New Buildings Rise in Flood Zones

The Garvies Point mega-development in Glen Cove, Long Island is another example of this. Raised to 1,100 units by Cuomo's largest donor with no new environmental review - on land that has flooded in the past. Unconscionable.

I'd say, stop the ridiculously and artificially low price tag of federal flood insurance. Let the commercial insurers price flood insurance on a realistic level. If idiots still want to buy those waterfront properties at their peril and from their own pockets (rather than subsidized by federal government, hence other taxpayers), then by all means, build. But don't expect me to cry them a river next time another Sandy rolls in.

It doesn't help that waterfronts were forced to succumb to Burden's vanity projects. A supposed proponent of green open space. Our person to open space ratios, already compromised, were further compromised by the upzones, despite waterfront access. And how much public money was spent on purchasing that little acreage, thanks to total lack of strategizing? The Environmental Review process is a farce.

I live in a neighborhood that was hammered by Sandy. There were a couple of big buildings like that even back then - some of their support systems got damaged, but the generators were not flooded and the lights stayed on. All the local institutions (hospital, libraries, post office) were down for the count, so these buildings became a hub for everyone who needed to charge their phones or other small appliances. They were definitely an asset, not a problem, for the neighborhood. It's terrible how expensive the new construction is, but on the other hand... unless the entire huge neighborhood is surrounded by a flood wall, building new construction with flooding in mind is the only way to keep this area livable in the long run.

Just in case our state and municipal leaders haven't noticed, Manhattan is an island! How many more horrendous hurricanes do we have to experience before we have insurmountable disaster? Is it really possible that by mid-2018 we don't even have strong water-front TEMPORARY buffers pending final designs? Perhaps we should pay for the best designers from The Netherlands to handle this project? Look how they managed to protect their entire country!

A spreadsheet of all NYC properties that fall within 'the 1% annual chance floodplain as determined by FEMA’s 2015 Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map'. Info from the NYC Data Portal. https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/29f020fc-9579-49d9-89e9-9dfbf0aac913

These same people now populating flood zones will be the first to scream bloody murder for government assistance when the next Sandy destroys their neighborhood. Some things never change, and one of them is the stupidity of people who build on or near the shore.

These new developments in New York City mimic the even worse situation in Miami - apres moi la deluge, and this time not as a figure of speech. The next decades will see a real estate version of musical chairs, selling and reselling until the last buyer is stuck with the property when the next big flood hits. The one thing I am really worried about with all these buildings in flood-prone areas is that we (everybody else) will yet again foot the bill when irresponsible builders and buyers come running for all taxpayers (i.e. us) to bail them out. That is already underway, albeit quietly, as flood insurance is heavily dependent on Federal subsidies and guarantees to even be operational. Just as finance, the real estate market needs the moral hazard to stay functional. So, if we can't have an overall ban on building in floodprone areas, let's mandate entirely 100 % private, not otherwise subsidized flood insurance and waivers of any future government assistance for flood-related damages for such developments. Of course, this should be clearly disclosed to any prospective buyer, so they can decide whether they are willing to take the plunge - pun intended.

Agree with Susan. And our increased insurance costs and FEMA will cover it all! This is so ludicrously laughable but I guess that since no regulations are the best regulations FEMA and insurance shouldn't be paid out when people decide to live in, or establish businesses in, or park their cars in these places. Caveat emptor

We have the same thing in Boston. This winter in a series of weekly northeasters (floating dumpster made national TV). Planning is based on 6-7 feet of possible sea level rise by 2100, so the "seaport" district (~50 new skyscrapers), while flooded, weathered the storm. The old storm drains were backed up so street flooding was a foot or so higher than sea level nearby. "Devil take the hindmost" urban/development planning is foolish and dangerous, since it ignores the fact that we are looking at the beginning of an accelerating sea level rise. If we ahave only 2 feet by 2100 (the low end of knowledgeable prediction - unscientific "skeptics" deny reality exploit scientific uncertainly to support inaction), time won't stop then. If buildings weather storms, older and poorer residents will suffer without overall planning that includes everyone. Climate justice is well covered ihere: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/miami-faces-an-underwater-future "Everyone is affected—whether storm flooding forces a small-business owner to shut down for a few days (at tremendous cost), or daily tides hinder students commuting to school, or the retreating coastline forces people to abandon their homes. There are other, less obvious, but equally troubling impacts. People’s increased contact with overflow water from urban canals and sewers is a significant health issue. Low-income communities of color ... also face rising housing costs as residents seek higher ground."

