One Prospect Park is going to be huge

escap wrote: You misparaphrased me twice. First, I'll just ask you to reread my post regarding the luxury units issue, since you are just completely off on what my point was.

Second, rent control is not a symptom of the problem, it's a cause.

Your "point" is that there aren't an unlimited supply of millionaires (which isn't even a factor in the argument) and the assertion that luxury development =/= millionaires everywhere which also isn't what I'm talking about. I'd like you to clarify how you feel that laws to protect the tenant rights of people who have been here for 30 years or more is a cause of the housing problem. Because it's not like Jane Comelately is likely to be in a rent-controlled situation, it's usually a senior citizen who is on a fixed income. Of course, there's the rare sensationalistic story of a Carly Simon in a rent controlled UWS classic six, but that's not the general rule. It's not like more and more units are being controlled -- which is a miniscule proportion of all apartments anyway -- all the time, so what's with the scapegoating of probably 2% of people living in housing. Should people in the projects get out too because they're screwing up the housing market?

Subject: Wow! What a debate - a bit off topic though

I wont argue the fine points listed above - I would be out of my league.
But I still want to discuss a few thigs about the comments and general terms only and then get back to the new buildings scale, architcture and planning issues relevant to our neighborhood.

First, there is a shortage of housing in New York's 5 boroughs - period.
Secondly, there is a shortage of affordable ( low income and Mid income) housing in New York.

Third, developers and contractors lose money on affordable housing.
As an architect, I can tell you from speaking to developers and contractors I know, that from a business standpoint BUILDING and maintaning affordable housing ( non "luxury" housing) is a profit loser.

As much as we may not like "big bad developers", they are also business men and they want to make money. But the way the system is set up, it is difficult or impossible to make a decent return on building affordable housing. Atlantic yards will take 400 million to build over the railyards - that is before ANY construction to make apartments or retail even begins. How does a business person get that money back and turn a profit??CONDOS!!!

And when you look at the affordable NYCHA housing projects here in NYC they are HORRIBLE from every imaginable angle: architecturally, culturally, aesthetically, etc. The reason is because the CHEAPEST materials and design are used to build them by the developers and contractors because they cannot turn a profit otherwise. Do you know how many developers and builders go out of business each year in NYC?

There must be a fundamental change in the way we (America) view housing needs and affordability as a virtue and not a luxury: a merit/ reward system must be implemented at the state and local levels that rewards ($$) developers for building "good" affordable building - rental and for sale ( critera varies, obviously). Buying is not for eveyone of course.

HPD (The Housing Preservation Dept gives some funding when basic requirements are met, but it is not that much and caters to the LOWEST comon denominator of design requirements and you get BAD buildings sometimes) and other programs simply are not good enough to fit the needs of this city: More units, better design, more units.

What we are talking about here is making it worth the while ( in a business sense) for a developer to build affordable housing. (i.e, low and mid level incomes :for many who are not in poverty, work for a living, but who cant afford to buy anything because of the ridiculous price range).

If we had a starting point, say $150,000 for a 1BR as a goal for all developers, how could we get there? More people could qualify for a mortgage in that range... I dont know the answer, but it may have to do with tax dollars - Do you check the box for $1 campaign donations on your federal taxes? Would you check another box for affordable housing for all - at the state level at least? WE need to take some radical steps or only "The Donald" and his hair will be left in NYC in 20 years.

I also wonder about the message that a building like that sends to the folks who live around it. Here you have homes that are owned by a solid middle-class population (at least to the east and south) which are now literally being towered over by people who can afford to spend in excess of a million dollars for a home. I understand that this may end up being an architecturally significant building, but if you compare it to his three glass towers on the West Street, the sense of the folks in the ivory tower giving their finger to the masses they are lording over is a lot more overt. Homeowner

This is an interseting argument on the surface, but I'm not sure it holds much weight. Do people with "Whole Foods" shopping bags look down on Key Foods bag people? Do people with Starbucks coffee look down onpeople who drink from generic blue and white cups?
Do ipod people look down on people with CD players with headsets...

Hey they do, don't they!??
Maybe they all do, but so what. Really.

Should we make uglier buildings and "11th place" competition ribbons to make people feel better? That has already been going on and materialism and greed march on. The solution may be to make better buildings for ALL not just the rich.....better is not necessarily more expensive either.

iPods for all too for that matter!!

