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.
Which is probably how even the bottom half of housing is so expensive in NYC. And also how NYC managed to have no postwar population decline; most cities lost population not just to flight but to household size decline. New York City doesn't have that much more newer housing than say, Chicago.
Hmm, this isn't quite accurate. New York population growth reached a pinnacle around 1954/55, then began to decrease. The 1970 to 1980 census marks the single greatest population drop by an American city as New York reported nearly 825 000 less residents in a ten year span. Detroit's worst population plummet would be during the same ten year time-span, losing 308 000 residents. Even Chicago, recording the second largest plummet in population over a census period, would only record 361 000 residents leaving in the 1970 - 1980 census period.
The only large cities to really grow in the 1950s to 1980s were the sunbelt cities across the South and Southwest - led by Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, Atlanta, Dallas and the rest of the southern tier cities. New York rebounded better than Chicago has since the 1980 census.
I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense to me. You can actually apply for a one bedroom apartment with another person (just a friend) upon which you will be required to submit your last two pay stubs. You may not be able to qualify for the apartment individually, but you can qualify for it once both of your incomes are combined. The leasing office is not going to demand that you pay a higher rent simply because two people would be occupying the apartment as opposed to one. They set a rate, and if two incomes are needed to pay that rate, then so be it.
Ok, the thread is about how to make rent prices lower. The thread is not about how to lwoer a person's indivual costs, but how to lower the asking price.
You responded ealier with "get a roommate". I and another poster responded that actually keeps prices up, or raises them. You did not understand how so.
So again but in a different way; if a landlord is asking $2000 for rent, and only 100 people can afford this rent, and there are 500 people who cannot afford this rent, he will either have to get one of those 100 people, lower the rent to where some of the 500 people can afford it, or the landlord can get his rent if two of the 500 people roommate up together.
The ability for two people, whether husband and wife (two income inflation problem, another topic), or two roommates enables someone like a landlord to increase the rent price as it will be expected that if not one eprosn can afford it, at least two will be able to. This is why I stated roommate cause rent prices to stay the same or increase as they still combine their incomes to emet the rent asking price. If not for this, rent prices would have to come down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
You're probably thinking of a scenario where one person qualifies for an apartment on the basis of his income and then takes on a roommate. I'm talking about a scenario where neither person can afford to rent a Manhattan apartment on their own. But with another person, they can swing the rent in a $3,000 Midtown apartment. In that instance, the landlord just can't demand a higher rent price because two people are occupying the apartment.
No, I am not thinking of any scenario. I am responding to you not understanding how roommates keep prices up for rentals.
Landlords can and do up the price for apartments if there are roommates, they do this all the time around colleges. Some are open about it, and it will just state so on the lease, others will rent each bedroom for a price, or a person gets a discount if renting the whole unit.
There are also clauses in many leases about having roommates (like my lease has). This also sometimes gets into zoning issues as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
You raised that as a hypothetical. And I told you that there was no such law. We don't really need to engage in hypotheticals here since we're dealing with a real city (i.e., NYC).
It was merely an example to demonstrate my point, not even a hypothetical.
The entire thread is based around hypotheticals, since no one here can put any idea into action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
But your hypothetical is pointless since there is no law against roommates. Where does that even exist? I mean, how would my wife and I have lived together before we married if there were a law against roommates? How would two gays live together (particularly in jurisdictions where same sex marriage is not recognized)? That's not realistic.
Again, merely an example to demonstrate my point, I did not one time state there was such a law, that i propose such a law, or anything. I stated "for example, say there is a law against roommates..."
Really, I do not know how to make it any simpler to understand than this. This is common knowledge really. It is basic economics. The larger pool of people you have that can pay for something, the better chance you have of obtaining the price you want. The less of a pool, the less of a chance, thus have to lower the price to increase the number of people in the pool.
I'm sorry but that just doesn't make any sense to me. You can actually apply for a one bedroom apartment with another person (just a friend) upon which you will be required to submit your last two pay stubs. You may not be able to qualify for the apartment individually, but you can qualify for it once both of your incomes are combined. The leasing office is not going to demand that you pay a higher rent simply because two people would be occupying the apartment as opposed to one. They set a rate, and if two incomes are needed to pay that rate, then so be it.
You're probably thinking of a scenario where one person qualifies for an apartment on the basis of his income and then takes on a roommate. I'm talking about a scenario where neither person can afford to rent a Manhattan apartment on their own. But with another person, they can swing the rent in a $3,000 Midtown apartment. In that instance, the landlord just can't demand a higher rent price because two people are occupying the apartment.
This is what I meant. If people were unwilling to room, fewer renters could afford a $3000 Manhattan apartment. With a lower demand and higher vacancies, landlords would be forced to lower prices. For those willing to have roommates, it allows them to have apartments they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. But for those unwilling, rent prices will be higher due to more demand. I'm not saying the landlords would offer a higher prices for roommates, just that supply and demand will change.
Regardless, I think the idea of building up a "second downtown" in NYC is a bad idea. The whole transit system is built on bringing people to Midtown/Downtown. An area served by only 1-2 subway lines will be too much of a PITA for many people to get to. Depending upon the location, many sorry souls might try (*gasp*) driving, which will increase congestion.
About the only places well-suited to being job centers outside of Manhattan are Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City. Both of which have (AFAIK) seen construction booms recently anyway. Due to the way the transit lines were run in the Bronx there's nowhere you see a similar concentration of lines (except around Grand Concourse to a degree), and regardless it would be too much trouble for people from Brooklyn or Queens to get there.
