Skip to main content

MAS Survey on Livability: people say they're satisfied, but dismay regarding (over)development seeps out

Though a Municipal Art Society (MAS) survey on livability released yesterday garnered headlines for its seemingly counter-intuitive conclusion that most New Yorkers are happy and find the city livable, it also contains signs of significant discontent regarding development.

And that wariness--72 percent seemingly oppose new housing or housing beyond existing scale in their neighborhoods--suggests a tension between those who like neighborhood scale and the Bloomberg administration's expectation of another 1 million people here by 2030.

Results of this initial poll were not particularly subtle--it would be important to understand attitudes toward development teased out by type of neighborhood, zoning, and transportation options, because the key question is fitting increased density to neighborhoods that can handle it.

(That has not been done consistently, as NYU's Furman Center for Real Eastate & Urban Policy described in March.)

News coverage

The New York Times's CityRoom coverage was headlined Surprise: Most New Yorkers Say They Like the City.

AM New York had it as Surprise! We really love New York!.

DNAInfo headlined its piece Get Outta Here! New Yorkers Are Mostly Happy, Survey Finds.

Some coverage noted the discussion of solutions to the not inconsiderable discontent. Crain's headlined its article Officials eye more pedestrian-friendly city.

Streetsblog, which offered the summary headline MAS Survey: New York City Is Livable But Not Everyone Benefits Equally, pointed to the importance of bringing public space and transit improvements to the outer boroughs.

The New York Daily News, with its sensitivity to outer-borough readers, headlined its coverage Tale of two cities after poll shows Manhattan residents living it up, but borough residents disagree. Actually, the article, which highlights the disparities between Manhattan and the Bronx, shows Bronx residents saying "they love their borough, but know there's room for improvement."

The housing issue

The press release offered the summary sentence:
Nearly 4 in 10 (37%) New Yorkers oppose more housing development in their communities but 42% support the development of small businesses that fit into their neighborhoods.
There's a lot more nuance, so let's tease out the summary sentence on Housing Development:
Overall, when it comes to housing in their neighborhoods, 21% of New Yorkers feel the priority should be to preserve and restore existing buildings; 14% say to build new housing but only in the style of existing housing; 28% to build new housing which is affordable regardless of the style; and 37% of New Yorkers say there shouldn't be any more housing development in their neighborhoods.
So that's 51% who say no new housing beyond the current style. And another 21% say the priority is preservation and restoration of existing buildings--which could be seen as saying no new housing.

Affordable housing a priority

At least according to the way the question was worded, only 28% of respondents prioritize affordable housing over scale

It would be very helpful to see the results in a more granular fashion, segmented, for example, by neighborhood. With such results, we could understand how residents might feel about transitional neighborhoods such as the northwest segment of Prospect Heights, with both manufacturing and residential buildings and near transit.

Instead, we get results by borough and Brooklynites-- not surprisingly, given the demand for housing--are more amenable to making affordable housing a priority.

Some 38% of Brooklynites prioritize affordable housing, as opposed to 28% overall. Regarding preservation and housing only at the same scale, the results for Brooklynites are 22% and 12%. That leaves 28% favoring no more housing at all. (See p. 30 of the data analysis here.)

Housing over infrastructure

At a press conference yesterday, I asked MAS President Vin Cipolla about the tension between the poll results and the city's expected growth.

People see buildings going up, Cipolla responded, but they don't see related investment in infrastructure. Yes, "transit-centered development" is a start, but too often people don't see the transit enhanced.

(While the Atlantic Yards plan would add a new subway entrance, significantly to serve the arena, but also to serve the neighborhood, it wouldn't enhance service.)

People have to think the additional housing has added to the quality of life, he said. "The answer is: it hasn't."

One example of a selling point: in Williamsburg, it was mentioned later, the new development (such as the New Domino plan) is supposed to add access to the waterfront.

Drilling down into the poll

Those surveyed were asked:
Overall, are you very satisfied, satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with New York City?
Some 57% said they were satisfied and 27% said they were very satisfied.

They were also asked "Overall, in your life, would you say you are... " and 57% said they were happy and 34% very happy. That obviously depends on factors beyond city efforts at livability, such as family.

Some commenters on the CityRoom site were surprised:
Surprising to hear so many were positive about NYC.

As a native New Yorker, I and many of my friends, find NYC incredibly grim and depressing. NYC has turned into a playground of the rich and entitled.

The income inequality is appalling, the bus and subway system is expensive and deteriorating, there is too much development, neighborhood shops disappear and are replaced by chains, the infrastructure is falling apart, and there are more homeless people all over.

— Kate

Comments

  1. I think community opposition to NYU's development of it's tower-in-the-park superblocks in Greenwich Village provides some interesting insights into the issue of so-called "over" development.

    Here is a location that is easily accessible to all of the city's subways lines, etc.; a site that with lots of underutilized, vacuous, suburban-style open space; a site that is less densely developed than surrounding areas; a site where the construction of new buildings would not require offsite relocation of tenants; and so on -- and yet there are still many residents of the area who are still opposed to pretty much any new additional development for the site.

    Benjamin Hemric
    Fri., Oct. 22, 2010, 8:10 p.m.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

At 550 Vanderbilt, big chunk of apartments pitched to Chinese buyers as "international units"

One key to sales at the 550 Vanderbilt condo is the connection to China, thanks to Shanghai-based developer Greenland Holdings.

It's the parent of Greenland USA, which as part of Greenland Forest City Partners owns 70% of Pacific Park (except 461 Dean and the arena).

And sales in China may help explain how the developer was able to claim early momentum.
"Since 550 Vanderbilt launched pre-sales in June [2015], more than 80 residences have gone into contract, representing over 30% of the building’s 278 total residences," the developer said in a 9/25/15 press release announcing the opening of a sales gallery in Brooklyn. "The strong response from the marketplace indicates the high level of demand for well-designed new luxury homes in Brooklyn..."

Maybe. Or maybe it just meant a decent initial pipeline to Chinese buyers.

As lawyer Jay Neveloff, who represents Forest City, told the Real Deal in 2015, a project involving a Chinese firm "creates a huge market for…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…