Volume 38 , Issue 2 November Pages Related Information. Close Figure Viewer. Browse All Figures Return to Figure. Previous Figure Next Figure. Email or Customer ID. Forgot password? Old Password. New Password. Password Changed Successfully Your password has been changed.
Returning user. Request Username Can't sign in?
Cause that's definitely great for NYC. To anonymous, -- NYC was being overshadowed by London in recent years but that is sure to change as that city will undoubtedly suffer more of a shock from this crisis than New York.
They're already struggling across the pond and the crisis hasn't formally "hit" them yet. The post reflects a fundamental luck of understanding in economics in general, and in trade-offs in particular. The reason that real estate prices are so high in NYC is that there is a tremendous demand to live here. I, for example, live in a very run-down building for 1,, which is very high for me -- I wouldn't do that anywhere else.
To the extent that Bloomberg has made the city more desirable, I suppose he has raised the cost of living by indirectly increasing demand. But of course demand is only one side of the equation. In those places, someone with a middle class living can easily afford to buy a home. Because supply has kept pace with demand -- and in fact has likely exceeded it, with the housing bubble.
But unlike those locations of course, space in NYC is at a premium. First of all, of course, NYC is already the densest city in the nation. But there is still a lot of room to build up. What also limits supply are zoning laws that are stricter in NYC than many places, in part due to the fact that many of us me included see many parts of NYC as "museum" like and important to preserve. Also of course, because of the density of NYC, we all "rub shoulders" a lot more, and so private development has a bigger impact on all of us.
Unlike much of the country, we won't be racing by a new development at mph, but rather will have to walk by it every day. So the process of approval is complicated and lenghened tremendously, in comparison with much of the country. The result is that building in NYC is much more costly. In part for this reason, we unfortunately get very little new housing for poor, working class, and now even for middle class people. Today, when do you see an ad for a new building that does not have "luxury" tacked on to it?
This frustrates me, but I also understand that this is part of the price that one pays for living in a place that is an icon, a place where aspirants in nearly every field flock to every year. A place like that couldn't be cheap! An unfortunate downside to the decline in crime in NYC in the s is that the city is even that the city is now desirable to people who would have written it off. Holding demand constant, the more condos that are built, the lower that prices will be. In places that many define as "sacred" -- the Village, for example, land use restrictions whether by law or by process are so strict as to prevent a hospital that serves many indigent clients from expanding as it sees fit.
In that sort of environment, prices are bound to skyrocket. The only way out is to let more townhouses be replaced by tall towers. If there were no zoning restrictions, and a very quick approval process, the amount of construction we would expand dramatically, and soak up all that extra demand. Now, I agree with many others in that I want to protect much of the Village as it is; I cherish that neighborhood, and others, as national treasures, even though I will most likely never be able to afford to live there.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg claims to run the city like a business. In Bloomberg's New York, Julian Brash applies methods from anthropology. As of early September , Michael Bloomberg's campaign to be elected New York City's th mayor was in trouble. The billionaire ex–chief executive officer.
However, land use restrictions in other neighboorhoods that are much less picturesque, seem to bringer greater costs than benefits. I know it is always painful for people who have lived in a neighborhood in a long time to see that neighborhood completely change before their eyes, in scale or socioeconomic status. I like the history that has been built up in the neighborhood.
Change is heartwrenching. But I also know that the kinds of rules that prevent dramatic change from occurring -- such as height restrictions, and rent stabilization, also come at a huge cost to newer cohorts of people trying to settle down and find roots in NYC. One can make an argument that someone who has lived in a neighborhood for 30 years has some right to stay, rather than be forced to move due to rising.
But one can also make a persuasive case that young people have a right, or a claim, to more affordable housing than is currently available in the city. The interests of old timers in maintaining stability in prices and scale are in fundamental conflict with the interests iof newcomers seeking affordable housing. My sense is that many people do not recognize, or at least do not pay sufficient attention, to this fundamental trade-off.
