U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:18 AM
 
Location: NYC
2,223 posts, read 5,124,274 times
Reputation: 1096

Advertisements

There are some NYCHA properties in great neighborhoods. And, given the lack of working/middle income housing available in NYC, I was thinking ...

Suppose a percentage of NYCHA housing could be sold as co-ops ... could it:

1) be a revenue generator for the city;
2) create a revenue stream to make physical and quality of life upgrades (new elevators, laundry rooms, playgrounds for kids., etc) in existing NYCHA properties; and
3) significantly increase the number of units on the market for working/middle class people

You might want to create two tiers:

1. Market rate
2. Limited-equity rate (less down, shareholder with voting rights without the ability to sell at a profit)

My friends didn't think it was possible because NYCHA is federal housing but it seems that's not true. Someone is thinking outside the box like me. Check it out:

New York City Housing Authority

To answer my own question, I'll say, yes, I might do it.

Last edited by queensgrl; 07-10-2011 at 12:10 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Crown Heights
965 posts, read 2,370,275 times
Reputation: 523
It depends on what pj's but for the most part, non-cipher (no). But you do bring up some valid points, not to mention it would decentralize poverty. My only problem is that making sure it remains for working and middle class families and not to be capitalized on by developers like Cooper Village and Stuy Town.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:36 AM
 
106 posts, read 240,841 times
Reputation: 60
Did you know that there are luxury buildings that from what I read (correct me if I'm wrong) provide low income housing apartments within the building. So I guess there will be one tenant paying $3000 a month and others paying $1000 a month.
The pjs tend to have a negative stigma so I don't know if it would work. but I guess it would be worth a try. the city waste tax dollars on much more senseless things like bike lanes. why not something important like a place to live.
As for the original question, no I would not buy an apartment in the pj's.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:37 AM
 
Location: NYC
2,223 posts, read 5,124,274 times
Reputation: 1096
Quote:
Originally Posted by twist07 View Post
It depends on what pj's but for the most part, non-cipher (no). But you do bring up some valid points, not to mention it would decentralize poverty. My only problem is that making sure it remains for working and middle class families and not to be capitalized on by developers like Cooper Village and Stuy Town.
Exactly ... no developers whatsoever. They are part of the reason why things are so lopsided with housing in NYC right now.

I was on a cruise around Manhattan yesterday and this popped into my mind as we passed the PJs on the LES and Red Hook. I'd say the same thing for Queensbridge, maybe the Rockaways. Castle Hill in the Bronx.

I mean, there's potential in a lot of this property. It's worth a fortune so NYC, do something with it before the developers convince you to turn it over the them ... 'cause if that happens... IMO, all bets for affordable housing in NYC are off.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 11:41 AM
 
Location: NYC
2,223 posts, read 5,124,274 times
Reputation: 1096
Quote:
Originally Posted by fivefourthreetwoone View Post
Did you know that there are luxury buildings that from what I read (correct me if I'm wrong) provide low income housing apartments within the building. So I guess there will be one tenant paying $3000 a month and others paying $1000 a month.
The pjs tend to have a negative stigma so I don't know if it would work. but I guess it would be worth a try. the city waste tax dollars on much more senseless things like bike lanes. why not something important like a place to live.
As for the original question, no I would not buy an apartment in the pj's.
Someone I know mentioned that they know someone who got into a luxury building via lottery because 2% of the apartments were set aside for low income housing.

I never knew it until last night when we were chatting and cruising around Manhattan.

BTW, if you haven't been on one of those cruises, I highly recommend. We had a blast
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 12:00 PM
 
3,327 posts, read 4,093,451 times
Reputation: 2882
If the price was right, without a doubt. Mainly as an investment.

Things change and the PJ's won't stay PJ's forever. If the discount was significant enough, I'd have no problem waiting 20 or 25 years for things to change.

