Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

miabananaz t1_j1iqft2 wrote

If they're intentionally deteriorating historical buildings in order to circumvent regulations and build something brand new for housing, then it has to be stopped. It is a loophole that could put in danger any landmark, not just this one.

30

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j1kxauu wrote

It’s a common tactic now. There’s at least a dozen suspected incidents the past few years. They claim the stabilization work “failed” and it’s a safety risk.

9

BarbaraJames_75 OP t1_j1isyxe wrote

Or even just anybody's house or any apartment building, regardless of historical status.

It's a big area of construction law, allegations of damage to adjacent properties in the course of construction.

5

soupdumplinglover t1_j1k8qxr wrote

It’s one thing to demolish a building under consideration as a landmark before it is landmarked. But this building is already in a historic district, meaning the Landmarks Commission will need to approve whatever is proposed to be built on the site. So there’s about a 0% chance they will approve anything higher than what existed previously.

4

George4Mayor86 t1_j1isihm wrote

I’m all for it. We desperately need more housing. It’s absurd that people need to use these workarounds in the first place.

−2

miabananaz t1_j1isxdi wrote

No messing with the Greenwich village & West Village. We're not turning those into Midtown and have the city look like Dubai.

−1

Open-Abbreviations18 t1_j1l2p16 wrote

Oh so the outer boroughs have to look like Dubai instead? That's nice. Upzone everything. Literally everything.

2

miabananaz t1_j1ml72q wrote

My point is that Manhattan is on the right track, it has a high population density and amount of apartment units per square foot.

There are many other areas that are prime for development, where it would be much easier, faster and cheaper to do it. Keep doing it in Manhattan, but do it elsewhere too. There are areas within 40 minutes of Midtown with the train that are basically ghost towns throughout, and instead people would push hard to put something up in Soho, which as-is is already overcrowded, dirty where the infrastructure cannot keep up with all of it.

0

George4Mayor86 t1_j1it449 wrote

yes it’s very important that no unsightly newcomers live near the fancy white people

0

miabananaz t1_j1iunwx wrote

Manhattan is already the most densely populated borough, and this is without even factoring tourists + people who commute to work: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/data-maps/nyc-population/census2010/m_pl_p2_nta.pdf

So it's not like it's not getting enough work.

What boggles my mind is why would you oppose more housing in the Bronx, since this will increase diversity? You frequently post in /r/DemocratsforDiversity . Are you for or against making the Bronx more diverse?

−1

George4Mayor86 t1_j1ivvcl wrote

I want more housing in the Bronx, and in Manhattan, and in the rest of the boroughs. Unlike you, I’m not a NIMBY who only wants anything new far away.

8