NYC's future = disneyland for yuppies ?? (New York, Paris: renters, tenants, subsidized)

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by cjma79

I am not talking about moving the projects or removing them...
We keep the projects and the goverment rents them by income...
If the going rate of the area is 3,500 then the gov. could and should rent them at the same or slightly less...

the govt rents public housing by income now....if they based it on market rate, dont you think that defeats the purpose of providing subsidized housing?

Originally Posted by cjma79

Yes,, in real life,, NYC is easy on the poor people, easy on the rich people is harder for the middle income people.. like the 60k or 80k income family. You think that is FAIR??

its not fair...but what will relocating the projects outside of manhattan do for them?

Originally Posted by cjma79

No,, Actually Bay Ridge, and now SI... I actually dont care about manhattan is just the concept.

then how come you're not proposing that they relocate a development like richmond terrace? i'm sure it has beautiful views of ny harbor, actually i heard it does. and its close to the ferry.

Originally Posted by cjma79

Where is the chance for the middle income... or the ones in the 150-200K that waste money in rent while others waste almost nothing??

first off i dont think its wise for a family to be pulling in about 6K-8K a month and rent...thats simply throwing away money. they can definitely afford a 500-600K house in NYC. Secondly, my prediction is that public housing is going to be geared more toward middle class people since the rents are going up so much. there's rumors of a public housing project in brooklyn that went co-op, not so sure if the rumor was confirmed.

Originally Posted by cjma79

In a heartbeat... especially if it is in Manhattan... I dont know,, but I think they are full arent they???

they're not full...even around my way i know there's units that are sitting vacant....maybe in manhattan they're full tho.

Originally Posted by cjma79

and if the answer is no, then you just lost all your credibility, because you act like residents of NYCHA are living on easy street because their rent is so low.
They are not living in a easy street,, but are living in a easy Manhattan

whats so easy about it? the average project family cant afford the luxuries manhattan has to offer, other than public transportation.

the problem with public housing all comes down to the actual urban planning. superblocks prove to isolate its residents and contain the ills of society. if public housing was more evenly dispersed within individual apartment buildings and low-rise developments, then crime would dramatically go down. similar to what chicago's doing. but to put every project outside manhattan would only add to the dissent of the poor. and ultimately we want all classes to interface within the city. honestly, manhattan doesnt even have that much public housing for people to go that crazy over. its greedy developers who want to pry the land from the hands of the city to put up shoddy new construction to make a quick buck. so people are crying for this land, and even if they did get it, they wont do anything constructive (no pun intended) with it....

[drkman]

Originally Posted by SeventhFloor

they're not full...even around my way i know there's units that are sitting vacant....maybe in manhattan they're full tho.

I think that there are a lot of vacant units in NYCHA apartments. Based on articles that I have read, it appears that apartments are emptied for renovations and then not being rented out. It seems as if a lot of this occured in the Fort Greene projects and it has been rumored that it will be going co-op. How true that is, I don't know but with the changing demographics in that neighborhood and the growth of private business in the area, I can see it happening. Basically, as long as NYCHA gives you an apartment, you have no real say so over where the apartment is at. My brother lives in Harlem River Houses and I know that their are vacant units there but I don't think that those are the PJs that are of any concern in this thread, since they are not in the most convenient or desirable area of Manhattan.

[Materialism]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

Parts of Manhattan are wealthy, yes, but much of the borough is not, and it is an oversimplification to make a pronouncement that it is the wealthiest county in the country based upon an average measure. In terms of per capita income, Manhattan ranks high, but that's a disproportionate statistic, since it averages the abnormally high salaries that exist in some sectors in the city, not reflecting a true picture of the distributed wealth among the population in the area. The median income is much more statistically reliable in terms of providing the true economic picture, and New York County (aka Manhattan) is nowhere near the top.

