The Plan To Literally Expand New York City - Cheddar Explains
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.พ. 2022
- What if we added the equivalent of over 1300 football fields to the tip of Manhattan? This was the proposal of a recent op-ed in The New York Times - increasing the size of the borough by about 12% in order to mitigate two of its most pressing problems. There’s evidence from all over the world that doing this can be a useful technique for crowded ocean-side cities. But the process to do so - reclaiming land from the ocean - is rife with potential downsides. So is this a proportional response to gigantic problems? Or a zany harebrained scheme that’ll do more harm than good?
Further reading:
The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/op...
JustinTools.com
www.justintools.com/unit-conv...
Institute of Island Studies
www.urbanislandstudies.org/UIS...
Int’l Assoc. of Dredging Companies
www.iadc-dredging.com/subject...
Tomorrow.City
tomorrow.city/a/reclaiming-la...
tomorrow.city/a/reclaiming-la...
Curbed
boston.curbed.com/2017/5/16/1...
ny.curbed.com/2019/3/14/18265...
Hispanic American Historical Review
www.researchgate.net/publicat...[…]and_Development_in_Mexico%27s_Lake_Texcoco_Basin_1910-1950
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
The Guardian
www.theguardian.com/cities/20...
World Atlas
www.worldatlas.com/articles/c...
New York Public Library
digitalcollections.nypl.org/i...
Science Daily
www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
The BBC
www.bbc.com/future/article/20...
CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/news/humpback...
Subscribe to Cheddar on TH-cam: chdr.tv/subscribe
Connect with Cheddar!
On Facebook: chdr.tv/facebook
On Twitter: chdr.tv/twitter
On Instagram: chdr.tv/instagram
On Cheddar.com: chdr.tv/cheddar - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Hello! I produced this video. Pop any questions you have below!
Good job, I like how it was non-bias and explained the ups and downs on both sides of concern. I'd love to see that expansion happen. More good than harm.
Acres are a good measure and one acre is about the same as one American Football Field or one Association Football Field (which ARE approximately the same, soccer doesn't have a fixed field size.)
Maybe started off with an actual unit for the area, instead of the standard football field?
Rename New York New Amsterdam right now
You should review the environmental nightmare it's been for the LGA AirTrain extension because it's near the polluted harbor. Something like this could never happen if just a train extension is years of review and dang-near impossible
"…welcoming to all income levels…"
I have lived in New York City all my life, and I can assure you that’s not how this would play out.
This comment right here
Boom. Facts.
EXACTLY
Welcoming all income levels...
All income levels above $300k annualy
@@Ennui. All pay according to their ability.
I get the feeling that even if this plan went through, it would NOT be allocated towards affordable housing.
That was my thought exactly! You read my mind....
Im sorry Hudson Yards what? Im seeing this beautiful project and more space for housing and all I'm thinking is how HY got that "last minute" upgrade from mid-low, middle, upper-middle, to straight full blown luxury apartments with cashless shops.
But if it works sign me up I offer as tribute.
It doesn't really matter much. It would still be great so long it increases total housing supply which reduces housing prices for everyone.
@@pretendcampus5410 pbbbbbt hahahahahahahahahaha 🤣
@@maliksmith9003 So you’re arguing against some of the least controversial research in housing development? Tell me this: when rich people move into new luxury apartments, what happens to the ones they moved out of?
I love that “football field” is a common unit of measurement in America.
they’ll measure with fucking anything as long as it’s not meters.
Because football fields are literally like 1 big ruler
Because American real estate is literally measured in British units especially in cities laid out by them centuries ago.
I think it is more that your average person has no idea how large an acre or hectare are.
I remember in 1970 when I was in 4th grade there was serious talk about the US converting to the metric system. I was so scared I wouldn't know how to weigh things or measure them, I was so happy when the talk died down.
Just so long as you don't equate the metric system with the super-brained humans exclusively. Thanks.
As a New Yorker, if someone here puts the words “housing” and “affordable” together, it’s a bigger lie than Hitler’s promise of “Just this bit of Czechoslovakia and THAT’S IT.”
When they say that, it usually means the apartments are still thousands of $$$ 😂
@@xxcarolxannexx Yeh
@@stevemc01 true Im from Virginia but my father’s family was from the New York area first coming to the city in the 1940s from Puerto Rico my grandma always told me it was a great city but always never to live there because of how expensive it is. I’ve been to New York only once in my life I plan on maybe going again next year but all I can say is it’s a nice city on the outside but disgusting on the inside.
@@miguelreveron8814 It’s basically a country of itself within a country.
Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island, Queens, and the Bronx. They all have such different development roads it feels like the states of the US and their diversity. Kinda a wonder they’re all not individual cities (Brooklyn kinda was at one point, actually).
@@stevemc01 yeah but what ever dumb thing nyc does the city will still have a place in my heart after all it did bring my grandpa and his decendents to america
As a Dutchman I approve of this plan. It should be called New Amsterdam 😉
😂 back to old times!
Sponsored by New Amsterdam Vodka
Why they changed it I can't say...
This is the dumbest idea. New york is stink with trash everywhere and rats. No one who know what a non stily city smells like will not move there and they are losing population rapidly.. the last thing they need is more new york city 😂😂 people who have always live in NYC are moving away thinking Jesus christ i didnt realize how disgusting new york is.
@@benvoliothefirst Because the English changed it to New York, as in the city York in England.
Yes of course it would be “affordable housing”, haha. That’s always what it says in the planning proposal. The property developers ribs must be quaking with laughter as they pen that in.
Because there is no such thing as affordable housing. If you sell homes to poorer people at below-market rates, do you know what they do? They accept market rate offers for those homes, pocket the cash, and find another place to live. That's capitalism. If you have zero dollars in your bank account, and you have the chance to have hundreds of thousands of dollars in your bank account, with the net effect of going back to the same spot you lived before, you do it. Because poor people don't have the luxury of being broke in a nicer apartment.
@@texaswunderkind You’re assuming that affordable housing means means low purchase prices.
