Bigger than a prison cell, smaller than a trailer (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mike-pushes-smaller-apts-young-singles-article-1.1110965)
Will it be successful?
For just under 2k a month? Fuck.
I'll split my house into five of those right now.
The demographic this would appeal to probably can't pay $2000 a month.
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
The demographic this would appeal to probably can't pay $2000 a month.
hippies could live at 10 in a space like that.
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
The demographic this would appeal to probably can't pay $2000 a month.
Not sure about that. That current demographic is probably paying close to that to share an apartment with one or two roommates.
That's not so bad. It's about 30 or 40 square feet smaller than my back living room, which I basically live in right now. :P
The "apartment" that I lived in in Manhattan was 100 sq. feet and cost ~$600 a month. Of course that was almost 13 years ago, so it's probably more expensive now.
That's like a bachelor condo in Toronto. only set you back to 300,000 :lol:
Looks dreadful especially at 2k!
But not atypical.
300 feet apartments are micro? Thousands of families in HK have homes far smaller than those.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 11, 2012, 08:29:28 PM
300 feet apartments are micro? Thousands of families in HK have homes far smaller than those.
And that doesn't count all the room set aside for the ancestors.
Confucius admires the piety of the Great Leapers Froward.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 11, 2012, 08:29:28 PM
300 feet apartments are micro? Thousands of families in HK have homes far smaller than those.
That's inhumane.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 11, 2012, 08:29:28 PM
300 feet apartments are micro? Thousands of families in HK have homes far smaller than those.
Fun fact--Levittown, which started the post-WWII trend of builing suburban subdivisions in America, originally featured houses that were just 10' X 10'--100 square feet (there were other sizes available). It was cheap housing for the masses. Today, though, I doubt that anyone who wasn't homeless would live in a 100 sq ft house if you just gave it to them.
The house my mom just bought is about 1200 sq ft, and that's considered small nowdays. I've had apartments that were considerably larger.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2012, 08:34:51 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on July 11, 2012, 08:29:28 PM
300 feet apartments are micro? Thousands of families in HK have homes far smaller than those.
That's inhumane.
In the worst cases, whole families share the lower/upper half of a bunker bed, and there are dozens of these beds in a room. Meaning 50-100 people share a room. Those aren't cheap either. Because these places are often located near the city centre and are convenient, they often command rent of US$500 per month or more. In HK, that's often half the income of a young healthy adult. Those places are run by the triads so not keeping up with the rent will NOT happen.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 11, 2012, 08:29:28 PM
300 feet apartments are micro? Thousands of families in HK have homes far smaller than those.
How can they all breathe in there?
Don't forget your multipass and to put your hands on the yellow circles.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.kotaku.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2F9%2F2009%2F05%2Fmedium_3505740990_16f725ef17_o.jpg&hash=e314c9d8b1f70dd26173771cb4619dc75f9535a9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com%2Fimages02%2F71%2Fe495aad3c8f1443b89b825eedd498789%2Fl.jpg&hash=509546dfcd6e2066928469bc23b108aadf99ba7e)
"Single Resident Occupancy" dwellings are as old as the industrial metropolis (plenty of SRO/welfare hotels left in SF today at least), but I guess it's new for aspiring yuppies to seek them? Though in the 1910s an aspiring clerk in New York would almost certainly be lodging in a rooming house (the boarding house being mostly antiquated by then.)
The late 70s and early 80s were a period of incredible reduction in the amount of private SRO rooms available in NYC, as development on the Upper West Side and East Village took place. It's often overlooked in accounting for the massive rise in homelessness in the 80s. The welfare hotel as such really only took place after a ton of these buildings had been converted into expensive apartments, and the remaining hotels could be rented at extortionate prices to the city to house e.g. AIDS patients in the late 80s.
My apartments about that size, but it costs 500k won a month (and the school covers 450k won)
This is not micro. 300 square feet equals 30 square metres, which is pretty much an acceptable studio flat in bigger European cities for a single person. A bit on the small side but people actually are often happy to live in stuff like that. :huh:
The flat I live right now in is only about 1/3 bigger than that.
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
The demographic this would appeal to probably can't pay $2000 a month.
How so? This is NY. A white shoe law firm starting salary is around $80,000 a year. It's targeted to people like that.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:38:07 AM
This is not micro. 300 square feet equals 30 square metres, which is pretty much an acceptable studio flat in bigger European cities for a single person. A bit on the small side but people actually are often happy to live in stuff like that. :huh:
The flat I live right now in is only about 1/3 bigger than that.
:nelson:
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 12:47:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:38:07 AM
This is not micro. 300 square feet equals 30 square metres, which is pretty much an acceptable studio flat in bigger European cities for a single person. A bit on the small side but people actually are often happy to live in stuff like that. :huh:
The flat I live right now in is only about 1/3 bigger than that.
:nelson:
If you measure the size as relative to the weight of the occupant, rather than measure it in absolute terms, our dwellings are probably similar.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:44:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
The demographic this would appeal to probably can't pay $2000 a month.
How so? This is NY. A white shoe law firm starting salary is around $80,000 a year. It's targeted to people like that.
I'm pretty sure those kinds of apartments are not targetted at white shoe law firm associates.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
If you measure the size as relative to the weight of the occupant, rather than measure it in absolute terms, our dwellings are probably similar.
Not really Marti, in most places outside of NYC the smallest apartments are at least double the size of that place.
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 01:07:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
If you measure the size as relative to the weight of the occupant, rather than measure it in absolute terms, our dwellings are probably similar.
