Radical proposals to address climate change and the housing crisis

[bnk]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

I have an even more radical idea: Dredge giant canals and create vast new seas in the lower-elevation parts of the Sahara Desert. This will let the Atlantic Ocean spread into the newly-created seas, helping to lower sea levels worldwide. The dredgings from the operations can be used to create new mountain ranges in nothern Africa between the new seas, hopefully creating some orthographic precipitation, which in turn can make thew new mountainous areas more habitable.

Not that I think its needed but flooding death valley, Undersea spots in Australia and parts of the middle east that are below sea level could also be added to that equation if needed.

Building mountains is a bit too much not nearly as easy just flooding below sea level parts of the world.

BTW sea level is not going to rise 40 feet so lets take a deep breath Photo.

[ue]

There's nothing particularly radical about this. It's maybe extreme, but it's nothing more than the city has already done: reclaim land. And it allows the current city to continue existing as it already has, with horrendous housing policies that squeeze the poor out of neighbourhoods and turn New York into a giant real estate scheme. And they want to do this in an era of ecological crises, including rising sea levels?

New York already has plenty of land to build on. Instead of kowtowing to the wealthy, by protecting already affluent areas like Park Slope and Greenwich Village from further densification, and only allowing significant new residential construction in middle and lower income areas (notwithstanding the skinny condo towers going up in already skyscraper-heavy areas) that push gentrification, the city could push back against developers and the market. New York could bring back strong rent control for most, if not all, new housing. It could require any development with some luxury units have >50% low-income housing (not "affordable" housing which is often unaffordable to the poorest). It could create a wealth tax that would be used to fund good quality public housing and co-ops, while the city promotes community land trusts. Instead of turning Long Island City over to the wealthy, it could be a significant salve against the housing crisis in New York.

[C.]

Originally Posted by photoLith

A giant wall will have to be erected at the Verrazano narrows bridge and other inlets so that the city doesn’t flood. I don’t think that little wall in the above proposals will do much if sea levels rise by 40 feet or more.

Are you trolling or just misinformed. Even the storm surge from Sandy was about 15ft or so.

[mhays]

Cutting three feet from the ocean would require 80,000 cubic miles. It's not really plausible to deal with that.

[SAN Man]

The street grid in the Manhattan extension wouldn't work. It looks like there is only one north/south avenue that goes the entire length. That would create the worst traffic bottleneck nightmare in North America.

[dchan]

Originally Posted by lio45

https://www.reddit.com/r/boston/comm...ntly_landfill/

America's success in recapturing Boston from the British during the early Revolutionary War was due in part because the natural Boston peninsula was connected to the mainland only through a narrow neck. That, and because they also managed to sneak their cannons to the high ground one night.

[eschaton]

I do have to say I presume that in terms of the greenhouse emissions needed to create them, massive geoengineering projects undoubtedly are much worse for the planet than...just building somewhere else. Or building taller.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by C.

Are you trolling or just misinformed. Even the storm surge from Sandy was about 15ft or so.

And Sandy was basically the worst luck imaginable. It hit exactly when tides were highest, like to the minute, both seasonally/time of day. If it would have come slightly earlier or later, the damage would be minimal.

Even assuming worst case global warming estimates, the possibility of another Sandy is pretty remote. There will be other flood events, no doubt, perhaps even greater, but a Sandy-like surge is extremely unlikely. It would be dumb to harden the harbor based on a thousand year event like Sandy, which wasn't even that big a storm, but hit at the worst time and place possible.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SAN Man

The street grid in the Manhattan extension wouldn't work. It looks like there is only one north/south avenue that goes the entire length. That would create the worst traffic bottleneck nightmare in North America.

There's no street grid in Lower Manhattan. There's nothing south of 14th Street, except for the 1930's-era extensions of 6th and 7th Ave., which were horrific public policy decisions and destroyed massive swaths of the West Village.

Lower Manhattan doesn't have heavy traffic, BTW. It has some of the lightest traffic in Manhattan.

