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.
They are (and of course they get their money back; the kind of people who finance these developments don't do anything they can't maximize their return on). The question is whether it's still good value for you.
My lottery apartment has lower-end finishes, including flooring, and smaller/cheaper appliances than the market-rate apartments do. (I peeked in several because I moved in when the building was still mostly empty and many apartments were left open for showing.) They're of an acceptable level to me, so I took it, but of course I've noticed all the obvious cut corners and the sloppy construction. It does reflect disdain and indifference, but it seems to me that's a problem to solve on the structural level.
THANK YOU! When we left the building, we called the person we've been dealing with who's supposed to send us the info for the lease signing. Her response was, "I'm pretty sure the fridge that's in there, will stay there." I told her there is an obvious gap, the fridge that was fitted for that area is not the fridge in our apt. I said also, there are tiles in our patio that are not finished. She said, I'll inquire about the fridge but I'm pretty sure that's the fridge you're getting. She said she'll put in a request for the tiles.
So, I'm not sure how to ask them to please give us what is supposed to be in there.
First you have to realize that market rate apartments vs affordable ones are only identical in size and layout. Furniture and appliances will differ. A developer is not going to throw in top of the line appliances into an affordable apartment, this is a case of you get what you pay for. That fridge in the market rate unit is over $1000.
By your pictures market rate apartments have Graystone Shaker style cabinets which are expensive, and affordable ones have standard, that is acceptable. Chances are the cabinets in the market rate apartments all have soft closing drawers and doors and the ones in the affordable units have the cheap ones that slam.
For you to demand them put a expensive double freezer fridge into an affordable apartment is the last thing you should be concerned about, I would just focus on the joy they didn't go with the cheap default white stove and white fridge.
First you have to realize that market rate apartments vs affordable ones are only identical in size and layout. Furniture and appliances will differ. A developer is not going to throw in top of the line appliances into an affordable apartment, this is a case of you get what you pay for. That fridge in the market rate unit is over $1000.
By your pictures market rate apartments have Graystone Shaker style cabinets which are expensive, and affordable ones have standard, that is acceptable. Chances are the cabinets in the market rate apartments all have soft closing drawers and doors and the ones in the affordable units have the cheap ones that slam.
For you to demand them put a expensive double freezer fridge into an affordable apartment is the last thing you should be concerned about, I would just focus on the joy they didn't go with the cheap default white stove and white fridge.
The developers are following the guidelines set by the city and state. Obviously the city is not requiring developers to have identical appliances in affordable units, and builders are cutting corners where they can.
I do think it depends on how much the affordable resident is paying. In my friend's case, she is in the 60% bracket. Her apartment is less than $900 in a building where market-rate studios are close to $3,000. She has access to a roof deck and barbecue, although there might be a fee for that, and a hangout room. Her building doesn't have a poor door, and so she has the same doorman as everyone else. She's okay with the lesser finishes in her apartment.
If you're in the 130% or 165% bracket, and you're paying almost market rate for your apartment, you may be looking for more luxuries. I wouldn't blame anyone for that.
I have noticed as a general trend that more and more affordable units are getting dishwashers and washer/dryers.
But it shouldn't depend on which income bracket you fall into. It's about justice.
You sort of give your class bias away. Two people, both winners of the lottery, one deserves better appliances because they make more money? That just leads to a better quality of life for someone, just for having a more privileged position in society. Lower quality goods leads to lower quality performance, and to quicker replacement of such goods. Being poor is expensive.
People should be grateful for what they have, but that same logic is rarely enforced on the rich. Where accumulating more and more wealth is seen as praiseworthy.
The housing lottery is here to make lives better for people in our broken society.
The rules are already broken. Even if they can get away legally with giving poor people worse services, that should be fought. I encourage the original poster not to take this sitting down and organize with others who are also unfairly treated. Strength in numbers.
But it shouldn't depend on which income bracket you fall into. It's about justice.
You sort of give your class bias away. Two people, both winners of the lottery, one deserves better appliances because they make more money? That just leads to a better quality of life for someone, just for having a more privileged position in society. Lower quality goods leads to lower quality performance, and to quicker replacement of such goods. Being poor is expensive.
People should be grateful for what they have, but that same logic is rarely enforced on the rich. Where accumulating more and more wealth is seen as praiseworthy.
The housing lottery is here to make lives better for people in our broken society.
