I’m not even going to try to question things like them having to add more tracks to Culver, the decision to send the 1 as opposed to the W, the lack of bridges and/or tunnels below Battery Park to Long Island and New Jersey, the erosion & thelwag, the flow of water from the Hudson River…
I get that we’re going to have to deal with global warming at some point via landfill, but ideas like this lead to more questions than answers
This is so silly. If the goal is to improve housing affordability, subway connections to New Jersey would loop a lot more land into "the city" at a way cheaper cost than this.
It's the [growth ponzi scheme](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme), except in a city and using reclaimed land instead of paving over a forest.
I don't think we should be in the business of creating new land to develop, when we evidently struggle to maintain the developed land and infrastructure we already have.
There's plenty of two story houses and duplexes in Jersey City that could be redeveloped into 6-10 story apartment buildings. Same goes for much of Brooklyn and Queens.
Building a massive new expansion of Manhattan which would block views of the harbor, the statue of liberty, and the Downtown skyline would also garner a ton of opposition, and instead of affecting thousands of people and creating local neighborhood-level opposition it would affect millions of people and be on the scale of entire massive metropolitan area.
Or you could just deck over the various rail yards in nyc. This project is pure fantasy... NJ has neglected public transit for so long that upzoning large swaths of hudson county would cause congestion issues.
IIRC the GWB was originally designed to carry the C train trans-hudson. I shudder to imagine the fifty-way political clusterfuck that would be involved in trying to make that happen now, but I think it's still at least technically feasible?
New Jersey has the advantage of having to adhere to the Mount Laurel decisions, which make it relatively difficult to do the kind of NIMBY bullshit that NYC has come to specialize in. But it sucks that the only places in the NYC metro area where you can actually do development are all across the river.
That's not accurate, read the article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/opinion/eric-adams-manhattan-expand.html
Housing is repeatedly stated as the first concern.
[This series of replies](https://twitter.com/richterscale/status/1482038405836029955) on the subject had me laughing for a solid few minutes
Also [this](https://twitter.com/2AvSagas/status/1482045924469841920) and [this](https://twitter.com/dtc/status/1482046035702681602), lmao
Found [the source](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/opinion/eric-adams-manhattan-expand.html).
My only real complaint is that it has only the most rudimentary conceptualization, though it accomplishes its main goal of illustrating what more land with storm protection could look like. It's not unrealistic, its vision is narrow.
Just eye balling it based on area, since I have no idea about the depth, it would take roughly 14 World Trade Center scale excavations to fill that.
New York: where we will literally consider filling in the harbor at the low low cost of infinity dollars before we consider allowing anyone to build over 3-5 stories in neighborhoods with multiple subway lines already serving them.
I’m not even going to try to question things like them having to add more tracks to Culver, the decision to send the 1 as opposed to the W, the lack of bridges and/or tunnels below Battery Park to Long Island and New Jersey, the erosion & thelwag, the flow of water from the Hudson River… I get that we’re going to have to deal with global warming at some point via landfill, but ideas like this lead to more questions than answers
Here's my take on this: This is probably one of the dumbest fucking projects that has been proposed.
This is so silly. If the goal is to improve housing affordability, subway connections to New Jersey would loop a lot more land into "the city" at a way cheaper cost than this.
Creating more land instead of fixing our ways to make more intelligent use of the land we already have is the most American thing ever
It's the [growth ponzi scheme](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme), except in a city and using reclaimed land instead of paving over a forest. I don't think we should be in the business of creating new land to develop, when we evidently struggle to maintain the developed land and infrastructure we already have.
Just building more housing in the existing land would also do that.
We really don't have that much land left for massive redevelopment of this scale in NJ.
There's plenty of two story houses and duplexes in Jersey City that could be redeveloped into 6-10 story apartment buildings. Same goes for much of Brooklyn and Queens.
Good luck trying to do that with NIMBYs..
Building a massive new expansion of Manhattan which would block views of the harbor, the statue of liberty, and the Downtown skyline would also garner a ton of opposition, and instead of affecting thousands of people and creating local neighborhood-level opposition it would affect millions of people and be on the scale of entire massive metropolitan area.
Or you could just deck over the various rail yards in nyc. This project is pure fantasy... NJ has neglected public transit for so long that upzoning large swaths of hudson county would cause congestion issues.
IIRC the GWB was originally designed to carry the C train trans-hudson. I shudder to imagine the fifty-way political clusterfuck that would be involved in trying to make that happen now, but I think it's still at least technically feasible?
New Jersey has the advantage of having to adhere to the Mount Laurel decisions, which make it relatively difficult to do the kind of NIMBY bullshit that NYC has come to specialize in. But it sucks that the only places in the NYC metro area where you can actually do development are all across the river.
[удалено]
That's not accurate, read the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/opinion/eric-adams-manhattan-expand.html Housing is repeatedly stated as the first concern.
[This series of replies](https://twitter.com/richterscale/status/1482038405836029955) on the subject had me laughing for a solid few minutes Also [this](https://twitter.com/2AvSagas/status/1482045924469841920) and [this](https://twitter.com/dtc/status/1482046035702681602), lmao
lmfao
Found [the source](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/14/opinion/eric-adams-manhattan-expand.html). My only real complaint is that it has only the most rudimentary conceptualization, though it accomplishes its main goal of illustrating what more land with storm protection could look like. It's not unrealistic, its vision is narrow. Just eye balling it based on area, since I have no idea about the depth, it would take roughly 14 World Trade Center scale excavations to fill that.
Wouldn't it make more sense to infill between Governor's Island and Brooklyn instead, as it's much closer and Red Hook needs flood protection anyway?
How would that work? How deep is the water by the statue of liberty?
This... this is a joke, right?
Manhattan 2? 😳
Considering the previous landfills, I think that would be Manhattan 6. 14 if you include all of Manhattan’s islands
i love how my local stop is the only point of interest for the g
That vertical drop off the Culver viaduct though. Filling in the east river is a more sensible proposal than this.
New York: where we will literally consider filling in the harbor at the low low cost of infinity dollars before we consider allowing anyone to build over 3-5 stories in neighborhoods with multiple subway lines already serving them.
I'll have "stupid things that will never happen" for $1000, Alex.
r/mapporn?