5 ms·
> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time OP is right. The demand is huge and supply is tiny. Even with those scary pan
by rcpt 1y ago
> Everybody loves public transit until they get panhandled for the jillionth time
OP is right. The demand is huge and supply is tiny. Even with those scary panhandlers people are jamming onto public transport (when it actually exists) and going far far out of their way to experience walkable areas.
> zero other options if I want to live where crime is low and the schools aren't dysfunctional
Crime in NYC is exceedingly low and the schools are great. Why don't you simply move to Chelsea or the Upper West Side?
- deltarholamda 1y ago>Why don't you simply move to Chelsea or the Upper West Side? Because I'm not in the top 0.1%. "Why don't you just move into a $2-5 million dollar home?" is an astonishing take.
- rafram 1y agoThe UWS above 96th is quite affordable. Manhattan Valley is pretty, safe, and close to the park.
- deltarholamda 1y agoAccording to Zillow they start at about a million for 2/1 apartments and go up from there. We have completely different definitions for affordable, unless $250K+/yr jobs are just falling out of the sky.
- sombrero_john 1y agoRenting is perfectly fine. NYC has the strongest tenant protection laws in the country.
- kortilla 1y agoRenting has to support the mortgage on that. The only difference between being able to afford a house and affording rent is having the capital for a down payment
- rafram 1y agoThat’s not really true. Renting is significantly more affordable than buying in NYC right now. I don’t know the exact reasons, but presumably most landlords bought a long time ago and refinanced when rates were low.
- rcpt 1y agoWait. Are the pedestrian friendly cities battlegrounds with panhandlers with horrible schools, or are they wildly expensive luxury destinations that are in such high demand that only the 0.1% can live there?
- deltarholamda 1y agoI'd think "it can be both" would be obvious, but clearly not. Rich people have been enjoying a different standard of life even in the midst of abject poverty since forever, but I guess this is news to some.
- rcpt 1y agoSo, OP is right. Despite the Nextdoor-tier rant about panhandlers the demand for walkable cities is huge. So huge that the super rich will pay handsomely and put up with panhandlers on top of it to live outside of car hell.
- deltarholamda 1y agoThat's an amazingly reductive take on a complex issue, and it infers something which was not implied. At no point did I suggest that walkable cities were not in demand, only that the current state is less than ideal for a large number of people, to which your solution was "be rich".
- rcpt 1y agoNo my point is that if OP were wrong then these places would be cheap.
- FuriouslyAdrift 1y agoAt least one wealthy family in NYC I met doesn't use surface transport for much... they use helicopters or have things/people/shopping/restaurants brought to them. Had an experience where a store sent tailors, stylists, a manager, and a ton of inventory so that they could clothes shop while still in their home. Apparently, this was "normal". My shock was a source of great amusement to them. They did the same thing with restaurants, movies, concerts, even a play... the staff, etc. came to them. I have no idea just how wealthy they were (Brazilian who owned many businesses in oil and gas production) but I had never seen (or even heard of) such service.
- dataflow 1y agoI imagined they thought you'd consider renting, not just buying. (It's still expensive, but not top-0.1% expensive.)
- sombrero_john 1y agoThere are many teachers, social workers, and bartenders living on the UWS. Hardly the top 0.1%.
- starik36 1y agoJust rented a 2 bedroom on the Upper West Side. The rent is $4600 a month. And these bedrooms are tiny. Not everyone can "simply move to" Upper West Side.