Most of the top 20 wealthiest counties in the country, as ranked by Forbes, using the median income as the measure, are located around Washington, DC, not New York. Fairfax County (VA) is the wealthiest, with a median income in excess of $100k, followed by Loudoun County (VA) with just under $100k, Howard County (MD) is third, Hunterdon (NJ) is fourth, Doughlas (CO) is fifth, etc. The median is a better measure of the true level of affluence in the area, whereas in Manhattan there is a realtively small population that is truly wealthy. This does not take into account second home owners and international owners, but their incomes would not be factored anyway, since a pied-a-terre is not a residence to which the income would be assigned by a demographer for a US national, and an international buyer would not be factored at all.

Much attention is given to new development, gentrification, and the so-called yuppification of Manhattan, in particular, but there has always been concentrated wealth in Manhattan, and concentrated poverty as well. It is merely the accelerated pace of middle and moderate wage earner populations that is receiving the attention, and the notion that Manhattan suddenly became a wealthy paradise is laughable. Even in the "bad years" of the city, there were neighborhoods in Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn that were completely safe and sound, and were insulated pockets of wealth that exist to this day.

This nonsense of moving projects is absurd, since the problem with the projects in the first place is that they were created as a result of flawed city planning, that actually concentrated the poverty in superblocks that they were supposed to be eliminating. Creating new projects is just more of the same situation, and repeating the same behavior over and over again with an expected different result is a definition of insanity. Should the existing projects be eliminated? Yes, they are terrible in terms of superblocks of cities unto themselves, and are not integrated into their neighborhoods, creating conditions whereby poverty is a way of life. If they are demolished and properly scaled affordable and market rate housing is implemented, an area of decline and destruction is turned around, displacing the criminal element from within such communities that the people who live in the projects do not want to be surrounded by, either. I am not arguing that there are abuses in the current projects, as it is easy to see that in some ways they have strayed from the original purposes under which they were built.

The reality is that people who cannot afford New York will leave, and some argue that that is a good thing, but it's not, as the net effect on the true economic picture of the city is negative. It is better to have a broad-based economy that draws the majority of its revenue from the middle, than one that relies on a small number of extremely high income individuals.

To use a fashion example, haute couture is the top of the heap, super luxury, and is truly world class. Now, for those who cannot afford the haute couture, does the business ignore them? No. Haute couture actually loses money, overall, and the real reason why it exists is to provide for an aspirational model and to get press for the design house, so that they can make their real money selling at the pret-a-porter and accessory level where the profits lie. A small number of people can afford haute couture, worldwide, true haute couture, and the designers don't ignore the other markets, since without them, the house would cease to exist in a minute. It is in the integrated model that the business is sustainable, which is akin to New York, since if all people of less means are forcibly relegated to areas outside Manhattan, exclusively, that would cause a cycle in which employers in Manhattan could not employ people to work in capacities that are occupied by moderate and middle income earners, and would either have to artifically raise salaries and cut into profits, or relocate; thus destroying the "new" urban paradise that is the yuppified/gentrified version of the city that is embraced so much by many who have very little experience with Manhattan, much less New York City.

Actually, there is absolutely no such city or urban conglomerate in the United States that holds the amount of truly wealthy elite, from hecta/multi millionaires to billionaires (Manhattan holds the most billionaires in the WORLD). I'm talking RAW numbers here, not ratio or percentages, which in this case, is fairly useless.

One reason why DC suburbs have higher median incomes is because DC is far less populated/saturated than New York and the have-nots and haves do not rub shoulders as much as we do in New York. In terms of the RAW amount of truly wealthy, Manhattan and New York's metropolitan area is without doubt the richest in the country. DC is podunk/pauperish and at the bottom in comparison.

Now that that my politically correct rebuttal is out of the way, would you like to know the foremost reason those silly suburban Maryland Counties have median incomes than New York County? Take a guess!! PROJECTS! PUBLIC HOUSING!! AND TO A SIGNIFICANT BUT LESSER EXTENT, "PRIVILEGED" CITY-TROTTING CHILDREN LIKE ME WITH NO REPORTED INCOME!!! bmwdcguy (hopefully it's not an entry-level 3-Series), the last time I checked, there were no sprawling amounts of public housing in Ludon County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia. Manhattan in general is wealthy, PERIOD. How many urban/city centers do you know that are in essence wealthier than suburban counties in the United States? None. Manhattan is a fabulous abnormality. Imagine how much more wealthy Manhattan would be if the projects were destroyed and the Medicaid set vanished! Not only would my view be even more stunning and not obstructed by those dreadful brown structures, I'm guessing that Manhattan's TRUE median income would be north of $120,000.