Not really Marti, in most places outside of NYC the smallest apartments are at least double the size of that place.
So double the size of the fat joke. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2012, 01:09:48 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 01:07:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
If you measure the size as relative to the weight of the occupant, rather than measure it in absolute terms, our dwellings are probably similar.
Not really Marti, in most places outside of NYC the smallest apartments are at least double the size of that place.
So double the size of the fat joke. :P
Considering I live in a place three times that size it would be triple. :P
Quote from: Barrister on July 12, 2012, 01:04:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:44:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 11, 2012, 02:46:09 PM
The demographic this would appeal to probably can't pay $2000 a month.
How so? This is NY. A white shoe law firm starting salary is around $80,000 a year. It's targeted to people like that.
I'm pretty sure those kinds of apartments are not targetted at white shoe law firm associates.
I was talking about trainees.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 12:47:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:38:07 AM
This is not micro. 300 square feet equals 30 square metres, which is pretty much an acceptable studio flat in bigger European cities for a single person. A bit on the small side but people actually are often happy to live in stuff like that. :huh:
The flat I live right now in is only about 1/3 bigger than that.
:nelson:
If you measure the size as relative to the weight of the occupant, rather than measure it in absolute terms, our dwellings are probably similar.
Oh Snap!
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 01:11:23 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2012, 01:09:48 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 01:07:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
If you measure the size as relative to the weight of the occupant, rather than measure it in absolute terms, our dwellings are probably similar.
Not really Marti, in most places outside of NYC the smallest apartments are at least double the size of that place.
So double the size of the fat joke. :P
Considering I live in a place three times that size it would be triple. :P
Sounds about right. :P
Not really, but as you can't seem to come up with anything else you keep using it. ;)
You can get 280-300 square foot apartments in Vienna, too. In the Inner City district at an exclusive address they may easily be €600-700 without utilities/month. In other districts it may be under 300.
Quote from: viper37 on July 11, 2012, 02:38:21 PM
Bigger than a prison cell, smaller than a trailer (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mike-pushes-smaller-apts-young-singles-article-1.1110965)
Will it be successful?
QuoteCommissioner of City Planning Amanda Burden
"These Kaminoans keep to themselves. Cloners--damned good ones."
Anyway, I don't know how big my room is. 400 square feet I guess.
300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 03:02:22 AM
300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.
Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.
My first place on my own was roughly of that size. It was liveable, I even got to make a few parties in there. And there was much less to clean than in bigger appartments.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2012, 03:14:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 03:02:22 AM
300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.
Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.
You divide by 10, roughly, so it's 30 square metres.
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:01:53 AM
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
Why would we want to regress to European standards. :rolleyes:
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 04:04:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:01:53 AM
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
Why would we want to regress to European standards. :rolleyes:
Because you have no choice.
Sure we do, we just don't choose to live in NYC and problem solved. :P
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 04:08:32 AM
Sure we do, we just don't choose to live in NYC and problem solved. :P
I thought we were talking about the ambitious people, not rural bumpkins. Sorry.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:09:25 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2012, 04:08:32 AM
Sure we do, we just don't choose to live in NYC and problem solved. :P
I thought we were talking about the ambitious people, not rural bumpkins. Sorry.
:huh:
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:01:53 AM
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
Who's outraged?
Quote from: sbr on July 12, 2012, 04:37:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:01:53 AM
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
Who's outraged?
Americans, of course. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:44:08 AM
Quote from: sbr on July 12, 2012, 04:37:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:01:53 AM
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
Who's outraged?
Americans, of course. :rolleyes:
The only thing approaching outrage that I've seen in this thread has been by non-Americans outraged that a 300 sq ft apartment would be considered small by American standards. And that's generally been more surprise than outrage.
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 05:04:21 AM
The only thing approaching outrage that I've seen in this thread has been by non-Americans outraged that a 300 sq ft apartment would be considered small by American standards. And that's generally been more surprise than outrage.
Maybe because they're using the metric system, who knows; 300 sq ft is a fucking shoebox. The knob of my dick wouldn't fit in there.
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
Come to think of it...my current place might actually be smaller than that...And I find it too big for just me (though probally not quite big enough for two people, I call it a 1 1/2 person flat).
But meh, American averages really should not be applied to New York considering most of the US has the population density of the moon and what people there are live in mansions whilst New York...follows rather different rules.
The size we're talking about here is more than livable, even long term for an eternally single person, especially with the layout they propose (the layout of my place sucks balls).
Though it will make sitcoms difficult...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 05:49:14 AM
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 05:04:21 AM
The only thing approaching outrage that I've seen in this thread has been by non-Americans outraged that a 300 sq ft apartment would be considered small by American standards. And that's generally been more surprise than outrage.
Maybe because they're using the metric system, who knows; 300 sq ft is a fucking shoebox. The knob of my dick wouldn't fit in there.
that's a sign you need to go see a doctor...
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
this.
you should see what they do with 22 m² at Ikea. Now that's a frightenly small sardinecan only fit for asians
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 12, 2012, 06:21:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 05:49:14 AM
The knob of my dick wouldn't fit in there.
that's a sign you need to go see a doctor...
"Hey doc, whenever I get a hard-on I pass out."
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 06:04:48 AM
Come to think of it...my current place might actually be smaller than that...And I find it too big for just me (though probally not quite big enough for two people, I call it a 1 1/2 person flat).
But meh, American averages really should not be applied to New York considering most of the US has the population density of the moon and what people there are live in mansions whilst New York...follows rather different rules.
The size we're talking about here is more than livable, even long term for an eternally single person, especially with the layout they propose (the layout of my place sucks balls).
