This situation is deplorable. We need housing. People who want to park cars should do so elsewhere I'm tired of the class division that this has obviously created.
1
"On the face of it, of course, the argument is absurd, if not enraging — pitting the interests of people who seek the most convenient transit to Fairway or Bucks County against those who do not have a decent place to live..."
Umm...excuse me but this writer's glib and smug dismissal of the real-time consequences of having 800 (not counting those out-of-area visitors seeking parking) more cars flooding local streets fails to take into account that this neighborhood ALREADY has significant and abundant public housing for the disadvantaged. The Douglass Houses are in this neighborhood as is public housing on West 103rd Street btwn West End and Broadway. There are several SROs in this area as well, so Manhattan Valley is not exactly inhospitable to the less fortunate. So save it please. You don't live here, you don't know. I own a car and I garage it (as further proof that you don't know, I'd love to know where you found a garage for $345/month; they're much more than that in Manhattan Valley). I do not use the car to drive to Fairway. I use it to drive to my place upstate and for work. I don't appreciate the snide tone taken here, which seemingly suggests that car owners with country homes are intrinsically at odds with the concerns of the less fortunate. I think of myself as liberal but the tone taken by this writer is condescending and more than a little annoying.
Umm...excuse me but this writer's glib and smug dismissal of the real-time consequences of having 800 (not counting those out-of-area visitors seeking parking) more cars flooding local streets fails to take into account that this neighborhood ALREADY has significant and abundant public housing for the disadvantaged. The Douglass Houses are in this neighborhood as is public housing on West 103rd Street btwn West End and Broadway. There are several SROs in this area as well, so Manhattan Valley is not exactly inhospitable to the less fortunate. So save it please. You don't live here, you don't know. I own a car and I garage it (as further proof that you don't know, I'd love to know where you found a garage for $345/month; they're much more than that in Manhattan Valley). I do not use the car to drive to Fairway. I use it to drive to my place upstate and for work. I don't appreciate the snide tone taken here, which seemingly suggests that car owners with country homes are intrinsically at odds with the concerns of the less fortunate. I think of myself as liberal but the tone taken by this writer is condescending and more than a little annoying.
12
As a resident of NYC for more than a decade, I have not owned a car and have not had the need for one. Yes, I walk, ride a bike or use public transportation like the majority of the city residents. Yes, it is very humid in the summer and extremely cold in the winter; subway trains are not always reliable; stations can be super hot; buses can be super slow. There can be brutal rains. So what? You live in NYC; you suck it up and deal with it. Welcome to our world. I am grateful for the last two administrations to enable more breathing room for us residents. I can finally walk around Times Square. I can use Citibike. This whole argument in my view is about entitlement; resident assume they are entitled to affordable parking- they don't. I wish the city included surge pricing and also did more to get rid of cars. You live in NYC; there is public transport; use it! I live on York Avenue, I am surrounded with blocks and blocks of Public Housing and a not so short walk to the subway. I deal with it. What I cannot deal with? Cars! They are dangerous, there is usually only a single person riding them, and they pollute the air; they are a disaster for asthma sufferers that have to inhale their disgusting exhaust; they create noise pollution with their honking and engines. Yes, they are convenient for you-- but only for you! We all suffer for your convenience and this should stop. You want to keep your car? Move to Texas. This is NYC!
4
This is nonsense. The problem with low income and affordable housing in New York City extends back to the 1980's. Nothing has been built for decades but luxury housing. My very first job as an attorney was representing elderly tenants in lower Manhattan in the early 1990's. Those families, primarily Americans of Italian, Jewish, and Latino decent, residents for generations, were being pushed out by developers. Politicians, as well as the mainstream press, were either complicit or remained silent. The developers had all of the power; the residents none. In the end these people lost their neighborhood. At best they received a meagre buyout so they could spend their final years in some isolated suburb. It was done to allow wealthy people to supplant them. For the developers it was a pittance; trouble money. Far easier to throw pocket change at these great New Yorkers than to bother litigating, which they knew my clients couldn't afford. This dramatically increased under Bloomberg and DiBlasio. Now the last working and middle class residents in Manhattan, and some of the only small businesses left, are the villains standing in the way of low income housing because they need somewhere to park their cars. Ms. Bellafante pretends that it’s a struggle between greedy residents and the poor. It’s actually politicians in bed with big developers for decades who destroyed what little affordable housing the City had. Now, average New Yorkers are somehow to blame for this. It’s a disgrace.
8
To those who simply must own a car and feel that a space for it is more important than housing I suggest to you that you move to Los Angeles. They will welcome you with open arms. You will also experience the negative effects of this attitude in spades. You are right car owners, there are simply too many of us here. Please feel free to drive right out.
2
Why does everyone have to live in Manhattan? And why does the City feel it okay to remove parking from the citizens it serves when at the same time take up every stretch of street in my neighborhood near City Hall to park city vehicles? Why do they own so many vehicles in the first place ? If they do feel so compelled to own as many as they do why can't they build a garage somewhere near a transit stop and require the people using the vehicles to pick them up there? And can someone also explain why firemen/women are allowed to park their vehicles on the sidewalk or in designated spots on the street?
5
There has always been an affordable housing crisis in New York City for as long as I can remember. People who live in Manhattan should rely/utilize mass transit. Garage space could be put into much better use. People and housing should come first. When vacant land and buildings become available housing should be initiated for a needy population.
4
The writer wrote a simplistic view of the subject reducing it to 2 groups. The subject is complex and surprising Ms. Bellafante neglected to 'notice' that this is about the haves and the have-nots. I live and teach in Manhattan Valley and for decades it has been observed that, intentionally or unintentionally, a series of institutionalized policies and the steering of social groups into our community has been responsible for a segregated community. A concrete wall of buildings to the south consisting of the solid middle-class community of Park West Village and the super block community of Frederick Douglas (consisting of several thousand units) is a grime reminder of those with opportunity and those without. Manhattan Valley is host to 40% of affordable housing for the entire Upper West Side. This is interesting since we have the lowest density and we are only a few blocks in size.
i would suggest that Ms. Bellafante walk along Columbus Avenue from West 86 Street, cross West 100 Street into Manhattan Valley sometime in the evening or to take a daytime stroll to go shopping along Columbus Avenue. Take a real look and compare the 2 Upper West communities. The West 108 affordable housing will add more impoverished families into an already disadvantaged community and will be responsible for denying opportunity that they would experience in a more diverse setting.
i would suggest that Ms. Bellafante walk along Columbus Avenue from West 86 Street, cross West 100 Street into Manhattan Valley sometime in the evening or to take a daytime stroll to go shopping along Columbus Avenue. Take a real look and compare the 2 Upper West communities. The West 108 affordable housing will add more impoverished families into an already disadvantaged community and will be responsible for denying opportunity that they would experience in a more diverse setting.
15
This is a typical NYTimes article with low journalistic standards. Make another woman a target (similar to how the NYT does Hillary Clinton) - why describe the physical attributes of a woman? Would this be done for a man? What bearing does it have on the story?
The bottom line is that the area needs these parking garages. Why not build a new building (albeit smaller - this proposal is for too large a building) and put a public parking garage underneath it? There are many people who use their car to visit patients at the Jewish Home on West 106th and St. Luke's Hospital and there is little street parking around here since CitiBikes is EVERYWHERE now and has eliminated many free parking spaces. There are many residents who need a car as their jobs require them to go to Long Island, the Bronx, Westchester County, etc. Not everyone, Ms. Ginia, can afford private car service on a daily basis or ride a bike!! Good grief!
This article is disgustingly dishonest and does not represent the views of the residents of the community who generously help the needy with many social services and housing units already in the neighborhood, yet want to retain parking facilities as well.
The bottom line is that the area needs these parking garages. Why not build a new building (albeit smaller - this proposal is for too large a building) and put a public parking garage underneath it? There are many people who use their car to visit patients at the Jewish Home on West 106th and St. Luke's Hospital and there is little street parking around here since CitiBikes is EVERYWHERE now and has eliminated many free parking spaces. There are many residents who need a car as their jobs require them to go to Long Island, the Bronx, Westchester County, etc. Not everyone, Ms. Ginia, can afford private car service on a daily basis or ride a bike!! Good grief!
This article is disgustingly dishonest and does not represent the views of the residents of the community who generously help the needy with many social services and housing units already in the neighborhood, yet want to retain parking facilities as well.
24
The parking problem is a real one. And so is finding affordable housing for low-income New Yorkers. The obvious solution is an underground parking garage that replaces the lost spaces and attendant jobs in the basement of the affordable housing. At $50,000 a unit, $250 a month generates about $15 to $40 a month in additional income for the housing project, or $200,000 a month in subsidies to the project's operating costs. Sometimes. Ms. Bellafante, we all CAN live together harmoniously.
12
I am not arguing that the city should make it easy for me to drive and park (hey, I'd like it, but I don't consider it an entitlement.) However, as someone who is disabled and most of her life has worked, therefore needing to be on time, Access-A-Ride and the very scattered subway elevators (never know when one is going to be out of service) don't cut it.
14
Ginia Bellafante carelessly neglected to mention the middle school, MS 54, directly across the street from the proposed major building development. Manhattan Valley residents are upset and deeply concerned about the noise and air pollution and construction chaos that will severely disrupt the health and education of hundreds of children. Children's needs matter as much as anyone else's. It was a gross oversight not to mention that angle.
13
There is a public school nearly every 5 blocks on the island of Manhattan. If we stop building around schools there would have to be a moratorium on almost all construction.
7
This does seem like a problem that could have a common sense solution. The City on a case by case basis could allow the parking spaces not to count against the FAR (the parameter that predicates how much living space can be constructed). The spaces would not be allocated or preferenced to the residents of the development but rather as market rate units to satisfy the demands of the community. So at the same time it would both address the need for affordable housing while maintaining the tax base that is currently in place in the existing lots.
