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.
NYC has so many ugly, run-down-looking apartment buildings even in high-class areas! People in places such as Charlotte and Atlanta wouldn't tolerate them, at least in the condition they're in.
The Upper East Side has plenty of brick apartment buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of them have dirty, unmatched exteriors, air conditioner units put through the wall and nondescript architecture. Yet the purchase prices are, at the low end, sometimes nearly $1,000 per square foot, meaning that anyone who lives in them must be making a good living, or bought a long time ago. On the inside they may be fine, but on the outside, they look run-down. Even on 57th Street, there are a few really run down ones.
If they were in Charlotte, the owners would fix them up and at least keep the exteriors well-painted and updated. The exteriors could be resurfaced with new brick or at least some kind of coating. No way would one of them have a defaced, unmatched exterior and overall derelict condition on the outside if they were in Charlotte.
Why do presumably sophisticated, upper-income people in NYC tolerate this?
Exactly what are they supposed to do about it? We have one next door to us, so I'd love to know.
And BTW it's going to get worse. A lot of this is driven by rent regulation. If anot owner ha's a building full of regulated tenants he can't get rid of, what incentive does he have to upgrade the building. Up until recently, a LL could upgrade individual apartments and get them out of regulation. So it might pay to upgrade the exterior also. But the state legislature slammed the door on deregulation, so look for buildings to go downhill.
Exactly what are they supposed to do about it? We have one next door to us, so I'd love to know.
And BTW it's going to get worse. A lot of this is driven by rent regulation. If anot owner ha's a building full of regulated tenants he can't get rid of, what incentive does he have to upgrade the building. Up until recently, a LL could upgrade individual apartments and get them out of regulation. So it might pay to upgrade the exterior also. But the state legislature slammed the door on deregulation, so look for buildings to go downhill.
Bucket of paint and paintbrush would do wonders. That's not expensive.
But in particular, co-ops: they're owned by people who live in them, mostly. The board (which usually consists of owners who live there) can take action. I find it astounding that people who pay a lot to live in a nice neighborhood don't do basic exterior maintenance, such as painting walls, removing mold and mildew, etc. People outside of NYC generally have more pride in their property and take better care of it.
Bucket of paint and paintbrush would do wonders. That's not expensive.
But in particular, co-ops: they're owned by people who live in them, mostly. The board (which usually consists of owners who live there) can take action. I find it astounding that people who pay a lot to live in a nice neighborhood don't do basic exterior maintenance, such as painting walls, removing mold and mildew, etc. People outside of NYC generally have more pride in their property and take better care of it.
Agreed... As a Native NYer that has lived in other U.S. and non-U.S. cities it has always boggled my mind.
The development I grew up in 30 years ago has not been maintained. Today it looks like sh**
Comparing Charlotte and NYC in this regard is just apples and oranges. How many people live in Charlotte in how spread out of an area? On top of that, we're only taking the affluent parts of it?
However, the point does stand when I think about NYC vs Tokyo, London, Hong Kong, etc. Not sure. Best I can think of is that I don't really care for what things look like, moreso I care about how things are, and I've generally assumed most people I meet are the same way. Maybe it's a cultural thing, or a sense that everything is temporary. It's probably one of the reasons I put certain areas like Forest Hills Gardens and Fieldston in such high regard and respect.
[quote=antinimby;57643276]Okay, when you started a similar thread about this several weeks ago I thought you were serious but it looks like you are now trolling.
NYC has so many ugly, run-down-looking apartment buildings even in high-class areas! People in places such as Charlotte and Atlanta wouldn't tolerate them, at least in the condition they're in.
The Upper East Side has plenty of brick apartment buildings built in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of them have dirty, unmatched exteriors, air conditioner units put through the wall and nondescript architecture. Yet the purchase prices are, at the low end, sometimes nearly $1,000 per square foot, meaning that anyone who lives in them must be making a good living, or bought a long time ago. On the inside they may be fine, but on the outside, they look run-down. Even on 57th Street, there are a few really run down ones.
If they were in Charlotte, the owners would fix them up and at least keep the exteriors well-painted and updated. The exteriors could be resurfaced with new brick or at least some kind of coating. No way would one of them have a defaced, unmatched exterior and overall derelict condition on the outside if they were in Charlotte.
Why do presumably sophisticated, upper-income people in NYC tolerate this?
Again with this sort of question.
Hey pal, for your information block once was full of those "dirty, unmatched exteriors, etc... " building. At some point someone bought one, two or more, torn them down and redeveloped the property.
When and how this was done depended upon zoning regulations in place at the time. For large parts of UES and UWS the side streets have "brownstone zoning" since about the 1960's or 1970's. That limits height on streets, but allows it on avenues. So basically anything built too tall before zoning was changed is allowed to remain, but the older "dirty" or whatever buildings cannot be touched. There just isn't a point because whatever you wanted to put there likely would be smaller in height than exists currently.
On the avenues or elsewhere developers can by the air rights of half or portion of a block leaving those "old, dirty..." buildings standing, but put up a large tower on balance.
Gleaming, and tiny. You're talking about a small upscale enclave of a newer city vs a tremendous metropolis. It's weird.
All of the middle- and upper-income areas of Charlotte are well-kept. Look at the office and residential areas in SouthPark, Ballantyne and Uptown. All gleaming, even though there are old (as far back as the 1920s) buildings here and there, particularly uptown. SouthPark Mall and some office buildings were built in the 1960s. They're all well-kept and are modernized every few years.
I just don't understand why someone paying $1000/sf wouldn't demand more attractive architecture and better-maintained buildings. They would in Charlotte, even for $250/sf.
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.
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.
