The conservative case for denser cities

[Simfan34]

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.

Hey, I'm with you there.  I'm a white guy who lives in a historically black neighborhood, I'm at the forefront of gentrification.  I hate those self-righteous liberals who want to treat half of NYC like some type of Indian reservation for poor black people.  These notions of "gentrification=bad" would just look like sour grapes and old, bitter people griping about younger people if the issue didn't trigger the leftist "Spidey-sense" for anything that can be analogized to colonialism/racism/whites taking from browns.

It makes me so mad. These people are basically calling for the maintenance of racially segregated ghettos. How this is supposed to improve their lot, I don't know, but I mean, it's just baffling how these people think.

https://www.facebook.com/coalitionagainstgentrification

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright. 

This. Thank you. I don't know why people seem to think housing projects belong right next to Lincoln Center or in the middle of Chelsea. Like I always say, it's not like I have a right to live on the Upper East Side.

A couple of my relatives live in an upscale neighborhood in Manhattan, in city subsidized housing.  Two people, 4 bedroom apartment, less than $600 a month in rent.  That sort of thing needs to end, it's totally unfair.

EDIT: I didn't know bedstuy said "more affordable part of the country". I'd have said more affordable part of the region/city.

[Storebought]

What bedstuy is arguing is exactly the same as what urban "developers" in the 1940s and 50s argued in concentrating poor blacks in inner city areas in the first place. The market desirability of the suburbs had to be maintained only by keeping them out of them.

[bedstuy]

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright.  

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

I think NYC obviously needs to have poor people for their labor so it's silly to consider the idea that they're all going to leave.  The question is whether our planning needs to freeze the current wealth patterns in place today.  In reality, poor people are going to move to the Bronx, Queens, New Jersey and deep Brooklyn.  Harlem near Columbia and Central Park is just valuable for its location and will eventually become mostly middle class young people and rich people.

Pushing poor people out to the suburbs (or places like eastern Queens that might as well be suburbs), out beyond the effective reach of public transit, is not actually a satisfactory outcome.  In fact, insofar as it provides a breeding ground for hinterland-populist "environmentalism = elitist" thought, it is pretty much the worst outcome possible in some lights.

The case for radically denser cities is precisely that you accommodate reinvestment and gentrification, and the very real benefits they do provide to the planet and to the city's solvency and quality-of-life, without doing that.

It's interesting.  NYC was once a more affordable place to live in terms of housing, likely because of the higher density.  Today, we have much bigger apartments and more single people in the city, and thus less density.  If we had the density and transit investment of that era, we would return to sanity in our housing prices most likely.

And, I agree that we ought to have plenty of low income housing in transit distance.  That would include improving transit to the places where the land values are currently lower, but within an easy commute to Manhattan.  Improving transit from the Bronx, Queens and New Jersey would help a ton.  It should be waaay easier to commute from Union City and Jersey City.  

I would also look at trying to develop more of a spread out business core.  There's no reason we need to have so much office space crowded in Fidi and Midtown.  There ought to be much more advertising and media in Williamsburg and Downtown Brooklyn.  There ought to be more office development in LIC.

What bedstuy is arguing is exactly the same as what urban "developers" in the 1940s and 50s argued in concentrating poor blacks in inner city areas in the first place. The market desirability of the suburbs had to be maintained only by keeping them out of them.

That's ridiculous. 

[traininthedistance]

What we really need is the Utica Ave. subway.

Just for starters.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

I think everyone besides striped bass thinks we should have buried the Westside highway. 

[CountryClassSF]

There is way too much NIMBYism in the San Francisco Bay Area. We just had two ballot measures in the city  to basically restrict waterfront development.

All this prog "concern" about modernization in SF contributes to an even higher cost of living.

[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.

I think everyone besides striped bass thinks we should have buried the Westside highway. 

I mean, wouldn't this have been great:

[bedstuy]

The only reason that didn't get built:  The EIS didn't take into account the impact on bass in the Hudson River.  It would have been fine if they said, "This project will kill all the bass, but it's worth it given the air quality improvement."

[Storebought]

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright.  

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

I think NYC obviously needs to have poor people for their labor so it's silly to consider the idea that they're all going to leave.  The question is whether our planning needs to freeze the current wealth patterns in place today.  In reality, poor people are going to move to the Bronx, Queens, New Jersey and deep Brooklyn.  Harlem near Columbia and Central Park is just valuable for its location and will eventually become mostly middle class young people and rich people.

