How much more can New York City grow?

[BrownTown]

1. In order for NYC to grow it's going to need to figure out some sort of solution to it's insane infrastructure costs. Indeed there's a real threat of NYC shrinking if it can't maintain and replace its aging infrastructure like the Hudson tunnels, let along expanding the system which will be needed for further growth.

2. The current economic expansion isn't going to last forever. Depending on what numbers you look at this could be the longest expansion in history and/or the lowest unemployment in most of our lives. I think we've all gotten a little too used to this and it may be a shock to some here when the next downturn hits and the number of new projects falls off a cliff as happened in 2008. You see a lot of threads here about how great City X or City Y is doing here, but really most every city is doing great these days; if a city is doing poorly it's an outlier. This won't last forever either. A lot of these cities that are hot right now won't be in a few years. No telling which ones really.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by jayden

Amazon bringing 25,000 jobs, Google making another billion dollar investment in the city in a months time.

Hudson Yards with 20 million square feet of office nearing completion, numerous other supertall office towers under construction/being planned. $100 million condos popping up around Central Park.

How much more can the Big Apple grow before it reaches it's cap?

If New York had Hong Kong Island densities, I suppose NYC could theoretically have 50 million people. Maybe more. Of course the infrastructure needed would cost enormous sums, so economics may enter the discussion.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Imaus

I disagree with the idea that Manhattan can't grow. Huge swathes are still three-to-six story townhouses which can be razed down for ten-story apartments. East Village, Chelsea, Hells Kitchen, even Midtown-by-the-Hudson above Hudson Yards.

These aren't "townhouses", they're tenements, but yes, these areas could be massively redeveloped. But they probably won't. They were specifically landmarked, downzoned or special districted to prevent highrise development.

There is zero political will to replace E. Village tenements with towers. There has been some modest upzoning (Ave. D allows 12-floor buildings, for example), but you can forget about 50-floor towers lining Tompkins Square Park.

And I'm not even sure if this is a bad thing. These neighborhoods are already extremely dense and are some of the best urban environments in the Americas. I would rather build giant towers, on, say, the LIC railyards, the railyards south of Greenwood Cemetery, in the North Bronx and the like.

Originally Posted by Imaus

The entire north side of Central Park as well may be the next shot for mid-rises and high-rises: there's even a nice little single story supermarket at 115th that could be replaced with little to no fuss IMO.

This is already happening. There are a number of 15-30 floor towers in development along CP North.

Originally Posted by Imaus

There are *golf courses* in this city that may very well be offered up for the plate by the mid-century.

The few golf courses are on municipal parkland, surrounded by quiet residential, and on the city's fringes. You cannot just take city parkland without state legislative approval. Good luck with that.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

If New York had Hong Kong Island densities, I suppose NYC could theoretically have 50 million people. Maybe more. Of course the infrastructure needed would cost enormous sums, so economics may enter the discussion.

??? A lot of New York is already denser than Hong Kong Island, even outer boroughs, let alone Manhattan.

[chris08876]

Still making noticeable gains. We are not stagnant yet!

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



New York YIMBY’s 2019 Construction Report Shows Impressive 70% Year-Over-Year Surge In Multi-Family Housing Filings

Once again, January has arrived, alongside New York YIMBY’s annual pipeline report. After our mid-2018 update portended a banner year for new construction, the 2019 report has confirmed it, as the total number of multi-family units filed with the Department of Buildings saw a tremendous surge over the past 365 days. 2018 saw 32,580 multi-family units filed with the DOB, beating 2017’s total of 19,180 units by a whopping 70%. The full 2019 report, containing all 2,482 of 2018’s new building filings in spreadsheet format, is available at the following link for $199.

Including single and two-family buildings, 2018’s total number of new units jumps to 34,039, an increase of 67% over 2017’s figure of 20,393. Besides the massive jump in new building applications, the proportional changes by Borough also shifted substantially from the previous year, which had seen The Bronx and Brooklyn hold strong, while Queens, Staten Island, and especially Manhattan were affected by substantial weakness.

This year, The Bronx saw the lowest percentage increase of any Borough in impending new housing stock, which was still a very appreciable gain, with total submitted units rising 46.5%, from 5,086 to 7,449. Queens had the second-smallest increase, with a 51.3% rise in total new units submitted to the DOB, jumping from 5,154 to 7,798. Brooklyn fell in the middle of the pack, with its 65.4% gain translating into 11,864 units, the largest count of any Borough, and a major increase from 2017’s total of 7,174 new units.