In a rational world an attempt would be made to empty out the NYC metro area. How much population density-insanity can people endure before they go bonkers? I have no interest in even visiting there anymore.

I occasionally hear of plans to replace the auto shops east of Citi Field (so-called "Willets Point") with housing. I can think of little in real estate so reprehensible than to place people in danger in prime flood zones. These areas should either be used as parks or parking lots where high water would cause little distress. There are still TV ads admonishing people not to retreat from the coasts and to dump more money into these doomed areas. There are better uses for money than to subsidize imprudent home owners.

If this is the kind of construction being built in flood zones as the map demonstrates, it should require flood gates or walls to protect the current population. Buildings can be constructed to withstand flooding and constant water - look at Venice, Italy and Brugge, Belgium - but to simply ignore the current population, leaving them to the whims of climate change, rising water and heavy storms is just not acceptable. It is just another example of the flood of "elitism" spreading across the country on many issues. We are beginning to resemble third world tyrannies who consistently disregard the welfare of the average citizen for the pleasure and advantage of the uber-rich and politically connected. This is not the America for whom our Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, mandating equality, fairness and protection for all – not just for those who were in a position to buy it! The country is beginning to resemble more of the aristocracy of pre-revolution France with Marie Antoinette and Louie XVI than the democracy our forefathers fought so strongly to accomplish. Is this what we want to see written in history books: The Rise & Fall of the United States of America? I certainly hope not and encourage you to take a stand to stop this travesty.

So those living in these new buildings will be paying tons of money for flood insurance coverage, when in fact the buildings should likely not have been built in the first place. This is why De Blasio is worse than useless: he's never seen a development he didn't like, nor has he met a developer whose money he won't gladly pocket. This used to be known as "corruption" but now it's just "business as usual in NYC." Thanks for nothing, De Blasio.

"Build it and they will come"-Jeremiah 32-34) “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”-Aldous Huxley

This is not just a New York thing is it? Everywhere you look, from Miami to New Orleans, San Francisco to Boston, anywhere and everywhere at the waters edge we build. We build in the face of the growing awareness of climate change and how warming conditions are increasing the levels of the waters against which we build. This is beyond foolish from a longer term perspective; it is stupidity writ large. We marvel at the likes of the Pompeii citizens and such, the citizens of past civilizations who died as a consequence of dynamic Nature they abutted against, but they can be forgive because they were ignorant. What's our excuse? John~ American Net'Zen

“Gentrification by water” eh? Interesting term

West of 9th Avenue in Chelsea there are Moderate RIsk, High Risk and Highest Risk FEMA flood map zones with a lot of new construction west of 9th Avenue. Good luck on the next Sandy type water event. Your building might be spared in that it leaves many components on higher floor levels, but the salt water will screw with your streets and infrastructure.

When there are floods resulting from rivers overflowing, and large walls of sandbags are used to protect some areas from being inundated, the water that would have flooded these protected areas doesn't disappear, it will be sometimes diverted to less well protected places. Doesn't that apply in these cases, too ? I'm sure it's complicated to determine, and light years beyond my ken, but it seems that some of the damage being avoided by some mentioned here might be inflicted on others in the vicinity.

I've been flooded three times in two locations. The most recent was this past January (ice blockage on the Susquehanna). Our home is flood resistant. Resistant does not mean no damage: it means less. There is still mud, mold and expenses. Worse flooding alters the neighborhood and it's character. Residents and business leave. The value of property declines until memories grow short. In America today profit is the guiding principle of our society. Developers will build where they see profit. My voice of experience: avoid at all costs. Run... Don't walk... Run away.

Even if I had the money, there's no way I'd buy in any of these buildings. To me, it makes no sense to do large scale construction on these sites. You'd think Hurricane Sandy would have taught us something. It didn't. Developers don't care. They only see profits for themselves. Also, the commute from Sheepshead Bay to Midtown is 45 minutes at best on a good day (as stated in the article). My dentist used to be in Sheepshead Bay when I lived in Manhattan. (He was a good dentist and very reasonable so it was worth the hike to see him every 6 months). If I was doing that commute daily and it was important to be punctual, I'd leave 1hr and 15 minutes ahead of time, even with the express train at Sheepshead Bay Station. It's really a shlep into the city from Sheepshead Bay, IMO.

According to fivethirtyeight.com, the USGS hasn't been collecting data for one hundred years on many of their 'One Hundred Year Flood' sites. Wouldn't that make it guessing? So good luck New York on the new builds.