@@benchoflemons398 if you build a block of 3 million dollar apartments next to an existing block of 3 million dollar apartments, at most it might slow the price increases in the existing block, but only for a short time. It does nothing for affordable housing. In fact, if it confirms the area to be up-and-coming and not the sort of area where the government would build public housing, then it would accelerate price increases.
So the newest properties on the cleanest part of NYC are going to be affordable?
Too right mate!
After the Great Storm of 1900 (deadliest hurricane in US history), Galveston built a seawall and began the Grade Raising, which raised the entire island 10+ feet. This took about 14 years, but it greatly improved living on the island. Today most new homes are being built at least 20 feet above sea level to give added security.
And now they are talking about spending billions more to protect the area from rising sea levels. The sea is coming...
I think it is interesting and important that this land reclamation plan includes a wetland barrier. Obviously environmental risk assessments will have to be done to try and find out if the destruction this project would inevitably cause is worth the potential benefits it is meant to bring. I am just glad that “green infrastructure” is being factored in to this plan because it is a tool that is so often left out of development projects. Green infrastructure is the use of natural elements (like man-made wetlands, storm water ponds, parking lot rain gardens, etc.) to mitigate problems like flooding in urban areas. There is a huge urban development project going on in downtown Toronto right now that will use a lot of green infrastructure to solve water management problems as well.
“Affordable housing” 😂😂😂 Funniest thing I’ve heard this century, good one 🤣🤣🤣
House Crisis are caused by lack of Housing. There isn't enough houses for people to live in Economically booming Cities like New York, Los Angeles, San Fransico and etc.
So "Building more houses" is a solution to the problem, but it really depends how the government is gonna approach it. If the government is relax on House Developers letting them build houses that meets the demand for people to live in, instead of implementing "House Codes" on how houses should be build houses, making it expensive to built, then yeah. This is doing the bare minimum.
In the biggest Capitalism country on Earth
@@chronenojysk5107 hmmmmmmmmmmm *looks at hundreds and thousands of vacant rooms that are too much money for the average person to buy* hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@@theorangeheadedfella im going to assume you never traveled outside of America
Affordable housing in the main city is bs. Even you go around the world and go to there main cities it’s expensive compare to small town
What would I really love to see? The post-pandemic closed offices being turned into apartments. We would have to change a ton of zoning laws to make that happen, but I think it could really help.
Changing zoning laws is presumably both faster and cheaper than building two additional miles of land plus filling it with human infrastructure.
Good idea. The impending usage for virtual reality will there will be less need for office space. I think the numbers drop drastically in the next ten years
Apartments for who? Office space in NYC rents out for $50+/sqft/mo.
@@BETRNSX EXACTLY. No zoning laws, or "affordable housing" or anything like that will ever change problems caused by silly loans and unreasonable landlords who would rather keep their place empty than rent a cent cheaper.
Not sure buildings designed to be offices could be simply made to accommodate housing. They'd be built up incorrectly and would have to have stuff such as new walls put in place
There’s no way housing in this hypothetical lower Manhattan neighborhood would actually be affordable. 1 bedroom apartments in lower Manhattan go for $3,000+. There’s also so many empty buildings in this city that could help address the housing issue.
To me, it seems like the thing that separates this from other infrastructure that NYC might struggle with is that this should pay for itself while infrastructure is paid tangentially. It could also help connect Manhattan to State Island and the southern part of Brooklyn. Making those connections easier could even further make housing more affordable in Manhattan based on some recent research on home prices.
As a person from New Orleans, building on top of land that is supposed to be water worked out really well for us.
As a person from The Netherlands, I agree. The whole country shouldn't even exist.
@@Bearical they were being sarcastic
@@scottfennell6459 oh lol
New Orleans & Houston has entered the chat lol.
Is this like how New Orleans cemeteries used to be so flooded that they were crawfish habitats?
Literally Queens, The Bronx, and Staten Island need so many improvements. It is not all about Manhattan and Brooklyn
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Maybe they’ would be able to build a bridge from Staten Island to Manhattan now…
@@sydnierosenfeld8229 hi, maybe the bridge will take 100 to 500 years of construction, Like always it takes much time. All that is built takes time to complete.
@@sydnierosenfeld8229 Or the Subway or SIR while we're at it...
fucking facts
The los angeles harbor commission has been enlarging the land of terminal island. But they have also been raising the island level when they redo an area . They are compensating for sea level rise but also to offset the slow sinking do to oil production causing terminal island slowly sinking.
Literally hire the Dutch to do this project, including the subway system and bicycle lanes and walkable neighbourhoods. We know what we're doing and we're great at building cities + unlike American cities we do not go bankrupt.
Very interesting and a good point of not going bankrupt or half-@$$ construction work (shoddy and cheap).👍
Hire the Dutch??? Are you kidding? Hire WHITE people actually capable and highly experienced in doing these kinds of massive projects? OMG, no can do...that would be RRRRRRAAAAAACIST!
Netherlands is tiny... How on Earth you compare the complexities of building there with the USA?? ... When we want to build a Red Light District, we can maybe call you then.
@@hus390 the fact we're tiny doesn't mean we don't build better cities, spouting a lot of bullshit for someone who's clearly never been to the Netherlands.
@@hus390 Why wouldn't it be comparable?
forgive me for sounding cynical, but having lived in new york, i highly doubt that adding this land would help the housing crisis in any significant way. whenever new chunks of land become available in manhattan, it is immediately used to create housing for the wealthy, a fair portion of which is owned simply for speculative purposes. this would be another instance of the hudson yards development effort.
Yea but the government can regulate this land more to strictly protect it as affordable housing.
@@geralferald they’re not gonna do that 😂😂 this is a money ploy it’ll only get worse
@@geralferald That would reduce the effectiveness of the value-capture from construction.
@@gabrieldarybruno3617 I'm saying it's a possibility. But with how liberal New York is it would not surprise me at all if they would regulate it.
