want, but huge buildings towering over a neighborhood of houses just look ridiculous. I won't enjoy living close to them.

−1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j94somc wrote

>Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Middle income high rises are possibly even more sought after than luxury in the NY Metro.

Besides, in most cases of opposition to density, the horrifying zoning proposal is usually up from single family to 2-4 units, not high rises. In JC people were ready to riot against allowing 4 floors along commercial corridors in R-1 zones, like Palisade Avenue.

2