Harlem Renaissance

[ASchwarz]

Manhattan is a small part of NYC. 1.7 million out of 8.2 million.

Even if every block in Manhattan were gentrified, NYC will remain an incredible diverse place.

Also, the poor neigborhoods of old weren't diverse. The people who lived there wanted to leave but couldn't because it was so bad. When gentrification occurs, the poor want to stay, because the neighborhood is a much nicer and more desirable place.

[investordude]

I agree that so-called market rate housing is not affordable. Let's consider why -
1) typically these market rate housing in new developments require the market rate owner to subsidize someone else's rent under 80/20 rules. So of course, if you pay your rent and someone elses, that starts getting expensive
2) many places (East Harlem is a great example), constrain the available supply of land for development by refusing to tear down projects and build high density. The truth is most projects are low density antiquated buildings compared to the housing the market place would build if we zoned those neighborhoods R10.
3) rent control is a major disincentive to new development and artificially constrains supply. People claimed in Cambridge, MA (a built up, expensive town) that eliminating rent control would push out the poor - but that didn't really happen. Instead, investment and supply rose and while the average income rose, rents have stayed pretty stable.
4) Chicago/Toronto disproves the theory that density requires high prices. If you allow supply to grow to reach demand, prices stay within reason.

Will Manhattan always be more expensive than the outer boroughs - yeah probably somewhat. But the differential is exascerbated by bad public policy that discourages investment on the theory that affordable housing increases affordability - its not efficient, creates scarcity, and those undermine any theoretical advantages from high subsidies.

[investordude]

Another example - Chicago tore down pretty much all of its 2 mile long Dan Ryan houses and Cabrini houses. This proved to be to the delight of the people living there - its politicians who were upset because they wanted government dependent voting blocks. Now, rents in the south loop and west Chicago are still cheap, but much denser and superior private housing is being bult to replace the projects.

End result - most people stayed because they could afford the low rents created by adequate supply, and the neighborhoods became more vibrant and diverse.

[pricedout]

Hi Investordude,
well, yes, you're correct in so many ways. You said something rather trenchant in an earlier post, that is that there seems to be an effort to push the poor out of the city. Of course there is. Just think how the lower, middle, and even to some extent upper-middle class people require more attention (and funds) than the rich (they just need the tax breaks).
From 2000 to 2005 there was a 200000 child increase in the under-5's. Can our city deal with it? No. Does our city want to deal with it? No. Why? Because it's expensive. They'd love to have two bedroom apts. filled with single men.
The same with the poor. Do we want to truly deal with it? No. Why? Because it might cost money to do something truly effective.

[investordude]

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/28326

I think CB9 might be right that if they want to do the rezoning, they should extend it to to the Hudson River and include commercial upzoning to diversify the economy to not only need Columbia. But I'd like to also see upzoning to C9 for the area right near the metro -north train station. It strikes me that area could probably support 1 or 2 tall office or mixed use buildings (like 80 stories instead of 30 stories) and that could help diversify the economy.

[investordude]

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...loper-at-last/

Looks like the W Theater deal is official

[antinimby]

I don't think that's the W hotel project. The Victoria theater's got its own thread so I posted that Times blog there.

[Front_Porch]

From 2000 to 2005 there was a 200000 child increase in the under-5's. Can our city deal with it? No. Does our city want to deal with it? No. Why? Because it's expensive. They'd love to have two bedroom apts. filled with single men.

From this week's New York mag:

Catchment-22

All those new-condo buyers are drawn to neighborhoods with the best public schools—which are then nearly destroyed by new kids.

