I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
I've read that part of the problem in cities is that with the office towers there aren't enough housing units in commuting distance to staff the offices. Thats why people in NY and SF are traveling 2 hours to get to work. The office space/living quarters ratio is out of whack. If they're going to restrict the height of housing units they need to restrict the height of office buildings too.
Portland OR is currently going through a massive building boom in a previously industrial area called the Pearl building thousands of residential loft units and its going very well. All the buildings have retail space on the ground floor and the whole neighborhood looks great. Its keeping people downtown. The streets of Portland are full of people all night long.
Yes.
Portland OR is currently going through a massive building boom in a previously industrial area called the Pearl building thousands of residential loft units and its going very well.
Sounds very similar to the Minneaplis warehouse district.
Weeell, I'm not sure I agree. Vancouver used to be a real nice city, till developers started tearing down Queen Anne's and building towers.
Probably makes me an elitist, but the Soviet style worker's housing that can result from what you advocate doesn't do much for me either.
i lived in new york for a few years in the late 90s, and i worked downtown (B'way and Houston). while i was there, SoHo, Alphabet City and the Lower East Side were all becoming increasingly chic places to live for yuppies and hipsters with money.
frankly, the biggest problem affecting low-income people in those neighborhoods was rich developers buying up old decrepit buildings and turning them into luxury condos or townhouses. the people being displaced were typically immigrants working for minimum wage or, just as often, sweatshop wages. quite often, the old residents were intimidated or threatened into leaving, just so that Joe Stockbroker could turn four existing ramshackle units into one single swanky apartment.
i guess my point is that this problem of "no room to grow" is *especially* intense in cities like NY or DC, where there is lots of money floating around and people tend to want to grab as much space as they can.
Just to clarify - "rent control" in NYC is much rarer than "rent stabilzation". I say this as I get ready to write my landlord a check for Jan 04 which increased yet another 4-6% as per std. rent stabilization laws.
I also disagree that tall buildings do not impact on neighborhood character. NYC's East Village, where I reside, is being invaded by NYU developers whose monstrosities continue to eat up swatches of blue sky. Obviously with regard to increasing affordable housing there is reason for some compromise.
yah, i saw some of the stuff in the east village - it is craptacular. But, I don't think it's craptacular purely because of its height - it's craptacular because it's craptacular.
If you replaced the entire east village with 25 story buildings would its character change? sure. But, if you replaced 15% of it with well though out tall buildings it'd be fine.
Hmm... rent control (actually rent stabilization) has been pretty nice for me, though I'm not in the top income tax bracket (or even close to it.)
I moved into my apt. building in Koreatown (Los Angeles) in 1998, and the rent has increased 4% every year, but I'm now paying about 33% less than many of the people in my building in similar apartments who have just moved in.
I guess the moral of the story is that rent stabilization is (can be?) good if you stay in one place for a long time. If you move around a lot, you're fucked.
yasonyacky is correct. I benefitted both in San Francisco and in Los Angeles (Highland Park). I was poor, not sweat-shop poor, but under-$20,000-a-year poor. Rent control/stabilization really helped.
Is a day that goes by that Big Media Matt doesn't make some hideous suggestion? At least he isn't suggesting a new war.
Washington DC is a gorgeous city. More beautiful than Paris. Really. Stunningly beautiful.
That is because we have sunshine, which cities with tall buildings do not have.
If lifting height restrictions gave us low cost housing than housing in nearby Chevy Chase, Maryland and Arlington would be low cost. It ain't.
This is an utterly specious argument. There are soooooooo many better answers to the absence of low cost housing. (like investing in the schools systems of low rent neighborhoods, do a realtor.com search on DC neighborhoods east of Rock Creek Park and you will see what I mean)
There is no right answer. Having nice old buildings is great, and having enough housing is also great. And don't say that builders can build new buildings that are just as nice as the old buildings, because they almost never do, so the fact that they could do so in theory is irrelevant.
My sympathies are with the people who want to preserve the old buildings, since more housing seems like a short terms solution. After a while we will just need more housing again (unless the city becomes depressed and wealthy people move out, which is not a desirable solution at all). But when an old neighborhood is destroyed, it's gone for good.
IIRC I've seen claims that the effect of low taxation on land values (as opposed to property taxes on structures and other improvements) is responsible for much more damage to the NYC housing market than rent control alone.
I wonder what the (neo)Georgists say about building height restrictions. Probably against it, I imagine.
