Submitted by rootbeer_racinette t3_zfxjr2 in nyc
Comments
Fuck_You_Downvote t1_izehax8 wrote
Some obsolete office buildings may be converted to residential, which, in theory, would help to ease New York City’s chronic shortage of housing. But that is easier said than done, say many experts. It would require zoning changes. Even then, many office buildings may not be suitable candidates for residential conversions — either because their floor plates are too large, their elevators are wrongly situated, their windows do not open or their neighbourhoods are unappealing.
drpvn t1_izelugi wrote
All of that makes perfect sense except “their neighborhoods are unappealing.” Having a hard time imagining what neighborhoods those would be.
Tokyocheesesteak t1_izexh4e wrote
Then the obvious solution is to make such neighborhoods appealing. Before the 2000s, the Financial District was also considered absolutely unappealing for residential uses, and now tens of thousands of people live there. In great part, the transition was achieved via office building conversions, streetscape improvements, and introduction of new resident-friendly retail. Essentials such as a massive volume of public transit and plenty of conversion-friendly office buildings were already there.
As such, there is no reason this cannot happen around, say, the Penn Station. I know, the area is a dump, but in the 1990s, the Financial District was also considered a dump, at least in the off-work hours. Otherwise, the Penn Station area also already boasts key essentials such as some of the nation's best mass transit service as well as ample conversion-ready office buildings, particularly of the prewar vintage (due to considerations such as smaller floor plate sizes, operable windows, and generally more attractive architecture, as well as frequently outdated tech capabilities, prewar buildings tend to make for better residential conversion candidates than their counterparts).
Similar conditions exist elsewhere throughout Lower and Mid-Manhattan, as well as elsewhere in the boroughs, and while it will take a lot of work (including in complicated fields such as education provision and homeless management), if a neighborhood's only drawback is that it's "unappealing," the solution is generally rather simple as compared to, say, a lack of subway service.
atari_Pro t1_izf8lym wrote
This is already happening. There’s literally a Whole Foods in Manhattan West. Not such a dump like it was just a few years ago.
drpvn t1_izfc159 wrote
Hudson Yards is kind of its own thing. Wasn’t so much that it was a “dump” before—there was nothing there at all.
I’m not a Hudson Yards fan generally but I’m glad it’s there. 10 years ago I never would have imagined the idea of a pleasant stroll down 34th over to shop at a Whole Foods a couple blocks from a tony waterfront.
Tokyocheesesteak t1_izfj6lo wrote
One of the things that makes neighborhoods great is their adjacency to other great, or at least functional, neighborhoods. People may think what they will about Hudson Yards, but, if nothing else, it is hard to deny that it is a functional, if controversial, urban neighborhood, which replaced a whole lot of nothing (neighborhood-wise) and thus vastly improved the appeal of the adjacent Penn Station and Garment District areas.
drpvn t1_izfp9wz wrote
I think that’s largely true, but there is another side unfortunately. Which is a lot of the homeless and drug scene that used to exist out there has been pushed inward, basically because police and private security won’t tolerate it happening in the new fanciness of Hudson Yards. Buses, too—last ten years, a lot of “commuter buses” that used to stop on the west side have moved in east of 8th avenue, which is insane given the congestion already in that area.
drpvn t1_izeylns wrote
It’s not really a problem that needs “solving.” People already would live in Times Square and pay a lot of money to do it. And the more people who did it, the more who would follow.
The real problems are all the other ones listed in the quote above.
I should add I live between Penn Station and Times Square and yes, the transportation is phenomenal. You live blocks from trains that can take you directly downtown, to either side of uptown, and to three other Boroughs. You can get out of the city quickly through the Lincoln Tunnel, and you have quick access to the West Side Highway. If you’re forced to go to Long Island, it’s a straight shot across town to the Midtown Tunnel. If you’re healthy enough, you can walk to anywhere in Manhattan. You can take a short walk to the Theater District or to MSG. There are some things that aren’t great but mobility is not one of them.
Tokyocheesesteak t1_izf2ijz wrote
While, as you said, the Penn Station area is quite livable as it is, I think it's universally agreeable that the area still has room for some serious streetscape improvements, among many other things
drpvn t1_izf2vuj wrote
Definitely, beginning with the problem of hardcore drug use and street dealing.
