HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2015, 9:34 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Deviating from affordable housing a bit to luxury.

===============================

Knight Frank: New York’s luxury home market is No. 1 in the world

Quote:
New York’s luxury home market was No. 1 in the world last year, with the biggest gains in high-end property prices.

The value of premium residential property in the Big Apple climbed 18.8 percent between December 2013 and December 2014, compared to the global average price growth of 2 percent, according to Knight Frank’s 2015 Wealth Report, released today.

The report’s Prime International Residential Index (PIRI) marks the change in price of prime residential property in 100 cities and second-home locations. After New York, the other cities with the biggest gains in luxury real estate were Aspen (16%), Bali (15%), Istanbul (15%) and Abu Dhabi (14.7%).

The US dominated the global luxury real estate market, with American cities taking four out of the top 10 PIRI slots — San Francisco (14.3%) was No. 6, and Los Angeles (13%) was No. 10.

Meanwhile, Asia experienced a slowdown in luxury home prices; in 2013, four Asian cities were in the top 10, but just one made it to the list this time — Bali, at No. 3. Jakarta, which previously led the rankings in 2012 and 2013, slid to 12th place this year, an indicator of the luxury market slowdown evident across many Asian markets in 2014.



================================
http://www.knightfrank.com/wealthrep...idential-index
http://news.buzzbuzzhome.com/2015/03...rk-luxury.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2015, 12:52 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Affordable housing and the the decline of manufacturing zones:
= = = = = = = = = = = = =

De Blasio says 'vision' on NY manufacturing is coming

Quote:
Deviating from his prepared remarks at an Association for a Better New York breakfast Thursday, Mr. de Blasio addressed a Crain's editorial and a Crain's Morning Insider item Thursday reporting that a plan for the city's embattled industrial zones would not be part of the speech.

"I know there was a piece in Crain's today about this administration's view about manufacturing," Mr. de Blasio said. "We're going to have a lot more to say about that in the very near future."

Many industrial business owners argue they've waited long enough for City Hall to articulate how it plans to protect them from encroaching housing, hotel and other nonindustrial development. They say the mayor's crusade to build 80,000 units of affordable housing and 120,000 market-rate apartments, combined with a hotel boom and other business ventures in their midst, is driving up rents and land prices in manufacturing zones.

Among their complaints is that city economic-development programs are geared toward helping them expand rather than just remain. But space to expand is nearly impossible to come by, they say, while opportunities to leave are abundant, and those who don't own their buildings risk being booted by their landlords.
Mr. de Blasio promised to address this dilemma in the near term.

"We regard manufacturing as a crucial piece of our economy," he said. "And as adamant as I am about creating and preserving 200,000 units of affordable housing, and as much as I know that will mean some areas that used to be manufacturing, areas that are underutilized or not utilized at all at this point, will be areas for housing, there are other parts of the city that are great manufacturing centers and need to remain so. There are areas where we can expand greatly the manufacturing activities."
He added, "We're going to lay out that vision."

Directing his comments to advocates who have called for City Hall to double down on its commitment to protect industrial zones, the mayor said, "Rest assured, it's a big part of our plan."

Prior to those comments, Mr. de Blasio touched on the type of manufacturing he seemed to prefer: light and high-tech manufacturing, essentially the type that requires less physical space than many current manufacturers need and can in some cases co-exist with housing. He praised 3-D printers and food producers whose businesses were growing in the city.

Elizabeth Lusskin, president of the Long Island City Partnership, said she took solace in the mayor's comments.

"We were greatly encouraged by the Mayor’s remarks today on manufacturing," she said. "LIC has within it the thriving industrial activity that he mentioned, and we very much look forward to hearing his plans to expand this crucial sector."

The City Council, led by Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, is aiming to force the mayor's hand on the topic by issuing legislation soon to "protect industrial space and support growth in the city's traditional manufacturing sectors," as she put it in her State of the City speech last month.