While Brooklyn led the pack in 2017 as well, its total new housing last year would have only put it in 2018’s third position, a testament to the strong growth occurring across the board.

Staten Island saw the second-highest relative gain, with 2017’s total of 514 new units leaping into quadruple digits with a 99.6% increase, reaching 1,026. But Manhattan was the year’s true shining star, witnessing a 139.4% jump in submitted units, which soared from a paltry total of 2,465 in 2017 to 5,902 in 2018.

Delving through the numbers reveals additional interesting details. Of Manhattan’s total new inventory submitted last year, 58% of units resulted from only seven filings of projects with 250 or more dwellings. Of those seven buildings, the top three comprise 2,143 units of new housing, or 36% of Manhattan’s yearly total. Two of those projects, at 601 West 29th Street and 555 West 38th Street, are part of the greater resurgence surrounding Hudson Yards, while 375 West 207th Street is located on the northern tip of the island in Inwood, and also benefits from a rezoning.

=======================
NYY

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Imaus

I disagree with the idea that Manhattan can't grow. Huge swathes are still three-to-six story townhouses which can be razed down for ten-story apartments. East Village, Chelsea, Hells Kitchen, even Midtown-by-the-Hudson above Hudson Yards.

To add onto your comment, we can look at the LES for example , with the developments in the pipeline, or if we are looking at a smaller scope, the units planned along with the potential yields with the Inwood Rezoning.

Manhattan is growing, and will continue. Harlem for example is one neighborhood that is growing fast. Its not all skyscrapers either, but mid rises or high rises with plenty of units.

With Inwood, changing the zoning to encourage 10-12 floor structures versus the standard 6-7 floors can add 1000's of units. Replicate across the borough. Zoning changes can act as catalysts for growth. The market is there, but the parameters need to be in place to allow for the units.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Gantz

??? A lot of New York is already denser than Hong Kong Island, even outer boroughs, let alone Manhattan.

Most of Hong Kong Island is wilderness, with scattered pockets of development.

If you just count the developed north side, HKI is much denser than Manhattan on average.

[Kenmore]

sea level rise will eventually push development costs to levels that shut things down as adaption vacuums up remaining capital, probably within the next 50 years

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

sea level rise will eventually push development costs to levels that shut things down as adaption vacuums up remaining capital, probably within the next 50 years

We will have the capital (the u.s) that is, the question is how to distrubute it.

Here is the U.S. Budget.



Look at all of that spending. Look at how much is allocated towards infrastructure or housing.

THE MONEY IS THERE... but the allocation sucks, because its the U.S.. Imagine if we spent 20% on housing/infrastructure. Were we would be in a couple of years?

Its laughable. Look at transportation or science?

We cause our own issues.

The Federal budget needs to be bigger for our cities and our transportation grid. Its a sacrilege.

This country is going down the tubes, and its why the world is looking more towards China. U.S. hegemony needs to be challenged, as competition is good! Might wake us up.

On a side note, most of our U.S. cities lack woefully to the international competition. We have a few great ones, but the rest... holy shit! Europe and Asia are eating us alive... and its all self-induced hardship.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

sea level rise will eventually push development costs to levels that shut things down as adaption vacuums up remaining capital, probably within the next 50 years

Most of NYC is well above sea level. The parts that aren't can be pretty easily (though not cheaply) secured through harbor seawalls.

[JManc]

I don't think we want NY to look like HK where much of the residential areas look like human filing cabinets with banal residential tower clusters.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by chris08876

We will have the capital (the u.s) that is, the question is how to distrubute it.

Here is the U.S. Budget.

Look at all of that spending. Look at how much is allocated towards infrastructure or housing.

THE MONEY IS THERE... but the allocation sucks, because its the U.S.. Imagine if we spent 20% on housing/infrastructure. Were we would be in a couple of years?

Its laughable. Look at transportation or science?

We cause our own issues.

That's a cool chart and all, except that it ISN'T the federal budget, it's the discretionary spending which is only 30% of the budget. It's the other 70% of the budget that are squeezing out everything else (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and interest). The entitlements are the real issue here although obviously the military budget also has a lot of fat that could be trimmed off too.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Gantz

??? A lot of New York is already denser than Hong Kong Island, even outer boroughs, let alone Manhattan.

The densest areas and neigborhoods of Hong Kong Island and parts of Kowloon are far far denser than any parts of NYC, including Manhattan. Probably several times more people per square mile. Maybe someone can post the numbers. The point being that if all the boroughs of NYC had Hong Kong densities (built up areas, not open land) NYC could theoretically have several times the current population of about 9 mil. Of course the infrastructure costs would be enormous, so 10 million may be enough.