5
"11-story building that would add 258 units of affordable and supportive housing for the poor and the elderly ...." versus ...."the number of people arriving in homeless shelters each night now exceeds 60,000 — there comes a time to ask when some democracy is arguably too much..."
Exactly when and where does the development stop? And for whom are we developing our 60,000 homeless, they are going to pay their affordable rent on time, take out their garbage? Or do we have 40,000 profoundly mentally ill people, 10,000 suburban kids addicted to heroin coming into this city with a cardboard sign, a puppy on Benadryl and a dream and maybe, maybe another 10,000 people who are adults and their kids who need housing. If we plough under EVERY COMMUNITY GARDEN, sell every library, fill every rail yard, every small island around this city with housing a portion of which is "affordable" that would not make a dent in this problem. Because our solution is to build 5,000 studio and one bedroom units of terrible 600 square foot dumps with no ventilation, bad elevator service, cheap appliances and expect rents of roughly $3,500 and keep most in inventory in exchange for 10 "affordable housing units of humiliation. So we strip and flip every available resource of air and light and space and community and slap on a patina of "affordable" and get what we want. Who wins? Scott Stringer who fantasizes about be NYC's next mayor who will drop such housing on a community's garden or the garden?
Exactly when and where does the development stop? And for whom are we developing our 60,000 homeless, they are going to pay their affordable rent on time, take out their garbage? Or do we have 40,000 profoundly mentally ill people, 10,000 suburban kids addicted to heroin coming into this city with a cardboard sign, a puppy on Benadryl and a dream and maybe, maybe another 10,000 people who are adults and their kids who need housing. If we plough under EVERY COMMUNITY GARDEN, sell every library, fill every rail yard, every small island around this city with housing a portion of which is "affordable" that would not make a dent in this problem. Because our solution is to build 5,000 studio and one bedroom units of terrible 600 square foot dumps with no ventilation, bad elevator service, cheap appliances and expect rents of roughly $3,500 and keep most in inventory in exchange for 10 "affordable housing units of humiliation. So we strip and flip every available resource of air and light and space and community and slap on a patina of "affordable" and get what we want. Who wins? Scott Stringer who fantasizes about be NYC's next mayor who will drop such housing on a community's garden or the garden?
10
A young woman, for example, in her late teens living at home in her mom's three bedroom apartment decides to have a baby. As soon as that happens, she officially becomes a homeless family entitled under NYS law to her own government provided permanent living space which can not be the temporary shelter. The government can not say that, since her mom has a three bedroom apartment, she has a place to live, as in where she has always lived, and is therefore not homeless. That's how it works to a good extent. Of course, families also drive across country from warm, sunny California per a recent Times article and declare themselves homeless in NYC as well and in need of, if not our compassion, a government provided living space as well. The real but uncounted homeless, the mentally ill, refuse to even go to shelters on even the coldest nights, and the ACLU will go to court to defend their right to sleep on the streets. Yes, occasionally, some organization will try to do a census by sending out volunteers to try and take a count, but no one probably knows how many there are.
3
Wouldn't the obvious solution be to require the development to have a similar number of parking spaces? Just build a big underground garage. Comparing a parking-starved Manhattan neighborhood to a Brooklyn development with unused parking is disingenuous. If they build parking and rent it out for market rate, it would bring some income to help pay for the subsidized apartments and the existing residents will have a place to park.
18
The required parking spaces are restricted to the residents of the newly constructed high rise, whether it be public housing or luxury condominiums, because the Zoning Board and ultimately the local communities don't want all of those extra cars crowding out street parking for the local residents. Even if you don't own a car and don't have to worry about parking, you would still suffer from the increased traffic congestion resulting from a high rise without zoning required dedicated parking. Not too many people can wrap their brain around this very simple concept including, apparently, the writer of this article.
I make it a point to enter and leave Manhattan via a free crossing. I'm pretty good at sussing out free parking within the insane regs in NYC.
Each time I consider it a win against those who seem to think that car use is a sin which needs taxation.
News Flash...I don't want to subsidize the subway, nor do I applaud the efforts to make NYC less car friendly.
You do realize that dollar for dollar, the bicycle friendly efforts are the biggest waste of money possible...the percentage of trips v. cost v. loss of parking for merchants and residents does not add up. It is the most elitist part of this...and makes the argument of low income housing vs parking moot.
It has a distinct feelgood aspect to a small but vocal group, and provides a jumping off point for increased taxation, no matter what it is called, be it toll, tax or congestion pricing, or "camera enforcement", which is the gold and shiny prize for City Government, and why they hew to the Spandex Militia's agenda...
Low Income housing wins here, if there is anywhere left on Manhattan Island for it...
Each time I consider it a win against those who seem to think that car use is a sin which needs taxation.
News Flash...I don't want to subsidize the subway, nor do I applaud the efforts to make NYC less car friendly.
You do realize that dollar for dollar, the bicycle friendly efforts are the biggest waste of money possible...the percentage of trips v. cost v. loss of parking for merchants and residents does not add up. It is the most elitist part of this...and makes the argument of low income housing vs parking moot.
It has a distinct feelgood aspect to a small but vocal group, and provides a jumping off point for increased taxation, no matter what it is called, be it toll, tax or congestion pricing, or "camera enforcement", which is the gold and shiny prize for City Government, and why they hew to the Spandex Militia's agenda...
Low Income housing wins here, if there is anywhere left on Manhattan Island for it...
5
The amount of illegal activity by the bicycle brigade is staggering. I walk my dog in Chelsea and EVERY TIME I go out for a walk, there is some bicyclist or many breaking the laws, by riding the wrong way, not in the bike lanes, on the sidewalk, not stopping at red lights, etc.
The city should be considering this an untapped stream of income. But they haven't figured out how to do this. Stupid them and poorer us.
The city should be considering this an untapped stream of income. But they haven't figured out how to do this. Stupid them and poorer us.
14
For every cyclist on the sidewalk/going through a red light, there are TEN dog owners who refuse to pick up after their dog so their feces is all over the sidewalk. I prefer the cyclists...
4
Just want to point out that riding outside the bike lane is not illegal, and given the safety issues surrounding some of them it's actually better to ride in the street with cars. The one on 8th avenue is particularly bad. Pedestrians use it as an extension of the sidewalk at best, and at worst when crossing against traffic wander into it without looking (even when the cyclists don't have the right of way). It's a constant threat to everyone, so instead I ride in the right-hand lane where everyone can see me.
2
Uber, Gar2Go, ZipCar, Enterprise Car Share, Hertz 24/7, Yellow Cab, Pedicab, Bikes, Walking; There are plenty of solutions for difficult parking. There are no other solutions for low-income housing, then low-income housing
4
There is vacant and under-utilized land all over the five boroughs that can be used for affordable housing. No need to ruin the lives of hundreds of residents who actually need a car for survival, not just to jaunt to their weekend house in the Hamptons.
And your choices are very nice, but please explain how a middle-class person living in Manhattan Valley who works in a suburban office building in New Jersey is supposed to get to work everyday.
And your choices are very nice, but please explain how a middle-class person living in Manhattan Valley who works in a suburban office building in New Jersey is supposed to get to work everyday.
14
Using an uber or a rental car every single day to go to work? that's your solution? One week ago, I used an uber to go far west to far east and it cost me 100 dollars. Please don't act like you understand the plight of people who cannot afford uber but have, perhaps, an older car that keeps them going to work. You really don't understand what you are talking about. The City continues to favor large scale development over individuals and does nothing to help with the every day concerns of New Yorkers such as parking, refuse reduction and seats in public schools.
13
Move to NJ and have all the free parking you want plus much lower rent or mortgage and be close to your suburban office job.
5
This is win-win.
As an Upper West Sider, I've been happy to see the city implement a number of initiatives to diminish the deference paid to private cars--reducing lanes on the avenues to insert bike lanes, for example, and the long-awaited arrival of Citibike. We have one of the best, most accommodating public transit systems in America, indeed, the world. I look forward to the day when private cars and parking lots are paying high taxes to help fund buses and subways.
But more important is the urgent need to preserve the Upper West Side as a neighborhood available to people of every income level. The needs of private car owners pale in comparison with the need for more affordable housing--and above all, the need to keep affordable and mixed-income housing within Manhattan.
Years ago, Mayor Koch predicted that Manhattan would be a borough only for the rich. He seemed to be just fine with that idea. I'm not.
Not all of De Blasio's plans for affordable housing are great. (For example, he is supporting the terrible Bloomberg proposal to sell of chunks of open space within public housing projects to luxury developers--an idea that is contemptible.)
As an Upper West Sider, I've been happy to see the city implement a number of initiatives to diminish the deference paid to private cars--reducing lanes on the avenues to insert bike lanes, for example, and the long-awaited arrival of Citibike. We have one of the best, most accommodating public transit systems in America, indeed, the world. I look forward to the day when private cars and parking lots are paying high taxes to help fund buses and subways.
But more important is the urgent need to preserve the Upper West Side as a neighborhood available to people of every income level. The needs of private car owners pale in comparison with the need for more affordable housing--and above all, the need to keep affordable and mixed-income housing within Manhattan.
Years ago, Mayor Koch predicted that Manhattan would be a borough only for the rich. He seemed to be just fine with that idea. I'm not.
Not all of De Blasio's plans for affordable housing are great. (For example, he is supporting the terrible Bloomberg proposal to sell of chunks of open space within public housing projects to luxury developers--an idea that is contemptible.)
3
Actually, leasing the excess land in public housing developers to private developers is a great ideal. They build an 80/20 projects, the public housing stays, and every single penny from the land lease is dedicated to improving the public housing.
But for some reason, you believe that public housing tenants should get free or cheap parking, while tenants in private apartments should lose their parking?
But for some reason, you believe that public housing tenants should get free or cheap parking, while tenants in private apartments should lose their parking?