@@thezenarcher yea it would reduce it a little bit not nearly enough to make it not economically feasible though. The economists would just have to decide if the value lost is worth the cost of providing better lower income housing.
reclaiming land to fix a shortage of housing but the land is worth a zillion dollars, does that not defeat its own purpose? New York can't even build a subway in modern times
yeah but the ones that pay those zillion dollars are the government, in effect housing prices can be pushed down and it’s better to do so before allocating it for something that the public might not ever gonna see... this, would have direct impact to the taxpayers.
Yep! Because of the politics, cities have incentives to having legions of poor people. Like it or not, poor people today in the US make very poor citizens. (This wasn't always true but began with the "War on Poverty.)
They can build it …..is just. To good of a business for one person to let others get in on it.
You do know that NY has the most advanced subway system in the world, right?
@@isaacparadis7951 the majority of which was built more than half a century ago
I think, NYC having that extra plot of land, means that you can have land banking, and tearing down and compensating the landowners with such new plots. You can afford tearing down certain blocks for new stations or building parks or adding amenities.
Thanks for a really interesting and informative video. TH-cam channels like yours are so much more interesting than tv.
172000 people is really a drop in the ocean for New York, saying that all classes would benefit is a lie, you'd just have more wealth move in from other parts of the world.
Thank you! Look what happened with Hudson Yards; it was going to be a "mixed-use space for everyone". Instead, it's yet another playground for the wealthy.
The very second that land is available it will be far too valuable to allocate to "affordable" housing. But, simply put, Manhattan probably is in desperate need for any potential tax revenue that could be bought about by land reclamation.
You mention land reclamation in Mexico City. But keep in mind that draining the lake and almost all of the wetlands that started after Spanish conquest (and accelerated during the porfiriato) destroyed an ecosystem as well as a very productive agricultural system. The city has also been literally sinking every year due to the slow compression of the dry lake bed under most it. It was not a good thing.
Yes you are right about most of it.
The palm-tree islands were also a very problematic project that didn't bring many benefits and even helped to coin dubai as a distopia by many
@@dinamosflams manhattan as we know it today is a result of these expansion projects. Its been over 100 yrs and nothing bad happened to it. This project works.
A lot of reclamations are sinking. Kansai airport in Japan is seen as a complete failure
@@mmm-ie5ws nothing bad happened? Are you kidding? Entire New York is bad and getting worse. They should fix their massive pile of turd rather than make more turd.
There is a skyscraper building in CA that was built on a marsh and the building is tilting. They tried to correct and straighten the tilting sky scaper but now it leans or tilts even more that before the "fix".
it was also done in a smaller scale in Montreal Canada in the 60's, it took ten months from 15 million tons of rock excavated from the newly built metro lines to create Ile Notre Dame, where they then hosted the international expo in 1967.
I'm curious, how would adding a bunch of super expensive land to Manhattan solve the affordable housing problem? It would just attract a whole bunch more rich folk, since you would need them to recoup the cost of all the filling and infrastructure construction.
Presumably if NYC is paying for this they can allocate a certain percentage of this land to affordable housing.
@@nanoflower1 There is allocation, and also the fact that having more housing almost anywhere price wise makes housing in general more affordable. Imagine someone who wants to get a house at price X, but that price is not available. they likely would not be willing/able to get one priced X+$100k, but WOULD be willing to get one priced X-$100k. This removed the X-$100K house from where it is supposed to be priced. the person who is trying to get a house at price X-$100K now ALSO has to look to lower prices and so on and so on, until you reach the bottom. Thus, *so long as they are lived in*, more housing at basically any price is good for the housing crisis.
New construction would all be sold as “luxury condos” and a studio will now be the size of a broom closet for $5k/month.
@@nanoflower1 Then they would spend all of their time trying to get rid of try affordable housing. Rich people don’t want common people around them. Just how it is.
i saw some quick math on this and housing would have to be at $1,000,000 and up just to cover the cost of reclaiming the land, not to mention the cost of building the infrastructure and housing, this guys math is seriously off.
I wouldn’t mind this for Manhattan tbh. But there’s no way this would happen with the recent history of the city’s bureaucracy clowns.
Maybe don't vote blue no matter who?
vote for smart people who want to be any party, common sense over ideology.
@@carlosrivas1629 Never voted for a NY Dem
The problem isn’t Dem or Rep specific, it just bad politicians winning cause their Dem or Rep and people assume one is worst than the other. When most of the time their the same.
@@Kishanth.J Well the flaw is in us people. plain and simple.
This is the best idea for governors island use since it was proposed to move the new York aquarium there in order for coney island to become an inclusive amusement park back in 2009
This relocation may cause tourism on the new island extension as well as a good use for the buffer zone
Thank You
Ken Vogel
That was on the Coney Island Restoration Committee
i never knew a piece of cheddar of this good at explaining
Why does the NFL need that many more football fields?
I think the reason is money
There’s already so much overcrowding in the city and surrounding states. We need to address the crowding, traffic, pollution, cost of living etc. while expanding. It has to solve multiple problems.
It won't. In the Philippines, my country had done something like this and it only skyrocketed the price of condominiums, houses and apartments.
The only way to do this would to make other cities bigger and more desirable than NYC so that people move there instead. There is so much land in the US in the west, but nobody will bother to make a new, cheaper NYC.
I am gonna throw out an extremely crazy idea that may assist with your overcrowding issues :
Move somewhere else. Have you actually SEEN the size of this country ??
@@johnnyonthespot4375 People move to NYC because of the jobs. It's dirty, it's overcrowded, it's expensive. But the amount of money you can make here is crazy. Think about it: NYC has the most billionaires and millionaires out of any city in the world. Almost 1/8 of the population. And that's not including all of the millionaires and billionaires that work in the city but live in NJ, CT, and on Long Island.
Other cities have great jobs too, but nothing nearly as diverse as NYC. Wall Street, advertising, the fashion industry, all the national television networks, 2 of the 3 national newspapers, film, Broadway, the health industry, education - over 100 colleges and an Ivy League, 300K government jobs, all the transportation jobs. And even the tech companies that aren't headquartered in the city have a huge presence here: Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc.
Also, the West has land. But there's no water. The Colorado River is dying. Just look at Lake Mead. All of those people moving to Vegas, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, etc. are going to have problems very soon. AZ is implementing a water cut of 20% this year. NV and CA have also agreed to reduce their water this year.