While we're at it, did you know that the overall density of the L.A. metro area exceeds the overall density of the NYC metro area? Many inner suburbs in L.A. exceed 10K/sq. mile. Of course, no where in the U.S. can get close to Manhattan density. Some inner urban immigrant neighborhoods in L.A. & S.F. have 50K/square mile (e.g. Koreatown/Westlake in L.A. and Chinatown/Tenderloin in SF). Not quite Manhattan densities, but very high for the U.S. I'll try to find the link to the overall metro area density. Quite sure that L.A. is now #1 in U.S. for metro area density (total pop/total land area for the metro area).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

The densest areas and neigborhoods of Hong Kong Island and parts of Kowloon are far far denser than any parts of NYC, including Manhattan.

Yes, but we're talking tiny geographies. NYC has far larger areas of high density, while HK has many more extreme density enclaves.

Originally Posted by CaliNative

While we're at it, did you know that the overall density of the L.A. metro area exceeds the overall density of the NYC metro area?

This is obviously untrue. LA has much lower weighted density than NY.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't think we want NY to look like HK where much of the residential areas look like human filing cabinets with banal residential tower clusters.

Why not? Then we can post statistics and boast about how dense we are on an Internet forum and then compare it to other non-worthy cities that just cannot get to New York level densities, while blatantly ignoring other historical/geographical factors as to why other cities didn't develop exactly like New York.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, but we're talking tiny geographies. NYC has far larger areas of high density, while HK has many more extreme density enclaves.

Wrong. Hong Kong has two main land uses:
1. Extreme high density
2. Scrub brush (uninhabited)

You might be familiar with weighted density? HK's would be miles above NYC's.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Why not? Then we can post statistics and boast about how dense we are on an Internet forum and then compare it to other non-worthy cities that just cannot get to New York level densities, while blatantly ignoring other historical/geographical factors as to why other cities didn't develop exactly like New York.

True that which is probably why my comment was promptly ignored and followed up with more Comic Book Guy-esque debate....

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by chris08876

We will have the capital (the u.s) that is, the question is how to distrubute it.

Here is the U.S. Budget.



Look at all of that spending. Look at how much is allocated towards infrastructure or housing.

THE MONEY IS THERE... but the allocation sucks, because its the U.S.. Imagine if we spent 20% on housing/infrastructure. Were we would be in a couple of years?

Its laughable. Look at transportation or science?

We cause our own issues.

The Federal budget needs to be bigger for our cities and our transportation grid. Its a sacrilege.

This country is going down the tubes, and its why the world is looking more towards China. U.S. hegemony needs to be challenged, as competition is good! Might wake us up.

On a side note, most of our U.S. cities lack woefully to the international competition. We have a few great ones, but the rest... holy shit! Europe and Asia are eating us alive... and its all self-induced hardship.

You would need to include local, county, and state government spending before thinking the government does nothing.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't think we want NY to look like HK where much of the residential areas look like human filing cabinets with banal residential tower clusters.

It could be done but without making the designs banal. Developers want more units, which if the market is there, means more profit. The zoning does need to change. NY could have many more towers supporting 1000+ units (in one tower). Some neighborhoods support this type of density. The focus needs to be on the boroughs of Queens/Bronx. Much of these units can go there.

The elephant in the room is transit, but transit aside, the units could be added to cater to the demand. Inventory will take 1-2 years to sell based on a lot of the projects coming online this year or in 2018, in the range of $1-4 million/unit.... so the focus where demand is sky high is under one million. Along with rentals under $2000/2500.

While the last 3 years have been generous, we are not adding enough units period.

I think Manhattan can support many more residents if we are talking borough specific. Places near the job centers, like Midtown for example, could support 1000's more. Towers with 1000-2000 units could happen. The FAR limits need to be reduced or removed for certain zoning blocks. Eliminate the set-back requirement too.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, but we're talking tiny geographies. NYC has far larger areas of high density, while HK has many more extreme density enclaves.


This is obviously untrue. LA has much lower weighted density than NY.

"obviusly untrue"? Not

"Los Angeles is the Most Densely Populated Urbam Area in the U.S":

https://la.curbed.com/2012/3/26/1038...rea-in-the-U.S.

Take in up with the Census Bureau if you doubt this. Of course in the U.S. no other city can touch Manhattan island for pop. density and number of skyscrapers, but in overall metro area density L.A. is numero uno. L.A. density is sprawling, with even many suburbs having >10,000/square mile. NYC urban area density is greater in the core but tends to diminish greatly in the outer suburbs.