Absolute willful ignorance of NYC's history and geography - probably a third of NYC's land has been filled in or built up... Nothing in NYC is simple to build...One of the biggest problems is that public-sector infrastructure is not systemically maintained or efficiently operated - let alone scaled up to meet the needs of a growing city... This includes baseline utilities...Any of the NYC megascale projects could straightforwardly handle all of their utilities and waste - but are forced to connect into the existing ecosystem... For clarity, gas cogeneration could be used for heat and electricity... When Indian Point is shuttered, there'll be a gigawatt of waste heat that won't be going into the Hudson... If NYC leveraged this for hydrothermal cooling during the summer, peak electricity consumption would be a fraction of what it currently is... Already being done - by your newest ivy league university... http://sites.ieee.org/icps-ehe/files/2015/04/Cornell-University-EPA-Clea...

I'd suppose that as long as developers/owners can get, and afford, flood insurance, such development will continue apace...

The city is trying to rezone industrial eastern Inwood (Manhattan) for massive high-density redevelopment, much of it in Zone X or AE. Little has been said about how to mitigate flood conditions.

Why was Staten Island not mentioned in an article on sea level construction plans. DeBlasio has greenlighted building everywhere, with more to come.

It would be interesting to gather the complexities which determined the sudden shift in Central Park annual rainfall between the years 1965 and 1970. Or maybe the equipment for monitoring such changed?? Hydroqual did drop the ball for their Technical Memorandum pertaining to the Greenpoint Williamsburg upzone annual average rainfall number. They blankly chose 44.7". A conservative number would've been ~46.3". A number representing '05 would have been ~49.5". And as far as future projections, possibly something upwards of that. Growth is a double edged sword. One side is population and the other is economic. The natural environment is what's at stake.

Big surprise, the people with real skin in the game know how much credence to give "Global Warming."

Not a single dollar of taxpayers' money -- federal, state or local -- must be spent in help for these people during the next storm/flooding. And since their buildings are "floodproof", not a penny is to be spent rescuing them. Survival of the fittest, and these fools are not fit!

As picturesque as they may be, some places are just not meant for year-round human habitation.

Many working class/middle class damaged Sandy neighborhoods in NJ now have expensive new development. It’s the new normal.

Artist renderings of luxury living mask a lot of death and destruction. Money–profit for the developer, taxes for the city–drives this risky development. Buyer beware.

What is hard to believe is that people who can afford the prices of these new buildings would want to live so far from the Manhattan. It is a long subway/bus ride or drive from Sheepshead Bay, Rockaway, or Gravesend just ask anyone who lives there.

Chuck W great points. Building in A and V zones should be out right prohibited The hardening of the ground gives flood waters no where to go impacting the entire neighborhood negatively. For people who are already there policies should be modified so that when the next big one hits they are paid off and title shifts to a government agency charged with restoring the shoreline. I would guess that people living in these locations would all complain about global warming not realizing their choice of residence is an equally destructive environmental hazard. The fact that this type of building is still allowed speaks simply to greed of developers permitted by bought and paid for politicians.

So basically, new buildings that can resist floods are replacing old houses that can’t, and of which the owners can’t afford to not rely on the public to resist the next flood. Considering that building up is the best way to occupy less ground per housing unit, and that apartments that are up won’t get flooded, I struggle to see the problem… Besides, at the prices that any new apartment costs (obviously overstated by all the real estate agents/developers here, but you can’t blame them for acting their role), the cost of flood-proofing them is quite negligible (all of it would be absorbed by the resulting lower value of the land). All in all, these new developments are a solution, not a problem. Also a solution to rising prices, whatever these people in the article seem to suggest. If people are ready to pay a million to buy an apartment in the area, you won’t stop their competition against locals by not building anything; all you would get by stopping development is an area where rich people pay the same millions for lower-quality homes, in lower quantities. High rises are the symptom of high prices, not the cause.

I believe the most troubling aspect is psychological in that we communicate growth in the 21st century is acceptable.

I used to work in the flood insurance business. I used to hear the "it will never happened again" almost on a daily basis. "It" did happen again and again. Meanwhile building costs go up but the maximum limits of the Federal program does not so the condo associations either have to get supplemental flood insurance or assess residents ever increasing amounts to rebuild after a flooding event. Local governments approve these projects seeing tax dollars coming in when a new resident moves in. Land in high risk zones, zones A or V, are best left alone or developed in much needed green zones.