Add a Comment
1 Comment | Add Yours
24 Comments | Add Yours

• By S.Jhoanna Robledo
• Published Nov 25, 2007

Illustration by Christopher Sleboda

The Jesse Isador Straus School on West 70th Street, a.k.a. P.S. 199, is one of those places that give parents hope for the New York City school system. Its teachers and after-school programs take home awards every year. Most of the diverse student population meets or exceeds state requirements on standardized tests—and that’s in a “catchment” school, meaning it can’t be selective because anyone who lives on its turf can attend. The parents are active and present. West Siders who are straining to make their mortgages consider it a godsend, a way to avoid adding $20,000 in private-school tuition (per kid!) to the annual household budget. Needless to say, parents like Julie Mallin take serious pains to live within P.S. 199’s catchment (roughly speaking, the West Side from 64th to 72nd). When private-school applications failed to turn up a spot for her son, “I specifically moved into the neighborhood for P.S. 199,” she says.



But P.S. 199 is under siege. Its student population has doubled in seven years, to 587. Since the real-estate market began its relentless ascent in the mid-nineties, neighborhoods with decent schools like P.S. 199 have grown coveted—and crowded. There are rumors of lotteries and rezoning in many of these areas, and parents like Mallin are very, very unhappy to find, all of a sudden, that a seat in the nearest public school may not be a given.



New development is largely to blame. At P.S. 199, more than 10 percent of the students come from Riverside Boulevard high-rises that didn’t exist a decade ago. Seven more residential buildings are under construction nearby and will bring at least 1,000 more units. Those buildings are put together explicitly for families with children: At one of them—the Avery, at Riverside Boulevard and West 65th—166 of the 274 units have two or three bedrooms. A decent guess is that this building alone will plop 50 more children into elementary school over the next few years.



What happens then? In 2004, P.S. 199 gave up one of its two art studios to add a kindergarten class. A year later, it gave up its lauded universal pre-K programs. In 2006, it lost its science lab. One of the two occupational-and-physical-therapy classrooms was sacrificed, too—never mind that there were more kids who needed it. Even the faculty lounge is gone. “We can give permits for all these residential towers,” says Mallin, who co-chairs P.S. 199’s political-action committee, “but we don’t pay attention to the schools. Here we are at the forefront of the financial and cultural capital of the world, and I’m supposed to be okay that my kid can’t do science in a lab or art in a room? The school is a victim of its success.”



This is not just one district’s problem. In every neighborhood with a beloved school, classrooms are stuffed—the burden and blessing of a city whose residents no longer bolt for the suburbs when the kids are born. The Manhattan New School (P.S. 290) has reached 155 percent of its capacity as one condo after another rises in Yorkville. Park Slope’s William Penn School (P.S. 321) has seen its kindergarten classes grow by 20 percent. East 33rd Street’s Mary Lindley Murray School (P.S. 116) gained 77 students this year, many from the 32 apartment buildings put up in its catchment these past two years. “When I toured the school [last year], the class size was maybe 20 to 23 kids, totally within the city and union limits,” says one new Murray Hill mom. By the time her child started in September, there were 28 per class, eight more than the state recommends. “This is not what I thought I was getting into.” When the Con Ed site, on the East River from 35th Street to 41st, gets seven new high-rises in a few years, the school will be swamped. “If you don’t build schools, you’re pushing families out,” rails Mary Silver, a mother of two at P.S. 116. “These families have helped stabilize the city … the system is imploding.” . . ..



full article at http://nymag.com/news/features/41277/


ali r.
{downtown broker}

[ASchwarz]

This NY Mag article is so uninformed. All their articles are crap.

It is true that the number of children is up somewhat and will continue to go up slightly, but this is not reflected in the public schools. The growth is all in private schools, especially in prime neighborhoods and in the rapidly expanding schuls Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods. You are also seeing more home schooling and more "other" types of schools(Islamic schools, charter schools, etc.)

The public school population is actually decreasing and will continue to decrease! In Manhattan, the trends are magnified even further! There are so many schools sitting half-empty.

The reason that you get these crazy "overcrowding" articles is because yuppie parents only trust a few hyped well-known schools and all push to send Junior to this short list. The same thing is happening in the more heavily immigrant neighborhoods, where upwardly mobile newcomers only trust a short list of schools.