And by the way, I think the Photoshop image shown is incorrectly oriented. The image of the Meier building was facing Eastern Parkway - not G.A.P. in the photoshop repro. That may make a difference. From the small flat image, you also cannot see any of the setbacks that are happening either....

friendlypitbull wrote: According to the New York Housing and Vacancy Survey conducted every three years by the New York City's Department of Housing and Preservation- Rent Conrrolled and Stabilized apartments make up 52% of the rental housing available in NYC

- far from miniscule!!

Actually rent controlled (which is what I said) units are a grand total of...wait for it, 2.8%. (see here). Plus rent stabilization in itself only means that you are living in an apartment built before the early-70s where the landlord has yet to find a loophole to make you pay over $2K, after which they can then charge whatever obnoxious bullshit they want. And what's wrong with that really? Score one for the little people for a change.

ETA some fun reading:

Argument: Rent Regulation Freezes Rents or Keeps them
Artificially Low

Contrary to the misleading claims fed to the general public,
regulated rents have not only outpaced national inflation rates,
but are significantly higher than rents in other cities without
rent regulation. In the New York City housing market, with an
overall vacancy rate of 3.44% and a less than 1% vacancy rate for
low-income affordable apartments, there is no normal "market
rent." When people who are desperate for a place to live are
forced to pay oppressive rents, it is unconscionable to call
those rents "market rents". Historically, most societies have
refused to tolerate the economic damage that invariably results
from acute shortages of essential goods and services and have
acted to protect the public welfare through regulatory
intervention. The New York State and City rent regulation laws
are an appropriate, necessary legislative response to a long
standing housing shortage caused by market failure.

Argument: Rent Regulation Benefits only a Few Wealthy White
People in Manhattan

The census studies have shown that rent regulated households have
a median income of $24,000; hardly a definition of "wealthy."
Seventy six percent of all stabilized tenant households and 82.5%
of rent controlled tenant households have incomes of less than
$40,000. Manhattan has 35.5 % of the rent stabilized units
registered in NYC. The other four boroughs account for 64.5% of
rent stabilized units. Finally, the HVS census reports that 61.7%
of regulated tenants in NYC are officially categorized as members
of racial or ethnic minority groups.

Argument: Rent Regulation Prevents the Construction of New
Housing

New residential housing has not been subject to any form of rent
regulation in New York City or State since 1974. There has been a
free, unregulated, market for residential housing for nearly
twenty two years. Nothing prevents any new construction except
pure market factors, which when analyzed as favorable by
builders, usually results in sporadic bursts of luxury housing
construction. No housing affordable to the typical American
family of low-to-modest-income has been constructed by the
private sector anywhere in the country, where, generally, there
are no rent regulation laws.

Argument: The NYC Tax Base is Eroded by Rent Regulation

In recent years, the real estate industry has repeatedly claimed
that if rents, kept artificially low by the regulatory laws, were
allowed to rise to market levels, New York City's tax base, at a
time of record budget deficits, would gain by over one hundred
million dollars.

The more plausible scenario is that the transfer of wealth (over
six hundred million dollars) necessary to realize the tax gain
would cause severe economic dislocation and a negative impact on
the overall city economy resulting in a net revenue loss.

On a national level, we have already witnessed the effects of a
large transfer of wealth from middle class and working Americans
to the wealthy. As a result of President Reagan's tax "reforms"
in 1982, when a huge transfer was effected, the great majority of
Americans have seen their standard of living fall steadily. Only
twenty percent of Americans have not lost ground or enjoyed
economic gains. We need not repeat these grim statistics on a
municipal level.

Sevenoneeighty, you're absolutely right again. I've always been a renter and I jumped around throughout my 20s so haven't been all that active in block associations, etc., but clearly community involvement is key. I just would hope that involvement doesn't mean obstruction or the petty pursuit of narrow self interest at the expense of broader goals.

Candicissima, on the more positive side, I totally understand the moral argument behind that post and again the intentions are noble. Again, what you posted points out the lack of supply relative to demand and the effect this has on prices. Once again, however, instead of seeking a long term solution that addresses the underlying shortage, the tenants association that wrote that in hopes of preserving their entrenched and narrow interests are proposing a band-aid solution that will in the long run make the fundamental problem worse. This is sad but true.

