• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NYC: Death of a Once Great City

JuiceCrewAllStar said:
I'mma need you to show your work on "plenty of 3BRs for $2k-$3k in the Upper West Side"
Click to expand...

Just go to realtor.com and do a search bro, its not that tough. Its July, which is the highest rent month, and there are still 3 bedroom options (and a bunch of 2 bedrooms).
 
DaDeacs said:
I mean, this is the extreme other side, though. $4k per month housing is only affordable in top 10% earners. But you don't need $4k unless you want a doorman building with all the amenities. The new buildings going up have almost full YMCAs in them now - the building next to mine has a golf simulator, bowling alley, full court basketball, massive gym, restaurant/bar, free arcade room - its crazy what they are putting into these buildings to jack up the rates into silly numbers.

Thats a different argument, though.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the top 10% are the people that should be living in the best of the best neighborhoods. There is nothing wrong with the City, and if you decide that waiting tables is your career profession, you are never going to have a golf simulator. All is well, America is kicking ass, and I want a golf simulator for Christmas.
 
If you make $145,00 a year you are taking home like $7,000-7,500 after taxes, 401k, etc. Even if you’re rent is only $3,000 the rest starts to go pretty quickly with going out to eat/drink, any travel/vacations, student loans, etc. I’m not saying that you literally couldn’t afford to pay your bills but I think realistically you’d have to make like $300k as a couple to be able to fully enjoy the lifestyle and be contributing an appropriate level to household savings. So maybe “stupid” money is a bit of an overstatement but it’s certainly a pretty high figure. By the way, a quick Google search shows census data from 2013 that has $140,000 as the 99th percentile for individual income for the 25-29 age group and $186,000 for the 30-34 age group. Now obviously cities like NYC and Boston have a disproportionate share of people in those groups but it’s still a lot of money.
 
WRS said:
If you make $145,00 a year you are taking home like $7,000-7,500 after taxes, 401k, etc. Even if you’re rent is only $3,000 the rest starts to go pretty quickly with going out to eat/drink, any travel/vacations, student loans, etc. I’m not saying that you literally couldn’t afford to pay your bills but I think realistically you’d have to make like $300k as a couple to be able to fully enjoy the lifestyle and be contributing an appropriate level to household savings. So maybe “stupid” money is a bit of an overstatement but it’s certainly a pretty high figure. By the way, a quick Google search shows census data from 2013 that has $140,000 as the 99th percentile for individual income for the 25-29 age group and $186,000 for the 30-34 age group. Now obviously cities like NYC and Boston have a disproportionate share of people in those groups but it’s still a lot of money.
Click to expand...

"stupid poors, just buy more money"
 
WRS said:
If you make $145,00 a year you are taking home like $7,000-7,500 after taxes, 401k, etc. Even if you’re rent is only $3,000 the rest starts to go pretty quickly with going out to eat/drink, any travel/vacations, student loans, etc. I’m not saying that you literally couldn’t afford to pay your bills but I think realistically you’d have to make like $300k as a couple to be able to fully enjoy the lifestyle and be contributing an appropriate level to household savings. So maybe “stupid” money is a bit of an overstatement but it’s certainly a pretty high figure. By the way, a quick Google search shows census data from 2013 that has $140,000 as the 99th percentile for individual income for the 25-29 age group and $186,000 for the 30-34 age group. Now obviously cities like NYC and Boston have a disproportionate share of people in those groups but it’s still a lot of money.
Click to expand...

300k is a bit overkill- based on those parameters 200k is just fine (not that that's not a high income too)
 
HoosierDeac said:
300k is a bit overkill- based on those parameters 200k is just fine (not that that's not a high income too)
Click to expand...

There is definitely a range based on variables like student loan payments and individual choices like how much you dine out and where you like to travel. There also tend to be big one-off expenses like buying an engagement ring/paying for a wedding or buying a house that crop up in the late 20s/early 30s that can put a significant dent in accrued savings or ongoing cash flow (and I’m going through both right now so I’m really feeling it!).
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Meh most college educated working class couples should be able to cover that especially considering wage inflation working in NYC. What's the average salary for a Wake grad, it is easily over 70K right?

Edit: Quick search shows that average medium salary for a wake grad is $118,000, so yeah 4K/mo is not crazy.
Click to expand...

LOL at “average medium salary.”
 
tumblr_lsrkuyrnzF1qii6tmo1_500.gif
 
DaDeacs said:
I mean, this is the extreme other side, though. $4k per month housing is only affordable in top 10% earners. But you don't need $4k unless you want a doorman building with all the amenities. The new buildings going up have almost full YMCAs in them now - the building next to mine has a golf simulator, bowling alley, full court basketball, massive gym, restaurant/bar, free arcade room - its crazy what they are putting into these buildings to jack up the rates into silly numbers.

Thats a different argument, though.
Click to expand...

But it's not a different argument, that's the point. The golf simulator buildings are replacing previously moderately-priced buildings. They aren't in addition to, they are instead of. And it's only getting worse. There is no naturally occurring affordable housing in New York, only affordable housing generated through public subsidy and rent control (which is also going down by the day).

You can take the catamount stance that only the rich should be able to access the city, but 1) who is going to do all the labor and where will they live? and 2) goodbye culture

DaDeacs said:
Just go to realtor.com and do a search bro, its not that tough. Its July, which is the highest rent month, and there are still 3 bedroom options (and a bunch of 2 bedrooms).
Click to expand...