Furthermore, according to the 2006 IRS reports, the median income in Manhattan is $60,000 and there are more people who earn >$50,000 than <$50,000. The two largest/most populated income groups are the $200,000+ and (105,000 households) and the middle-class (tied at 105,000+ households) followed by the $99,000-$149,000 and so forth. In this case, should we not assume that the poor are the ones dragging the average down, not the middle/upper-middle/wealthy classes as you've dismissed as skewed data?

Getting back to the original argument and addressing your haute couture client vs. pret-a-porter analogy. By "rich" I did not necessarily mean the fabulous stomping out of 15 Central Park West and into Maybach 57S via Yves Saint Laurent shod feet with alligator Hermès Haut A Courroie Birkin luggage en route to Teterboro's private aviation runway rich; I was referring to the average (the upper-middle class) rich...you know, the young urban professional who occasionally shops at Prada, Bergdorf, Jeffrey New York, lounges/ dines at Masa or NOBU and goes to art galleries, i.e. the "YUPPIE". To put it into perspective, raw and very high amounts of wealthy/high spending clients is what luxury establishments assess before opening shop which is the reason why DC is sorely lacking in this sector and is stuck with the likes of Nordstrom, Macy's and a small sprinkle of luxury. This is also the reason why there are NOBU, Prada, Gucci's and general luxury everywhere in the borough and Manhattan has been dubbed as "Disneyland for the yuppies", if you will. According to LVMH and the Gucci Group and New York was by (very far) the leader in United States sales thanks to us yuppies and wealthy clients.

Anyway, as I was saying, Manhattan is yuppie land and the projects should be strapped with grenades and be burned to the ground.

Auf Wiedersehen!

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by drkman

I think that there are a lot of vacant units in NYCHA apartments. Based on articles that I have read, it appears that apartments are emptied for renovations and then not being rented out. It seems as if a lot of this occured in the Fort Greene projects and it has been rumored that it will be going co-op. How true that is, I don't know but with the changing demographics in that neighborhood and the growth of private business in the area, I can see it happening. Basically, as long as NYCHA gives you an apartment, you have no real say so over where the apartment is at. My brother lives in Harlem River Houses and I know that their are vacant units there but I don't think that those are the PJs that are of any concern in this thread, since they are not in the most convenient or desirable area of Manhattan.

yeah i heard that about fort greene too....actually for ocean bay (formerly edgemere houses and arverne houses) NYCHA is offering the chance to skip the waiting list and move in there now if you chose queens as your preferred borough. but those projects are crimewise the worst in the rockaways, the closest store is about 10 blocks away depending on which side of the projects you are, forget about the closest thing resembling a supermarket, the closest bank is about 8 blocks minimum away depending once again where in the pj's you're at, there's virtually nothing around these projects except jhs 198 and the train. and since they sit on the edge of jamaica bay, the people who buildings closest to the bay get to be greeted coming and leaving their building by roving swaths of mosquitos. yet a third of the apartments there sit vacant.

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by Materialism

Actually, there is absolutely no such city or urban conglomerate in the United States that holds the amount of truly wealthy elite, from hecta/multi millionaires to billionaires (Manhattan holds the most billionaires in the WORLD). I'm talking RAW numbers here, not ratio or percentages, which in this case, is fairly useless.

One reason why DC suburbs have higher median incomes is because DC is far less populated/saturated than New York and the have-nots and haves do not rub shoulders as much as we do in New York. In terms of the RAW amount of truly wealthy, Manhattan and New York's metropolitan area is without doubt the richest in the country. DC is podunk/pauperish and at the bottom in comparison.