9
Public housing zones were designed to have sufficient air, light, and open space for the density of residents in them. It should under no circumstances be sold away from them.
It's also abundantly clear that building luxury market-rate highrises in the middle of public housing spaces is an excellent way to start the process of driving out the low-income residents entirely and selling off the land in areas that are now immensely valuable--something Bloomberg's developer chums have been trying to do for the past decade. After all, why should poor people live close to their jobs? Why should they get to live in nice neighborhoods once they have become nicer, right?
As for parking for poor people: I'm sure you're right. Let's make sure that people with low incomes are prevented from owning cars in NYC. But on no account should we take away parking from people with money. After all, that's what market-driven capitalism--oops, I mean "fairness"--is all about, right?
As for 80/20 housing: it's lip service to the idea of subsidized & mixed-income housing. That ratio cannot deliver the quantity of housing needed. It's a whitewash to mask the federal government's abject abandonment of housing supports, and a massive giveaway to developers: they can keep a mere 20% of units at the "low-income" benchmark for the minimum number of years, & then flip them to market rate. Meanwhile, they enjoy fat tax credits, low-interest financing, and every other give-away Bloomberg could think of.
It's also abundantly clear that building luxury market-rate highrises in the middle of public housing spaces is an excellent way to start the process of driving out the low-income residents entirely and selling off the land in areas that are now immensely valuable--something Bloomberg's developer chums have been trying to do for the past decade. After all, why should poor people live close to their jobs? Why should they get to live in nice neighborhoods once they have become nicer, right?
As for parking for poor people: I'm sure you're right. Let's make sure that people with low incomes are prevented from owning cars in NYC. But on no account should we take away parking from people with money. After all, that's what market-driven capitalism--oops, I mean "fairness"--is all about, right?
As for 80/20 housing: it's lip service to the idea of subsidized & mixed-income housing. That ratio cannot deliver the quantity of housing needed. It's a whitewash to mask the federal government's abject abandonment of housing supports, and a massive giveaway to developers: they can keep a mere 20% of units at the "low-income" benchmark for the minimum number of years, & then flip them to market rate. Meanwhile, they enjoy fat tax credits, low-interest financing, and every other give-away Bloomberg could think of.
"Vicki L. Been, New York City’s housing commissioner, told me.....It’s more important for people to have parking’? I just don’t think that’s the kind of city we want to have.”
Vicki, dear, have you been living in a farm somewhere upstate during the last 10 years? That is EXACTLY the city that we have now. People (I mean, those that are not part of the 1% or even less) need not apply to live here. The BMWs, Land Rovers and other such vehicles requiring parking need not worry...
Vicki, dear, have you been living in a farm somewhere upstate during the last 10 years? That is EXACTLY the city that we have now. People (I mean, those that are not part of the 1% or even less) need not apply to live here. The BMWs, Land Rovers and other such vehicles requiring parking need not worry...
1
"And I'm quite sure that my tax dollars are going to subsidize roads, tunnels, and bridges used by you and other drivers, including those toll-free East River crossings."
Just like my tax dollars, as do those of a lot of cell phone users via the "MTA Surcharge", subsidize buses, Bus Only and Express bus lanes, trains, tunnels, construction to open more stations and extend train routes, Metro North, the LIRR and to some extent NJT.
Mind you, I don't use any mass transit and I drive to work as I work the midnight shift in Manhattan although I live in Brooklyn. So, all of our taxes pay for things we don't use. All taxpayers subsidize something.
Just like my tax dollars, as do those of a lot of cell phone users via the "MTA Surcharge", subsidize buses, Bus Only and Express bus lanes, trains, tunnels, construction to open more stations and extend train routes, Metro North, the LIRR and to some extent NJT.
Mind you, I don't use any mass transit and I drive to work as I work the midnight shift in Manhattan although I live in Brooklyn. So, all of our taxes pay for things we don't use. All taxpayers subsidize something.
6
As a native New Yorker who spent the second half of his life in Minneapolis until last spring, when I returned to (ouch) live in Brooklyn, it astounds me that the city is trying to build more housing for an already amazingly overcrowded city.
The focus should be on the infrastrcuture that supports people (not cars, not parking, not even apartments), which means no more tax breaks for anything that uses public resources!
The subways often work well, but need new technology (why are there still two employees on each subway in the age of self driving cars?).
The only way to have more affordable housing is to tax real estate at punitive rates as soon as the market price becomes unaffordable. Tax breaks only ensure the quality of life worsens (the garbage all over the place is disgusting and isn't tolerated in clean cities that claim to be livable). Deliveries to business and to residences could easily be restricted to evening and late night hours, reducing traffic. Wifi should be provided by the city, for free up to a reasonable amount (not necessarily including enough to stream multiple hours of video daily).
And what is the deal with all the police lounging around all day, every day, in the wealthiest, most business oriented areas of the city? I think NYPD is either overhiring or misusing its manpower.
The focus should be on the infrastrcuture that supports people (not cars, not parking, not even apartments), which means no more tax breaks for anything that uses public resources!
The subways often work well, but need new technology (why are there still two employees on each subway in the age of self driving cars?).
The only way to have more affordable housing is to tax real estate at punitive rates as soon as the market price becomes unaffordable. Tax breaks only ensure the quality of life worsens (the garbage all over the place is disgusting and isn't tolerated in clean cities that claim to be livable). Deliveries to business and to residences could easily be restricted to evening and late night hours, reducing traffic. Wifi should be provided by the city, for free up to a reasonable amount (not necessarily including enough to stream multiple hours of video daily).
And what is the deal with all the police lounging around all day, every day, in the wealthiest, most business oriented areas of the city? I think NYPD is either overhiring or misusing its manpower.
7
Couldn't agree with you more. Ban Uber, halve the yellow cabs and bring the subway into first world status and you would see a sea change. Incentives are all screwed up. City should not be subsidizing housing for wealthy and poor through tax breaks. There are private car lots and people can pay for them if they don't want to risk it in the ticket cash cow alternate side parking lanes.
1
I am a self-employed musician here in the city. I am blessed to have a few very good jobs. I am not "rich" by any means! Every single pay check is crucial, and I manage my money carefully. If something were to happen with my finances where I could no longer afford my apartment, I would not "expect" that the city jump in and find ways to allow me to keep living in the city. I would be an adult, find another affordable location, start over, and go from there.
Why is it the city's job (and as taxpayers, our responsibility) to create all of this affordable housing? There is no law that states a person is required to live in New York City. If you can't afford to live in Manhattan, move out. If you can't afford to live in any of the boroughs, relocate to another area. There are many more affordable areas in the country to live.
The other evening, I was out for a walk at night and overheard a group of tenants talking outside their building - of the city's recent affordable housing converts here in the West 90s. They were smoking (pot), drinking, and complaining about how far they have to travel from the neighborhood to be able to afford things on their shopping lists (clothes, groceries, etc.). If these people cannot afford to live in a neighborhood, is it really right to place them here?
Why is it the city's job (and as taxpayers, our responsibility) to create all of this affordable housing? There is no law that states a person is required to live in New York City. If you can't afford to live in Manhattan, move out. If you can't afford to live in any of the boroughs, relocate to another area. There are many more affordable areas in the country to live.
The other evening, I was out for a walk at night and overheard a group of tenants talking outside their building - of the city's recent affordable housing converts here in the West 90s. They were smoking (pot), drinking, and complaining about how far they have to travel from the neighborhood to be able to afford things on their shopping lists (clothes, groceries, etc.). If these people cannot afford to live in a neighborhood, is it really right to place them here?
22
Amen. Why give away the most valuable real estate in the world. That seems wasteful. Yonkers, Mount Vernon, etc, only 15 minutes away is much more suited for affordable housing.
Granted that most of the people who move into the new low-income housing won't own cars, let's ask who owns the cars that will now be displaced, and whether they are "worthy," and whether some accommodation can be made for them.
Why is this the only option, while the city gives millions in tax breaks so that wealthy developers can sell apartments to wealthy clients?
13
This article is so lopsided. It is about much more than the destruction of the garages. On that block is a school with a huge playing field used by the school and the community, a playground, and up the street are two more elementary schools. Less than a block away is a methadone clinic and three blocks away is a supportive/transitional housing building. One block away is another transitional housing building. It is already a neighborhood over saturated with low income/transitional housing and social services for low income people. The area is rife with drug dealers that the police ignore. We don't want our street turned into a construction zone, churning up lead and pollution for years, for services that nobody wants in the area. We have more than our fair share already. If it was going to be middle income housing for teachers/nurses/social workers, the community would feel much different about it. Those garages are not filled with luxury cars and SUV's. They are used by community businesses and people who need their cars for work. This is not the West 70's or West 80's. This is not a fancy, rich neighborhood filled with people that use their cars on the weekend to drive to the Hamptons.
37
So, what you are saying is "not in my backyard", right? Manhattan Valley is no different than any other neighborhood in the city, in fact, I'd you are not more saturated with housing for the poor than others.
You think parking is more important than helping others. I think that's pretty disgusting.
You think parking is more important than helping others. I think that's pretty disgusting.
2
Wow if you think that area is bad now you should have seen it 20 years ago. Maybe if you didn't want to end up in an area with lots of social services for the poor and indigent you shouldn't have gentri.... I mean, you shouldn't have decided to move there.
Manhattan Valley is a small compact community that consists of a few blocks that is carved out of the Upper West Side. This community is very different from the 'other' Upper West Side in many ways. It is impoverished, lacks services, has depilated buildings that are owned or managed by social services. Our community consists of 40% of the affordable housing within the Upper West Side. It does not take a researcher to realize that Manhattan Valley is a segregeted community that lacks affordable housing for working and middle-class.
2
"That the loss of parking spaces, though seemingly preposterous in the age of CitiBike, Uber, car sharing and global warming, can be the cause remains a perplexing reality."
Citibike - many people do not ride bikes.
