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 see how this trend can continue 20-30 years from now. If you keep taking in an influx of people and have no place to put them cause rents are honestly unaffordable for most, I'm curious what the objective is to all this?
I understand the draw to NYC, young, educated, looking for excitement, but I see all this gentrifying as a way to make NYC transient, nobody can afford to stay and pay 4,000 a month for a 2 bedroom it just seems to me that NYC is no longer interested in building communities, eventually it's going to come crashing down.
Clearly someone can afford 4000 a month for a two bedroom if the market supports it. These luxury units are not marketed towards the average working class American. New York is the nation's business capital, the well off come here from all around the world to do business and study at the universities.
Many of these high end rentals will eventually become condos and co-ops.
A single person would have to earn about 3,200 a week in order to comfortably afford 4,000 a month on their own. A couple would have to earn about 1,500 a week each to afford 4,000 a month as a couple.
Take a 1,000 a week off the top of your check to go towards the monthly rent, what's left is yours for the cable, and electric, and grocery and metro cards, and leisure, and clothing.
So in order to afford NYC on your own on an average rent you would have to make 166,400 dollars per year or if you divide by 2 for a couple then you would each have to make 83,200 dollars.
"One such development is 60 Water Street in Dumbo, a 290-unit rental with a 24-hour concierge and a roof deck offering Manhattan views. Leasing begins next month, with rent for a two-bedroom starting at a jaw-dropping $6,018 a month."
This is just truly sad to me.
One of the negatives from all these explosion of rentals is that all the conveniences that used to be part of the city will be gone eventually. These folks will find out that NYC will just be skyscrapers offices and condos. All those unique eateries and places to shop will be gone and replaced by boring franchises. They'll be living on Seamless web because food deliveries can't afford to stay open around. That sushi bento box will be $35 delivered and you get just 2 rolls made by mexicans. Nothing will be opened except starbucks, chipotles. Otherwise you have to walk over to Chinatown for some char siu.
And that's what I think will eventually happen, NYC will get so far removed from reality and become dangerously higher COL wise then any other American city it will implode in itself.
NYC is not creating a balance, it's putting all its eggs in one basket.
And that's what I think will eventually happen, NYC will get so far removed from reality and become dangerously higher COL wise then any other American city it will implode in itself.
NYC is not creating a balance, it's putting all its eggs in one basket.
People have been saying this for decades, all when they can't afford to live in NYC. If you can't afford something there should be a massive collapse.
The problem is, Sept. 11th didn't make it happen, nor did two major economic collapses, and a major Hurricane.
SF and Los Angeles are similarly very expensive places to live. Ditto London and HK. Cities have become mainly for rich people.
What usually happens is 4 room-mates split the 2BR and end up paying $1K each - definitely more affordable than someone paying $4K by himself.
No, not in the new luxury housing. In order to move in one has to make 40 times whatever the rent is on an annual basis.
4 Roommates splitting the rent would be done in old walk up buildings, and usually with old time landlords. In that situation at least one person is bound to lose their jobs or move and get married or whatever, leaving the other roommates unable to pay the rent unless they find a quick replacement. Not a situation that the managers of luxury housing want to be in.
The only way a person who doesn't make 40 times the rent is getting that place is if they have a parent or someone else who can act as guarantor. If they have that, then they might be able to get a roommate.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out over a long period of time. I have no problem with Manhattan being for the affluent, more power to them, but Connecticut used to have a great economy and now it's one of the worst on the east coast, with all that states wealth it failed, and it's my opinion without that balance, Manhattan may turn into another Connecticut, a great city of wealth failed cause it concentrated on only one sector, it wasn't balanced.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out over a long period of time. I have no problem with Manhattan being for the affluent, more power to them, but Connecticut used to have a great economy and now it's one of the worst on the east coast, with all that states wealth it failed, and it's my opinion without that balance, Manhattan may turn into another Connecticut, a great city of wealth failed cause it concentrated on only one sector, it wasn't balanced.
Manhattan has been here for centuries and Manhattan is not CT.
Nobody outside the US knows CT exists.
NYC is the global center of finance.
And NYC has more than one sector besides finance. Real estate, tech, insurance, media, film/tv, architecture, education, hospitality, and the medical sector are all huge employers here. NYC is headquarters for many non profits as well.
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.