The case for making New York and San Francisco much, much bigger

[mrsmartman]

Usually, people compare New York with Los Angeles. The writer is the affirmative action kind of guy.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mrsmartman

Usually, people compare New York with Los Angeles. The writer is the affirmative action kind of guy.

Not really. Los Angeles is massive and not particularly overproductive economically. San Fransisco is crowded and the hub for multiple important industries.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not really. Los Angeles is massive and not particularly overproductive economically. San Fransisco is crowded and the hub for multiple important industries.

I think, culturally, NY and LA are the typical coastal comparisons. They're the yin/yang; the two North American alphas. I don't see a tremendous amount of NYC-SF interplay.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The other boroughs generally have similar challenges. The parts of NYC where huge towers make economic/land use sense, tend to be heavily NIMBY, with tons of landmarked/special districts.

I suppose you could build 50 floor towers in the Rockaways or something, but that wouldn't make much sense, and the locals are sure to t.

This is false, the other boroughs have plenty of space to build more and plenty underdeveloped land that can be upzoned. I don't know how familiar you are with the city, but we have 2 abandoned airports inside city limits, that are nothing but empty fields...

On a more serious note, just in Brooklyn alone the following areas could be easily upzoned:

- F train corridor from Smith 9th street down to Coney Island. That whole stretch of McDonald ave.
- King Highway, from Coney Island ave to Flatbush/Brooklyn College.
- 86th street corridor
- a lot of Sunset Park
- areas near Coney Island (Q train from Coney Island to Brighton Beach corridor)
- Broadway Junction
- Sheapshead Bay/Emmons Ave
- Flatbush Avenue near Prospect Park (Prospect Lefferts Gardens)
etc.

^None of these have anything worth of historical significance when it comes to architecture (aside from a couple of special cases). Most of these can either support 5-6fl or 10-30fl buildings.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gantz

This is false, the other boroughs have plenty of space to build more and plenty underdeveloped land that can be upzoned. I don't know how familiar you are with the city, but we have 2 abandoned airports inside city limits, that are nothing but empty fields...

This isn't true, at all.

I assume you're referring to Flushing Airport and Floyd Bennett Field.

Flushing Airport has been locked in a NIMBY deadlock for 20 years, and will almost certainly end up as parkland. Floyd Bennett Field has been national parkland for decades now. The chances for new housing on either site is 0. Neither site is anywhere near transit anyways.

Originally Posted by Gantz

On a more serious note, just in Brooklyn alone the following areas could be easily upzoned:

- F train corridor from Smith 9th street down to Coney Island. That whole stretch of McDonald ave.
- King Highway, from Coney Island ave to Flatbush/Brooklyn College.
- 86th street corridor
- most of Sunset Park
- areas near Coney Island (Q train from Coney Island to Brighton Beach corridor)
- Broadway Junction
- Sheapshead Bay/Emmons Ave
- Flatbush Avenue near Prospect Park (Prospect Lefferts Gardens)
etc.

Most of these areas are already upzoned, or are landmaked/downzoned.

F train corridor is already seeing heavy development, and is entirely controlled by Orthodox/Hasidic community that will not allow highrises because they can't live in such buildings due to Sabbath.

Kings Highway was recently rezoned and is seeing heavy midrise development.

86th Street is intensely NIMBY and you are highly unlikely to get massive new development until all the Italians and white ethnics have passed.

Sunset Park was already upzoned along major corridors, and is highly NIMBY.

Coney Island is already massively upzoned.

Broadway Junction was just massively upzoned.

Sheepshead Bay has tons of midrise development, and some highrise development, and the locals would go crazy if you wanted to upzone further. They're already getting a 400-foot tower that's driving them bonkers.

Flatbush Ave. near Prospect Park was just downzoned/landmarked and is intensely NIMBY. They went batshit crazy over one highrise.

[Gantz]

I thought we were talking about where can you loosen the zoning, no? The response of "NIMBYs would go crazy" doesn't cut it here. This is exactly whats wrong with NYC and SF. With other areas, when you say "massively upzoned", its basically a really modest rezoning allowing maybe 2fl higher construction. E.G. Kings Highway can easily have 20fl-30fl towers, so is Broadway Junction and others.

BTW, a lot of McDonald ave near F train is not even residential. I know because I live on the line. Here look at this shlock:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mc...!4d-73.9758061

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think, culturally, NY and LA are the typical coastal comparisons. They're the yin/yang; the two North American alphas. I don't see a tremendous amount of NYC-SF interplay.

Agree although things might begin to change. SF is generating a huge amount of wealth. Btw, there are 7 north American alpha cities.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think, culturally, NY and LA are the typical coastal comparisons. They're the yin/yang; the two North American alphas. I don't see a tremendous amount of NYC-SF interplay.

Except when it comes to discussions of real estate.

[mrsmartman]

In the new liberal age, cities should stop their hostility towards video games.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Following the release of the game's first trailer, New York City officials were appalled with the choice of their city as the inspiration for the setting of the game, stating that a game like Grand Theft Auto does not represent the city's crime levels accurately.[39] A spokesperson for Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that Bloomberg "does not support any video game where you earn points for injuring or kill police officers".[40] Although points are not awarded in the game and the murder of police officers is discouraged to the player, the game often suggests to players that police officers must be killed in order to advance in the game's main story without difficulty.[41][42][43] As a response, Jason Della Rocca, executive director of the International Game Developers Association, accused New York City officials of double standards, for criticising video games of using the city, but avoiding the argument in terms of other forms of entertainment, such as books, films and television shows.[44]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro..._Theft_Auto_IV

This only demonstrated the city's backward attitude towards innovative media.

Instead, cities should celebrate for being depicted in video games.

• Video Link

[chris08876]

GTA4 was still the best. Although Watch Dogs 1 in Hong Kong was still awesome and the focuses a lot on detail. I still wish there would be a GTA in Tokyo.

They did a good job depicting SF. A smaller scale, but nevertheless, some key sites in SF are there. Also, nice that they included Salesforce tower.

I think people are just to sensitive nowadays with regards to video games. They fail to relize its a form of entertainment and fantasy, and not one that depicts accuracy. I'd argue that games like GTA 4 or GTA 5 based in LA have only benefited to the cities tourism. Gets more people interested.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Although Watch Dogs 1 in Hong Kong was still awesome and the focuses a lot on detail.

You are confusing Watch Dogs with Sleeping Dogs. Watch Dogs 1 is in Chicago.

[10023]

What do video games have to do with this thread?