Uber - many people work where Uber doesn't go, or if they do go, the cost is prohibitive.
Car Sharing - very expensive, and probably not available in this area.
Global Warming - in the context of the worldwide problem (like 2.7 billion Indians and Chinese modernizing), you have to be kidding.
Citibike - many people do not ride bikes.
Uber - many people work where Uber doesn't go, or if they do go, the cost is prohibitive.
Car Sharing - very expensive, and probably not available in this area.
Global Warming - in the context of the worldwide problem (like 2.7 billion Indians and Chinese modernizing), you have to be kidding.
11
Food for thought...imagine the city decided to sell that land at fair market value to the highest bidder....that's maybe tens of millions of dollars (or more) for housing, education, homelessness, or if anything is left over, God forbid, something for the city's taxpayers who pay some of the highest rates in the country. But no- the liberals want to break out the champagne over 258 units of apartments.
Good luck with this housing lottery!!
Good luck with this housing lottery!!
6
Maybe the City should bring back barracks-style housing. If you want a roof over your head, than you just might have to accept a bunk bed. Beggars can't be choosers, after all.
6
I think it is more immoral to build housing that subsidizes a lucky few at the expense of many. Get rid of rent control.stabilized housing and rents will go down for the majority of renters. Since there is not a Constitutional right to live in NYC if you have a free market people will live where they can afford to live, not where they need to be subsidized by others to live.
16
Without rent stabilization rents will go down? That's the kind of absurdity that must be paid for by a developer. Yes, people will live where they can afford to live, and those in rent-stabilized housing won't be able to live here.
7
Great answer. Rent control is an abomination. How can anyone call that fair? Especially to a landlord who has to subsidize these people ( and then their children)
4
1) Boston got rid of rent control and the prices skyrocketed across the board.
2) Landlords that can charge what they want will increase the rents to the point where there is one and only one tenant who can afford it, and take that tenant. You think that will change if they have no regulated units? Please.
3) Landlords' largest cost is their property taxes, which are calculated based on something called the RPIE which is a form they fill out for the city. If the building has all rent stabilized units, its income is lower and its property taxes are lower. There are a bajillion other abatements that they can apply for (J-51, multiple 421's, etc). For any large building in NYC, with ten or more units, almost all of them are profitable, believe me.
2) Landlords that can charge what they want will increase the rents to the point where there is one and only one tenant who can afford it, and take that tenant. You think that will change if they have no regulated units? Please.
3) Landlords' largest cost is their property taxes, which are calculated based on something called the RPIE which is a form they fill out for the city. If the building has all rent stabilized units, its income is lower and its property taxes are lower. There are a bajillion other abatements that they can apply for (J-51, multiple 421's, etc). For any large building in NYC, with ten or more units, almost all of them are profitable, believe me.
1
This isn't a dilemma. Put parking garages UNDER the housing. Rent the extra spaces for profit. Problem solved. Its not an either/or problem. There can be both parking and housing at the same time.
13
Exactly, why not have both? Afterall the times reported a while back that 30% of the traffic in Park Slope was folks looking for parking. Cars aren't going away. Make money off them, keep people employed (not on the city payroll give leases for the garages to small independent businesses)....
5
The other 70% are cabs and uber trolling for pick ups. Our city is filled with service cars doing nothing but driving around all day!!! Get these people off the road or at least tax them to financial ruin. We don't need Uber for more jobs
Too expensive. There is massive infrastructure under Manhattan. It would be more cost effective to give these people 1 million dollars each, if not more.
1
Growing up in the Bronx having access to a car was nice but not a necessity. Insurance premiums made driving a junker impractical in the 1960's . What makes a car necessity in 2016?
5
Much is left out, like a description of the neighborhood. Manhattan Valley comprises a small corner of the UWS quite unlike the prosperous areas to the south and west of it. "The Valley" holds a history of being inundated with gangs, drug violence, shootings (with luck to miss crossfire or a bullet into one's window), and prostitution. Neighborhood associations improved these conditions, though a struggling business economy remains. Unique to Manhattan Valley is the history of openness to social services and low income housing created or coming to the neighborhood over the decades. But as per Fair Share distribution requirements, we are now saturated, with nearly 50% of affordable housing of the UWS contained in this tiny corner (not including temporary shelters and social service programs). Neither is anything mentioned regarding how the Collegiate School reneged on a pledge to build affordable housing in the west 60's, fulfilling "fair share" goals, but a deal was made with the city instead, shunting this to west 108 street.
The flip comment about Fairway and "Bucks County" will not go unnoticed by the Central Park EMS who park their ambulances in the garages or by people who depend on work livelihood and use of a car to get to out of town places where public transportation is not available.
I am disappointed by the journalistic void here, lacking curiosity and investigation. The plans for 108th street are complex, and cannot be reduced to a narrow view of the simplistic.
The flip comment about Fairway and "Bucks County" will not go unnoticed by the Central Park EMS who park their ambulances in the garages or by people who depend on work livelihood and use of a car to get to out of town places where public transportation is not available.
I am disappointed by the journalistic void here, lacking curiosity and investigation. The plans for 108th street are complex, and cannot be reduced to a narrow view of the simplistic.
39
I sympathize with these people, but frankly think they should have gotten rid of their cars years ago, like all people driving cars in Manhattan (and I include people in public housing projects whose SUVs one sees parked outside in those giant parking lots).
We have way too much car traffic in Manhattan. Not only do I favor getting rid of parking garages, I favor congestion pricing in Manhattan, as well as a personal property tax on every vehicle owned by a resident of the 5 boroughs.
We have way too much car traffic in Manhattan. Not only do I favor getting rid of parking garages, I favor congestion pricing in Manhattan, as well as a personal property tax on every vehicle owned by a resident of the 5 boroughs.
13
A personal property tax on cars in Manhattan does make sense; there is a lot of public money devoted in the City to public transport; of course this means that public transport itself has to be updated to deal with added demand.
3
There is only one reason to own a car in Manhattan, and that's to get somewhere that cannot be reached by public transportation. Most car owners try to load up their car with luggage early Sunday morning, and head for the nearest way out of the city.
I keep my car in the garage on the West Side highway, so I can carry my suitcase on the subway to the garage and get directly out of the city without going through local streets.
I keep my car in the garage on the West Side highway, so I can carry my suitcase on the subway to the garage and get directly out of the city without going through local streets.
4
How about charging $50/month for the right to park on the street overnight in Manhattan? Imagine how much money that would raise for public transit.
4
Parking is among the few businesses that municipalities should monopolise. It's a privilege to park for free in NYC. And an under developed lot used for parking is just somebody's personal ATM. By operating all parking lots, NYC can get a handle on the amount of street parking necessary for businesses and shoppers to function. As well as how much lot parking capacity is desitable in any given area. Street parking including residential, lot parking, and congested area tolls should be normal, regulated sources of revenue for New York.
Do you have a car that you have to park in the city? I'm not sure that I would call parking "free" at all! It's true, there is no monetary fee for street parking in NYC. With that said, I spend extraordinary amounts of time circling the neighborhood looking for spots when I return at off hours, or have to go out and move for street cleaning -- all this is lost time for me that I could spend doing many other things that. Yes, I do need my car for work, but I cannot afford a garage. Having more competition for spots with garages being demolished and the ridiculous takeover by CitiBike is not something I look forward to.
14
You should have to at least pay for the environmental damage you inflict with your circling and moving. We are subsidizing your free parking and you pay us back with worse air quality.
1
Allow the low-income tenant to sublet their assigned parking space?
3
258 units of affordable housing...If this goes through, the NYC housing crisis will be over!
How about someone finally realizing that government caused the affordability crisis through onerous rent regulations and zoning. If affordable housing can actually be profitable one day like it was in the early 1900's, maybe we'd be talking about 258,000 units, not 258.
How about someone finally realizing that government caused the affordability crisis through onerous rent regulations and zoning. If affordable housing can actually be profitable one day like it was in the early 1900's, maybe we'd be talking about 258,000 units, not 258.
5
Actually 258 units are not likely to end the NYC housing crisis.
If we end rent regulation, do you think developers will rush to build housing for families that rents for $800 a month rather than condos that sell for three million? Will that bring back the corner candy stores too, with seltzer f' two cents plain, as it was in the early 1900's?
If we end rent regulation, do you think developers will rush to build housing for families that rents for $800 a month rather than condos that sell for three million? Will that bring back the corner candy stores too, with seltzer f' two cents plain, as it was in the early 1900's?
2
Manhattan is so interconnected with public transportation that using a car is almost pointless. Actually public transit would be FASTER if private vehicles, except in certain cases such as foreign dignitaries, we're just banned. So much pollution and noise would just disappear. One way to do this may be that the city of NY could provide credit for cashing in ones car if they have a Manhattan address. Other boroughs are less connected and so a car is still more useful. This would also demolish the amounts of traffic accidents in NYC. It's a win-win. But no we must have the right to to make the absolutely wrong choices. I feel like we need king Bloomberg back :/
4
Most residents that can afford to live in Manhattan that can afford to have a car can afford to pay for a parking spot in a garage. It's a common story. But if you have to drive around as I do for work coming from an outer borough you would realize our city is FILLED with cabs and car services. We need to get these car services off the road
2
3 of 5 cars these days seem to be some sort of cab.
2
The fewer cars polluting New York City's unhealthy air, the better for all concerned Let those commuting to work in the neighbohod come in on public transportation thereby lessening traffic congestion. Close the garages. Build homes. Consider how driving your car, idling in traffic, contributes to global warming.
6
It would appear by this article that the NYT loves money grabbing "developers" who would disrupt a neighborhood for their own enrichment all, of course, except Trump.
5
Of all the places in the entire country where you don't need a vehicle, where it's absolutely a luxury, it's Manhattan. The people living in this neighborhood have transit options, and the people driving in will have to find other ways to get in. There are many many ways to get into Manhattan that don't require your own personal vehicle.
