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.
Rents refer to both asking and units currently occupied. Just because a LL advertising or whatever an apartment at certain rate that does not indicate he will get a tenant. Also LL's have been loathe in past to lower asking rents even while a glut of new construction has lead to an over supply.
What they have done is offer various concessions (one or two months free rent, etc....) to lure tenants. While such moves do not lower actual rent charged, they do affect overall sum paid thanks to those one or two rent free months. Those offers are slowly going away.
Landlords of new construction are saddled with debts; they cannot afford to lower rents much if at all because have people leaning on them. Investors largely lent much of the funding for many of these new buildings, and unlike banks it isn't easy to refinance such debt. Investors were promised/expect a certain ROI and that is what they will want to see.
Also again look who is leaving versus what is staying and or arriving.
You can forget all of the gobbledygook. In addition to rents continuing to rise, the NYC vacancy rate continues to decline. Rents are rising because the vacancy rate is declining. The vacancy rate wouldn't be declining if the population were shrinking.
The elite rich are pretty much all that still floats the city, which is why they are protected :-). The thing is, the elite rich follow their own trends. In the 1990s, very many top showbusiness figures had homes in New Orleans (because of the famed "city atmosphere"), and there was a very perceptible situation along the lines of superrich/superpoor division of NYC in the 2010s (although New Orleans did not have the international rich). After Katrina at the end of summer 2005, the showbiz figures never returned to New Orleans - only the deep poverty/crime and Disney-style tourism remained.
Practically everything that NYC was famous for has either moved online and/or spread all over the country/globe, but NYC is still a very major global financial center. If finance moved entirely into the electronic sphere, if it got to the point where CEOs and bankers could run their multinational companies or banks from their gated homes located wherever they wanted to locate them, if brick&mortar financial institutions ceased to exist, NYC could indeed theoretically become a Detroit. Could that realistically happen? Who knows.
The leading international position of NYC in the 19th century depended largely on the Erie Canal system which connected the rapidly developing/westward moving interior of the US with the rest of the world. A major western trade point on the Erie Canal, ie, Utica NY, one of the major US cities 180 years ago and one of the US top economic hubs, is now a small, highly criminal, unspeakably depressed ghost place. It would be surprising if a horror story like that happened in NYC, but it proves that very surprising things have happened historically, and can happen again......
Edit: incidentally, and in connection with the New Orleans story, Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones, who lives in CT but who has also owned pied-a-terre in NYC for many many decades (near NYU), has put his NYC condo on the market at the end of last year. Now, as people always said, if the rest of the world comes to an end, only cockroaches and Keith Richards would survive... although the saying was related to Keef's indestructibility by hard drugs or anything else, I think the fact that he decided against owning in NYC does tell something (although he has kids to whom he could have left a cool NYC property... unless the Richardses do not consider NYC to be cool any more? I'd say Keef is certainly a major authority on the subject of cool, so....:-).
a most interesting, perceptive and spot on observation. The only thing you failed at was not taking what you said past New York all alone and made it a general statement:
in this modern era which, as you noted, has through our technologies "spread out", things no longer being tied to place. What does New York have that you can't get anywhere else: the facts on the ground, the buildings and the architecture of what has been put in place. No, I don't mean put in place yesterday; I mean what was put in place at the time we didn't go "generic", didn't turn any place into "anyplace". I can't give you a date for that era, but I feel safe in saying it was before the mid-point of the 20th century. For example, what you had in the original Penn Station was unique, something to be treasured; Hudson Yards, on the other hand, could have (if the $$$ was there to build) be constructed and be equally looking like it was in place if it went up in London, Singapore or Buenas Aries.
We need to realize that our concept of cities changes with time, often radically. So if you go back to way earlier times, a city was its own place. It was organic. It was the site of allegiance, of what you were a part of. There weren't nations out there in the real sense of the word (although empire existed), there were city states. How did the riches of the east find their way to the shores of the Mediterranean? By the city (and city state) of Venice establishing trade routes to serve itself and bringing the riches home.
Prior to the second half of the 20th century, cities were different from today because they were their own place to such a large degree. Famously they all had their own locally owned department stores before the conglomerates bought these all up and turned them into Macy's and the like. How about own restaurants? Check. Own style of building? Check. Locally owned newspapers? Check. And on and on.
New York today, like every other city, is just a node in the global network of cities that work in tandem to make the world run.
So if New York isn't "special" anymore, that's ok because no place is. But there is one thing that was conferred on Gotham and do to the homogenization and interdependence of today's cities will never be conferred on any place again. Ever.