I did. There is one under $3k and it is 800 SF.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
But it's not a different argument, that's the point. The golf simulator buildings are replacing previously moderately-priced buildings. They aren't in addition to, they are instead of. And it's only getting worse. There is no naturally occurring affordable housing in New York, only affordable housing generated through public subsidy and rent control (which is also going down by the day).

You can take the catamount stance that only the rich should be able to access the city, but 1) who is going to do all the labor and where will they live? and 2) goodbye culture



I did. There is one under $3k and it is 800 SF.
Click to expand...


To me this is almost the very crux of the matter of the tension in our culture nowadays (allow me to pontificate):
On one hand you have those who are proponents of 'market forces' /laissez faire capitalism, the attendant effects of the greater good be damned
On the other you have those that believe that government has a role to play in some degree to keep such effects in check in order preserve some semblance of equity and quality of life/culture/somesuch
The devil is in the details of where you draw the line

I wish more folks understood that the attendant effects of the 'invisible hand' are often deleterious and you're not a pinko commielib if you actually want to put some reasonable guardrails in place

<steps off lecturn>
 
exactly, that's the tension between housing as real estate and housing as shelter; you can't have your cake and eat it too

it worked for a while when the suburbs were en vogue among the middle and upper classes because the land was widely available and car use was subsidized by the government (as was housing for a while via the GI bill, and continues today through the mortgage interest deduction, though that has lost some value with the new tax law). but as tastes have returned to the city -- especially those that are islands, like SF and Manhattan -- the problem becomes exacerbated

all of this runs into a culture that puts homeownership on a pedestal and a personal finance structure that encourages people to keep much of their net worth in their home equity
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
But it's not a different argument, that's the point. The golf simulator buildings are replacing previously moderately-priced buildings. They aren't in addition to, they are instead of. And it's only getting worse. There is no naturally occurring affordable housing in New York, only affordable housing generated through public subsidy and rent control (which is also going down by the day).

You can take the catamount stance that only the rich should be able to access the city, but 1) who is going to do all the labor and where will they live? and 2) goodbye culture



I did. There is one under $3k and it is 800 SF.
Click to expand...

They aren't replacing moderately priced buildings...? They are being built in locations where nothing was previously or where there was some commercial space. Its not like big apartment complexes are being torn down for new buildings. There are still a few projects in the low/mid 60's.

The point of the article is not correct, and your stance is wrong. I feel like you just want to argue - yes, the 3 bedroom is 800 square feet, thats my point. And there are 11 more 3 bedrooms in the $3k-$3300 range - and they are probably all under 1000 sq ft - if you want to live in the Upper West Side and in a 3 bedroom and you only have $3k per month, these are you options.
 
DaDeacs said:
They aren't replacing moderately priced buildings...? They are being built in locations where nothing was previously or where there was some commercial space. Its not like big apartment complexes are being torn down for new buildings. There are still a few projects in the low/mid 60's.

The point of the article is not correct, and your stance is wrong. I feel like you just want to argue - yes, the 3 bedroom is 800 square feet, thats my point. And there are 11 more 3 bedrooms in the $3k-$3300 range - and they are probably all under 1000 sq ft - if you want to live in the Upper West Side and in a 3 bedroom and you only have $3k per month, these are you options.
Click to expand...

I hit enter too quick.

But there are affordable options around the city (NYC affordable) - and housing isn't being replaced, its just being added to because of the population growth. The cost of living is higher, but you also make more living in the city - the minimum wage is almost double the standard.
 
We started with:

DaDeacs said:
I'm looking at moving now, and there is a ton of stuff across the board in the upper west side where the writer of this article lives.
Click to expand...

and now we'reat

DaDeacs said:
And there are 11 more [in addition to the one I identified, bringing us to 12] 3 bedrooms in the $3k-$3300 range -
Click to expand...

So, in a neighborhood with over 200,000 people, there are 12 units for less than $3,300, which would be 40% of a household's income at ~$100k annually. With NYC's $15 minimum wage, three minimum wage earners in one household would not make enough for those units if they aimed to keep housing costs (and this doesn't include utilities) below 40%, which is well over the prescribed financially health amount, but we're allowing for reduced transit costs. And yet they would make far too much to be considered for public or subsidized affordable housing (link: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/renters/what-is-affordable-housing.page).

The question is not whether a working class family can live in the Upper West Side -- they can't -- but whether we are okay with a housing system where a working class family cannot live in the UWS.


And while I may be off on the fact that new construction in Manhattan is not replacing tear-downs of existing housing (like it is in Brooklyn), it does not change the fact that new construction is almost exclusively luxury, as a rational developer will build in the existing market.
 
Last edited:
There's a 3 bedroom for sale in my building if any of you are interested:

2n8asnl.png
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
exactly, that's the tension between housing as real estate and housing as shelter; you can't have your cake and eat it too

it worked for a while when the suburbs were en vogue among the middle and upper classes because the land was widely available and car use was subsidized by the government (as was housing for a while via the GI bill, and continues today through the mortgage interest deduction, though that has lost some value with the new tax law). but as tastes have returned to the city -- especially those that are islands, like SF and Manhattan -- the problem becomes exacerbated

all of this runs into a culture that puts homeownership on a pedestal and a personal finance structure that encourages people to keep much of their net worth in their home equity
Click to expand...
It appalling that poors can’t live in the worlds nicest neighborhoods. Time to tear down western civilization and burn this thing to the ground.

It’s not like they don’t have access to the city at all. They just can’t live in a high rise sitting over the valuable property the world has ever seen. As to who is going to work the service jobs, could you please provide a list of service shortages in NYC, thanks!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top