6 ms·

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But the practical meaning of that is that, in the case of New York, this means the entire island of Manhattan becomes a pl

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. But the practical meaning of that is that, in the case of New York, this means the entire island of Manhattan becomes a playground for the wealthy and the people who keep that playground humming are relegated to the outer boroughs.

nine_k 11y ago
Entire Manhattan, including 200th streets? I can imagine that areas like this already exist, e.g. in most lower Manhattan and upper west side. Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad? (Disclaimer: I live in Brooklyn and work on Manhattan; my commute is still better than in most other places I lived.)
- exelius 11y ago
  Eventually, yeah. There is a finite supply of land on Manhattan, and demand from foreign buyers is growing. Downtown and midtown are already saturated, so the billion dollar condo buildings of 2040 will need to be built somewhere.
  - bradleyjg 11y ago
    I don't see any particular reason that Inwood will be more desirable in 2040 than Brooklyn Heights. Being physically on the island of Manhattan just isn't that big a deal. What matters in the long run seems to be commuting time and to a lesser extent zoning and projects. Looking at this heat map: http://project.wnyc.org/transit-time/#40.75805,-73.98571,12,790 http://project.wnyc.org/transit-time/#40.75805,-73.98571,12,... I'd be bullish on Sunnyside / western Woodside.
  - runako 11y ago
    I hear this often, but it doesn't jive with my impressions of Manhattan (lived there years ago, visit periodically). In particular, significant parts of the island top out at walk-up heights (5-6 stories). The economics of rent in Manhattan would change dramatically if the island were rebuilt using modern technologies (chiefly: elevators and the taller buildings they enable). Without knowing the local politics, it seems obvious that there is some force that is preventing the low-productivity uses of land (broadly: "short buildings") from being converted into higher-productivity uses (chiefly "taller buildings"). There's only a finite supply of ground -- this does not mean there has to be a finite supply of usable indoor space. The latter is a choice that can presumably be changed when the will arises.
    - nerfhammer 11y ago
      Historically it was partly because the later-developed parts of the city were built on less viable land (i.e. swamp/landfill)
    - nemo44x 11y ago
      You can't just tear down some 4-story building and put up sky scrappers. There is a maximum density capacity that a lot of Manhattan already exceeds. The trains, sewers and electrical requirements need to be thought of too. Especially the trains which are already way over capacity. Look at what has happened in Williamsburg and the L-train. As more and more warehouses have been converted into apartments and new condo's have gone up, the L-train has become awful for large parts of the day. And the train runs as often as possible during those times. I'm not saying you can't do these things but I do think other things need to be considered.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad? I imagine that depends on the timescale you're looking at. A similar thing has happened in London over the past 30 years - the upshot is that schools and hospitals are now finding it practically impossible to recruit teachers and nurses in the city because they can't afford to live within a commutable distance. That's quite bad.
  - ars 11y ago
    > are now finding it practically impossible to recruit teachers and nurses in the city because they can't afford to live within a commutable distance. That's quite bad. Then they will pay more, all the extra money will go to rent, and things will stabilize again. Do Hospitals located in expensive places receive extra reimbursement from the government?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
exelius 11y ago
That's kind of the entire point. The wealthy who use Manhattan as their playground today are just getting the public to subsidize housing for the people who keep their playground humming. Manhattan is already far too expensive; I have a friend who commutes daily to Manhattan from Philadelphia because rents are 25% of what they are in Manhattan. It's only 90 minutes to Penn Station on the train, which is about the same time it would take from the affordable parts of Brooklyn or Queens.
- michaeltoth 11y ago
  Except a ride from Brooklyn or Queens is $2.75 and a ride from Philadelphia is around $80 on Amtrak. Also, you're assuming that he lives directly above 30th Street Station and works directly above Penn Station, otherwise the travel time is likely to be over 2 hours.
  - autokad 11y ago