[...]
===================================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...ring-is-coming
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2015, 1:19 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Interesting read:

= = = = = = = = = =

Citywide Rezoning Plan Would Benefit Developers, Hurt Neighborhoods



Quote:
A citywide rezoning proposal quietly released by the de Blasio administration last month has begun the public review process. 'Zoning for Quality and Affordability' sounds like mom and apple pie, as it purports to make new housing less costly and meet higher standards. But a closer examination calls these premises into question. Big real estate, not average New Yorkers, would be the main beneficiary of some of the plan's key provisions, and its cost would be the undoing of neighborhood zoning protections years in the making.

The proposal is quite broad in its scope. But a central element is raising the allowable height of new development in "contextual zoning districts" -- areas where specific height limits and streetwall requirements help ensure that new buildings fit their context. These rules are meant to keep much of the "sore thumb" development we see around the city from cropping up in residential neighborhoods with strongly defined character, from the Lower East Side to Harlem, Crown Heights to Jackson Heights, the Village to Sunset Park.

Many of these height limits took years of effort by local communities to secure, and often involved compromises and trade-offs with the city and real estate interests to attain modest controls.

Now those rules would be upended, with the height caps lifted by as much as 20 to 30 percent, across the board.

As the plan's title implies, the rationale for these proposed changes are improvements in "quality and affordability," but neither seems likely to result from the current plan.

First, in many cases the proposed height limit increases would apply to purely market-rate housing. For example, in one of the more common contextual zoning districts, developers would automatically get to build about 20 percent taller than currently allowed for new luxury development. In the fraction of those districts where developers get more square feet if they reserve 20 percent of the units for affordable housing, there would be an additional 10 percent bump in the allowable height for such construction.

But even the height increase for developments that include 20 percent affordable housing raises serious questions. In existing contextual zoning districts such as the East Village, we have seen affordable housing included in some new developments built with the current, hard fought-for height limits, though not in every one. The City says higher height limits will mean more affordable units built, but the mixed results in places like the East Village don't offer any clear indication that this is so.

Including affordable units is currently optional in these zones, and this plan would not change that. It seems that the optional nature of the program, along with a variety of other factors, have a much bigger impact upon the number of affordable units built, rather than the height limits.

But for argument's sake, let's say raising height limits in contextual zones would increase participation in the 20 percent affordable housing program. Advocates for this approach point to the two areas of the city where significant numbers of affordable units have been produced through this program, West Chelsea/Hudson Yards and Williamsburg/Greenpoint. They have much looser height restrictions on new development and a significant number of their tidal wave of new, luxury developments include 20 percent affordable housing.

At the same time, though, in the ten years since that program has been implemented in those neighborhoods, they have seen a nearly unprecedented rise in rents and housing prices. In other words, in the two cases where this program has been most successful – where we have seen the highest rates of developers choosing to include 20 percent affordable housing in their new developments – we have also seen perhaps the most dramatic overall loss of affordability.

Is this the future we want? And is this not the inevitable result of tying the production of every new affordable apartment to four market-rate, super-luxury ones, which is enshrined in this proposal?

The other rationales for the increased height limits in the plan are equally dubious. The City claims current contextual zoning rules result in flat, boxy buildings; undesirable street-level ground floor apartments; and substandard floor-to-ceiling heights that discourage development. By lifting the overall height of buildings and loosening the contextual zones' streetwall requirements, the City claims more attractive and livable buildings that are cheaper to construct will result.

In fact, while some new buildings in contextual zones are mediocre in design, some are actually quite appealing – it really depends upon the architect and developer. But non-contextual zones, with no height limits or streetwall requirements, routinely see some of the most uninspiring, cringeworthy new designs in the city, poking a big hole in the "less restrictions equals better design" theory.

And as for the notion that current height limits are discouraging development or making for substandard apartments, one need only look at the flood of new construction in contextual zones from Bedford-Stuyvesant to Astoria, Park Slope to the Upper East Side. People are lining up to live there, and developers are making a hefty profit.

But perhaps not as hefty as they would like. Fewer restrictions on height, allowing grander floor-to-ceiling heights and apartments with more commanding views, would fetch developers even higher prices. But it certainly would not make these new apartments more affordable. And neighborhoods would pay the price with less light, air, and sky, and a loss of the character and scale they fought so hard to maintain.