11
Try getting to Manhattan Valley to a typical New Jersey suburb with public transportation.
4
Why live in Manhattan if you work in Jersey? Jersey has less takes and plenty of parking space. If you made the choice to live in Manhattan, then face its inconveniences like the rest of us.
What about very low rates and priority for tenants - and higher rates for those parking there now and providing several
Layers of parking underground
?
Layers of parking underground
?
2
I am truly amazed by the number of people who equate the convenience of having a car (and a place to park it) with the NEED for an affordable place to live. Priorities have to be made. The loss of the garages will mean searching for new places to park or some might decide the car is no longer convenient. So what. It is far more important to ensure some reasonable housing for the elderly and poor.
15
The romance deBlasio has with REBNY-manifested both in scandals as well as the increased density without proportionate infrastructure implementation, is the real story.
The ceding of public sidewalks & streets to a privately held company:
CitiBike/Bikeshare/Motivate whose FOR PROFIT stations are plunked into communities with no authentic buy-in and who do not pay a penny of participatory tax-has to be owned by the Mayor and his City Council complaisant rubber-stamping members (retroactively awarded $32,000 salary increase this year). The Related Companies-big time NYC developers are in fact CitiBike...get the connection???
The simple story is that elders needing cars are consigned to hop on a bike...NYC sponsored Vision Zero hype and its de facto affiliate: the lobby group Transportation Alternatives which demeans drivers & resists the concept of licensing & insuring bicycle riders tell us to do so...
What we have now in NYC is the privatization of public transportation - at the same time -everything that can be done to impede drivers from owning a car-parking on the streets & yes, even paying through the nose for garage space.
If you don't ride a bicycle you're screwed. If you're a delivery truck-suck it up when the city tickets you for dropping off merchandise when forced to be in a bike lane...If you're an elder or disabled & need to reach your access-a-ride-too bad-bike lanes preempt your own right.
DeBlasio must be held to account.
The ceding of public sidewalks & streets to a privately held company:
CitiBike/Bikeshare/Motivate whose FOR PROFIT stations are plunked into communities with no authentic buy-in and who do not pay a penny of participatory tax-has to be owned by the Mayor and his City Council complaisant rubber-stamping members (retroactively awarded $32,000 salary increase this year). The Related Companies-big time NYC developers are in fact CitiBike...get the connection???
The simple story is that elders needing cars are consigned to hop on a bike...NYC sponsored Vision Zero hype and its de facto affiliate: the lobby group Transportation Alternatives which demeans drivers & resists the concept of licensing & insuring bicycle riders tell us to do so...
What we have now in NYC is the privatization of public transportation - at the same time -everything that can be done to impede drivers from owning a car-parking on the streets & yes, even paying through the nose for garage space.
If you don't ride a bicycle you're screwed. If you're a delivery truck-suck it up when the city tickets you for dropping off merchandise when forced to be in a bike lane...If you're an elder or disabled & need to reach your access-a-ride-too bad-bike lanes preempt your own right.
DeBlasio must be held to account.
16
the problem is adding more population and density not removing places to park. happening all over the city... build and the planning will come... eventually and even then not very good planning. the newest 'growth machine' attacks are on historical preservation and contextual zoning.
4
I lived most of my life in Manhattan and my considered opinion is that anyone who lives in Manhattan who owns an automobile is a fool. Exceptions should be made, of course, for police, ambulance and delivery vehicles but, other than that, I believe private automobiles should be banned and non-Manhattanites wishing to enter the city should enter the city only via public transportation. Getting rid of the electric streetcars was one of the dumbest things city officials allowed to happen.
13
I don't know how big this lot or these lots are.
They would probably have to have a footprint of at least 10,000 sq.ft., 100x100 for example.
But what about more floors above street level for parking ? There are all sorts of designs, in other countries, too.
They would probably have to have a footprint of at least 10,000 sq.ft., 100x100 for example.
But what about more floors above street level for parking ? There are all sorts of designs, in other countries, too.
7
Owning and driving a car in Manhattan is one of those luxuries that should be paid for. To take care of the externalities like air pollution every car in the city should be charged a tax starting at $1000 per year and up depending on the car's fuel consumption rate and it should go up very quickly.
7
Let me guess: either you don't own a car, or money is no issue for you. Right? What about all those people who drive to jobs out of the city and are barely making a living? What if they, like myself, drive to different locations and must carry equipment?
10
sipa111 - "Owning and driving a car in Manhattan is one of those luxuries that should be paid for."
Living in Manhattan is one of those luxuries that should be paid for by EVERYONE. There should be no subsidies for the poor, no rent control for anyone. When the population of any place becomes as dense as Manhattan's then cars and living space should be at a premium for everyone!
Living in Manhattan is one of those luxuries that should be paid for by EVERYONE. There should be no subsidies for the poor, no rent control for anyone. When the population of any place becomes as dense as Manhattan's then cars and living space should be at a premium for everyone!
4
Thinking about my past visits to NYC, I couldn't imagine where locals park their vehicles. I was under the impression that most folks don't even own a car!
It's sad to read that of those who do, there's a harshly loud voice to make parking more important than people. Los Angeles isn't quite there yet, density-wise, but the astounding privilege throughout both cities will eventually cause an ugly echo. Power and privilege often corrupts perspective.
Here, that growing disconnect is fueled by the insularity of overwhelmingly single-occupancy vehicles, creeping - and I do mean creeping - along, not two feet apart, with most drivers numb to others around them.
Wealth here tends to be so... obvious. Many flaunt it not through coveted parking spots, but via vehicle choices - so that you know who (or at least claims to) has oodles of money.
My trusty Toyota is reliable. Slogging along daily on the Westside next to Rolls Royces, etc. is almost as reliable. The glitzy vehicles don't impress me. The collective crawl is the great equalizer.
For many an Angeleno, walking instead of driving to work might seem (initially) alluring. For vehicle-free NYers, maybe the driving looks appealing (fantasy!). Sadly, over-privileged residents of both cities make their presence known, in ways both garish and heartless.
It's sad to read that of those who do, there's a harshly loud voice to make parking more important than people. Los Angeles isn't quite there yet, density-wise, but the astounding privilege throughout both cities will eventually cause an ugly echo. Power and privilege often corrupts perspective.
Here, that growing disconnect is fueled by the insularity of overwhelmingly single-occupancy vehicles, creeping - and I do mean creeping - along, not two feet apart, with most drivers numb to others around them.
Wealth here tends to be so... obvious. Many flaunt it not through coveted parking spots, but via vehicle choices - so that you know who (or at least claims to) has oodles of money.
My trusty Toyota is reliable. Slogging along daily on the Westside next to Rolls Royces, etc. is almost as reliable. The glitzy vehicles don't impress me. The collective crawl is the great equalizer.
For many an Angeleno, walking instead of driving to work might seem (initially) alluring. For vehicle-free NYers, maybe the driving looks appealing (fantasy!). Sadly, over-privileged residents of both cities make their presence known, in ways both garish and heartless.
6
Seems to me that there could be some kind of compromise. Should, in fact. Indeed there are many neighborhoods that are well served by existing transportation routes and by private garages that the demolition of private garages would cause only moderate trouble. But there are many neighborhoods--generally mid to lower income neighborhoods that aren't well served by public transportation and of course there are always people who work off hours, reverse commute, or commute in.
With respect to a permit system, please NO! Unless of course it's for all NY residents and not restricted by neighborhood. Imagine the following: a family from Bay Ridge, or Coney Island, or Eastern Queens decides to spend the day in the city. Rather than spend up to two hours each way on public transportation, or $60 for a taxi, they drive themselves in, only to find that the parking spots near the Met, for example, are reserved for nearby residents. At least metered parking as we have it is a service for any with s car and doesn't benefit particular people of particular neighborhoods.
With respect to a permit system, please NO! Unless of course it's for all NY residents and not restricted by neighborhood. Imagine the following: a family from Bay Ridge, or Coney Island, or Eastern Queens decides to spend the day in the city. Rather than spend up to two hours each way on public transportation, or $60 for a taxi, they drive themselves in, only to find that the parking spots near the Met, for example, are reserved for nearby residents. At least metered parking as we have it is a service for any with s car and doesn't benefit particular people of particular neighborhoods.
5
The most basic concept in Economics is scarcity. There are limits to natural resources, labor and capital. These limits require choices. Parking and affordable housing for poor and disabled, and housing for rich people and housing for illegal immigrants are all competing with each other for limited space in NYC. There are many solutions to the issue but all require some groups to lose. Today those groups are poor, disabled and middle class New Yorkers. If we got rid of the illegal population, 700,000 there would be a surplus of housing and prices would plummet. We could make it harder for non resident rich people to have Pied-à-terre. We could force people who don't live in NYC to give up there rent stabilized apartments. The author believes we should build a housing block on every parking garage and open piece on land. Personally, I'd just kick out the illegals and keep the parking garages and open land.
10
Parking spaces ARE important and that's a reality. If parking spaces that already exist and are relied upon by their users can't be part of an affordable housing project- put the affordable housing elsewhere, period.
19
The housing crisis in New York is entirely self-created. With a city government and Mayor bending over backwards to waive zoning laws and high five mega developers with tax abatements who are using this city like a casino-to make mega money for themselves, and put a small part of it back into the coffers of all who enable them. So much for "democracy". The pay to play scandal the Mayor is mired in just proves how disingenuous his push is to create affordable housing. There are more middle class and lower income housing being lost everyday than will ever be created under his plans. New York City has sunk to a new low with the citizens being pushed out in droves, or in sadder cases onto the streets. Because of all of this-brought to you by a "progressive" Mayor and sadly even the City Council. Parking can be important for those who must work the night shift in the outer boroughs or open businesses at 6 am. It is not a luxury. But I guess it is when you've sold every inch of space to those who create housing that starts at $2 million for 750 square feet. This is shameful and unsustainable. When the recession comes, and always does-those megatowers and their mega-views will be cut up into many small apartments for the more plebeian among us. There just might be a few more parking spaces available too.
