Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Myske1 t1_j1z2khk wrote

This pro-real estate developer piece is absurd. We lack the infrastructure for a housing boom in NYC, but I suppose the Trumps and Kushners of the world need even more money to maintain their egos.

Edit: LOL downvotes from real estate developer shills.

−43

actualtext t1_j1zgf1j wrote

We lack the infrastructure for a housing boom in NYC? What are you talking about? We literally have the biggest public transit system in the entire country. Do you mean something else by infrastructure?

27

BraveSirZaphod t1_j1zudu0 wrote

Not to mention, Manhattan is significantly less dense than it was 100 years ago.

21

koreamax t1_j20jl1m wrote

It was also significantly more dangerous and unsanitary

−3

MisterFatt t1_j24azyh wrote

Probably someone who sits in traffic for hours everyday while they drive back and forth across the city instead of using public transit

1

Myske1 t1_j1zmikh wrote

Sewage infrastructure. Water. Roads. And, yes, transit. Having the largest system doesn't mean that it has infinite capacity.

−6

actualtext t1_j203niu wrote

None of those things you’ve mentioned are issues of concern in NYC. But two things worth pointing out:

  1. In fact there’s been a huge 50 year project to bring water to the city. See here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No._3 We’re not suffering from a drought.
  2. Subway ridership is currently at ~60% of 2019 numbers (you’ll have to look up the official numbers but that’s the number I keep reading in headlines as articles). And we’re still improving things. Maybe not as much one would like with extensions to lines, but there are projects like bringing the LIRR to Grand Central which will improve transit options and new Metro North stations going to Penn Station that will get built in the Bronx.
11

beer_nyc t1_j2ajcsu wrote

> None of those things you’ve mentioned are issues of concern in NYC.

they're huge concerns in the suburbs of nyc

1

Myske1 t1_j204kjg wrote

We’re not suffering from a drought. We’re suffering from a lack of water mains and pipes in areas of potential expansion. Sewage is a huge problem. The system overflows during storms all the time, and adding more sewage will just make it worse. These are real problems, despite what propagandists from the real estate industry have convinced you to believe.

−4

brianvan t1_j20iuu7 wrote

Lol yes Manhattan needs more roads to handle more cars so it can grow. Good thinking 🤣

3

Myske1 t1_j20lysa wrote

Or maybe it should put the brakes on development. We're the densest most-crowded city in the country -- let people move somewhere else if they can't find a place to stay here. Once some other cities get up to size, then maybe we can grow more.

1

brianvan t1_j20mgb2 wrote

Yes, let 800,000 people move out so we can equalize demand with supply. Feel free to lead the way!

Oh, that’s not what you meant… who are you thinking should be the ones to move out?

6

Myske1 t1_j20pbp9 wrote

I can afford where I live. If people can't afford it, they should move to where they can afford to live. It's not rocket science.

0

brianvan t1_j20puhk wrote

They can’t afford moving and changing jobs. You can. It’s not rocket science 🚀 🚀 🚀

5

Myske1 t1_j20q53h wrote

There are plenty of places willing to move people to do low skill jobs. The oil and gas industry in the Dakotas for example. Higher skill workers shouldn't have any problem either. The only excuse for not leaving is not wanting to.

1

beepoppab t1_j22i8tz wrote

Classic "fuck you, I got mine" mentality.

You're a funny little troll. Keep it up!

3

kapuasuite t1_j23pbru wrote

Sounds like a dumb idea, thanks for sharing!

0

Myske1 t1_j23pihf wrote

👆 this comment brought to you by a real estate industry shill who wants to build baby build so his boss can can even richer at the expense of local neighborhoods.

−1

kapuasuite t1_j23wpl2 wrote

Building new homes, businesses, and infrastructure to accommodate more people is a good thing. If having to look at new people and new things upsets you, that’s entirely on you.

0

Myske1 t1_j23yr56 wrote

You're projecting a lot onto me. Not surprising for a real estate shill.

0

cramersCoke t1_j1zoirw wrote

Bruh, lower-cost housing without building more housing literally does not exist.