@@actor260 Truth, NYC is a global hub. And more truth, it's crazy expensive and crowded. It's certainly a lifestyle that isn't for everyone. If people want to move there, they are welcomed to try their luck paying 5x for the opportunity. Like you've said, the potential for growth is everywhere there, but it's costly in more ways than just money.
Cheddar, I don't know how you guise stay so calm through all of this.
Yes.
We need to add something important in order to prevent flooding,
and to add natural beauty/recreation.
We need a smaller more modernized (but well constructed and crafted) Central Park on the tip borders!
With flood barriers/slopes, trails, and public gathering places.
A very nice boardwalk is definitely needed!
Also an important bike/walk area to expand the trails that are already in place from Hells Kitchen would be awesome!
If possible,
also make it as car restricted/ car proof as possible.
Add a secured parking multi story garage on the upper edge away from the water, and use scheduled trolleys to move that one mile every 20 minutes.
Or... Maybe do something about the fact that luxury condos (which NY has plenty of) are used mainly as a form of tax avoidance and mostly just sit empty...
Sit empty huh? You got a crow bar I can borrow, I know what I'm going to do today.
Or…if someone buys it…it’s theirs…and they can do whatever they want with it…
@@daisyjones622 theres only so much land for houses, a future where richer people buy up all the usable land is not good
As a native of Mexico city, many people dream here in Mexico city to restore the lake and all the natural environment, and it is just that a dream because it would be too expensive nearly impossible to do so, so be careful of what you are losing.
I think this would be a awesome idea if done properly and environmentally responsibly. Also it really couldn't hurt to try to cut a bit of spending, lower a bit of construction costs and build some public transport projects to better connect the entire new York city area. As someone who works in construction on the also expensive bay area of California that is much easier said then done while trying to deal the bureaucratic nightmare of these municipalities.
Or, you know, actually invest in public infrastructure to more directly connect Staten Island to the rest of the city. I mean building a tunnel directly to staten Island to Manhattan would do wonders, also change zoning laws on the island to make it truly part of the city, as opposed to the isolated hell hole it is now. Would probably also be way cheaper then adding to Manhattan, dealing with the inevitable flooding the new part of the city would suffer, and massively increase the quality of life for Staten Islanders as they no longer have to drive through Brooklyn, or take the ferry before they reach Manhattan. This tunnel could also connect Staten Island to the general MTA subway system making travel there a lot faster.
Or, give SI to NJ?
bro is definitely from staten island
@@peter-lq7mh Brooklyn actually. Just would be nice to have Manhattan traffic go directly from Staten Island to Manhattan and not pile up in Brooklyn as much
@@skyfox0096 Does Brooklyn get bombarded with traffic from people going from Staten Island to Manhattan? I’ve been a jersey guy my whole life, so I’ve been to the city plenty but I’ve never had to experience the traffic for a living.
the reason it'll never happen is because the cost outweighs the benefits. There is no major business on staten island; it's pretty much just residential. People live there knowing what the commute off the island is like; move away if you dislike it. The rest of NY state does not want to pay billions of dollar for that tunnel.
Regarding the housing crisis, this won't fix anything, there isn't a shortage of residential space, there is a shortage of AFFORDABLE residential space. You could double the size of the island and it won't make a dent if the new area is just another Hudson Yards i.e. just letting developers build the kind of developments that will bring in the most profits, not to suit the greatest need of the residents of the city.
You have to increase the housing supply to the point that the price is effected. Imagine if every city in the US was as dense as Manhattan.
Yeah. the city would have to maintain ownership of a large chunk of the proposed new housing so that they could keep it affordable.
They need to stop allowing developers to build condos.
@@rwmorey71 At 4:35 they mention that Barr's proposal would include affordable housing.
@@cliffpadilla5871 and build what instead?
I absolutely LOVE CHEDDAR!!! But I really love the videos you are are in, your voice is so calming:)
Finally, someone who really understands the definition of "literally". And extra marks for not ending every sentence with "!!!"
“Affordable housing” lol good one
I feel like it would be easier and cheaper to develop on Staten island and maybe build a fast train to Staten Island to mahanattan so people can get there in maybe less than 15 to 20 minutes
What's the point in this when Russia is just going to nuke the city within 6 months?
wouldn’t that just displace the people that live on staten island already? or are you saying add more land onto staten island?
@@liamk9906 There's a lot of wetland and open land in Staten Island. The problem is much of it is protected or the dump.
A simple rational idea like this would earn my vote for pres at this point
@@LivingBattery Destroying wetlands is a mistake.
Somehow I doubt that any housing built on a reclaimed land attached to Manhattan would be anywhere close to "affordable"
7:38 that mad me laugh so much, because at the beginning of the video I thought "man I bet old people wouldn't take her seriously with that nose ring" and then BOOM you addressed it. 😆
I've lived in NYC my entire life. It's now dangerous especially in the subways. The prices are OUTRAGEOUS for rents, whether in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn etc...and the burbs..you get a house for Half a million with an interior from 1970s. It sucks.
Well I couldn't agree with you more as I'm originally from Rye New York. Upon my father's passing 3 years ago at the age of 90 my parents were married 63 years while the house was built in 1955 everything has been upgraded and replaced including the furnace, hot water heater washer and dryer new kitchen utilities and central vacuuming system. It cost over $100,000 for improvements but we did get $1.1 million on the house.
@@SicilianStealth I can't imagine what the taxes per year were. Here on Long Island you are considered very lucky if it is 10,000 per year.
States Island says hello.
Look on the bright side, you could claim a new love of retro.
@@stevewiles7132 Forced love.
There will always be an environmental cost. The question is whether the impact is temporary or permanent. I think the project can be done with minimal permanent impacts. The humpbacks return may be pushed back by a couple of decades, but the economic and social benefits to the region would be huge.
Uhh, it's taken decades just for humpbacks to return. It will take decades just for a project like this to get through all of the hurdles.
Why not focus on fortressing the infrastructure already present to deal with rising ocean?
