Its a no brainer of a development. Its mostly empty parking lots and big box stores which would be way more useful as housing. We simply need more housing in NYC if we want to prevent gentrification from bulldozing even more communities in the outer boroughs.

This is good, Eric Adams.

Please keep up the effort to help increase the housing supply in NYC.

So to prevent gentrification we have to gentrify? Got it.

More like to not accelerate the rate of gentrification. Gentrification is going to happen with or without building. The rate of gentrification will be slower with development vs none.

Have you ever been to this stretch of road? There's nothing to gentrify..

Was referring to the second part of that particular post. It didn’t make sense.

If we don’t build more housing, then the same number people will move to the area but there will be less housing, so more displacement will occur

“If we don’t build more affordable housing” fixed it for you!

Building more luxury housing with an inevitably high avg monthly rent will actually cause the displacement of the area.

You can’t gentify a parking lot.

There is zero reason not to build housing there. It's a bunch of parking lots. Building housing there (especially housing that is 40% affordable housing) is not ever going to hurt anyone.

It’ll hurt the renters of Astoria who when their lease is up will see the average monthly rent will go up with a development that has 60% of it’s units guaranteed to be listed way above the $2.5k avg monthly rent currently paid by Astorians.

Let that gentrification take place on it’s own w/o city subsidies & tax breaks. The development can be funded by private financiers and or banks.

The residents of Astoria are seeing massive rent increases because there's a massive shortage of housing in New York City. Being a NIMBY and blocking every new apartment proposal (especially when it contains 40% affordable housing) hurts every renter in New York.

They would if they can. The area is not zone for housing and they want to change it. Criteria to change zoning was to allow the affordable housing which they met criteria with proposed plan

Would you rather they build a truck parking lot? that don't require zoning change and unmet demand. They make a killing off all the idle trucks that park side of highway right now

/u/Head_Acanthisitta256 you obviously don't know anything about this development. The developer is giving a long list of concessions, it's not getting subsidies. It's the opposite of what you're claiming.

I've noticed NIMBYs never have their facts straight. I wonder why.

LOL!

Astorians are seeing massive rent increases because of the major influx of luxury apartment complexes that were built or being built.

These new complexes raise the avg monthly rent of the neighborhood. And when new tenants come along landlords will ask for market rent which was artificially inflated by the new developments.

There’s no guarantee that this development will even create 40% affordable housing.

The only way to help renters is through building AFFORDABLE housing not majority luxury housing that’ll increase the rents of a neighborhood.

The supply side lies about new units lowering rents is so absolutely hilarious!

Looks like you don’t know the facts!

https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/10/19/23413936/innovation-qns-fight-pits-donovan-richards-against-julie-won?_amp=true

“The Innovation QNS developers won over some former opponents, including Borough President Richards, by increasing the projects’ share of affordable housing units from the mandatory 25% to 40% through prospective city subsidies.”

The subsidized units are affordable housing units, not the market-rate units you claim are "gentrifying" the area. Not to mention the developer is building the 25% affordable units on their own dime and providing several other major concessions to the community after receiving feedback.

You're learning the basics of housing in your city, congratulations.

I will now await you moving the goalpost.

When vacancies are low, rents go up. When you build more housing, you get more vacancies, and rents go down.

​

No matter how much mental gymnastics you try, you will never get around that fact. Stop being a NIMBY.

https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/9/27/23373855/affordable-housing-crisis-city-council-eric-adams-throgs-neck

Wow an actually useful presser by the mayor for a change, I hope this is enough of a push to council to override Won's opposition if she votes no.

Hi friend!

Here's all the best data on how "luxury housing" decreases rents! Just from a basic level, if you build no housing, and more people come in to the area, displacement will increase. If you build more housing, there will be less displacement. Really simple!

https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/

When you inject more units with a high avg monthly rent, rent in the neighborhood will go up.

No matter how much mental gymnastics you try, you will never get around that fact. Stop being a greedy developer.

Who’s this “more coming to the area”? The city population has dropped the past two plus years.

There’s already displacement BECAUSE of these units. Rents are rising artificially through these developments. This UCLA “study” is conveniently ignoring that fact.

Yeah I have actually never heard of council member deference or "community input" being used for something positive. It's always used for NIMBYism to block bike lanes, bus lanes, housing etc.
The housing shortage affects all New Yorkers so why should one woman have the ability to kill home for thousands of people?

The data proves you wrong again.
If you can put all your brain cells together you should try this thing called "reading".

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01055/100977/Local-Effects-of-Large-New-Apartment-Buildings-in?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/real-estate/gentrification-wars-studies-doubt-new-yorkers-are-being-pushed-out

The UCLA research roundup (it's not a single study) actually talks very specifically about the role of development on displacement. If you think it "ignores that fact" it means you didn't actually read all 18 pages! Which makes sense considering you responded to my comment 4 minutes after I made it.

>There’s already displacement BECAUSE of these units. Rents are rising artificially through these developments.

It would be really great if you could provide any evidence of this fact, beyond "I've seen an apartment building in the area, and also my rent has increased" which is a correlative statement, not a causal one.

Your anecdotal evidence means nothing when we have actual clinical data points that prove the reverse of your argument.

LOL! I can’t stop laughing at this so called “data” which is really just corporate talking points behind paywalled websites. You are unintentionally hilarious!!!

[removed]

LMAO! What facts??? There are thousands of new units built in western queens and the rents have skyrocketed because of them. None of this so called data shows what’s going on there. Keep your developer talking points, don’t need them.

Show me where this so called research roundup shows data from the rising rent of western Queens where there are thousands of new units built since ‘01.

Shit Adams doing something useful it really is the end of times. Hopefully this gets built because NYC needs more housing and 2800 units is more than 0 last I checked. I thought it was pretty good at 25% affordable but the recent increase to 40% to me is a no brainer.

The research roundup shows that market-rate housing (that you call luxury housing) is not responsible for increasing rents!

If you have particular evidence (not anecdotal data, but actual proof that rents are rising not because of increased demand because of increased supply) that this is untrue in Queens, the burden is on you to show that.

You really should try reading kiddo.

Sadly, I read your sorry posts🤮

It’s simple build it and you add 500 affordable units. Don’t build and you add 0. Doing nothing is not the answer unless your goal is to turn this space into truck warehouses.

I think we're just hitting the end of the line for anti-housing stuff. No way this would have happened in 2019.

I will continue to push my controversial opinions on the subject: blaming Bloomberg.

>Which makes sense considering you responded to my comment 4 minutes after I made it.

Jesus Christ, just take the poor lad out back and put him out of his misery at this point lmao.

Thanks for bringing some actual research into these discussions though. That doesn't happen nearly enough.

Actually 1100 affordable units.