18

Myske1 t1_j1zp3j1 wrote

Sure it does. It's called moving to somewhere else. Cleveland. Detroit. Hell, any city except SF. Not everyone gets to live in NYC, and when more people start looking elsewhere, the pressure on the housing market will lessen. If you can't find a place to live here, get your ass to Rochester.

−14

George4Mayor86 t1_j200x04 wrote

“Fuck off we’re full” is literally never the correct response to immigration.

14

Myske1 t1_j2027u6 wrote

Immigrants arriving in NYC have used it as a gateway to move on to the rest of the country after days, months, or years for as long as there has been a country.

Not everyone needs to live in NYC, not everyone gets to, not everyone can afford to, and so on. There are probably a billion people around the world who would rather live here than where they live. Should they all be crammed into the city?

−5

JBMPropertyMgmtLLC t1_j2044mx wrote

When your entire personality is that you live in NYC, I suppose seeing other people live here makes you insecure.

11

Myske1 t1_j204opt wrote

Dude, what a bullshit trash statement.

−1

JBMPropertyMgmtLLC t1_j207tl3 wrote

You reek of insecurity. Anyways, I’m a NYC landlord and your attitude increases my profit margin, so thank you for that I guess LOL.

4

MarbleFox_ t1_j25ik9n wrote

Not everyone needs to live in NYC, but the city should have the infrastructure to accommodate everyone that wants to.

2

Myske1 t1_j25j3cd wrote

There are like a billion people around the world who would rather live in NYC than where they live. We’re not building for all of them. Even if you’re a real estate developer shill, you have to acknowledge there is some sort of upper limit. The only thing we’re actually arguing about is what that limit is.

−2

MarbleFox_ t1_j263ksv wrote

> There are like a billion people around the world who would rather live in NYC than where they live.

No there aren’t.

1

Wowzlul t1_j1zuj41 wrote

This is the kind of rhetoric you hear in San Francisco, or the Bay Area generally. I honestly thought we were better than this.

10

koreamax t1_j20jpve wrote

I'm from San Francisco and this is spot on. Fake hyper liberals in the Bay Area are actually as socially conservative as they come

5

Wowzlul t1_j20kaqi wrote

It's really quite contrary to the attitude toward migration and expansion that historically dominated in the city and that's arguably its greatest source of success.

Obviously you can't fit the whole world here, but we're nowhere close to what we could do. For fucks sake most of the city is still zoned for single family homes and we never even finished the goddamn subway.

"We're full" my ass. You just like how you've got things set up for yourself and don't want to risk any disruption. God forbid the world not revolve around you.

(rhetorical "you" there obv)

2

Myske1 t1_j1zw1uv wrote

Lived here for all my life, and I’ve seen neighborhoods wrecked by overdevelopment. At some point, enough is enough, and we need to stand up to the crooked real estate industry.

You act like migration is a bad thing. Or new. It’s neither. People have been moving from NYC to other places in big numbers since the city was founded. Without international immigration, we’d have net population loss.

The solution for people who want a cheaper place to live is to move somewhere cheaper. It’s not that complicated.

0

actualtext t1_j21qdi1 wrote

Rent prices will never go down with that approach. You’re basically suggesting we freeze development of new housing. That’s horrible.

4

Myske1 t1_j21r72b wrote

False. Prices depend on both supply and demand. The real estate developers want to make money and have convinced everybody that their supply-side approach is the right one. Reducing demand would do it just as well, and that would involve population loss. People moving away or dying faster than they arrive or are born.

It's happened before. The population dropped like crazy when people started moving to the burbs in big numbers in the 60s and 70s. Rents dropped. Sale prices dropped. People were picking up whole brownstones for almost nothing.

1

beepoppab t1_j22j133 wrote

"The farmers want to make money and have convinced everybody that growing more food will bring down the price of food. Instead, some folks just need to stop eating so we can reduce demand."

Can I buy some crack from you?

3

Pool_Shark t1_j1z5m8n wrote

These YIMBYs claim they want housing prices to go down but when you mention other issues like Airbnb’s, vacancy taxes, or converting office buildings they get offended.

There is an agenda here and it’s not to drive down prices for the average person.

−5

michaelmvm t1_j1z8shu wrote

we have a shortage of over 500,000 homes in nyc. there are not anywhere close to 500,000 vacant units + airbnbs. and office conversions, while they absolutely should be done, are more expensive than just building more housing.