    I complain to my friend in brooklyn it takes about as long to go from Philadelphia to Penn Station as it does from Penn Station to their door step. However yeah, those tickets can get pricey. Sometimes you luck out and get the 50$ one, but many times its 200 one way - I dont know what tickets would be commuting during the early hours to get to work though. That being said, you are also right about living directly above Penn Station. I can get really far in 20 - 30 minutes in philadelphia, but almost nowhere in NYC because of human congestion. not that 1.5 - 2 hour commutes leave much for a life. I did that for 2 years and while I got a lot of reading done, I didnt have any time at home. You get home 7-7:30 and make dinner. maybe you are finished eating and chores by 9 and you go to sleep between 10 and 11 (you aren't staying up very late because you are leaving early in the morning hours too).
  - mjmahone17 11y ago
    Who commutes via Amtrak? You can drive from Philly to Trenton or a similar station (takes ~30 minutes from NE Philly), then spend ~1 hr on NJ Transit. This makes the trip cost $15.50+gas, or $440 monthly.
endtime 11y ago
Living in Manhattan is not a right. I don't see anything wrong with a shorter commute being more expensive. I would very happily pay more for services that get more expensive because workers demand higher wages for their longer commutes (etc.), in exchange for the drop in market-rate rent (which I pay) that would come from throwing out rent regulation.
czinck 11y ago
I mean, it practically is. I live in Manhattan, and with the exception of a very few places (basically UES right on the river and then the projects) any studio apartment south of 100th (~115th on the west side) street is going to be $2000/month or more. If you find any place cheaper it is going to be borderline uninhabitable or a 6th floor walkup. Rents in Harlem are going up now, too.
- tricolon 11y ago
  Of course, there are more exceptions. Intimidating coöp applications are one.
  - czinck 11y ago
    What do you mean? Do you mean the coops that have a max income? Because those obviously don't count, they can't rent out a studio for $2k when the resident isn't allowed to make more than 75k. Or do you mean applications that make you sign away your first born and tell them your deepest darkest secrets? Because everyone I know has had to do that, it's just part of the process, mainly because of how hard it is to evict someone in NYC, and doesn't mean you get cheaper rent.
    - tricolon 11y ago
      I mean that some coöp applications do have you sign away your first born and tell them your deepest darkest secrets and that there are still enough people who haven't gone through that process at one point or another that the market rent for those units is slightly lower than it would be otherwise. Of course, I only have anecdata support my claim.
krschultz 11y ago
That has already happened. Most of the people that currently live in rent controlled or price stabilized apartments got them decades ago. The waiting list for any units that become available is extremely long. That effectively means most rent control is helping the elderly. I present that without comment or judgement, it's just a fact. The elderly are generally not the people manning the counter at your local bodega. They are not your local construction workers, doormen, or bartenders. All of those people, the ones that are the backbone of the service economy within Manhattan, already live in the outer boroughs. So the question effectively becomes does it make sense to subsidize the rent of retired people in Manhattan? On one side you can be the assholes kicking elderly people out of the homes and neighborhoods they have lived in for 30 years. On the other side you can be the assholes forcing the working class to commute 90 minutes a day. Take your pick of the bad options.
- evanpw 11y ago
  Very interesting. According to this: http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabilization_fact_sheet_FINAL_4.pdf http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabiliz..., in Manhattan below 96th street 35% of rent-stabilized apartment dwellers moved in more than 20 years ago! (Versus 2.7% of those in non-stabilized apartments). Another interesting fact from that paper: the median person in a rent-stabilized apartment in core Manhattan has a higher income than the median person in a non-stabilized apartment in most of the rest of NYC.
  - krschultz 11y ago
    This is a slightly different PDF from the same research group [1], which is what I was looking at. A couple other statistics that stick out. There are more rent stabilized apartments in NYC than market rate apartments. Over 20% of all rent stablized apartments in Manhattan go to people over 65. Less than 5% of people in market rate apartments are over 65 years old.Over 65% of people in a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan are white. I think people have a picture of rent stabilized apartments as the place where your local bodega employee lives. The fact is the neighborhood rent stabilized apartments are where retired people live. [1] http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenter_FactBrief_RentStabilization_June2014.pdf http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenter_FactBrief_RentSta....