How are these issues addressed in Japan and Hong Kong?
assyrian64 is on the money. Not only is NYC rent control rare (dying out in fact), but landlords have been using "capital improvements" (many of them laughably modest) to effectively reset their stabilization limits upwards.
We can argue the utility of controls, but don't let anyone give you the impression that New Yorkers are undercharged on rent.
Washington, DC a beautiful city? In parts, I suppose, but I always found that the lack of any tall buildings downtown (I think the highest allowed is 15 stories) actually made it seem like it had less 'character'. Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I find the downtown to be quite dull in its uniformity. Though I haven't been to Paris, I have been to quite a few European capitals and it compares unfavorably with them all (with the exception of Warsaw, but they have a pretty good excuse, don't they?) Though I would be the last person to claim any expertise in these matters, I think skyscraper filled Chicago is a far more aesthetically pleasing city than DC is, not to mention a much cheaper place to live.
I think skyscraper filled Chicago is a far more aesthetically pleasing city than DC is, not to mention a much cheaper place to live.
Nick
Don't skyscapers tend to channel wind adversely?
does anybody know if the law/regulation against DC buildings being taller than the Washington Monument is a federal code? is it a district law? where is it writ, as it were?
"Don't skyscapers tend to channel wind adversely?"
Why do you think they call it the windy city? It ain't just the wind blowing off Lake Michigan.
And if lifting height restrictions is so effective, why doens't Chicago have low cost housing along South Michigan Avenue? Right.
If lifting height restrictions lowers the cost of housing why do condominiumns along Arlington County's red line go for over $300,000?
Washington, DC has georgeous downtown structures. They are known as trees.
I live under rent control in SF, and would have long ago been priced out of the city otherwise. To relocate to an apartment with the same dimensions as I have now (fairly small one-bedroom) would easily triple my rent. Yet, thanks largely to Willie Brown, there are literally dozens of new buildings going up - most of them high rise - with tons of live/work spaces available in them. The price for these studio and one- or two-bedroom condos? Start at $300,000 and go up, fast.
Not only are the spaces going begging for occupants, but the big new buildings are negatively impacting the city in terms of obstructed views and sunlight and the creation of even more wind corridors in a city that doesn't need any more.
"does anybody know if the law/regulation against DC buildings being taller than the Washington Monument is a federal code? is it a district law? where is it writ, as it were?
CF"
yes indeed. By law the Capitol Dome is the tallest structure. It rises over the city and can even been seen towering over the city from the Virginia side of the Potomac. Lovely. Why would we sacrifice that to a bunch of vulgarian developers?
And since when was that crowd interested in low cost housing???????
CF - it is writ in the implicit might of the founding phallus.
A federal law. Congress mandates the Capitol be the tallest structure.
Five words: Self-sustaining deep sea colonies.
As a Washingtonian (OK, I live in the suburbs, but close enough, right?), I have to agree with 56k. The low buildings really lend a unique charm to the city, making it feel much more open and less like a souless metropolis. I've been to numerous other cities and none yet have the same feeling as DC does.
And yes, the views are wonderful too. It's not uncommon to catch glimpses of the Washington Monument as you walk through the city, even from afar.
Why not take a tunnel boring machine and move all the office space underground in big cities? That would leave the surface for cheap housing.
Sovay
I guess we just disagree. Having lived there for a number of years, and souless metropolis is pretty close to how I described it when I lived there. And as I recall, you don't see the WM or Capital Dome from most of the city, but I am hardly advocating that they build high rises on capitol hill. Anyhow, I don't see high rises as primarily low income housing, and so no, I didn't expect that housing on Michigan Avenue to be cheap just because there are high rise apartments there, but I do think that they house a good number of well off people who would otherwise be trying to live in other neighborhoods close to the center, so, this has a ripple effect that benefits those who need affordable housing.
Yes, DC does have trees, but so does Chicago, and I think the beauty of Lincoln Park, Grant Park, and Lake Michigan can hold their own against Rock Creek Park and the Potomac River.
All that said, I am still moving back to Washington in a couple of month.
Of course, I meant to say 'couple of months'
Washington DC's rule with the Capitol is sort of an exception; furthermore the idea of allowing really tall structures around the Rotunda raises the idea of the safety of, for example, a book depository a block away from Congress, if you know what I mean.
As for NYC, I went to NYU, and as some posters above noted, NYU's sky-high conglomeration of the Village hasn't affected the price of housing anywhere in the area. A studio within a few blocks of Washington Square still costs the same price as it did five years ago: your left arm and your first-born male child.
