We’ve had a lot of posts about the the 125th Street Rezoning Plan. Below is a link to the plan’s official website, so you can see what has everyone talking.
Department of City Planning’s 125th Street Rezoning Plan
Advertisement
A Link To City Planning’s 125th Street Rezoning Plan
Posted on December 4, 2007 by loveisdope
Anonymous
December 6, 2007
>How is someone living in an apartment based on income taking away from you?
_
To serve your argument you skipped right over the key step. The topic is developers required to earmark 20% of their newly built inventory in a building for low income (at below market prices) that is what is proposed in this plan.
First of all that’s a dis-incentive for a developer and LOFT124, in the zone, would not have been able to been built under that requirement. Also when developers have this requirement, they have an incentive to build poor quality, cut corners and cost. You see this in Harlem at places like the Renaissance Bldg on 116th with cracks in the doorway corridor of every front door going to the ceiling, fixtures are off, it’s simply shotty work. I work in this business, I see it every day. The building ultimately pays the price and is short changed in quality when a developer has a gun to its head (forced to set aside 20% of their inventory at below market). If you want fine finishngs? Like Loft124 and many of the new developments in Harlem? You cannot implement a mechanism to motivate the developer to cut corners (since he’s being artificially squeezed).
Also, someone buying into a condo next to mine at below market marginalizes the value of my condo (if I paid market rate). It’s realized later when the “low income person” sells and is competing against me if I too am selling. Their entry point was so artificially reduced, they can sell later down the and compete with my condo in the same building but sell at a lot lower price per square foot. Why? They bought in at a lot lower price per square foot.
Everybody knows “lottery winners” to buy in below market?….it’s great, they “flip” all the time as soon as they can by contract. Isn’t it cute how those allowed to buy in below market, and fight for that right, have no problem selling their apartment later “at market”! How is that? Stay focused here: (1) They demand the right to buy in below market, and (2) The right to sell later at market.
They want it both ways. Where is that same argument they demanded when they were buying? Should they not be forced to sell below market at the same % rate to market as they benefited from in buying in? To some low income person?
Nope, their greedy capitalist at that point and all their arguments of “pro low income set aside” goes right out the window. Isn’t that convenient?
>Is someone who saves money and then buys a condo or coop at a reduced rate hurting you?
Yes and I explained how above: 1) Incentive to the developer to cut corners and do shoddy work, something seen all over Harlem in this new coop inventory with low income slots and lotteries to gain entry. 2) Ability to sell down the line at a lower price and marginalize the value of my unit that cost me market rate at the time. They can afford to lower their price to the ground and still profit, as they paid a fraction of what I did.
You have the “Entitlement Mentality” coupled with “Immunity of Fiscal Responsibility”. There are places I cannot afford to live. Guess what, I don’t.
Getting priced out of a neighborhood is a very standard matter for people all over the U.S.A., and exceptionally common for New York City. No one is entitled to live in Manhattan, why is that shocking? Why is the notion of having to relocate to a more affordable area a reality people should be immunized from contending with? People seriously speak as if the concept of relocating = torture, when in truth it’s just reality for all of us, no more, no less .
anonymous
December 6, 2007
How is someone living in an apartment based on income taking away from you? Is someone who saves money and then buys a condo or coop at a reduced rate hurting you? You’re not paying for it, the landlords are getting tax breaks (sometimes even buying buildings for only a dollar), and neighborhoods are maintained in such a way that there is a mix of people, not just the very wealthy and the very poor. What is wrong with you people? Why judge everyone with such stupid stereotypes? Not all poor people are free-loaders, and not all people who live in Affordable Housing units are at the poverty level-they just can’t afford 1 million dollar apartments. A lot of these people are nurses, teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. Are they freeloaders if they live in affordable housing?
And really, if you could get an apartment at a reduced rate because of your income don’t act like you wouldn’t take it.
anon
December 6, 2007
#10, The difference is you can see a way forward through your own effort, the free loaders can only see a way forward through other peoples efforts, it is like the difference between an adult and a child.
