skyline pier 6
Two stories based on a report and new data offer conflicting views of the future of New York City and Brooklyn specifically. The City’s population will swell by one million new residents by 2040 and there won’t be any room for them “unless a small city of new housing is built,” according to a report from the Center for Urban Real Estate at Columbia University cited in an article in The Wall Street Journal. The report says waterfront neighborhoods such as Red Hook and Greenpoint are the most logical places to build new housing. At the same time, the City faces an increased risk of flooding and severe weather thanks to climate change. By 2050, the number of New Yorkers living in flood areas will double, according to a warning issued by the Bloomberg administration, based on data from its New York City Panel on Climate Change, The New York Times reported. Since the 1970s, New York City has had an average of 18 days a year with temperatures above 89 degrees. By 2020, the number could rise to 33 days, and by 2050, to 57 days. The biggest increase in flood zones was in Brooklyn, where the number of buildings considered at risk has increased by 253 percent to 25,800. New developments are taking pains to flood proof their construction, but the prospect of significantly hotter and wetter weather does make prewar housing sound less appealing. At the same time, such an enormous increase in population can only push real estate prices up even further. What’s your take?


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Really? Can you provide some proof of that? Lets be generous: there
    might be, maybe $300 million from your mythical “big oil” and “the Koch’s (right?) available to disprove “climate
    change.”

    Incidentally, BP, and most if not all of the Evil Oil Companies are on the climate change bandwagon, lest they be penalized and shunned by Big Government in various ways.

    There’s probably $50-300 billion available from governments and foundations to “prove/support” “climate change.” So, why does, at most, $300 million corrupt, but $50-100 billion not corrupt? Can you explain that?

  2. The only scientists corrupted by money are the ones on the oil companies’ payroll. Kinda hard to believe people actually buy into climate change denial, but I guess there’s a lot of suckers out there.

1 2 3 13