HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 8:00 PM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
A case study in how to perpetuate a housing crisis

https://www.6sqft.com/developers-beh...ouncil-member/

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...m-councilwoman

This is something I think we as urbanists need to talk about. I'm tired of hearing about "NYC's housing crisis" when in reality it's a political one.

What I'm seeing is a new class of activist/politican that believes that unless all new housing is specifically 1) Not for profit and 2) Geared towards the lowest income levels then they're not having it. Period. This simply isn't realistic. I don't know what the way forward is for NYC (I have my own ideas, but alas) but something tells me zoning needs to be pulled from the hands of the city council and given over either to the mayor or some other non-political oversight committe or there's no hope.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 8:15 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,605
the last line in the article gives the developers a clear path forward.

Quote:
Developers could still build a small, all-market-rate building without City Council approval.
they should do it as a "fuck you".
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 8:17 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qubert View Post
https://www.6sqft.com/developers-beh...ouncil-member/

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...m-councilwoman

This is something I think we as urbanists need to talk about. I'm tired of hearing about "NYC's housing crisis" when in reality it's a political one.
When it comes to this stuff the political system is self correcting but slow. Eventually their own inaction and inflexibility will be their undoing and more pragmatic politicians will move in when they smell blood in the water.

Unfortunately that might take many years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 9:46 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
The progressives in my city and state have similar ideas, but there's a general consensus that we need a ton of new supply. We've been lucky with some smart leading voices along the way.

State leadership is important to get beyond the local gyrations. The State of Washington requires local jurisdictions to accommodate 20 years of projected growth, and audits their progress, with some carrots and sticks. That's a huge tool for ensuring a willingness to add units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2022, 11:36 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Thankfully Mayor Adams, unlike former Mayor DeBlasio, is pro-development, so hopefully the developers can make a few modifications and push this through.

The Harlem councilperson is basically a nutcase who rejects any new housing. The NYC council should have zero say on any land use decisions. Practically the entire chamber is nuts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 1:10 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
They should have no role at all, beyond setting overall policy. It's weird that they do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2022, 3:56 AM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is offline
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,444
When Minneapolis upzoned the city it was the legalizing of three-plexes citywide that got most of the press but they also allowed building four or six story midrises on all the transit corridors and mixed use midrises on most of the retail zoned parcels outside of downtown. This opened up large swathes of the city to midrise apartments and a large number have been built in the last few years. The result of this is that rents have been stable in the city for the last two years while they are rising almost everywhere else in America. It turns out that the heavier upzoning of the transit and commercial corridors was a much bigger deal that legalizing three-plexes in terms of what got built.

The way forward is obvious - upzone lots of our central cities and inner ring suburbs so that developers can densify our metros at a scale that will meet demand. If you need a variance that has to go through a messy, expensive and time consuming political process to build every new building we will never build our way out of the housing shortage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2022, 3:52 PM
Don't Be That Guy Don't Be That Guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
The Harlem councilperson is basically a nutcase who rejects any new housing. The NYC council should have zero say on any land use decisions. Practically the entire chamber is nuts.
That councilperson may be a nutcase, but her views on development are unfortunately endemic in local governments all over the country. Even Pittsburgh, which was starved for development for 40 years is seeing projects voted down or canceled due to opposition from both NIMBYs and leftist activists in the communities and in the City Planning staff and Commissions. Planners also recently downzoned the transit corridor between Downtown and Oakland, and the more popular riverfront neighborhoods.

The new mayor's transition team is even recommending that inclusionary zoning be required for all projects and it be exclusively for households under 50% area median income. That will effectively kill any housing project not funded by tax credits and non-profits. They have been told repeatedly that they are killing the housing market and making it more expensive, but it's falling on deaf ears. It's maddening.

Last edited by Don't Be That Guy; Jun 3, 2022 at 4:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2022, 3:59 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,497
Yeah, I'm not getting how urban progressives are generally so NIMBY. It's insanity. Let's starve development, build no new housing, and block investments in existing housing, that should keep housing affordable...

At least many younger urban progressives seem to get it. But the general sentiment is militantly anti-development, with these weird caricatures of developers as the worst humans on earth, and the bizarre notion that home prices rise if you build more housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2022, 4:11 PM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,062
Mayor Adams has released his zoning plan for the future. It looks good. Could be better but I can already hear the Nimby squeals so I'll take what I can get.

https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-m...ves-support#/0

I especially like this line
" We are going to turn New York into a ‘City of Yes’ — yes in my backyard, yes on my block, yes in my neighborhood,” Adams said.”

The first citywide text amendment — Zoning for Economic Opportunity — will provide local businesses with the flexibility to repurpose their space for a post-pandemic city. This amendment will:

Remove unnecessary geographic limitations on certain businesses, including life sciences, custom manufacturing, maker-retail, and nightlife;
Eliminate obstacles to repurposing space, allowing the city’s businesses and economy to evolve over time; and
Create flexibility for local businesses to expand without relocation and without triggering needs for additional parking.

The second citywide text amendment — Zoning for Housing Opportunity — will encourage the creation of more housing in neighborhoods across the entire city. This amendment will:

Expand opportunities for affordable and supportive homes for New Yorkers by increasing the floor area ratio for all types of affordable housing, similar to the allowance already afforded to affordable housing for seniors;
.Broaden the acceptable variety of housing types and sizes, including studios, to accommodate a wider range of families and households;
Ease conversions of underutilized commercial buildings into homes; and
Reduce unnecessary parking requirements that add cost and take up space in buildings that could be used for additional homes.

