59 replies to this topic

[Nathan]

I know nothing about Atlantic Yards so I certainly don't want to get into the weeds here.

but a couple notes about density and high-rise housing.

1. Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

2. Density also lowers housing costs. For a variety of reasons, affordable housing set-aside vacancy rates are quite high (in condos, not in rentals), but in general, increase the available housing in a given area and rents/property values will be lower than they would be otherwise. NYC is so expensive because it has the lowest vacancy rates in the U.S., not because of developers building expensive high-rises...(building a bunch of expensive high-rises without affordable housing set-asides still makes for more affordable housing because as the rich folks move into the fancy high-rises that leaves more vacancies in the aging walk-ups).

of course, by definition, there is an inherent conflict between affordable housing and existing property owners -- which is why this issue never breaks down on traditional political lines. it breaks down instead between owners and renters; between existing property owners and aspirational property owners (or renters).

[TaliesinNYC]

1. Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

Doubtful.

While NYC has made great strides in the past four years due in part to Bloomie's policies such as PlaNYC and the recent Zone Green text amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, there are other cities and jurisdictions that 'outgreen' us in ways we can only dream of.

Like the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, Seattle and Tucson.

(and yes, I know you said 'Manhattan', but I'm talking about the City as a whole)

[cstuart]

1. Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

Doubtful.

While NYC has made great strides in the past four years due in part to Bloomie's policies such as PlaNYC and the recent Zone Green text amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, there are other cities and jurisdictions that 'outgreen' us in ways we can only dream of.

Like the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, Seattle and Tucson.

(and yes, I know you said 'Manhattan', but I'm talking about the City as a whole)

Ya, throw Portland in there too.

[TaliesinNYC]

1. Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

Doubtful.

While NYC has made great strides in the past four years due in part to Bloomie's policies such as PlaNYC and the recent Zone Green text amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, there are other cities and jurisdictions that 'outgreen' us in ways we can only dream of.

Like the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, Seattle and Tucson.

(and yes, I know you said 'Manhattan', but I'm talking about the City as a whole)

Ya, throw Portland in there too.

and Chicago, and a couple of towns you've never heard of before such as Greenburgh, NY and Keene, NH

I've been doing research on sustainability, climate change and green regulations in various locales across the United States for the past two weeks.

[Anthony Bonner]

I suspect this will come down to how you define "Green"

[TaliesinNYC]

I suspect this will come down to how you define "Green"

Of course it will, like so many other scintillating discussions on this board.

There are, of course, other inaccuracies in Nathan's statement but that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

[Anthony Bonner]

I suspect this will come down to how you define "Green"

Of course it will, like so many other scintillating discussions on this board.

There are, of course, other inaccuracies in Nathan's statement but that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

you misinterpret what I say. There are reasonable definitions of "greenness" where nathan is correct and others where you are correct.

[TaliesinNYC]

I know nothing about Atlantic Yards so I certainly don't want to get into the weeds here.

but a couple notes about density and high-rise housing.

Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

There are, of course, other inaccuracies in Nathan's statement but that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Since I will be called upon to provide evidence, we'll start with a few links and move on from there.

It's a misconception that housing density is always better for the environment, especially when it concerns urban planning. The correct answer is that each city's situation is unique to that jurisdiction, therefore sometimes higher density is appropriate and at other times, inappropriate, not just to a city as a whole but also to various circumstances that may be found within that city. Pay attention in particular to the third link below.

I've also provided a link to the housing chapter in PlaNYC's 2011 Update for comparison's sake.


http://www.costausti...g/jskaggs/?p=99

http://www.technolog...uburban-sprawl/

http://www.unfpa.org...odman Paper.pdf

http://nytelecom.vo....011_housing.pdf

[Nathan]

1. Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

Doubtful.

While NYC has made great strides in the past four years due in part to Bloomie's policies such as PlaNYC and the recent Zone Green text amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, there are other cities and jurisdictions that 'outgreen' us in ways we can only dream of.

Like the San Francisco Bay Area, Austin, Seattle and Tucson.

(and yes, I know you said 'Manhattan', but I'm talking about the City as a whole)

nope, Manhattan is 3 times as dense as SF and about 10 times as dense as Austin, Seattle or Tucson.

everyone drives in Austin (for all practical purposes Austin does not have mass transit -- ergo, it's not green in the slightest....just cause they do lots of recycling doesn't mean shit), no one drives in Manhattan. and we can just go from there.

[Nathan]

1. Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

Doubtful.

While NYC has made great strides in the past four years due in part to Bloomie's policies such as PlaNYC and the recent Zone Green text amendment to the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York, there are other cities and jurisdictions that 'outgreen' us in ways we can only dream of.

yeah, you're totally missing the point. NYC could be completely non-green in every way possible and it would still be better for the environment than any other place in the U.S. due to the density.

[Nathan]

I suspect this will come down to how you define "Green"

Of course it will, like so many other scintillating discussions on this board.

There are, of course, other inaccuracies in Nathan's statement but that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

wrong. I'm completely right. simply look at fossil-fuel emissions per capita in Manhattan v. anywhere else in the U.S. it's not even close. density is everything...it's all very well that some suburban places have some regulations and initiatives but they're a. still living in houses or less-dense apartments at best; b. driving.

apartments are more efficient to cool and heat than houses and high-rises are the most efficient of all.

[Nathan]

I know nothing about Atlantic Yards so I certainly don't want to get into the weeds here.

but a couple notes about density and high-rise housing.

Higher-density housing is always better for the environment. Manhattan is significantly greener than any other community in the U.S., despite its old infrastructure. Density is by far the most significant factor in lowering fossil fuel emissions.

There are, of course, other inaccuracies in Nathan's statement but that shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Since I will be called upon to provide evidence, we'll start with a few links and move on from there.

It's a misconception that housing density is always better for the environment, especially when it concerns urban planning. The correct answer is that each city's situation is unique to that jurisdiction, therefore sometimes higher density is appropriate and at other times, inappropriate, not just to a city as a whole but also to various circumstances that may be found within that city. Pay attention in particular to the third link below.

I've also provided a link to the housing chapter in PlaNYC's 2011 Update for comparison's sake.


http://www.costausti...g/jskaggs/?p=99

http://www.technolog...uburban-sprawl/

http://www.unfpa.org...man%20Paper.pdf

http://nytelecom.vo....011_housing.pdf

here's a quote from your link: "New York City also has much lower per capita emissions than the United States as a whole (7.1
tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person in 2005, compared to a national average of 23.9 tonnes of
CO2 equivalent per person in 2004)." now who wants to bet that Manhattan is lower than that? (i.e. Forest Hills is much less dense than Manhattan). wanna place bets on whether Austin or Portland or Tucson come in under 7.1?

[Orik]

IT's more complicated than that. Nyc enjoys a lead because commutting is currently a major source of CO2 emissions. If that's improved then the lead will be gone. In addition, the climate control systems in major housing developments are aging and becoming less efficient, both compared to their original performance and to current day technology.

[Nathan]

I should also note that places like Austin and Tucson have heavy household electrical use due to their AC requirements....Portland and SF should come off quite a bit better in comparison.

[Nathan]

IT's more complicated than that. Nyc enjoys a lead because commutting is currently a major source of CO2 emmissions. If that's improved then the lead will be gone.

you mean if other places become more dense?

(even electric cars depend upon power generation...and range is going to be an issue for a while)