Is there such a thing as a Tokyo Cheesesteak?
Tokyocheesesteak t1_izfidqe wrote
I'm pretty sure there is now, though I don't think there was one, at least not to my knowledge, in '09, when I lived in Tokyo and wanted a cheesesteak.
HeyMySock t1_izg6u61 wrote
I work just a block away from Penn Station and since the Hudson Yards have gone up, we've seen 2 apartment buildings go up within eyesight of our building. Things are improving around here.
IllegibleLedger t1_izf5ge6 wrote
I see you always on on the crime posts and wondered what the reactionary vibe was but you living between Penn Station and Times Square totally clicks. I would love to see an influx of new residents to that area and how it would affect everything
drpvn t1_izf5nh2 wrote
Ha, yeah, the area does bring out my inner Bronson.
Burymeincalamine t1_izgd1g3 wrote
There is no reason to convert the buildings near Penn station into apartments…you should keep the huge office buildings close to mass transit centers and convert buildings in more isolated areas into residential housing
Tokyocheesesteak t1_izgeyyn wrote
Many of the buildings in the area, particularly smaller, schlocky postwar office buildings, need to be torn down and redeveloped; however, the area also boasts a great number of magnificent prewar high-rise buildings, particularly around the Garment District, which ought to be preserved and protected. As many of these are obsolete as office buildings, or at least would be difficult, and some. Early impossible, to retrofit to a level where they can compete with new office buildings, they are better off retrofitted as apartments.
The new towers would revive the area's office stock while the prewar renovations would create thousands of new apartments, transforming the Penn Station area and the Garment District into a vibrant, mixed-use, centrally located, round-the-clock neighborhood with excellent transit service and close proximity to central Midtown, the waterfront, and Lower Manhattan.
Burymeincalamine t1_izgps0v wrote
From an urban planning perspective, you should build office towers close to mass transit hubs (which would also lower housing needs and congestion within the city) and convert the near-empty older office buildings (or their plots) that are further away for residential use
New office space gets snapped up quickly. Banks, consulting, and law firms are pretty much back in the office full time and the towers in Hudson yards are full every day. Not sure where this sub gets their info that offices are dead. Old crusty offices, sure, but prime space gets leased before the buildings are even finished
Tokyocheesesteak t1_izgrhua wrote
Not sure where you got the idea that I think that new office buildings are dead (unless I misread your post). If anything, my post supports your take in a sense that it it advocates for construction of new office buildings around Penn Station and conversion of old ones into residences.
Having said that, the area can definitely use new residential construction, as well. Ita not like living within a direct train ride of anywhere in Manhattan and literally all of the metropolitan region is not a highly desirable amenity.
Burymeincalamine t1_izgsmw1 wrote
Sorry not directed at you!
TheAJx t1_izg4i0u wrote
The development of the Financial District happened organically. Residential space opened up, people moved downtown, then restaurants opened, then retail and nightlife, and it created a virtuous cycle.
There is no reason why people wouldn't move to the Penn Station area. The reason people don't live there now is because there is nowhere to live.
pddkr1 t1_izfthtm wrote
This was a really informative write up! Thank you!
DeanSeagull t1_izhvkx5 wrote
Crapensta rises!
fapplesauc3 t1_izeny5p wrote
Times Square
drpvn t1_izeq8oa wrote
Plenty of people would be willing to live in Times Square and pay plenty for it.
whateverisok t1_izfai98 wrote
I live right in the middle of Times Square and Central Park, and a few blocks away from Radio City & Rockefeller, so I will say the tourists, commuters, and people selling stuff can take up all the walking space, but they're easily manageable and very patchy. 44St to 49th St is very dense, but once you're at 50th Street, it's open sidewalks.
The only thing about living in the area is all the restaurants around the corner are more expensive.
But transportation is amazing. So many subway lines run through there, straight shot to Central Park or to any of the other major train stations, and a lot of major events are held in those areas.
Easy access to free or heavily discounted Broadway shows
TimeTomorrow t1_izfjmfp wrote
already lived there
noahsilv t1_izgj1gd wrote
Living in midtown would be horrible.
drpvn t1_izgkk3d wrote
It has downsides but there are a lot of things that are great.