The lack of thru-streets would lighten congestion, not increase it. When Fifth Ave. was eliminated through Washington Square, traffic plummeted. When Times Square was mostly pedestrianized, traffic plummeted. When Central Park and Prospect Park largely banned cars, peripheral traffic plummeted.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by C.

Are you trolling or just misinformed. Even the storm surge from Sandy was about 15ft or so.

I should have said over the next few hundred years it could rise that much if co2 emissions keep on chugging along.

[pj3000]

The waters of the Hudson / harbor right in this area of a proposed expanded Manhattan are pretty deep, probably between 20 and 70 feet. This wouldn't be a Battery Park City type job.

So... roughly 2,000 acres in area at an average estimated depth of 40 feet... are we talking like 150 million cubic yards of fill?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by SAN Man

The street grid in the Manhattan extension wouldn't work. It looks like there is only one north/south avenue that goes the entire length. That would create the worst traffic bottleneck nightmare in North America.

In other cities, this would be a likely outcome. But this scenario isn't really how things work in Manhattan.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Cutting three feet from the ocean would require 80,000 cubic miles. It's not really plausible to deal with that.

For reference, that's roughly 15x the total water volume of all 5 great lakes.

It seems beyond impractical to find a way to sequester 15x the amount of water of the great lakes.

Local solutions to local coastal flooding issues will be the order of the day. Sparsely populated coastal areas will be have to be left to their own devices.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by ue

There's nothing particularly radical about this. It's maybe extreme, but it's nothing more than the city has already done: reclaim land. And it allows the current city to continue existing as it already has, with horrendous housing policies that squeeze the poor out of neighbourhoods and turn New York into a giant real estate scheme. And they want to do this in an era of ecological crises, including rising sea levels?

Every single NYC mayor since LaGuardia (yes, even Guiliani) has gone on and on about "affordiability". Maybe 90 years of government "Fixes" isn't enough?

New York already has plenty of land to build on. Instead of kowtowing to the wealthy, by protecting already affluent areas like Park Slope and Greenwich Village from further densification, and only allowing significant new residential construction in middle and lower income areas (notwithstanding the skinny condo towers going up in already skyscraper-heavy areas)

This I actually agree with. All neighborhoods should see development, albeit done in a smart manner. Lawyers be darned.

the city could push back against developers and the market.

With all due respect, I often feel this is more the goal of many "advocates" and thinkers than a genuinely thought out plan for helping the poorest NYers.

New York could bring back strong rent control for most, if not all, new housing.

This would be the end of new rental housing being built in New York. If I can never raise rents then either I'd have to make sure I build something with super high rents in a super desireable area or just build condos. The economics simply don't work for new construction having sub 1k rents in NYC unless it's a mix-income scheme.

It could require any development with some luxury units have >50% low-income housing (not "affordable" housing which is often unaffordable to the poorest).

I'd prefer if there was a solid mix of working class and middle class rather than 50% below poverty. The fact is that study after study shows concentrated poverty magnifies social issues and perpetuates poor outcomes. No development should be more than 20% low income period.

It could create a wealth tax that would be used to fund good quality public housing and co-ops, while the city promotes community land trusts.

You can't have wealth redistribution without wealth. Your aformentioned proposals seem taylored to at least stopping the influx if not driving out the wealthy altogether yet you expect to tax them.

Instead of turning Long Island City over to the wealthy, it could be a significant salve against the housing crisis in New York.

Most of the "wealthy" in LIC are upper income professionals making 100k-200k a year, not private equity titans or tech CEOs. Just like no city ever succeeded being all rich neither does it succeed being all poor.

[SAN Man]

Lower Manhattan works because it has bridges, tunnels, expressways along with arterial roads that connect to the grid of Manhattan. Extending a grid south of lower Manhattan with few connections would not alleviate congestion on the roads, bridges and tunnels of existing Manhattan.

[Qubert]

IMO, Just digging up the ocean floor would be better than flooding any landmass. The amount of untapped materials alone would probably offset the economics of it.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

For reference, that's roughly 15x the total water volume of all 5 great lakes.