If things don't change, I wouldn't lose much either way.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 12:04 PM
 
31 posts, read 64,387 times
Reputation: 17
It was done in the UK in the 80s - 'Right to Buy' under Thatcher. Only longstanding tenants can/could but to begin with and I think some restrictions at first but after a while you can buy/sell freely. It was a success to a certain extent but the knock-on effect is less social housing for those in need.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 12:17 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,223 posts, read 5,124,274 times
Reputation: 1096
Quote:
Originally Posted by lillyrobeson View Post
It was done in the UK in the 80s - 'Right to Buy' under Thatcher. Only longstanding tenants can/could but to begin with and I think some restrictions at first but after a while you can buy/sell freely. It was a success to a certain extent but the knock-on effect is less social housing for those in need.
Well, one thing I know is that there are working/middle income people living in the projects because, for example, an elderly relative moved away, and their working, middle class grandchild is living there. A middle aged woman with an empty nest, who now has a good job is still living there. So, there are units that could be available to re-enter the pool for "those in need."

I have no idea how existing housing is audited to ensure that who is living there is supposed to be living there. Something tells me it's not monitored very carefully.

Last edited by queensgrl; 07-10-2011 at 12:39 PM..
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 12:20 PM
 
Location: NY,NY
2,896 posts, read 9,428,797 times
Reputation: 2063
I'm confused, are saying that Public Housing s/b converted to cooperative housing, correct?

Also, you are inquiring whether non-residents of public housing w/b interested in purchasing converted public housing, correct?

Ahhhh, let's say that is a reality, what happened to the present residents? Are they simply displaced? What you are really talking about is the extension of Gentrification to Public Housing. Political nightmare!

This is similar, to a degree, to the intent of the purchaser of Stuyvesant Town---that is to upgrade tenants and consequently revenue. Yet there are significant differences which preclude a similar occurence with regard to public housing.

While many may consider Stuyvesant Town as public housing, it is not. It was privately developed and privately owned and managed. Consequently, politics is a very small factor, and ultimately no factor at all. The project has failed because the economics were ridiculously overestimated!

Public housing, on the other hand, was government developed, and is government owned and operated. The fact of it IS political. Politics would drive any change and outcome re public housing.

Politics would demand that any conversion w/b in the interest not of the surrounding neighborhood, but in the interest of the present residents. It would have to be that the present residents be made owners, and comprise 100% of ownership.

So, the real question is WHAT such a conversion would and/or might achieve, in regard of the residents, and/or the greater community?

Also, bringing it back to the OP's original question, given that at some point such converted housing would come to the open market, would these apartment sell to buyers not acclimated to life in public housing.

Based simply on the physical nature of the buildings and apartments, NO, personally I would not.

Given that such a conversion would create a more positive living environment, and the buildings and apartments have undergone significant renovation, personally, I would not.

First, if the same bldg and apt configuration was maintained, then the density w/b prohibitive. Too many people crammed together. Even if apts were combined creating lower density, what could be done with the 3 feet wide hallways, and other cost saving measures made in the buildings' original design and infrastructure.

IMO, the buildings would need to be gut renovated. If that be the case, might as well be torn down and the land redeveloped.

Anyway, politics, politics, politics....
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2011, 12:36 PM
 
Location: NYC
2,223 posts, read 5,124,274 times
Reputation: 1096
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcoltrane View Post
I'm confused, are saying that Public Housing s/b converted to cooperative housing, correct?

Also, you are inquiring whether non-residents of public housing w/b interested in purchasing converted public housing, correct?
Whoa .... Slow down and let me answer your first two questions and let's take it from there ...

1. No, I'm not saying that it should ALL be converted into cooperative housing. I'm saying that a portion of it -- across all of NYCHA -- could be.

2. Yes, I am inquiring as to who might be interested in purchasing an apartment in a public housing project that would be part of a cooperative of apartments (again -- not in one specific PJ, but across several).

I'm sure we can agree that there are people in the PJs who don't belong because they are above the income threshold or below the family size threshold. Maybe these could be insider, early adopters???

Anyway, I would consider it. I'm single, have no kids and I would love to live in one of the neighborhoods where some of these PJs are. Without an alternative, affordable way of doing it (like this) I would never be able to.

BTW, this is already on the drawing board, as per the link I included in my OP. I just thought about it yesterday and did a Google search, and there it was.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top