I actually went to a New Year's Party at a loft on West 3rd Street; the rent on the place is $6,000 a month. Adding a few more floors isn't going to change that. It's just going to make the view less worth the cost of rent.
Also, you have to take the good with the bad. It pains me to say it as a die-hard liberal who endured the nightmares of the Giuliani reign, but my mother also went to NYU, and when she went you didn't want to take a piss on a streetcorner in Alphabet City. Today people are killing each other for apartments outside Thompkin's Square instead of 30 years ago when they were just killing each other for crack.
I once heard Jerry Brown on a call-in show after his election as mayor of Oakland. He was asked how, in the context of the costs of housing in the rest of the area, how he was going to keep the cost of housing down in Oakland.
He started out with a blunt statement which struck me for its honesty. Something like, "First, we have to realize that Oakland's housing has not sky-rocketed because we have too much crime and our schools are bad."
That's the problem with pure free-market rents - if I live in Oakland, and I vote and act in such a way that my community becomes livable and crime-free, I won't be able to afford to live there any more. Homeowners win when a community improves. Renters lose - they have to move.
Actually, the height of the dome of the Capitol is exceeded by two towers, one is that of the Post Office on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the other is a residential apartment building in Northwest (the building of which was the genesis of the rule).
That said, look at any number of great cities--London, Paris--built before the invention of the elevator. It's density that matters, and the lack of height has prevented a certain specialization in the city. Manhattan would be better if Silverstein would forego rebuilding the World Trade Center--it's too much office space at the expense of residential. Better would be to return the city to the character and organization it had (including Lower Manhattan) in the 1930s.
Homeowners win when a community improves. Renters lose - they have to move.
Renting is inherently a losing proposition in the long term. Anyone who plans to rent for the rest of their life, particularly in an economically active area, is making poor decisions with their money in the first place.
And on that note, let me say a big "screw you" too all of you "concerned homeowners" and "community members" who insist on restricting building heights in ground zero of an urban area while office buildings get put up all over town. That's why renters can't transition to owning someplace-- because those new office buildings cause lots of workers to want housing the move into town, squeezing out all the rest of the residents in the absence of any additional housing. SOme people have to learn that the job of the city council is not to provide a quiet retirement home for long-time residents via zoning laws.
On the topic of "destroying a neighborhood," more neighbor
On the topic of "destroying a neighborhood," more neighborhood, more neighborhoods have been destroyed due to poverty, crime, and general infrastructure decay than do to gentrification. Neither is particularly a nice thing to do to a neighborhood, but look at the neighborhoods that got destroyed over the past 40 years, it had more to do with flight to the suburbs than people moving back into new neighborhoods.
Sorry, I just had to vent for a while. 
Manhattan would be better if Silverstein would forego rebuilding the World Trade Center--it's too much office space at the expense of residential. Better would be to return the city to the character and organization it had (including Lower Manhattan) in the 1930s.
Ain't that the truth. There was nothing quite like visiting the old WTC area at night or on a weekend... the place was virtually a ghost town. I have no idea why cities build these "office park wastelands" instead of mixed-used areas.
Five words: Self-sustaining deep sea colonies.
Anonymous
Just some letters
L5
While highrises may not be the most attractive living quarters, suburban sprawl is creating a lot more problems than highrise apartment buildings. Plus, the sprawl is generally uglier. In areas such as Manhattan where space is at a premium, highrise apartments are probably going to become a more and more common feature. The impact can be mitigated by segregating them apart from lower height areas. And as Atrios said, height becomes much less of an issue when thoughtful planning goes into not only the building appearance but more importantly the street level. The problem in most highrise development is that the planners/designers seem to believe that putting in a door is the ultimate limit of addressing the street.
There's something to be said for not plopping 30-story glass boxes into historic neighborhoods. I live in an urban environment, walk to work in an office tower, but there are few buildings within a few blocks of me that were built after the civil war, and the entire neighborhood was the last stage of the Underground Railroad. Still, I pay less in rent than I would for a closet most other places. My neighborhood is gentrified, affordable, diverse, and historic, and is kept that way by zoning restrictions. In some areas building hamster warrens might be the answer, but we don't need to encourage shoddy construction by slumlords as somehow a "democratic" platform. Build better public transportation and we wouldn't have to claim that living in habitrails is the only politically correct thing to do.
Nobody's mentioned the problem of parking. High-density housing means more cars per acre, too, unless the city makes a commitment to mass transit - which Chicago, for one, hasn't and most likely won't, at least not outside the downtown/Near North corridor where the people who need both affordable housing and mass transit live.