Anonymous
December 6, 2007
what many want is a free ride. I grew up poor and worked hard to be able to afford a few things…and there are a lot of places in Harlem I wish I could afford but can’t. So, I just don’t understand how some feel entitled to a free ride (price reductions while their next door neighbor pays market rate)….pulling yourself up, like I did, and working hard for what you want is a necessity in this city…it’s not easy out their. I mean should those who make tons of money on Wall St start handing out money to those who earn a lot less…like me?
illoquentgent
December 6, 2007
This post should be upgraded to The STOOP level
illoquentgent
December 6, 2007
While I am always for preserving the historic-ness of Harlem we should remind ourselves that 125th Street has always been the artery of commercial business when it comes to Harlem. It was never intended to be a used residentially. Unless you count a couple outliers on Broadway and Old Broadway it is not a residential street. The street is already more expensive on a per sq foot basis simply because the businesses already present raise the value of the real estate. So it should follow that any kind of housing on the “strip” will be more expensive. That’s just economics. It still leaves us with the REST of Harlem (and that’s debatable too…lol) to live in.
What we have now is an infusion of dollars to provide better quality businesses not just for us living here but actually competing with other artery streets such as 96, 72, 86th st. These are the streets where the big buildings belong…not our residential streets. Please do not mistake one thing for another.
anon
December 5, 2007
#6 – Yep. Welcome to a market economy.
anonymous
December 5, 2007
So only those with money get to decide who lives where?
Anonymous
December 5, 2007
>Not everyone wants the density of commercial stores that some can’t seem to do without.
_
Why have a fear of 125th St. taking on a 72nd, 86th, 14th feel and robustness of housing and businesses? Your words are suggestive of a “Ghetto satisfaction & contentment” with Harlem’s main strip.
I see no reason why anyone would not want 125th to be on par with 86th, 72nd, 14th, in every way including density, array of businesses, height of buildings, etc. Let’s not forget this is Manhattan we’re talking about.
>I’m all for nice places to shop and eat, but turning 125th into Union Square? That’s ridiculous.
_
Exactly how? Do Answer that.
Look at the corridor, 125th St. is very much like 14th St. & U. Square in terms of it being a transportation hub (456/23/9/ABCD/MetroNorth), CU expansion is going to be fabulous for 125th St., as is HarlemPark-Vornado Development near Lexington.
_
>People need to get over the idea that every street in this city needs to be one big strip mall.
_
No and this illustrates your poor argument. No one has said “every street”. You just have no substance to your post and are now fabricating. We’re talking about ONE street. 125th St. The street should have a “no holds barred” opportunity to be on par in every way with 14th, 72nd, 86th, you get the idea.
>As for whether low-income people have a “right” to live on the pricest areas in Harlem-a lot of those people were living there long before anyone gave a damn about Harlem
_
This statement lends no substance to your point and seems to be an effort to emotionalize and “charge” the conversation here.
>and its residents-they have as much right to continue living there as you do.
_
Well again, No. Longevity though charming does not mean much at the end of the day and if you doubt that, go talk to the Italians watch the Chinese consume & develop Little Italy. Furthermore this mentality of entitlement coupled with immunity to real life circumstances is growing quite old, you really need to sing a new tune.
It’s very common for people to be priced out of their neighborhood. Waking up and seeing you must implement change, forced to exercise fiscal responsibility, prudence, is not the end of the world, it’s a reality we all live with (unless you live in the projects where you are immune to being priced out of Manhattan and institutionalized to live a Ghetto existence).
anon
December 5, 2007
#3 – Sorry, but regardless of how long someone has lived in an area, no one has a “right” to live in the neighborhood of their choice. I have been priced out of other parts of NYC and accept that as a fact of living in this (and any) city.
anonymous
December 5, 2007
Not everyone wants the density of commercial stores that some can’t seem to do without. I’m all for nice places to shop and eat, but turning 125th into Union Square? That’s ridiculous. Union Square is nothing more than a shoppping mall on NYU property. People need to get over the idea that every street in this city needs to be one big strip mall.