Now that that my politically correct rebuttal is out of the way, would you like to know the foremost reason those silly suburban Maryland Counties have median incomes than New York County? Take a guess!! PROJECTS! PUBLIC HOUSING!! AND TO A SIGNIFICANT BUT LESSER EXTENT, "PRIVILEGED" CITY-TROTTING CHILDREN LIKE ME WITH NO REPORTED INCOME!!! bmwdcguy (hopefully it's not an entry-level 3-Series), the last time I checked, there were no sprawling amounts of public housing in Ludon County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia. Manhattan in general is wealthy, PERIOD. How many urban/city centers do you know that are in essence wealthier than suburban counties in the United States? None. Manhattan is a fabulous abnormality. Imagine how much more wealthy Manhattan would be if the projects were destroyed and the Medicaid set vanished! Not only would my view be even more stunning and not obstructed by those dreadful brown structures, I'm guessing that Manhattan's TRUE median income would be north of $120,000.

Furthermore, according to the 2006 IRS reports, the median income in Manhattan is $60,000 and there are more people who earn >$50,000 than <$50,000. The two largest/most populated income groups are the $200,000+ and (105,000 households) and the middle-class (tied at 105,000+ households) followed by the $99,000-$149,000 and so forth. In this case, should we not assume that the poor are the ones dragging the average down, not the middle/upper-middle/wealthy classes as you've dismissed as skewed data?

Getting back to the original argument and addressing your haute couture client vs. pret-a-porter analogy. By "rich" I did not necessarily mean the fabulous stomping out of 15 Central Park West and into Maybach 57S via Yves Saint Laurent shod feet with alligator Hermès Haut A Courroie Birkin luggage en route to Teterboro's private aviation runway rich; I was referring to the average (the upper-middle class) rich...you know, the young urban professional who occasionally shops at Prada, Bergdorf, Jeffrey New York, lounges/ dines at Masa or NOBU and goes to art galleries, i.e. the "YUPPIE". To put it into perspective, raw and very high amounts of wealthy/high spending clients is what luxury establishments assess before opening shop which is the reason why DC is sorely lacking in this sector and is stuck with the likes of Nordstrom, Macy's and a small sprinkle of luxury. This is also the reason why there are NOBU, Prada, Gucci's and general luxury everywhere in the borough and Manhattan has been dubbed as "Disneyland for the yuppies", if you will. According to LVMH and the Gucci Group and New York was by (very far) the leader in United States sales thanks to us yuppies and wealthy clients.

Anyway, as I was saying, Manhattan is yuppie land and the projects should be strapped with grenades and be burned to the ground.

Auf Wiedersehen!

excuse me? don't you mean manhattan south of 96th street? because we know you dont go higher than that.

[cjma79]

the govt rents public housing by income now.
So the people in Manhattan have higher income then the rest of the PJ???

...if they based it on market rate, dont you think that defeats the purpose of providing subsidized housing?
If could be market rate or lower,, to move in middle class.




its not fair...but what will relocating the projects outside of manhattan do for them?
I dont want to relocate them,, but change the way they are used...



then how come you're not proposing that they relocate a development like richmond terrace?
I dont know much of richmond terrace,, but if the market is about 1,000 or 1,200 then yes, it would be a little more fair.

i'm sure it has beautiful views of ny harbor, actually i heard it does. and its close to the ferry.



first off i dont think its wise for a family to be pulling in about 6K-8K a month and rent.
I know,, I feel the same way...

..thats simply throwing away money.
Yes it is...

they can definitely afford a 500-600K house in NYC.
Yes but not in Manhattan where they want to live...