17
The Mayor's plan, which links larger market rate buildings with mandatory inclusion of affordable units is sensible and is creating housing for professionals and lower income workers (i.e., the vast bulk of New Yorkers).
4
Sorry-simply not true. The Mayor's plan is a ploy to give developers a big gift, allowing them to demolish low and middle income buildings to build higher in what were contextually zoned neighborhoods where the zoning did not permit them to build higher-it is bringing gentrification to parts of NY where at least the poor and the working class could keep a roof over their heads. Rent stabilized tenants are being pushed out all over the city. Luxury rentals and condos are replacing them-pushing up the ENTIRE tax rate in neighboring buildings as they are reassessed to reflect the increased rental and maintenance rates over which no one in the neighborhood had any control! Thereby shortly pushing out the rest of the neighborhood when they can no longer afford to shoulder the burden of the increased taxes brought to them by the Mayor and his development buddies. So for all those changes from City Hall, we get some addition of 20% of "low income housing" if and only if the 421-A tax breaks at some point kick back in cause we all know developers won't build "low income" apartments without tax abatements. Then perhaps there will be some new construction with "low income" housing based on an income level that few consider "low income". New Yorkers may be many things-stupid they're not!
10
Yeah - a lot of people don't get it. It's called property tax - with rising values and the creation of new units the city is printing money. The abatements have sunsets. But, everyone else is paying for the increase in "value".
1
This is a Times editorial disguised as a news article. It relies on the cheap argument that cars are not necessary in Manhattan. Let the lazy reporter do the work to interview the no doubt complex mix of people who pay to park in the garages. Let her write about their reasons. Let her calculate the costs for a shop owner parking at a meter on Amsterdam Avenue for an 8 hour day. It's $3 per hour or $24 per day or $120 a week. A nurse at nearby St. Luke's can't leave their job to feed a meter. So their car gets towed. Let's have a fact based argument. Full disclosure: this is my neighborhood and many years ago I parked a car in one of those garages when I was a salesman and needed the car for my daily work. And BTW, my on-street parking these days is subsidized in part by my NYC resident taxes just like the amazing tax breaks given by NYC politicians to rich real estate developers.
65
If you think that any study would demonstrate that housing people and providing mass transit isn't going to maximize social utility you're mistaken. And I'm quite sure that my tax dollars are going to subsidize roads, tunnels, and bridges used by you and other drivers, including those toll-free East River crossings.
8
How ironic that someone who obtained ownership of an apartment for free, by squatting, now stands in the way of other people obtaining an affordable place to rent.
New York needs to construct in excess of 75,000 new units of housing annually, but is falling far short of that figure. The more restrictions that are placed on new construction, the more expensive housing becomes all along the income scale. Rather than limit gentrification, it makes that process inevitable as the poorest New Yorkers are transitioned out of housing as rents are increased.
Transit is also an important part of that equation, but dedicating more space for cars only serves to increase traffic and pollution, at great cost. What's needed is greater investment in public transportation.
New York needs to construct in excess of 75,000 new units of housing annually, but is falling far short of that figure. The more restrictions that are placed on new construction, the more expensive housing becomes all along the income scale. Rather than limit gentrification, it makes that process inevitable as the poorest New Yorkers are transitioned out of housing as rents are increased.
Transit is also an important part of that equation, but dedicating more space for cars only serves to increase traffic and pollution, at great cost. What's needed is greater investment in public transportation.
20
I hate to break this to some of you who seem to hate anyone who drives, but there is a good percentage of those where the car is necessary for getting around while living in NYC. First of all, much of the affordable housing in NYC tends to be located in places that are almost transit deserts. Without much viable alternatives to getting around, the car becomes the choice here. Commuter trains and express buses only help if someone has a regular work schedule, but not if that isn't the case as they aren't always available compared to the subways and city buses. It's easy to live where driving isn't needed when you have the money for it, but that's not the case for everyone. I feel that those who don't want to include parking in such housing are the ones who never have to drive themselves, so they don't see the world through our eyes, which may explain their huge support for things such as road pricing or even just tolling. BTW, including parking in residential property will mean less motor vehicles parked on the streets, plus a number of luxury apartments already do have parking for residents anyway. Just to let you know, parking isn't as subsidized as some try to place it, and the housing that does allow for it doesn't give it for free, so there is a fee to park there. Another reason why some choose driving over mass transit is because it may have to do with where some have to get to and it's more faster to get there while driving, which is the cause for this usage.
26
I get your point about affordable housing often being located in transit deserts but there is very good mass transit in Manhattan Valley which is just south of Columbia University and just west of the NW corner of Central Park on the island of Manhattan. There are several subway stops within a few blocks of this location and city bus lines crisscross the neighborhood.
4
I am actually referring to the rest of the city, not just Manhattan here. Many seem to think that only Manhattan itself is NYC just because the postal service lists it as New York, New York whereas this isn't the case for the rest of the boroughs. A good portion of the outer boroughs are known for being transit deserts, which is what I was actually referring to. I do know that upper Manhattan is still served well by subway lines. Another thing that some tend to forget is that the city boundaries isn't where the subway lines end. One of the main reasons why it costs so much to live near good transit is because realtors will see those areas as prestigious locations, which is why they have more luxury housing than affordable housing there. Seriously, I feel that those push so much to have motor vehicles off the road are mainly those who don't need them to get around, plus they don't know what it's like in the life for those that do need them, and I feel that they should try to look for the causes rather than the effects to why some of us choose to drive over taking mass transit. For the record, not all motorists are rich, and the reason why some of us are against any form of road pricing or even tolling is because we see it as a regressive tax especially to those living in the outer boroughs and suburbs. One other thing, there are many fees that we motorists have to pay yearly that aren't subsidized or optional at all, and they have increased every now and then.
6
This issue has nothing to do with "entitlements". The problem here is the unprecedented action by an organization to take away services in place for decades for middle and lower income people many of whom use these garages for their livelihood. This is not the usual procedure for social service organizations. Low income and supportive housing is built on vacant lots. Housing Preservation and Development, along with WSFSSH has no regard for the removal of a neighborhood resource used by the people in this community.
The parking could be replaced along with putting up the new development, and the city and the developer need to listen to the community. Why is it that the city will not cooperate with its own residents.
The parking could be replaced along with putting up the new development, and the city and the developer need to listen to the community. Why is it that the city will not cooperate with its own residents.
47
The writer and editor need to do some more research before publishing this article. Seems to be very biased.
What is the current use of the existing parking garages? Not one mention of that in the article. Are they filled everyday? In commuters or area residents?
Do people in the area own cars? Do they use them daily or every once and a while?
Is there good public transportation?
What is the current use of the existing parking garages? Not one mention of that in the article. Are they filled everyday? In commuters or area residents?
Do people in the area own cars? Do they use them daily or every once and a while?
Is there good public transportation?
28
I went to the community board meeting. The garages are almost full, and there are very few available spaces in the neighborhood for monthly parkers. These garages have always been relatively affordable, unlike the garages near Broadway. They are used by working class people (like teachers) who live in the neighborhood. I don't park here any more. I keep a car in a garage in northern Manhattan which I use to visit my aged parents once a week. But I live here & I know that it is usually impossible to find a space on the street. p.s. Manattan Valley already has more low income housing than most neighborhoods in Manhattan. This is an expansion of an existing facility. Why can't some parking remain? Because the developers need to make enough money for the project to be "worthwhile".
44
Your questions are the same as my relatives in Ohio would have so I'll try to answer them based on my general knowledge of that neighborhood. I think you'll find that the article is not so poorly researched.
The current use of the existing garages is the same as for similar garages in many dense NYC neighborhoods: almost entirely rented by the month by local residents who use their cars for a variety of purposes. The article skims over that because it is self-evident to us New Yorkers. The normal problem with parking garages in Manhattan is "Full" or "Monthly only" signs. Very few commuters to Manhattan would work in this neighborhood; if they drive and transfer to the subway they'd generally park farther out where it is cheaper. Some residents may "reverse commute" by car to the suburbs including NJ or Conn. Most residents do not own cars but because of population density there are far more locally owned cars than there are street or in-apartment-building parking spaces. And then there are the delivery trucks which use curb space. Not to mention the daytime weekday alternate side of the street (no) parking for street cleaning several times a week.
Yes, there as good public transportation as you will find anywhere. Several north-south subway lines which run 24/7/365 and a myriad of bus routes most of which run frequently most of the time. Plus taxis and (shudder) Uber and Lyft.
The current use of the existing garages is the same as for similar garages in many dense NYC neighborhoods: almost entirely rented by the month by local residents who use their cars for a variety of purposes. The article skims over that because it is self-evident to us New Yorkers. The normal problem with parking garages in Manhattan is "Full" or "Monthly only" signs. Very few commuters to Manhattan would work in this neighborhood; if they drive and transfer to the subway they'd generally park farther out where it is cheaper. Some residents may "reverse commute" by car to the suburbs including NJ or Conn. Most residents do not own cars but because of population density there are far more locally owned cars than there are street or in-apartment-building parking spaces. And then there are the delivery trucks which use curb space. Not to mention the daytime weekday alternate side of the street (no) parking for street cleaning several times a week.
Yes, there as good public transportation as you will find anywhere. Several north-south subway lines which run 24/7/365 and a myriad of bus routes most of which run frequently most of the time. Plus taxis and (shudder) Uber and Lyft.
3
The Community Board, social groups and the politicians have created a segregated community within that little area called Manhattan Valley.