On the more negative side, some of that post was just plain lies. Free, unregulated housing market in NY for 22 years? I think we all know that this is laughable beyond words. Need I even mention any examples to refute this? And if it is true that the private sector has not created housing for any low or middle-income Americans nationwide, as is claimed, why don't we have a 60%-70% national homeless rate?? Hmmmm. Does the whole nation live in government housing? I've lived on extremely low incomes in a couple other states, and didn't encounter any such thing, mysteriously.

Solve the underlying problem, not the symptoms. That's the only long run answer, even though it may be the more painful one in the short run.

Were you responding to me in this post? You seem to be saying that I'm against this building? If that's the case, you're confused. Perhaps you were addressing someone else. That being said, collapse of unions?? In New York? Riiiiiigggghhht. Are you in Prospect Heights, Texas?

It's difficult to argue that producers don't see huge profit opportunities in poor populations. Some/most of the wealthiest corporations in the world (Wal*Mart, McDonalds, Coke, etc.) primarily target low income customers. Yes, housing is different b/c of the production costs, and I have already said we should take steps to help reduce these costs as one solution. But again, most housing is sold on the secondary market, so production costs are irrelevant.

Last, you are right that there is a large and undesirable gap between high-end incomes and low-end ones in the city. Lack of unions is clearly NOT the cause here in NY. Again, it's pretty simple. There is a shortage of workers with the skills necessary to fill certain jobs, and those jobs have a tremendous "marginal product of labor"--ie, each employee generates a ton of $$. For the low end jobs, there is a huge labor surplus and productivity is low. We should absolutely address this by improving education across the board, and by encouraging a diversification of the city's main job industries instead of relying so much on finance and health care to shoulder the burden. These are just two of many possible positive solutions to the root causes of this income disparity.

Although this article from the NYT yesterday is based in the midwest, it supports my point of the wider US trend toward lower wages in the manufacturing/industry fields as unions have made concessions in order to preserve what's left of the blue collar job base...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/business/yourmoney/26wages.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

alafairnadia wrote: So you're basically saying that because the middle class and well-paid working class are shrinking rapidly, the housing problem isn't being contributed to by developers building buildings targeting the wealthiest of consumers? that doesn't make any sense. the new york housing market is being driven by the needs and desires of the wealthy. how does that help low-to-mid income people obtain housing?
and of course complaining about the building isn't going to solve the problem that puts the US on par with developing nations in terms of income gap and miniscule middle class. I still could live without more millionaires moving into the 'hood.

in a vaguely related note, did anyone see that story in ... the Times, I think, last week, about the foreclosure rate in certain areas of NYC rising? I remember they specifically said the rates were rising in areas like Flatbush, Prospect-Lefferts Gardens and Jamaica.

I think those two things are intertwined. Because the wages are falling but the costs of living and prices of things like homes, heating, and oil are higher, those who aren't wealthy are often living beyond their means to make ends meet. Everyone's living off credit and high interest loans while surviving paycheck to paycheck. I have a friend my age making around $40,000 a year who got approved for up to $600,000 in a housing loan. Like what kind of nonsense is that? A lot of people are out there trying to keep up with the Joneses and all it takes is one extra bill or a job loss to screw people over massively.

Did anyone else read this article yet in the Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/01/business/01leonhardt.html

It's pretty good, and as a non-homeowner I definitely sympathize. I also think the writer's suggestion of nixing the mortgage interest deduction, since it drives up prices and primarily benefits the "haves", is worth thinking about. I think the point of that tax in the first place was to encourage home ownership, but a convincing argument could be made that it has in fact done the opposite by driving prices up so high.

Ah, how I do not envy policy makers.

Subject: Great tip about the refiling

Someone told me that the developer bought the air rights from the adjoining buildings on St. John's and One Prospect Park could have been higher than 12 stories.

I'm going to miss that quiet stretch of Plaza Street after it's built.

On the other hand, if I paid $1100 a square foot for an apartment, I'd expect some amenities and security.

Perhaps the city will start cleaning the sidewalks and streets nearby (Underhill between Lincoln and St. John's is a mess).

Perhaps we'll say goodbye to the dirty, roach-infested bodegas and hello to at least one Korean greengrocer who stays open late at night.

Perhaps we'll be able to cross Flatbush Avenue on our way to the park and not feel as if we could easily get splattered by an SUV obviously NOT obeying the 35 mph speed limit.

Perhaps the MTA will open a second entrance/exit for the Eastern Parkway subway station at the far end of the platform (the infrastructure is already there on both sides of the street) even of it's only open during the day.

