Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

acheampong14 t1_je6w9kw wrote

Building housing is the suburbs is fine and needed, but it would be much more effective and more environmentally sound to just build more housing in the city.

22

UpperLowerEastSide t1_je7ytur wrote

There are a bunch of Metro North and LIRR stations in towns that ban multifamily housing. As much as I would love only The City building housing, it's a waste of the commuter rail infrastructure for these towns to ban environmentally friendly transit oriented development and lifting restrictions would allow for more choice for would be homeowners and renters.

17

myassholealt t1_jecayke wrote

Absolutely. Build along LIRR routes. But descendants of the NYC white flighters who setup camp on Long Island will fight tooth and nail to prevent what the fled moving to their town.

6

UpperLowerEastSide t1_jefsyuv wrote

Ironically with how expensive housing is on Long Island, they’re excluding their own kids. Not just the feared black families.

6

isitaparkingspot t1_je88j8x wrote

So I'm actually all for this and not a NIMBY. There is a case to be made though about congestion. Public transit in outer Queens for example is pathetic, and the area does not need more vehicle traffic. Outside the city, between MNR and LIRR those areas are covered rather well by suburban standards, but there are only few rush hour trains aren't packed as it is going in and out of the city, not to mention general congestion on local roads during rush hour for jobs that aren't based in the city.

The other thing that the city in particular must demonstrate is effectively incentivizing affordable development. All the good done by the current affordable housing program is un-done by the luxury inventory that almost always outnumber the affordable units.

Some NIMBYs will dig in their heels for a turf war, to be expected. Other reasonable ones can be persuaded to accept a plan that won't upend their way of life or their actual life itself due to displacement.

2

UpperLowerEastSide t1_je8bvfr wrote

There's research that shows that TOD leads to lower vehicle miles travelled. Which makes sense as walkable communities lead to less car usage needed. Congestion nevertheless could be an issue but at this point congestion is significantly lower of an issue than the housing crisis and can be addressed quicker by more bus service.

I would argue that both The City and Long Island need to effectively incentivize affordable development. Long Island is much, much worse than NYC at affordable housing; with Long Island having one of the lowest construction rates of any American suburb it's turning most of the island into luxury inventory.

Plus, Long Island has enough strip malls and parking lot for housing to be built without needing to tear down single family homes. Long Island residents are also significantly more well to do than the Harlem and Bed Stuy residents currently being displaced en mass.

10

D14DFF0B t1_je85rli wrote

This is why, ultimately, ESA and the third mainline track were such boondoggles.

$15 billion and basically no new riders.

1

ObjectivePitiful1170 t1_jeaay12 wrote

No, increasing the density of suburbs will spur local developments. Those suburbs will become self-sufficient, and will become cities. That will remove, for example, stress for transportation to the metropolis due to available local job market, improved local public transit, etc. The land use will be the same, since we are talking about increasing density, and not sprawl.

5