U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2015, 12:33 AM
 
4 posts, read 2,769 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Ok I'm a 17yo kid with a really stupid simple question I don't care enough to research and get the whole story because I never plan to live in Manhattan in the near future. So could you spare me with your applicable knowledge? Thanks!

Why is manhattan real estate so astronomically high? (or is it idk) Why don't they just build a **** ton more buildings/higher? (supply/demand)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2015, 02:04 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
664 posts, read 601,440 times
Reputation: 513
Hi Twinky.

Here's the reason, in a nutshell: too many dollars chasing too few blocks of land.

Never in its history has New York City attracted SO many wealthy people at the same time. More and more and more are coming here -- not necessarily to live, but to "invest" in real estate.

The problem is, however, that while the sheer number of rich people flocking to New York is on the rise, Manhattan isn't getting any bigger. And there's precious little land on Manhattan left to develop; the land is already owned, with buildings already on them.

What we're seeing now (for the most part) is developers coming in and buying old buildings, tearing them down, and replacing them with new buildings that rise even higher. Or they're developing far-flung areas that had never been developed into residential housing before.

BUT ... in order to get the most bang for their investment buck, these developers can really only afford to build high-priced luxury apartments. No one is building brand-new buildings full of "affordable" apartments because it just doesn't pay enough to do so.

And unbelievably, these luxury buildings -- with apartments selling not just in the millions, but in the TENS of millions -- are selling out before they're even finished. So clearly, the developers are doing SOMETHING right.

Unfortunately, this is bad news for anyone who can't afford to buy anything under about $2 million. This is why New York City is increasingly becoming a near-impossible place to live if you're not at least in the upper middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 02:32 AM
 
64,574 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42997
Quote:
Originally Posted by xTwiinKy View Post
Ok I'm a 17yo kid with a really stupid simple question I don't care enough to research and get the whole story because I never plan to live in Manhattan in the near future. So could you spare me with your applicable knowledge? Thanks!

Why is manhattan real estate so astronomically high? (or is it idk) Why don't they just build a **** ton more buildings/higher? (supply/demand)
because of rent stabilization there is not one general rental building that I know of that has been built since the 1970's even in the boroughs.

only thing built in rentals was either luxury , low income or special situation with income limitations.

no general rental building open to all have been put up thanks to the duping landlords got.

sure you could chose to stay destabilized after the 1970's and put a building up but the tax ramifications of doing so and not stabilizing the building make it so not worth doing when you can just as easy put up a co-op or condo.


if the city screwed you over once they could do it again with a building that chose not to stabilize. no developer would get involved putting up a general rental building that did not have special situation perks attached that usually involved stabilizing .

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-20-2015 at 02:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 03:21 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
664 posts, read 601,440 times
Reputation: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
because of rent stabilization there is not one general rental building that I know of that has been built since the 1970's even in the boroughs.

only thing built in rentals was either luxury , low income or special situation with income limitations.

no general rental building open to all have been put up thanks to the duping landlords got.

sure you could chose to stay destabilized after the 1970's and put a building up but the tax ramifications of doing so and not stabilizing the building make it so not worth doing when you can just as easy put up a co-op or condo.


if the city screwed you over once they could do it again with a building that chose not to stabilize. no developer would get involved putting up a general rental building that did not have special situation perks attached that usually involved stabilizing .
This is wrong.

Except in rare circumstances, new buildings are not subject to rent stabilization laws.

From the New York City Rent Guidelines Board:
Rent Stabilization:

In NYC, rent stabilized apartments are generally those apartments in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947 and January 1, 1974.

Tenants in buildings of six or more units built before February 1, 1947 and who moved in after June 30, 1971 are also covered by rent stabilization.

A third category of rent stabilized apartments covers buildings with three or more apartments constructed or extensively renovated since 1974 with special tax benefits. Generally, these buildings are stabilized only while the tax benefits continue.



Any developer can build any kind of building he wants: rental ... co-op ... condo .... whatever. As long as there are no special tax benefits attached to it, it is not subject to the city's rent stabilization laws.

So why are developers not putting up soaring skyscrapers full of $1500 2-bedroom rentals? COST. Why the hell should they, when they can build a condo and sell each of those units for a million bucks?


THAT is why the housing stock for everyone but the richest in New York City is shrinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 03:31 AM
 
64,574 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42997
no it is not wrong , I stated that they could chose to be non stabilized after the 1970's . but you are classified very differently as far as tax structure which makes other options more favorable. co-ops and condos are what were built for the most part not rentals.

any rentals put up were basically stabilized as part of special situation deals either being part of an affordable housing program or 80/20 or rehabbing the building in exchange for staying stabilized for a length of time. most of the newer stuff has income restrictions attached , not low income but income restricted .

I challenge you to find one building put up since the 1970's that does not fall under some special situation even though they could have just thrown up a rental building with no strings attached other than a crappy tax structure and distrust of the city when it comes to rentals..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 03:35 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
664 posts, read 601,440 times
Reputation: 513
Not being able to build an apartment building WITH TAX INCENTIVES is not the same as not being able to build an apartment building -- period -- without being subject to rent stabilization laws.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 03:40 AM
 
64,574 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42997
find me one non stabilized general rental not luxury that was put up since the 1970's open to all even though you could be non stabilized if you wanted. prove me wrong!...

I would be surprised if you can find even 1. in fact even with the special situation stuff you would be hard pressed to find some non gov't sponsered buildings that had no income limitations attached.

projects like battery park were all gov't sponsored projects. believe me private developers did not put up any non stabilized general rentals even though they could..

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-20-2015 at 03:58 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 04:05 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
664 posts, read 601,440 times
Reputation: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
find me one non stabilized general rental not luxury that was put up since the 1970's open to all even though you could be non stabilized if you wanted. prove me wrong!...

I would be surprised if you can find even 1. in fact even with the special situation stuff you would be hard pressed to find some non gov't sponsered buildings that had no income limitations attached.

projects like battery park were all gov't sponsored projects. believe me private developers did not put up any non stabilized general rentals even though they could..
I don't have to find you a building. I just pointed out the law as it is spelled out.

The fact that few, if any developers have taken advantage of the law is beside the point.

The fact is, the only thing stopping developers from building "affordable" housing in this city is the fact that they simply would make many multiples MORE on the building as a luxury condo. Period. It's a losing business proposition to purposely undercut your potential profits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 04:17 AM
 
64,574 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42997
the law is well known and the point is the question was asked and the answer is because developers steered clear of our general rental market and went to more lucrative areas such as co-ops ,condos, luxury and income restricted housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 04:20 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
664 posts, read 601,440 times
Reputation: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the law is well known and the point is the question was asked and the answer is because developers steered clear of our general rental market and went to more lucrative areas such as co-ops ,condos, luxury and income restricted housing.
BINGO!

We finally agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top