@@brad3042 They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
@@brad3042 I mean the proposla would would increase the housing units in manhattan they said by almost 150%. Theres no way that can be accomplished through fortifying existing infrastructure. This proposal is the type of ambitious thinking that really has way more benefits than negatives.
@@brad3042 The humpbacks have been around longer than humans, I don't think they will mind coming back a hundred years later.
@@brad3042
The advantage of this idea is that it pays for itself. Present projects are in fits and starts as funds are allocated, or not. Also, such a project would allow for a more comprehensive and holistic environmental defense against global warming.
The problem is that this option will require both long term political will and willingness to accept finacial risk. There will probably need to be some new financing to initially fund the project by preselling development rights.
I’m sure the owners of the waterfront buildings that currently exist would be thrilled… they would be the main contenders to this plan, and any negotiation would mean that they would own a large part of that new land.
What recording setup do you have? Your voice and tonality come through so well.
So they can literally extend the city, but they cant update the subway?
Priorities
Subway is for poors and manhattan land is for the rich. Which do you think will get priority?
@@kaymish6178 in USSR and similar
It would 100% without a doubt be subway lol
@randomguy9777 well, the management of two projects, no. But physically, yes.
I mean you mentioned that NYC isn't the fastest to fix or complete any infrastructure projects. Plenty of examples from subway lines that stalled and took decades to build or highway repairs and extensions that have been in progress for over 10 years in certain sections (some of those within my own neighborhood in Queens).
Another red flag that immediately jumps out is the idea that if this is built, that it would really make an impact for lower income individuals (i.e. the housing crisis). A crisis that is real and made up at the same time. There isn't a lack of housing in NYC, there is a lack of affordable housing. And our government has created that by giving 100s of millions in tax breaks to luxury building constructors and all they promise is a tiny percent of those new constructions for affordable housing. The price of housing is ridiculous. And some how an economist is going to think that adding new land will fix it? It'll all be priced out of reach for the general population instantly.
That was my first thought too. He says it's going to be "welcoming to all", but does that mean the same as every other new development where only a small percentage is affordable housing? I'm thinking that there is no way for this to be profitable if the outcome is mainly affordable housing, given the cost of land reclamation. And if the aim is to grant affordable housing no matter the cost, why not just repurpose existing high end apartment blocks which are standing mostly empty? That would probably end up costing less money and environmental impact. But of course affordable housing isn't the end goal because this is coming from an economist. The aim is to make money, so it will just be more of the same that's already in Manhattan
don't forget the rebuilding of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco.
It's only gotten worse. I saw on the news that people were seeing up to 40% or more increases in rent over the last few months. Imagine having a place that is reasonably affordable when you started then tack on 800 dollars to the rent. That's ridiculous. It's like landlords don't want actual tenants living on their buildings. That's why since the pandemic hit I've see people moving outside of NYC especially now that a lot businesses closed their offices or offer WFH. Why spend the insane amounts for housing in NYC when you can far more in-terms of housing elsewhere. I live NYC, lived here all of my life, but I can't see this being sustainable long term and I'm making plans to move on myself even though I'm lucky enough to own a co-op.
These projects are meant to put money in a couple of pockets. Thats all. No one cares about the project itself or the people. Just pocketing a couple millions. Like the Hudson Yards. It usually goes "Budget 30Billion. Actual budget used 20M." The other 10 gets lost in "paperwork". Thats what this city does best. Fraud.
Fun fact: the Lower city of Salvador, Brazil, was created by reclaiming land with dirt and rocks from neighboring Refice in 16th century
Due to that, Recife became overly flat and currently it is the Brazilian city that's the most endangered by rising sea levels.
Imagine the bills NYC will have to pay Con Ed for the electricity they will need to keep the pumps constantly running, as the water of NYC Harbor starts to rise. Duh!
As a railfan this just means more opportunities for railroads as there will be some amount of industry too.
I love this topic, I love this presenter 💚 and I love the infographics used too. But I would have wished for more before-and-after maps to illustrate. For instance the expansion of Copenhagen into the sea, both historically and its future urban island of Lynetteholm currently being constructed.
Thanks Kenster! If I could monopolize all the efforts of our graphic czar, I, too, would fill videos with maps, maps, and more maps.
Also more information on practically (depth of the seabed there, whether fill in behind or dump rocks/soil etc) of the project
One MASSIVE difference. Copenhagen doesn't lie on a fault line. NYC does, what happens to reclaimed land when a fault line ruptures? Oh yeah, liquefaction. NYC is due for a quake.
My view is the opposite. NYC is more than just Manhattan. Never build on water, water will ALWAYS reclaim its territory.
Sheesh! Why don't you Marry the topic Why don't cha?
NYC doesn't have a housing shortage. We have an affordable, un-hoarded housing shortage. If we got rid of the pied-a-terres who buy up a bunch of apartments they have no intention of ever living in, this would be a non-issue. Divvy up those luxury condos into affordable, rent-stabilized, resonably-sized apartments. Much cheaper and easier... For everyone.
Yep.
this is true.
Do you have stats on the proportion of housing in New York which is unoccupied? Because as flashy and galling as unoccupied luxury apartments are, they probably only make up a tiny proportion of New York housing stock.
why ? this is a capitalist country, so why are you trying to tell people what they can i can't do with their own money? if they want to develop luxury condo's why shouldn't they ? because poor people can't afford rent? then they should leave the city.
@@t.r.5870 such a poor mentality
If one of today’s greatest fears is polar ice caps melting with oceans reclaiming coastal land, then how is expanding coastal land at great expense a good idea?
its worth noting that the netherlands were debating how to drain amsterdam when they landed here. it took 400 years to agree on and complete a plan.
A few red flags:
1. Creating an area welcome to ALL income levels? Well, won't that just drive up housing costs and defeat the point of adding more housing?
2. An economist brushing off ecological concerns? That's why we're in this climate change mess.
3. Humpback whales for chrissakes! NYC is doing something right with cleaning up the water. Adding more land would defeat that?
Your first and last bullets are kinda dumb ngl.