But the main point is that it’s idiotic to think that office buildings in that area aren’t suitable for residential conversion because in your opinion the “neighborhood is unappealing.”
[deleted] t1_izgje9x wrote
[deleted]
nim_opet t1_izfbvsc wrote
Many office buildings were turned into apartments after 2008 in financial district, I lived in two former AIG/multi office ones
TheAJx t1_izewc99 wrote
Would it be that bad to convert a bunch of offices into dorms style residences with shared bathrooms, kitchens etc? These aren't ideal living conditions, but IMO it would accomplish a lot on the housing front - it would offer young people fresh out of college/high school the opportunity to live in New York at relatively low rent, reduce the strain on housing for older people.
Because of our inability to build new housing in this city, 25 year olds crowding in 4 at a time into 2 bedroom apartments is really taking a toll on affordability for older people that might want more space, want to grow families, have families, etc.
CensorshipIsTheDevil t1_izex4w5 wrote
Would need a change in building code. There has to be an egress in each room, meaning a window in most cases. That won't happen fast enough, if at all.
Pool_Shark t1_izfp4n3 wrote
Maybe the we work guy can finally get we live back going
lickedTators t1_izepngk wrote
Turn them into weed hydroponics farms.
anonyngineer t1_izfvlqa wrote
There are hundreds of millions of square feet of empty warehouses and suburban stores where that could be done.
[deleted] t1_izewweb wrote
[deleted]
AlphaNoodlz t1_izihiri wrote
This. I’ve worked in construction and it comes down to the fact none of the office building structures have the required egress clearances for emergency exits, they don’t have proper heating, plumbing, or electrical equipment to serve the demands of residential needs. They often don’t have the required window and lighting access, and even if you just took the floor plan “as-built” the layouts would be wonky at best. It’s an impossible solution, frankly. You’re better off converting a factory wearhouse to apartments. Office buildings make awful residential spaces, not inherently on purpose we have just shaved down to the bare minimum in terms of occupational requirements which fall well, well below the demands of residential requirements.
Street-Ad-6236 t1_izg6x3v wrote
100% correct.. I'm in local union 157 carpenters NYC and commercial building vs residential building are build different stalraight from the frame. Which commercial is erected from steel I beams.
callmesnake13 t1_izhtrpr wrote
Weird that it doesn’t mention bathrooms. It’s super expensive to adjust/add toilets.
wushuhimexx t1_izi1zdu wrote
I’ve lived in apartments that were converted from office buildings before, very mid experience. My room had a sliding glass door that led to the kitchen and no windows. Super weird and depressing layout.
thisisntmineIfoundit t1_izf9tgj wrote
There are lots of people looking for places to live that don’t give a shit about those issues. As long as the buildings can be made safe to live in, the mayors office needs to put any zoning issues to the front of their docket.
Robertm922 t1_izimlpz wrote
That’s how my former company was able to buy a building in the Financial District. It wasn’t suited to turn into apartments, so we got a great deal on it.
jonsconspiracy t1_izgh5rh wrote
It's so hard to do and really depends on what kind of building. The plumbing is the most difficult thing. Most office buildings have all their bathrooms in the core of the building, but apartments need multiple bathrooms and kitchens all over the place.
booboolurker t1_izezstm wrote
I read somewhere Silverstein Properties is looking to raise money to convert older office buildings to residential
Freddy-Sez t1_izf6ic9 wrote
They’re already doing at least one: 55 Broad Street in the financial district. Macklowe also has a huge office to resi conversion going on down there at One Wall Street
zsreport t1_izgfdq4 wrote
Unfortunately, I'm sure developers will be more interested in converting them into "luxury" apartments instead of anything affordable for most people.
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_izhcsv7 wrote
You get downvoted for stating the obvious?! This sub is absolute trash.
NewYorker0 t1_izik243 wrote
You can’t just turn a skyscraper in Manhattan into a affordable housing lmao. That’s common sense
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iziuyya wrote
Of course not, but creating housing to alleviate a housing shortage was never the goal of developers in any borough. So it’s just common sense to call out the myth of increasing stock to drive down prices. It’s just a flat out money grab. It’s ok to be honest about it instead of this false virtuousness.
