[bfeynman]

is that really what people want? The fact that people say why not have 50 story concrete blocks everywhere to get more people feels like exact thing that would destroy what makes living in the city nice... Tenement housing sucked, why add thousands of people to crammed parts of city. We should be incentivizing sprawl and better transportation.

[JumpCrisscross]

> is that really what people want?

Yes. I feel like Americans and New Yorkers have been very clear about what they want in housing: more of it, and cheaper.

[bfeynman]

I am a New Yorker, people want more housing but there is still NIMBYism because they want to preserve the charm, and I'm mostly only talking about manhattan. While people are not fans of the low density luxury skyscrapers popping up in places, I've not seen people who currently live in the place think we should add massive housing blocs carte blanche. Sure there few scattered places for a few projects but not like advocating to tear down to build bigger. That mentality comes from people who are definitely not new yorkers or live in fringes.

[javanissen]

> people who currently live in the place

I currently live in Manhattan, have lived here for years, and I support relaxing zoning at least to the point where most Manhattan neighborhoods can ~double their building heights. YIMBYs are everywhere. Not everyone can be fortunate enough to get a stabilized unit (like me) or to have bought decades ago when prices were low.

> add massive housing blocs carte blanche

IMO this is dichotomous thinking that is actually brought on by zoning rules.

It is very difficult and very expensive to get construction approved, so the only projects that make sense to fund are towers full of units, which can attract more rent and therefore higher returns per lot, justifying the risk and expense of permitting.

If you just deleted zoning restrictions carte blanche and made it much easier to build (an automatic "Yes" if you meet basic criteria), then a lot of sagging and old 1-3 story buildings which are everywhere in Manhattan would get naturally replaced with six- to eight-story buildings. This is the natural evolution of a built environment.

The amount of additional housing and commercial space that comes online from this is huge, and there's no need to dot the city itself or even Brooklyn/Queens with commie blocks

[jjav]

Would paving over all of Central Park to fill the area with residential skyscrapers be a good idea?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Would paving over all of Central Park to fill the area with residential skyscrapers be a good idea?

As a moderately wealthy former New Yorker? I say no. If we put it to a referendum? I’d give it even odds. If the referendum were for developing part of Central Park into public housing? I’d guess it would pass.

[bfeynman]

Eh, I would only think if its like at the top of the park where less people/tourists ever visit.

[JumpCrisscross]

> its like at the top of the park where less people/tourists ever visit

Tourists don't vote or show up to community-board meetings. The top of the park is closer to Harlem. That is why it would be easier to bulldoze.

[javanissen]

Relaxing the zoning requirements that unnaturally force huge swaths of the city to be under-built would fix this without sprawling housing into existing greenspace.

[nobodyandproud]

This is the opposite of a steel-man.

[TitaRusell]

Yes nobody wants to live in cities which is why nobody lives there.

Tokio, Singapore, Amsterdam- all ghost towns.

[bfeynman]

You are missing the point. Of course people want to live in one of the most vibrant cities in the world. People also want a vacation home at the beach or in the mountains thats private and beautiful and easy to get to. Except if we built giant monstrosities and condos in the hamptons and make all ski homes tenement housing it will be much less desirable to go to them. No ones asking to make more apartments and housing in rust belt cities.

[mbrumlow]

This. We don’t have a housing problem. We have a “I want to live here problem.” And if we could snap our fingers and everybody in the world who wanted to live in NY could, it would be the same second nobody would want to live in NY.

It just does not scale like people think. And that is why the price has to go up, and that is the forcing factor for max capacity of any given parcel of land.

The fact is we all can’t live in the same city. And people need to do what we did in the past. And that is move to new locations that are cheaper.

Every hot spot today once was a crappy place, it was over time that it became the desirable place. That is just how it works. You got to move and live where you can afford.

Every city has a max amount of occupancy, and density. It’s so silly to even think about this on the individual level. I can find 1BN people who want to live in NY today if told today they could have a place today for $500 a month but 1BN other people are also joining would instantly turn down the offer.