@@geralferald yeah we know that supply of the land is limited. I think the reclamation can increase the supply and create a new equilibrium of price,,, or at least not making the price of housing skyrocket in short term. Other than that, it could create a lot of opportunities and job. So yah
More supply helps housing costs no matter how nice the new units are
@@geralferald No, it really isn't it.
@@thatdude123 yes they're both stupid points
I'm down for the plan, but to fundamentally fix our housing shortage we must tackle our zoning laws to mandate greater density, with an emphasis on walkability and affordability, along with expanding transit to allow a greater number of people greater mobility across the city
Very fair response and I honestly believe the same. However, that being said this is New York city, this is not some suburb. There are serious improvements that New York could make to improve the city. But, its also safe to say that there needs to be more housing built.
The housing shortage is a illusion. These developments will sit empty as offshore holdings for Chinese billionaires.
We can't even get pot holes fixed. We don't pick up poop
Every day there's a back up at entrance to Carrey Tunnel at Battery bc of a few cars that skip in front by Hamilton to get on the BQE. Back up to New Jersey bc of this one spot. Ive complained many times about this one spot. Gowanus been worked on for 30 years. New proposal by Hochel actually it was thought of years ago about new train line BK2QU might be helpful but more infrastructure for trucks and cars is most needed. Another tunnel for NJ
Again help at the BQE entrance first
imagine thinking seafront land in lower manhattan would solve the housing crisis, and using dubai as a positive example
Or with New York have stronger laws related to unoccpied properties owned by foreign investors. New York has so many properties that is not used for what they should do, house people.
The nose ring at the end. Priceless
Interesting concept for sure.
You read my mind on the nose ring. Kudos.
I really feel like this video could've been so much more. I was hoping they would get into the engineering aspects of creating new land, like what problems have to be solved and how they solve them. Then talk about where the initial funding would come from and how to get through bureaucratic red tape.
With the super valuable market rates, I think a lot of bureaucratic red tape would be reduced for a chance to land grab. I think for the engineering aspect, a studio would have to create a 3D digital walkthrough of what it'll actual look like to get people talking about it.
It's not B1M unfortunately
@@AneudiD78You don't need a 3d projection. the project would need a very lengthy soil property study. Soils at the bottom of the ocean has very different property. Compaction of the soil is very expensive. The new land might not even have enough strength to support skyscrapers and can only be residential zoning only.
Sounds like you want a Wendover Productions video
Even engineers like to build stuff that has a purpose. This is pointless. One storm during construction and it all washes away. Try to settle the fill with vibration and compaction, and damage all the existing buildings. That Netherland guy is misleading, this isn't going to be used as farm land or other low population density property.
This is GREAT!! Let's build out Man-Hat-Tin to extend more real estate that no one, outside of the 1%, can afford. Empty high rises used as investments sounds great and makes a lot of sense.
@randomguy9777 no it won't, eventually those who may be able to afford this worthless idea will only be financially forced out.
I have lived here long enough to know that ALL that land would immediately be snatched up for "luxury" housing. Every. Last. Inch.
I lived in Manhattan for 40 years. Having witnessed how well meaning programs to produce affordable housing were hijacked to produce subsidized luxury housing sending the cost of apartments per sq foot up, I can’t help but wonder if the end result of this wouldn’t just be more inflow of capital from the middle east and Asia and there would be more Dubai on Hudson.
There is 2 big unnoticed problems here:
1-Land reclamation happens in cities and countries around the world when they do not have any land left behind them to expand or they are limited to barriers like mountains but New York city has a lot of land around to expand.
2-The second big problem is that as every civil engineer knows and will tell you, if you want to build any buildings on reclaimed land you have to compact it to avoid the settlement of soil which leads to the destruction of the buildings on it and this is a very costly and expensive procedure. Unless you don't build anything on it for example you can move the central park of New York to this newly created land and build your buildings on the land which was the lands of central park before.
I'm with you on 2. But I'm not sure about 1. This is the most urbanized area in the US. And they don't have room to expand. Whatever isn't shoreline is blocked by existing cities and suburbs. And even the metro area is almost built out. The Palisades are now covered in development and the floods that hit the region a few months ago were so bad because development has reduced the ability of land to absorb water. They really don't have anymore room.
sooner or later you get to the Point where the infrastructure to move people downtown is more expensive than create new land. everybody who doesn't have a vital connection to the big apple probably has already moved to a other east-coast city or inland
@@CortexNewsService I think that it’s time to start densifying suburbs and better incorporating them into NYC.
Land reclamation has already caused a lot of damage to aquatic environments around the world. We don’t need to do it more.
Altering the physical environment under water doesn't so much damage anything down there as it merely prompts changes in the marine life. So altering the coastline or seafloor e.g. by installing artificial reefs will often simply attract a different type of marine life, displacing some species to other environments farther out.
The major damage is being caused by toxic wastewater being flushed out to see both legally (by industry and agrobusinesses) as well illegally (by methlabs and various manufacturers and private households).
While I don't support this project specifically we are going to have to build something soon to prevent flooding to most of our costal cities which will unfortunately always have some negative effect on the aqua enjoinment.
@@kenster8270 That's just incorrect.
1. Dredging means the stuff has to come from somewhere. Usually it's picked in shallow waters close to the coast. The flora and fauna there are going to be completley wiped away by that. The new seafloor will take decades to get back to where it was, if it ever will be at all.
2. A "displaced" species is far different from an displaced individual. Lots of organisms will die and other organisms will settle in different areas. Oh wait, they are already present in those different areas...... So basically "species will be displaced" means absolutley nothing else than "one area where they live will be unavailable to them" I don't know if it's intentional, but this is some of the dirties code speak used in the last few decades by companies to justify ecological damage in the eyes of the public.
Yes areas will be damaged, yes areas will be lost completley. Yes a changing fauna and flora in a given habitat do justify the use of the word "damaged".
Great piece & a very practical idea. We know the ecologists will go nuts, but it makes sense.
6:58 you’re damn right… Just look at the van wyck. I was in my dads nuts when they started that and Im currently 65
But, its pretty ironic, US has so much land, yet they need to make artificial land
Cheddar makes the best videos. Punchy, full of info and beautiful motion graphics.
