Though to be honest, a SAFE biking lane system would be a much welcome gift in NYC. Currently in certain areas I have to work doubly hard to not get killed daily.
Look at London. They removed two traffic lanes, installed wide cycle lanes and now move 5% more people through the space. 70% of traffci through Blackfriars is people cycling, mostly in day to day clothing.
Both of these problems can be worked around, but they are daunting for anyone who's not already fairly dedicated; a newbie isn't going to ride to his law office in 95 degree weather, or through slush.
(And that's just the weather; I'm not taking into account the crappy car traffic through most of Manhattan, or the huge valley around 125th street, or the fact that going across the Brooklyn Bridge is incredibly annoying whenever pedestrians are present, etc.)
As to your footnote, both of your geographic problems are avoidable by knowing the city better. Both the Hudson River Greenway (low) and Riverside Drive (high) provide very convenient ways to avoid the 125th St Valley on the west side, and St Nicholas Ave does the same on the east.
Further, what self-respecting (and sane) cyclist would take the Brooklyn Bridge when the Manhattan bridge is __right__ there and in every way nicer to ride on?
[0]: https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KJFK/1972/1/2/P...
So, you sacrifice density on people who don't have a economic incentive for living in the city, discourage short commutes, and discourages increasing density.
ED: Yes, that includes Rent Stabilized.
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/2014-HVS-initia...
Also the idea of people paying peanuts for a rent controlled apartment is largely a myth. It is discussed in detail in this article:
http://citylimits.org/2015/03/09/nycs-endangered-species-a-r...
From the above article:
"Olive Freud, a retired schoolteacher, and her husband, Edgar, a retired engineer, also pay more than $2,000 a month in rent for their rent-controlled, two-bedroom unit on West 72nd Street"
Further 1,030,000 units are "Rent Stabilized". However, "Rent Stabilized" is really just another type of Rent Controlled with different rules.
PS: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York Non-regulated 2011: 39.1%.
Lets say that those 27K apartments have two occupants - the reality is probably less. so that is 54K people out of population of 8.1 million. The percentage of people that rent in NYC is ~ 70%(see link below) or 5.6 million? Would you consider that 54K a heavy subsidy burden on the majority of renters even if they were only paying peanuts which they are not see my second link above.
https://www.nakedapartments.com/guides/nyc/renting-in-new-yo...
In any case there still is a highly subsidized subset of the overall retired population that is part of the problem.
I have provided actual numbers and data to demonstrate there is not a high subsidy. You have not provided any supporting evidence to the contrary.
This aside it is pretty disturbing that you keep insisting retired people are a "problem." They have as much right to live New York City as anyone else. They have paid into the system longer than anyone, they stuck it out through the tough times - the bad old days when New York City was a crime-ridden and financially insolvent city. They are not freeloaders by any measure.
Which says nothing about everyone, or every retired person, just these 27,000 apartments with vastly below market rents. On it's own this is not a big deal, but it really is a solid example of the problem with other forms of rent control.
The wider subsidy across ~1,030,000 apartments is a smaller subsidy, but also part of the same problem.
PS: Some of them could also afford to live in the same area without the subsidy. But, they also create jobs for people in the city further driving up demand for housing and thus rental prices.
Rent Stabilization has very little to do with retired individuals, unsurprising given its broad scope. How is your comment relevant?
The much larger rent controlled group aka "Rent Stabilized" includes plenty of retired people, but also many working people who are discouraged from moving due to their below market price rent and the difficulty in finding new apartments. The working fraction of that much larger group creates congestion issues from these longer commutes, while the retired people reduce effective density.
TLDR; I am making more than one argument for why each type of rent control is part of the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York#New_Y...
(not that I'm convinced either is a problem for this discussion)
While I think eliminating rent stabilization would help, it isn't a magic bullet. What's really needed is more units. As compared to many other cities NYC is decent about greenlighting new units, but they can do better.
First, they need to reign in an out of control landmark process. Individual buildings are one thing, but when they start designating entire neighborhoods it is a problem. Second, there's some significant upzoning that can still happen. Related to the first point, it is one thing to preserve the character of parts of Greenwich Village that are quite nice, and another to preserve the character of the east village. The character of the east village is ugly dense housing. You can best honor that legacy by building modern ugly dense housing instead of "preserving" century plus old ugly dense housing. Third, the housing lottery is a affordable housing theater (a la security theater). It is a waste of everyone's time. Fourth, the city and state should not be putting their thumbs on the scale in negotiations between construction unions and developers. Construction unions have quite enough bargaining power as it is. Higher construction costs push developers towards luxury units. Fifth, the city needs to do its part in terms of developing infrastructure -- above all public transit, but also schools, water, sewage, etc.
There are a huge range of perverse incentives on all sides of this issue right now. In a completely non rent controlled environment then there is a much larger incentive for renters to support new construction that reduces rents across the board. Which, IMO would impact the landmark process that has less to do with Landmarks than NIMBY.
This is not actually correct. Your rent in a rent controlled or rent stabilized apartment is still subject to increases in rent but there are guidelines on how much those increases can be.