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.
a coop is a building owned by a corporation (usually non profit) whose stock is all owned by the residents. ownership of the stock brings with it the right to live in one specified apartment. The owner can sell their shares, when they do they move out and the buyer moves in. While there are some legal and financial differences, in many respects it is similar to a condo.
People can and do pass their coops to family members. They cannot be tossed out. Coop fees cover costs of operation, taxes, and, the building mortgage until it is paid off.
I grew up in a coop. My parents made a nice profit when they sold. Had I been living in NYC at the time, and wanted to stay there, I could have kept the shares (and thus, the apt).
Well now, let's stop and think about this. The OP contends that New York City in the 1970s was the worst time for ANY city in the United States.
I humbly beg to differ. My contenders for that title would be either Newark or Detroit in 1967. Or perhaps Watts in '68. Let's be honest: however bad things were here in New York, we still never had the riots like they did in those cities.
Oh wow! Two buildings are Jewish! Thats a sight to see.... I don't think theres many 'kids and grandkids of the original residents' left either, I bet the landlord got them out anyway possible, are you kidding me? The prices people are paying for apartments now...you must be crazy.
Jesus, why do you not educate yourself before you call me crazy. It's not two buildings, there are over 4,500 apartments in four different complexes. And there is no landlord. They're co-ops. The nation's first co-ops. They were Mitchell-Lama. They had price caps until the late 90's but even after then people have held on to them. Why sell unless you want to leave NYC altogether? You'll not get a bigger place in Manhattan for the money you'd pocket. And people have strong community ties there. There's also a co-op board "flip tax" to prevent people from treating them purely as RE investment.
I know plenty of people in the buildings. Their apartments have been passed down from their grandparents. It's in Manhattan, but kind of out of the way so it's off the radar. The units don't come up for sale that much. 1 BRs are going for 400K.
Well now, let's stop and think about this. The OP contends that New York City in the 1970s was the worst time for ANY city in the United States.
I humbly beg to differ. My contenders for that title would be either Newark or Detroit in 1967. Or perhaps Watts in '68. Let's be honest: however bad things were here in New York, we still never had the riots like they did in those cities.
I doubt things were as bad as :
41st Precinct [Hunts Point (Bronx)] 2.1 Square Miles
Murder: 102
Rape: 74
Robbery: 2,600
Assault: 1,000
Burglary: 6,400
Community Population: 25,000
Murder Rate: 408 murders per 100,000 people a year
Ahh. The south Bronx comes in handy. The HuntsPoint neighborhood in 1971 had a murder rate of 408 per 100,000. Think about that for a second, and let it sink in. Ok, now here's something else for you to bite your teeth into:
A study of three streets in its HuntsPoint section, published in 1969 by The New York Times, found that residents had only a one in 20 chance of dying of natural causes—most were murdered or died of drug overdoses.
edit: the link that I got the above from is not working. But take my word for it.
I was speechless when I read that. Finally, let me leave you with this tidbit. In 1971, HuntsPoint, you had a 1 in 10 chance of being a robbery victim.
41st Precinct [Hunts Point (Bronx)] 2.1 Square Miles
Murder: 102
Rape: 74
Robbery: 2,600
Assault: 1,000
Burglary: 6,400
Community Population: 25,000
Murder Rate: 408 murders per 100,000 people a year
Ahh. The south Bronx comes in handy. The HuntsPoint neighborhood in 1971 had a murder rate of 408 per 100,000. Think about that for a second, and let it sink in. Ok, now here's something else for you to bite your teeth into:
A study of three streets in its HuntsPoint section, published in 1969 by The New York Times, found that residents had only a one in 20 chance of dying of natural causes—most were murdered or died of drug overdoses.
edit: the link that I got the above from is not working. But take my word for it.
I was speechless when I read that. Finally, let me leave you with this tidbit. In 1971, HuntsPoint, you had a 1 in 10 chance of being a robbery victim.
But you can't compare Hunts Point alone to all of Detroit. Hunts Point is a small neighborhood. I'm sure you could find a neighborhood of similar size in Detroit that's just as bad. It looks like half that city's houses are abandoned.
But you can't compare Hunts Point alone to all of Detroit. Hunts Point is a small neighborhood. I'm sure you could find a neighborhood of similar size in Detroit that's just as bad. It looks like half that city's houses are abandoned.
Maybe a block or 2. But I doubt you can find a neighborhood of 25,000 which is as bad. There are not 25,000 people living in abandoned neighborhoods.
Maybe a block or 2. But I doubt you can find a neighborhood of 25,000 which is as bad. There are not 25,000 people living in abandoned neighborhoods.
That Hunts Point murder rate is awful. I don't know the actual murder rates in Detroit's neighboorhoods, now or back then, but Detroit's pretty rough.
Have you been there? The only reason there's not 25,000 people living in abandoned neighborhoods is because the neighborhoods are literally abandoned. About a third of Detroit's houses, across the whole city, are empty. In 8 Mile they showed them setting fire to an abandoned house. There are so many empty houses people do that stuff for fun in Detroit on the 4th of July.
But you can't compare Hunts Point alone to all of Detroit. Hunts Point is a small neighborhood. I'm sure you could find a neighborhood of similar size in Detroit that's just as bad. It looks like half that city's houses are abandoned.
its real funny and ironic that during the 70s and 80s Detrioit was a symbol of hope and prosperity for the rest of the nation while NYC. It was the center of auto manufracturing and everyone had a house and good job in the auto industry. Thats not the case anymore. What NYC expierenced in the 70s and 80s Detroit is expierencing now.
NYC in the 70s was reminiscent of a 3rd world country.
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.
. I don't think theres many 'kids and grandkids of the original residents' left either, I bet the landlord got them out anyway possible, are you kidding me? The prices people are paying for apartments now...you must be crazy.
