Gentrification

[Simfan34]

We need to develop large scale affordable housing areas around express transit nodes for easy access in and out of the city. But I don't see why we need to cut out commerce from those areas, rather we need to throw in large-scale housing in the mix. I keep on saying "large scale" because that's the only way reasonably priced housing could be conceivably be profitable without subsidization nowadays. But there are still large swathes of Manhattan than can be upzoned and built-up.

Also, I'm a small-minded Manhattanite, but more subways are always a good idea. You will probably eat me alive for saying this, but we should have built the Westway- not only would it have freed the West Side from unsightly traffic, but it would have created a lot of new land.

Selfish, Selfish San Francisco

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/

I know a lot people here have taken exception to under-density here, myself included, but I don't know if Sausalito per se is the best place to be doing that. South of Market, though, and other places, more than merit increased density. And it's not even as if this necessitates tall towers everywhere, but just rowhouses would do the trick- I once read that a neighborhood of single-family townhouses could produce a density of 50,000 people/sq mi. We need to move towards a more efficient, graceful, and overall sustainable (in all senses of the word) way of living. And we cannot afford NIMBYs raising hackles at every corner.

The solution is fairly conservative- let the free market (reasonably regulated to protect the character and quality of neighborhoods) take control and meet demand. But a lot of people seem hell-bent on rent control as the answer, despite the fact pretty much every introductory economics class uses it as an example of the distortions of price ceilings- literally, textbook. That and wage increases which are, as the article points out, are not effective.

I support more high rises. I just think in a place like San Francisco there are a lot of places where they'd essentially be killing the patient with the cure. That might be because of the nature of the city. But in a place in Manhattan, there a places all over calling for up-building. And I feel the solution calls for a good heaping dose of conservatism- weakening "community boards", loosening union's strangleholds, rolling back rent regulations, fast-tracking approval procedures, pursuing transit projects with a Moses-esque singleness of purpose and regard (or more properly lack thereof) for "community needs", pursuing neighborhood renewal and "gentrification" with vigour, selling off and redeveloping public housing projects, using eminent domain for private developers liberally, and generally riding roughshod over naysayers.

There are a lot of places that could benefit from this rapid up-building in NYC that I can think of, the Far West Side, southern Harlem, Yorkville, Chelsea, Hunters Point, Astoria just to name a few.

Also, my problem with new development might stem from the fact that modern architecture, the pedestrian sort and not your star-chitect's work, is just awfully banal and bad. I'd have no desire to live in any building like that.

I'm imagining a far larger swathe of town-houses and 4-6 story condo buildings than we have at present, eating up what used to be tracthouses, like so:

[Simfan34]

Meanwhile gentrification wonderfully continues apace in my neighborhood, here replacing a gas station at the northwest corner of Central Park:



http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/11/06/this_is_whats_rising_on_central_parks_northwest_corner.php

[Simfan34]

But there weren't blacks or browns (which apparently now means Hispanics) living there before, no? Then I'm not sure the harpies would call that "gentrification".