At the same time, the poor people in the crappier schools are mostly leaving NYC, and are being replaced by yuppies or immigrants who will not put their children in the "bad" schools. This creates a situation where the yuppies (more in gentrified neighborhoods) and immigrants (more in outer neighborhoods) are competing for a short list of "good" schools, while ignoring the more (usually) black/Puerto Rican "bad" schools that are emptying out.

Now we have this crazy situation where that school on West 70th is bursting at capacity while a school a few blocks to the south is 60% empty (and getting emptier by the day)because it has kids from public housing. Even the projects are emptying out (public housing complexes are rapidly becoming NORCSs, or Naturally Occuring Retirement Communities).

I think what will happen is that some of these empty schools will be sold and redeveloped into new mixed-use residential/school complexes. The new schools will have something of a "fresh start", and will lose their current stigma. The expanding yuppie and immigrant populations will start considering these schools, and the current overcrowding at the hyped schools will decrease.

BTW, none of this is really speculation. I have indirectly worked with the Department of Education's in-house strategic planning group, which makes future enrollment projections. They know what is happening, and they are starting to consider redevelopment on many of these half-empty schools. They are starting to work with other city agencies (especially HPD and EDC) to reconsider these sites.

[pricedout]

The private school system, at least the assoc. of independent schools, has 2400 (yes, ONLY 2400) kindergarten spots per year. Public school attendance is going down in THE POORER neighborhoods. The city is building a few schools, but NOWHERE close to what is needed. It will be a bloodbath soon when the kids at these better elementary schools start needing middle school spots.

[spaceboy]

BTW, none of this is really speculation. I have indirectly worked with the Department of Education's in-house strategic planning group, which makes future enrollment projections. They know what is happening, and they are starting to consider redevelopment on many of these half-empty schools. They are starting to work with other city agencies (especially HPD and EDC) to reconsider these sites.

Any idea how long it will take to actually put these things in motion? Is this another 2nd avenue subway? :P

[investordude]

If there is really an empty school, that's something to consider, but I'm uneasy about closing public schools rather than reducing class size. If the city has space, we should try to scrap up the funds to do that.

I'm also skeptical that rising school enrollment is limited to hasidic children - New York has done very well at attracting immigrants from many places and immigrants tend to have larger families and send their children to public schools. We should make sure they get an education.

One change I would like to see - I think any parent whose children don't perform in public schools who receives any public assistance whatsoever including rent control should be cut off and encouraged to leave the city. We need to make sure all groups continue the tradition that their children get an education and a better life than they had, and it seems some communities need a kick in the ass more than others to make that happen. Anyone who disagrees with that or won't take the time to make that happen - I don't owe them one drop of assistance.

[pricedout]

Investordude, some kids just aren't that smart. Doesn't mean they don't have the right to a public education that enables them to get basic skills, like reading and the ability to balance a checkbook. ALL kids have the right to a decent public education. If you boot them out, where do you expect them to go? And don't you sound a bit elitist if you say Manhattan shouldn't have any of the underperformers?

[pricedout]

Spaceboy,
I think your answer lies in the long-term population report (2000-2030) which calls for a minimal increase in school-aged children in the city (especially Manhattan, 2010-2020). As a percentage of population they are expected to decline. I think the city is intending to develop some schools (some now empty, some in conjunction with real estate deals) but it has done so knowing that it is really too late, like a bandage on a festering wound.

The time to begin relatively large-scale development of new schools, assuming a true commitment, was 2004 when the massive numbers of development permits started coming through.

Public education is very expensive for the city. Qualified teachers are in short supply (and PARTICULARLY for the needs that are anticipated over the next few years). I'm not saying that Bloomberg or the city is necessarily evil, I just don't think that they feel that this investment is in their best interests right now.

[investordude]

http://www.therealdeal.net/issues/De...1196821773.php

I'll believe it when I see it given the false promises of the past, but here's the claim of a coming hotel boom in Harlem. (FWIW, all of these hotels mysteriously fail to be near harlem's premier employer, Columbia University). Kinda dumb.