Perhaps the cops will do something about the thug gang based on Lincoln Place between Underhill and Washington. These guys have committed random acts of vandalism and petty crime in the past (e.g. harasssing the doormen on Eastern Parkway and dogwalkers in Mount Prospect Park, making noise late at night, smashing bottles, etc. ) but now they've stepped up the violence with the recent mugging of an innocent passerby near the corner of Lincoln and Underhill.

Perhaps...

so this building going to block the view from eastern athletic?

I'm actually a bit disappointed that the previous, taller Meier scheme wasn't kept. I think his buildings on the Hudson are exquisite and that GrAP could easily handle a slender tower. Given the size of our borough, the endless griping about the Fedders buildings popping up everywhere, and the fact that I have to stare at the ostensibly historicist Shinnecock every time I look out my window, I'm delighted to be getting some decent modern architecture in our neighborhoods.

escap wrote: I'm continually amazed by the apparent consensus that increasing supply will increase prices. I learned the "law" of supply and demand when I was in junior high school, and I have yet to hear that it has been disproved.

I understand that real estate is a bit of an anomaly, in that development can actually make a neighborhood more attractive and thus drive up prices in the short run. However, in the long run an increase in development and in the supply of housing will put downward pressure on prices, not the reverse!! If there were a conspiracy to keep prices high, the government would be chasing developers out of town to make sure the supply stayed low! Witness the hyperinflation of brownstone areas where supply is restricted by landmarking.

Yes, high quality can mean high prices, but would you seriously prefer low quality construction? There is not an unlimited supply of millionaires out there, nor will the market forever continue to boom, so the best way to encourage affordability is to encourage high quality development up to the point that the market can bear. Should we allow an unregulated free for all? No, not at all--I support certain regulations and zoning. But addressing the city's housing shortage is the general trend we should be pursuing.

People who claim that increased housing supply will raise prices remind me of those who doubt evolution, global warming, the earth being round, the earth revolving around the sun, etc. Get with the program, guys!

I don't see high quality materials going into any of the new structures in Brooklyn. It seems to be the same stuff. Georgia Pacific boards on the outside, same sheetrock on the in, faux and/or cheap brick for covering. Huge Anderson windows. Progress or Kitchler lighting. The developers and contractors need to make their money, so naturally they skimp where they can. The only time you get any type of decent building quality is either in a renovatted pre-war or if you do the renovattion/new construction yourself. Even in pre-wars you see a decent amount of law suits against contractors and developers who skimped and suggested they did otherwise.

Idlewild wrote: [quote=escap]I'm continually amazed by the apparent consensus that increasing supply will increase prices. I learned the "law" of supply and demand when I was in junior high school, and I have yet to hear that it has been disproved.

I understand that real estate is a bit of an anomaly, in that development can actually make a neighborhood more attractive and thus drive up prices in the short run. However, in the long run an increase in development and in the supply of housing will put downward pressure on prices, not the reverse!! If there were a conspiracy to keep prices high, the government would be chasing developers out of town to make sure the supply stayed low! Witness the hyperinflation of brownstone areas where supply is restricted by landmarking.

Yes, high quality can mean high prices, but would you seriously prefer low quality construction? There is not an unlimited supply of millionaires out there, nor will the market forever continue to boom, so the best way to encourage affordability is to encourage high quality development up to the point that the market can bear. Should we allow an unregulated free for all? No, not at all--I support certain regulations and zoning. But addressing the city's housing shortage is the general trend we should be pursuing.

People who claim that increased housing supply will raise prices remind me of those who doubt evolution, global warming, the earth being round, the earth revolving around the sun, etc. Get with the program, guys!

I don't see high quality materials going into any of the new structures in Brooklyn. It seems to be the same stuff. Georgia Pacific boards on the outside, same sheetrock on the in, faux and/or cheap brick for covering. Huge Anderson windows. Progress or Kitchler lighting. The developers and contractors need to make their money, so naturally they skimp where they can. The only time you get any type of decent building quality is either in a renovatted pre-war or if you do the renovattion/new construction yourself. Even in pre-wars you see a decent amount of law suits against contractors and developers who skimped and suggested they did otherwise.

Well, that's between the tenants and the builder. If people want to pay "luxury" prices for crap housing, they are fools. But my original response was to address the comment that cheaper construction costs are the key to creating affordable housing, which is flat wrong on many, many levels.

atleast its better than the parking lot that was there.

so far it cool.