Though it will make sitcoms difficult...
Did you guys not read the other part of the infographic? Bloomberg has a 12,500 square feet townhouse. It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's not in the suburbs. It's in the middle of everything.
That's the BS of it.
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 03:45:38 AM
My first place on my own was roughly of that size. It was liveable, I even got to make a few parties in there. And there was much less to clean than in bigger appartments.
Now that I looked at the floorplan in the article, it actually reminds me of my own first apartment. It was a studio of very similar dimensions, just slightly bigger. The biggest difference is that the kitchen was enclosed and jutted out to the side of the rectangle, while here it's part of the rectangle. Near the end I paid $1600 a month for it, and it was on the other side of the river (just) in Jersey City. The prices in Manhattan can get twice as high or even more, which is why I think the biggest challenge would be finding a way to offer it for $2k a month rather than finding renters at that rate.
This is a very smart initiate by Bloomberg, though, because NYC rent control policies pretty much obliterated the part of the real estate segment that young non-millionaire professionals who don't want to room with two strangers look for.
A mansion for fleas and roaches.
@GF- Bloomberg is a more successful Donald Trump, he was bored with just being a rich dude so decided to try his hand at politics.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:01:53 AM
So once again (as with gas prices, living costs etc.) it's the case of "Americans outraged, surprised at being forced to finally live in conditions comparable to other developed countries. Film at 11" :rolleyes:
NYC is really unique, though. This is a city that really mismanaged its housing policy, and as a result people like me who don't make well into six figures are pushed out. I would've probably left anyway, because I can't stand NYC, but my preferences didn't even factor into it, because the financial option to live by myself in Manhattan just wasn't there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2012, 07:40:46 AM
@GF- Bloomberg is a more successful Donald Trump, he was bored with just being a rich dude so decided to try his hand at politics.
I disagree; he is very much personally concerned with various issues, including public health, and feels the best way to directly affect change is through politics. It's not because he's a bored rich dude.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2012, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2012, 07:40:46 AM
@GF- Bloomberg is a more successful Donald Trump, he was bored with just being a rich dude so decided to try his hand at politics.
I disagree; he is very much personally concerned with various issues, including public health, and feels the best way to directly affect change is through politics. It's not because he's a bored rich dude.
Apart from being an overbearing nanny, Bloomberg is about as admirable as multi-billionaries can be. He is doing the best he can to make a difference in the public sphere, and unlike his country house buddies the difference he's trying to make is a positive one.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 07:37:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 06:04:48 AM
Come to think of it...my current place might actually be smaller than that...And I find it too big for just me (though probally not quite big enough for two people, I call it a 1 1/2 person flat).
But meh, American averages really should not be applied to New York considering most of the US has the population density of the moon and what people there are live in mansions whilst New York...follows rather different rules.
The size we're talking about here is more than livable, even long term for an eternally single person, especially with the layout they propose (the layout of my place sucks balls).
Though it will make sitcoms difficult...
Did you guys not read the other part of the infographic? Bloomberg has a 12,500 square feet townhouse. It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's not in the suburbs. It's in the middle of everything.
That's the BS of it.
That's actually the part of the outrage here I completely don't get.
That's like being mad at a rich dude, who starts a chain of soup kitchens for poor people, because he eats lobster at home. Why is this in any way despicable or double standard?
If he commissioned a new line of subway, you would rail at him because he drives an Aston Martin? What the fuck?
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 07:38:50 AM
This is a very smart initiate by Bloomberg, though, because NYC rent control policies pretty much obliterated the part of the real estate segment that young non-millionaire professionals who don't want to room with two strangers look for.
There are very few rent controlled places in the city. Most of the units that exist are rent stabilized which only slows rent inflation.
Anyway - 275 sq ft :x
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 07:49:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 07:38:50 AM
This is a very smart initiate by Bloomberg, though, because NYC rent control policies pretty much obliterated the part of the real estate segment that young non-millionaire professionals who don't want to room with two strangers look for.
There are very few rent controlled places in the city. Most of the units that exist are rent stabilized which only slows rent inflation.
Rent stabilization isn't as bad as rent control, but it still very distorting. Tenants are still incentivized to hog their apartments, and more seriously, developers are incentivized to stay the hell away from low-end rental market due to political risk. What you wind up with is old housing that's rent-stabilized and rarely on the market, high end luxury rentals, and condos. Moderately priced new rental construction is nowhere to be found.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 07:49:01 AM
That's actually the part of the outrage here I completely don't get.
That's like being mad at a rich dude, who starts a chain of soup kitchens for poor people, because he eats lobster at home. Why is this in any way despicable or double standard?
If he commissioned a new line of subway, you would rail at him because he drives an Aston Martin? What the fuck?
Agreed.
Sure he has a much bigger house but he had to pay a hell of a lot more to own it.
And right on cue, the top Yahoo article is this: http://shine.yahoo.com/decorating/couple-lives-240-square-foot-apartment-213500626.html . A 240 square foot studio in Brooklyn goes for $1500. Just to get an idea of how fucked up the real estate market is in NYC.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 07:49:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 07:37:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 06:04:48 AM
Come to think of it...my current place might actually be smaller than that...And I find it too big for just me (though probally not quite big enough for two people, I call it a 1 1/2 person flat).
But meh, American averages really should not be applied to New York considering most of the US has the population density of the moon and what people there are live in mansions whilst New York...follows rather different rules.
The size we're talking about here is more than livable, even long term for an eternally single person, especially with the layout they propose (the layout of my place sucks balls).