1
The article in question addresses a specific development. In this case, the 800 parking spaces already exist and are fully used by people who pay for them including paying city taxes for them. Moreover, the users of these spaces are NOT using on-street parking and contributing to pollution by circling around trying to find scarce street parking. On-street parking is getting even scarcer due to bike lanes and Citi Bike stations -- used by a small minority of healthy, fit people -- which tie up all surface traffic including buses and emergency vehicles. In the real world, priorities do clash, and accommodation is necessary. Mass transit, affordable housing, and climate change are all priorities that need to be balanced. In the case of the 108th street development, accommodation needs to be made for users of the garages, who need them enough to pay for them.
34
Doing the math, the 800 cars generate $3.3million a year in revenue, or $4100 a year per car. The article makes it sound like that's a very bad thing. Maybe it is compared to how much more the developer or non-profit will rake in and from whose pot that money will come (John Q Taxpayer) and into whose pot it will go. Very badly written article, and from some of the comments, one filled with many nontransparent and nefarious agendas.
10
Doing the math, the 800 cars generate approximately 800 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. Just something worth noting in a world of diminishing resources and massive climate insecurity.
3
And it would be a lot more if those car were circling city blocks in search of free street parking instead of paying the equivalent of a month of the average American salary to store them in a garage.
1
always astonishing that some people believe no one ever needs a car, just because themselves dont.
41
Point taken, but would you not agree that shelter is more important especially in a city with an extensive mass transit system?
5
Thank you!
1
No with unchecked immigration there will never be a shelter system in NYC to meet the demand. Such a finite space cannot meet the needs of so many.
1
As a resident of Manhattan Valley for more than 35 years, I am surprised at The Times' scrubbing the facts about the pending development on West 108th Street. Based on what I've learned from attending community meetings and reading online, this is hardly a question of subsidized parking v. affordable housing. At the core of the issue is the continued plundering of communities around the city by developers, whether for profit or not. In this case, a building is planned that would be 50% taller than current zoning allows. And the construction of it would likely involve digging up ground that has long contained lead and other contaminants. Just guessing here but there has to be a way to add affordable housing and keep the neighborhood safe from additional pollution. There are close to 1,000 children attending school on the block and using the outdoor playing fields and it would be a shame if their school, which has worked hard to provide a good education, is harmed by the environmental hazards this oversize project would cause.
53
You shouldn't be surprised with the NY Times scrubbing the facts. Their slogan is " All the news that fits,they print"
2
Rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments should be done away with. No one has a right to stay in Manhattan. If you can't afford it, then move. As a liberal, it bothers me that there is lifelong preference given to a luck few in housing, education and jobs while other deserving poor don't hit the lucky lottery. A couple of years of market based rents and the rents might actually fall.
13
The current and last administrations high-handed attitude toward NYC residents who own cars must be seriously examined. I heard a WNYC interview with the mayor about current development and that the developers did not have to put garages into their buildings, despite their tax breaks. Where are people supposed to park? At one time we were a two car Manhattan family. My husband worked in Queens and I worked in Rockland County. The new pedestrian malls in Times Square and south on Broadway do not help traffic flow either. What about the number of spaces lost to the Citybike racks. I cannot ride a bike to work.
21
Size. This is an issue that has not been mentioned. How many vehicles in NYC and especially Manhattan are large SUVs that take up the space of two or three small cars. The price of cheap steel has completely changed the composition of the car population, with most Manhattanites who can afford a car buying the large volume, heavy, polluting, and most of all - dangerous types. You know them when you see them, everywhere in the city.
Tax car size and you can park everyone's micro vehicle, which is all you need in the city.
Tax car size and you can park everyone's micro vehicle, which is all you need in the city.
15
Affordable housing should not have automatic priority over all other uses and the desire of local residents to keep their parking spaces, for which they pay, is not "absurd" or "preposterous." Does Ms. Bellafante have any idea how the people who wish to "Save Manhattan Valley" use their cars or has she just concluded that it must be unimportant? Public debate over the use of government resources is a core process in our democracy and, although I do not always like the outcome, it does not deserve Ms. Bellafante's disdain.
26
The article reads more like an agenda driven editorial than balanced journalism.
"During a housing crisis so acute — the number of people arriving in homeless shelters each night now exceeds 60,000 — there comes a time to ask when some democracy is arguably too much, when need and inconvenience can no longer be weighed equally."
So the reality of the housing crisis in NYC is that anyone that can just show up and declare themselves homeless require such remedies as should outweigh the normal democratic processes of government is what the writer is asserting.
And Uber and Citibike, seriously?
"During a housing crisis so acute — the number of people arriving in homeless shelters each night now exceeds 60,000 — there comes a time to ask when some democracy is arguably too much, when need and inconvenience can no longer be weighed equally."
So the reality of the housing crisis in NYC is that anyone that can just show up and declare themselves homeless require such remedies as should outweigh the normal democratic processes of government is what the writer is asserting.
And Uber and Citibike, seriously?
12
This article leaves out known facts about this conversation in my neighborhood. Shame shame to give a one-sided piece rather than a balanced factual one for readers to make educated conclusions. Manhattan Valley is already host to approx. 40% of the supportive housing on the UWS. The neighborhood is complex - failing public schools, a struggling business corridor, pockets of crime/gangs, while long-time residents get priced out due to stretches of gentrification. We house the homeless/disenfranchised, we medicate the drug addicted, we offer programs. Our children wade through the street life of these services while the city wants to keep loading us with more. Let's ask questions about pay-for-play that keeps wealthier parts of the UWS free of these services for zoning credits while putting them in Manhattan Valley. Who holds the city accountable for violating protective zoning heights just because it serves their purposes? Who has analyzed what kind of housing this community needs? Who is holding the city accountable for the empty and illegally de-regulated supportive housing already in this neighborhood? The whole conversation is laced with political impurity that is not looking out for people in need at all. To villainize people who want to keep the garages is distorted and misguided. Give us a better plan than an entire block of institutionalized housing. Give low income people a better more integrated plan than a ghetto by design in a vulnerable stretch of NYC.
60
Oh yes, I get it: having already provided low income housing for a neighborhood, you're saying that it is unfair to those low income residents to introduce additional low income housing into that neighborhood to house additional low income residents who do not already have housing.
Be assured that there is a place for this kind of myopic, selfish and self-centered garbage to be put to good use: working on Donald Trump's campaign.
Be assured that there is a place for this kind of myopic, selfish and self-centered garbage to be put to good use: working on Donald Trump's campaign.
1
If NYC continues its growth, the fewer personal cars the better. Besides the usual residual effects (air, sound, accidents, etc) on the many by the self-entitled; traffic does not move. The island is not growing; Storm Sandy showed us why. We all have needs but they must be addressed within the boundaries of the community along with what is best if the community maintains or improves the quality of life for the current and future residents.
5
There are few people more infuriating than those that believe they have a god-given right to subsidized parking. In a city where every square foot is precious, the notion that someone 'deserves' free street parking is absurd. Few people would assume that anyone has a right to a free studio apartment in Manhattan. But in my neighborhood (UES), many of my neighbors assume that they are entitled to 200 square feet of public space at absolutely no cost. To them, bike lanes are a travesty only because the new accommodation might displace their cars - which are barely used. The social cost of car ownership in a place like NYC - in terms of space utilization, pollution, accidents, increased cost of development due to parking requirements - is irrelevant in the face of these car owners' selfishness and entitlement.
Of course, some neighborhoods are auto-oriented and that's fine - not all of the city is a public transit mecca. When I lived in Brooklyn, I kept a car on the street and it worked well - there was plenty of room. But certainly for the portions of the city that are well-served by public transit and densely populated, there's no reason why parking should be free. The city is long overdue in instituting a permit system as other cities have, where neighborhood residents pay a monthly fee for the privilege of street parking. This internalizes the externalities of public parking, and has many benefits - a syncing of supply and demand, among them, meaning a lot less circling.
Of course, some neighborhoods are auto-oriented and that's fine - not all of the city is a public transit mecca. When I lived in Brooklyn, I kept a car on the street and it worked well - there was plenty of room. But certainly for the portions of the city that are well-served by public transit and densely populated, there's no reason why parking should be free. The city is long overdue in instituting a permit system as other cities have, where neighborhood residents pay a monthly fee for the privilege of street parking. This internalizes the externalities of public parking, and has many benefits - a syncing of supply and demand, among them, meaning a lot less circling.
92
Very true. That includes people who live in housing projects to which parking is attached. They, too, are furious that their reserved parking spaces -- subsidized by those of us who go circling bleary-eyed the blocks near our homes -- are slated for yet more low-income housing.
7
The on street parking is not really free. We all pay taxes to maintain the streets and motor vehicles registered in NYC pay a separate NYC vehicle tax on top of the regular NYS registration fees. Outside of the Manhattan - Brownstone Brooklyn bubble many middle class New Yorkers own cars. In fact passenger vehicle registrations in the city go up every year.
https://dmv.ny.gov/org/about-dmv/statistical-summaries
https://dmv.ny.gov/org/about-dmv/statistical-summaries
4
FYI the NYC zoning code requires varying amounts of residential area off-street parking depending on borough and building size. 1, 2 & 3 family homes usually must have an off-street space for every unit.
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/zoning/zoning-text/art0...
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/zoning/zoning-text/art0...
2
Wondering if the planned building on 108th Street is solely affordable housing for low-income people?
Or is it luxury housing which includes some affordable units?
Will the affordable units be "affordable" (rent-stabilized) forever - or will they revert to market when a tax break ends, let's say in 20 years?
Would be fair to note that there are some people who have legitimate need for a car, such as reverse commuters (for example to NJ), musicians who have jobs all over the tri-state area (many actually carpool), and people with small businesses.
Or is it luxury housing which includes some affordable units?
Will the affordable units be "affordable" (rent-stabilized) forever - or will they revert to market when a tax break ends, let's say in 20 years?
Would be fair to note that there are some people who have legitimate need for a car, such as reverse commuters (for example to NJ), musicians who have jobs all over the tri-state area (many actually carpool), and people with small businesses.