Don't assume allowing more density in NYC would increase the availability of affordable housing. Developers build when there is money to be made. When the costs of development are such that there isnt enough profits in affordable housing to justify the investment risk, no one will build.
Its possible that more density would lead to lower land costs. But land in Manhattan will always be limited enough that it will be expensive.
Plus, the costs of developing in complex cities like NYC, Boston, DC, and San Fransico involves the space required to stage materials, have deliveries made, tight confines of narrow streets, etc etc etc.
Wow, Atrios, I rarely say this, but I have to totally disagree with you on this. I think you've been brainwashed by Nicholas Kristof (who also opposes rent control, because, he says, even the Communist Chinese have abolished it in Beijing. Yeah, that's a great recommendation...).
As was pointed out, very few apartments are rent-controlled any more. Rent stabilization (which restricts the amount landlords can raise rent per year -- until the rent reaches a certain amount, at which point they can charge whatever they want) helps only slightly.
Poor and moderate income people can barely afford to live in NYC any more. Yes, we could build more giant towers, as was done in the '50s and '60s; but those places, even when well-maintained, are ugly. And many of them have been converted to market-rate anyway (Stuyvesant Town)... AND they still have years-long waiting lists.
I live in NYC, and I NEVER see any new housing being built for working and moderate income folks. Little
so simple that it's stupid: eliminate the mortgage interest deduction
Is it possible that at some point, people will stop moving to megopolis? Isn't that the core truth... that there are functional limits to the density at which a metropolis can remain healthy?
I have to say that building up is not the answer, not is limiting height restrictions. The most important thing to do is proper planning and enforcement of those rules. Higher buildings lumped together cause less sunlight to filter through to the streets, thus preventing buildings to use natural light and heat, therefore they require more artificial energy to operate hence more pollution. They also require more parking, larger streets, and more services. They will also create extremely dangerous wind tunnels. So higher is most definetly not always the answer. Having said that, it really won't make a difference in new york. It's not like its an undeveloped city anyway. But rather than height, a correct mixture of zones will generally be better. An interesting idea would probably the decentrification of cities, as it makes little sense to have all your resources for a large metropolitan area on one place (say having three or four major bussiness districts in one city apart from each ot
"...other instead of one) Anyway just a thought."
crap, thought I almost had it under 1000
"Hmm... rent control (actually rent stabilization) has been pretty nice for me, though I'm not in the top income tax bracket (or even close to it.)
I moved into my apt. building in Koreatown (Los Angeles) in 1998, and the rent has increased 4% every year, but I'm now paying about 33% less than many of the people in my building in similar apartments who have just moved in.
I guess the moral of the story is that rent stabilization is (can be?) good if you stay in one place for a long time. If you move around a lot, you're fucked."
Rent control has only been "nice" to you because you haven't experienced the alternatives. Rent control, as has often been demonstrated, often amounts to a government subsidy for the middle class, and occasionally the poor (as landlords will still consider ability to pay the most significant reason for contracting with their tenant). Hence, the middle class and the rich often get rent controlled housing over the poor anyway and are actually
Hence, the middle class and the rich often get rent controlled housing over the poor anyway and are actually subsidized by the government for it. Not to mention, as Atrios said, rent control is VERY expensive for taxpayers when that funding could go to building more residential areas.
The elimination of some zoning laws and the elimination of rent controls is actually far more "progressive" than any government programs in this case.
"It pains me to say it as a die-hard liberal who endured the nightmares of the Giuliani reign"
???
I was under the assumption that even liberals liked Giuliani for the most part. What problems did you have with him exactly?
The important thing is that when you let the developers build way up, you have to require them to set aside some of their residential units for low-to-moderate income folks (say, those who make 50-150% of the area median income), and keep those rents affordable (say, 30% of the tenant's income). Through rezonings, cities give property owners the massive gift of letting them turn their three-story industrial buildings into tall apartment buildings. It's only natural to ask for a little bit back for the community in the form of affordable housing.
It's called inclusionary zoning, and it works in places like DC's MD suburbs, NJ and CA:
http://www.inhousing.org
Best of all, it doesn't just build affordable housing, it also contributes to diverse urban communities. But you have to do along with the rezoning, or with some other kind of bonus, or else it tends to be struck down by the courts as a "taking."
In NYC, the Bloomberg Administration has proposed major "upzonin
(Sorry, went a little overboard.)