New York, the city of, say, the post-WWII decade or two, was arguably by what its offered in ways far too numerous to list I would have to say and say with to me is certainly, New York of this time was the "greatest city ever on the earth" And no city can in the future replace it.
a most interesting, perceptive and spot on observation. The only thing you failed at was not taking what you said past New York all alone and made it a general statement:
in this modern era which, as you noted, has through our technologies "spread out", things no longer being tied to place. What does New York have that you can't get anywhere else: the facts on the ground, the buildings and the architecture of what has been put in place. No, I don't mean put in place yesterday; I mean what was put in place at the time we didn't go "generic", didn't turn any place into "anyplace". I can't give you a date for that era, but I feel safe in saying it was before the mid-point of the 20th century. For example, what you had in the original Penn Station was unique, something to be treasured; Hudson Yards, on the other hand, could have (if the $$$ was there to build) be constructed and be equally looking like it was in place if it went up in London, Singapore or Buenas Aries.
We need to realize that our concept of cities changes with time, often radically. So if you go back to way earlier times, a city was its own place. It was organic. It was the site of allegiance, of what you were a part of. There weren't nations out there in the real sense of the word (although empire existed), there were city states. How did the riches of the east find their way to the shores of the Mediterranean? By the city (and city state) of Venice establishing trade routes to serve itself and bringing the riches home.
Prior to the second half of the 20th century, cities were different from today because they were their own place to such a large degree. Famously they all had their own locally owned department stores before the conglomerates bought these all up and turned them into Macy's and the like. How about own restaurants? Check. Own style of building? Check. Locally owned newspapers? Check. And on and on.
New York today, like every other city, is just a node in the global network of cities that work in tandem to make the world run.
So if New York isn't "special" anymore, that's ok because no place is. But there is one thing that was conferred on Gotham and do to the homogenization and interdependence of today's cities will never be conferred on any place again. Ever.
New York, the city of, say, the post-WWII decade or two, was arguably by what its offered in ways far too numerous to list I would have to say and say with to me is certainly, New York of this time was the "greatest city ever on the earth" And no city can in the future replace it.
Actually, I did make a general statement that the US cities (and to an extent cities globally) are all starting to look and feel similar (except for their natural settings), but my statement was referenced to NYC because this is a NYC sub-forum, because "the look" with contemporary "urban amenities" has largely originated in a handful of world cities of which NYC was the US representative, and because the thread is a discussion of whether/why more net people might be moving out of NYC than moving in (my argument is that NYC is no longer substantially different from many large US cities, but the cost of living - ie, primarily the cost of buying/maintaining or renting a home - is higher than in most other US cities). I do agree with everything you say, but notice that, in describing the specialness conferred on NYC, you are also referring exclusively to the past. As I am 59, my preferred mode of living is more and more in the past, and I was very much attracted throughout my life to that past NYC you mention - every second I spent in NYC in the 1980s was like going to a form of scruffy paradise :-). About 10 years ago I bought a small studio in NYC where I thought I would finally retire, but now am starting to find out that NYC has in fact lost that NYC feel I was looking for. The buildings are still very tall, ie, you don't have the man-made skyscraper canyons in other cities, but all of that is now filled with the standard cyber-life that also fills everything else everywhere, and the historic preservation has been practically non-existent. I mentioned elsewhere the atrocious "preservation" of the NYC immigration history at the LES Tenement Museum with ridiculous live actors... that is not the way to do it; some things should just be left as they are, as they have been for a couple of centuries, without wiring them up with the 21st century Disney "amenities". Spirit of place is a subtle thing, and very easy to destroy with "renovations".
Actually, I did make a general statement that the US cities (and to an extent cities globally) are all starting to look and feel similar (except for their natural settings), but my statement was referenced to NYC because this is a NYC sub-forum, because "the look" with contemporary "urban amenities" has largely originated in a handful of world cities of which NYC was the US representative, and because the thread is a discussion of whether/why more net people might be moving out of NYC than moving in (my argument is that NYC is no longer substantially different from many large US cities, but the cost of living - ie, primarily the cost of buying/maintaining or renting a home - is higher than in most other US cities). I do agree with everything you say, but notice that, in describing the specialness conferred on NYC, you are also referring exclusively to the past. As I am 59, my preferred mode of living is more and more in the past, and I was very much attracted throughout my life to that past NYC you mention - every second I spent in NYC in the 1980s was like going to a form of scruffy paradise :-). About 10 years ago I bought a small studio in NYC where I thought I would finally retire, but now am starting to find out that NYC has in fact lost that NYC feel I was looking for. The buildings are still very tall, ie, you don't have the man-made skyscraper canyons in other cities, but all of that is now filled with the standard cyber-life that also fills everything else everywhere, and the historic preservation has been practically non-existent. I mentioned elsewhere the atrocious "preservation" of the NYC immigration history at the LES Tenement Museum with ridiculous live actors... that is not the way to do it; some things should just be left as they are, as they have been for a couple of centuries, without wiring them up with the 21st century Disney "amenities". Spirit of place is a subtle thing, and very easy to destroy with "renovations".
This should confirm it
Human beings are most susceptible to change
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
I always thought the population seemed to be getting bigger by the year now to think about it, people are moving out do to the cost and dont forget the elderly dying out or headed to Florida, what you think?