The rules are already broken. Even if they can get away legally with giving poor people worse services, that should be fought. I encourage the original poster not to take this sitting down and organize with others who are also unfairly treated. Strength in numbers.
The person paying the higher amount does deserve a better apartment, yes. This is still capitalism, however flawed.
Years ago we had the Mitchell Lama program. It was quite a success, managing to build scads of middle income housing all over NYC and NYS. Were the apartments luxurious? Not at all. They were basic, decent housing, and people were glad to get them. Heck, even TODAY people compete for the remaining ML apartments.
Today we don't have money for middle income housing coming from the city and state. So the city has teamed up with private developers, offering tax breaks for affordable housing. So what are the developers building, for the most part? Luxury housing, because that's what makes the most sense financially for THEM. Does it make the most sense for the city? No. The city wants to give people affordable housing, not luxury housing. The two are very different.
So just because your affordable unit happens to be located inside a luxury building, that doesn't mean you're entitled to luxury apartment. As a taxpayer, I'm happy to see people get affordable, decent housing. They don't need a fancy fridge too. Just my humble opinion.
If a person pays for market rate apartment while someone pays 40-50% + less with a fixed rent increase seems a bit unfair too no?
The developer got a tax cut as their benefit while people got their apartment for a 30% of their salary as rent expense with fixed rate as benefit... There's also a spillover effect with the community you get. Might not be the neighborhood in itself but the people in your building could be a positive effect to someone or their child.
The person paying the higher amount does deserve a better apartment, yes. This is still capitalism, however flawed.
Years ago we had the Mitchell Lama program. It was quite a success, managing to build scads of middle income housing all over NYC and NYS. Were the apartments luxurious? Not at all. They were basic, decent housing, and people were glad to get them. Heck, even TODAY people compete for the remaining ML apartments.
Today we don't have money for middle income housing coming from the city and state. So the city has teamed up with private developers, offering tax breaks for affordable housing. So what are the developers building, for the most part? Luxury housing, because that's what makes the most sense financially for THEM. Does it make the most sense for the city? No. The city wants to give people affordable housing, not luxury housing. The two are very different.
So just because your affordable unit happens to be located inside a luxury building, that doesn't mean you're entitled to luxury apartment. As a taxpayer, I'm happy to see people get affordable, decent housing. They don't need a fancy fridge too. Just my humble opinion.
Spot on. Seem like these people trying to encourage the OP to go start making noise about wanting luxury appliances in an affordable apartment when they're not even in the apartment yet. The owner is required to provide a working stove and a working fridge, they provided that. It doesn't require the owner to provide a luxury stove and luxury fridge.
It appears the building in question seems to be 523 Franklin and there appears to only be 80% AMI and 130% AMI. OP never stated what bracket they fell into but going from Street Easy a studio at market rate is above $2000. So if OP do fall into the 80% AMI, making noise about a fridge that cost more than what the rent is for one of those 80% units isnt something to start a fight with management about.
Spot on. Seem like these people trying to encourage the OP to go start making noise about wanting luxury appliances in an affordable apartment when they're not even in the apartment yet. The owner is required to provide a working stove and a working fridge, they provided that. It doesn't require the owner to provide a luxury stove and luxury fridge.
It appears the building in question seems to be 523 Franklin and there appears to only be 80% AMI and 130% AMI. OP never stated what bracket they fell into but going from Street Easy a studio at market rate is above $2000. So if OP do fall into the 80% AMI, making noise about a fridge that cost more than what the rent is for one of those 80% units isnt something to start a fight with management about.
I agree. I'm going to view my apartment next week and it's in a luxury building. I don't expect to have the same brand of appliances as market rate because it's an affordable apartment. From what I have read on here most affordable units usually have cheaper appliances/finishes.
I totally get wanting a fridge that fits, but it's very minuscule issue in the grand scheme of things. Definitely inquire about it, but if you don't get the answer you want keep it moving and enjoy the apartment.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,066 posts, read 7,502,913 times
Reputation: 9791
surfing.
FYI, DS has a townhouse, built designed & built by architect and his company. European style. Won some design award. Seattle. His frig is about your size, narrow, about 55" high, and not very deep. No ice maker, no water dispenser. The theory is the western grocery is 6 blocks one direction, the asian grocery 6 blocks the other, both on the bus line. Many restaurants nearby.
Last edited by leastprime; 08-02-2020 at 10:26 PM..
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.
