Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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