The final citywide text amendment — Zoning for Zero Carbon — represents a critical step towards New York City reaching its carbon reduction goals. This amendment will:

Remove obstacles to deploying new clean energy storage and uses, including electric vehicle charging;
Facilitate building retrofits for sustainability, including allowing more rooftop coverage for solar panels; and
Eliminate barriers to the electrification of building systems such as heat pumps or efficient HVAC systems.

The Adams administration will also continue delivering on its commitment to invest in growing business districts and emerging job hubs across all five boroughs with a planning effort around coming Metro-North train stations in the Bronx. DCP will jumpstart the process in collaboration with the local community and the City Council to create new jobs and affordable homes, identify infrastructure investments, enact land use changes, and strengthen workforce and economic development work to build on this once-in-a-generation opportunity.
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2022, 11:33 PM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Diaspora
Posts: 4,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
The progressives in my city and state have similar ideas, but there's a general consensus that we need a ton of new supply. We've been lucky with some smart leading voices along the way.

State leadership is important to get beyond the local gyrations. The State of Washington requires local jurisdictions to accommodate 20 years of projected growth, and audits their progress, with some carrots and sticks. That's a huge tool for ensuring a willingness to add units.
The GMA has some good mechanics. The cities, once zoning is set, need to be fast tracking permits if a development conforms. The outcome of the GMA is that lots are redeveloped into denser uses - terrific! But that also means that instead of 500 houses being built at once on a 100 acre green field site, you have dozens of smaller subdivisions on 1-5 acre lots. Those don’t benefit from economies of scale and lengthy review periods push costs up. So cities in Washington state should be rubber stamping approvals if all conditions are met up front. Otherwise, yeah building is possible, but inventory still can only come in as a trickle.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2022, 1:27 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
The solution is to build affordable small modular housing units in factories, mass produced, and assemble them on site in multi story hi density stacks. This can be done in a structurally sound way. Probably could stack the units 10 stories or more to a holding structure, which would have an elevator, and heating and cooling that could be sent by ducts to the housing units, as well be a conduit for water and power and waste removal. You just in essense plug the housing module into to the holding structure, and securely bolt it to the holding structure. The government also needs to subsidize low cost housing like this.

Last edited by CaliNative; Jun 5, 2022 at 1:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2022, 4:29 AM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Diaspora
Posts: 4,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
The solution is to build affordable small modular housing units in factories, mass produced, and assemble them on site in multi story hi density stacks. This can be done in a structurally sound way. Probably could stack the units 10 stories or more to a holding structure, which would have an elevator, and heating and cooling that could be sent by ducts to the housing units, as well be a conduit for water and power and waste removal. You just in essense plug the housing module into to the holding structure, and securely bolt it to the holding structure. The government also needs to subsidize low cost housing like this.
Single family houses can be done with modular tech as well. Doesn’t help much if it’s still an 18 month process to get entitlements.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2022, 9:15 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,736
Various modular concepts are being tried in my area. They're all still experimental, with developers trying to make the concepts work. So far the word is more about frustration, with no clear victory...everything from shipping damage to early decision-making to new concepts in financing, permitting, and inspecting.

As for Washington's GMA, it's not trying to make SFRs that easy. As a result only 1/3 of the units permitted in the metro were SFRs last year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2022, 9:17 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,584
The Issues with housing isn't that we have building techniques that need to be changed its virtually all local regulations and zoning laws and some state level issues on lending and approvals that are causing housing crunches.

It does not matter if you modular factory produced housing or hand built brick buildings if the City of San Francisco prevents any dense project form happening in the first place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2022, 1:57 AM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,569
If enough people become homeless due to financial difficulties, we might as well allow areas for tent cities or informal settlements. No amount of large scale projects that will require review and approval from the city council and zoning board will be able to provide enough housing in a timely fashion.

Allow people to develop informal settlements, similar to the favelas in Brazil. These can be tent cities at first, but they can slowly be developed into something more substantial overtime. Could also be a mixture of trailers, RVs, tiny homes, van houses, etc.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2022, 2:51 AM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Diaspora
Posts: 4,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
If enough people become homeless due to financial difficulties, we might as well allow areas for tent cities or informal settlements. No amount of large scale projects that will require review and approval from the city council and zoning board will be able to provide enough housing in a timely fashion.

Allow people to develop informal settlements, similar to the favelas in Brazil. These can be tent cities at first, but they can slowly be developed into something more substantial overtime. Could also be a mixture of trailers, RVs, tiny homes, van houses, etc.
That would be so ironic, but predictable for anyone but your typical economically illiterate progressive. If you restrict the supply of something, it becomes more scarce. If it becomes more scarce, people who want it have to pay more to get it. People who can’t afford to pay more can’t have it. It works the same for food, lumber, oil, etc.

By purporting to value the environment and preserve nature for future generations, they took it upon themselves to impoverish their kids and deny them the stability of knowing that your landlord can’t raise your rent or sell your place out from under you. But I guess that’s the point, if nobody can afford anything, there is less consumption, which helps the environment, and all of the old leftist hippies who bought property before they stopped letting people build more are at the top of the new feudal pyramid.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 10:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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