> Princess

It's interesting that this is considered normal (i.e. default appropriate for children) because the whole Disney princess aesthetic is, like de-sexualized drag, a kind of constructed hyper femininity. As long as the content is age appropriate, I don't actually see how that would be different from "drag queen" in this context.

Fulton st mall during the day is nice because it's just normal Bk people shopping at normal stores.

At night yeah it's eerily empty.

Because of the difficulties in suing the MTA, would it be more fruitful to sue the contractor? Dunno about this particular company, but maybe they'd be more inclined to settle? Or at least their insurer.

This is the most rational course, but because we can't even rebuild PABT for less than $10bn I don't think anyone wants to contemplate it.

> It's really not that bad for commuters.

I'd have agreed with you in 2019, but have you heard how office workers talk these days? Seems like the vast majority are dead set against ever going to an office ever again unless it's an extremely convenient experience. Putting it directly next to Penn could help with that.

But I'm just speculating. The evidence may not bear that out.

Well yes I know that Penn is ugly and dysfunctional, but due the sheer amount of infrastructure the Pennsylvania Railroad built there and the density of the commercial districts surrounding it Penn is in fact an insanely busy and important station.

Kinda why I'd support a redevelopment of the streets around it. Should be taking advantage of the capacity on offer here, not cutting it or pretending it doesn't exist.

There's been a lot of very NIMBY threads lately. Just endless reasons not to rebuild or redo anything. City's perfect as is.

I don't know where they keep coming from.

Could definitely help. If people are commuting into office towers directly adjacent to Penn (or even connected to it) they're not walking the streets or taking the subway further into the city.

Same logic that drove redevelopment in WTC/Brookfield.

Makes much more sense to have that there than where Hudson Yards is.

Penn Station is the busiest train station in the western hemisphere. If you're gonna have big office towers in this brave new remote world, that's the best place to have them. Affluent bugman gets off his NJ Transit train and walks to his big important client-facing office. Super convenient. Places like Hudson Yards are just too "out of the way" at this point.

Maybe that's the thinking.

> musing

bigoted ranting more like

I wonder if there's anyone in Mexico City urging the government to block all new buildings because somehow that will stop the dickwads from moving in and renting apartments. That'll work.

Good analogy. As we all know trust fund transplants massacre Real New Yorkers in cold blood, send their children to schools of cultural assimilation, and rape their ancestral homeland of its natural resources. The two situations are directly comparable.

/s obviously

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)

Internal migration controls. Maybe give everyone a passport. If you don't appeal to my particular tastes and biases, if I can make prejudiced judgements about you and put you into a box I don't like then you don't get in.

After all, you didn't build this place. I did. Well, people a long time ago did and I'm pretty sure they'd like me instead of you. Oh you did build something here? Well it doesn't count. We can't allow this place to change. It's perfect as is and you don't get to touch it.

I'm a Local and you are not allowed.

I am a local and as a Local I say we don't need more housing.

> As the song says, “This land is my land, this land is (not) your land.” You want to come over here and move in and just rewrite our history? This was our place, our home, our way of life, for millennia. Not millennia, but centuries. Okay, decades. Years. A few years. The point is it’s ours and it’s not yours. Sure, it used to be someone else’s, and probably someone else’s before them, but now it’s mine, so I’m going to plant my flag and dig in. Let me put it bluntly: “CHANGE AND NEW THINGS SCARE ME.”

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

I'm very glad that this city was built by people who didn't think like you.

Funny that every comment here seems to be against the idea of regulating AI.

Wonder why.

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.

You're right that personal electric vehicles are overhyped as a solution. They don't solve the fundamental issues that plague urban America, namely our dogshit inefficient land use that simultaneously requires and caters to people who drive personal automobiles to every destination.

There is no viable future for this city or the US generally that doesn't involve many fewer people driving personal vehicles for their daily comings and goings. We have to provide them with other options, and live in communities that are built to make those options viable. There's simply no other way around it.

Jfc just do trolleybuses and be done with it

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.

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

> 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

Is this supposed to make us scared or outraged?

Most people posting here aren't boomers who bought a house for a song in the '70s or camped out in a rent controlled apartment for the last 40 years. We're relatively young people paying market rent and desperately struggling to compete for ever scarcer housing.

So when I see complaints like this I find it hard to give a fuck. The city became the great place it is because it was never afraid to completely reinvent its built environment, a process that stopped cold about 40 years ago because certain people decided to lock in their good fortune and fuck the rest of us.