The ones who want to bring suburbia to NYC. They hate high density always trying to block new zoning to bring in more tall buildings etc...
High density is good for the environment and good for business.
armchair_warrior said:
The ones who want to bring suburbia to NYC. They hate high density always trying to block new zoning to bring in more tall buildings etc...High density is good for the environment and good for business.
As a native Brooklynite I have to ask: Are you out of your friging mind, or are you just being funny?
armchair_warrior said:
The ones who want to bring suburbia to NYC. They hate high density always trying to block new zoning to bring in more tall buildings etc...High density is good for the environment and good for business.
Unbridled development, tearing down old buildings and putting up ugly glass towers would ruin the city.
Heres your 15 Minutes Armchair man...
http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2011/08/the-only-problem-with-gentrifiers/?stream=true
see post below.
here is my reply to them and now you guys :p.
truly ignorant would love to stick everything in a bubble and not let nature takes it course. if you wish to have low density move out the countryside or suburbia. cities been changing and towards more density for thousands of years from villages to towns to cities.
from collection of skills to easy access to resources. everything is centrally located no need to travel miles upon miles to buy groceries wasting gas and time on the highways. cities should get rid of the car culture/ suburbia mentally yuppies bring with them. when you buy those expensive houses, you tend to forget about the others who rent etc...
low density if good for the rich and those who can afford the large wasted spaces, this goes for bike cycle lanes too. generally those who are against it are older folks who are owners while vs younger folks who are renters. those who can afford park slope don't want to see any more renters. if you have higher density there would be either more renters or condos and your little exclusiveness would be over in your self entitle mind.
actually, didn't the 2010 census state that more people in the US live in the suburbs than urban areas?
i notice my spelling error lol just edited that whole post.
the trend been reversing for a while now, stills there are tons of people out in the suburbia but the experiment is going to end soon. and one big kick has been the downturn.
also when oil peaks(i hope it already did) more folks going to move right in.
suburbia is just a blimp on the history of man moving from villages/towns/ to cities.
also suburbia ties people down to a job. with cities people are more mobile to move about to look for new jobs in new cities. with cities fewer owners. also its easier to rent out if you do need to relocate.
you know what really upsets me over the years, is when i look at buildings for sale. i see their old co's as multiply families from any where between 8 or sro etc... they normally turn them into 1 or 2 families. what waste of space. yes some rich guy will live nicely. but stock is taken away from renters.
the trend is towards people moving into more dense urban areas in reality. so all the suburbanites need to get the eff out of nyc and let is progress. 
armchair is spot on in his posts, people are moving back to the cities. i personally would love more high rises in brooklyn, and i'm loving what they are trying to do with downtown.
you and i are probably in the minority for density :p.
Atlantic Yards is an abomination of blight and inanity.
It's as dumb as Atlantic Center or Metrotech.
They are grade A examples of how NOT to develop one of the most vibrant, beautiful cities in the world.
armchair_warrior said:
you and i are probably in the minority for density :p.
Is being dense always a good thing?
Atlantic yards is political project, nothing ever good comes from politics.
I completely disagree with Ratner's abomination but I do feel a denser development should have always been planned for that parcel of land. The reality is that we live in NYC, this is not the suburbs.
people believe it or not who might not have as much money as say to live in a 3 story brownstone for 1 or 2 families or big ass developments like Atlantic yards and other large condo developments, they would still like to live in a nicer area but might have deal with something that is more compact for alot less money.
there is a market for those people, but thanks anti density people isn't being developed for them.
only people who can afford to developed are the big guys who can buy huge tracks of land for upper middle classes. those who could afford to buy the 1 or 2 family buildings (also upper middle class). if some small guy wants to developed a small track of land(too small for the big guys to care or want to buy), say 8 family or 6 family building those 1 or 2 family guys going to scream bloody murder etc.. cause now they have to share that area with renters! who aren't paying as much but has smaller sqft.
why should middle class and working class be regulated to far away parts of nyc? yes they don't make as much renting or selling to middle/working class people but can't we not share the sun?
most people here know i'm not articulate with written words. as long as you know what i mean is fine.
also as many know grew up poor in crappy areas. I know there is a market for poor people anyway.
First time we moved out of the ghetto we rented a illegal basement in constant fear of neighbours reporting us. why can't poor people share the same streets as yuppies?
i wouldn't of care if it was a bit more smaller in sqft but as long as it was a nicer safer area. why should upper middle class rich folks care that they are sharing it with renters?
perplexed said:
I completely disagree with Ratner's abomination but I do feel a denser development should have always been planned for that parcel of land. The reality is that we live in NYC, this is not the suburbs.
Development is certainly a fact of life.
What's not a fact of life is lifeless glass highrises only for medium or high income people that result in the destruction of the architecture that gives our city its character.
a character of a city changes with time, can't put anything in a bubble forever.
for some poster who claims as champions of poor folks all the time in post lol can't see how this affects poor people more than anything, its where they live. where you live makes a huge difference and most of their money goes to rent anyway.
I'm kinda shock at the density of the mind here.
armchair_warrior said:
a character of a city changes with time, can't put anything in a bubble forever.
Nope, but you sure can consciously manage how you allow a city to change.
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!
now : terekete
most recent : terekete, samuelcole, pragmaticguy, threecee, chca, susanderavish, ishtar, salix, elgjr, cyn707, patsy miele kirk, carmen, fred damico, rogersma, max collodi, lord haw haw, stewart, epiclylaterd, new2parkslope, signs, xlizellx
Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)
