CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg6zgi wrote
Reply to comment by lee1026 in “Adams Plan Would Relax Rules for Developers Amid N.Y.C. Housing Crisis” The mayor proposed reducing requirements that he said slow the construction of new homes as the city contends with a housing crisis. by CactusBoyScout
NYC does have a "right to build" system that basically says you can build whatever you want as long as it adheres to current zoning.
The big fights over development that you read about are almost always because the developer wants to change the zoning... often from industrial (think former waterfront factories) or light commercial (the single-story retail in Harlem that nearly became a big development) to higher-density residential.
Zoning is essentially about maintaining the status quo in an area. So if you want to increase density at all or build residential where it previously didn't exist, you typically have to go through these painful rezoning processes where every local leader gets a veto and it takes years.
I think a more serious solution would be to just loosen zoning citywide.
mousekeeping t1_izg8lhp wrote
Yeah screw zoning. We need apartments. Wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to block/delay large housing developments just to keep the neighborhood exclusive and interfere with their view of the city.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izg8zyi wrote
Yep. Zoning was first invented to keep apartments from being built near rich people’s homes. Before that, the rich actually had to buy up property around them to prevent development.
And then zoning replaced de facto segregation in the suburbs when that was banned. “Poor people aren’t banned here… we just ban any housing they could actually afford.”
mousekeeping t1_izg9qbk wrote
100%. It's just a way for rich homeowners to block anything that might impact them in any way and keep their neighborhoods frozen in time. And even if not explicitly racist, it obviously keeps desirable parts of the City majority white and affluent.
[deleted] t1_izgmk2v wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izh3vz6 wrote
You’re conflating two different things.
Jacob Riis inspired basic rules around safety and crowding in apartments and light/air.
Zoning in the US absolutely started as a way to keep poor and black people out of certain areas.
> Zoning determines what can be built where, and is ubiquitous in the United States. Low-density residential zoning predominates in US cities far more than in other countries, limiting housing opportunities for those who cannot afford large homes. These zoning regulations have racist and classist origins, make housing more expensive, and reinforce segregation patterns.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-030420-122027
And NYC’s first zoning law was not inspired by Riis. It was inspired by the massive Equitable Building which was just a giant cube that blocked light on the street below. The first zoning law was primarily focused on requiring setbacks.
[deleted] t1_izhb5rz wrote
[deleted]
mousekeeping t1_izh208v wrote
First I didn't write the quote above - that was from OP.
I don't know why/when NYC zoning laws were written, but I do know that today they make residential construction much more difficult than it should be in a city with an extreme housing crisis, especially large apartment/condominium buildings that can actually add substantial housing stock.
Don't think anybody's arguing that residential zones should be opened up for factories. Also NYC doesn't have industrial revolution-like factories anymore - barely anywhere in the US does and it's ludicrous to suggest that manufacturing would take hold in Manhattan again with the cost of labor and land here. Most no longer exist in North America anymore lol.
Rich people abusing zoning is extremely common, probably the main reason these laws continue to exist, certainly not a rare byproduct. So many affluent blocks with single-family homes or townhouses should have multi-story developments.
People with money and government connections manipulate old laws and file frivolous lawsuits to protect an aesthetic that they like and artificially maintain low-density areas in a growing city with a massive shortage of housing and very limited land. Poorer neighborhoods meanwhile get almost all of the affordable/subsidized housing and other NIMBY but necessary things like homeless shelters, addiction treatment centers, massive parking facilities, industrial storage, etc. The result is racist even if the laws were well-intentioned.
I think comments like yours are just as dangerous. You raise unrealistic fears about "overcrowding, pollution, and squalor" which are often (not saying you intended this, but it's a fact) dog whistles for anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-Semitism/racism, homelessness, and addiction. You pretentiously mention an artist who died in 1914 as a way to justify fear of changes in neighborhood density while virtue signaling to avoid the guilt that people would otherwise bear knowing that they are contributing to financial stress, poverty, and homelessness.
