Hunters Point South approved by city council; tons of development linkage
Hunters Point South as it is today, Long Island City. — photo credit
“The City Council approved the Hunters Point South project today, which will turn a 30-acre waterfront site in Long Island City, Queens into a neighborhood filled with affordable housing, by a vote of 45 to 0. Hunters Point South will be the largest affordable housing development in the city since Starrett City opened in 1974. The project will include 5,000 apartments, 60 percent of which will be for households earning between $55,000 and $158,000 a year. Meanwhile, an adjacent, privately owned property will be an affordable housing complex, 20 percent of which will be for low-income residents.”
Bargain condo hunting tips in LIC [AFineBlog]
LIC sees a 3.3% drop in sale prices [Curbed]
Madonna’s babydaddy draws attention to Crescent Club condos [Curbed]
Video virtual tour of the L Haus condos [YouTube]
with the exception of HPS this is all pretty old news…where have you been?
Oh great, projects. Just what we need, more hip hop teenage thugs running around.
#3 - This development is for middle income families. People earning $60,000 - $150,000 per year do not live in “projects”. There will also be a percentage of market rate and senior apartments.
The word “project” as applied to the development refers to “something being worked on such as an “art project” “Projects” is actually slang for subsidized public housing such as Queensbridge.
One way or another this will end up being subsidized public housing, even if it is aimed at middle class, so it’s not much different from Queensbridge. I’m generally pretty liberal and like concept of affordable housing, but in practice these apts will just end up in hands of politically connected — and the much larger group of firefighters, teachers, etc. who don’t get an apt will end up paying higher taxes in order to subsize the cost for the few lucky ones who do end up with the fancy waterfront apts.
5, you forget that taxpayers have been subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich, bailout-grabbing elite — the real”politically connected” people in this city — for decades through special tax treatments for market-rate development projects, giveaways to investment banks to stay in NYC (as if they would leave), new infrastructure in their communities, and countless other goodies.
For once in my lifetime, a noble effort is made to retain middle class people in this city, and folks like you and bigots like No. 3 feign their outrage. Give it a rest. There are other reasons to hate HPS, like its density, little park space, ugly layout, and lack of public transit improvements. But its goal to give honest, hard-working people in this city a chance to live a decent life is a one we should welcome.
Nobody is feigning outrage. I think there are issues here that are worthy of debate.
I think with subsidizing rich or poor, there should be more honesty in the discussion. Put it to a vote as to whether people are willing to pay higher taxes in the noble effort to give the middle class waterfront apts (or to pay to redo Mets and Yankees stadium for that matter). Rightly or wrongly, I think most people would vote against it. It’s just that everyone likes the idea of affordable housing (and new stadiums) so long as they think someone else will pay for it.
I personally like the noble effort at affordable housing and would be willing to pay extra in taxes for it. But I also like the principles behind communism (and recognize it does not work in real life).
Well said #7.
5/7, you contradict yourself in your two posts. First you said you’re uneasy about paying higher taxes for affordable housing in NYC and in your next you say you’d be willing to do so. But the issue is pretty simple for me: NYC dies the day the last educated middle class professional decides to leave because they simply can’t afford to live here and raise a family. If the city doesn’t blow more than a billion bucks on the Yankees, Steinbrenner digs deeper in his mighty deep pockets and pays for the stadium himself.
#9, are you willing to pay higher taxes to pay for the new housing at Hunters Point South? Do you think the plan for Hunters Point South is most cost-effective and fair way to try to keep educated middle class families in the city?
10, yes, if we’re serious about addressing the yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots in this city (and I’m just talking about taxpayers) — which I think threatens the whole future of NYC — then I would be willing to pay. But I’d like to see other efforts in the city to cut wasteful spending, raise new revenues (with bridge tolls and congestion pricing and perhaps even a luxury consumption tax), and stop the corporate giveaways. We have to start somewhere.
Will this close the yawning gap or will it just creat another gap between those relatively few souls lucky enough to get the fancy apartments and the majority of their co-workers who will be stuck in crappy apts paying twice as much?
If I was king, I would sell the waterfront land to highest bidder and use the money to create housing vouchers or something similar to give to all firefighters, teachers, etc. equally.
I’m not buying the argument that because there is a lot of wasteful activity that benefits the rich, then we should all just shut up about this and not worry about details of how much this will cost, who will pay and who will benefit. If we are going to pay higher taxes for affordable housing, then we better be damn sure it is done in the most efficient fair manner possible. Otherwise we’ll just end up with the politically connected enjoying luxury waterfront apartments paid for by the very people who were supposed to benefit.
I pay a six figure tax bill each year. Its always those that spend the least in taxes that are alway in favor of spending more. There is plenty of middle class housing in this city. Is it on the waterfront in brand new buildings - no, but why should it be. I want to live on Park Ave in a penthouse, but I can afford it so I live in an area that I can afford.
13, if you are paying a six-figure tax bill (I assume you aren’t including the cents), then you can afford to live someplace else besides LIC.
Let me just state up front that I am in favor of subsidized housing as a means to balance neighborhoods and provide the appropriate level of housing for the all of the individuals that make up the fabric of this city.
As someone has indirectly pointed out placing that housing on the waterfront may not be the best use of this land. A better solution might be (that is if this were not the zombie apocalypse) using the higher revenue from waterfront properties and developing a building or two say between vernon and 11th. This would still keep the neighborhood diversity and would probably be more bang for the buck.
The current inelegant solution, however, is directly linked to the fact that individuals do not speak unless directly threatened or their interests are at risk. So while developers were given free reign in the ‘hood for several years no one bothered to ask if it might be prudent for neighborhood development if 20% of the new units were classed as affordable. The city/state could have been swapping waterfront property for inland sites and influencing the economic make up of the community. But now that private development will likely slow to a trickle the only developer in town is the city/state and you are left with the government’s position that economic diversity be a part of their development plans and the only place to do that os on their plot on the water.
So please, by all means, make your voices heard in the futile attempt to protect your own asses.
Robert, you were making pretty good sense up to the last sentence. Who is trying to protect their asses? I think the idea was to make our voices heard in a futile attempt to get the greatest amount of benefits to the largest amount of people who need it.
this is why real estate in nyc will remain higher than most anywhere in the us…restricted supply. gotta love it…those waterfront folks paying 700-1000 sq ft, gotta hate it.
17, the sad part about it is those so called middle class lottery winners will flip those apartments in 2-3 years and sell them for twice what they paid for it. mark my word - 2-3 year out from building this very few of the so called middle class will be left there. They will all be replaced by hipster yuppies.
Since it’s going to take about 5 years to build even one building there, if the people flip them 2-3 years from then, who cares? It’ll 2020 and no one will care.
19 sums exactly the selfish mentality I can’t stand about many of the new people moving into LIC. The neighborhood has been spun topsy-turvy to suit their needs, with countless people have been tossed out of their homes to make room for them. But in just a few years, they’ll cash out and be gone. As 19 says, who cares what happens to LIC in 7-8 years?
#20 sums exactly the phony mentality that I can’t stand about many of the people who have lived here five or ten years and like to believe they are the only ones who care about the neighborhood. I know people who moved here recently and are committed to the area and others who have lived here many years who have sold (or would like to sell) their properties soon for a large profit (and don’t really care what happens to LIC after that). So please give the old vs. new fight a rest.
I really think the HPS plan sucks to be blunt.
It seems that the whole review process was a big charade.
The plan is way too dense and does not come close to considering the impact or the 7 train. There should have been more park, less parking, less buildings.
The good news is that the IRS has to go along with this scheme which is questionable.