Today’s Headlines

  • Leroy Comrie: MLS Stadium Will Go Somewhere in NYC, But Not Flushing Meadows Park (News)
  • Queens Beep OKs Converting Citi Field Parking Lot to Mega-Mall; Vallone, Comrie Oppose (News)
  • Census: Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens See Big Increases in Transit Mode Share (MTR)
  • “Brooklyn’s Bryant Park” Is Also an Enormous Traffic Magnet Thanks to EDC and DCP (NYT)
  • Higher Rents in City Core Lead to Longer Commutes for Less Affluent NYers (WNYC)
  • Reason #7 the Rent Is So Damn High: Parking Minimums (Biz Insider)
  • Not Everything Anthony Weiner Said at the Tour de Queens Was Totally Stupid (Observer)
  • Big American Cities Rethinking Parking Mandates (WSJ) You Read It Here First!
  • Bike-Share Haters Hate Bike-Share Because They’re Jealous (Morning News)
  • SI Railway Riders Yearn for Better Service (2nd Ave Sagas)
  • Will Self-Driving Cars Self-Pay for Parking? (NYT)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • MFS

    The Biz Insider piece rehashes so many neoliberal tropes about the rental market that have little empirical basis that it’s hard to take seriously. And the author is just wrong about #6- the 421a tax abatement program is a voluntary program that no developer would engage with if it didn’t increase their returns.

  • Ian Turner

    You do realize that calling an article names is different from a rebuttal, right?

  • Bolwerk

    Why a mall near Citi? Can’t they conceive of anything other than a mall? They can’t have some traditional, pleasant mixed used housing? The stuff people are trying to pay seven figures for to own in Manhattan?

  • Bolwerk

    Why a mall near Citi? Can’t they conceive of anything other than a mall? They can’t have some traditional, pleasant mixed used housing? The stuff people are trying to pay seven figures for to own in Manhattan?

  • Ari

    Although EDC’s track record regarding parking is horrible, “Brooklyn’s Bryant Park” doesn’t seem like such a bad thing. It appears that the developer is paying for the full construction of the parking and the park, while assuming the risk. Unless there’s something hidden, which I wouldn’t put past EDC.

    And the parking will certainly be market rate, which is good.

  • Bolwerk

    He’s mostly wrong. #1, #2, and #7 are probably broadly right.

    #3 would be true if prices were naturally low in NYC, but since they’re not it is probably randian claptrap. I’m skeptical about #4, but maybe I’m the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about – it really might depend on the building. #5 is probably true, but, again, not affecting prices.* #6 and #8 also are also unlikely to affect prices, at least not to the extent he’s imagining.

    * It’s probably more something unions get away with only BECAUSE of high prices.

  • Jeff

    I’ve always wondered this as well. Why does everything have to be a megaproject? What’s wrong with just creating a street grid with lot sizes similar to the Commissioner’s Plan of 1811 and selling off the lots individually?

  • Bolwerk

    I would guess the lack of driveways and parking would, likewise, offend Peter Vallone. But the man needs to be offended.

  • Bolwerk

    He didn’t call it “names.” He said it was full of neoliberal tropes. Maybe he is misusing the word “trope” a little (I would have said “ideological hangups”), but I doubt even the author would disagree that he is a neoliberal.

  • car free nation

    I think it’s a horrible idea. The parking lot is going to sit empty (like the pay lot at Barclays), the developers will go out of business, and they’ll be no way to maintain the park costs. Then, parks will have to find another revenue source, but since we now have have a technologically sophisticated hole in the ground that can’t be re-purposed, they will have to use land from somewhere, and who knows what we’ll see.

  • Bolwerk

    Maybe they could turn it into a casino or brothel. Especially the latter, since I would guess a parking space is more than ample for any vanilla sex act.

    Not ideal, but probably still less antisocial than parking.

  • Ari

    The Downtown Brooklyn Partnership will maintain the park, not the garage operator. The operator is just building it.

    If the garage sits empty, the operator goes out of business. But the park remains.

    Still think it’s a horrible idea?

  • Jason

    Why DOES everything have to be a mega project?

    More pointedly: in area accessible by both the subway and the LIRR, why aren’t we building more housing we so desperately need?

    If the tabloids want to justifiably freak-out about something – how about that outrage? The crippling cost of living in this city is so many ways THE ISSUE that defines our politics, yet when we have a unique opportunity to do something about it we… build a mall?

    This was unique opportunity to build a neighborhood with amenities that are all becoming all-too impossibly expensive here in nyc. And that land was forcibly seized by the city – so it could make it easier to for us to get a Cinnabon?

  • Joe R.

    To add to this regarding #6, most of the so-called affordable housing set asides may be below market, but they’re hardly affordable in my book. I typically see things like a $1200 a month rent BUT an income limit of $35,000 for a single person. A single person making $35,000 will take home maybe $2100 a month after taxes and subway fare. Over half of take home pay for rent doesn’t constitute affordable to me. Try about $500 a month or so. I don’t doubt if we changed zoning laws, eliminated minimum parking requirements, and got the unions out of at least low income income construction, we could build no frills housing which could at least break even with $500 a month rent. Perhaps it could even turn a small profit. But if the city built it instead of a private developer then it wouldn’t have to. So long as the rents cover the payments of the loan for construction costs, plus the operating costs, the housing wouldn’t need to be subsidized.