Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 09-17-2007, 09:14 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,740,390 times
Reputation: 1344

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvira Black View Post
Roseba says:

OK--where were the middle class living back in the day? The northwest Bronx for one, which was considered a substantial step above Manhattan living.
The middle class was living all over the city, including in some parts of manhattan.

Quote:
Where did most middle class folks live? Outside of Manhattan (including the suburbs) as soon as they could afford it. That's one reason Manhattan was affordable back then--cramped spaces, unsafe 'hoods, not child-friendly.
The point wasn't that it was Manhattan. The point was, is that a person making a middle class salary could save enough equity in a few years to put a down payment on a home, meaning more than two bedrooms, and possible even an extra 1/2 bath, and a postage stamp yard in the other 4 boroughs.

Heck, my dad bought a 1/2 brownstone in the East Village in the 70's, and I can assure you, his income was very middle class, and on the low end at that time.

Can a Police, Firefighter, or Transit worker do that now in ANY borough?

Quote:
As far as coops, I doubt that Manhattan coop dwellers (virtually the only type of home ownership available in the borough) feel that they don't "own" their very pricey coop apts or that they are a bad investment.
They can remain deluded about who controls their world, but the reality is their is extremely limited autonomy in those situations.

Quote:
If you were middle class back in the day, you moved out of Manhattan.
That's not necessarily true. We lived in Manhattan for over a decade, and owned our property.

 
Old 09-17-2007, 09:15 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,740,390 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by TalonR718 View Post
Better to be an involved dreamer and make a difference than only dwell on negativity. Besides I am sure we have all heard the saying one man's trash is another's treasure. LOL Smile NYC is great! Good and bad it's still a great place to live. With so many people here the amount of issues we have aren't so overwhelming. Nothing is perfect.

If one can not talk realistically about the problems NYC faces, then no one will ever demand more from their politicans.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 09:18 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,740,390 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by briarwood View Post
EXCUSE ME!?!?!?!?

Briarwood is nicer than 99% of the other garbage out there. Diverse, clean and accessable to the E/F trains. Get a clue

I know exactly what Briarwood looks like. A good friend of mine lived there.

Very few supermarkets. No bookstores (unless you go to Forest Hills), no movie theaters.

I wasn't dissing Briarwood. I was using it as an example. The example is this:

Living in the city limits, and paying exhorbatant housing prices, while traveling an hour or more to get to all the cool stuff, is hardly living the life of an urbanite. It's more like a poor substitution of both urban and suburban living.

If you want to travel an HOUR to get to everything worthwhile, then it is a lot like living in the burbs. The burbs shouldn't cost an arm and a leg and be so crowded and confined.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
1,526 posts, read 5,593,045 times
Reputation: 301
I just checked the NY Times real estate section and saw some phenomenal deals in Riverdale--2 beds for 200-250K, many with amenities like doormen, pools, river views, etc. And as I've mentioned, you can get 1 beds for a steal in the Bronx (110K and up), but prices are starting to rise.

In some (many) cases, you may pay less in mortgage and maintenance than you might in rent.

I guess it's partly a matter of what you really want. When you're young, Manhattan is wonderful, and you used to be able to live there on a low-ish salary. Even if the apts were not the best, it was worth it.

Since I'm older now, I want to live like an "adult." This includes a real kitchen, ample space, great view, landscaped grounds, a safe, gated community. I don't feel the need to go into Manhattan everyday, and when I do it seems a bit boring to me now! Been there, done that. If I want books, I can have them delivered on Amazon.com.

I had a coop on the LES that cost 8 grand. My ex boyfriend and I sold it this April for 450K. It was sad to give up Manhattan, but I had no choice since we were no longer a couple, and I find there are things about the Bronx that I like better than Manhattan. In fact, I couldn't be happier. However, the LES is now a much more desirable destination. Even if you consider it a "dump," it's in Manhattan and close to other downtown areas.

The East Village in the 70s was not a chic place to live--hope your dad got a good deal if/when he sold. Lot of things are a manner of timing. Many folks back then wouldn't touch the area with a ten foot pole. Thinking back about how things were in the 70s through rose colored glasses and forgetting how rough most of Manhattan was back then is pretty futile. When an area gets more desirable, prices go up. It's not that hard to fathom...

Roseba, the fact that you site only a few examples of areas worth living in that are incredibly expensive now means that you will continue to be very dissatisfied here. In NYC most people have to live with tradeoffs of some kind. And many areas that were dumps decades ago are now completely unaffordable. Why? Because they now have the amenities that you seek, in part because the hoods became more developed as more people discovered the areas.

Back in the 70s, some artists rented loftspace, invested lots of money into making them residential, and then got kicked out because they didn't own when the area became chic. "Urban pioneers" in areas like Tribeca had no amenities--no grocery stores, etc. It was an urban wasteland.

Manhattan is not all that. If you read the Times real estate section, there are, for example, two recent horrific stories of young folks who tried to "live the dream" with disastrous results. One couple moved a number of times thinking they would get a better situation. Now they're living with bedbugs.

You may be cynical about co-ops and which neighborhoods are livable, but I strongly disagree. To each their own. But I will say that those who lived in the sketchy areas and invested then are not bitter now. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 11:05 AM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,740,390 times
Reputation: 1344
I thought I responded to this post compehensively but I don't see the post.

City Living

1) City living is meant for walking.
2) City living is meant for enjoying what you can't do on the internet.

Hearing music, tasting wonderful and exotic cuisines, buying things that you might have to buy on the internet were they not available locally, seeing art, going to museums.

3) City living is extemely expensive
4) City living is smaller indoor spaces, and sometimes substandard housing.
5) Parking is almost non-existant

Suburbian living

A) Surburbia was built for cars and vehicular transport. You can usually park your car.
B) Suburbia is usually small or large houses, with larger rooms and storage than most apartments. It also has grass, and backyards.
C) Suburbia is cleaner and quieter.
D) Suburbia is absent of cultural amenities.
E) Suburbia involves longish commutes and you have to drive almost everywhere for even milk.
E) Living in the suburbs is almost always substantially cheaper, and makes the commute worthwhile because of what you gain..


What is an 'inner-city suburb'?

Let's go through the list:

1) City living is meant for walking.

You can walk, but there isn't anywhere to walk to.
2) Hearing music, tasting wonderful and exotic cuisines, buying things that you might have to buy on the internet were they not available locally, seeing art, going to museums.

Hearing music is rare. Exotic cuisines. Maybe if you are in an ethnic neighborhood, and it will be limited to ONE ethnicity. Health food stores? Not on your life. Good shopping for housewares, or clothing or shoes. Rarely in some neighborhoods, but rarely ALL of those are available. Art? Bookstores? Almost unheard of. Museums. Nope.

3) City living is extemely expensive

Inner-city suburbia is almost as expensive.

4) City living is smaller indoor spaces, and sometimes substandard housing.

Inner-city suburbia is slightly cheaper, and slightly larger. But not significantly enough.

5) Parking is almost non-existant There is no parking, still.

C) Suburbia is cleaner and quieter.

Inner-city suburbia may be quieter or not. Depends on the area. It is still pretty dirty.

E) Suburbia involves longish commutes and you have to drive almost everywhere for even milk.

You don't have to get in a car to buy milk, but for pretty much everything else you still do.

E) Living in the suburbs is almost always substantially cheaper, and makes the commute worthwhile because of what you gain..

You don't gain that much in lieu of the distance you travel.


So to sum up inner-city suburbia

I) It's crowded and appears to be very urban. But it lacks the cultural amenities that make urban life worthwhile.
II) You can walk to some things, but few things that are worthwhile other than stores offer basic life necessities, like milk and shampoo.
III) There may be some restarants, but their quality is mediocre at best. It's tastier eating at home, and less expensive. Especially since most neighborhoods have a scant variety of different cuisines within the neighborhood.
IV) There is little green space. The domiciles are rather smallish, but slightly bigger than a real city.
V) It's still expensive.
VI) It's just as dirty as living in the thick of the city
VII) The commutes are long, even though you aren't really in the suburbs.

- The 4 boroughs are 'inner-city suburbs' sans a few elite neighborhoods. The cost of living in them, in turn with the tradeoffs, are not worthwhile.
- If you can't walk there, or get there in less than 15 minutes by transport, then you are living a facade of city life.
- If it looks like a city, but doesn't have those things to offer, it is really an 'inner-city suburb'.

$200-$250K requires a minimal income of $70K just to get by. That's higher than the median household income in NYC. What's a mortgage like on that amount? It's got to be at least $600 a month with a $300 maintenance fee... mimimum. Unless you are already popping out $2K a month for rent, you aren't living more cheaply.

I'd like to ask.... On what universe does $250K for a smallish space in an inner-city suburb sound like a good thing? That's a whole lot of moola for very little space and not that much quality.

That's why living in NYC as a middle class person is a huge rip off.

Inner-City Suburbia is the worst of both worlds and the best of neither of those worlds, sans walking to buy milk and a good public transport system.

I'd rather have suburbia or city life, but not this wierd hybrid.

Last edited by roseba; 09-17-2007 at 12:01 PM..
 
Old 09-17-2007, 12:11 PM
 
3,570 posts, read 3,740,390 times
Reputation: 1344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elvira Black View Post
Back in the 70s, some artists rented loftspace, invested lots of money into making them residential, and then got kicked out because they didn't own when the area became chic. "Urban pioneers" in areas like Tribeca had no amenities--no grocery stores, etc. It was an urban wasteland.

[..]

The East Village in the 70s was not a chic place to live--hope your dad got a good deal if/when he sold. Lot of things are a manner of timing. Many folks back then wouldn't touch the area with a ten foot pole. Thinking back about how things were in the 70s through rose colored glasses and forgetting how rough most of Manhattan was back then is pretty futile. When an area gets more desirable, prices go up. It's not that hard to fathom...
All in walking distance of civilized living. We walked to 1st avenue and went to Pete Spice...for instance. It was a long walk, but it was walking distance. That is a worthwhile tradeoff.

