MDM wrote:
One of the comments posted an interesting link:

40% of the Buildings in NYC couldn't be built today

When the buildings were new, when the Tenement Museum on Orchard Street was new in the 1860s, it probably provided a decent place for immigrants, and the early residents were largely German in this case because most immigrants to New York in the mid-nineteenth century were German and Irish. But by the late nineteenth century, as little maintenance was done on the building as it deteriorated and as more and more people lived in the building, conditions got even worse.

JCGuys wrote:


The comments section is a fun read as it points out the many flaws in the PhD student's analysis.

DanL wrote:
Does Upzoning Boost the Housing Supply and Lower Prices? Maybe Not. - https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/01/z ... nt-gentrification/581677/

Freemark reaches two startling conclusions that should at least temper our enthusiasm about the potential of zoning reform to solve the housing crisis?conclusions that, interestingly enough, he has said he did not set out to find. First, he finds no effect from zoning changes on housing supply?that is, on the construction of newly permitted units over five years. (As he acknowledges, the process of adding supply is arduous and may take longer than five years to register.) Caveats and all, this is an important finding that is very much at odds with the conventional wisdom.

Second, instead of falling prices, as the conventional wisdom predicts, the study finds the opposite. Housing prices rose on the parcels and in projects that were upzoned, notably those where building sizes increased.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

DanL wrote:
in theory, the market works, in practice developers and investors build only luxury or top of the market housing both here and elsewhere without subsidies and government restrictions/requirements.

What is the data you base this claim on the effect of loosened zoning over a whole region? I have not heard of it being done. The effect of redevelopment zones is NOT what we're talking about, but of allowing as of right 4-6 floor midrise density anywhere we currently have R-1.

But even were I to concede you are correct, if enough was built it would have the same effect. Inventory at the top would relieve the downward pressure of gentrification. Jane Jacobs said the tradition ecology of cities was that housing was built for the wealthy and handed down to those less well off as it got tatty, ending up as slums. No one ever built housing for the poor until the era of public housing projects, a dismal failure of the ideas of Le Corbusier and his compatriots.

Zoning and rent control interrupted this "natural" process. There was never enough built postwar to relieve the shortage, and then rent control doomed large numbers of prewar apartment building to destruction because it was not worth maintaining them for the rents allowed. Today it seems illogical that there was a shortage of housing and vacancy rates never fell at a time when apartment buildings were being abandoned, but that is the history. The NYC vacancy rate never rose above the 5% level to stand down from a "rent emergency".

DanL wrote:
in theory, the market works, in practice developers and investors build only luxury or top of the market housing both here and elsewhere without subsidies and government restrictions/requirements.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
How can you have affordable housing when taxpayers paid $909 million to the county, school, and city governments in 2018? The way affordable housing is done is by passing off low income housing taxes onto the general tax paying homeowner who does not have a tax abatement. But that makes housing more expensive for that group of property owners. It is the equivalent of having a restaurant and charging one group a lower price, then inflate the price for another group to cover the group who had the reduced meal. Down the road, someone will pay the tab.

As usual, you find yourself out of your depth, but that doesnt stop you from spewing an uninformed opinion. You are conflating subsidized housing with the concept of "affordable housing". Affordable housing is about ensuring that there is enough supply to meet demand, so that prices are not driven up exuberantly because of competition for what little is available.

Affordable housing is about ensuring that a majority middle class is able to afford to live locally, and the working class is able to reside in relative proximity to where they work. So, instead of having $5,000 rents for a 2+ bedroom apartment, you end up with something lower. If instead of 1,000 units for 2,000 people you had 2,000 units for 2,000 people, competition is lowered and prices would not skyrocket. Encouraging the city to loosen zoning rules and limitations, along with approving development that helps alleviate the situation, is the smart thing to do: it is not subsidized, and it would allow us slow down the frenetic rent increases of recent times.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCBORN wrote:
I think everyone knew the rents were going to go up once the RE taxes went up. Now we have a crisis and we don't know what to do with ourselves.

Incorrect. Taxes did NOT go up in the reval, the load got redistributed to be more fair. Many properties saw taxes go down.

JCBORN wrote:
I think everyone knew the rents were going to go up once the RE taxes went up. Now we have a crisis and we don't know what to do with ourselves.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I would argue it is better to attract MORE residents than businesses, as residents would have an emotional and physical bond to the city, instead of the daytime employees that come here, clog our streets, speed like crazy, and generally have no vested interest in our communities.

But people like Yvonne disagree with that totally, as do places like Silicon Valley cities, who lure vast numbers of well paying jobs that bring in tax dollars, but refuse to allow adequate housing for those workers to be built driving home prices to astronomic levels. Everyone wins except the new workers who have to either spend all their salary on housing or commute 2 hrs each way.

bodhipooh wrote:
I would argue it is better to attract MORE residents than businesses, as residents would have an emotional and physical bond to the city, instead of the daytime employees that come here, clog our streets, speed like crazy, and generally have no vested interest in our communities.

Yvonne wrote:
Vacant land requires few services but people do require services: more police, more fire stations, roads, schools, parks and more public employees to handle services. Then there is the infrastructure for water and sewerage. Actually, in the Mount Laurel decision, there was a cost analysis of what new construction will cost that town. Then the township back in the 1980s had a cost of $35,000 for every new resident. That figure will probably be triple today. For JC, the immediate concerns is education. How do we pay for more schools and teachers with influx of families especially in Bayfront which expects 10,000 more residents. By the way, Bayfront will cost JC homeowners a bond of $170 million and that does not include the interest over the next 20 years.

Yvonne wrote:
How can you have affordable housing when taxpayers paid $909 million to the county, school, and city governments in 2018? The way affordable housing is done is by passing off low income housing taxes onto the general tax paying homeowner who does not have a tax abatement. But that makes housing more expensive for that group of property owners. It is the equivalent of having a restaurant and charging one group a lower price, then inflate the price for another group to cover the group who had the reduced meal. Down the road, someone will pay the tab.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Here's why we have an inventory, and thus affordability, crisis: developers cannot today build what's on the left, only what's on the right. 56 homes, vs perhaps 8. Building "affordable housing" is still rationing it while we keep supply low with zoning to protect incumbent owners and the precious street parking.

Bravo. A perfect illustration of why we have an affordability crisis. Not all that different than the situation in San Francisco, where zoning laws have prevented much needed large scale construction. The height restrictions encased in zoning laws have prevented much needed development. Jersey City will continue to get more exponentially expensive as more people flock here, and as more businesses open up or relocate here, while we continue to limit new construction. Even the much touted 34,000 units approved for construction will not satisfy current population growth trends. Current estimates are that JC has grown almost 10% since 2010. At this rate, we will need another 30,000 units by 2030 and those may not even be enough. It is way overdue that the city and its council take up the current zoning laws and make the necessary changes to enable JC to accommodate its projected growth.

JCBORN wrote:
Maybe the City or State can build a few of those buildings and have affordable housing? Perhaps another "Hudson Gardens"?

brewster wrote:
Here's why we have an inventory, and thus affordability, crisis: developers cannot today build what's on the left, only what's on the right. 56 homes, vs perhaps 8. Building "affordable housing" is still rationing it while we keep supply low with zoning to protect incumbent owners and the precious street parking.

brewster wrote:
Here's why we have an inventory, and thus affordability, crisis: developers cannot today build what's on the left, only what's on the right. 56 homes, vs perhaps 8. Building "affordable housing" is still rationing it while we keep supply low with zoning to protect incumbent owners and the precious street parking.