nine_k 11y ago

Entire Manhattan, including 200th streets? I can imagine that areas like this already exist, e.g. in most lower Manhattan and upper west side. Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad? (Disclaimer: I live in Brooklyn and work on Manhattan; my commute is still better than in most other places I lived.)

exelius 11y ago
Eventually, yeah. There is a finite supply of land on Manhattan, and demand from foreign buyers is growing. Downtown and midtown are already saturated, so the billion dollar condo buildings of 2040 will need to be built somewhere.
- bradleyjg 11y ago
  I don't see any particular reason that Inwood will be more desirable in 2040 than Brooklyn Heights. Being physically on the island of Manhattan just isn't that big a deal. What matters in the long run seems to be commuting time and to a lesser extent zoning and projects. Looking at this heat map: http://project.wnyc.org/transit-time/#40.75805,-73.98571,12,790 http://project.wnyc.org/transit-time/#40.75805,-73.98571,12,... I'd be bullish on Sunnyside / western Woodside.
- runako 11y ago
  I hear this often, but it doesn't jive with my impressions of Manhattan (lived there years ago, visit periodically). In particular, significant parts of the island top out at walk-up heights (5-6 stories). The economics of rent in Manhattan would change dramatically if the island were rebuilt using modern technologies (chiefly: elevators and the taller buildings they enable). Without knowing the local politics, it seems obvious that there is some force that is preventing the low-productivity uses of land (broadly: "short buildings") from being converted into higher-productivity uses (chiefly "taller buildings"). There's only a finite supply of ground -- this does not mean there has to be a finite supply of usable indoor space. The latter is a choice that can presumably be changed when the will arises.
  - nerfhammer 11y ago
    Historically it was partly because the later-developed parts of the city were built on less viable land (i.e. swamp/landfill)
  - nemo44x 11y ago
    You can't just tear down some 4-story building and put up sky scrappers. There is a maximum density capacity that a lot of Manhattan already exceeds. The trains, sewers and electrical requirements need to be thought of too. Especially the trains which are already way over capacity. Look at what has happened in Williamsburg and the L-train. As more and more warehouses have been converted into apartments and new condo's have gone up, the L-train has become awful for large parts of the day. And the train runs as often as possible during those times. I'm not saying you can't do these things but I do think other things need to be considered.
onion2k 11y ago
Did it result in anything particularly bad, or at least measurably bad? I imagine that depends on the timescale you're looking at. A similar thing has happened in London over the past 30 years - the upshot is that schools and hospitals are now finding it practically impossible to recruit teachers and nurses in the city because they can't afford to live within a commutable distance. That's quite bad.
- ars 11y ago
  > are now finding it practically impossible to recruit teachers and nurses in the city because they can't afford to live within a commutable distance. That's quite bad. Then they will pay more, all the extra money will go to rent, and things will stabilize again. Do Hospitals located in expensive places receive extra reimbursement from the government?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

exelius 11y ago

That's kind of the entire point. The wealthy who use Manhattan as their playground today are just getting the public to subsidize housing for the people who keep their playground humming. Manhattan is already far too expensive; I have a friend who commutes daily to Manhattan from Philadelphia because rents are 25% of what they are in Manhattan. It's only 90 minutes to Penn Station on the train, which is about the same time it would take from the affordable parts of Brooklyn or Queens.

