Is New York City Only for the Successful?- Page 2

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:27am

Well what some of you are forgetting is that there are many of us who have been living in an apt. For quite a while and our rents are not up to market value. I'm single, live in a fabulous apt. In the west village and am at the "least" comfortable. I don't make near 100k.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:31am

Yes there are many who have, like Jane2 lived in their apartments for years and don't pay the high rent someone would pay for moving into a similar apartment, possibly in the same neighborhood as say, Jane2 and pay the same amount she does in rent.

I know. I have family in the East Vill/Alphabet City and the Upper West Side who have had their apartment for years and they don't pay the same amount as someone who would move into the same neighborhood today.



Updated On: 8/11/13 at 11:31 AM

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 11:35am

I know that if I moved out, the rent in that apt would go up another $1500.

[AC126748]

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

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?

That's a subjective question, I think, because that "age" isn't the same for everyone. When I lived in aforementioned apartment in Astoria, I was mostly in my mid-twenties and my roommate was in his late thirties (and, by the time I moved out, over forty). He couldn't afford to live as nicely by himself as he could with a roommate, and together, we were able to live comfortably in a large, well-kept apartment.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 12:33pm

...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

The Times says New York City itself is only for the successful. I think you're missing the point. I agree that certain neighborhoods are "only" for the successful but that's nothing new and not particularly unsettling. Every city has its wealthy areas and I see no reason why everyone is entitled to live in any neighborhood at whatever sized apartment they'd like. Many have provided examples of comfort they lived in in New York City for far less than what the Times suggests. If you believe that you need a spacious 1 bedroom apartment and to be by yourself to be comfortable and you want to live in Manhattan, it's gonna cost you, that's well understood and I don't think it's surprising.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 2:14pm

I see no reason why everyone is entitled to live in any neighborhood at whatever sized apartment they'd like.

I certainly think everyone is entitles to live wherever they want in whatever situation they want to live in and in whatever sized apartment they choose to live in - - - or can afford to live in. I'm not disputing that. But the fact remains New York City is a very expensive city to live in. Period.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 2:40pm

But the fact remains New York City is a very expensive city to live in. Period.

Agreed!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 2:52pm

It was Rockefeller's Plan to have Manhattan being an Island of the Rich with the support staff living in the boroughs. It seems like it is coming to pass.

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 2:53pm

I think that one really burdensome thing that a lot of New Yorkers face when looking for an apartment is the absolutely ridiculous concept of a broker's fee that is 15% of a year's rent. Last year I nearly moved into an apartment in Clinton, but balked when I was told that my upfront payment of first month's rent, security, and broker's fee would be $6,460.

Living in a non-rent stabilized apartment has been a pain the last few years as my rent has gone up $200 in the past two years. Luckily, I've located a sublet from a friend that I'll be able to move into next month and I'll avoid having to pay a broker's fee.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 3:22pm

I'm of the mind that these (usually) NYTimes articles do more harm than good for NYC. They seem like they would deter people who could actually easily live in the city with their elitist proclamations of how you need 100k to live here. They're selling the idea that the ONLY way worth living in NYC is with a sizable income and in your own beautiful apartment in a good neighborhood. And that is patently untrue.

Instead of continuing to sell the traditionalist upper middle class city dream, why don't they focus on the unconventional ways people have found happiness living in NYC? It's an expensive city, doubtlessly, but that's forced people to be ingenious in ways that have payed off immensely for them in terms of happiness. That's what the Style section should be writing, not these articles that say, "Come back when you've already made it."

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 3:24pm

frogs, I do not profess to be the premier source of knowledge on apartment hunting but me and my husband have moved four times since 2001 (our first year in the city).

We have never paid a broker's fee because we use agencies that charge the landlord, rather than the tenant. Most recently we used Ardor Realty; a no-fee broker agency. Perhaps that limits the apartment selection? Or not. I have no idea. But we have never paid that broker's fee.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 4:06pm

why don't they focus on the unconventional ways people have found happiness living in NYC? It's an expensive city, doubtlessly, but that's forced people to be ingenious in ways that have payed off immensely for them in terms of happiness.

It is for the very reasons the NY Times article has pointed out that people have been forced to be ingenious in ways that have (for some) payed off for them.