In NYC, the Bloomberg Administration has proposed major "upzonings" of previously industrial parts of Manhattan's West Side and the Brooklyn waterfront, among other places. Progressive types - State Assembly Member Dick Gottfried (D-Manhattan) and City Councilmember David Yassky (D-Brooklyn) - have proposed that these rezonings include inclusionary zoning components to require affordable housing:
http://www.thevillager.com/
villa...otheeditor.html (scroll down)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/...0p-
132226c.html
The Administration has been reluctant to say the least. But it's a great cause for NYC progressives to get behind. I'd be happy to give more info if anyone's interested.
Thanks for posting on this, Atrios. Important stuff happens on the local level.
HibernoSemite--thanx for the leads.
Got to disagree with Atrios on this one. Encouraging more high-rise development, as it would likely be implemented by your run of the mill municipality, will be great for the middle to yuppie classes, and not for the poor. I believe the Onion summed up this argument a few weeks ago in the headline to one of its articles.
Got to disagree with Atrios on this one. Encouraging more high-rise development, as it would likely be implemented by your run of the mill municipality, will be great for the middle to yuppie classes, and not for the poor.
The downtown of my area has a several rows of single-story storefronts whose hypothetical upper levels could be used for much-needed apartments and office space. Heck, even the buildings behind them are multi-story, and they're flanked by multi-story buildings. Who does the single-story McDonalds help in my neighborhood? Noone.
Sorry Hiberno, but Yassky's plan will not work. There are three basic problems.
First, the areas to be rezoned are former industrial areas, and lack infrastructure that us city dewelers take for granted: sewer lines, water, steam, and even electric capacity. They are also are mostly filled in land from the Hudson and East Rivers, and thus require expensive foundation work.
Second, even Yassky admits the only way to build affordable housing in NYC is with subsides, yet there is only enough funding in the programs he points to (tax credits, tax exempt bonds, etc) to fund a small selection of rezoned sites each year.
Finally, Bloomberg’s plan to increase density through increased building heights actually adds to the cost of construction, since the most efficient method of construction (concrete plank) can not be used past 16 stories. The right way to do this would be to liberalize the existing Inclusionary program’s rules.
But hey, at least Bloomberg and Yassky are try
"rent control is VERY expensive for taxpayers when that funding could go to building more residential areas."
Except that there are not very many places left to build more residential areas in Los Angeles. Sure, maybe there's room for development in the Valley; I don't think that it's wise for L.A. to add more fuel to the sprawl fire.
As for the government subsidy to the middle-class and sometimes the poor, I think that's pretty much the point. Without rent stabilization, living in Los Angeles proper becomes impossible for anyone in the middle or lower tax brackets (just try to look for an affordable apartment in the neighborhoods around downtown L.A. that aren't rent-stabilized - good luck!)
If living in L.A. becomes impossible for the middle class, the city center dies another significant death. (There are several circles of hell in L.A. - downtown is working its way up from one of the deepest pits now.)
I'm certainly not arguing that rent stabilization
(Continued from above)
But hey, at least Bloomberg and Yassky are trying. Its much more than Dinkins or Guiliani did.
The real answer isn’t creating affordable housing in cities – its not cost efficient to spend so much money to develop so few affordable units. The real answer is to improve infrastructure (meaning mass transit) so that you can get to city jobs from the far suburbs (where its cheap to develop) in a reasonable time.
There is no guaranteed right to living in the part of a city that you want to live in, and supply and demand control real estate costs.
Just have to say that it is painfully obvious that Big Media Matt does not read the business pages. Every Monday the WPost business section runs a series of charts that show vacancy rates. Wash DC invairably has the lowest vacancy rates. and the outer suburbs, away from mass transit, have the highest vacancy rates. always. no exceptions.
mebbe before Big Media Matt or anyone else begin to rant about this, they might take a casual glance at the business pages.
I was under the assumption that even liberals liked Giuliani for the most part. What problems did you have with him exactly?
You have to be kidding? But for 9-11, the whole tenure of Guiliani was a bust-up for the city of New York.
I think skyscraper filled Chicago is a far more aesthetically pleasing city than DC is, not to mention a much cheaper place to live.
And Nick, you probably don't know much about Chicago -- I see, you're leaving town in a couple of months -- but in the time you have left, have a walk around the north side of Chicago and see what the lack of zoning laws as far as height is concerned, can do to a formerly tranquil neighborhood.
Happy.
"There is no guaranteed right to living in the part of a city that you want to live in, and supply and demand control real estate costs."