Instead, the issue is often perceived in terms of the greedy developers versus the current occupants of the neighborhood. But of course, just about everywhere we live in NYC was built by one of those greedy developers at some point. The benefits of new development do not accrue to developers only. Actually, the more development that is permitted, the less that individual developers will be able to benefit from their projects. In the current climate, in which it is incredibly difficult to build, only the politically-connected, and extremely well-capitalized developers are able to build.
And only luxury housing! If building approval processes were streamlined, more low density areas were opened to midrise construction, and midrise areas were opened up to highrise construction, we would see much more housing for the middle class. We would see prices come down, as the amount of supply was more in line with demand. The city would be less "for the rich" only. But the only way to get there is more development, not less. One argument in opposition is primarily aesthetic. People often say that they would hate to live in Midtown with all the skyscrapers.
But there are several problems here. First, people usually miss things that they had, but when you come into a neighborhood for the first time, you take it as it is. The tall buildings don't look out of place. Many people's ideal might be story buildings, but there is incredible diversity in preferences. And many places in the city with good subway access and an unimpressive built environment -- e.
Williamsburg -- would not suffer aesthetically if they were replaced entirely with story buildings.
Thus began a process of change as this period of political stability and shared economic growth came to an end. Moreover, analyzing this process can enhance our understanding of the sort of neoliberal and entrepreneurial urban governance exemplified by the Bloomberg Way, as it illustrates how ongoing neoliberalization both is propelled by and creates the conditions for the mobilization and formation of various class groupings. As Mark Guthey , points out, skill in negotiation is a fundamental building block of identity for high-level corporate executives. The flip side, of course, is that distributional concerns — for example, the quality of jobs produced and the impacts of public actions on the stability of neighborhoods and fragile networks of small businesses — are of secondary importance at best. However, two intervening events in the months between September 10 and the November 6 general election changed this.
Some might say this is already happening. I suppose -- but at a snail's pace. So in the end, its very tempting, very easy, to want to find individual culprits to blame for problems.
But the explanations for these problems are more subtle and nuanced, and require an understanding of the trade-offs we make. I agree with Jacob. In fact, we are between the two which isn't bad.
Have anyone here attend NYC public school in the late 80's or late 90's? It is much better to live than before. Reverend Billy said something very interesting last at the "Celebrate Union Square: 10 years as a designated historic landmark" Event.
When people argue about how the city was, going back to the 70's or 80's, it's as if nothing has happened between then and now and those are your only two options. Jacob, the Mayor focused so much on real estate and Wall Street sectors to the detriment of our city. This totally could have been played another way.
Instead of giving tax breaks to developers who were building endless luxury housing, he could have NOT done that and also focused on affordable housing. He wants Manhattan to be exactly as it is. He does not get or care about the diversity or the 'little people' -- he didn't admitted to not even bothering to listen to ANY testimony from public hearing over term limits.
I don't even think he can see how bad he is looking right now because he's in a bubble. He is a billionaire from Boston who is used to getting his way - as the term limit issue showed. Everything he's been doing that was a bit shady during his two terms has been hidden - until now. Our whole city, the things that make it great, is falling apart - particularly to our neighborhoods and communities which are all starting to look the same as VNY covers so well.
I agree that Bloomberg should have done more to diversify the city's economy. That said, the Morrisania mixed use district in the Bronx has been successful at mixing industrial retention with new housing development; but this is an area that has had much less development pressure than other areas in the city, and new development in the neighborhood is predominately much needed affordable housing, not high-end condos. There should have been a progressive industrial policy that went hand-in-hand with rezoning industrial land.
We should have been hearing more about what the business models of the future are and not just in the service sector , and how the city can attract them. As we are all witnessing, tourism and finance will not cut it. Rezonings cannot dictate whether or not the condos being built are affordable at least not without mandatory affordable housing requirements, which opens a land use law can of worms , nor can rezonings dictate whether or not the units are rentals or condos, or the retail is a mom-and-pop or a chain. Zoning is a blunt tool. The only zoning mechanism of any real significance is the optional inclusionary housing program, where developers get a floor area bonus for providing affordable housing.
The city could try additional creative approaches to zoning and in many ways is, as with the waterfront zoning , but that is always easier said than done in a city as big and complex as New York.