The future of New York

Great Debates
1

I come to this forum to learn, which is why I tend to ask stupid questions and spend 99% of the time reading rather than posting. The level of intelligence and knowledge on this board is very impressive, so I rarely feel I have anything to contribute with, being rather ignorant on most issues.

One of the few areas I am somehwat knowledgable of is however city planning and urban development, so I figured I’d try to get a discussion on this topic. At the same time, I am of course very ignorant on the specific nature of this topic in the US, so I am hoping to learn a lot.

Here is the context for the discussion I was hoping for:

New York is one of USA’s most ecologically, economically and socially sustainable cities. Emissions per capita is about a third of the nations average, due to the high density and relatively well functioning infrastructure. It’s one of the economically strongest areas on the planet, gaining huge benefits from the synergies of attracting and putting together the most creative and industrious people in the world. Crime rates are low and although there is ample evidence of social and physical segregation, the city as a whole seems very successful in creating diversity of all shapes and forms.

However, zoning laws and building regulations seem both incredibly complex and very restrictive. Often causing incentives that are extremely counter-productive. Both sub-optimizing land usage and preventing diversity in building functions.

It’s also hindering growth. Over the last decade NYC has only grown by 2.1%, which is quite frankly incredibly low. This growth is from what I understand instead moving south, to cities where construction is not hindered by complex regulation and zoning restreictions.

This means that rather than developing what seems to be one of the most successful urban enviroments on the planet, this growth is overflowing into some of the least sustainable ones. Instead of successful urban enviroments withing a sustainable infrastructure, the growth becomes suburban sprawl.

Considering the vast impact that NYC and the USA has on both the global enviroment and the global economy, this seems like an important issue. What’s going on and what can be done?

2

Is it not possible that it’s grown as large as it can? Further growth would come from either increased densification or annexation of green areas, neither of which is going to make for a nicer city, is it?

3

Or from the acquisition and demolition of existing buildings, a cost which in itself is a disincentive compared to greenfield consruction.

4

I’m not sure how to phrase this elequantly, but if you’re trying to state that everyone in the country is banging on the door trying to get into NYC, but is kept out by local policies, than I don’t think that fact is true. I like my house, backyard, and Jeep. I have absolutely zero desire to live in NYC. If you’re trying to state they should pass a law forcing everyone to live in NYC, than that’s an opinion that I of course respectfully disagree with.

5

Unless I am severely misreading the OP, this seems like an extremely strange interpretation of what he said.

I read the OP as generally asking what the consequences are of strict regulation in existing urban areas leading to growth in cheaper, less regulated areas, when we know that things like suburban sprawl are not sustainable.

I have no particularly useful answer to that question, but certainly it’s something that we can attribute to the United States broadly? In other words, the US generally has a problem with suburban sprawl being cheap in the short term for various reasons (like artificially low gas prices) but ultimately unsustainable, and we’ve generally been very unwilling to cultivate the kind of infrastructure that makes something like New York City possible.

6

It is still growing, just not at the pace it could be. Further growth can generally speaking be through either densification or sprawl, where densification at least to me is the preferred method. The conflict between densification and green areas is not neccessary since there are plenty of “brown” areas to develop. Densification also allows for even higher quality of the green areas, since more people will share the cost of its upkeep.

I have no idea how you got that from my post, but just to be clear: That is not anywhere near anything that I am saying.

I do however think that the “demand” for living in New York is much higher than the “supply”, which is a reason why real estate prices are so high. The challenge is to increase supply without damaging quality, and doing it in a way that increases the social, ecological and economical sustainability of the city.

That’s a succinct way of putting it.

7

In the 70’s and 80’s, New York and many other big American cities were becoming unlivable. Not surprisingly, many of those who could afford to do so chose to stop living their, and instead fled to the suburbs. It looked for a while as if cities were destined to become decaying ghettos.

Starting in the 90’s, New York City under mayor Giuliani began tackling urban problems head. They increased the police force and greatly reduced crime and drug dealing. They dealt with litter, abandoned buildings, and other eyesores and beautified the city. They chased the strip clubs and sex shops away from residential neighborhoods. As a result, people with a choice started flowing back into New York. It was a complete turnaround that became a model for other cities.

However, as you mentioned, the cost of living is still very high, which probably keeps a lot of people away. The public schools are also lousy, which means that anyone who wants a decent education for their children must choose private school, driving costs up further. While I don’t know the details, I’m sure that regulation is part of the problem. Some regulation is necessary to make a city livable, but too much strangles growth, so you’re always walking a fine line. In any city, constructing big, tall buildings is an onerous task involving countless feasibility studies, zoning boards, planning documents, impact statements, and so forth. By contrast, in the 'burbs the process of construction is much more streamlined and things get built faster.

Another thing to note is simple economics. Places like Texas and Oklahoma benefit from having lots of land for houses, but also from having relatively good economies with lots of jobs. New York, as the center of the financial industry, has obviously taken a hit in the past few years.

8

In addition to what ITR Champion says, I’d only add that a great deal of growth has happened recently in the form of gentrification of the outer boroughs and parts of New Jersey. Brooklyn in particular is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from Manhattan as far as real estate prices are concerned.

9

Apparently it will fly through space
Cities in Flight

10

I can think of a few points:

[ol]
[li]There are physical barriers to further expansion that don’t exist for other places. Dallas can expand at will by annexing nice, flat land around it. Manhattan can’t.[/li][li]The area has a very reliable public transportation system, so growth that needs to happen can happen in the suburbs without NYC proper growing as much. The city proper also has an income tax which gives incentive for people to live in the 'burbs instead. [/li][li]The kinds of jobs that happen in NYC are often the kind of jobs that can be telecommuted into, so physically collocating all employees is not as great a concern as it was when the skyscrapers were going up. Economic growth and population growth are somewhat uncoupled for these careers. [/li][/ol]

11

When you say “New York is one of USA’s most ecologically, economically and socially sustainable cities,” I need to ask for your definition of “New York.” Are you refering to New York County (aka Manhattan), the City of New York (the five boroughs), the metropolitan New York area (which spans three states and includes some 15 million people) or something else.

For example, this oil refineryis located in New Jersey, but it’s only about 1.5 miles from Staten Island and about 3.5 miles from lower Manhattan. Do you include that as part of New York?

If you’re only talking about Manhattan, that’s an area of less than 23 square miles, with a population density of more than 69,000 people per square mile. Also, the island has the equivalent of 12.69 square miles of office space – not retail, manufacturing, residential, agricultural or anything else. The only way that can possibly be sustainable is as a part of a much larger ecosystem.

12

Sorry for leaving out all of your excellent reasoning behind that initial comment and jumping straight to the growth rate.

New York City is the financial hub of the USA, and I personally know several ambitious corporate persons who choose to live there or want to live there for precisely that reason.

Beyond that, however, as a periodic city dweller who has lived happily in downtown Philadelphia and downtown Washington DC, I have to admit that I’m totally mystified as to why anyone would want to live in New York City. At least in Manhattan (and I confess I tend to think of NYC as Manhattan and surrounding cities full of people who use up several hours each day commuting into and out of Manhattan) traffic is absurd, the people density is absurd, and the cost of living is absurd. I doubt that any amount of urban planning can solve any of those issues. Frankly, I’m amazed that the city’s growth rate is positive at all.

13

I’m sure that’s true. However I can also assure you there is plenty of “densification” going on, by which I mean that despite whatever disincentives and complications may exist, lots of real estate developers find it worth their while to build large and pricey buildings in locations around the city.

14

One issue is that rent control laws have stifled construction of new residential units and created a shortage of housing in many parts of the city, particularly Manhattan. This in turn has pushed the prices of the non-rent controlled housing sky-high.

15

Rent control doesn’t apply to new units.

16

You’re apparently correct. I retract my previous post.

[What I wrote was based on what I had seen over the years, including a NY Times editorial which was generally very supportive of rent control. But I’m apparently missing some nuance WRT this.]

17

Rent control applies to tenants who have been in the same apartment since 1971, although you hear rumors about people leaving their apartments to family members or playing other games like that. That’s not supposed to happen. There are supposedly 38,000 of these remaining. I’ve seen it claimed that they distort the market a lot and I understand the reasoning, but that’s a small fraction of the apartments in the city. A larger number of apartments are rent stabilized, which requires the monthly rent to be under $2,500 and includes a household income limit. If the apartment is rent-stabilized, the rent can’t increase by more than a certain percentage every year.

18

No offense to the OP, but in one statement you are touting the positives of NYC, and the next lamenting the city’s relatively low growth rate and blaming regulations. Do you think the latter could be causing the former?

Out west, Santa Barbara for years sought excluson from tapping into the CA aqueduct system; a self-imposed limit on their growth. They also had lots of rules on construction, tile rooftops, etc. that were intended to preserve the town’s “character”.

Municipalities choose to do what is best for the future they want. NYC is no exception - lots of rules and regulations that guide the city to the future it’s leaders and residents want to see. Why does a city need to grow endlessly? Can a city mature in it’s own skin and be satisfied with where it is today? Cities without enough boundaries and rules and regulations will end up looking like every other big-box strip mall in the country.

Also, NYC and other desirable cities have the added advantage (as leahcim states) of being naturally constrained on space - that constraint appears to only enhance a city’s desireability (E.g. Vancouver, SF, Hong Kong) no matter what rules and regulations exist.

19

I do think this is probably the biggest issue here. You can build new and taller condos on a few parcels of unused space here and there, but ultimately the entire Northeastern U.S. from Washington to Boston is fully developed and that has to be a major constraint on growth.

20

I grew up in Queens, the outer reaches, and had several summer jobs in Manhattan. Taking public transportation was less painful and not much longer than my current commute within Silicon Valley. Yes people commute by car from further, but there are far better public transportation options in New York than in most cities. (Though Philadelphia is pretty good.) I also used to live in Princeton, and people took the train to NY from there.

Perhaps the slow growth rate is a plus. The only way NY could grow in housing, given the expense of building there, would be to build high cost apartments and push out residents with lower income. I think we’d all agree that this would be a bad thing.

As for why anyone would want to live there, I can understand why the place seems overwhelming. However, access to what New York as to offer is a big plus. Despite the fact that we lived only 50 miles away, when we lived in Princeton we used to go to NY and stay over the weekend in a hotel, since we found that access to the theater and museums by foot was a substantially different experience than commuting in for a show. When I retire we plan to live there for six months to get our fill - we can’t afford to live there permanently. And I’ve lived in the suburbs long enough to know of the downside of living in a city.