[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Some people do. How else do you explain Manhattan and much of NYC. You don't honestly think with the rent controls that they actually buy do you ?

Facebook was largely in a rental property
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article...a-16115670.php

If you are really rich you might not want ownership as it can tie people down.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...ers-2019-02-07

"The affluent are increasingly renting, according to multiple studies. Indeed, renters earning $150,000 or more per year were the fastest-growing group of renters, according to a recent study by apartment listing site RentCafe.com, which analyzed pricing and demographic data from the U.S. Census, real estate listing sites Redfin and PropertyShark, and apartment real estate research firm Yardi Matrix."

Yardi is a pretty big real estate company so yes I would argue that this is true.

Except we are not talking about Manhattan, we are talking about Stamford. The majority of those being branded as “luxury” apartments are only such because they have granite counters and maybe nice cabinetry. The rest is all contractor grade appliances, hollow doors, and paper thin walls. They appeal to 20 and 30 somethings that have decent incomes. They are not wealthy.

In reference to your affluent, 150k is not “wealthy”. 150k is, as you said, affluent, and I’d argue these days, it is upper middle class in any major metropolitan area, especially Stamford. That being said, there is a difference between affluence and wealth, the latter having substantial and secure assets aside from a low six figure income. True wealthy people are not renting in a Stamford high rise operated by a management company. Full stop.

[PittsburghPatty]

I do believe wealthy people are renting given the very high end communities being developed in Connecticut. Very different than the typical pseudo luxury buildings that have gone up the past few years.

I think this new Greenwich development may attract a few wealthy types at $12,600 a month rent for a 3 bedroom/3 bath

https://www.themillgreenwich.com/

And there are very similar projects in the works.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Except we are not talking about Manhattan, we are talking about Stamford. The majority of those being branded as “luxury” apartments are only such because they have granite counters and maybe nice cabinetry. The rest is all contractor grade appliances, hollow doors, and paper thin walls. They appeal to 20 and 30 somethings that have decent incomes. They are not wealthy.

In reference to your affluent, 150k is not “wealthy”. 150k is, as you said, affluent, and I’d argue these days, it is upper middle class in any major metropolitan area, especially Stamford. That being said, there is a difference between affluence and wealth, the latter having substantial and secure assets aside from a low six figure income. True wealthy people are not renting in a Stamford high rise operated by a management company. Full stop.

Uh...not quite. The apartments at the four new buildings in Harbor Point are built a bit better than you contend. They do not have Builder grade appliances or hollow doors. I wouldn’t call their walls “paper thin” either but I’ll admit that is arguable. Also note that these buildings do have all size units from modest +400 square foot studios to massive 4 bedroom units renting for over $25,000 per month. I’d say you’d have to be pretty wealthy to afford a $25,000 per month apartment and note that those units are fully leased. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Uh...not quite. The apartments at the four new buildings in Harbor Point are built a bit better than you contend. They do not have Builder grade appliances or hollow doors. I wouldn’t call their walls “paper thin” either but I’ll admit that is arguable. Also note that these buildings do have all size units from modest +400 square foot studios to massive 4 bedroom units renting for over $25,000 per month. I’d say you’d have to be pretty wealthy to afford a $25,000 per month apartment and note that those units are fully leased. Jay

Of course you’re going to have one or two outliers, but the vast majority of them are studios, 1 and 2 bed units. That means the vast majority of people living there are not independently wealthy.

I specifically know someone who lives in Beacon Harbor Pointe and I also happen to know someone who is employed at the BLT headquarters. Yes, the doors are hollow. The appliances are not high end and the lighting fixtures are Home Depot specials. The walls are also incredibly paper thin and this is their chief complaint about the complex. The other complaint was the insane noise coming from Sign of the Whale nearby. The BLT employee I know told me awhile back Harbor Point is mostly occupied by 20-30 somethings that work full time. That is not wealth. That is the working affluent, likely a few missed paychecks away from losing their apartment. Again, we need to examine the difference between affluent and wealthy. They are absolutely not the same.

Anyway, someone suggesting a plethora of wealthy individuals are renting these apartments is way off base. That’s just not the case.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by mdovell

Some people do. How else do you explain Manhattan.

Easy. It's Manhattan. A far cry from Stamford. "Manhattan" address looks better on letterhead. Opens eyes.
Stamford's bulk is grads to 35 making a healthy salary. Rank and file to middle management.
50 year old Rockefellers aren't renting in Stamford

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

Easy. It's Manhattan. A far cry from Stamford. "Manhattan" address looks better on letterhead. Opens eyes.
Stamford's bulk is grads to 35 making a healthy salary. Rank and file to middle management.
50 year old Rockefellers aren't renting in Stamford

Exactly. True wealth is backcountry Greenwich estates, New Canaan, Darien - not Harbor Point rental apartments in Stamford.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Exactly. True wealth is backcountry Greenwich estates, New Canaan, Darien - not Harbor Point rental apartments in Stamford.

On the other hand, those same corporate rank and file 23-35 personnel don't care about construction and Wolf stoves or crystal chandeliers, atleast most don't, not for a 1 or two year rental. It's all about the rooftop pool, the gym, access to transportation and entertainemt options. It doesn't make sense for builders to go beyond builder grade. Solid foundation, maybe to bedrock, steel hanger joists and framing brackets, all buttoned up to prevent water intrusion, all to code, that's it, that's all you need. The new ones in tony Westport were built this way to.

[hvexpatinct]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

On the other hand, those same corporate rank and file 23-35 personnel don't care about construction and Wolf stoves or crystal chandeliers, atleast most don't, not for a 1 or two year rental. It's all about the rooftop pool, the gym, access to transportation and entertainemt options. It doesn't make sense for builders to go beyond builder grade. Solid foundation, maybe to bedrock, steel hanger joists and framing brackets, all buttoned up to prevent water intrusion, all to code, that's it, that's all you need. The new ones in tony Westport were built this way to.

Exactly -

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by SteveM85

On the other hand, those same corporate rank and file 23-35 personnel don't care about construction and Wolf stoves or crystal chandeliers, atleast most don't, not for a 1 or two year rental. It's all about the rooftop pool, the gym, access to transportation and entertainemt options. It doesn't make sense for builders to go beyond builder grade. Solid foundation, maybe to bedrock, steel hanger joists and framing brackets, all buttoned up to prevent water intrusion, all to code, that's it, that's all you need. The new ones in tony Westport were built this way to.

I’m well aware. The point was that wealthy people aren’t living there and the above reasons are why.

[mdovell]

Sometimes it's the difference between old money and new money. If a property is paid off and there's no maintenance issues I doubt they'd rent. But if they have money and they just want to cut a check and not really be bothered they can go the other way. I remember arguments by some that acted that home ownership meant you were more directly involved in maintaining a building vs renting which is cutting a check. Until you realize that sweat equity only goes so far. Affluent people probably aren't doing DIY for significant plumbing, electric and carpentry etc.