Well these new enhanced job centers would serve nearby residents.
It's happening as we speak, albeit slowly in comparison to residential demand.
As for the Hub: It's rapid transit accessible by both the East and West Side of Manhattan. It's also accessible by the entire Bronx via rapid transit and buses.
Sometimes it's more important what lines rather than how many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
The problem I see it with NYC is no one ever wants anything to change anywhere. The people in brownstones like their brownstones. The people in converted warehouses love their converted warehouses. The people in detached single-family housing in Staten Island and southern Queens/Brooklyn love their digs. Even the people in the ghetto don't want their neighborhoods to change too much. It's great having people invested in their neighborhoods, but clearly, something somewhere will need to densify, as they're running out of non-residential parcels to convert, and unlike other cities, redeveloping the housing projects is not feasible.
A minority of vocal NIMBYs. The city will grow more dense despite this tug-a-war.
For all those who are anti-development, tons more need housing and jobs. Some areas have even been pretty receptive to change, like the Melrose section of the Bronx.
Get ride of payola, simplify work permit rules and union work rules that the cost high via inefficiency/over staffing in building fit out and services. Also rigid zoning rules keep new construction down so not enough competition. Lowering the demand is what will happen if its too expensive vs other option since new construction is not easy in NYC
We went over this on another thread but to New Yorkers, we already have three at least three downtowns - Downtown Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn. In Queens you have on a smaller scale, LIC like you mentioned but also Jamaica and Flushing. Other "downtown" places may include the Bronx Hub, Fordham (Fordham Rd) and Flatbush.
A vibrant local retail hub is one thing. But I thought you were advocating secondary business districts, complete with blocks of skyscrapers. And that's just a bad idea for the same reason suburban sprawl is a bad idea (albeit to a lesser degree. Transit systems work best when jobs are concentrated.
This pretty much shows part of what I was thinking. Even though the average population density of NYC is high, there are plenty of lower-density areas. Many of these are pretty far from any subway line, but in some cases a congruence can be found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
New York would be better off with fewer people, not more. Want to wake up at 8:00am to hit some tennis balls? Damn. All the courts are taken. And there's a line of people waiting to hit. Wanna shoot some hoops? Courts are taken. Want to do some work at a coffee shop? No tables. It's these little every day things that people don't have to think about in pretty much every other city in the country. There are diminishing returns to density at a certain point.
Absolutely. Look, I'm not a lover of residential towers. There's been an argument that too much highrise development results in a net decline in streetlife, because it becomes too much of a pain to leave your building. I think the rowhouse is pretty much the ideal urban density. Large portions of NYC are at this level. Other portions are above, and a pretty large section (given the overall high density) is well below this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Maybe those people wanting to live in Manhattan but can't afford it can move to Pittsburgh?
Absolutely. Look, I'm not a lover of residential towers. There's been an argument that too much highrise development results in a net decline in streetlife, because it becomes too much of a pain to leave your building. I think the rowhouse is pretty much the ideal urban density. Large portions of NYC are at this level. Other portions are above, and a pretty large section (given the overall high density) is well below this.
Where these spots? Almost all them are well away from any subway line. The only ones that could be well below row house density is the light yellow and white tracts (below 50 / acre or 32,000 / square mile — that's almost double the density of row house tracts in Lawrencville). Most of Philly would be yellow or white, including most rowhouse neighborhoods. And much of London, exculding the innermost boroughs. Pittsburgh rowhouses have less people due to smaller household size, but if all housing stock in NYC was magically replaced by Pittsburgh rowhouses, outside of Staten Island the areas that'd get denser would be limited.
You could densify say, eastern Queens (mostly light yellow) but that's not really where the expensive housing is. Though not cheap, it's not that different price-wise from Long Island across the border, which in many ways it has more in common with than the denser parts of the city.
Where these spots? Almost all them are well away from any subway line. The only ones that could be well below row house density is the light yellow and white tracts (below 50 / acre or 32,000 / square mile — that's almost double the density of row house tracts in Lawrencville). Most of Philly would be yellow or white, including most rowhouse neighborhoods. And much of London, exculding the innermost boroughs. Pittsburgh rowhouses have less people due to smaller household size, but if all housing stock in NYC was magically replaced by Pittsburgh rowhouses, outside of Staten Island the areas that'd get denser would be limited.
You could densify say, eastern Queens (mostly light yellow) but that's not really where the expensive housing is. Though not cheap, it's not that different price-wise from Long Island across the border, which in many ways it has more in common with than the denser parts of the city.
I think any real plan to densify NYC would have to consider some serious upgrades/expansions to the existing subway system. Things like a tunnel/rail bridge to Staten Island, along with extension of lines into Eastern Queens and the portions of Southeast Brooklyn currently without Subway access.
If New York rent prices are so high because there's such a demand for real estate in the city why don't private investors build taller buildings around subway stops so that more people can fit conveniently thus slowly reducing rent since there are more units available. And since they would be built near a subway stop they could be placed in the dying areas of the Bronx or as far out as Flushing and it would be an easy commute into Manhattan.
You can't just build a building. There are all kinds of codes to which you must adhere. Essentially, New York City rent prices are as high as they are because people are willing to pay those prices to live in New York City. If there was nobody willing to pay current NYC rent prices, and the rental units sat vacant as a result, the rent prices would be reduced until the demand met the supply. Having been a landlord myself, I promise you, it's hardly more complex than supply and demand. As for the neighborhoods you mentioned, if some area of the Bronx is dying, it stands to reason that people are moving out. I'm sure rent would be lower there.
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.