Though it will make sitcoms difficult...
Did you guys not read the other part of the infographic? Bloomberg has a 12,500 square feet townhouse. It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's not in the suburbs. It's in the middle of everything.
That's the BS of it.
That's actually the part of the outrage here I completely don't get.
That's like being mad at a rich dude, who starts a chain of soup kitchens for poor people, because he eats lobster at home. Why is this in any way despicable or double standard?
If he commissioned a new line of subway, you would rail at him because he drives an Aston Martin? What the fuck?
Oh I'm not really outrage in this. I agree with you that it usually makes no sense to be outrage of what rich people do with their money. I prefer to be outraged with how they made it in the first place.
What I find totally incredible is that on the same 100 sqkm of island there's tiny micro apartments of 300 sq feet & 12500 sq feet townhouses.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 07:54:42 AM
Rent stabilization isn't as bad as rent control, but it still very distorting. Tenants are still incentivized to hog their apartments, and more seriously, developers are incentivized to stay the hell away from low-end rental market due to political risk. What you wind up with is old housing that's rent-stabilized and rarely on the market, high end luxury rentals, and condos. Moderately priced new rental construction is nowhere to be found.
I'm not sure I completely understand it though. I mean if those places weren't stabilized and their rents were increasing, how does that help anyone who is trying to get into the city? You might see more people bounced out as they can't afford their place going to market rate...but would that end up with market rate becoming affordable?
On that couple - maybe they could have done a better apt search? / Chosen a different location?
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
What I find totally incredible is that on the same 100 sqkm of island there's tiny micro apartments of 300 sq feet & 12500 sq feet townhouses.
Why is that incredible?
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 08:33:23 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
What I find totally incredible is that on the same 100 sqkm of island there's tiny micro apartments of 300 sq feet & 12500 sq feet townhouses.
Why is that incredible?
Yeah. I must be missing some point here.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 12:38:07 AM
The flat I live right now in is only about 1/3 bigger than that.
Looks like we live in similar-sized places. I feel a little bad for you as you are certainly much taller than I am.
Because it's both extremes of the scale. It misses...order. Must be the OCD acting up.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 08:32:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 07:54:42 AM
Rent stabilization isn't as bad as rent control, but it still very distorting. Tenants are still incentivized to hog their apartments, and more seriously, developers are incentivized to stay the hell away from low-end rental market due to political risk. What you wind up with is old housing that's rent-stabilized and rarely on the market, high end luxury rentals, and condos. Moderately priced new rental construction is nowhere to be found.
I'm not sure I completely understand it though. I mean if those places weren't stabilized and their rents were increasing, how does that help anyone who is trying to get into the city? You might see more people bounced out as they can't afford their place going to market rate...but would that end up with market rate becoming affordable?
On that couple - maybe they could have done a better apt search? / Chosen a different location?
It works that way because there are two markets for apartments. One market is the market of rent-stabilized apartments, which is affordable if they're available, but by simple Econ 101 logic, they're not in sufficient quantities. The second market is the unregulated luxury apartment market (or condos). Because there isn't enough supply of affordable apartments, often the option is to rent a much more expensive apartment, or nothing at all. There is also a secondary longer term effect where developers are discouraged from building more affordable apartment buildings, because they run the risk of yet another rent control law appropriating the control of their property.
Here is an old Paul Krugman column on this issue: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html .
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 08:48:28 AM
It works that way because there are two markets for apartments. One market is the market of rent-stabilized apartments, which is affordable if they're available, but by simple Econ 101 logic, they're not in sufficient quantities. The second market is the unregulated luxury apartment market (or condos). Because there isn't enough supply of affordable apartments, often the option is to rent a much more expensive apartment, or nothing at all. There is also a secondary longer term effect where developers are discouraged from building more affordable apartment buildings, because they run the risk of yet another rent control law appropriating the control of their property.
Here is an old Paul Krugman column on this issue: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html .
So I get that but it seems like in place like NYC, that you are still talking about rents being pretty high even if now rent control was dropped and developers were encouraged to build affordable housing. As Krugman's bit seems to suggest, it might make prices alright further down the line but would be rather hellish for the near future.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 08:44:55 AM
Because it's both extremes of the scale. It misses...order. Must be the OCD acting up.
That is basic order though. Most places I've lived have had people who had shit homes and people who have had dazzling homes.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 08:52:00 AM
So I get that but it seems like in place like NYC, that you are still talking about rents being pretty high even if now rent control was dropped and developers were encouraged to build affordable housing. As Krugman's bit seems to suggest, it might make prices alright further down the line but would be rather hellish for the near future.
In the short term, that is true, but that's the cost of economic stupidity. You get a windfall just after you enact rent control, because you get free market rental supply at rent-controlled prices, and you get hell just after you repeal it, because you have stunted housing market but no control on the prices. In the long run, though, it's a bitter pill that must be taken.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 08:55:08 AM
In the short term, that is true, but that's the cost of economic stupidity. You get a windfall just after you enact rent control, because you get free market rental supply at rent-controlled prices, and you get hell just after you repeal it, because you have stunted housing market but no control on the prices. In the long run, though, it's a bitter pill that must be taken.
That doesn't make much sense to me. After all, when rent control first comes into place, you only get a windfall on the accumulation of rents over several years. You aren't looking at a large amount of money saved for tenants within that first year. Whereas once you get rid of it - you're see a massive spike in pain for tenants in that first year.
