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'm not sure what you're saying. Yes, the apartment he is looking at is presumably unregulated. Yes, its rent is still affected by the existence of regulated apartments (whether they're RC, RS, 80/20, whatever) because regulation constricts supply. If regulation didn't exist, rents on currently unregulated apartments would fall significantly, though of course rents on regulated units would rise (well, some of them--a significant number of RS apartments, especially in the outer boroughs, have legal rents equal to or exceeding the market).
Absolutely correct.
I don't think many people realize that so many units in NYC are RS or RC. I think most believe that it;s a few here and there but the truth is (as you stated) it is closer to 50%.
The supply in Manhattan of free market apartments is simply very, very low compared to the demand. In this case, the restriction on supply is created through government policy.
Everybody keeps talking about Manhattan. What about the high rents even in most of Queens, Brooklyn, and even enough of the Bronx? (I don't know much about Staten Island's rental rates). Let's offer up commentary and informed viewpoints about the boroughs outside Manhattan as well.
There aren't exactly reasonable rental rates to be found for much or most of the neighborhoods of the boroughs outside Manhattan either (i.e, even compared to other major cities around the U.S.). It isn't just Manhattan. So even if one is willing to live in the outer boroughs (e.g., in Flushing, Fresh Meadows, Forest Hills, Rego Park, Kew Gardens, Bayside, Jamaica, Flatbush, Bay Ridge, Park Slope, the West Bronx, the North Bronx, Coney Island, etc. etc. etc. . . . or even in some neighborhoods considered more lower-end, run-down or remote than these), the rents one will find are often quite high for what you get compared to other big and medium cities in the U.S.
It seems that to live in New York City in anything other than living alone in a rooming house unit (i.e., a single-room-occupancy or SRO unit), you either have to be (1) super-rich or else (2) very poor (i.e., poor enough to qualify for subsidized housing) or else (3) share a living space with a multitude of roommates or housemates and split the costs amongst each other.
Everybody keeps talking about Manhattan. What about the high rents even in most of Queens, Brooklyn, and even enough of the Bronx? (I don't know much about Staten Island's rental rates). Let's offer up commentary and informed viewpoints about the boroughs outside Manhattan as well.
There aren't exactly reasonable rental rates to be found for much or most of the neighborhoods of the boroughs outside Manhattan either (i.e, even compared to other major cities around the U.S.). It isn't just Manhattan. So even if one is willing to live in the outer boroughs (e.g., in Flushing, Fresh Meadows, Forest Hills, Rego Park, Kew Gardens, Bayside, Jamaica, Flatbush, Bay Ridge, Park Slope, the West Bronx, the North Bronx, Coney Island, etc. etc. etc. . . . or even in some neighborhoods considered more lower-end, run-down or remote than these), the rents one will find are often quite high for what you get compared to other big and medium cities in the U.S.
It seems that to live in New York City in anything other than living alone in a rooming house unit (i.e., a single-room-occupancy or SRO unit), you either have to be (1) super-rich or else (2) very poor (i.e., poor enough to qualify for subsidized housing) or else (3) share a living space with a multitude of roommates or housemates and split the costs amongst each other.
The rents in the outer boroughs arent hat high.
My parents were paying $650/ month for a 1 bedroom in midwood, Brooklyn in 1989 . Accounting for inflation, that rate should be around $1200 nowadays.
the story of the the "have and the have not " .............. we the poor must pay the rich to remain rich. that just suck too
So offer us an alternative solution. Not just in rents but in anything you buy, the "poor" must pay to the wealthy so they can remain wealthy. When you buy a flat screen TV, you are making the owner of the TV company richer, same goes for anything else.
"Rich" people are problem solvers...they see what's lacking and then for a business to solve the problem and in turn get compensated for it, leading to their wealth. Nothing wrong with that. You're mad because you are on the other side of the fence. You are a consumer, not a producer like the "rich" hence why you THINK it's unfair, but it really isn't.
If you want to become rich, become a problem solver and charge people to solve the problem. That simple.
Simple supply and demand. If people weren't paying those prices, those prices wouldn't exist.
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.