NewYorker0 t1_izivxd0 wrote
First of all prices are set on supply and demand if you didn’t know, and you shouldn’t expect a affordable house in a tiny island called Manhattan where demand is so high and space doesn’t exist. Investments are done in the basis of ROI, I’m sure you, like everyone else don’t work for free and expect profits form your investments like everyone else, it’s all money grab.
To really answer your question, the demand in NYC, specially in Manhattan is Soo high that any new developments are sold out almost immediately. The solution is to heavily upzone rest of the city where population density is only 1/4 of Manhattan because they have a lot of space for new developments
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_iziwrt0 wrote
Blah blah blah.
NewYorker0 t1_iziwwh8 wrote
It’s not my fault you’re illiterate
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_izixs6j wrote
If calling the commodification of housing common sense makes you somehow smart then I definitely don’t want to follow your loser example.
NewYorker0 t1_iziybib wrote
You don’t have to follow any examples. Just understand how the economy works. You can’t even explain your policies why should anyone bother listening you.
national_wildant t1_izhfqqr wrote
Luxury apartment is better than no apartment, specially in FIDI which means less wealthy people moving to the adjacent neighborhoods to remain closer to their office if they work hybrid
Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_izhhn5m wrote
Trickle down philosophy is a fairytale. Less wealthy people(whatever that means)weren’t moving to adjacent neighborhoods in the first place. Battery Park, TriBeCa, Chinatown, are already unaffordable thanks to new developments in those areas along with new developments in FiDi. Just call it what it is the city as a whole is becoming a yuppie wasteland.
NetQuarterLatte t1_izeqx8u wrote
The article should've mentioned the empty storefronts all over town.
Meanwhile, the NYC Council is trying to make it harder and riskier for businesses to hire people. Disproportionately harder for smaller businesses.
occasional_cynic t1_izf0i2q wrote
Confession: Don't live near NYC anymore.
But, I do visit frequently. In 2019 was when it really hit me how many empty storefronts are in Manhattan. By my last visit late last year it had gotten so much worse.
As for the city council - this is the voters' fault. They keep placing professional activists there instead of those who have accomplished something and have knowledge of how things work.
socialcommentary2000 t1_izg4p47 wrote
Commercial real estate is a financialized mess now.
reignnyday t1_izhg40e wrote
It sucks because the only places that can open are mass chains that have the capabilities to do so. Totally stunts the development that has made NYC so special over the past few decades with small mom and pop shops.
I don’t need another Cava, just salad, etc
brianvan t1_izeyqm8 wrote
So it should instead be too risky to work for anyone?
NetQuarterLatte t1_izf1jfb wrote
>So it should instead be too risky to work for anyone?
Employees should have negotiation leverage by being able to easily change jobs.
That famed bill will protect a minority of employees (who would've otherwise be fired), but it would weaken the available opportunities for everyone else. Ultimately, that will only help the big employers and the few employees who are no longer fit for their position.
brianvan t1_izf3cl4 wrote
Great. So then you don’t mind that we pass strong antitrust legislation that prevents industry consolidation above nominal market shares, and imposes stiff criminal penalties for collusion and union-busting? Sounds like you prefer a competitive market rather than one tied up in unilateral control from governments or corporations.
NetQuarterLatte t1_izf4jh2 wrote
Yup. Employer collusion distorts the market, so employers colluding against the employees hurts all the employees. Post-employment non-compete clauses are also really problematic, in my view.
On unions, I don't mind company-specific unions, though if we get to that point, in my opinion, the market should've been competition-friendly enough so that the employees should be empowered to just walk to a competitor or quit en-mass and create their own company...
However, I oppose industry-wide unions, because that also tends to hurts small businesses and most employees.
brianvan t1_izf56gg wrote
I think the point is that, while some of this stuff makes sense, any system has to work as a whole and not just add or remove discrete parts. The system we’re talking about is an ideological finish line that hasn’t been achieved. The system we actually live with fails workers constantly because legislators have removed worker protections while adding owner/stockholder safeguards across the board. Any new measure to strengthen workers’ position moves us a step away from the “free market” ideal but we’re nowhere close to it to begin with.
NetQuarterLatte t1_izfbs2f wrote
I think there's no finish line.
The fact that we have tons of empty storefronts and empty office space suggests it's too hard for new businesses to be created.
