The Death of a Once Great City: The fall of NY and the urban crisis of affluence

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

https://harpers.org/archive/2018/07/...entrification/

This is what happens when income gains are maldistributed almost exclusively to the top 1% of the population, New York has seen this before...in the "Robber Baron"era of the late 19th century. The most egregious feature of the current situation though is that in the towering new condos, many of the units while owned sit empty most of the year. They are held for speculation by absentee owners of great wealth. Meanwhile affordable units are torn down, or never built at all. A monumental failure of governance and a thumbing of the nose at the working class. The people that make a city run can no longer afford to live there. The same is true of LA, SF, Seattle, Boston and many other "global" cities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

This is what happens when income gains are maldistributed almost exclusively to the top 1% of the population, New York has seen this before...in the "Robber Baron"era of the late 19th century.

NYC has always been like this. It's inherent in the city's DNA. And the income inequality is higher specifically because the municipal govt. is so intent on redistributive outcomes (because people who otherwise wouldn't be living in NYC are paid to stay).

Originally Posted by CaliNative

The most egregious feature of the current situation though is that in the towering new condos, many of the units while owned sit empty most of the year.

This is one of those urban myths, constantly repeated, that has little basis in reality.

Of course global wealthy are buying these units, but NYC is generally not a place to hold RE as a safe deposit box, like, say, London, or Miami. The holding costs are higher, buildings generally have restrictions on absentee ownership, and there are fewer tax advantages. The people buying these units will be living in these units, at least part-time.

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Meanwhile affordable units are torn down, or never built at all.

This is nonsense. It's illegal to tear down rent regulated units, and the city has inclusionary housing requirements that force developers of luxury housing to pay for affordable housing elsewhere in the city. Basically nothing gets built market rate these days without 30% affordable housing requirements elsewhere.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

One of the interesting things about New York which sets it apart from other U.S. cities is that much of the city - including Upper Manhattan - went straight from farmland to apartments with no intermediate period of moderate density. This is why you can find such large areas of the city which are dominated by large apartment buildings for blocks and blocks - they were working from a blank canvas, and didn't have to worry about buying out historic landowners to build taller.

Yup. The whole West Side, from Columbus Circle to the tip of Manhattan, as well as much of the West Bronx, developed this way. That's why large apartment buildings from the interwar period dominate this whole stretch.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by 10023

Again, I was making the distinction between detached SFH and SFH generally. There are plenty of rowhouses in Manhattan, which are SFH.

Well, yeah, sure, anyone can decide to keep a duplex or triplex for himself, and I'm certain it happens regularly in Manhattan, but in my view that doesn't make those a SFH.

If the world richest man buys all the condos in a strictly residential skyscraper, moves in, and starts keeping all the interior doors open, is that skyscraper now a SFH using your standards?

For the record, I grew up in a duplex that my parents owned and were using as a SFH, in a neighborhood where the zoning was multifamily only (2 to 4 units, IIRC, or maybe 2-6). The City forced us to keep a second address and a second door, and the doors connecting the units (which we always kept open) had to be fire-rated.

We used it as a SFH, but it was a duplex. The backyard was ours only.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, yeah, sure, anyone can decide to keep a duplex or triplex for himself, and I'm certain it happens regularly in Manhattan, but in my view that doesn't make those a SFH.

If the world richest man buys all the condos in a strictly residential skyscraper, moves in, and starts keeping all the interior doors open, is that skyscraper now a SFH using your standards?

For the record, I grew up in a duplex that my parents owned and were using as a SFH, in a neighborhood where the zoning was multifamily only (2 to 4 units, IIRC, or maybe 2-6). The City forced us to keep a second address and a second door, and the doors connecting the units (which we always kept open) had to be fire-rated.

We used it as a SFH, but it was a duplex. The backyard was ours only.

There are plenty of purpose-built rowhomes on more quiet streets in Manhattan though. A study attempted to find all the rowhouses in the city. The result isn't perfect (the average "rowhouse" had two units) but you can see notable clusters in Manhattan - particularly Greenwich Village, the Upper West/East Sides, and Harlem. I'd direct link to the map, but it's ginormous and looks bad here.

[Gantz]

I disagree with pretty much the whole article across the board. A couple of actual facts:

1. NYC is at a historic peak population. "Empty" ultra-luxury condos are a really really small minority of the housing stock. (We are talking about maybe ~0.001%).
2. NYC has far more bars, lounges, concert venues, museums, etc than at any time in history. Places like Williamsburg transformed from run down industrial areas to bustling night life districts.
3. NYC is far more ethnically diverse now than at any point in its history. Per census, the share of immigrants is actually higher now than at any time post WW2.
4. NYC is building a lot of affordable housing, and with this current administration, increasing and expanding a lot more services for the poor. This increases income inequality. People who normally couldn't afford to live here - do. NYC is home to, on paper, the poorest zip codes in the country that are propped up by the local welfare state. These people might as well live on $0 per day, since everything is paid for.
5. The amount of public spaces actually increased, especially under Bloomberg, with him opening more parks and playgrounds (LIC, Brooklyn Bridge Park, etc).

[JManc]

NYC isn't really NYC if you can't get pistol whipped and robbed in front of an OTB.

[10023]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well, yeah, sure, anyone can decide to keep a duplex or triplex for himself, and I'm certain it happens regularly in Manhattan, but in my view that doesn't make those a SFH.

If the world richest man buys all the condos in a strictly residential skyscraper, moves in, and starts keeping all the interior doors open, is that skyscraper now a SFH using your standards?

For the record, I grew up in a duplex that my parents owned and were using as a SFH, in a neighborhood where the zoning was multifamily only (2 to 4 units, IIRC, or maybe 2-6). The City forced us to keep a second address and a second door, and the doors connecting the units (which we always kept open) had to be fire-rated.

We used it as a SFH, but it was a duplex. The backyard was ours only.

I’m not talking about buying all the condos. I’m talking about single-family rowhouses. The West Village, Greenwich Village, East Village, Gramercy and Upper East and West Sides are full of them.