The Atlantic - Latest Comments in New York, Borough By Borough

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

TracyW — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:57:01 -0000

Max - I work in the energy sector. If anyone there wants to live and work in the quiet countryside there are already jobs available in remote outposts of the transmission grid operator, refineries, power stations etc. This may well explain why the company has only managed to hire one person in the energy sector as a telecommuter out of about 40, and that was filled by an ex-journalist rather than someone with energy sector specialism.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

John Thacker — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:23:53 -0000

Williamsburg is a much better place to live. That's symbolic of the way real estate has developed in New York.... I'd argue that market forces are driving this. Most everyone would rather live in a nice loft space in W'Burg than a shitty high rise apartment on 2nd Avenue.

You do realize that this is exactly the argument that people who live in suburban McMansions use to defend their own neighborhoods, shaped as they are by large-lot zoning and other regulations?

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

John Thacker — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:19:55 -0000

Except that those buildings are terrible, and people don't want to live there. At least nobody I know. I would not live there in a million years. The bulk of the popuation of those buildings are young kids on middling salaries who like to hang out in the frat bar scene on 2nd or 3rd Avenue.

Ah, so the problem is not actually that no one wants to live there, but that the wrong sort of people live there, those people who aren't our kind, right? I suppose that you think it's important that NYC be preserved for the "right kind of people," but forgive me for being as disgusted by this argument in this case as when I hear it being deployed by people who don't want black people moving into their neighborhood.

I'd argue that market forces are driving this. Most everyone would rather live in a nice loft space in W'Burg than a shitty high rise apartment on 2nd Avenue.

Market forces? Highly distorted markets affected by heavily regulation. "Most everyone" would like to live in a larger place in Manhattan than in a smaller place, sure, but that doesn't mean that market forces are driving it. "Most everyone" would like to live in an enormous mansion too, but that doesn't mean that the optimal market resort is a few people living in mansions and everyone else living far away because they can't afford them and because the supply is limited. You're arguing pretty directly here for laws to benefit the wealthier and connected few at the expense of the many.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

John Thacker — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:10:34 -0000

It isn't clear which would take up the bulk of the slack produced by lower regulation, commercial real estate or residential.

It's not clear what the proportions would be, sure, but considering that supply of all construction has been restricted, along with the obviously quite high demand for residential housing, it's almost certain that the result would be some significant increase in population density.

I have much less empirical evidence for saying this part, but it does seem to me that commercial real estate has, in general, had an easier time gaining rezoning and permits than residential in Manhattan currently, at least for people like Columbia, NYU, and the New York Times who can get the city to use eminent domain on their behalf. For that reason, it seems to me that residential is currently effectively restricted more than commercial real estate, and, concomitantly, removing the restrictions would benefit residential construction more.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

Careless — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:01:01 -0000

The subway did nothing to stem flight. Only foreign immigration mitigated the flight and, without it, NYC would be a ghost of former self population wise.

Explain how you know the native population would be the same without the subway system then explain how you know that the native population would be the same without massive immigration

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

Mo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:26:22 -0000

Why not use the famous quote from the great Yankee catcher, Yogi Berra:

"Nobody goes there anymore; it's too crowded."

Damn Billyburg hipsters.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

Mo — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:49:40 -0000

The UES is pretty much only residential. The vast majority of the people employed in the UES are retail and local services to support residential (shoe repair, dry cleaning, Duane Reade, bars and restaurants).

Most of the professionals that live in the UES work in midtown or downtown. Heck, I know more people that live in Manhattan and commute to Westchester than I do people that live in Manhattan and work in the UES. Office buildings take up lots of space.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

J R — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:46:52 -0000

Most everyone would rather live in a nice loft space in W'Burg than a shitty high rise apartment on 2nd Avenue.

this sounds a little like that famous misquote, "i don't know how nixon won. i don't know anyone who voted for him." plenty of people prefer the UES to williamsburg. i suspect you hang in some rather hipster-ish circles and that explains your aversion to "frat bars" and UES high-rises.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

...Max... — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:17:19 -0000

My work keeps trying to persuade me to telecommute

Interesting, but probably a wrong approach: if you already live in an urban setting (and like it), you stand to gain nothing from converting your expensive living space into home office. Unfortunately the right approach entails telecommuters from across the country competing for the job :(

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

TracyW — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:01:48 -0000

My work keeps trying to persuade me to telecommute. I have little interest in it. Being at home alone connected only by the Internet is inefficient for sharing information.

Plus working in the central city means that there's a diverse range of shops, cafes, restaurants, theatres, art galleries and dance classes in easy walking distance of the office.

My workmates feel the same.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

Peter — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:57:46 -0000

The question is both of density and use however. Manhattan is not all residential. Midtown has a far lower population density than the upper east side, but has a far greater square footage density, it's just used for commercial purposes. It isn't clear which would take up the bulk of the slack produced by lower regulation, commercial real estate or residential.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

ed — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:56:03 -0000

Alsadius: It's certainly true of a lot of older cities that lost population and never recovered. Other cities like Denver, Charlotte, Dallas, etc have grown since the 70s.

My point was to refute the author's contention: "but to me the interesting thing it shows is how central the New York City subway system is. Its effects dominate everything else, even the 1970s urban crash. Arguably, by making urban living in many ways more convenient for urban workers than commuting, it's the reason the 1970s crash was relative mild."

