5 ms·
In Manhattan, you can't really do much more development. So what happens is the foreign investments basically buy out a large portion of available apartments an
by lqdc13 11y ago
In Manhattan, you can't really do much more development. So what happens is the foreign investments basically buy out a large portion of available apartments and the people have to move elsewhere. To other boroughs mostly.
Sometimes this results in very inefficient transportation/location for actual legitimate companies that operate there and people who live there because of the dead weight real estate.
- prostoalex 11y agoWith better materials and improving construction tech there's always an opportunity to demolish and build higher, latest example being https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/432_Park_Avenue
- lqdc13 11y agoGreat example of a building rented out/sold to foreign billionaires who would never actually live there.
- prostoalex 11y agoAs long as their property tax checks arrive on time, the city should do okay.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoSure you can. Lots of Manhattan is only 3-4 stories tall - its just legally impossible to build bigger in many places. (E.g. east village, full of the most entitled activists outside SF.) Foreign investments in Manhattan are usually rented out and are part of the housing supply.
- lqdc13 11y agoClose to permanently rented out to foreign/domestic investors not living there. Also, lots of the medium-height buildings are historic in nature, so demolishing them is not a very good option. I agree that there could be some further development, but there should be some sort of regulation to avoid ghost-town status. Had all of the apartments been rented out to actual residents, the picture would have been much better.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoWhy would an absentee foreigner rent a flat? Unlike buying it, that's not even an investment. It's just throwing money away. If this is common we should build more and take the money of these stupid foreigners. If we build enough, regulation is unnecessary - why prevent foreigners from giving us their money?
- lqdc13 11y agoNot sure why they do it myself or how prevalent it is. Perhaps subletting rent stabilized housing when the price increases further? In this case it wouldn't be much of a problem. I haven't seen any statistics, just some anecdotal evidence for absentee renters, especially in the past two years. Regardless, ownership is obviously a bigger problem.
- evgen 11y agoBecause in some locations (c.f. London) this makes the asset far more liquid. Having renters requires you to engage a property management company and the presensce of tennants makes it harder to flip the property quickly if you need to get access to your stash of ill-gotten gains. It is not just stories and anecdote, there are large portions of high-end London real estate sitting empty because foreign buyers often do no want a tennant.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoUntil you cite some statistics (specifically the residential vacancy rate), you are in fact just repeating stories and anecdotes.