I have the solution! Let's start sending rockets loaded with that excess water to space, and go release it over there, beyond Earth's gravitational pull, and there goes away the problem

[SAN Man]

Instead of consuming energy to dig giant trenches on the sea floor or to build canals to flood the northern half of a less desirable continent we could do what other people have done in the past. Migrate. Great migrations are an opportunity for economic expansion and wealth creation. Need a job, go work on relocating utilities and infrastructure to higher ground.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Every single NYC mayor since LaGuardia (yes, even Guiliani) has gone on and on about "affordiability". Maybe 90 years of government "Fixes" isn't enough?

Well under neoliberalism, a lot of progress that had been made (eg. rent control) has been chipped away with regard to housing.

With all due respect, I often feel this is more the goal of many "advocates" and thinkers than a genuinely thought out plan for helping the poorest NYers.

A lot of these ideas come directly from working class New Yorkers themselves. Co-ops and community land trusts are inherently structured around the community living in these areas specifically. The people collectively decide how to manage their housing in their communities, rather than it coming from politicians, developers, and wealthy people.

Many poor people actually eschew neighbourhood improvements because they know that this initial investment by a city inevitably spurs further investment by the real estate class and it begins to gentrify an area.

This would be the end of new rental housing being built in New York. If I can never raise rents then either I'd have to make sure I build something with super high rents in a super desireable area or just build condos. The economics simply don't work for new construction having sub 1k rents in NYC unless it's a mix-income scheme.

This is what already happens in New York. Most housing is built to middle and upper class desires because the real estate market is designed, like any other market in capitalism, to maximize profit. Housing is a human right, and should be decoupled from the profit imperative, not unlike education, healthcare (well, not in the US), fire services, the postal service, etc.

I'd prefer if there was a solid mix of working class and middle class rather than 50% below poverty. The fact is that study after study shows concentrated poverty magnifies social issues and perpetuates poor outcomes. No development should be more than 20% low income period.

Why 20% Why do middle and upper classes get more than 1/3rd of their share in new housing, when they have the least issue finding housing? I agree that there should be mixes of socioeconomic groups, but due to the lack of low-income housing, I would propose, at least initially, to have a disproportionate amount of new housing go to them.

You can't have wealth redistribution without wealth. Your aformentioned proposals seem taylored to at least stopping the influx if not driving out the wealthy altogether yet you expect to tax them.

You can do wealth redistribution as a means through which to move towards removing the exploitative aspects of capitalism. Now, I know, this is SSP, and that is too radical for many to grasp, so that's ok, I won't go further into that.

But even if it doesn't get that radical. Keep in mind before the 1970s, the wealthy paid far more in taxes, and yet, New York was pretty wealthy. It's fucking New York - it's going to continue attracting people regardless of if it imposes a wealth tax or not. So why not just do it? The wealthy will still be wealthy, they'll just have more of the money they make off of the backs of the working and middle classes redistributed, for services that help everyone, like improved transit, public housing (yes, that helps everyone), etc.

Most of the "wealthy" in LIC are upper income professionals making 100k-200k a year, not private equity titans or tech CEOs. Just like no city ever succeeded being all rich neither does it succeed being all poor.

I didn't say LIC was all millionaires.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by ue

Well under neoliberalism, a lot of progress that had been made (eg. rent control) has been chipped away with regard to housing.

Don't get me wrong, housing in NYC is not affordable. Without a plan to help NYC be able to meet it's growing demand, it will eventually render itself uncompetitive in the global marketplace as well as cause further social division. It's not a matter of denying that there is a housing affordability issue, it's a matter of being in sharp disagreement over how to solve it.

A lot of these ideas come directly from working class New Yorkers themselves. Co-ops and community land trusts are inherently structured around the community living in these areas specifically. The people collectively decide how to manage their housing in their communities, rather than it coming from politicians, developers, and wealthy people.