As for whether low-income people have a “right” to live on the pricest areas in Harlem-a lot of those people were living there long before anyone gave a damn about Harlem and its residents-they have as much right to continue living there as you do. Get over yourself.
Savona
December 5, 2007
It’s easy to criticize. It’s harder to take the time to examine all parameters and develop a vision that will allow RESIDENTS and LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS and BUSINESSES the support that they need.
I encourage folks to take the time and understand the various recommendations and the reasons behind them. The public will be given time again during the City Planning Hearing.
And I agree that sacrifices will have to be made but a lot of hard work has been done to sustain long term benefits for future generations in a thriving, vibrant and colorful community.
Anonymous
December 4, 2007
>For instance, the plan specifies that the buildings could rise to a maximum of 160 feet on the south side of 125th Street – no higher than the Theresa Towers — and 290 feet on the north side of the street.
_
Stupid. What’s the basis of this? How and why is the Theresa the sacred cow that no building shall dare trump? It’s only 13 Floors.
>The plan also includes an inclusionary housing bonus to catalyze the creation or preservation of income-targeted housing by limiting floor area unless affordable units are provided. Affordable housing was identified as a priority during many of the public meetings that informed development of the 125th Street plan. Inclusionary housing is an integral component of the 125th Street plan as residential, or mixed commercial and residential buildings, will only be able to reach their maximum densities if 20 percent of their residential floor area is provided as income-targeted affordable housing.
_
More stupid. With this standard, Loft124, which is in the zone would have never gotten built.
We’re talking 125th St., not Mt. Morris Park or Strivers Row or some other charming Hamlet of Harlem. We’re talking about the main strip and central strip. You cannot harness main strips from growth and expansion, even dynamic expansion. There is no reason why 125th should not feel and look similar to 14th. St. If you go to Union Square and look East toward the FDR, there are some 30+ story buildings (mixed commercial residential) on both sides of the street.
The plan insures 125th St. will never be on par with the grand streets of Manhattan by limiting scale and density. If you want the shopping & dining options and amenities you see on 14th St, you need a certain density, it’s just the way it is.
Limiting to 13 Floors on the main strip? Ridiculous and out of step with reality, what drives justifying development in Manhattan. Take a look at the new mixed commercial and residental that has been constructed on the Upper West Side above 90th and on B’way, like above Symphony Space, all that new stuff, it would never have been able to get build under this plan.
Think about it, you limit the developer to 13 floors and then want him to reserve 20% of the space not at market rate but below market for low income people? These are not exactly “carrots” to a developer.
The issue IS NOT preservation and or housing for low income people, the issue is the main strip is not the place to apply these things. Like Broadway, let the main strip develop to grand potential, not social engineered limited scale! It’s the main strip for pete’s sake! Low income housing has it’s place, but not on the main strip. I am not arguing against low income housing, fine, I’ll help support it with my taxes, but the low income housing people have no right of any kind to enjoy this on the pricey-est streets 125th St, Riverside Drive, 110th across from Central Park, etc. and in the process (in this case 125th St. function as a drag on further growth). Higher income earners have the ability to spend more dollars on the street, and give rise to amenities, that’s just the way it works. Is is such a bad thing to tell those wanting, needing, or seeking low-income housing “sorry, I too want to live on 125th street but I can’t afford it either, I have to compromise and live on 128th St.” The same thing with the “Preservation” crowd. All well and good, but not on 125th St. Those standards would not allow B’way on the UWS to look as grand as it does now, with it’s density bringing rise to enormous amenity options.
Believe me I am all for preservation in Harlem but not for every inch of Harlem and not the main strip. Think about how crazy that plan is, that giant thing on that Mt Morris Corner, 5th on the Park can be built there, but under this plan could not be built on the South side of 125th St, the main strip. In other words the big empty lot on the corner of 125th and Lenox, across from Staples, Marshalls, etc. diagonally across from Starbucks, that is a great location for something like 5th on the Park or whatever that building at Mt. Morris Park is called, but under this plan, that building could not be built there. Stupid, stupid, stupid.