Hunters Point South manifests some destiny today; Queensbridge all lit up

It's interesting that HP South hasn't elicited a great deal of comment on this site. This project will probably have more impact on the direction of the neighborhood than any other development, save QueensWest itself. 15,000 new residents, a huge new public school, blocks of dense development, ZERO subway improvements ...

Meh, it mainly has effect on that one little corner of the neighborhood, which is pretty isolated. To me its just like Queens South, but more democratic and interesting. It'll be cool to be able to get to the southern tip down there more easily, anyway.

Court Sq, Vernon/Jackson, and Queens Plaza could all really be separate neighborhoods. No one really seems to care about Dutch Kills either. The rezoning of HPS and DK will have significant impact upon LIC as a whole. If you own any property in LIC, you should pay close attention to the rezoning.

The best part of HPS is that it is the death knell of industrial uses along the waterfront. Good riddance. LIC will be among the few places in the city where people have unimpeded access to the waterfront.

The overall physical plan of the site seems pretty good (hopefully more park space can be added but at least it is significantly part of the plan), but I don't like the rent-regulated aspect. The housing for this site should be free market and there also should be more condos for people to own rather than all rentals.

#1 - I don't think that anyone differentiates QueensWest and QueensWestSouth. They are effectively the same thing/same area, which is why you are right that this is a huge issue to watch. It will have an enormous impact on real estate considering that you will have a large number of "subsidised" buildings, "projects", whatever people want to call them in immediate proximity to people buying new condos or existing ones in the area. Anyone who indicates otherwise and that the market will differeintiate between QueensWest as luxury and QueesWestSouth as not is dellusional. People should be all on top of their elected officials on this.

OMG normal middle class people living next door. I totally thought this was my lux enclave for the well-to-do. What a ripoff. I'm calling my councilperson.

No. 6, desperate times call for desperate measures. If the city doesn't build new housing for middle-class wage earners -- educated people earning up to 150G a year -- where will these people go? Bloomberg understands that the health of the city depends on keeping a diverse work force here -- i.e., those who aren't traders, analysts, and project managers. It's interesting how the condo owners are always the first to champion change in the city, as long as it's always in their favor. This time, maybe other equally hardworking people in NYC who opted for other meaningful careers will have their chance.

i'm with #8. well said.

It is ridiculous that the city is going regulate based on income the people who can live at what is one of the most amazing locations in the city. No one should be entitled to live at waterfront property with midtown Manhattan skyline views. The idea that there is no affordable housing in this city for middle income earners is a total myth. There are plenty of good neighborhoods close by in Brooklyn and Queens with lots of housing affordable for people making $80k-$150k a year. #8's "desperate times" are really desparate selfish panderings for entitlements.

sounds like a bunch of republicans post on this site.

How do they figure $80-150K is middle income? And why are you people freaking out like the ghetto is coming? Most of the 'transplants' to LIC in the last few years fall into that bracket as it is, so really it's just more of the same.

#12 Maybe those that are renting and are on credit card debt. Nobody on $80 K a year is buying $800 k condos in LIC.

As for people who do not earn enough to buy at Market prices, I'm sure that there is less expensive housing in Sunnyside, Greenpoint, and further out in queens. Putting subsidized housing in QueensWest doesn't make sense

#10, So-called worshipers of the mythical free market and other corporate welfare junkies of every stripe never bitch about government entitlements when they feed the elite wage earners at the taxpayer trough. There have been more than enough giveaways in every form for these people in NYC. So please spare us your talk of "selfish panderings."

You are also simply wrong when you ignore the fact that it is increasingly more difficult for those earning modest incomes (teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops -- all those folks who make your city a safe and better place) to afford to live within a reasonable distance of their jobs.

Unless, in the best spirit of civic mindedness (remember that quaint concept?), you're willing to cough up more money in taxes to help pay these people a more livable wage they deserve for the work they do for you, then I suggest you get on board and support other efforts to keep them in NYC.

14- stop begging for handouts. You like to throw out a lot of conclusory statements without any facts behind them. Just look at listings for houses and condos/coops, and rentals, throughout good middle-class neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn. There are plenty of places affordable for people with incomes of teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops, sanitation workers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc. You don't make a convincing argument when you don't have details or facts to support it.

#15, why should those people you categorized (teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops, sanitation workers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc) be shoved into far away 'affordable neighborhoods'? why should a neighborhood like LIC be only for the rich? If these people (us) are the lifeblood of the city, what's wrong with a little gov't intervention to ensure that we too have access. you uber-rich people could not survive a day without the rest of us getting our jobs done.

If you want the government to control who can live where, you can move to a communist country. We live in a free society with free markets. LIC should be a neighborhood for whoever freely decides they want to live there, and if it is desirable for people in a way that drives up prices, the government shouldn't be interfering. Why should someone making $175k who likes that location and wants to move there not be allowed because the government is controlling eligibility? Hey, I would love to live in a three-bedroom high-floor apartment on 5th Avenue between 70th and 79th streets in Manhattan, should the city control prices so I can live there? Of course not. The way to ensure affordable desirable areas for everyone is to institute policies that foster adequate supply of quality housing, not by manipulating the market with controls.

Also, your position is quite insulting to middle-class neighborhoods. Is there something beneath you about Greenpoint, Sunnyside, Ridgewood, Maspeth, Middle Village, Woodside, Astoria, Rego Park, Glendale, Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, etc.?

LIC has always been a middle class neighborhood. Some of you people need to show some compassion. It's not always about money. Tone down the elitism please.

Sorry #17, rich people don't always get their way.

Goverment regulation is a long standing check to keep the free market from collapsing upon itself. There is nothing communist about it.

#17, you are sorely mistaken if you think urban development in the US is the result of a "free market" and government intervention is "Communist." Zoning, incentives, infrastructure investments, bonuses, and numerous other government interventions promote certain types of development in certain places and prohibit other types in others... designating workforce housing is just as fair game... just as fair game as the government interventions that led to Queens West, and likely more important to the health of the city... with the cost of construction and land, is anyone going to build an "adequate supply of housing" that can be rented/sold at a price that average people can afford?

Not about being elite. It's just frustrating to work 12 hour days 6 days a week to earn a $100K salary to then be consided among the "weathy" $100K does not go far in NYC. Where are our housing handouts? There is a shortage of affordable housing for the upper middle class.

$100K goes a lot further than those of us making $50k. Sure as hell glad I don't work 6 days a week, but that's a tradeoff you decided to make, I guess.

#21, 100k a year in nyc today( unless you also have rich parents or a trust fund) is definitely not upper middle class. you would probably qualify for a place in hps.

$100K is like more money than I can ever imagine having. Jeezis.

#23 as a single person? Not sure, but I'm thinking probably not.

$100K is not a lot of money. $40K comes off the top in taxes (becasue I'm rich) A one bedroom in Eastcoast would run about $28K a year. Throw in food, clothes, retirement saving, entertainment, etc. and you are not left with a lot to put away as a downpayment on one of these swanky new LIC condos.

Why should I have to move to Greenpoint, while a teacher working 30 hours a week with summers off gets to live on the waterfront in government subsidied housing? How is that fair?

$100k is by no means rich. You can do fairly well in Queens on $100k but you are not considered wealthy.

As for urban planning, I agree that zoning and tax incentives are a valid function of government and city planning. However, rent control and regulation goes too far and is undemocratic. How about working hard to make the money to live where you want, or accepting your means and making the best of it, rather than wanting government to control things so you can live on the waterfront.

you're actually trying to bring up "fairness" in regards to how much money a teacher makes? shame on you.

blah. $100K gets pissed away in nyc in 6 months by any reasonable person wanting a nice, enjoyable quality of life in the city.

#25, what teacher works 30 hours a week??? try 60 to 80, or more. They deserve every penny they earn -- and they earn pennies.

From the EDC website:

Affordable units are targeted to households with incomes between 80% and 165% of the HUD Income Limit, roughly $55,000 - $158,000 for family of four.

I would not qualify for any of these giveaways. I agree a teachers salary is not fair, but they chose that profession knowing that going in and decided to trade quality of life for earning potential. Why should a teacher be rewarded for his/her lifestyle choice, but an analyst be punished? Am I so much better off than a teacher? You either open it to everyone or don't open it to anyone at all.

#29 I can point you to their union contract online. The school day is 6 hours and 20 minutes. But this is off topic as I do not intend to bash teachers. The point is why are certain life choices rewarded while others are not? Cetainly teachers are educated qualified lot who could have easily gone on to pursue lucrative careers elsewhere, but they did not. If neither of us can't afford to buy a house, why help one group but not the other? When you look at it this way you see why government involvement in this is misguided.

I think teachers would be very surprised to learn they receive such preferential treatment, in housing or anything else for that matter. Nothing is farther from the truth. #31, you might want to consider picking on another far less deserving group as an example to illustrate your point.

"A one bedroom in Eastcoast would run about $28K a year. Throw in food, clothes, retirement saving, entertainment, etc. and you are not left with a lot to put away as a downpayment on one of these swanky new LIC condos."

Uh, you are the one paying effing $2300 a month for an apartment by yourself. And you complain $100K doesn't go far? Whose fault is that? Get a normally-priced apartment or a roommate.

Seriously, my mind is being completely blown that $100,000 ("six figures"!) is not considered wealthy, affluent, rich, etc. I'm a pauper then.

#31 - In regards to "The school day is 6 hours and 20 minutes"

Teachers also spend hours grading homework and many of them participate in after-school events. To add to that, many public schools are so poorly funded that teachers often pay for supplies out of their own pockets.

I am sorry that you are going to miss the cut-off for this subsidized housing, but I have trouble entertaining your plight when you are using teachers as an example of those who are getting an unfair advantage.

Does anyone know how much these apartments are supposed to go for anyway?

Experienced NYC public school teachers make $70-$100k per year, depending on number of years in and how much they work. Most deserve every penny, but like everything else, some could be making more doing something else, some are not worth it, and most are doing just as well or better than if they went into another profession. The point is, they shouldn't, nor should anyone else, receive preferential entitlements from the city to live in highly desirable waterfront property.