Sure. Except at some point a city can price itself out of workers if it's not careful. If all the areas become high-rent (as is happening in Los Angeles - even in the rent-stabilized neighborhoods - despite the relatively high unemployment numbers we're seeing), then workers move further and further from the city center until they can't afford to come to work. At that point, they move somewhere else. I'm pretty sure that's why cities like Los Angeles put "subsidies for the middle-class" like rent control or rent stabilization in place in the first place.
Matty-
First, the areas to be rezoned are former industrial areas, and lack infrastructure
Are you saying that this makes the cost of construction so high that no one will develop if they have to set aside a few affordable units? I doubt it. The rezonings will increase property values by 500%; that should be plenty of incentive to build even if there are high construction costs and less-than-market-rate-returns on some of their units. Besides, the costs of a lot of those infrastructure upgrades will be borne by the city, not private developers.
Second, even Yassky admits the only way to build affordable housing in NYC is with subsides
No, you misread. He said that the only way to create affordable housing is through government intervention, and that in the past that intervention has taken the form of subsidies. But he points to inclusionary zoning is a new way for the government to act. The dramatically increased property values should be subsidy
(continued)
enough.
Finally, Bloomberg’s plan to increase density through increased building heights actually adds to the cost of construction
I'm not sure what you're referring to here - something in the "New Housing Marketplace" plan, or just the rezoning plans in general? In any case, in hot areas, developers build much taller than 16 stories wherever zoning permits them to. So at some point the econonomics of scale take over.
I do agree that we should liberalize the rules of the City's current IZ program. But the biggest change would be to make it mandatory in rezoned areas instead of just voluntary.
Ultimately, I can't accept your vision of a society where the rich live one place, and the poor live 45 minutes away but get to take nice trains into work each day. Just doesn't seem like much of a future.
Actually, yason's answer is better than mine. Successful inclusionary zoning efforts have usually had the support of a community's major employers and unions, who wanted to keep the workforce nearby.
Happy,
No, as I said, I hardly claim to be an expert on these things but I do live on the north side of Chicago and walk around it quite frequently. Perhaps you could mention the neighborhoods that you are referring to, as you should know 'the north side' is a rather large area.
Frankly, if we all just followed the Poles example in Nowa Huta outside Krakow, we would all have nice, affordable housing.
Hiberno, I actually perfer Yason's answer also! I just dont see how it can happen. "Downtown" land is always limited, so not everyone can live there.
Just to clarify about building hieghts, under NYC's sysmic code, you can't use plank construction over 16 stories. The other forms of construction, steel frame or poured-in-place concrete, are more expensive. This is fine if you can get the rents to offset this cost, but it doesnt work with affordable housing.
And I didn't misread about Yassky's plan. At davidyassky.com he has a whole spreadsheet showing the subsides that developers can use to build affordable housing. The problem is that they are all limited in funding and/or bond caps.
Don't get me wrong, I really do believe in creating affordable housing. Its just not that easy to do, and no one has a workable solution for cities. For better or worse, developers only develop where they can make money, and there is very little profit in affordable housing. No o
(continued)
No one invests to make a 5% return on their investment in affordable housing when they can make 4% in 10 year T-bills risk free.
This includes the rezoned areas. Speculators hear about rezoning proposals way before the public, and some of these sites have traded hands (or the options to purchase have traded hands) a few times now, to the point where the rezoning has already been built into the land values.
I think I may have an unusual perspective on this. My grandfather built most of the art-deco buildings in DC. Besides the buildings on the mall, they are in my opinion what makes DC architecturally brilliant. Yes, I think skyscrapers would screw up why it remains a beautiful capital.
Rent control? Well, here in Cambridge we got rid of it. I am not poor, but, I have been priced out of what there is. I was not living in a rent control building, but the resulting market made things impossible.
So, it looks like I'll be moving back to DC. To which any skyscraper will be built over my cold dead body. (not being pro cold dead body so much as anti skyscapers).
I understand why someone might not decide to build a 30-story building just for affordable housing. But if a developer wanted to build a 30-story building, and the only way he could it would be to set aside 15% of his units as affordable, wouldn't he do it?
And I didn't misread about Yassky's plan.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, while advocates like to say that "there are lots of programs developers could use" to meet a affordability requirement, that doesn't mean all of those programs actually will apply.