Not sure I see the upside. I mean yes changing it up would decrease traffic/commutes and the strain put on that infrastructure but besides that? On the flipside you'd have potentially decreased tax revenues (I figure an affordable building isn't valued as highly as a luxury building), many pissed off tenants, /many, many tenants who have to flee the city to places they can actually afford.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 08:52:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 08:44:55 AM
Because it's both extremes of the scale. It misses...order. Must be the OCD acting up.
That is basic order though. Most places I've lived have had people who had shit homes and people who have had dazzling homes.
Most places the people with shit homes aren't paying 2 grand a month or more for though.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 12, 2012, 06:23:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
this.
you should see what they do with 22 m² at Ikea. Now that's a frightenly small sardinecan only fit for asians
Mine could have been slightly smaller and, with a better layout, it wouldn't be too different. I mean, I even had a bathtub, total waste of space. A simple shower would've been enough. And I was lucky to have a separate bedroom and everything!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2012, 09:14:24 AM
Most places the people with shit homes aren't paying 2 grand a month or more for though.
Even if you strip out housing costs, most things in New York are more expensive than in most places. Not sure what that proves.
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 09:20:51 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 12, 2012, 06:23:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
this.
you should see what they do with 22 m² at Ikea. Now that's a frightenly small sardinecan only fit for asians
Mine could have been slightly smaller and, with a better layout, it wouldn't be too different. I mean, I even had a bathtub, total waste of space. A simple shower would've been enough. And I was lucky to have a separate bedroom and everything!
Oh yeah, I had a 300 sq ft studio when I lived in Chicago for 3 months. It was nice enough as an intern on summer break for school but I'd never do that again as a place I planned on living in for a while.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 07:54:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 07:49:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 07:38:50 AM
This is a very smart initiate by Bloomberg, though, because NYC rent control policies pretty much obliterated the part of the real estate segment that young non-millionaire professionals who don't want to room with two strangers look for.
There are very few rent controlled places in the city. Most of the units that exist are rent stabilized which only slows rent inflation.
Rent stabilization isn't as bad as rent control, but it still very distorting. Tenants are still incentivized to hog their apartments, and more seriously, developers are incentivized to stay the hell away from low-end rental market due to political risk. What you wind up with is old housing that's rent-stabilized and rarely on the market, high end luxury rentals, and condos. Moderately priced new rental construction is nowhere to be found.
This is happening in a lot of places that don't have rent controls or stabilization, too, but controls exacerbate the problem.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2012, 03:14:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 03:02:22 AM
300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.
Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.
10' x 30'= 3,05m x 9,15m = 27,9m2.
I keep forgetting there are other, modern, people like me here :P
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:00:02 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2012, 03:14:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 03:02:22 AM
300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.
Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.
You divide by 10, roughly, so it's 30 square metres.
1m=3,28ft. So it's 3,28^2, closer to 11 if you need to do it in your head.
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
it's design to be as permanent as any appartment can be.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 07:37:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 06:04:48 AM
Come to think of it...my current place might actually be smaller than that...And I find it too big for just me (though probally not quite big enough for two people, I call it a 1 1/2 person flat).
But meh, American averages really should not be applied to New York considering most of the US has the population density of the moon and what people there are live in mansions whilst New York...follows rather different rules.
The size we're talking about here is more than livable, even long term for an eternally single person, especially with the layout they propose (the layout of my place sucks balls).
Though it will make sitcoms difficult...
Did you guys not read the other part of the infographic? Bloomberg has a 12,500 square feet townhouse. It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's not in the suburbs. It's in the middle of everything.
That's the BS of it.
he could get rich by dividing it in 41 small appartments! Oh, wait, he's already rich... ;)
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 09:01:34 AM
That doesn't make much sense to me. After all, when rent control first comes into place, you only get a windfall on the accumulation of rents over several years. You aren't looking at a large amount of money saved for tenants within that first year. Whereas once you get rid of it - you're see a massive spike in pain for tenants in that first year.
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.
QuoteNot sure I see the upside. I mean yes changing it up would decrease traffic/commutes and the strain put on that infrastructure but besides that? On the flipside you'd have potentially decreased tax revenues (I figure an affordable building isn't valued as highly as a luxury building), many pissed off tenants, /many, many tenants who have to flee the city to places they can actually afford.
Decreased cost of living? Not chasing away young but not rich residents? Higher quality of life due to more abundant housing? Much more efficient allocation of resources? Increased mobility of the population? Those are not little things, those things are very important for the city's economic vitality.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 12, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
Oh I'm not really outrage in this. I agree with you that it usually makes no sense to be outrage of what rich people do with their money. I prefer to be outraged with how they made it in the first place.
like creating a terminal software system that gives you up to date and historical info on anything you can think of about a country or a publicly traded corporations and charging 3000$/month for it?
I'm not outraged. I just wished I could afford a Bloomberg terminal :(
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 09:25:51 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 09:20:51 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 12, 2012, 06:23:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
this.
you should see what they do with 22 m² at Ikea. Now that's a frightenly small sardinecan only fit for asians
Mine could have been slightly smaller and, with a better layout, it wouldn't be too different. I mean, I even had a bathtub, total waste of space. A simple shower would've been enough. And I was lucky to have a separate bedroom and everything!
Oh yeah, I had a 300 sq ft studio when I lived in Chicago for 3 months. It was nice enough as an intern on summer break for school but I'd never do that again as a place I planned on living in for a while.
Yeah, I didn't intend to live for a long time in mine either, one year tops. For such an amount of time it is a great option.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
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? :blush:
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
Decreased cost of living? Not chasing away young but not rich residents? Higher quality of life due to more abundant housing? Much more efficient allocation of resources? Increased mobility of the population? Those are not little things, those things are very important for the city's economic vitality.