Pushing poor people out to the suburbs (or places like eastern Queens that might as well be suburbs), out beyond the effective reach of public transit, is not actually a satisfactory outcome.  In fact, insofar as it provides a breeding ground for hinterland-populist "environmentalism = elitist" thought, it is pretty much the worst outcome possible in some lights.

The case for radically denser cities is precisely that you accommodate reinvestment and gentrification, and the very real benefits they do provide to the planet and to the city's solvency and quality-of-life, without doing that.

It's interesting.  NYC was once a more affordable place to live in terms of housing, likely because of the higher density.  Today, we have much bigger apartments and more single people in the city, and thus less density.  If we had the density and transit investment of that era, we would return to sanity in our housing prices most likely.

And, I agree that we ought to have plenty of low income housing in transit distance.  That would include improving transit to the places where the land values are currently lower, but within an easy commute to Manhattan.  Improving transit from the Bronx, Queens and New Jersey would help a ton.  It should be waaay easier to commute from Union City and Jersey City.  

I would also look at trying to develop more of a spread out business core.  There's no reason we need to have so much office space crowded in Fidi and Midtown.  There ought to be much more advertising and media in Williamsburg and Downtown Brooklyn.  There ought to be more office development in LIC.

What bedstuy is arguing is exactly the same as what urban "developers" in the 1940s and 50s argued in concentrating poor blacks in inner city areas in the first place. The market desirability of the suburbs had to be maintained only by keeping them out of them.

That's ridiculous. 

You're the one who has argued in this thread that poor people in NYC should just move out, and then when pressed to acknowledge that poor people (people engaged in low wage service work that can't be relocated for any reason) live in NYC because they have to, gave some standard argument on the needs for more transportation opportunities to the Bronx or the poor NYC suburbs such as they exist -- which will never happen, and you know it won't. It makes me question why you even made the suggestion.

[Хahar 🤔]

"Manhattanization" would "destroy" SF, lol.  

(I do agree re: greater urgency in upzoning the Peninsula and having metro-wide governance.  But let's be real, SF needs it too, and hyperbolic, ignorant, self-centered BS about "OH NOES AN EIGHT-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON MARKET STREET WILL RUIN THIS CITY FOREVER AND TURN US INTO TIMES SQUARE" sure ain't actually helping anyone.)

I'm aware that that's an argument that people make, but at no point have I said that. Height restrictions throughout much of the city are absurd. But the article quoted in the original post specifically called for "massive high-rises housing thousands of people," which suggests something quite different than the building mentioned in your strawman.

[bedstuy]

Let me explain myself, I think NYC has a certain class of poor people who are entirely stuck in poverty.  They have housing through NYCHA, Section 8 or Mitchell Lama HPD subsidized programs, and can barely make ends meet that way.  But, they live in communities where poverty is so endemic that they'll never get jobs making much more than minimum wage because they can't get more than a high school education.  Of course, they theoretically could get a government or union job, but those are often based on nepotism or connections.  So, for that class of people, I think New York City is not the best place to live.  They're so far away from the next step on the ladder, where they're paying their own rent, that they're locked in a condition of poverty.  If you lived in a city where you could pay for an apartment and food, getting ahead would be easier. 

[traininthedistance]

"Manhattanization" would "destroy" SF, lol.  

(I do agree re: greater urgency in upzoning the Peninsula and having metro-wide governance.  But let's be real, SF needs it too, and hyperbolic, ignorant, self-centered BS about "OH NOES AN EIGHT-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON MARKET STREET WILL RUIN THIS CITY FOREVER AND TURN US INTO TIMES SQUARE" sure ain't actually helping anyone.)

I'm aware that that's an argument that people make, but at no point have I said that. Height restrictions throughout much of the city are absurd. But the article quoted in the original post specifically called for "massive high-rises housing thousands of people," which suggests something quite different than the building mentioned in your strawman.

It's not a strawman, it's an actual (and honestly kind of timid BTW) proposal that was shouted down by the NIMBYs:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/11/san_francisco_zoning_needs_more_density_and_tall_buildings.html

Mea culpa it was actually Mission St., not Market- but it was still right the f**k of top of BART, which is to say exactly where people should be building taller.

Also, obviously we are not going to be building massive high-rises everywhere in the city or anything like that- but, c'mon, having a few of them in places like SoMa (in addition to loosening height restrictions in general) would, in fact, help relieve the insane levels of pressure the city's real estate market is under, and in no way would "destroy" the city (which, as commonly expressed, is more of a weird romantic chauvinism than anything else anyway IMHO).