10
Fully affordable at deep levels of affordability per three meetings at CB7!!!!
3
100% affordable, developed and owned by a nonprofit that specializes in affordable housing for seniors and people with disabilities.
5
We had an interesting article in the Boston Globe recently about community resistance to affordable housing, and this looks like more of the same. Yes, people who have parking don't want to give it up. But New York City has public transit and many people do without cars. Certainly many of the incomers are unlikely to have vehicles. It seems like among some legitimate worries are many who are using it as an excuse to letting in more of "those people".
We need better public transit and more discouragement of personal vehicles across the board. Sadly, I am just as bad as the next guy or gal in liking my convenience, but the climate is not waiting for me to catch up. But this is a separate concern.
Affordable housing in our cities is a problem, particularly as oligarchs and the superrich look for places to park the fruits of their looting. More tax cuts for the rich, huh! (and again I go off topic, but it's all tied together).
But this argument is one of many that is preventing hardworking people from living in reasonable locations.
We need better public transit and more discouragement of personal vehicles across the board. Sadly, I am just as bad as the next guy or gal in liking my convenience, but the climate is not waiting for me to catch up. But this is a separate concern.
Affordable housing in our cities is a problem, particularly as oligarchs and the superrich look for places to park the fruits of their looting. More tax cuts for the rich, huh! (and again I go off topic, but it's all tied together).
But this argument is one of many that is preventing hardworking people from living in reasonable locations.
25
While there is truth in what you said, most of those who oppose to having affordable housing next door are not super-rich (or even nearly as rich). Those are regular citizens, just like you and I, who don't want to give up what they have, or have too many of "those people" moving next door, thereby dampening property values.
Did you even read the article at all? To inject the class factor (super-rich vs everyone else) in this particular case, is a total non-factor, given that the most vocal group that opposes this affordable housing plan is supposedly themselves an advocacy group that wants to no affordable housing UNLESS those new affordable housing units are for THEM and not those lottery winners who might just be as homeless as they are.
Did you even read the article at all? To inject the class factor (super-rich vs everyone else) in this particular case, is a total non-factor, given that the most vocal group that opposes this affordable housing plan is supposedly themselves an advocacy group that wants to no affordable housing UNLESS those new affordable housing units are for THEM and not those lottery winners who might just be as homeless as they are.
3
I am sympathetic to merchants who must commute by car and need access to parking at reasonable cost. Affordable housing trumps many other considerations and should not impact street parking, which can be reserved for and licensed to merchants. I am very unsympathetic to the city's haughty approach to promoting cycling above all. How many residents are riding bikes????? This is an elitist movement, as an example check out the bike lane JUST OUTSIDE of Prospect Park. Many areas of the city are suffering significant losses of street parking in order to make space for bike lanes and ridiculous bike sharing stations. Bike lanes are not necessary on all major avenues, and the city should not be in the business of renting bikes, at a loss.
38
And by your same argument, nor should the City be subsidizing street parking. The majority of Manhattanites don't own cars - mostly just the "elites" who can afford one. Let's start to take back the subsidy by instituting a street permit system, and charge those that wish to park their elitist vehicles on the street. This way it will free up the needed spaces that DanC rightly points out that some merchants need!
8
Ok, you got me - how is riding a bike (or wanting to ride one) elitist??
6
I didn't write that comment, but my guess is that the writer was thinking of city residents (not just Manhattan, but in every major metro) who need to go grocery shopping, for example. Or haul other items around on public transportation; or a combination of walking and public transit. I am writing for two middle-aged Washington DC natives who have done just that for most of our lives. We won't be using bikeshare programs now, and in all honesty we wouldn't have in our 20s, either. We definitely will not be paying for a delivery service of any type, either. Before the major metros became so very expensive, there were quite a few people who lived like this.
2
Why should the city subsidize a private individual's parking, probably not even a resident of the city. Why should the city have regulations to force one private party to ensure the convenience of another private party. Have the developers contribute to subway and bus service expansion instead.
29
The mandate of parking that comes with affordable housing, in a city where public transport is a developed way of life, is as outdated as ever. It's long overdue to scrap that requirement. We need space for actual humans, not cars, never mind it will sit vacant and unused.
4
This really does boil down to which is more important: affordable parking or affordable housing for the poor and elderly? The inconvenience for those currently benefiting from the affordable parking is far outweighed by the benefit of providing much-needed housing for the most vulnerable in our society.
33
Parking will win almost everytime, especially out here in Oregon. Cars matter; pedestrians, and housing don't matter.
5
In reply to Lou Andrews - You cannot compare living in Portland, Oregon to living in a neighborhood in Manhattan, New York City. You just cannot!! You have no idea of our great 24/7 transportation system (subways and buses,) taxi cabs, black car services, and of course Uber, Lyft, etc. Maintaining a car is a pain in the ______. You would be shocked at the insurance rates and the charges you would pay if you took your car out of your garage and drove to your midtown office and had to park it in a different garage. You'd be broke in a week! I have relatives who have lived in Manhattan all their life and have never owned a car. There are many, many people here who do not have a driver's license because they have no need to drive. The famous news woman, Barbara Walters, is one example. And there are many less famous and less wealthy people who join her. I have a license because I grew up in the suburbs and needed it then, but now do not need it and just renew it for identification purposes or to rent and drive a car when I vacation. Thank you.
4
The article is dishonesty framed as a parking vs housing debate with the villainous "other" being car owners. But, from a reading of many of the comments, it is really about community desenfrachisment in favor of insider interests. Believe me, you are never going to see an article in this paper calling for construction of housing projects on the acres upon acres of city owned parking lots around Citifield or Yankee Stadium, both accessible by public transportation and located in communities of mush needed housing.
3
If you want to argue that creating new parking is wasteful, that's reasonable. But that's different from eliminating existing spaces, which many people have come to depend on as a piece of infrastructure. Yes, there's a conflict, but there's no need to denigrate those on one side, who may need their cars to get to a job outside the city for one example, not just to drive over to Fairway.
38
What percentage of affordable units results from the city's mad rush to turn over its real estate, like that parcel in Harlem or the Nursing Home on the LES, to gentrifying developers anyway? Like with the carriage horses, more greed dressed up in the garments of social advocacy.
5
Or to visit family outside of Manhattan, etc.
2
One question remains: What to do with those 800 vehicles who are using these garages now? Unlike the Dumont development Ms. Bellafante refers to, the parking spaces on 108th Street are being used now. There's no doubt that some of the weekend drivers will give up their cars, but we don't know what will happen to the business owners she mentions who drive in. Are there others who use the garages -- I recall that there's a hospital nearby, schools too. If some of the cars don't magically disappear, what is the environmental impact of a loss of 800 spaces? Let's hope the City, which actually has to answer the question, takes a considered look at that question and comes up with a decent answer, instead of: Not our problem.
35
That is no concern of the city. If those individuals want to keep parking in NYC, there are plenty of options, and they are free to select a neighborhood parking operator of their choosing.
The city shouldn't be prioritizing parking spaces over desperately needed affordable housing, especially in a city where 60% of households don't even own cars. This is one of the most transit-oriented cities in the developed world, and very few households absolutely need a car (and none specifically need this particular garage).
And it's likely that many of the parkers will simply use transit, walk, Uber, or bike, like the rest of us. When you make it easy to drive, people will drive. When you make it less convenient, people explore other options, to the benefit of the city.
The city shouldn't be prioritizing parking spaces over desperately needed affordable housing, especially in a city where 60% of households don't even own cars. This is one of the most transit-oriented cities in the developed world, and very few households absolutely need a car (and none specifically need this particular garage).
And it's likely that many of the parkers will simply use transit, walk, Uber, or bike, like the rest of us. When you make it easy to drive, people will drive. When you make it less convenient, people explore other options, to the benefit of the city.
48
Osito: Unfortunately, it is a problem for the City, since it needs to figure out what to do with at least some of the cars now parking in those garages. As I noted, at least some of those vehicles will end up on our streets, looking for parking. That means more air pollution and maybe more crashes. In the end, as distasteful as it may be to some, the ungaraged cars will have to be dealt with.
3
No, they won't have to be dealt with. Experience shows that these situations generally sort themselves out. As far as the supposed victims here: commuting business owners and reverse-commuting residents, if your UWS lifestyle incolves driving in and out every day, you're doing it wrong. The space freed up by suburban-at-heart drivers leaving can be taken by the business owners.
As far as the personalities opposing this: people are entitles to their opinions but anyone who's enjoying some kind of subsidized housing arrangement should be barred from publicly opposing new housing. Governance by "I got mine" endlessly repeated is going to wreck the city.
As far as the personalities opposing this: people are entitles to their opinions but anyone who's enjoying some kind of subsidized housing arrangement should be barred from publicly opposing new housing. Governance by "I got mine" endlessly repeated is going to wreck the city.
4
This article really doesn't get into all the issues very deeply. There are lots of middle class, lower middle class, and upper lower class people in the neighborhood who pay lots of taxes and also own cars. If they can't park their cars they could just as well move out of the city with their tax money. The city needs these tax payers, and they are getting squeezed out. These garages are very "affordable" compared to near by commercial garages. The article gives the impression that garages in question are empty. In fact, they are quite full. Perhaps they empty places in the low income projects could be rented to the middle class to provide income for the projects, instead of being reserved only for the residents.
31
They are not getting "squeezed out." They have choices to make, like the rest of us. Parking or having a car is not an entitlement. If having a car in Manhattan is of such paramount importance to them that they flee to the suburbs, so be it. There are many, many middle and lower class families who do just fine in Manhattan without cars.
64
Since when is parking in New York a right if you pay taxes? When you compare the parking of a car and the need to have a place to live for the elderly, it's really easy to see where the city government should side. After all, owning a car is a privilege. Asking the poor to "move somewhere else" ignores the affordability problem of housing and is a really callous way of dismissing the city's neediest residnets.
10