The main beneficiaries of these aspects of the 'Zoning for Quality and Affordability' plan appear to be real estate interests, not those who care about quality design or affordable housing. It's likely no coincidence that these proposed changes are ones that deep-pocketed developers have sought for years. Now, wrapped in claims about quality and affordability, they finally have a chance to get them.

The mayor's 'Zoning for Quality and Affordability' plan is not without good points, and its stated goals are worthy of support. But substantial modifications are needed to protect neighborhood character and benefit average New Yorkers before it can live up to its lofty premise, and before it should be considered for adoption.
==============================
http://gothamgazette.com/index.php/o...-blasio-berman
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 9:59 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
De Blasio's Affordable Housing Plan Comes Under Fire at Hearing

Quote:
A push by Mayor Bill de Blasio to allow developers to build taller buildings across the city as long as they include affordable housing was met with vehement opposition at a public hearing on Wednesday.

Critics blasted the mayor's Zoning for Quality and Affordability initiative — part of de Blasio's 10-year affordable housing plan designed to change regulations so that building new housing is easier and cheaper — during the Department of City Planning's hearing at their lower Manhattan office.

Their main complaint was the lack of transparency the mayor's office has offered to date. The city has not publicized the plan enough in order to push it through without substantial community input, according to the lineup of speakers — ranging from elected officials to everyday citizens, and even a former member of the City Planning Commission.

“If not for the fact of emails flying from Greenwich Village… to civic groups in Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx," said Ed Jaworski, president of the Marine-Madison-Homecrest Civic Association in Brooklyn, "this might have been held before two people.”

The hearing ran for more than three hours, and city officials said anyone who still wants to weigh in can submit written testimony before April 6. The Department of City Planning will then produce the actual text of the proposed amendments, and another public review process will commence, DCP officials said.

Amending the city's zoning regulations will allow the city to create badly-needed senior housing and "encourage better quality buildings that contribute to the fabric of neighborhoods," according to DCP director Robert Dobruskin, who led the hearing.

But organizers who fought to secure neighborhood-specific construction regulations around the city — in places like Greenwich Village, The Rockaways, and Bay Ridge — fumed at the possibility that the city could undo their work.

[...]
============================
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/2015...ire-at-hearing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2015, 3:27 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
City unveils Jamaica revival plan, but some say more needs to be done about foreclosures

PDF with Map and Info: http://www.scribd.com/doc/261966831/...ow-Action-Plan

Quote:
The de Blasio administration unveiled Wednesday a broad economic development plan for a transit-rich Queens neighborhood. But at a hearing just a day earlier, elected officials requested more action to cure a major problem in and around Jamaica—foreclosures.

The city’s 21-point plan for the neighborhood includes developing a large, mixed-use property and unlocking a number of city-owned development sites. In addition, the proposal calls for studying streetscape improvements, a new bus route and programs to spruce up retail as well as train residents for jobs.

"Today, we officially begin building upon these incredible assets to create quality jobs, support businesses, promote economic development and improve livability in the area," said Kyle Kimball, president of the city’s Economic Development Corp., who will be leaving the post this summer.

The idea is to build on the 3,000 units of housing, 500,000 square feet of retail and 800 hotel rooms that are already slated to come online in Jamaica in the next five years.

The plan also included a provision to help residents at risk of losing their homes, but at a City Council hearing Tuesday, elected officials said the city needs to do more to stem the tide of foreclosures that continue to plague the area. Out of roughly 30,000 homes that entered the foreclosure process in the last two years, almost one-third of them were in southeast Queens, which includes Jamaica.

“This crisis is not over,” said City Councilman Donovan Richards, whose district includes a large concentration of foreclosed homes.
===============================
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...eds-to-be-done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2015, 4:28 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
88,000 Applicants and Counting for 55 Units in ‘Poor Door’ Building



Quote:
A glassy new tower in New York City attracted an outcry for featuring one entrance for condominium owners and another for low-income tenants.