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?
Besides, wouldn't the immediate impact be driving away tons of young residents with only the wealthy lasting around? Sure, you'd eventually get young residents back in, but it'd just be exchanging out one set for another...
Also what's that bit about more efficient allocation of resources?
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 09:32:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 04:00:02 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2012, 03:14:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2012, 03:02:22 AM
300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.
Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.
You divide by 10, roughly, so it's 30 square metres.
1m=3,28m. So it's 3,28^2, closer to 11 if you need to do it in your head.
It may come as a surprise to you, but dividing a number by 10 is easier than dividing it by 11. :P
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
it's design to be as permanent as any appartment can be.
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 09:24:46 AM
Even if you strip out housing costs, most things in New York are more expensive than in most places. Not sure what that proves.
housing costs drives up the prices of everything.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 10:10:36 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 10:24:16 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 09:33:50 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 05:52:46 AM
For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.
it's design to be as permanent as any appartment can be.
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.
I find that your collection of stuff tends to accumulate until it fills whatever space available. If you live in 300 sq ft you would by necessity have to be more diligant at throwing stuff out.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 08:52:42 AM
That is basic order though. Most places I've lived have had people who had shit homes and people who have had dazzling homes.
you won't see that in Montreal or Quebec city in the same neighbourhood. Well, not that I know of.
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 10:24:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2012, 10:16:35 AM
It may come as a surprise to you, but dividing a number by 10 is easier than dividing it by 11. :P
easier, but less accurate. You overstated the apt size by nearly 3 square meters. Basically, you got room for one less Chinese.
It is NYC so you expect to live in spaces that small anyway. The only thing outrageous about it is the rent, more than double my mortgage. But realestate cost is about three things and all...
I couldn't figure out why they kept comparing them to the size of Bloomberg's place. I would hope billionaires could live well.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 10:39:23 AM
I would hope billionaires could live well.
if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up :P
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 10:28:12 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 10:35:50 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 12, 2012, 10:24:16 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 10:40:41 AM
if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up :P
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?
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 10:40:41 AM
if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up :P
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.
Also I doubt this apartments will still be under $2,000 when they ever get built. That's be some egregious rent control.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 10:28:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 10:40:41 AM
if being billionaire can't let you live well, then America is really fucked up :P
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? :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 10:10:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 09:40:07 AM
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? :blush:
Yes. :huh: 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.
QuoteWell, 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. :huh:
QuoteBesides, 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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 10:58:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 12, 2012, 11:09:27 AM
How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? :hmm:
We are talking about NYC here.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:11:45 AM
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. :huh:
If they covered the island in skyscrapers, they'd need a second subway. Either that, or flying cars. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:11:45 AMFar 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...
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:11:45 AMAnd 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. :huh:
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. ;)
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:11:45 AM
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.
:huh:
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. :D
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:11:45 AM
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. :mellow:
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 12, 2012, 11:09:27 AM
How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? :hmm:
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 11:34:16 AM
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.
QuoteNo, 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.
Quote:huh:
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. :D
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.
QuoteNope, I simply didn't understand what you were talking about. Glad to see I'm not allowed to ask for clarifications. :mellow:
I just got the impression that you're badgering Yi-style rather than asking for clarification.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 11:53:42 AM
For owners sure.
Economic efficiency is not evaluated by segments of society. It's evaluated for the entire society.
QuoteHow is that questionable? Article made the comparison of Bloomie's bit to these micro apartments.
So what?
QuoteI 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.
No, that's just not true. Rents would not increase across the board. That's an economically illiterate assertion. They might increase on average, but they would go up for currently controlled apartments, and go down for free market apartments. Nothing is stopping the rent increases for free market apartments right now, so I don't see how increased supply on the free market would lead to increased prices.
QuoteThey 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 doubt that's a common situation for young people, and I further doubt that those young people who do enjoy subsidies enjoy gross subsidies. I doubt that those people would experience much of an impact. After all, it's not in landlords' interest to empty out a city.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 12, 2012, 11:09:27 AM
How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? :hmm:
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.
Whaaa??? :blink:
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
I just got the impression that you're badgering Yi-style rather than asking for clarification.
Good one grumbler.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2012, 12:15:10 PM
Whaaa??? :blink:
There are income requirements for renting an apartment. Why is that so shocking?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 12:26:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 11:45:25 AM
I just got the impression that you're badgering Yi-style rather than asking for clarification.
Good one grumbler.
I was talking go garbon, Yi.
EDIT: Anyway, my apologies. I didn't think you would be reading this thread. :hug:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 12, 2012, 12:15:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 11:36:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2012, 11:14:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 12, 2012, 11:09:27 AM
How many "poor" people can afford $2,000 a month in rent? :hmm:
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.
Whaaa??? :blink:
Divide by 12 and it should make more sense.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 12:05:40 PMNo, that's just not true. Rents would not increase across the board. That's an economically illiterate assertion. They might increase on average, but they would go up for currently controlled apartments, and go down for free market apartments. Nothing is stopping the rent increases for free market apartments right now, so I don't see how increased supply on the free market would lead to increased prices.
Well sure that's true, as you're right I'm just talking about rent-stabilized places going up. However, when I took a quick figure check, 64% of the rental units in Manhattan are rent controlled or rent stabilized (rent control makes up 2% of that). That's a lot of people that would be affected by removing such subsidies.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 12:05:40 PM
I doubt that's a common situation for young people, and I further doubt that those young people who do enjoy subsidies enjoy gross subsidies. I doubt that those people would experience much of an impact. After all, it's not in landlords' interest to empty out a city.
