You could argue the taxpayer was negatively impacted.
The tenants are already being pushed out by higher rents. This would have exacerbated that problem.
People who use public transit locally.
Stadium Discussion
- Thread starter Gene
- Start date
You could argue the taxpayer was negatively impacted.
The tenants are already being pushed out by higher rents. This would have exacerbated that problem.
People who use public transit locally.
Yes so some people would be forced to leave. Thats the case with many people. How many people here grew up someplace that they can afford to live now. Not survive but live.
Where do those people go?
I can’t imagine there are many other Republicans on this board. That being said, there is an affordable housing crisis in New York City. Yes. A crisis.
And it’s not just affordable housing at the low end. It’s the middle part - mid 20s, young families, retirees, older singles, people who have been transferred here from affordable places - where there is a severe shortage.
Maybe there is a crash and it adjusts itself. But even during 2008-2010, the market really didn’t move. The new SALT limits are probably having a bigger impact than the recession
Last edited:
I live in the neighborhood, more or less, and it would've been a disaster (although it would've instantly tripled the value of my apartment perhaps, so I personally would have benefitted if I sold and left). Remember that they wanted to put it exactly where one of our stadium proposals was. Not enough public transit, no place to park, no highways to bring cars in, no infrastructure to support the new load on the neighborhood, the old small businesses being pushed out in favor of fancy new coffee joints, etc. It'd be like having our stadium there but five days a week instead of every other week for half the year.
Willets Point is a completely realistic place for a stadium because you have the space and the highways, but putting it in Hunters Point is a semi-crazy plan because there just nowhere to put it and the area can't support it. Same for Amazon. The area just can't support adding 25 t0 50,000 new people coming in every day.
And I don't even want to touch the politics of it. This is a soccer forum, after all.
And oh yeah, that whole area where they want to put it is NYC flood zone 1. Better start building that seawall first before you plan your new corporate headquarters, at least if you want to stay there longer than 20 or 30 years.
It’s not just people living around there that would have to leave, but the manufacturing businesses uprooted have employees that may not be able to continue to where business move (if they even relocate), and the supply chain above/below that’s affected. They’ll all probably eventually be bought out, but a tabula rasa sweep is a utopian gesture done in a void.
Building a corporate campus in the middle of the densest American city is pure masterbastion material for Amazon as a visual trophy. There’s plenty of open office space in the city that could be leased, especially down in the WTC -my wife’s company is relocating there because the deal was too good to refuse, that wouldn’t displace residents and wouldn’t require subsidies.
The lack of infrastructure isn’t Amazon’s fault though. The city and state (and the Feds) haven’t invested appropriately.
Not at all saying that's Amazon's fault. But imagine putting Jets Stadium on the west side where Hudson Yards is. There was room there at the time, but how were they going to get 75,000 people into that neighborhood on a Sunday afternoon and get them back out again? It would be a nightmare, and it was just totally unrealistic to put a huge stadium there (took all my strength to not say "a giant stadium" Oops). Not the Jets fault the infrastructure wasn't there but that doesn't make any difference. And there's no need for new infrastructure if you have "normal" organic growth in a neighborhood. A new small factory with 100 workers? Fine, no problem, the neighborhood can absorb it. But that's very different from tossing in 50,000 extra office workers every day.
You are right.
A lot of cities are dealing with growth that outpaces the services and infrastructure of the city.
Can we rename this to the "Amazon Thread"?
Hey this is the closest to being "on-topic" this thread has ever been.
Fck no.... they don’t deserve that concession either.
When you moved in to someones place it was progress or a sign of the times.now that you are interupted
Yes you are right $30000 a year jobs should always be valued over $150.000 a year jobs . Sorry
That is one of the coldest, and most heartless, not to mention least empathetic responses a person could make.
Jeez, since you’re a small business owner, I’d expect a little more compassion for the people displaced that aren’t in a position to be eligible for those $150k jobs.