If existing employees are stuck in shitty jobs because they employers suck, creating new opportunities will move the needle on job safety and empowerment more than any regulation that intents to improve workers' position.
On the other hand, if we had physical limitations on commercial space available (all storefronts busy, say with skyrocketing commercial rents), I think the marginal low hanging fruit would be different and my criticism would be aimed at something else.
brianvan t1_izfcjaf wrote
Offices and storefronts are empty because landlords require a small fortune to lease one
NetQuarterLatte t1_izfd69w wrote
Retail and office rent in NY have been declining almost every quarter since 2020. Meanwhile, vacancy is increasing.
brianvan t1_izfedxl wrote
erm that data says it’s positive-trending.
atari_Pro t1_izf93n7 wrote
A lot of excuses as to why office buildings can’t become residential. You can bet those excuses will evaporate once the rates inch downwards and banks are happy to finance these conversions into high priced luxury real estate in prime Manhattan locations. Just wait on it.
olli_bombastico t1_izfm8ti wrote
I mean yes, everything boils down to cost and return on investment. How is that a surprise? I currently work on 8 feasibility studies for turning high-rise office spaces into residential buildings.
atari_Pro t1_izfmsb1 wrote
Not a surprise at all which is what I’m saying. It’s just lazy writing for FT to say it’s not a suitable alternative.
olli_bombastico t1_izfoxcc wrote
>Some obsolete office buildings may be converted to residential, which, in theory, would help to ease New York City’s chronic shortage of housing. But that is easier said than done, say many experts. It would require zoning changes. Even then, many office buildings may not be suitable candidates for residential conversions — either because their floor plates are too large, their elevators are wrongly situated, their windows do not open or their neighbourhoods are unappealing. To make such projects worthwhile, owners would have to sell at deep discounts.
They're not saying it's not a suitable alternative. They suggest there are many factors that owners need to consider before moving on with the projects. Why would they convert to residential buildings if there are no prospective tenants that can cover for their investment?
atari_Pro t1_izfpzfo wrote
If current trends continue some of these bldg owners are going to take a loss. There’s not really a way around that. Commercial real estate in the city has been insanely inflated for a long time. Over valued vs residential by like 4:1 or more in some areas. So, why would they sell if they can’t cover? To cut their losses is why. Gotta stop the bleeding somehow. Just my speculation but any guess is as good.
ehsurfskate t1_izhgq30 wrote
The thing to remember is they don’t need to stop the bleeding. They may be willing to wait a decade or more if they can borrow against the higher value of a commercial building.
AlphaNoodlz t1_izihxos wrote
It’s not really an excuse more like lacking basic infrastructural needs between commercial and residential day-to-day demands and available heating, plumbing, and electrical services. Not to mention life safety and egress issues. It’s a very difficult and exceptionally expensive architectural problem for office buildings in NYC to legally service the requirements of residential codes. You’re better off converting the slew of dead malls across the country into small scale city-block residential apartments, or old warehouses. I’m not saying we have an issue, we do, it’s just not something we can wave a magic wand at. At all.
reignnyday t1_izhfxp1 wrote
I mean they turned warehouses into luxury apts in tribeca so no reason they can’t do it for these buildings too
ForeignWin9265 t1_izg8ojz wrote
A lot of offices where converted to apartments in downtown after 9/11, idk why people keep saying it’s impossible.
noahsilv t1_izgj7xz wrote
Have you been in those apartments though? They kinda suck
lovely-donkey t1_izfj7cs wrote
Takes me 15 minutes to walk a few blocks in midtown that would have taken me 5 during the pandemic. There are people everywhere!!!! just not in offices as much. ADAPT to it rather than forcing us to go in full time Mayor Adams.
PostPostMinimalist t1_izs8gun wrote
Bullshit. There are fewer people in midtown. Train numbers aren’t lying.
Expensive_Mixture_79 t1_izfrlcg wrote
It’s virtual time
BCEXP t1_j02g85y wrote
Well they could zone them for condos or apartments, but then what other reasons would people want to live there if their office isn't there anymore?
avd706 t1_izftf5f wrote
Convert them to homes shelters
lila-pink t1_izf7iaq wrote
boo hoo
irdonut2 t1_izegi4r wrote
Time to turn them into apartments.