Why does it need to be a gross subsidy? Living in New York as we've all discussed is expensive. In many cases, it is hard to have a substantial difference between income and rent (let alone the 2/3rds divide that landlords typically want you have).
Now many young people in NYC have lived in their current apartments for 1-2 years - and many of them live in units that have rent stabilization. If we use my apartment as an example, you're looking at an increase of $200 per month (let's say each year mine goes up by $25 bucks when stabilized) if rent stabilization was removed which equals about 2400/yr increase. That could certainly be enough to cause a young person to need to leave their apartment considering that their wages likely remained flat in that intervening period.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
EDIT: Anyway, my apologies. I didn't think you would be reading this thread. :hug:
That apology suggests the comment is acceptable as long as I don't see it.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 01:07:11 PM
Well sure that's true, as you're right I'm just talking about rent-stabilized places going up. However, when I took a quick figure check, 64% of the rental units in Manhattan are rent controlled or rent stabilized (rent control makes up 2% of that). That's a lot of people that would be affected by removing such subsidies.
Which may actually mean that the effect on individuals would not be that bad. Subsidies help or hurt most when the number of recipients is limited. Now, that 2% may suffer pretty badly, because rent-controlled apartments are grossly underpriced by any measure.
Quote
Why does it need to be a gross subsidy? Living in New York as we've all discussed is expensive. In many cases, it is hard to have a substantial difference between income and rent (let alone the 2/3rds divide that landlords typically want you have).
Now many young people in NYC have lived in their current apartments for 1-2 years - and many of them live in units that have rent stabilization. If we use my apartment as an example, you're looking at an increase of $200 per month (let's say each year mine goes up by $25 bucks when stabilized) if rent stabilization was removed which equals about 2400/yr increase. That could certainly be enough to cause a young person to need to leave their apartment considering that their wages likely remained flat in that intervening period.
Removing economic idiocies causes dislocations at the end of the day. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done regardless. That said, I doubt that the result of dislocation would be two thirds of the city moving out, and a reduction of NYC population to 3 million. At the end of the day, on average, landlords would charge what tenants would be able and willing to pay, because empty apartments don't bring any income.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2012, 01:21:31 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 12:27:03 PM
EDIT: Anyway, my apologies. I didn't think you would be reading this thread. :hug:
That apology suggests the comment is acceptable as long as I don't see it.
No amount of backhanded apologies would satisfy you, it seems. :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 01:55:23 PM
Which may actually mean that the effect on individuals would not be that bad. Subsidies help or hurt most when the number of recipients is limited. Now, that 2% may suffer pretty badly, because rent-controlled apartments are grossly underpriced by any measure.
The rent control units are all the type that have stuck within families as rent control only applies to apartments continuously held from a long time ago (forget the date off the top of my head)...so I was only thinking about rent stabilization throughout the thread as I know that's the only thing that is actually fairly rampant in NYC.
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 01:55:23 PM
Removing economic idiocies causes dislocations at the end of the day. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done regardless. That said, I doubt that the result of dislocation would be two thirds of the city moving out, and a reduction of NYC population to 3 million. At the end of the day, on average, landlords would charge what tenants would be able and willing to pay, because empty apartments don't bring any income.
I don't think I was suggesting 2/3rds of the city would move out. There is a middle ground. I was saying that it would have a terrible effect on the current youth population in the city which you said wasn't the case. I don't see why landlords would have an issue because certainly there are individuals above what we are calling "youth" that could afford to and would be willing to swoop in on these higher priced apartments.
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2012, 02:00:15 PM
The rent control units are all the type that have stuck within families as rent control only applies to apartments continuously held from a long time ago (forget the date off the top of my head)...so I was only thinking about rent stabilization throughout the thread as I know that's the only thing that is actually fairly rampant in NYC.
Rent stabilized apartments can still be grossly under-priced, since it works as a one-way ratchet. At best, the landlord can raise the rent to match inflation, or maybe not even that much. They also can only raise the rent so much when the tenant moves out.
When my uncle came to US, he found a 2-bedroom apartment for $330 a month in a not-bad section of Brooklyn. Even 20 years ago that was a laughably low amount, he should've paid at the very least twice that amount. How did he get it? The previous tenant died after living there for a couple of decades, and his rent was 200-something. My uncle bribed the super with $5,000 to get to the front of the line to that apartment.
Quote
I don't think I was suggesting 2/3rds of the city would move out. There is a middle ground. I was saying that it would have a terrible effect on the current youth population in the city which you said wasn't the case. I don't see why landlords would have an issue because certainly there are individuals above what we are calling "youth" that could afford to and would be willing to swoop in on these higher priced apartments.
Where would they be swooping in from, ether? They would probably be vacating some other apartment in order to swoop in, wouldn't they?
I agree that rent stabilized apartments can be quite under-priced and why this could also hurt a lot of youth, not just the elderly (whom of course, I don't really want to see out on their butts either). :P
Quote from: DGuller on July 12, 2012, 02:09:39 PM
Where would they be swooping in from, ether? They would probably be vacating some other apartment in order to swoop in, wouldn't they?
Quite easily parts of Jersey or Long Island where they settled because vacancy of rent-stabilized places was near 2%. Not sure if those new vacancies on the periphery are ideal for the city, itself.
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 10:42:03 AM
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.
most people don't stay in the same house for the next 50 year. Many people I know move every year or two. Yet, I still consider that "permanent" housing.