Secondly, my prediction is that public housing is going to be geared more toward middle class people since the rents are going up so much.
Hopefully,, that is what I want...

there's rumors of a public housing project in brooklyn that went co-op, not so sure if the rumor was confirmed.
Well I really dont know about it...




they're not full...even around my way i know there's units that are sitting vacant....maybe in manhattan they're full tho.
I know that some are also closed and they cant rent them...because of condition they are in..


whats so easy about it? the average project family cant afford the luxuries manhattan has to offer, other than public transportation.
But yet they are living in Manhattan, where everybody else is trying to live in,, many cant or are struggling to pay rent. They are living in it almost free...

the problem with public housing all comes down to the actual urban planning. superblocks prove to isolate its residents and contain the ills of society. if public housing was more evenly dispersed within individual apartment buildings and low-rise developments, then crime would dramatically go down.
I agree.. if the PJ were smaller, or if more people in sec. 8 apartments, where they are spread out over the city,, it would be better. Better in crime, fairness and everything...

similar to what chicago's doing. but to put every project outside manhattan would only add to the dissent of the poor. and ultimately we want all classes to interface within the city. honestly, manhattan doesnt even have that much public housing for people to go that crazy over.
It actually has plenty, to be honest...

its greedy developers who want to pry the land from the hands of the city to put up shoddy new construction to make a quick buck. so people are crying for this land, and even if they did get it, they wont do anything constructive (no pun intended) with it...
Again,, remember I dont want to take away the PJ...

[SeventhFloor]

So the people in Manhattan have higher income then the rest of the PJ???

No...what i meant was NYCHA rents are based on income and family size.

If could be market rate or lower,, to move in middle class.

u know how much "market rate" is right? the middle class cannot afford "market rate" rent in manhattan.

I dont want to relocate them,, but change the way they are used...

suggestions?

I dont know much of richmond terrace,, but if the market is about 1,000 or 1,200 then yes, it would be a little more fair.

do you know where it is?

Yes but not in Manhattan where they want to live...

well cmon i'm sure everybody has somewhere where they want to live but cannot afford. have you heard of people trying to get into the projects in manhattan just to have cheap rent? i havent.

But yet they are living in Manhattan, where everybody else is trying to live in,, many cant or are struggling to pay rent. They are living in it almost free...

who are all these people that are trying to live in manhattan? foreigners, rich people, and college kids, thats it. the average middle class NYer is not breaking their balls to try and live in manhattan. and the ones that are thinking about living there can afford it.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by Materialism

Anyway, as I was saying, Manhattan is yuppie land and the projects should be strapped with grenades and be burned to the ground.

Not only is this not true now, it never has been. Except in the wild imaginings of a small group of people locked safely in their wealthy little fortresses.

It would be interesting if people who aren't yuppies took the same tack: burn the yuppie palaces down and banish them from the city. This might (or might not) cause them to be a little more realistic.

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by Materialism

Furthermore, according to the 2006 IRS reports, the median income in Manhattan is $60,000 and there are more people who earn >$50,000 than <$50,000. The two largest/most populated income groups are the $200,000+ and (105,000 households) and the middle-class (tied at 105,000+ households) followed by the $99,000-$149,000 and so forth. In this case, should we not assume that the poor are the ones dragging the average down, not the middle/upper-middle/wealthy classes as you've dismissed as skewed data?

I was referring to the average (the upper-middle class) rich...you know, the young urban professional who occasionally shops at Prada, Bergdorf, Jeffrey New York, lounges/ dines at Masa or NOBU and goes to art galleries, i.e. the "YUPPIE". To put it into perspective, raw and very high amounts of wealthy/high spending clients is what luxury establishments assess before opening shop which is the reason why DC is sorely lacking in this sector and is stuck with the likes of Nordstrom, Macy's and a small sprinkle of luxury.

The upper middle class are merely affluent, not rich, and there is a huge difference between the two descriptors. And, I dismissed the average statistic as skewed data, not the median which is correct in the $60k region; and while many people hover around the median on the lower side of it, that's not akin to a living wage at all in Manhattan, hence that's why moderate income housing exists.