As for Brandon - keep working hard buddy, you can do it!

While I do agree that the city must help provide affordable housing, I question the decision to do it in prime real estate. The city could probably sale this land at a premium and build a lot more housing units for the middle class in Sunnyside Yards or other inland locations that are still close to the city. This would have a more meaningful effect on our working class and would benefit a larger number of people.

Nice try, but from the New York State Education Dept:

"New York State ranks #3 among the states with an average teacher salary of $55,181"

And again you are wrong in that they should receive subsidized housing on public, not private, property. Buy your own property and build a house if you don't like it.

Jefferson would be proud

or Madison

I still think the point is being missed by focusing on the teachers. Although they certainly fit in this category. But what about the firefighters and police who risk their lives on a daily basis? Obviously, they don't chose their jobs purely because of the salary.

Lower income New Yorkers that work hard because they care about the human race should not be forced to live out in the boonies where the commute to work adds on to their already long day.

#41 - not sure if I follow your point. So higher income New Yorkers that work hard should be forced to live out in the boonies where the commute to work adds on to their already long day, just because the are stuck in that grey area where they much too much for government help, but still too little to afford anything nice on their own? Until someone anwsers that question, I will continue to view these programs a misguided and unfair.

#42 - you are correct in that the program is in some ways unfair, but there isn't much fair about the real estate market in nyc to begin with. there will still be plenty waterfront apartments available though, its not like this land will only be used for the regulated apartments. and like i mentioned above, they will be going up on public land.

Yes, there will be plenty of market apartments, but unfortunately none for me. The developer will look at his books and figure that he needs $xxx to make his desired profit. Since the regulated units can only bring in a fixed amount he has to raise the price on the unregulated units to get to that number, putting the price out of the range for average new yorkers. So you create more regulated housing to solve to problem of afforability, and so on and so one the cycle continues. The only way out of this is to end this silly housing programs which do nothing but artifically inflate prices. Average price would drop across the board making the city much more affordable. Study after study proves this. There are also real life examples of it in Boston. Problem is that our politician know this but pander to those that can't imagine a world without handouts.

There is no way that a NYC public school teacher with over 5 years experience is only making $55k.

Lets be honest. Greed, limited supply, and high demand is has what caused the high real estate prices, not regulated housing.

average teacher salary is 55K. I belive they start at around 40K.

I can't believe that school teachers -- who deserve to be venerated and showered with as much cash as portfolio analysts for the work they do and the crap they put up with -- are getting beaten up on this thread. The comments stink of ignorance and, I suspect, a whiff of misogyny/racism. If many more white men were in the field, the tone of this "debate" would be a whole lot different.

#46 - regulated housing limits supply and creates artifical high demand, so yes it contributes to high real estate prices.

thank you #48. this whole thread has very classist, racist and misogynistic undertones. everyone is happy that their tax dollars go to making vernon blvd look like an outdoor mall in ohio, but god forbid the middle class get a break.

Good, dedicated teachers should be commended for their public service, just like cops and firefighters. No one is putting them down. But let's be real. Most of my friends that went into teaching were looking to get into a cushy government job and are happy not to have to deal with the real world. A lot of them tried the private sector and went into teaching for better hours and less stress. There is nothing wrong with that - they are happy, comfortable, work hard and deserve credit. However, that does not mean they are entitled to breaks and handouts when it comes to waterfront apartments! Talk about insulting, you free rent beggars are incredibly elitist to disparage and disregard the good middle class affordable neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn.

Any thoughts that eliminating regulated housing would somehow cause the free market to stabilize is very dangerous and purely speculative. The displacment of those who not be able to afford their apartments would be absolutley destuctive to the families, neighborhoods and communities that make nyc what it is.

52- you are not correct. There is plenty of empirical evidence that rent regulations actually limit the supply of moderately and affordably priced apartments. Look at Boston after it got rid of rent controls in 1997. There was no widespread destructive effect on tenants, and the number of affordable apartments developed afterward grew significantly.

First of all, a $300,000 one bedroom apartment is not exactly affordable to someone who makes 60K a year. Its possible, don't get me wrong, but not easily affordable. If this was any other city, I would completely agree with you.

And I'm sorry, but they are entitled to breaks and handouts. They pay taxes just like you. Why should the wealthiest be the only ones to receive these breaks. Rich people comaplaining about the middle class getting an unfair advantage. What's new.

I agree with you that this would indeed lower housing costs to some degree. And this would benefit the middle class. But you cannot get away with this in NYC, the city is too massive and the gap between the rich and poor is incredible. This is Queens, the most diverse area in the entire county. Elimination of this diversity would completely change the city for the worse.

Interesting reading for anyone so inclinded to learn more facts on the issue:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html

Ah, the Cato Institute. You must be right.

What's wrong with the Cato Institute?

Rupert Murdoch is a good start

Would you prefer a study funded by Move On.org?

No, what I would prefer is that some people excercise some more compassion in their lives for those less fortunate then them.

I'm so glad I live in a neighborhood full of self-satisfied rich libertarians.

Wow, who knew that this was a political blog!

Any updates from yesterday's CB2 meeting?