Now if you live in a ghetto and still have to commute an hour... that is a much bigger tradeoff.


Quote:
In NYC most people have to live with tradeoffs of some kind.
The tradeoffs are MUCH bigger than they used to be. Are you wearing colored glasses or are you blind to the differences between the tradeoffs that were necessary now vs. 20 years ago?

At what point do you say enough is enough?

First it was living in a marginal ghetto without ameneties, but at least you could walk to them.

Then it was moving further out... having to commute just a bit farther.

Now its sky rocketing costs even when you are already further out.

Where does it end? At what point does the tradeoffs become to numerous to be worthwhile.

For me, the threshold of "enough" has already past.

You got "yours" so you have already achieved your satisfaction. Would you be able to fork out $250K on your present income if you had to if you didn't already have property? Would you want to? I bet, if you didn't already have your piece of pie, you'd be looking long and hard at the value of the tradeoffs one has to make to get a piece of pie and that makes and breaks one's perspective.

I have a two year old child, and I don't want to work 80 hour weeks and still commute for what I could afford in NYC or even in the real suburbs of NYC.

I'm not moving to a walkable neighborhood anytime soon either.

That's why we want to relocate... maybe to Austin. And if we decide we don't want the grit of inner-city life there, their suburbs aren't two hours away with $350K mortgages.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
1,526 posts, read 5,593,045 times
Reputation: 301
Roseba, all I can say is that you are exaggerating , in my opinion.

The outer boroughs do have museums, and many areas have a variety of great restaurants (parts of Queens in particular) and other cultural amenities.

Take my neighborhood in the Bronx. Plenty of transit options; 40 minutes to midtown.
A beautiful well kept park down the street.
A new state of the art library that offers cultural events regularly, including a monthly lecture series in conjunction with MOMA which gives free family passes for five to MOMA. Two universities which also offer cultural events--concerts, lectures, etc.
Walking distance to Botanical Garden, Little Italy (and its incredible markets and bakeries), and the Bronx Zoo.
Two supermarkets right near the complex.
A huge armory nearby slated to be developed which will likely include movie theaters, bookstores, sports complex, dept stores etc.
A short distance to Riverdale, which has a huge shopping center and great restaurants, as well as Van Cortlandt Park.
An affordable (110K) one bed coop with 24 hour security, gated, beautiful landscaped grounds, clean and quiet, with fabulous views and ample space.
Museums a short bus ride away (Bronx museum, etc).

Why did I get my piece of the pie? Because I was willing to move from a cramped Upper East side walkup to a much less glamorous neighborhood coop with lots of space, river view, laundry, elevator, eat in windowed kitchen, and so on--in Manhattan. It was an adjustment, but the only way to win in NYC is to buy while it is affordable--before the hood becomes "discovered." In other words, you pay your dues.

Your example of 600 a month mortgage and 300 maintenance comes out to 900 a month. This is unaffordable?

Your dad had a piece of the pie in the 70s.

I hear Austin is very nice. But I don't see the point in presenting NYC in such a grave light. There are plenty of other people--millions in fact--who are happy to live here. What is the point of what you are posting, other than to convince yourself that you will be happier elsewhere? In any case, I'd be interested in what others have to say about your assertions above.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Queens
842 posts, read 4,301,876 times
Reputation: 288
Roseba considers only Manhattan to be New York City. Her logic is perverse
 
Old 09-17-2007, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
1,526 posts, read 5,593,045 times
Reputation: 301
The city is also building more affordable housing for lower/middle class; some have a combo of market rate with affordable housing.

If you look in the Daily News/post classified sections, there are frequent ads for affordable housing units being offered in all boroughs, including some in Manhattan, I believe.

Mitchell Lama coops are available, albeit on a waiting list. You have to dig around and grab it when you see it. Sometimes you have to wait for an opening.

I think you're looking for some perfect situation that doesn't exist, and perhaps never really did. We live in a capitalist society. The most desirable areas will be more expensive. Nothing shocking about it. Renting in NYC is a losing proposition. Despite your cynicism, there is nothing wrong with buying a coop. It is usually a very wise investment. Manhattan is almost 100 percent apartments, coops, and condos.
 
Old 09-17-2007, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
1,526 posts, read 5,593,045 times
Reputation: 301
Also: there are at least three vitamin/health shops in my area. Plenty of shopping on Fordham Road. Everything is cheaper, so you save money.

Living the Manhattan lifestyle is very expensive. Going out to eat, to bars, etc is nice but costs money. Very hard to live cheaply there, aside from the rent. Hard to save enough to invest in property.

You mention you have a child. Thing is, that was your choice. Many folks who have kids choose the suburbs for that reason. If you're wealthy, you can live in Manhattan in a space ample enough for children. Some move out anyway.
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.


Closed Thread




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.

© 2005-2024, 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