Is New York City Only for the Successful?

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/9/13 at 2:00pm

Great, great article.
Your choice for mayor goes beyond peen pics.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/13 at 11:30pm

In time, this will change the city's character.

Where has the NY Times been the last several years? When you have an Olive Garden in Times Square instead of a Mama Leone's, when all art is dominated by the privileged children of famous people and doesn't give way to original voices, and when your shopping choices offer nothing that you wouldn't be able to find in any modest sized mid-western town, then you know the city's character has changed.

Updated On: 8/9/13 at 11:30 PM

[~tiny~]

Posted: 8/9/13 at 11:50pm

Somebody named their spawn "Jemima"??? Holy ****.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/9/13 at 11:55pm

Somebody named their spawn "Jemima"???

Actually it's a biblical name. She was one of the daughters of Job.

[siny]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:45am

Is the writer of this article aware that Manhattan is not the only boro in NYC ? My son just moved into a one-bedroom apt. on Staten Island that rents for $1,200. A far cry from the average $3,000 rent in Manhattan. Plus, maybe other cities have cheaper rents but you need a car to get around - and how much does that cost ?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:48am

Yeah, but Staten Island.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 12:50am

Isn't Staten Island the boro that has the city dump?

[siny]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 1:33am

"Isn't Staten Island the boro that has the city dump?"

Not anymore. It's now a park.

"Yeah, but Staten Island."

Better than Detroit.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 8:42am

The NYTimes seems to be all about saying the city is only for the rich and successful.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 9:15am

Yes. Depending on where you live, this is true.

[Hank]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 2:20pm

$3000 a month! How do you guys do it? And don't forget, just about everything else costs more in New York (Staten Island not included).
I also want to say something nice about Staten Island: they have some of the best bagels and Italian pork stores you'll find anywhere.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 2:41pm

"The NYTimes seems to be all about saying the city is only for the rich and successful."

Their fascination with Brooklyn continues to be one of the funniest running gags in a major newspaper.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 2:55pm

NYC, especially Manhattan, does indeed seem to be headed in the direction of being hoarded by gazillionaires.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 3:19pm

I live in NYC, and in Manhattan, and certainly do not pay anything close to $3000 a month. Nor do most (or nearly all) of the people I know. Do I have a spacious one bedroom? No. Do I have roommates? Of course. But, come on.

The NYTimes ran an article saying you need to earn 100k annually to live comfortably in the city, if I recall- which is ridiculous but par for the course for the NYTimes.

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 5:28pm

The funny thing is even making 100K you wouldn't qualify in plenty of places to rent that 3,000 apartment. You'd need to make 40x the rent - 120K!

[Kad]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 7:12pm

Assuming you're not a subletter or renting a room, which countless New Yorkers do.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 7:44pm

Let's not anyone fool themselves. You have to be making upwards of 6 figures o be married/have a partner and have two healthy incomes in the household to live COMFORTABLY in New York City...especially Manhattan.

Sure many are making it work under other circumstances, but truth be told if you are single and making 45k in the city there is no way in hell you are living comfortably in a one bedroom apartment BY YOURSELF and paying rent, utilities, food, etc. There's just no way.

Updated On: 8/10/13 at 07:44 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 7:54pm

I guess it depends on what you define as comfortable.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 7:57pm

Comfortable = A separate kitchen, bathroom and bedroom in a decent neighborhood. Paying your rent and utilities on a monthly basis with enough left over for miscellaneous expenses (e.g.: entertainment, clothing, etc.) and savings.

Updated On: 8/10/13 at 07:57 PM

[siny]

Posted: 8/10/13 at 8:13pm

It's possible if you live in an outer boro and don't have a car.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 1:21am

Carlos - and that's where many differ, your definition of comfort seems to be what the Times defines as comfort. Many others, including myself, have a far lower threshold for comfort.

My first apartment that I loved did not have a separate kitchen, I shared a bathroom with my roommate and we lived in a 1 bedroom in Manhattan and each had our own room. We made it work and I paid well under this "$3000 average."

The Times seems to think everyone needs to live in an apartment by themselves with their own bedroom on the Upper East Side to be comfortable.

[AC126748]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 10:44am

The Times seems to think everyone needs to live in an apartment by themselves with their own bedroom on the Upper East Side to be comfortable.

Precisely. However, there is a very comfortable world outside of this that is graspable for many--it just doesn't get much coverage. My apartment in Astoria, where I moved when I came back to the city in 2007 and lived until last year, was a 2-bedroom in a triplex with a separate entrance, two large bedrooms, a bathroom, a large kitchen with separate dining room, and a living room. My rent was $1600/month, which I shared with a roommate. Heat and water were included, we paid electric and cable only. My average rent was $850-900 a month. I would have stayed in the apartment forever, but I moved out to live with my fiance.

The apartment was much nicer and larger than most friends who lived in Manhattan or parts of Brooklyn. A friend recently moved into a four-bedroom duplex in Brooklyn for $3000/month. Good apartments for all budgets are still very much out there, most people just don't know where to look.

Updated On: 8/11/13 at 10:44 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 10:58am

@broadwaydevil and AC126748: For me (and I guess The Times) comfortable means under normal circumstances.

What you described below for me would be for me what I already explained in my previous post as: "making it work under other circumstances"


Carlos - and that's where many differ, your definition of comfort seems to be what the Times defines as comfort. Many others, including myself, have a far lower threshold for comfort.

My first apartment that I loved did not have a separate kitchen, I shared a bathroom with my roommate and we lived in a 1 bedroom in Manhattan and each had our own room. We made it work and I paid well under this "$3000 average."




Updated On: 8/11/13 at 10:58 AM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 10:58am

Question: What happens when you don't have a mate to move in with, yet you have reached an age where you can't do the roommate thing anymore?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:02am

The Times seems to think everyone needs to live in an apartment by themselves with their own bedroom on the Upper East Side to be comfortable.

...and that's where you missed THE WHOLE POINT. The point is most people can't afford their own apartment on the Upper East Side because they would have to be making upwards of six figures to do so. That's why many like you have to resort to subletting, seeking out a roommate, sharing a bathroom, etc.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...but it's the reality.
Updated On: 8/11/13 at 11:02 AM