Ain't nothin' goin' on but the rent

They are literally vacant NYCHA units, but thank you for letting me know you didn't read any of my sources and have yet to produce your own.

Do you have sources for any of these claims?

According to this report from February 2022 1.9% of all available NYCHA units are vacant, representing about 3.6K vacant apartments.

That number is several hundred larger than the Queensbridge Houses, the largest NYCHA complex and largest public housing complex in North America.

So again, it would have to be a slow process and very well planned and executed, but even a basic amount of research shows this isn't impossible.

> That article says they relocated to better neighborhoods, but not all NYCHA buildings are in bad neighborhoods currently

Sure they aren't all in bad neighborhoods, but none of them are nice places to live. Cabrini-Green sat just a few blocks from the Gold Coast and other nice lakefront neighborhoods and was less than a mile from the loop.

Look at the projects in Chelsea or the Gowanus Houses—both located next to some of the most expensive real estate in the city—and yet they have high crime and are plagued with problems. Much like New York at large, it is possible to live in a nice area and yet be in squalor.

> you're talking about demolishing the entire NYCHA...There is no possible way that NYC could absorb that many people into private housing

I'm not saying demolish all at once. This would definitely be a huge undertaking and take years if not decades to do.

Lastly, just because it is a huge change doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. No human should be forced to live in the conditions NYCHA subjects thousands to and we should be demanding the city, state, and federal government takes action to move these people to better housing.

Totally unsurprised. Had a few friends in the Marines and Army who were over the moon when the finally got to live off base.

I feel like corruption and the military are like peas in a pod with all the shady shit in the last few decades.

Huh, first I'm hearing of this. Thanks for letting me know and would love any sources you have on it and the Balfour Beatty stuff.

But privatizing isn't enough. These places are horrible and provide substandard conditions for people to live in, as evidenced by this and so many other articles.

The city should demolish them and pay to move these people to better housing while they allow new and more housing to be built. They need a multi-pronged solution to the housing crisis, not more bandaids.

Here's another article talking about the history of NYCHA that even includes interviews with people who lived there talking about how it became bad in the 80s. According to the article, in that decade you were more likely to be a victim of crime as a resident than someone who didn't live in NYCHA. Do you have a source?

Demolishing the worst NYCHA buildings will likely have a long term positive affect on the lives of people currently there. Other major cities like Chicago have already done this.

This study on the outcomes of children displaced by the demolition of the Robert Taylor houses shows that moving away from these places has improved their outcomes in life.

The city has put these people in this situation, it should pay to move them out and to better housing through vouchers as is noted in the study of Chicago.

NYCHA was most definitely not a nice place to live in the 1980s.

As to the 1970s, NYCHA basically didn't let non-whites, people on welfare, single mothers, even those who didn't have furniture move in until 1968. It was an extremely selective application process that enabled it to be so successful and when that policy changed tenants staged rent strikes. Somehow I don't think bringing those policies back would be very popular. They were also much newer buildings back then so maintenance work was simpler and not as frequent.

NYCHA spent nearly $600 million to repair the Red Hook Houses after Sandy. That is an insane sum given there are only 3000 residents and those repairs are just to make it livable again, not substantially improve those buildings which still sit in a flood zone.

As the OC pointed out, $40BB is needed to just fix all the current issues at NYCHA and that number will likely only grow. I think the city and taxpayers really needs to consider whether that sum is worth it for substandard dwellings.

Many of them should definitely be torn down, but I'm not certain we should just rebuild. NYC is one of the few major American cities that has kept virtually all of its mid century public housing projects and as we enter a new age of climate change and post-covid it's worth reconsidering how we provide housing as a city.

I do not think the city should be a landlord because it's proven after more than 70 years of this that it can not do so very well. Obviously there will always be a need for some sort of public and city run housing like shelters for the homeless, the elderly with no family, and those escaping abuse, but these should be places of last resort or temporary options until long term solutions are found.

Personally, I'd like to see most NYCHA properties sold of to developers who put forward plans to build real communities, not hudson yards bullshit, that maintain the existing number of affordable units with city covering part of the rent but can build as big as they want so we get a bunch of new housing.

This was made François Xav. Habermann, an artist who made a whole series of these scenes of New York during the revolution.

I have myself have this one hanging on my wall that depicts how the British responded after taking the city ack.

On the originals you'll notice that the title at top is backwards as these were meant to be viewed through a zograscope! Also an easy way to tell an original from a repro but very neat none the less.