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.
You act like immigration and moving here from other parts of the country is a new thing. Also no one is "fleeing the reeling Euro"
Recession? Lol! We haven't been in a recession for 4 years.
No, its not new. NYC has been a come and go town. What is new is that huge amounts of tenement buildings were destroyed and replaced with luxury housing, and this was done with government subsidies.
lol... I know. Wishful thinking though. That Wall Street guy got ripped off if he thinks his property is going to appreciate anytime soon in that ghetto.
It would take massive outside corporate investment, and they'd have to tear down all the housing projects, ideally turn the South Bronx into a job center, etc. So you're right, it is not going to appreciate anytime soon.
There's also political risk. The next mayor will be a Democrat who is not a billionaire. He or she likely won't be as cozy to developers as Bloomberg and won't have Bloomberg's business connections. So could real estate development slide? If so, that Wall Street guy bought a lemon.
The people born and raised in NYC, not making much money and doing fine are doing so because of rent regulation and welfare programs. Take that away, and there have been cutbacks and the destruction of housing stock, and they do rather poorly.
Not me, that's for sure. I'd be out of this city in a heart beat if I ever had to take government money. The closest we've ever come to government money was unemployment insurance for my wife for a little while, that's it.
This forum will forever be filled with posts that ignore the millions of regular people who aren't looking for the "New York City lifestyle", but life and work here just fine under middle class conditions raising normal families.
No, its not new. NYC has been a come and go town. What is new is that huge amounts of tenement buildings were destroyed and replaced with luxury housing, and this was done with government subsidies.
Very true, people filter in and also people filter out, this is nothing new and has been that in NYC for centuries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
The allure of the things you mentioned has always been there. Yet rents were nearly as high as they are now. What people overlook is Bloombucks and the state gave developers huge tax incentives to destroy a lot of tenement housing in neighborhoods like Hells Kitchen, Chelsea, Lower East Side, Williamsburg, and other cool neighborhoods. With the amount of low income housing way down, of course rents skyrocketed. Then they marketed these neighborhoods to the wealthy around the world. This was government subsidized.
One thing I hate about these luxury homes is that the rich and wealthy who come from abroad but into these properites, many do not live in them, the aparments remain vacant. The rich and wealthy are using their coops and condos just as an assist and not as a home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
You can say that much more comfortable if you still have a rent stabilized apartment in a decent area. Mind you, I've known plenty of tenement and otherwise affordable housing that got town down and its tenants displaced. If they had to face the open market for rents in NYC, many left.
The people born and raised in NYC, not making much money and doing fine are doing so because of rent regulation and welfare programs. Take that away, and there have been cutbacks and the destruction of housing stock, and they do rather poorly.
Very true, lets not forget that locals also have close family support system and family support structure which Transplants lack. Overall I wont say people born and raised her are doing fine, but they are just getting by under the current government assitance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy
I dunno Carmela..you do realize you are paying $10 for the luxury of going to Brooklyn. You are also paying a toll for the priviledge of going to the NJ Shore, or anywhere off Staten Island for that matter. And since when do you say "we are just 1 hour from NYC"...THAT IS FAR. I would take her statement with a huge grain of salt.
As for the other comments about the $650K "rip off", the guy knew what he was buying was $200K over the comps, but he liked the building, the location, the neighborhood, and the proximity to Manhattan. It isn't all about the money or appreciation, it is about LIVING ANG LOVING your home....the idea that it is supposed to appreciate X amount is part of the problem with our housing market....your home should be a home, not an investment. And if you view it as an investment, it is almost always a bad one which barely keeps up with inflation. But most people will never understand that...buy a home to live in not with the dream to flip and make money and you will be happy. Period.
Sobro I agree, sadly for most posters and for those who invest in their homes, most plan on making a profit out of their equity. Truth is what goes up sometimes must comes down!
your home should be a home, not an investment. And if you view it as an investment, it is almost always a bad one which barely keeps up with inflation. But most people will never understand that...buy a home to live in not with the dream to flip and make money and you will be happy. Period.
Home, investment - these are not exclusive of each other. In fact I know many people, or let me put it to you this way -- I don't know anyone with a penny to his name who did not treat their home as an investment. They go hand in hand, IMO.
About flipping -- I know several people who flip, not only those who do it for a living. They're just smart and know how to play it. I also know others who buy only, and don't usually flip.
Not sure why you or anyone would think that there is only one way.
Rents and real estate are high really because of a factor that Sobroguy pointed to sometime ago - rich foreigners looking for a place to park/hide their wealth. It does not mean that the job market is robust in and of itself.