But having to walk through a so-called poor door has not deterred those seeking an affordable place to live. As of Monday, the deadline for applying, more than 88,000 people had put their name in for the 55 low-priced units, the developer said.

“I guess people like it,” said Gary Barnett, founder and president of Extell Development Company, the tower’s developer. “It shows that there’s a tremendous demand for high-quality affordable housing in beautiful neighborhoods.”

The separate entrances at the building, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, drew heavy criticism last year from some officials and affordable-housing advocates who saw the configuration as representing unequal treatment. The arrangement puts the affordable apartments in a segment attached to the condo building and is allowed under zoning rules that the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio says it is now working to change.

Despite the controversy, it is not surprising that people are knocking down the poor door to get in. Housing lotteries, which the city uses to distribute subsidized apartments in new buildings, have been drawing record numbers after the system began allowing online applications in 2013 and as the rental market has gotten tighter. The lotteries are expected to multiply after Mr. de Blasio’s pledge to produce 80,000 new affordable units over 10 years. Already this year, 10 lotteries have been held for 698 units that received about 486,000 applications, officials with the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development said.

Mr. Barnett said 88,200 applications had been received by early Monday. Officials with the NYC Housing Partnership, the nonprofit that will screen applicants for the developer, said that applications could reach 90,000 by the time all submissions, including those mailed and postmarked by Monday, are counted.
==============================
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/ny...er=rss&emc=rss
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2015, 5:15 PM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
88,000 Applicants and Counting for 55 Units in ‘Poor Door’ Building




==============================
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/ny...er=rss&emc=rss
Wow, that's ridiculous. That means it's harder to get into one of those 55 units than it is to get into Harvard while being an ultra competitive student.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2015, 8:31 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Its the jackpot especially for NYC living if they get those units. A one bedroom for $ 1000 or two bedroom for less than $1400 a month.

A studio for $800 is every young persons dream, especially in that part of Manhattan. I've seen 2 bedrooms for $800, but that was in the Ghetto in Orange,NJ. They claim luxury living too, but thats bs.

But the odds of getting a unit with all those applicants is .0006 %.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 5:41 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/04/...s-onenyc-plan/

250,000 to 300,000 more affordable units, on top of the 240,000 unveiled in the Affordable Housing Plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 5:52 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Numbers are being revised constantly. Its a good step. The figures for 2015-2025 will be higher. Currently the numbers are as is, but DeBlasio is facing mounting pressure to address the housing issue. So expect the initial figure for the next 10 years to be much higher. His administration is being prudent, but developers don't see it that way. This is tentative in other words but definitely the right step.

With this, comes the next biggest issue, and one that needs to be addressed, is transit. We often boast about how its the best in the nation, but it needs an overhaul especially given the zoning in place for much of this housing is in Western Queens, Western Brooklyn, and the far off areas such as East New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 7:20 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,506
That's probably a big part of the reason for the Utica Ave line proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 7:39 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 8:47 PM
dchan's Avatar
dchan dchan is offline
No grabbing my banana!
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 10021
Posts: 2,821
Rather than fruitlessly trying to preserve the few patches of single room occupancy (SRO) spaces left in the city, should the city legalize building new SROs instead?

http://www.cunylawreview.org/wp-cont.../09/CNY109.pdf

As it is, SROs already exist within the city illegally (think of houses filled with multiple beds per room). The City just turns a blind eye to them because they're needed to house immigrants and other low-wage workers who would be unable to live anywhere else.
__________________
I take the high road because it's the only route on my GPS nowadays. #selfsatisfied
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 10:35 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Its the jackpot especially for NYC living if they get those units. A one bedroom for $ 1000 or two bedroom for less than $1400 a month.

A .0006% of getting an "affordable" unit and those are the prices? Jeez...

Those would be considered pretty normal monthly rates for apartments in just about any other big North American city, if not a little on the expensive side. Hell, even in the outer boroughs.