Well I'm going to ignore the snark and actually answer. My situation is perhaps a little unique in that my parents bought into a co-op in the late '40s/early '50s, a good while before I was born. After decades I moved back and it's now my place (but no longer a co-op as I own it). The co-op corporation originally bought my whole block and put up the seven buildings that are now here, and my parents were among the first to move in. So in a sense I didn't displace anyone in my apartment but in a different sense there were brownstones/walkups existing on the land. I'm guessing that the 365 apartments in my complex were about the same number as what they replaced but that's just a guess as it was a little before my time, although I have seen a few photographs.
So the question of "was it progress" is of course an open one but at this point it's a bit moot as it's been at least 70 years since the previous buildings were demolished, if not more.
But none of this has anything to do with how I feel about all of it. There's been a lot of new construction in my neighborhood as the hotness level is rising quite rapidly, to the point of where I'm a little concerned about the "carrying capacity" of the area. To me this means "how many supermarkets are there?" There's been a lot of new buildings and for a while the population was increasing but the supermarket count was at best unchanging, if that. That was a huge problem when southern Long Island City was first starting to get developed as all these luxury buildings were going up but they weren't putting in any supermarkets/restaurants/delis/schools/drugstores/etc. It was a problem, and I've always had a funny feeling that without Fresh Direct being headquartered in the neighborhood all those new luxury residents might've starved to death. Over the years that's evened out so there seems to be a proper organic balance between population and available resources nowadays. In my neighborhood, basically on the Astoria/Long Island City border, a similar thing's happened but it's still a potential issue.
So my main thesis here is that "unplanned, organic" growth/change over decades tends to let things take care of themselves. Folks see living opportunities, other folks see business opportunities to serve those residents, the city builds schools, subways, bus routes, etc. to also serve those residents. The problem with Amazon is they care about none of this. That's not bad in and of itself, but their proposal was to dump 50,000 upper middle class people in the area five days a week. Where will they live? What will they eat? Where will they shop? How will they get in and out of the neighborhood when the work day ends? The right-leaning folks may say something like "well, that's how business is done" and the left-leaning folks may say "no, this is inherently unfair to those who are already there and to those who will have to provide (and pay for) resources to fill these new needs." And that's where we are. It's not that the right people or the left people are right/wrong, it's that it's a giant social/societal problem that has no simple one sentence answer.
So to me the question is "what type of city do we want to live in," except that's not really the question that most folks are asking. And honestly, it's the same with our stadium. Not a simple question, lots of implications all with multiple answers, none of which are necessarily right or wrong.
Who's displaced ?? the small businesses will thrive. As will new business. All cities across the country fought for this!
a couple of local politicians got their ass feathers ruffled because they could not claim credit! these are not service jobs wiping the ass of the dying, these are the jobs your kids will want
So you still live with your folks? (or in their house) are you fucking kidding me. Areas change and get more expensive.
Nobody’s displaced now.
All those cities fought for Amazon, and yet Amazon isn’t going to a plan B with any of them because they always wanted the talent found in NYC. Hence why Amazon has publicly said they’re gonna continue to increase their workforce across the boroughs.
And I’m not worried about what sort of job my daughter will want, but if she’ll be qualified for any of those 25k+ jobs Amazon didn’t create, she’ll also be qualified for the thousands of other similar positions in the city she can compete for.
Heres the thing. Increasingly tech jobs can be anywhere. the fact that Amazon wanted to come here pay our taxes and put up with the Politics of NY and attract new talent says a lot about the City and metro NY area.
This was a huge win for NY putting us on par with California for the future of tech as a business hub.
These were not amazon jobs filling boxes at some DC, these were real jobs in tech.
The incentives were tax breaks not real money. If they never came here there would be nothing to give a break on!
How is this lost on some people.
Not true. They were gonna get reimbursed $3-500M back in construction costs. That little item has been conveniently left out of many discussions.
Not surprised to hear you are a republican. There is an affordable housing crisis everywhere people want to live.