michaeltoth 11y ago
Except a ride from Brooklyn or Queens is $2.75 and a ride from Philadelphia is around $80 on Amtrak. Also, you're assuming that he lives directly above 30th Street Station and works directly above Penn Station, otherwise the travel time is likely to be over 2 hours.
- autokad 11y ago
  I complain to my friend in brooklyn it takes about as long to go from Philadelphia to Penn Station as it does from Penn Station to their door step. However yeah, those tickets can get pricey. Sometimes you luck out and get the 50$ one, but many times its 200 one way - I dont know what tickets would be commuting during the early hours to get to work though. That being said, you are also right about living directly above Penn Station. I can get really far in 20 - 30 minutes in philadelphia, but almost nowhere in NYC because of human congestion. not that 1.5 - 2 hour commutes leave much for a life. I did that for 2 years and while I got a lot of reading done, I didnt have any time at home. You get home 7-7:30 and make dinner. maybe you are finished eating and chores by 9 and you go to sleep between 10 and 11 (you aren't staying up very late because you are leaving early in the morning hours too).
- mjmahone17 11y ago
  Who commutes via Amtrak? You can drive from Philly to Trenton or a similar station (takes ~30 minutes from NE Philly), then spend ~1 hr on NJ Transit. This makes the trip cost $15.50+gas, or $440 monthly.

endtime 11y ago

Living in Manhattan is not a right. I don't see anything wrong with a shorter commute being more expensive. I would very happily pay more for services that get more expensive because workers demand higher wages for their longer commutes (etc.), in exchange for the drop in market-rate rent (which I pay) that would come from throwing out rent regulation.

czinck 11y ago

I mean, it practically is. I live in Manhattan, and with the exception of a very few places (basically UES right on the river and then the projects) any studio apartment south of 100th (~115th on the west side) street is going to be $2000/month or more. If you find any place cheaper it is going to be borderline uninhabitable or a 6th floor walkup. Rents in Harlem are going up now, too.

tricolon 11y ago
Of course, there are more exceptions. Intimidating coöp applications are one.
- czinck 11y ago
  What do you mean? Do you mean the coops that have a max income? Because those obviously don't count, they can't rent out a studio for $2k when the resident isn't allowed to make more than 75k. Or do you mean applications that make you sign away your first born and tell them your deepest darkest secrets? Because everyone I know has had to do that, it's just part of the process, mainly because of how hard it is to evict someone in NYC, and doesn't mean you get cheaper rent.
  - tricolon 11y ago
    I mean that some coöp applications do have you sign away your first born and tell them your deepest darkest secrets and that there are still enough people who haven't gone through that process at one point or another that the market rent for those units is slightly lower than it would be otherwise. Of course, I only have anecdata support my claim.

krschultz 11y ago

That has already happened. Most of the people that currently live in rent controlled or price stabilized apartments got them decades ago. The waiting list for any units that become available is extremely long. That effectively means most rent control is helping the elderly. I present that without comment or judgement, it's just a fact. The elderly are generally not the people manning the counter at your local bodega. They are not your local construction workers, doormen, or bartenders. All of those people, the ones that are the backbone of the service economy within Manhattan, already live in the outer boroughs. So the question effectively becomes does it make sense to subsidize the rent of retired people in Manhattan? On one side you can be the assholes kicking elderly people out of the homes and neighborhoods they have lived in for 30 years. On the other side you can be the assholes forcing the working class to commute 90 minutes a day. Take your pick of the bad options.

evanpw 11y ago
Very interesting. According to this: http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabilization_fact_sheet_FINAL_4.pdf http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/HVS_Rent_Stabiliz..., in Manhattan below 96th street 35% of rent-stabilized apartment dwellers moved in more than 20 years ago! (Versus 2.7% of those in non-stabilized apartments). Another interesting fact from that paper: the median person in a rent-stabilized apartment in core Manhattan has a higher income than the median person in a non-stabilized apartment in most of the rest of NYC.
- krschultz 11y ago
  This is a slightly different PDF from the same research group [1], which is what I was looking at. A couple other statistics that stick out. There are more rent stabilized apartments in NYC than market rate apartments. Over 20% of all rent stablized apartments in Manhattan go to people over 65. Less than 5% of people in market rate apartments are over 65 years old.Over 65% of people in a rent stabilized apartment in Manhattan are white. I think people have a picture of rent stabilized apartments as the place where your local bodega employee lives. The fact is the neighborhood rent stabilized apartments are where retired people live. [1] http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenter_FactBrief_RentStabilization_June2014.pdf http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenter_FactBrief_RentSta....