And, I've got some news for you, $150k does not go very far in Manhattan at all, that's middle class territory, not upper middle class/ average rich. Higher wage earners do not necessarily equal higher amounts of wealth and buying power, precisely because of the increased costs to maintain a standard of living in expensive areas, such as Manhattan. Furthermore, I don't think you understand the concept of the median income and its buying power, especially in light of the way you dismissed the Washington, DC region, that has the top three counties in terms of median income, and you did say that New York County had the highest, which is not correct. Many people in DC earn way over the upper middle class/ average rich threashold that you have described for Manhattan, but that money goes much further in that region, so locically they are an average rich population, but since they don't conspicuously consume and overextend, they are to be dismissed? New York has more luxury shops as it holds a unique position as a world leader for such goods, that's why more botiques are located in the city as a presence must be maintained, not exclusively for Manhattanites.

I don't know why you need to insult people, either, with the comment about an entry level three series, but since you have such a skewed view of public housing and public assistance, I guess it is a way to elevate oneself. My first BMW was a three series, an M3, but I was sixteen and that's the vehicle with which I had to live at the time, but it's just a car, not a measure of the worth of a person. I seriously could care less about what someone drives, wears, or where they shop, since I tend to have more of an egalitarian view on life, and know people of many incomes. But, my view arises when one has had to face critical, life-altering issues, that nothing so trivial as mere money could ever begin to change. There are people who have far less than I do, materially, for whom life is a joyous celebration; people who are happy to be alive ech day to celebrate milestones, large and small, with their friends and families, who are genuine, decent, hard working individuals who have incalculable reserves that do not begin to compare to money. If someone like that lives in public housing or moderate income housing and mixes with me in Manhattan, I am happy to have had the mere experience of being in their presence, to glimpse the absolute joy in their eyes, than to surround myself with the latest brigade of semi-affluent label chasers of whom I have grown tired. I agree that public housing is flawed, but demolishing it merely because one does not like the income level of those who live there, and who have lived and worked there long before such newcomeres have dropped themselves into Manhattan, is the height of arrogance.

[aj2007]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

The upper middle class are merely affluent, not rich, and there is a huge difference between the two descriptors. And, I dismissed the average statistic as skewed data, not the median which is correct in the $60k region; and while many people hover around the median on the lower side of it, that's not akin to a living wage at all in Manhattan, hence that's why moderate income housing exists.

And, I've got some news for you, $150k does not go very far in Manhattan at all, that's middle class territory, not upper middle class/ average rich. Higher wage earners do not necessarily equal higher amounts of wealth and buying power, precisely because of the increased costs to maintain a standard of living in expensive areas, such as Manhattan. Furthermore, I don't think you understand the concept of the median income and its buying power, especially in light of the way you dismissed the Washington, DC region, that has the top three counties in terms of median income, and you did say that New York County had the highest, which is not correct. Many people in DC earn way over the upper middle class/ average rich threashold that you have described for Manhattan, but that money goes much further in that region, so locically they are an average rich population, but since they don't conspicuously consume and overextend, they are to be dismissed? New York has more luxury shops as it holds a unique position as a world leader for such goods, that's why more botiques are located in the city as a presence must be maintained, not exclusively for Manhattanites.

I don't know why you need to insult people, either, with the comment about an entry level three series, but since you have such a skewed view of public housing and public assistance, I guess it is a way to elevate oneself. My first BMW was a three series, an M3, but I was sixteen and that's the vehicle with which I had to live at the time, but it's just a car, not a measure of the worth of a person. I seriously could care less about what someone drives, wears, or where they shop, since I tend to have more of an egalitarian view on life, and know people of many incomes. But, my view arises when one has had to face critical, life-altering issues, that nothing so trivial as mere money could ever begin to change. There are people who have far less than I do, materially, for whom life is a joyous celebration; people who are happy to be alive ech day to celebrate milestones, large and small, with their friends and families, who are genuine, decent, hard working individuals who have incalculable reserves that do not begin to compare to money. If someone like that lives in public housing or moderate income housing and mixes with me in Manhattan, I am happy to have had the mere experience of being in their presence, to glimpse the absolute joy in their eyes, than to surround myself with the latest brigade of semi-affluent label chasers of whom I have grown tired. I agree that public housing is flawed, but demolishing it merely because one does not like the income level of those who live there, and who have lived and worked there long before such newcomeres have dropped themselves into Manhattan, is the height of arrogance.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo!