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 07-21-2017, 07:49 AM
 
Location: New York
2,576 posts, read 2,672,449 times
Reputation: 736

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pierrepont7731 View Post
Point is the map is not accurate.
So here is an analysis based on a little information I read.

So I understand that the Parkchester North, and Parkchester South are run but two different management companies. I also understand that Parkchester South is not as well managed and unlike North, deferred common charges increases. Recently South had a 15% common charge hike. They say it's temporary in order to pay for some capital repairs. A lot of people were up in arms about this hike. 15% is a lot.

The data above does show permits for the capital improvements. Even if I did not know about the hike, it would be a good conclusion to believe that money was being spent since work permits were requested by the city of NY. So the second tab, Loss of rent regulation at risk is considered low risk, but then again, it isn't grey because it has shown some instability. When you click on DOB permits, the risk is off the chart. So the conclusion by this non-profit is that there is some moderate risk, not high or low. OK what does that mean? Well an increase of $100-$150 could mean a lot for some people. In order to really know, one would have to canvas on the ground and talk to people. From the videos and other protests I have seen, it's a big deal for a lot of people. On the other hand, blocking the repairs could have a calamitous effect on the complex. Apparently, it already has. I understand North does not have those issues because they increased their common charges all along. I am sure there is a lot more underlying information, that I am not aware of. My point is the data only can be really meaningful if you have deep knowledge of the community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2017, 07:58 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
7,548 posts, read 2,685,297 times
Reputation: 2819
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
So here is an analysis based on a little information I read.

So I understand that the Parkchester North, and Parkchester South are run but two different management companies. I also understand that Parkchester South is not as well managed and unlike North, deferred common charges increases. Recently South had a 15% common charge hike. They say it's temporary in order to pay for some capital repairs. A lot of people were up in arms about this hike. 15% is a lot.

The data above does show permits for the capital improvements. Even if I did not know about the hike, it would be a good conclusion to believe that money was being spent since work permits were requested by the city of NY. So the second tab, Loss of rent regulation at risk is considered low risk, but then again, it isn't grey because it has shown some instability. When you click on DOB permits, the risk is off the chart. So the conclusion by this non-profit is that there is some moderate risk, not high or low. OK what does that mean? Well an increase of $100-$150 could mean a lot for some people. In order to really know, one would have to canvas on the ground and talk to people. From the videos and other protests I have seen, it's a big deal for a lot of people. On the other hand, blocking the repairs could have a calamitous effect on the complex. Apparently, it already has. I understand North does not have those issues because they increased their common charges all along. I am sure there is a lot more underlying information, that I am not aware of. My point is the data only can be really meaningful if you have deep knowledge of the community.
Know for a fact that some information is simply inaccurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 08:37 AM
 
849 posts, read 451,498 times
Reputation: 966
This kind of map is why I don't trust sociologists with math...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 09:32 AM
 
259 posts, read 199,607 times
Reputation: 257
This map may have useful information, but the way it is portrayed is flawed. I don't think the authors are in the position of determining risk. How can you have Low Risk and High Risk directly next to each other, especially concerning non regulated apartments. Certainly apartments that are high risk and get rent jacked up will directly affect the area as a whole.

There is no way to look at this map and see trends for regions and neighborhoods. It makes a false assumption that buildings are isolated from their local markets. Who cares if one building is at risk, if the map is telling me many other directly adjacent buildings are not at risk? That is the kind of misleading direction this map can be interpreted as.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 09:46 AM
 
Location: New York
2,576 posts, read 2,672,449 times
Reputation: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pierrepont7731 View Post
Know for a fact that some information is simply inaccurate.
Data can be flawed, or analysis can be flawed. I doubt work permits are all that flawed. It's just one dataset.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 09:51 AM
 
Location: New York
2,576 posts, read 2,672,449 times
Reputation: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Energystream View Post
This map may have useful information, but the way it is portrayed is flawed. I don't think the authors are in the position of determining risk. How can you have Low Risk and High Risk directly next to each other, especially concerning non regulated apartments. Certainly apartments that are high risk and get rent jacked up will directly affect the area as a whole.

There is no way to look at this map and see trends for regions and neighborhoods. It makes a false assumption that buildings are isolated from their local markets. Who cares if one building is at risk, if the map is telling me many other directly adjacent buildings are not at risk? That is the kind of misleading direction this map can be interpreted as.
They don't really cite how they determine risk. That would be important to know. I agree that proximity does have an effect on each other.

I disagree about the assumptions that you can't make assumptions about trends in regions. It's most useful if you focus on a particular area, and then look at the data over time and pay attention to how it, and neighboring areas change. Example: Williamsburg --> Bushwick --> Ridgewood. This happened over time. Also Williamsberg --> Greenpoint <--- Long Island City --> Astoria.

I agree focusing on one building, is not useful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 10:04 AM
 
Location: New York, NY
7,548 posts, read 2,685,297 times
Reputation: 2819
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba View Post
They don't really cite how they determine risk. That would be important to know. I agree that proximity does have an effect on each other.

I disagree about the assumptions that you can't make assumptions about trends in regions. It's most useful if you focus on a particular area, and then look at the data over time and pay attention to how it, and neighboring areas change. Example: Williamsburg --> Bushwick --> Ridgewood. This happened over time. Also Williamsberg --> Greenpoint <--- Long Island City --> Astoria.

I agree focusing on one building, is not useful.
They have buildings listed that are known to be either condos or co-ops as *rent stabilized*, and somehow that makes these buildings at risk? Am perhaps mistaken, but cannot make the connection with such erroneous information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 01:00 PM
 
Location: New York
2,576 posts, read 2,672,449 times
Reputation: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by pierrepont7731 View Post
They have buildings listed that are known to be either condos or co-ops as *rent stabilized*, and somehow that makes these buildings at risk? Am perhaps mistaken, but cannot make the connection with such erroneous information.
There are some apartments there that are Condos, but some are being rented out and also take Section 8 vouchers. It's a weird juxtaposition for sure.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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
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