Now I'm curious though - who sets the prices and manages their operations, the NYC Housing Authority or the building's owners?
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 10:44 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
Usually through tax exemption bonds. Developers often agree to take them as an incentive to lower the prices for such units. Essentially a type of financing, and then the developer makes compromises on the prices. Often with consultation from the City itself and their affordable housing division.

Other things can include abetments regarding taxes, which help the developer in the long run. Depending on the scope of the project, and this can apply for other cities; it can range from state, federal or municipal on who is in charge of the negotiating process regarding discounts.

Its often the developer who manages all of this. But if it deals with a building thats owned by the New York Housing authority, they make the decisions regarding renovations or prices. Affordability tends to go 80/20 with 80 percent market, the rest affordable. This ratio often grants developer perks which lessen their soft costs in the long run. With that said, pricing should generally be about half of the average rent in that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2015, 10:53 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Seems awfully generous to the developers, especially for such an in-demand city like New York. The municipal government would probably be better off forcing (major) developers to build a certain amount of affordable units (which could then be administered by the NYCHA) or otherwise provide an euiqvalent amount of money to the Housing Authority for the privilege of being allowed to build in their city in the first place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 12:13 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,694
They could do that, but IDK if its necessary what a developer would want. CEO's and major decision makers would not approve of that. Even in a in-demand city, developers can back down and they have. But also keep in mind that many large scale developments are going through and have reached their size by allowing affordable units. One of the perks can also be favorability for things like height or even extra units in areas where the current zoning doesn't support "X" amount of height or space.

What I would really like to see is proper management of taxes on the federal level, and instead of wasting it on pork bills, use that money to build quality public housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 3:41 AM
dchan's Avatar
dchan dchan is offline
No grabbing my banana!
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: 10021
Posts: 2,821
The 421a tax abatement program allows developers to build condos or co-op buildings with an exemption from property taxes over a certain number of years. The period of tax abatement depends on the location of the building. Some areas are excluded entirely from the program unless they meet certain requirements (such as setting aside 20% affordable housing).

Certain areas of the city fall under the rent-stabilization guidelines (which is governed by the Department of Housing and Community Renewal; NYCHA has nothing to do with rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments, but rather government-owned public housing). The entire borough of Brooklyn, for example, is theoretically entirely rent stabilized unless the landlords can prove they provided enough capital improvements to an apartment unit to justify making it a free market unit. Of course, rent stabilized in this case means a rent of $2,500 a month or less, and this is still above market rates for much of Brooklyn.

In other parts of the city, certain units are either rent controlled or rent stabilized for whatever given reason. In the case of free market apartments, the landlord holds all of the cards against the tenant because the leases last only one year. If the landlord wants you gone, he simply won't renew your lease. For RC/RS apartments, the opposite is true. My boss recently offered $800,000 to buy out each of the four RS tenants living in a building he wanted to sell around Washington Park, and they all said no. So they stayed, and the new owner bought the building even with the condition that those RS tenants would continue to live there, and can never be kicked out according to the law.

For buildings built under the 421a program, if they can't be sold as condos or co-ops for whatever reason (weak market, etc.), they can be converted into rentals. The caveat is that these rentals will remain as rent stabilized over the entire tax abatement period.
__________________
I take the high road because it's the only route on my GPS nowadays. #selfsatisfied
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 3:46 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Seems awfully generous to the developers, especially for such an in-demand city like New York. The municipal government would probably be better off forcing (major) developers to build a certain amount of affordable units (which could then be administered by the NYCHA) or otherwise provide an euiqvalent amount of money to the Housing Authority for the privilege of being allowed to build in their city in the first place.
So you're making market-rate units that much more expensive....and not just the new units but the entire rental market.

That sort of thinking is a major reason New York is expensive. Congratulations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2015, 12:52 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
I'm getting really sick the massive waiting lists for affordable housing, which essentially is equivalent to winning the lottery if selected. Is the costs worth it for benefiting so few? Most of New York is suffering from the high rent burden. Middle class is ignored in this discussion as the focus is always on subsidized housing and never market rate. My radical idea is to suspend density limits to act as a huge incentive to get developers to build more market rate housing for each year emergency rent control and rent stabilization measures are in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.