New York micro-appartments

[garbon]

I remember reading sometime around 1980 that the South Bronx had lost about 28,000 housing units in the past decade.  Apparantly, for the most part, those units weren't replaced with new development (residential or otherwise) but simply abandoned, so there should be room to build at least some new apartment buildings.

I'm not sure how rent stabilization is stopping them from doing so (though presumably there has been movement there)...as that isn't Manhattan.  The types of individuals who want a 275 sp apt in Kips Bay probably don't align much with the individuals looking for housing in the Bronx. 

That said, I could totally see how removing rent stabilization in the Bronx could lead to more construction in the Bronx but I'm not sure that'd help prices in Manhattan.  Most of those desperate to be in Manhattan still wouldn't find the Bronx a great option.

[dps]

Yeah, well, I don't know you but other people tend to accumulate crap as their life goes on, their needs evolve and might neew more space for them, even gather other people around them, so at some point you kinda start feeling a bit cramped.

what I mean, is that people usually don't live all their life in the same spot.  They move around, they buy houses or condos.  Temporary housing to me means like a few weeks in a room with multiple people around.  An appartment here is typically a one year contract, from 1st July to June 30th.

I think 1-year leases are typical in most places.  Of course, that doesn't mean that people move every year--a lot of people will just renew their lease for another year when it's up.  OTOH that doesn't mean that the typical person will rent a place when they first move out on their own and stay there for the next 50 years, either.

[Valmy]

if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up

It was almost they were saying: see what the evil mayor is providing for the poors when he gets to live in this big ritzy place!

Um...yeah...so he has to live in a cardboard box before he can do anything for "low cost" housing?

[garbon]

if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up

It was almost they were saying: see what the evil mayor is providing for the poors when he gets to live in this big ritzy place!

Um...yeah...so he has to live in a cardboard box before he can do anything for "low cost" housing?

Sad thing is that this isn't even housing for the "poor". They wouldn't be able to afford said units.

[garbon]

Also I doubt this apartments will still be under $2,000 when they ever get built. That's be some egregious rent control.

[dps]

I remember reading sometime around 1980 that the South Bronx had lost about 28,000 housing units in the past decade.  Apparantly, for the most part, those units weren't replaced with new development (residential or otherwise) but simply abandoned, so there should be room to build at least some new apartment buildings.

I'm not sure how rent stabilization is stopping them from doing so (though presumably there has been movement there)...as that isn't Manhattan.  The types of individuals who want a 275 sp apt in Kips Bay probably don't align much with the individuals looking for housing in the Bronx. 

That said, I could totally see how removing rent stabilization in the Bronx could lead to more construction in the Bronx but I'm not sure that'd help prices in Manhattan.  Most of those desperate to be in Manhattan still wouldn't find the Bronx a great option.

Well, I would think that if there was more affordable, good-quality housing available in the Bronx, then at least some of those people would see living in the Bronx to be a reasonable alternative and be less desperate to live in Manhattan.

And, I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume that the other boroughs had also lost housing units during that time period, and the article had singled out the Bronx (and specifically the South Bronx) because it had lost the most.

[Malthus]

if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up

It was almost they were saying: see what the evil mayor is providing for the poors when he gets to live in this big ritzy place!

Um...yeah...so he has to live in a cardboard box before he can do anything for "low cost" housing?

How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? 

[DGuller]

The windfall comes from the availability of the apartments.  In rent-controlled city, that availability is very limited, but that develops over time.  You don't pay the availability price until some time down the road after enactment of rent control.

I don't understand. Aren't you saying that rent-control hampers availability?

Yes.    I was saying that rent-controlled cities eventually suffer from shortage of apartments, but that shortage doesn't get bad until some time later.  In the beginning, you get a free market availability at socialist prices.

Well, is the notion that people would go around knocking down the current older buildings (/I guess luxury construction)? There isn't exactly a lot of empty space in Manhattan, so I'm not sure I understand where all this abundant housing will come from? 

Far from all of Manhattan is high rise.  Why shouldn't you knock down current older buildings when they no longer serve their purpose efficiently?  And why would you think that the older buildings are luxury?  The luxury construction are the new highrises being built in neighborhoods like Chelsea, I don't think there would be any point in knocking them down. 

Besides, wouldn't the immediate impact be driving away tons of young residents with only the wealthy lasting around?

No, I don't see why that would be the immediate impact.  If anyone would be heavily impacted, it would be older people on fixed incomes who hogged their current apartments for decades because they paid a fraction of the market price for it.

Also what's that bit about more efficient allocation of resources?

Are you being intentionally dense now?  That's about as basic economics as you can get:  price controls result in misallocation of resources.  Some of the prime real estate land cannot be used to full extent because its owners are handcuffed by onerous rent control legislation.

[garbon]

Well, I would think that if there was more affordable, good-quality housing available in the Bronx, then at least some of those people would see living in the Bronx to be a reasonable alternative and be less desperate to live in Manhattan.

And, I don't know this for a fact, but I would assume that the other boroughs had also lost housing units during that time period, and the article had singled out the Bronx (and specifically the South Bronx) because it had lost the most.