Some are coming to PA. And, Philadelphia's pop., has been increasing for 10 years. The gains are small but Philly had been losing population for years and now it's not. And I do know people, previous New Yorkers, who have moved to Phila.
Actually, I did make a general statement that the US cities (and to an extent cities globally) are all starting to look and feel similar (except for their natural settings), but my statement was referenced to NYC because this is a NYC sub-forum, because "the look" with contemporary "urban amenities" has largely originated in a handful of world cities of which NYC was the US representative, and because the thread is a discussion of whether/why more net people might be moving out of NYC than moving in (my argument is that NYC is no longer substantially different from many large US cities, but the cost of living - ie, primarily the cost of buying/maintaining or renting a home - is higher than in most other US cities). I do agree with everything you say, but notice that, in describing the specialness conferred on NYC, you are also referring exclusively to the past. As I am 59, my preferred mode of living is more and more in the past, and I was very much attracted throughout my life to that past NYC you mention - every second I spent in NYC in the 1980s was like going to a form of scruffy paradise :-). About 10 years ago I bought a small studio in NYC where I thought I would finally retire, but now am starting to find out that NYC has in fact lost that NYC feel I was looking for. The buildings are still very tall, ie, you don't have the man-made skyscraper canyons in other cities, but all of that is now filled with the standard cyber-life that also fills everything else everywhere, and the historic preservation has been practically non-existent. I mentioned elsewhere the atrocious "preservation" of the NYC immigration history at the LES Tenement Museum with ridiculous live actors... that is not the way to do it; some things should just be left as they are, as they have been for a couple of centuries, without wiring them up with the 21st century Disney "amenities". Spirit of place is a subtle thing, and very easy to destroy with "renovations".
hey, I really wasn't looking at it as some kind of glaring omission. It was just my way of saying you raised such an important and significant observation, one that I felt should be generalized because it was spot on. In other words: no criticism on my part was intended on any level..
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
you don't have the man-made skyscraper canyons in other cities,
er....on that one, I have some familiarity with one somewhere in the Midwest that does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby
Spirit of place is a subtle thing, and very easy to destroy with "renovations".
Spirit of place cannot exist when it is all the same place. Thank you, Technology, for homogenizing everything, and killing any real type of diversity. Reality check.....you know all those wonderful ethnic enclaves we have in cities across the nation, those places where you love to dine, too try something different. Guess what? That's just a phase too. The folks who live there will be melting down into the general population and our diversity will be shot. Keep in mind that if any other wave of immigrants come here (and I have to question that since we are not exactly the land of opportunity and the Statue of Liberty has pretty much turned her back on any immigrant, or, as we quaintly call them...."Them". And even if they do come, they will all be sufficiently globalized that they are already familiar with our culture.....because they are living it.
er....on that one, I have some familiarity with one somewhere in the Midwest that does.
Yes, but that is different... downtown Chicago around the river somehow always striked me as an architectural exhibit space rather than a real, live city (although the downtown area IS surrounded by the real, live city of Chicago).
Otherwise, no, don't worry, I know you were agreeing with me rather than being critical, I was just clarifying a point. Re ethnic neighborhoods of the past, I am a bit nervous about enclaves that try to exclude anybody who is "different", and I do find the global mix actually to be okay, but I just do not like "updating" of the historic architecture where multiple generations have already lived, removing every trace of those previous lives, and doing away with certain slow, reassuring historic habits (like sitting in the neighborhood park and reading a paper book, with people around you doing the same rather than everybody around you talking loudly, each to their own cellphone... I don't know, there should be little phone cabins like in the old times for those who need to talk on the phone, and cellphone use in public should be banned except in emergency! I don't want to listen to every single trivial detail of everybody's life constantly discussed at the top volume all around me!), since there are still those of us left who need this old stuff to feel normal.
In the 1980s-90s, I could still feel every underlying layer of NYC around me from the 1600s onward. Now I don't feel anything older than 15 years. I would think it was only my personal problem, had I not heard it from so many other people that this disappearance of ancestors' spirits bothered them too. I think you probably know what I mean.
There are a lot of different factors that are differently weighted in different neighborhoods. Overall though, if this isn’t just a miscount from the way they do estimates, then a population drop given all the other things going on in the city probably also comes with a slightly higher median income, smaller average household size, and greater percentage of people with a higher education degree.
I don't think what makes NYC a remarkable place is disappearing in the way so many people fear. It's still a hub of capitalism which draws in immigrants and entrepreneurs from across America and the world, a cultural center, and a place of incredible density and diversity.
Some of this is under threat though: There's a far left view of what NYC "is" that ignores pretty much 90% of it's history in favor of a narrow band of time (1970s/1980s) where "affordability" and a deeply slanted perception of "culture" is all that matters. Nevermind the derth of economic opportunities, deep poverty, and virulent racism that lead up to and defined much of that area, what matters is going back to a time where white kids from Iowa can live in Soho for 300$ mo and play in a punk band on weekends.
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.
.