Speculators hear about rezoning proposals way before the public, and some of these sites have traded hands
Well, no dice on that. That's why it's called "speculation." If you buy something based on the hope that the City will make a land use change that it actually hasn't decided to make, you're taking a risk. The City Council could conceivably vote down the whole proposal and then you'd be nowhere.
What do you think of IZ programs in Mon
Montgomery County, MD, California and New Jersey?
Would someone build a 30 story building if they had to include addorable units? It it depends on the financials. If you can build afforable units and still make a decent returm on the investment, you will build. But if the costs to develop the afforable units brings the returns on the whole project below investment grade feasibilty, no one will build. Dont forget, its not just the developers looking at the bottom line - its also the banks who finance these projects.
I'm not familiar with the other IZ plans. But for IZ to work, there must be a carrot (extra tax abatements or a BIG zoning bump). The Yassky plan is all stick.
Also, not to sound so pessimistic, NYC has some great affordable programs. For example, the 80-20 program works in pricey areas of Manhattan (20% low income units in exchange for tax abatements, tax credits, and low cost financing), the current IE program also works in these areas (a good carrot - 4X extra bulk in certain districts if you include affordable units) and the New HOP program outside of 96th street (subsidy plus low cost financing).
But these at best create maybe 1,000 affordable units per year, which hardily makes a dent in the demand.
80/20 is fine but targets only the lowest incomes. We need something for moderate-income. And the current IZ program is only for areas already zoned for FAR 10, and only goes up to FAR 12.
The rezoning is the carrot. Once the City has given a BIG rezoning bump by rezoning a huge area for massive new development, it doesn't have much else to give away. (We already gave them most of the taxes back through 80/20.)
In Montgomery County, MD, the program is mandatory but comes with a 22% density bonus. That is to say, they "upzoned" the entire county to permit more development, and added an affordability requirement. It's worked remarkably well by all accounts. How is this any different?
Here in Toronto, the only thing that's stabilized (not lowered) rents is a high vacancy rate, as more renters become home/condo owners. We have a nice mix of charming old, mid-sized & tall buildings. However, this doesn't lead to truly affordable housing for the lower to middle class. Rent is 50% of my monthly net income. I'm centrally located on the subway line, so I did choose to pay a bit more, but rents are just too high. And they're not really any better in the suburbs, so why subject yourself to the long commute and higher crime rate?
Rent Control and Rent Stabilization laws have been a disaster for NYC.
They were originally put in during second World War as TEMPORARY housing law to ease housing shortage since noone was building new apartments.
In a normal American city you have about 60-70% of people owning their homes and 30-40% are renters.. in this kind of market you have about 10% vacancy rate.
In NYC you have about 35% owning their own homes and 65% renting .. The rental market is stuck at 2% vacancy rate.
This is because rent regulations created a generation of middle and upper middle class residence who instead of moving onto to buying a home or apartment .. they were subsidized by the city ... to stay in their apartments. and since it was impossible to get tenants out of apartments this gave rise to coops which had their own problems in the late 80s
So in NYC-- You have a very tight market which is great for landlords.. and every law that is made is encouraging more rental stock ignoring home o
Wow. Half a zillion posts about NYC rents, and each and every one of them pretending that NYC consists only of the island of Manhattan. Sheesh.
NYC has a number of problems with regard to rents and housing, but "no room to grow" (per CF, above) is not and has never been one of them. We're not San Francisco, bounded in by mountains on the east and undevelopable land (Marin, the South Bay) on the north and south. Between the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Yonkers, there's an astounding amount of residential space available here at all possible price points, with 24/7 public transit running to all of it. Anyone who complains about Manhattan rents and yet won't contemplate moving to -- horror -- Jackson Heights or Windsor Terrace or Ft. Green or Long Island City is, point blank, an idiot, and gets zero sympathy from me.
You're wrong about rent control and since it will take a while, I'll go into it in my blog.
But let me tell you, building up is not an issue in most of New York City.
I've lived in Arlington, VA for the last decade and while I don't see myself sticking around much longer -- it's simply changed too much -- the region clearly needs higher-density housing nearer the main areas of employment. The commuter traffic is outrageous, and it's not for lack of roads or lane-space; I used to joke that they should just evacuate the region for a weekend and pave the whole damn place just to get it over with. I once dated someone who lived 50 miles south in Fredericksburg: if I left at 5 am it took an hour; if I left at 6 am it took two hours.
