Nathan, you have a problem here. The immigrant middle class is not the urban poor. Have you been to Queens recently? Where do you think the Chinese factory owners live? The workers all live 5 to a room in Chinatown. A cappuccino in Astoria costs 4 bucks, and the clientele in the cafes are all foreign born.(That's why I go there)
You're being too simple. The boom is not going to stop because of zoning, but the immigrants who own property are going to have a harder time making money off manhattanites, when they -the owners- move out to the Island or to Westchester. There's a block of beautiful homes near Astoria park that I found out only last week is being decimated. The buildings were denied landmark status. And of course the McDuplexes now being built there are going to go for big money. The proper fight is for lower class -and midsize- housing in previously industrial areas such was Williamsburg and Greenpoint, not the destruction of communities that already exist so that college-grad dumb-fucks from Ohio can move to the borough's.

an extra 'postrophe in there.

I have to admit my response sounds as simple as your argument, if only in reverse. Of course I'm suspicious of zoning changes in Bensonhurst and Staten Island; I'm a cynic, and have reason to be. And six story buildings are not high rises, and are not all future dorms for NYU. But neighborhoods deserve preservation as such, even as populations change.

But part of preserving neighborhoods is preserving affordable housing. I have sympathy for preserving historic or aesthetically impressive buildings, but you can do that and increase density so as to assure continual expansion of the housing stock.

And note that the zoning changeis PREVENTING new larger buildings. The old rules of the neighborhood was that such buildings could be built. So if you are suspicious of change, you might wonder if the gentrifiers are trying to preserve their increasing housing values.

I'm both with Nathan and against him on this. I think that market-rate infill development is one of the most vital and encouraging signs in the continuing renaissance of New York City. (Not that we don't have miles to go, of course.)

The suggestion that this is housing for Ohio yuppies unable to afford Manhattan is risible; the vast majority of the housing being built in the outer boroughs is being sold to immigrants from overseas.

However, I do feel that residential communities have a right to control their zoning. People buy homes in Astoria, Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, etc., expecting and investing in a distinct blend of urban and suburban living, and moderate-at-most density is a key factor in that. These areas are also already at or near the realistic capacity of their traffic and transit infrastructure, and each added unit adds at least one car for the evenings and weekends, at least one subway rider for rush hours, and all of this has a multiplying effect upon the building and parking lot space demanded for the supermarkets, movie theaters, and the like. The city's property taxes are low relative to other income streams, and this means that massive increases in density, even at high property values, doesn't generate revenue which offsets the costs, particularly in terms of schools, which the new residents impose locally.

And here's the most important thing -- if homeowners can't control their fates living in the outer boroughs, they'll just move out to the suburbs where they can. The first wave of sprawl was driven by a desire for lower density and for control over the fate of one's neighborhood, and there's no reason that history couldn't repeat itself.

Risible? I guess you haven't been to Astoria lately. In Greenpoint Williamsburg they call them the expat Ohioans 'liberals' and the recent Polish immigrants 'new people.'
But in general I agree with your points.