21

mdervin t1_j1zh8gw wrote

>These YIMBYs claim they want housing prices to go down but when you mention other issues like Airbnb’s, vacancy taxes, or converting office buildings they get offended.

Citation needed.

11

Pool_Shark t1_j1zihwi wrote

Browse Reddit for more than a week

−11

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j1zdgp5 wrote

I am mega yimby and i am absolutely not offended by those proposals, and I can’t think of anyone who is. Those are all good things that almost all yimbys support.

9

George4Mayor86 t1_j2010se wrote

No we don’t? I think office-to-housing conversions are very promising, though they are more expensive than people tend to think.

5

D14DFF0B t1_j1z7k1q wrote

> Airbnb’s

These are already illegal for short-term stays. I don't see your point

> vacancy taxes

How would this work exactly? Would every owner have to "check in" on an app every day proving their location?

> converting office buildings

There are many obstacles to this on a broad scale. Where it make sense, we should do it.

4

Brambleshire t1_j1zdbkq wrote

case in point.

0

D14DFF0B t1_j1zdff4 wrote

Yeah, I'm super offended you got me!

5

Brambleshire t1_j1zffnp wrote

What is your motivation for being fine with luxury housing, but concerns over airbnb etc is real shit? Are you a developer or landlord yourself?

−2

D14DFF0B t1_j1zhxe4 wrote

I'm fine with luxury housing because all new housing is good. We should have a lot more of it.

I don't think short-term rentals are good.

I'm not a landlord or developer.

3

Brambleshire t1_j1zm2hm wrote

But why do you think it HAS to be luxury? What if i told you we could build mountains of affordable housing without displacing people? You'll probably tell me it's not possible.

Its all these laissez-faire evangelists who pretend that the "free" market is god and we just have to build luxury cuz that's what developers want 🤷🏻‍♂️.

−2

D14DFF0B t1_j1zqk9o wrote

Where did I say that?

I just want to remove restrictions on building. There will be more "luxury" apartments build in on the UWS and Chelsea. And there were will be cheaper units built in the outer boroughs.

6

Brambleshire t1_j1zx2ov wrote

Your saying it right there. Your saying the inner city should be all luxury and everyone who isn't rich should be pushed out to the outer boroughs and your perfectly ok with that.

−1

Pool_Shark t1_j1zc5e2 wrote

Lol if you think of being illegal stops airbnbs. Doesn’t matter what the law is if no one enforced it.

Vacancy taxes make it cost prohibitive to sit on property until you get someone willing to pay a high price. The city already has records of all apartments it’s a matter of adding a tax if they are vacant for x amount of time.

−1

D14DFF0B t1_j1zci61 wrote

Again, how do propose to know the vacancy status of each and every apartment in the city?

5

Pool_Shark t1_j1zirus wrote

Because it’s all in taxes. Rent is income that landlords have to report. I’m sure there are plenty of other records for each unit as well

1

ForeignWin9265 t1_j1zca8e wrote

Converting old stock office building into residential should be the main priority

3

brianvan t1_j20jjed wrote

Funny you said that. It’s totally possible, at significant expense, to convert an office building to a residential tower that meets all current codes. Might get a few more buildings converted if you loosened regs and offered subsidies/financing. But at the end of the day, 3% of office buildings have been converted because office prices are starkly higher than home prices per square foot, and most landlords prefer to make more money (or hold out for more money while refinancing their mortgages). There’s more of a trend of buildings adapting to different commercial uses rather than making offices into homes.

There was a Times article about it. Today. https://t.co/RPxiSmYE2p (paywall waived)

City and state governments would get way more bang for the buck simply building new housing on available lots. There are literally empty lots all around NYC. But they’re privately owned, not for sale, not being developed (yet), and the state is terrified to use their eminent domain powers. I guess they prefer having a shelter system with tens of thousands of beds instead.

2

Anonymous1985388 t1_j1zp4dt wrote

Agreed. How long are we going to let all this vacant commercial space sit unused, before we take action and convert these to residential.

−1

koreamax t1_j20jw4d wrote

Let's see...converting office building at an insane expense to make homes that really don't feel like homes or build apartments that were originally purposed as homes?

3