The subway did nothing to stem flight. Only foreign immigration mitigated the flight and, without it, NYC would be a ghost of former self population wise.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

Rob Lyman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:47:04 -0000

Yes. I hate people and I like land. If I were a gazillionaire, I'd live on hundreds of acres of mixed forest/meadow.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

jimglass — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:44:24 -0000

... considering that the Upper East Side is far from being hell on Earth or a collection of squalid tenements

Because it is full of the rich and young upwardly mobile. Rich people rarely live in squalid tenements.

If you make everyone rich, the problems of poverty will be resolved, yes.

But the great bulk of them still will no more want to live packed in as sardines than they do today.

The upper east side is a small neighborhood with a minority of the rich. I lived there myself briefly, when single and hanging out in Maxwell's Plum. When spouses and kids arrived, my friends from there and I all moved to better neighborhoods for family living -- more space, less cost. As people naturally want to do.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

muzzybelly — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:35:54 -0000

John Thacker,

Do you know NYC at all? One reason, I would suppose, that the UES has the highest population density is the absence of other, non-residential uses. The area is almost entirely residential. The West Side has Columbus Circle, Lincoln Center/Juliard, Riverside Park, Columbia University.

Areas further downtown have lots of office, warehouse and commercial space, small parks, schools -- not to mention landmarks of various kinds. In the UES, there is the Guggenheim, which is not large. The Met is on 5th Ave, but the building protrudes into the Park, not into residential space.

It's true that there are a number of high rise buildings on the East Side as well. They contribute to density, and maybe you could argue that such buildings could exist elsewhere in the city. Except that those buildings are terrible, and people don't want to live there. At least nobody I know. I would not live there in a million years. The bulk of the popuation of those buildings are young kids on middling salaries who like to hang out in the frat bar scene on 2nd or 3rd Avenue.

Williamsburg is a much better place to live. That's symbolic of the way real estate has developed in New York. Neighborhoods gentrify as old warehouses are converted into nice loft apartments that provide much better living quality than the gigantic bland high rises. Places like Park Slope, Fort Greene, Boerum Hill, Central Harlem (right east of Morningside Park), and even Bed-Stuy and Sunset Hill have gotten makeovers. I'd argue that market forces are driving this. Most everyone would rather live in a nice loft space in W'Burg than a shitty high rise apartment on 2nd Avenue.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

jimglass — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:29:06 -0000

to me the interesting thing it shows is how central the New York City subway system is. Its effects dominate everything else

That's what immediately struck me too in the graph before looking at the text.

And remember, almost all those people in Manhattan were squeezed in below 14th Street, because they all had to get to work in the downtown dock/commerical area by walking or using ground-level transport that travelled at foot-speed.

The subway allowed a flood of urban sprawl into the wilds of middle and upper Manhattan, as well as the other boroughs, by letting them ride to work from those wilds.

If that chart had a line for "Manhattan, below 14th Street" it would start falling like a rock in 1905.

By enabling the sprawl of the masses into the countryside -- into far better and less-expensive housing, in far better living conditions -- the subways were one of the great benefactors of social welfare in US history.

All built by the private sector on time and under budget, and operated profitably in top condition at low cost to riders -- until the government intervened and wrecked them. They've never recovered to what they were.

A brief history of them.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

Alsadius — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:18:03 -0000

Is that more or less than is typical for other big cities? The US is fairly notable for labour mobility, after all.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

...Max... — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:06:50 -0000

I guess I wrongly assumed you responded to me... I assume no responsibility for the "humans are..." part of M.Report's haiku. My beef is mostly with the fact that hi-tech jobs still concentrate in L.D.U.A. (or XL.SU.A for that matter) even when there's no longer an overwhelming reason for them to do so.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

TallDave — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:03:59 -0000

I was looking at a time-progression map of Boston the other day and was surprised how much of it literally did not exist a couple hundred years ago (the shoreline has been built out considerably). I wonder what a similar map of NY would look like.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

...Max... — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:02:40 -0000

It only means you live in L.D.U.A. in the first place. What would make you move to TX?

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

J R — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:58:40 -0000

it seems that cynic and duder have forgotten about the invention of the elevator.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

J R — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:52:49 -0000

i am most comfortable in large diverse urban areas. the suburbs freak me out. does this mean that i'm not really human?

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

ed — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:40:52 -0000

Yeah, lets even go back to 1609 and those dutch "immigrants".

I'm talking recent, not past. The only appreciable immigrant movement to NY after WW II were Puerto Ricans, American citizens, until the waves started to hit in the latter 70s and onward.

Fact is that 1/2 of the NY native population voted with their feet and left.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

John Thacker — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:35:27 -0000

The Upper East Side had a population density of 118,184 people per square mile, according to the 2000 Census. That is the densest neighborhood in New York City or in Manhattan.

Manhattan, while quite dense compared to other places, had a population density of only 66,940 per square mile according to the same census.

Considering that, and considering that the Upper East Side is far from being hell on Earth or a collection of squalid tenements, it seems quite reasonable to me that Manhattan's population could increase by 50% without devolving into squalor. It would not even require Manhattan's overall population density to equal that of the Upper East Side to do so.

Re: New York, Borough By Borough

...Max... — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:34:26 -0000

It looks like hi-tech is outrunning the cultural mores at the moment. The resistance to telecommuting even in hi-tech industry itself is quite monumental -- warm bodies in the office still count for a lot.

Disclaimer: I've been telecommuting for the last 8+ years... can be done, but reduces one's options tremendously :( On the other hand, who in their right mind would move to NYC from Dallas to make extra 25%, if that much?