Definitely I tell everyone about this channel.
why thank you!
punchy is how i describe this man's dace, smug bastard.
its moronic, three second in and its stupid, were not Japan, were not land starved, New York is just crowded, get rid of some buildings.
Yea but many times the statistics are grossly inaccurate which is a huge bummer.
The "New" New York.
(Futurama theme plays)
Kind of wish this video went into more depth on the counter-argument. Might have been nice to have interviews with say, an ecologist who understands what ramifications might occur from such a proposal, rather than just having the one with the guy who proposed it in the first place.
The problem this reclamation project has is it runs on the assumption that will solve the woes that NYC has. Creating houses for the wealthy just get gobbled up and remain empty or rented out.
It also maintains the status quo that the only way New York succeeds is by feeding and consolidating around Manhattan.
Why not expand rapid public transport/subways to the New Jersey side of the Hudson, the north NY counties and non-radial lines? That will trigger economic investment being redistributed and a massive development of public housing and affordable housing in those areas.
Creating a wetland/sponge city round the outside is nifty, but how big will it be? Will it be effective in tackling flooding? They would be better off investing in greening the city how they can and creating sponge cities and beaches across all of NYC.
TL;DR. No, and put the money into something good.
Adding reclaimed land to Manhattan to create affordable real estate is like trying to make Mt. Everest more accessible by making its top wider.
I live in HK where we do a lot of land building. on a serious scale. I'm also a former New Yorker & I think this is a terrific idea. do it.
As a geological engineer you ain't gonna be building skyscrapers on any of this.
I think they should just make the city’s surroundings denser instead of creating a dense expansion to Manhattan. The US is too big to need land expansion.
It doesn't matter how big the U.S. is as a whole. The real economic drivers are the big cities, especially NYC. Sure, millions of New Yorkers could relocate to Montana or South Dakota to reduce NYC's population density, but it wouldn't work because the jobs are all in NYC. The NYC metro area is already filled to the brim. You can't expect people to commute 2 hours to the city for work, can you? So the only solution is to expand capacity of the city by either building taller buildings or reclaiming land.
@@edwink1467 that's what he said build taller
@@geralferald They said "make the city’s surroundings denser," so no, that's not what they said. Surroundings would refer to parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, Westchester, and Long Island. People already commute from these places to NYC for work, but the commute is time consuming. There are plenty of apartments/houses in these places, so space isn't a problem. The problem is the inadequate supply of housing IN NYC itself where people can just hop on the subway to get to work instead of having to drive or take the railroad.
@@edwink1467 how do you make the surroundings denser. Hmm I wonder. Maybe by building taller? Which you said is the solution to expand the capacity of the city which you said by "building taller buildings"
@@geralferald The surroundings don't need to be denser though, they already have plenty of apartments, the issue that the surroundings have is the long commute. Hence why the other commenter is saying solution to build denser *in the city*, not in the surroundings.
I'd be curious to see how NY would be able to make housing there affordable without creating more of "the projects". On a scale that large, you wouldn't be extending Manhattan, but creating a new Bronx, which may not be able to generate the same revenue to make up for the extreme costs.
your assumption that affordable housing equals crime infested area is 1 not true and a terrible myth that always prevents affordable housing from being built. Commmunities are planned and affordable housing units inside profitable areas change basically nothing to that area except increase diversity.
And there's no was something built that close to downtown manhattan wouldn't be immediately gentrified. plus if its built to be walkable, the price of housing there would skyrocket as studies have shown for walkable areas to cost way more due to people loving to live there.
Couldnt they tax unoccupied properties and solve a lot of the shortage?
what's wrong with the projects?
One thing they do is let the ground floor be retail, then the next few bottom floors be smaller apartments with lower rent and a separate entrance to avoid the cost of staffing doormen and scrupulous lobby/common area cleaning and fancy amenities. The other thing they do is pay to subsidize lower priced housing that isn't brand new in other parts of the city.
@@SP30305ATL In other words.... a poor door?
that's not problematical AT ALL!
Also to such land reclamation while also resolving the Hoover dam supply chrisis
No way this relatively small addition will do anything to solve any housing problems. And also no way any existing property owners are interested in having their property loose value by people fleeing to more affordable areas, so no working solutions will be produced
The plan seems great and all from an economics perspective, but, as an urban planner, it makes me deeply skeptical, even letting ecological concerns aside. First because selling prices only compensate for construction prices of reclaimed land with costly infrastructure (like water management pipes, subway, dense concentration of energy cabbles) if the price per square foot of land is pretty high. Second because US' zoning and construction regulations have turned highrise affordable housing basically illegal (very detailed matter, not gonna get into that here). Thirdly, the financialization of nyc's real estate makes it a very unequal, winner-takes-it-all speculative market. All that considered, I am very skeptic that, without some serious regulatory and market changes, any mixed-income affordable project will ever be successful in the heart of Manhattan. More likely, it will become a green-washed gourmet millionaire playground
Doesn't matter, you're not going to build high-rises on reclaimed land. There is no bedrock.
@@charleshorseman55 highrises have already been built, and built successfully, on reclaimed land. In NYC
@@tjs200 Doesn't SF have a brand new high rise on made land that is falling over?
@@sifridbassoon if you're referring to the millennium tower, yes that was built on land reclaimed from Yerba Buena Cove in the 1860s, but a single building is more of an issue with design & construction negligence than anything else. There are many other highrises in the same neighborhood that have stood strong for over 50 years, and there are high-rises around the world that are built on reclaimed land and are perfectly fine & structurally sound. Cities like NYC, Boston, SF, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Singapore all have skyscrapers on reclaimed land.
what’s wrong with that my dad needs another condo in nyc
Amazing video. As a student in urban planning, I love that you guys cover these topics. This being said, can you please do a video on Utah’s proposed Inland Port?
What made you study urban planning?