Also cities burning down? Seriously? Large parts of modern cities don't spontaneously burn down any more unless there's a direct cause like a massive forest fire or arson on a mass scale during a riot.
[deleted] t1_izh92ut wrote
[deleted]
30roadwarrior t1_izm3lro wrote
Hmmmm that’s a lie. If you have the bucks anyone can live anywhere.
mousekeeping t1_izmcdo8 wrote
Yeah…but if you haven’t heard, wealth isn’t exactly evenly distributed among racial groups in the USA.
30roadwarrior t1_izmdjh0 wrote
You mean there are no wealthy minority celebrities, athletes, doctors, singers,network owners… if u hustle you can be wealthy.
mousekeeping t1_izmi59l wrote
For sure, I’m not anti-capitalist, but if you’re black you’re a lot less likely to have the kind family money/property that makes living in these areas possible for people who aren’t necessarily making insane amounts of money.
I guess I’m mainly thinking of things like brownstones/townhouses on the upper west side or Brooklyn heights/park slope. Obviously there is a black upper and middle class and some of them do live in these places, and if you have enough money and don’t give a f what your neighbors think, then yea you can live where you want. But people might not be especially friendly, even if they’re not racist.
As a white and Asian couple, living in Harlem has been an interesting experience - it is a little stressful to live in a place where you’re not the majority. I’ve never experienced any crime or serious harassment, but def get strange looks and have a hard time making friends and connecting to the local community. Occasional get an unpleasant amount of attention from somebody looking for a reason to be upset when I’m chilling in the park. I imagine it would be similar but more intense for black people in majority white, old-money neighborhoods.
[deleted] t1_izgc679 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_izgn2bh wrote
[deleted]
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izgs9ky wrote
That's because developers know the rich neighborhoods have a much higher chance of stopping projects. So they don't even try there.
Developers go for poorer neighborhoods because a) property is cheaper and b) the locals are far less likely to have the time/money to organize opposition to projects.
Rich neighborhoods will often pool their resources to hire lawyers, lobbyists, and preservationists to fight changes around them.
Hell, the UES has successfully blocked an accessibility elevator at an existing subway station for 10 years now... because of "neighborhood character."
The Seaport area has kept a parking lot from becoming housing through similar efforts.
[deleted] t1_izgwx5m wrote
[deleted]
mousekeeping t1_izh3ghe wrote
Think it's a bit ridiculous to say NIMBYism is a not a major feature of NYC life.
There is not a single homeless shelter or methadone clinic anywhere in Manhattan except Harlem, Wash Heights, and a few remaining holdouts in recently gentrified parts of Chelsea and the LES.
Unsurprisingly, the only new one proposed by the city in recent times was right in the middle of Chinatown despite the fact that Asian New Yorkers are the most victimized people in the city.
You know why that's where they want to put it - it's the cheapest place available in lower Manhattan, and already seen as overly dense, dirty, and chaotic. There is also a shortage of bilingual lawyers who can represent Chinatown residents which has been a problem for a while.
30roadwarrior t1_izm3y08 wrote
Midtown west has severa methadone clinics, and open doors. Midtown East has Bellvue. The mess is spread evenly all over.
ParadoxFoxV9 t1_izhx9v3 wrote
Wouldn't zoning also prevent housing being built next to a loud factory? A building I work at is very active at night. A hotel was built right across the street and then they started complaining about the noise, even though we were there first. I figured good zoning would have prevented the issue.
With all the empty housing in the city, I feel the answer could be to enforce lowere rents in existing buildings. If, for example, your building has half of its apartments empty, you should have to lower your rent. Just a thought so please don't downvote me for suggesting a different way of doing things.
CactusBoyScout OP t1_izjcums wrote
When people talk about zoning and the housing crisis, they’re primarily talking about arbitrary limits on density, not rules that prevent factories in residential areas. Or they’re talking about converting former industrial areas to residential like what happened on the Williamsburg waterfront.
There are not lots of empty housing units. This is a widely propagated myth. The city’s vacancy rate is extremely low.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments