-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
New York landlords take a hit as Democrats reach agreement on significant rent reform
- Thread starter Noctis
- Start date
The idea of relying on developers to solve the housing crisis has always sounded very suspect to me. I see parallels to overpriced pharmaceuticals. Without substantial government oversight to reign them in, companies will stomp on as many throats as needed all in the name of profit.
No, extreme density leads to degradation in quality of life. Either extreme on the spectrum does. And your attitude is unreasonable, unrealistic, and naive in terms of people's diverse preferences in living space requirements.You can't keep getting denser without compromising on certain aspects of your autonomy when approaching the physical density upper limit. This is an objective reality based on scarcity of space and the premium put on it which skews many people away from city living in the first place.
The goal in this particular instance should not be to massively increase population but rather to enable a diverse socioeconomic strata of people to coexist within the city.
Last edited:
The restrictions put in place are built to protect peoples investments, not actually protect people.
If you dont like the density you don't have to move there! Theres plenty of cheap housing in noname, nowhere, USA if you want a lot of land. But the density excuse is normally just a ploy to say "we're full, no poors/nonwhites pls."
Restrictions on density that dont allow for new replacements that meet or exceed the prior buulding make it so your dream will never be a reality because only the wealthy can live there.
The average rent of a 2bedroom apt in tokyo? Around 950 USD.
The idea that nyc has a non diverse population is absurd on its face. It has one of the most diverse populations in the entire country, much of which can continue to live there only due to the rent control programs offered. I'm all for increasing density to a relatively high level. But the dynamics of increasing density indefinitely equate to unreasonably expensive living conditions that are inherently limited.
For example, the average new construction apartment size in Tokyo is nearly 200 sq. ft. smaller than in nyc (which is already modest at 866 sq. ft.):
"The average size for a brand new apartment in 2017 was 63.24 sqm (680 sq.ft), and 60.11 sqm (647 sq.ft) for an existing apartment."
Last edited:
And you can afford it. Or choose not to live there. But you have the choice.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Also, your numbers for the rent on a comparable sq ft apartment in Tokyo are misleading / not accurate:
A 900 sq ft apt in a normal, non-expensive area of Tokyo runs on average $2,116.00 a month.
This isn't rent control. This is closing loopholes to get around the city's rent regulated apartments that it has always had. It's strengthening tenants rights.
Thank god they're ending the vacancy bonus. Maybe next they'll actually implement a tax on vacant units.
Huge swaths of the outer boroughs are one and two-story buildings. There are "taxpayer" storefronts that were supposed to just be temporary buildings from the depression that are still there. Within a four-block radius of my building, there are two full blocks of empty land plots, let alone low-developed area (single story buildings along a major transit artery.)
I don't want to live in Tokyo either, but there's plenty of room for more density without reaching eastern city levels (which we're really not in danger of ever reaching given demographic trends.)
I'm all for making good use of unused/underutilized buildings/plots and converting them into flats. I was speaking more to the fact that in many areas of the city, there isn't even room to build up any more and that any new residential construction will be obscenely expensive or will be in exchange for something the community might rely on like a park, all while primarily serving the needs of the rich and pushing out everyday people who are just hanging on. There is also the question of whether the existing public transit infrastructure can continue to serve a growing population while already being overtaxed as it is. All this stuff should be invested in continuously anyway.
My worry is that liberal cities continually attract affluent outsiders, making them completely unaffordable for normal income people, especially those underserved communities already living there. We've seen this happen over the last 2 decades in almost all coastal cities, where they become obscenely expensive regardless of the amount of new housing built.
They became obscenely expensive because the amount of new housing built was nowhere near what was necessary. This is the simple problem.
Please, New York is nowhere near max density. Not even close.
New York could also do to get rid of the stupid "broker commission." It's the only city in the country that makes renters pay for the privilege of signing a lease. There is no reason you should have to pay a portion of your rent...just to rent. That's what the rent is for.
This is true, but in a place like NYC where you already are zoned in most places for mixed use and land is prohibitively expensive to build on almost every where, how do you incentivize building ay a pace that far exceeds the natural supply growth rate?
as a new yorker who just had to argue down a broker from a 15% to a 12% fee on a fucking one bedroom apartment I agree with this message. Guy literally did no work and got a little over 2 grand for nothing.