@@user-eb5pb2nv8u ever since I was a kid I loved development. My dad was a contractor and I saw the city grow and develop. It wasn’t until college I learned about the challenges and consequences that urban sprawl has so I’ve been able to learn how to mitigate these impacts. Ever since then, I love urban planning. The food deserts, water conservation, affordable housing, public/active transportation, homelessness, equitable neighborhoods for low-income communities and communities of color. Super interesting you should check it out!
That’s cool man
I’m intereted in urban studies too.
This was already done in Manhattan.... by the Dutch, back in the 1600s.
It was also done in Manhattan in the late 60s when they started development of the World Trade Center... everything West of West Street in Manhattan is on landfill.
And it was also done in 2007 to expand Governors Island, which is technically part of Manhattan.
One thing is for sure. This project would get funding long before any sort of project to help Upstate NY would even be considered.
Let’s be honest there wouldn’t be any affordable housing
2:22 please include metric system. I hardly understand imperial system and I completely clueless of area of American football fields.
A few points I wish to make:
1) On the one hand, you say that this project can be paid for because the land will instantly be valuable. Not with 'affordable housing' it won't. So, scratch that part.
2) NYC currently has one of the WORST records for taking care of the city they have now. Watching videos of people who live there walking around will reveal way too many open storefronts and buildings that are literally falling apart.
3) Business owners often struggle NOW with the city's various zoning and permit commissions. The paperwork alone for this would take a decade.
Why not fill in the East River? The Brooklyn Bridge can be replaced by a wide motor expressway or grand boulevard. And it will extend all of Manhatten, not just lower Manhatten. Maybe even a second Cental Park.
the housing shortage could easily be solved by removing the requirement that every building needs a parking lot. . .
that's a LOT of land that's just not being used. . .
yeah but not everyone wants to walk 10 miles to their workplaces or have to walk another block just to get to their cars.
@@AlexOtto that’s good exercise for us Americans though
@alexotto if not using a car means you have to walk 10 miles then you got much much bigger problems with your city planning and design.
It took more than 7 years to build the Freedom Tower and people actually wanted that so expect this expansion to finish in 2222
*GIVE.IT.BACK* native. ' th-cam.com/video/eq43Yqi5-UE/w-d-xo.html ' .. *GIVE.IT.BACK* native.
This reminds me of Hudson Yards, it was sold as 'new real estate' for NYC but wound up becoming a Billionaire's Playground complete with a giant sculpture that is now a hotspot for suicides. We've heard this crap from would-be 'saviors' of the city before.
Hey, where is the version without the nose ring, I was waiting for that!
Just density the outer boroughs and build more housing, and more public transportation is needed to connect Queens and the other boroughs and bypass Manhattan.
Ruffles some feathers... yes they’re worried about the people who are homeless and everyone who can’t afford to live there. So yeah, expanding the area for the top 1% to benefit from, might not be the best idea.
Shock horror building more houses decrease housing rates
*GIVE.IT.BACK* native. ' th-cam.com/video/eq43Yqi5-UE/w-d-xo.html ' .. *GIVE.IT.BACK* native.
I think they should just add the wetlands barrier around the existing land. Secure what you have now before it's under water
(1:54)
🎶🎶 'Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam...' 🎶🎶
🎶🎶 'Why'd they change it, I can't say!' 🎶🎶
Big economies require big investments. My personal opinion to this is positive, however paying attention to the marine life is obviously important. Perhaps even make special, optimised habitat for them in a custom lake in the reclaimation
I truly don't believe new york's coast marine habitat is high or even exists. Water's nasty.
NY Harbor has almost no marine life due to a variety of reasons. Most of the Marine life in the region can be found in the southern and northern aspects of Long Island, where the is direct land access to the ocean.
i don't think that would help much, or even work
It would be interesting to have a video on strategies on how the environmental concerns could be addressed. My own perspective is NYC needs more space and needs to get serious about stronger storms hitting the city. The subway system getting filled up with water is embarrassing for a global city. How best to move forward is a problem for NYC and NY State to figure out.
when i have seen the picture of the flooded subway and heared later on that they wanna rise the new addition significatnly, i thought that this wont stop the flooding. when the water goes around the extended island - and it will do that - it finds a part that wasnt risen and when the subway is flooded, its flooded everywhere xD
they basically need a massive floodworks that lets them totally shut off NY harbor from the Atlantic for big storms to stop the surge. And stronger pumps for all the rainfall. But the surge or very high tides have to be blocked first or the water just comes up higher than the outlets of the pipes anyway.
@@locutusvonborg2k3 Incorrect!
Though I had to walk further into Manhattan, I was able to catch subway trains the next day.
Not saying service wasn’t affected. It was slower, there was a bit of unusual switching here and there and even bus service was disturbed, but the subways were not totally shut down.
However, a lot of people were more than happy to believe they were so that they could use it as an excuse to not go to work … if they could get away with it.
@@idcook i dont think its incorrect. obviously my assumption differs from the reality. not all tracks are on the same level, i highly doubt that. that alone does make it different. so some line would be flooded (maybe not completly), while others arent. also, when the water is drained, some lines are good to go earlier than others. so i made a generel assumption, that if one tunnel is 100% flooded, all are. i did this for the sake of keeping it short xD
OK, so, if the highest subway tunnel is flooded for long enough, all connected tunnels are. when its not long enough, water will distribut itself along the network where possible and it may have no effect at all.
maybe, bein able to use the subway the next day already, speaks for NY i guess. So they were definitly flooded the day before, so my assumption holds, but NY goes to work and switches on the pumps. making an edjucated guess, they will have a LOT of powerfull pumps, cause it wasnt the first flood, so they can asure the subways are usable in a decent amount of time again.
I love your burgers. There use to be a Cheddars on my route in Florida. Your biscuits and gravy are pretty good as well.
Can you guys do something about parking though? It was hard to find a space big enough.
Thanks.
Also I have tech to make trains, buses, ferries, and cars fly which can allow for people to get to Manhattan. To mainland faster and more convent then having to drive to the bridges or tunnels, even easily freely to the islands and no need to break the waterways with areas which flow local fish and wildlife every year in manhattans current shape + build plautaus for vtol airlines, eventuall space elevator,etc