Also also, the whole premise of "Manhattanization" is stupid because, among other things, it ignores that most of even Manhattan is six-story apartment buildings, not high-rise condos anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Simfan34]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

[traininthedistance]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

Why shouldn't it happen there, at least for some people?  It's unhealthy for places to be a monoculture of everyone having the same appearance, jobs, tax bracket, etc.- it stunts understanding and empathy.

[bedstuy]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

Why shouldn't it happen there, at least for some people?  It's unhealthy for places to be a monoculture of everyone having the same appearance, jobs, tax bracket, etc.- it stunts understanding and empathy.

I agree with that in principle, but the fact is that those neighborhoods are some of the fanciest in the United States.  They're too far gone in terms of getting a good mix of incomes.  It's also just a cost issue.  It could be a matter of getting 3X or 4X the number of units per $X if you build in places like Bushwick or Crown Heights. 

[Storebought]

Let me explain myself, I think NYC has a certain class of poor people who are entirely stuck in poverty.  They have housing through NYCHA, Section 8 or Mitchell Lama HPD subsidized programs, and can barely make ends meet that way.  But, they live in communities where poverty is so endemic that they'll never get jobs making much more than minimum wage because they can't get more than a high school education.  Of course, they theoretically could get a government or union job, but those are often based on nepotism or connections.  So, for that class of people, I think New York City is not the best place to live.  They're so far away from the next step on the ladder, where they're paying their own rent, that they're locked in a condition of poverty.  If you lived in a city where you could pay for an apartment and food, getting ahead would be easier. 

The issue is that what you are arguing is not entirely based on economic concerns. The Chinatowns in both NYC and SF are very poor, and located in prime locations, yet no one would dream of relocating them to the Bronx or Oakland, or building some development on top of it, or complain that it blocks their view of Lincoln Center, in spite of their overcrowding and poverty (and organized crime). That is true even for other impoverished first-generation immigrant communities in neighborhoods that aren't as colorful.

[Simfan34]

Of course not. What is your point?

[bedstuy]

Let me explain myself, I think NYC has a certain class of poor people who are entirely stuck in poverty.  They have housing through NYCHA, Section 8 or Mitchell Lama HPD subsidized programs, and can barely make ends meet that way.  But, they live in communities where poverty is so endemic that they'll never get jobs making much more than minimum wage because they can't get more than a high school education.  Of course, they theoretically could get a government or union job, but those are often based on nepotism or connections.  So, for that class of people, I think New York City is not the best place to live.  They're so far away from the next step on the ladder, where they're paying their own rent, that they're locked in a condition of poverty.  If you lived in a city where you could pay for an apartment and food, getting ahead would be easier. 

The issue is that what you are arguing is not entirely based on economic concerns. The Chinatowns in both NYC and SF are very poor, and located in prime locations, yet no one would dream of relocating them to the Bronx or Oakland, or building some development on top of it, or complain that it blocks their view of Lincoln Center, in spite of their overcrowding and poverty (and organized crime). That is true even for other impoverished first-generation immigrant communities in neighborhoods that aren't as colorful.

Chinatown in NYC is being gentrified, actually.  And, I never said, only black people.  I said, the class of people who are living on public housing assistance to live in NYC and have problems of endemic poverty.  That's not really a huge issue in Chinatown.

There's also the same pattern where people are moving from Chinatown to Flushing, Queens and Bensonhurst/Sunset Park, Brooklyn.

[traininthedistance]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

Why shouldn't it happen there, at least for some people?  It's unhealthy for places to be a monoculture of everyone having the same appearance, jobs, tax bracket, etc.- it stunts understanding and empathy.

I agree with that in principle, but the fact is that those neighborhoods are some of the fanciest in the United States.  They're too far gone in terms of getting a good mix of incomes.  It's also just a cost issue.  It could be a matter of getting 3X or 4X the number of units per $X if you build in places like Bushwick or Crown Heights.  

I think the social costs of that monoculture are sufficiently severe that we should be doing things like having affordable housing set-asides, Mitchell-Lama, vouchers, etc. even in tony neighborhoods like Chelsea and the UES.  Even if all you can afford to make is a token effort at inclusiveness, and I do agree that the bulk of working-class housing is going to have to end up elsewhere... a token effort is better than nothing.  

And, just an aside, as crazy as it sounds many parts of the UES are relatively affordable by Manhattan standards, actually, especially closer to the river, and are relatively affordable because they are built so densely.  I mean, folks are fleeing the East Village to go live in affordable faraway Yorktown, is what's happening.