I am in the business, and that's not what we see. We build from $ 1000 a foot to $4k, usually over 50 apartments. Some are hundreds of units in a single property. Rentals too. Whatever to make a buck. Vast majority of buyers are bread and butter americans, doctors, artists, white collars, media, etc. etc. Wall Street used to dominate 4-5 years ago, now not as much, which I think it is good. Foreigners buying makes good publicity, but it is the Sex and the City version of Real Estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy
Also one does not have to live in the city to enjoy the most important things it has to offer. If a kid can commute by MNR everyday from Norwalk then it actually says something good about the suburbs being well-connected to the city. Our own kid commutes to the city for private school and piano lessons, no issues with that. Sara Chang commuted from the NJ suburbs to Juilliard; her school in NJ provided her with a better and more well rounded education than what she could have gotten in the city. And not all kids are driven around like taxis. There are suburbs where kids can walk to the town and train station to do whatever. Living in the suburbs does not constrain them by and large. More importantly public schools are among the best in the country yet do not contain the pressure and uncertainty of being able to get and stay in.
I am glad you can afford private school, and great to see that your daughter comes to the city for arts. You chose Westchester to live, probably in a bigger apartment than us in the City. Yet, you might not be as close to your daughter's activities in NYC, as others who stayed in the City. Others sacrifice space for cutting down on shuttling time. There isn't really a perfect answer that applies to everybody. I personally made the opposite move. Moved from Westfield, NJ back to the City.
And don't kid yourself -- for a 12-16 year old -- the difference suburban / City in terms of kid's own movement is night and day. Let me also be judgmental -- I don't think you currently live in the safest town in Westchester, and as a good parent, I am sure you don't allow your daughter to wander the streets of your town on her own. Even if she does, where would she go? Nino's pizza? CVS?
The allure of the things you mentioned has always been there. Yet rents were nearly as high as they are now. What people overlook is Bloombucks and the state gave developers huge tax incentives to destroy a lot of tenement housing in neighborhoods like Hells Kitchen, Chelsea, Lower East Side, Williamsburg, and other cool neighborhoods. With the amount of low income housing way down, of course rents skyrocketed. Then they marketed these neighborhoods to the wealthy around the world. This was government subsidized.
You must not understand how a market works...
Those tax incentives have been around for decades. Nothing to do with Bloomberg. What he did do is create a city that was attractive for more people to live in and thus profitable for developers to build larger more high-end buildings that charge higher rent.
In fact, the majority of neighborhoods you name were downzoned by the Bloomberg administration to preserve their characters. Only the derelict Far West Side and Williamsburg waterfront were upzoned. The vast majority of recent development took place on parking lots and vacant industrial sites, not on former tenements. Tenements are generally impossible to tear down since they contain rent stabilized tenants who can not be forcibly removed.
So I'd be interested in hearing about which tenements you've seen demolished and these tax incentives to demolish them. And just because they were built as tenements doesn't mean they're low income. Like any other building type, an owner can raise the rent to whatever he/she pleases as long as the apartment is not rent stabilized.
Prices are high for apartments because of the high market demand for them. As owners always have, they will charge the highest price people are willing to pay. If no one wanted to live here, prices would go down.
Basically the city is a victim of its own success. One way to solve this is to build more housing or to make the city less attractive for people to move here. I say we need to build more housing, affordable and market rate while improving our infrastructure.
Those tax incentives have been around for decades. Nothing to do with Bloomberg. What he did do is create a city that was attractive for more people to live in and thus profitable for developers to build larger more high-end buildings that charge higher rent.
Basically the city is a victim of its own success. One way to solve this is to build more housing or to make the city less attractive for people to move here. I say we need to build more housing, affordable and market rate while improving our infrastructure.
No, the incentives from the city, state, and federal governments were substantially increased in recent years.
With said, developers and other real estate interests WOULD BLOCK the building of substantial new housing, if it was going to lower the profits of the housing they already own or have planned.
Technically, if you count condos that no one really lives in (they are owned by investors who are rarely in NYC) there's PLENTY of housing in prime areas that's available.
Oh, btw, there were times when housing prices got really low, that landlords would rather BURN housing for the insurance money than see prices drop too low.
Not me, that's for sure. I'd be out of this city in a heart beat if I ever had to take government money. The closest we've ever come to government money was unemployment insurance for my wife for a little while, that's it.
This forum will forever be filled with posts that ignore the millions of regular people who aren't looking for the "New York City lifestyle", but life and work here just fine under middle class conditions raising normal families.
There are millions of New Yorkers also in rent regulated apartments, including 51% of the people in Manhattan. That's not a check from the government, but its a form of government interference keeping an apartment low.
Again, take away rent regulations and welfare subsidies and let's see how well working class New Yorkers do. The middle class lifestyle in New York (it does exist) its much rarer than people would believe.
Middle class originally meant people who were either small business owners or who were well off professionals, but not rich. Professors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, civil servant workers, certain union jobs, etc. That version of the middle class, now called the upper middle class, is a MINORITY of the population. A substantial percentage of the population has jobs with few if any benefits, and a disproportionate amount of their income goes towards rent. This is especially true in NYC (and somewhat true nationally).
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.
That Wall Street guy got ripped off if he thinks his property is going to appreciate anytime soon in that ghetto.