Updated On: 8/11/13 at 04:06 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 4:22pm

When I moved into Manhattan back in the 80's I was in an illegal sublet on Charles Street. It was and 85 square foot room with a sink in in the fireplace. I could fit a TV, a Futon/ couch and a coffee table, that was it. I did have a very cramped bathroom and it was for the enormous rent of $385 a month. (remember it was 85' and I was making $8.75 an hour. I wasn't comfortable BUT I made do (due?). This is what I wanted andI sacrificed.

[javero]

Posted: 8/11/13 at 7:44pm

From what I've gathered from online exchanges, the mantra of many 20-something performing artists, fashion designers, & producers in other cities is increasingly "let's get it popping here and bring NYC to us". I don't knock NYC but thanks to the Internet, micro-financing opportunities, ample public transportation, and cheaper digs in other locales, NYC & Los Angeles are no longer Mecca East & West for creative types trying to break into their respective industries.

Twenty years ago I considered relocating to NYC myself, but it would be nearly out of the question now, housing costs being a huge deterrent. I've grown too accustomed to being a home owner and my pockets aren't deep enough for the NYC real estate market. Most of my colleagues and I joke that Manhattan and the smell of piss are only an Acela Express trip away

[Jon]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 7:25am

New York is only for those who desperately want to live in New York. I know many Equity actors who could have been working steadily in the Midwest over the past 20 years. Instead, they chose to go to NYC, where they have been waiters for the past 20 years, and are still hoping for that "big break".

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 7:50am

Jon, you are so very right with that. You want to live in NYC you quickly learn to live comfortably within your means. Even if it is only a 600 square foot garret with a tiny window and a communal bathroom.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 11:40am

600? That's huge. :)

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 11:46am

Absolutely, Jon. It's a personal choice.

Gary Beach, for example, recently moved down to Florida with his husband and they are perfectly happy being steadily employed by the regional companies down there. And we're talking about Gary Beach!

If I did not have family in Long Island and Connecticut, I probably would have stayed in Los Angeles. But since the hubby wanted to, and there was family close by, I figured "Why not give it a try?" And here I am nearly thirteen years later... Oy vey.

[suestorm]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 11:54am

if youre willing to sacrifice it can easily be done.... roommates, 99 cent pizza and living in one of the boros.

[BudFrump23]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 1:40pm

"I did have a very cramped bathroom and it was for the enormous rent of $385 a month. (remember it was 85' and I was making $8.75 an hour."

Amazing how almost 30 years later, many New Yorkers are still making the same wages, if not less, an hour. And yet nobody I know has less than $600 rent.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 2:15pm

AND THAT is why the minimum wage should be AT least $16 per hour!

[frogs_fan85]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 3:33pm

Even if it is only a 600 square foot garret with a tiny window and a communal bathroom.

600 square feet? Where do I find this palace you speak of?

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 3:36pm

I can't do the "communal bathroom" thing. Call me a snob, but there are only so many butts one toilet seat can handle. Just saying.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 5:57pm

I find the essay linked in the OP interesting but very narrow in its conception of what "New York" means. It seems to me that the author understands "New York" to be Manhattan.

Furthermore, he seems to think that the Chelsea of 1970 was the same boutique- and gallery-filled neighborhood full of high-end condos and smart little restaurants that it is today.

His delusion goes on to say that back then--when New York was easy for young, creative types to live in--Patti Smith and Robert Mapplethorpe could live right in the heart of Chelsea for just $200 month.

Well--that was a different time and Chelsea was a different place. And $200 1970 dollars is $1,203.63 2013 dollars. And for $1,203.63 you can find a dirty, run-down apartment in Bushwick or East Williamsburg--which is where you have to go now to be a pioneer.

People say things like "I could have bought this building back in the day for NOTHING". But they didn't. They want the ex-post-facto experience of having BEEN a pioneer without the dirt, the crime, the noise and the effort of actually being a pioneer.

And no--everyone doesn't "deserve" to live wherever they want for whatever price they want to pay, and it isn't sad that they can't. It's capitalism, which is the same set of rules and conditions that made Patti Smith rich.

Updated On: 8/12/13 at 05:57 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 8/12/13 at 6:30pm

I am sorry, that was a typo the living area on Charles Street was 60 square feet (not including bathroom).

ETA: I believe that apartment is going for $1,800 today.

Updated On: 8/12/13 at 06:30 PM