As for Chinatown, that's a complicated story.  There is gentrification there, but there's also been plenty of expansion of the Chinese population there as well over the past few decades (as it has now well and truly swallowed up every last remnant of what used to be Little Italy).  And from my perspective I'd also say that Chinatown is somewhat unique in that it's already super-dense, and it's super-dense even by NYC standards.  It's not like you're reinvesting into an area that's been hollowed-out, or building six stories where there were one-to-three- you're already at that six-story standard, with pretty cramped quarters besides.  

[bedstuy]

We need to smash the cycle of poverty, but charlatans who are professional race-baiters (e.g. Al Sharpton) aren't going to be helping in that regard, now are they? That's another issue entirely, but there's no reason for that uplifting- if and when it happens- to happen on the Upper East Side or right behind Lincoln Center.

Why shouldn't it happen there, at least for some people?  It's unhealthy for places to be a monoculture of everyone having the same appearance, jobs, tax bracket, etc.- it stunts understanding and empathy.

I agree with that in principle, but the fact is that those neighborhoods are some of the fanciest in the United States.  They're too far gone in terms of getting a good mix of incomes.  It's also just a cost issue.  It could be a matter of getting 3X or 4X the number of units per $X if you build in places like Bushwick or Crown Heights.  

I think the social costs of that monoculture are sufficiently severe that we should be doing things like having affordable housing set-asides, Mitchell-Lama, vouchers, etc. even in tony neighborhoods like Chelsea and the UES.  Even if all you can afford to make is a token effort at inclusiveness, and I do agree that the bulk of working-class housing is going to have to end up elsewhere... a token effort is better than nothing.  

And, just an aside, as crazy as it sounds many parts of the UES are relatively affordable by Manhattan standards, actually, especially closer to the river, and are relatively affordable because they are built so densely.  I mean, folks are fleeing the East Village to go live in affordable faraway Yorktown, is what's happening.

As for Chinatown, that's a complicated story.  There is gentrification there, but there's also been plenty of expansion of the Chinese population there as well over the past few decades (as it has now well and truly swallowed up every last remnant of what used to be Little Italy).  And from my perspective I'd also say that Chinatown is somewhat unique in that it's already super-dense, and it's super-dense even by NYC standards.  It's not like you're reinvesting into an area that's been hollowed-out, or building six stories where there were one-to-three- you're already at that six-story standard, with pretty cramped quarters besides.  

Yeah, the UES is relatively affordable for a basic apartment, it just has some serious volume at the upper end.

Chinatown is a special case.  Everyone there just violates the housing codes and live in close quarters. But, that's more affordable if you live in big family units.  Hasids and Asians are just culturally geared towards that sort of lifestyle.  Black people aren't going to have these multi-generational big families living in one apartment.  It's much more often single people or a mother or grandmother with children, so housing is automatically more expensive.

[Simfan34]

What are the "social costs of that monoculture" you speak of? But yes, Little Italy has been pressed by Chinatown, the East Village and the Bowery.

[Storebought]

I agree with the demolition of project housing that only warehouses people and concentrates crime and ameliorating urban abandonment and squalor.

I support "densification" in general, making better (more environmentally conscious), more efficient use of urban space, and in Manhattan's case, 26 sq mi does only go so far. But the effort should be directed to the sunbelt cities that could actually use it to not consume as many resources as they do. I mean especially places like Phoenix and Houston, which serve core economic needs, but with a terrible cost to the environment.

As far as NYC is concerned, in the case of Manhattan, this "densification" just seems like so much lily-gilding. It's like rich people suddenly rediscovered the virtue of living next to one's office, and are now using any and every pretext to destroy even intact neighborhoods just to save themselves the convenience of having to fly in from Long Island three times a week. Handing over large tracts to be used as a single rich property owner's investment property, or, much worse, to some occasionally-used showplace, actually lowers the density of the place and increases consumption -- is counterproductive in every way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

[Non Swing Voter]

This issue comes up a lot in the DC area.  People say the character would be the same if the buildings were 20-30 stories rather than 10-12.  People also say there is too much historic preservation of crappy buildings that could at least be turned into 10-12 story buildings.  However, there are a lot of issues that come with increasing density... pollution, noise, street parking.  It's a huge undertaking.  It seems like the better thing is to just build more large nearby cities that compete with the inner city.  This is essentially what is happening in NOVA where there are lots of mini-cities within 40 minutes of DC.