Some people sure, but enough? After all there is certainly stigma (not to mention commute time ) attached to the outer boroughs, one's like the Bronx in particular.

[Valmy]

How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? 

We are talking about NYC here.

[Eddie Teach]

Far from all of Manhattan is high rise.  Why shouldn't you knock down current older buildings when they no longer serve their purpose efficiently?  And why would you think that the older buildings are luxury?  The luxury construction are the new highrises being built in neighborhoods like Chelsea, I don't think there would be any point in knocking them down. 

If they covered the island in skyscrapers, they'd need a second subway. Either that, or flying cars. 

[garbon]

Far from all of Manhattan is high rise.  Why shouldn't you knock down current older buildings when they no longer serve their purpose efficiently?

As Teach suggested, you are then adding a whole new host of issues if you are saying that high rises should be built to cover all of Manhattan...

And why would you think that the older buildings are luxury?  The luxury construction are the new highrises being built in neighborhoods like Chelsea, I don't think there would be any point in knocking them down. 

No, I was saying that I guess you'd get rid of old buildings and also I guess luxury.  The luxury apartments are clearly not an efficient use of space. You could build many of these micro units in the space of 1 luxury unit.

No, I don't see why that would be the immediate impact.  If anyone would be heavily impacted, it would be older people on fixed incomes who hogged their current apartments for decades because they paid a fraction of the market price for it.

Market rates seem to increase fairly quickly. I've not even been in my new place a month and for a similar unit in the building, it has already gone up $125/month. Doesn't seem that far fetched that individuals who lived in their apts for a couple to few years might have to find something new if their apt was suddenly at market rate.  After all, wages aren't rising at that rate.

Are you being intentionally dense now?  That's about as basic economics as you can get:  price controls result in misallocation of resources.  Some of the prime real estate land cannot be used to full extent because its owners are handcuffed by onerous rent control legislation.

Nope, I simply didn't understand what you were talking about. Glad to see I'm not allowed to ask for clarifications.

[garbon]

How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? 

We are talking about NYC here.

Doesn't matter. It isn't poor individuals who would get these spaces. Most likely either transient Euros or kids who have their parents as guarantors. After all, typically you need about 40-50 times the monthly rent in salary to sign a lease on your own.

[DGuller]

As Teach suggested, you are then adding a whole new host of issues if you are saying that high rises should be built to cover all of Manhattan...

Even assuming that you can't add one more apartment to Manhattan, getting rid of rent control would still be far more economically efficient.

No, I was saying that I guess you'd get rid of old buildings and also I guess luxury.  The luxury apartments are clearly not an efficient use of space. You could build many of these micro units in the space of 1 luxury unit.

Even if that questionable assertion is true, they're way down on the list of inefficient buildings.

Market rates seem to increase fairly quickly. I've not even been in my new place a month and for a similar unit in the building, it has already gone up $125/month. Doesn't seem that far fetched that individuals who lived in their apts for a couple to few years might have to find something new if their apt was suddenly at market rate.  After all, wages aren't rising at that rate.

You're seeing that because the market is distorted.  The actual free real estate market is fairly small compared to the total market, but it's the only one that can adjust price to meet increased demand, so that segment absorbs more than its fair share of rent increases.  If you squeeze the balloon in one place, it stretches much more than normal in the place where you're not squeezing. 

You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that repeal of rent control laws would suddenly vastly increase the supply in the free real estate market, which would actually be a big positive for people who are already in it.  Those who are in the controlled market would suffer, but that's because their inefficient subsidies would be taken away.  That's why young people would actually be big winners, and immediately so, if rent control were repealed.  Their rents would go down, not up.

Nope, I simply didn't understand what you were talking about. Glad to see I'm not allowed to ask for clarifications.

I just got the impression that you're badgering Yi-style rather than asking for clarification.

[garbon]

Even assuming that you can't add one more apartment to Manhattan, getting rid of rent control would still be far more economically efficient.

For owners sure.

Even if that questionable assertion is true, they're way down on the list of inefficient buildings.

How is that questionable? Article made the comparison of Bloomie's bit to these micro apartments.

You're seeing that because the market is distorted.  The actual free real estate market is fairly small compared to the total market, but it's the only one that can adjust price to meet increased demand, so that segment absorbs more than its fair share of rent increases.  If you squeeze the balloon in one place, it stretches much more than normal in the place where you're not squeezing.

I get that typically they wouldn't increase like that but they would in the short term. Eventually it'd flatten out but the immediate impact would be rents rising across the board.

You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that repeal of rent control laws would suddenly vastly increase the supply in the free real estate market, which would actually be a big positive for people who are already in it.  Those who are in the controlled market would suffer, but that's because their inefficient subsidies would be taken away.  That's why young people would actually be big winners, and immediately so, if rent control were repealed.  Their rents would go down, not up.

They only increase the supply because they force people to leave their homes (as they can't afford them).  Young people in general would be big winners but the young people already in New York (like myself) would generally be fucked over. Many of us already are benefiting from subsidies as we've lived in the same locations for sometime and seen market rates spiral above our heads.

I just got the impression that you're badgering Yi-style rather than asking for clarification.

Nope it was an honest question. I'm not trying to argue here but rather wrap my head around all of this.