In and of themselves, Co-Ops and CLTs are good ideas and can in fact be great vehicles for increasing community equity. Considering the already high cost of both land and construction in NY, one has to be realistic as to the costs needed to engage in these solutions.

Many poor people actually eschew neighbourhood improvements because they know that this initial investment by a city inevitably spurs further investment by the real estate class and it begins to gentrify an area.

There is a fine line between the very real and very understable fear and anger towards displacement and what frankly amounts to resentment. Displacement is something the city should activley seek to fight but stopping development isn't healthy nor realistic. I'd propose that new development pays into something like a CLT to buy up existing low-income housing to help forstall displacement.

This is what already happens in New York. Most housing is built to middle and upper class desires because the real estate market is designed, like any other market in capitalism, to maximize profit. Housing is a human right, and should be decoupled from the profit imperative, not unlike education, healthcare (well, not in the US), fire services, the postal service, etc.

Why 20% Why do middle and upper classes get more than 1/3rd of their share in new housing, when they have the least issue finding housing? I agree that there should be mixes of socioeconomic groups, but due to the lack of low-income housing, I would propose, at least initially, to have a disproportionate amount of new housing go to them.

My rebuttal to this breaks into several pieces:

1) We need to own up to the fact that places with high concentrations of poverty magnify social alienation, poor educational preformance, poorer health outcomes and yes, crime. Building housing tracts of 40, 50 or more precentage poor is a recipe for creating a ghetto, a concept which itself is a result of America's racial and social antagonism in the first place. We should be focused on trying to right our historical wrongs not repeat them.

2) When the discussion is about NY's poorest, it's worth remembering that for the most part they are more shielded from gentrification than their working class or middle class counterparts. Most of NY's poor households are already shielded by being in various types of social housing. The backbone of a community is it's working and middle classes and that's what NY is losing the most. Yes, we do need low income housing, but I'd agrue it's not the biggest need.

3) NYC's poverty rate has hovered around 20% since the dawn of the millenium. Opening up the spigots to hundereds of thousands of low income units will essentially open the doors to poverty migration. Without the corresponding increase in jobs to help lift these folks *out* of poverty you're setting the city up for an upward fiscal climb.

You can do wealth redistribution as a means through which to move towards removing the exploitative aspects of capitalism. Now, I know, this is SSP, and that is too radical for many to grasp, so that's ok, I won't go further into that.

0 divided by anything is still zero. It's not a radical concept. The Soviet Union fell apart because it simply could not achieve the same levels of productivity as the capitalist world. It's not about loving Gates, Bezos, Musk et al, it's about the fact that you do in fact have to put in something to get something, not just simply demand "free everything".

But even if it doesn't get that radical. Keep in mind before the 1970s, the wealthy paid far more in taxes, and yet, New York was pretty wealthy.

Yes, it was wealthy, but by WWII the winds were changing. It's this inability of local leadership to respond to this as well as be proper stewards of said wealth that eventually lead to the abyss of 1970s NYC.

It's fucking New York - it's going to continue attracting people regardless of if it imposes a wealth tax or not.

It's not so much taxes that drive migration but quality of life. Stifling private development and building NYCHA-in-all-but-name to the heavens will negitivley affect QOL for rich and poor alike. And, to the larger point, NYC does not in fact attract people no matter what. NYC had about the same population in 1995 that it had in 1945.

So why not just do it? The wealthy will still be wealthy, they'll just have more of the money they make off of the backs of the working and middle classes redistributed, for services that help everyone, like improved transit, public housing (yes, that helps everyone), etc.

NYC/NYS has always believed strongly in wealth redistribution. The problem is very little of that goes directly to the poor but instead to building massive bureaucraices that serve as loyal voting blocks and patronage systems that happen to provide social services in the meantime. There is a reason UBI is catching on among left and right alike. Giving the bottom 25% of households in NYC 1k a month would literally be lifechanging and yet would cost a fraction of what we spend on poverty reduction right now.

I didn't say LIC was all millionaires.

If even upper and middle class households are now "the enemy" then basically were looking at a city of just the poor.