I’m glad that this junk will be redeveloped. The site is narrow but deep.
I’ll do a jig when the heinous eyesore to the north is redeveloped.
2 Likes
I’m assuming some kind of boutique condo will go there?
1 Like
RW: You want it down even if it’s reasonably priced housing? Sometimes a building’s use is more important than its appearance.
2 Likes
I can’t imagine that anything across from Union Square is reasonably priced, Chused. Do you know anything about this building (e.g., if it’s a rental or a coop)?
1 Like
RW: I don’t know anything about this building, though I understand that most (probably not all) places in the area are not below market rate. My comment was driven in large part by your apparent instinct to tear down an older, often less than stunning, building rather than carefully consider its present use and the benefits it might provide in the existing urban fabric that makes up this (or any other) great city. As you well know urban planning is not an automatic process. And concern for existing users and the neighborhood should be a major consideration. Moving people out of their homes should not be taken lightly.
4 Likes
I appreciate your comments and your fair perspective, Chused. You always raise valid points.
However, that building is an eyesore, and it physically detracts from the area. I wouldn’t want to see it on the Champs Elysee, on Piccadilly, Newbury St., Michigan Ave., etc.
Let’s assume that it’s a rent-regulated building. No one has the right to live in one of the most expensive parts of Manhattan. I’d like to see people gentrify the Bronx and Queens and make those forlorn areas as vibrant as they were in the 1950s and earlier. Further, people move all the time. It’s a fact of life.
https://streeteasy.com/building/36-union-square-new_york
P.S.: I looked it up. It’s a rental building, and it’s not cheap.
2 Likes
And contra rich people don’t have a right to kick the non-rich out of their homes. Nor does every building on Fifth Avenue uptown have to be stunning. One of the great things about NYC is it’s variety and eccentricity. Gentrification at its best builds, preserves, and makes room for all sorts of folks. That doesn’t happen often enough, in part because it takes infusions of government money in a culture historically unwilling to spend much on the less well off. Maybe that will change this year but I wouldn’t bet on it.
3 Likes
It is my sincere hope that every inch of Manhattan is developed for the wealthy within the next 20 years.
Manhattan is our nation’s crown jewel, and it should be treated as such.
There are plenty of other places these people can live. Their quality of live would undoubtedly improve, anyway. $50,000 per annum goes a long way in many parts of this fine country.
I don’t understand why they want to stay, anyway.
3 Likes
Wow lowkeylion–not a lot of empathy for the less well off. I find it sad that a number of folks using this site are not very willing to try to place themselves in the shoes of others. This city ticks because of the enormous number of people who perform lousy work so folks like me can live more comfortably. If they lived in Keokuk that dinner I order in won’t get to our apartment and the package delivered to our front desk won’t find its way to us. That guy on the e-bike has to live somewhere. And they want to stay for some of the same reasons that probably move you–opportunity, vibrancy, family and friendships. America’s streak of individualism has its downsides, often in lack of an ability to sea how others might live here too with some sense of dignity. As an academic I may be a dreamer, but I try to understand the world outside of my personal boundaries.
5 Likes
It’s not a lack of empathy. I am not wealthy. I don’t live in Manhattan, because I am not at the point in life where I can afford that (at market rate at least). I am perfectly fine with that. I live in a much less expensive location, and I live an amazing life.
It makes no sense to me why people think they have a right to live in Manhattan. That’s all. It’s just entitlement.
4 Likes
If it’s reasonably priced housing, all the more reasoning for knocking it down. Union Square is one of the most expensive places on earth so it’s dumb to have land reserved for low income housing in such a location.
NYC has tons of affordable (income restricted and/or rent regulated) housing because it has a huge commercial tax base, so the most efficient way to maximize affordable housing production is to increase tax base. There should be no lowrise, low-income housing in extreme, superprime locations. It’s actually terrible for citywide housing affordability.
2 Likes
Last Round—I didn’t say that anyone has a right to live in Manhattan or anywhere else. There are infinite reasons why people live where they do—some monetary, some job location, some neighborhood style, some limited income. But suggesting that their choices should be constrained because only the upper class should be allowed to live in a certain area is not only unfair in my mind but risks losing much of the vibrancy making the city what it is.
2 Likes
Most New condo buildings in prime Brooklyn/Queens/Bronx and Manhattan have a large ‘affordable housing’ set aside: so, much of the above seems to be a moot point.
I would like to see a policy of income stratification kept in place here in NYC for many reasons; fairness, empathy, and simply economic vibrancy.
Where there are ‘old decrepit’ CRAP buildings that have actually become obsolete; we must find a way to offer those inhabitants a place in one of the many new developments that contain ‘affordable apartments’.
The above elitist attitudes of “let them eat cake” (Marie Antoniette) or let them “move to the Bronx” (a few folks above) seems a bit harsh; and probably is not even a good fiscal policy for economic vibrancy in NYC.
It will be interesting to see what ‘sprouts up’ here at 34 Union Square: I hope it involves inclusionary housing to keep this town fair, fun and funky. 
2 Likes
What’s wrong with the Bronx? I think that in twenty years, it will have large, very desirable areas.
Correct about inclusionary housing. DeBlasio actually has been quite good on that score. Tearing down ugliness certainly is better in my mind if it leads to a big chunk of below market rate units. That helps preserve exactly the sort of variety I like about this town. But in the absence of such planning getting rid of existing housing stock is often counter productive.
2 Likes
RW. And what’s wrong with ‘cake’ - it tastes great. There will always be elitist attitudes such as yours and others here in NYC; the different attitudes we see here on YIMBY is a good thing.
2 Likes
I respect your opinion, Infoshare. I just have a different one.
1 Like
I have to avoid going into detail on this: but many of those buildings have become ‘obsolete’. There are many factors in physcial obsolescence: structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, - as well as ‘economically’ obsolete. WE need to care for those who need affordable housing, and ALSO addressing the issue of physically obsolete structures.
I will end it here - but I think you get the idea. Trying to Hold-on to much of the ‘obsolete’ housing stock by way of Landmarking, and tenant rights is IMHO - “counter productive”.
Yes, and that was my point as well. Cheers.
On another matter, I hope that the new zoning in SoHo does not result in the demolition of beautiful old buildings on Broadway. I don’t think they’re landmarked.
1 Like