3 ms·
Yeah, there's a lot of nuance here that is being lost. The second paragraph says: "Take for example 34 E. 68th St. in Manhattan: The 1879 row house, located in
by pottertheotter 3y ago
Yeah, there's a lot of nuance here that is being lost. The second paragraph says:
"Take for example 34 E. 68th St. in Manhattan: The 1879 row house, located in the Upper East Side Historic District, once housed 17 separate apartments, according to property records. Now, it is a 9,600-square-foot single-family mansion after changing hands for $11.5 million in 2011 and a subsequent gut renovation."
1879 and an average of 565 sqft each. I don't think what those apartments were is what we want today.
- adriancr 3y ago> 1879 and an average of 565 sqft each. I don't think what those apartments were is what we want today. That's ~50 m^2, pretty decent for young people (can have separate living room/bedroom/bathroom/kitchen if split properly) So, instead of housing 17-34 young people that could contribute a lot to the area it now houses a single family.
- Ekaros 3y agoAs a single person living in 55 m^2 bedroon + decent kitchen + small bathroom(including waching machine) + large living room. I don't see much issue with that floor space. Probably could be even enough for two people. It is reasonable trade to live affordably in a city.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago565 sqft is pretty normal for manhattan. If I had to guess I'd say at least 30% of manhattan apartments are smaller than that.