How Bad Can the Housing Crunch Get?
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…
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?
Also, try this on for size: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
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?
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.
yes
No, it was not me. And I wish you would not be. Before it’s too late.
Is “GTFO” a scientific term? I am not familiar with it.
It was getting warmer, and now it isn’t. It used to be much warmer (Middle Ages) and then colder (1700-1800’s) all without human CO2 emissions. “The only question is how responsible are we”? Yes, there is no “climate change” if we are not primarily responsible (and if warming will be significant and harmful), which “would” make all those EPA regs and attempts at taxing CO2 criminal–right?
If we are only trivially responsible for warming, and/or there is no significant warming, it’s all a hoax, no?
“If only there was some natural source for variations in the earth’s temperature. The source of such variation would have to be large, though: on an order of magnitude of our own Sun.”
A majority of scientists not corrupted by $ or afraid of professional persecution do not believe humans are making the planet warmer in any significant way.
Here’s how one knows they have been brainwashed on climate change: can you list even ten of the dozens of arguments advanced by the “skeptics” (an absurd term, but whatever…) to disprove AGW (I’ve already mentioned 1 or two, so lets say eight more)?
Agree. Right now just about every single nabe has become a sardine can. There is no longer any comfort in such crowded conditions. It also poses serious evacuation hazards and clogged highways – picture an emergency situation. With 9/11 fresh in mind (and hurricane Sandy) nobody really could go anywhere outside the radius of 2-3 miles – people were every where – and just stuck and it wasn’t just poor people.
I agree. Also, there’s a certain hubris to suggest that one can know how “popular” NYC will be in 2040.