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.
If you're going to deny that a neighborhood made up of apartments is not an apartment neighborhood, then further discussion with you is not productive. Does the residential part of Back Bay in Boston count?
The building next to 157 East 57th Street is "just fine" and not "remotely derelict"? Really? Faded paint; stains from air conditioners; etc.? Objectively, hopefully you can agree that it is not in like-new condition?
No, I actually like older buildings. I've long lived in buildings built from 1880 to 1930 and I oversee one built 150 years ago. My favorite architectural styles are from around 1900.
What I simply don't understand is why high-income people who pay top dollar for housing in NYC let their buildings go to pot. One of the posts above explained why (landlords can get away with it); I still don't understand why people would let their condo or co-op boards get away with it, though.
I live in Back Bay in Boston (that is my primary address). Behind the spectacular, constantly renovated 1860s-1890s exteriors, the interiors are nearly impossible to heat, plumbing leaks everywhere, and the rat infestation defies belief. The difference between Bostonian and New Yorker attitude is that the former are fake and love to complicate, while the latter are truthful and practical. People in these two cities tend to have different priorities that reflect their different general attitudes. It makes a total sense that Bostonians would allocate condo association funds for exterior display, while finding it normal that there is a water leak into the wall of every bathroom and kitchen in the building. A facade in Manhattan will look "derelict" per your criteria about 5 years after it is freshly resurfaced, so not much point in resurfacing it in the first place, particularly if the condo association (or in NYC more likely a co-op) has greater immediate priorities.
Some "derelict" exterior elements in NYC are nasty because they are associated with crime (like graffiti, or boarded up windows), but as long as it is not that, old by itself is not derelict. It is just a sign of historic continuity of life in a large city.
It's pretty common to have semi-shabby apartment neighborhoods even in the affluent cores of Paris and Vienna, BTW. Doesn't mean the interiors aren't nice, or the neighborhoods aren't desirable. Old buildings will show wear.
NOLA101, as Mitt Romney says, you can have your own opinions (if you like derelict buildings, that's your choice), but you can't have your own facts.
I oversee a 140+ year old building. It's in immaculate shape. We just spent a huge amount of money repairing the exterior--local law requires it, and we have pride in the property. Any building of any age can look immaculate, as long as the owners care enough to do something about it.
If people generally desired derelict buildings, then people of East Germany would have left their country as it was before 1990; I toured it then and it was in a state of disrepair. However, they've fixed it up and it now looks much more well-kept. My point is that it's fine if you like run-down-looking buildings, but that's not most people's preference.
NOLA101, as Mitt Romney says, you can have your own opinions (if you like derelict buildings, that's your choice), but you can't have your own facts.
I oversee a 140+ year old building. It's in immaculate shape. We just spent a huge amount of money repairing the exterior--local law requires it, and we have pride in the property. Any building of any age can look immaculate, as long as the owners care enough to do something about it.
If people generally desired derelict buildings, then people of East Germany would have left their country as it was before 1990; I toured it then and it was in a state of disrepair. However, they've fixed it up and it now looks much more well-kept. My point is that it's fine if you like run-down-looking buildings, but that's not most people's preference.
Sorry, I don't believe you. I don't believe in any of your claimed "facts".
I would go so far as to say there isn't a single large apartment building anywhere in Charlotte that is 140+ years old. So if you're claiming you're managing such a Charlotte building, I think you're being dishonest. Could you give us this building location, please? Even in NYC, large apartment buildings from that era barely exist. Please give us one such address in Charlotte.
You have made various claims that are obviously untrue. You claimed there were apartment neighborhoods in Charlotte analogous to NYC, you claimed buildings are "derelict" if they need repainting, you claimed that cities in Europe don't have rundown apartment buildings. All of these claims are quite obviously untrue.
"What I simply don't understand is why high-income people who pay top dollar for housing in NYC let their buildings go to pot.
One of the posts above explained why (landlords can get away with it); I still don't understand why people would let their condo or co-op boards get away with it, though."
Maybe..:
- They love living in the city
- they look the other way (at building maintenance work that's needed & way overdue)
- (pay top dollar – bldg needs a paint job++), = have x-tra cash to circumvent ‘people, places & things’
that make living in “the city†‘uncomfortable’ at times, but. . .
– I need the bldg concierge guy, the 24hr candy store + pharmacy + theatre, etc, late night marguerita bistro +++ stroll thru the park...
....so I don’t make a big stink about peeling paint or obvious water damage to the bldg….
Haven't been to Europe in a while. But when I see real estate shows about them, I see LOTS of graffiti on apartment buildings. This is in major cites like Paris and Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVLNATIVE
Also, I've spent years living in large European cities. Vienna, Paris, etc. don't have derelict apartment buildings in prime areas. Central Vienna, where I lived (in a building built in the 1800s), is beautiful.
NOLA101, you're not even reading the basic statements in my post.
Nowhere did I state that I oversee a 140+ year old building in Charlotte.
You kept focusing on Charlotte, claiming that there were Charlotte historic apartment districts that were immaculately maintained, in contrast to NY and other cities. Yet you then refused to name any such locations. Then you claimed you managed such a building. Certainly it was not unreasonable to assume you were referring to Charlotte, given that was the entire point of the conversation.
Where is this claimed building, then? Why are you keeping the location a secret? How are we to understand your point unless you tell us the building location?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVLNATIVE
As you don't or won't read, there's no point in responding to you further. Best wishes to you.
I don't think you'll respond because I called you out on your claims. I suspect there is no such 140-yr apartment building that you manage, not in Charlotte, not anywhere. Apartment buildings of that vintage are extremely rare in the Americas.
Haven't been to Europe in a while. But when I see real estate shows about them, I see LOTS of graffiti on apartment buildings. This is in major cites like Paris and Rome.
Graffiti is much more common in buildings in Europe than in the U.S. I think anyone who has been to major European cities has noticed this difference. But that doesn't mean they're "derelict".
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?
History of America. People in this country are divided by race and culture. People of different races do not work or live well together, at least not for long. Once buildings that were often not well-built in the first place become damaged and dilapidated because of neglect by its tenants/owners/landlords, no more money is put into restoration until wealthier and well-connected European descent people move in back to fix it up. That's what gentrification is all about. Those who own stuff do not want to replace and improve stuff for the people they say will only tear apart what they have earned and built. Don't get upset and call me racist on this. I am a black individual who calls it as I know it is.
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.