I've already spent at least a couple years mourning the loss of the fun areas around the Clarendon and Courthouse Metro stops, but the neighborhoods have changed both architecturally and socially. I would love to see low-rent space kept available for restaurants and quirky shops, but it's only the long-time residents of Arlington that seem to mind their loss. The reality seems to be that the high-rise developer woul
[continued]
The reality seems to be that the high-rise developer would prefer to rent to the Macaroni Grill, and the high-rise dweller would prefer to eat ther.
DC should keep it's height restrictions; it's beautiful the way it is. I'll miss the old Arlington, but it's long gone. Besides, I'll find a new place to live; hopefully a place where the folks is folks and the developers is nervous. 
We can argue the utility of controls, but don't let anyone give you the impression that New Yorkers are undercharged on rent.
Some New Yorkers are undercharged on rent. Some New Yorkers are overcharged on rent. Relatively few New Yorkers are paying what the apartment really is worth.
That, in essence, is the problem with rent control (and with California's Proposition 13, which did the same thing for property taxes that New York's control/stabilization did for rents). IMHO, it makes no sense whatsover for Joe Smith in 2D to be paying $350/month while Joan Jones in 3D, with the same exact apartment layout, is paying $3500/month.
How did this come about in NYC? Well, in order to get elected, the politicians need the money from landlords and developers to pay for their campaigns, while at the same time they need the votes of the renters. So, when rent increases are needed due to increases in costs, the politicians try to avoid socking it to the current renters--today's
So, when rent increases are needed due to increases in costs, the politicians try to avoid socking it to the current renters--today's voters--and instead stick it to the renter moving in next year or ten years from now. The end result is that newer tenants are, in effect, subsidizing long-time tenants.
BTW, I too remember reading a very shrill anti-rent control piece by a New York Times columnist. His name is Paul Krugman.
Amsterdam is mostly a low-rise city (few buildings are taller than 5 stories), yet I doubt many people would accuse it of a lack of character.
Many of the same issues are present here; the only thing Amsterdam does differently is to intersperse low-cost subsidized housing with "free-market" housing. So rich and poor live side-by-side, whether they like it or not.
I worked in affordable housing development in NYC for over 10 years, back during the Koch/Dinkins era when over $1 billion in City funds was spent on affordable housing. Matty NYC's analysis is generally correct. No one is ever going to build low and moderate income housing in NYC without significant subsidies. We were giving the land away for free in NYC and still had to put in a boatload of government funds to get significant production. That is the only way the numbers work.
In terms of rent stab/control, it is a mess. But outside of the desirable areas,it didn't (and I'm sure still doesn't) necessarily affect actual rents that much. There were cases where you'd have a rent stab allowable in Bed-Stuy, say, of over $1000/month (because of vacancy allowance increases), but that was way above-market. The landlords couldn't even get enough rent to pay their operating and maintenance costs. The big problem was an affordability gap and how to finance needed rehab and improvements
A zillion posts ignoring a 40-year Federal policy of building freeways and screwing the inner-cities. And the equally un-noticed corollary- 40 years of control of state legislatures by roadbuilders and land developers.
Why not start by admitting that Manhattan and Wash DC are special cases that are as relevant to urban planning as the space station Mir is to the average studio apartment.
And- forgive me for asking- in which century was a rent in Manhattan "affordable", and what does it matter if the tiny core of Washington D.C. has a height restriction? The role of public transit in revitalizing neighborhoods in Portland Oregon probably offers a more fertile field of study.
18/9/2012 T.V. Flash on all Dial-A-Program Services
This is an announcement from Genetic Control:
"It is my sad duty to inform you of a four foot restriction on humanoid height."
Extract from coversation of Joe Ordinary in Local Puborama
"I hear the directors of Genetic Control have been buying all the properties that have recently been sold, taking risks oh so bold. It's said now that people will be shorter in height, they can fit twice as many in the same building site.
(they say it's alright)
"This is because rent regulations created a generation of middle and upper middle class residence who instead of moving onto to buying a home or apartment .. they were subsidized by the city... to stay in their apartments."
Hmm. There is another way to look at it though, and this has actually been my experience (though not in NYC):
People stay in their apartments in lieu of moving to another apartment, not in lieu of moving on to buy an apartment/condo/home. In fact, I (and many of my friends in rent-stabilized Los Angeles are staying in our apartments so we can afford to save enough money to put down on a house/condo/whatever. Ownership is still the goal. There is none of the "panic" described in the Cato Institute's policy paper on rent control/stabilization. Just cold, hard number-crunching.
Well, it is kind of cool that you can see the Washington Monument from practically anywhere around the city (and even across the river in Arlington, VA).
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