Interesting book review.
http://nplusonemag.com/berman-s-children
Also found out I know someone who had property that was seized/destroyed for the navy yards project.
Quote from: viper37 on July 12, 2012, 06:27:09 PM
Quote from: dps on July 12, 2012, 10:42:03 AM
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.
most people don't stay in the same house for the next 50 year. Many people I know move every year or two. Yet, I still consider that "permanent" housing.
I wouldn't consider a shoebox livable permanent housing.
It's funny watching the inhabitants of third-world shitholes act like this is normal.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
It's funny watching the inhabitants of third-world shitholes act like this is normal.
Quebec? :lol:
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
It's funny watching the inhabitants of third-world shitholes act like this is normal.
Quebec? :lol:
Well, Quebec is pretty bad, but I was thinking Mono and Marti. I replied from page 1.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
It's funny watching the inhabitants of third-world shitholes act like this is normal.
Quebec? :lol:
Well, Quebec is pretty bad, but I was thinking Mono and Marti. I replied from page 1.
And Paris. And London. And Vienna. All third world places. You idiot.
Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2012, 05:06:45 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
It's funny watching the inhabitants of third-world shitholes act like this is normal.
Quebec? :lol:
Well, Quebec is pretty bad, but I was thinking Mono and Marti. I replied from page 1.
And Paris. And London. And Vienna. All third world places. You idiot.
Do we have any Languishites from Paris?
At any rate, those places are inferior to places in North America. It is known.
Check out the floor plan on this one:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37977119.html#?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2FBrighton.html%3FsortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26maxDaysSinceAdded%3D3%26retirement%3Dfalse%26radius%3D1.0&thumbnailId=1 (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37977119.html#?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2FBrighton.html%3FsortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26maxDaysSinceAdded%3D3%26retirement%3Dfalse%26radius%3D1.0&thumbnailId=1)
136 sq.ft. :hmm:
or $1100-1200 per sq.ft.
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2012, 02:37:14 PM
Check out the floor plan on this one:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37977119.html#?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2FBrighton.html%3FsortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26maxDaysSinceAdded%3D3%26retirement%3Dfalse%26radius%3D1.0&thumbnailId=1 (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37977119.html#?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2FBrighton.html%3FsortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26maxDaysSinceAdded%3D3%26retirement%3Dfalse%26radius%3D1.0&thumbnailId=1)
136 sq.ft. :hmm:
or $1100-1200 per sq.ft.
Ugh.
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2012, 02:37:14 PM
136 sq.ft. :hmm:
or $1100-1200 per sq.ft.
That's fucking obscene.
I mean, it's cute and all, and I get the whole quaint-and-artisanic chic look and whatnot of Euro apartments, where it's like you're trapped forever in some sort of Audrey Hepburn movie circa 1959, but those prices are just fucking silly.
You people are nuts.
Only other bit I see is that it is fairly close to the beach...
I don't get it. Are we really running out of land so badly as a civilization that we're forced to cram people into egg cartons like this? It just seems skewed to me.
And make them pay a hundred thousand Pounds for it too...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2012, 03:22:58 PM
I don't get it. Are we really running out of land so badly as a civilization that we're forced to cram people into egg cartons like this? It just seems skewed to me.
And make them pay a hundred thousand Pounds for it too...
In certain areas, its either that or force people to live in large homes, but cram them into even smaller egg cartons for very lengthy commutes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2012, 02:40:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 16, 2012, 02:37:14 PM
Check out the floor plan on this one:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37977119.html#?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2FBrighton.html%3FsortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26maxDaysSinceAdded%3D3%26retirement%3Dfalse%26radius%3D1.0&thumbnailId=1 (http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-37977119.html#?backListLink=%2Fproperty-for-sale%2FBrighton.html%3FsortByPriceDescending%3Dfalse%26maxDaysSinceAdded%3D3%26retirement%3Dfalse%26radius%3D1.0&thumbnailId=1)
136 sq.ft. :hmm:
or $1100-1200 per sq.ft.
Ugh.
It's not fit for human beings!
Quote from: Barrister on July 16, 2012, 04:12:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2012, 03:22:58 PM
I don't get it. Are we really running out of land so badly as a civilization that we're forced to cram people into egg cartons like this? It just seems skewed to me.
And make them pay a hundred thousand Pounds for it too...
In certain areas, its either that or force people to live in large homes, but cram them into even smaller egg cartons for very lengthy commutes.
I don't know. I mean it doesn't even really have to be that way here in NYC.
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2012, 02:51:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 02:51:19 PM
It's funny watching the inhabitants of third-world shitholes act like this is normal.
Quebec? :lol:
nice try, but we didn't act like this is normal.
Quote from: Neil on July 13, 2012, 05:12:44 PM
Do we have any Languishites from Paris?
DuquedeBraganca.
Quote from: Barrister on July 16, 2012, 04:12:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2012, 03:22:58 PM
I don't get it. Are we really running out of land so badly as a civilization that we're forced to cram people into egg cartons like this? It just seems skewed to me.
And make them pay a hundred thousand Pounds for it too...
In certain areas, its either that or force people to live in large homes, but cram them into even smaller egg cartons for very lengthy commutes.
Or businesses could just spread out a bit.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 17, 2012, 07:39:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 16, 2012, 04:12:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 16, 2012, 03:22:58 PM
I don't get it. Are we really running out of land so badly as a civilization that we're forced to cram people into egg cartons like this? It just seems skewed to me.
And make them pay a hundred thousand Pounds for it too...
In certain areas, its either that or force people to live in large homes, but cram them into even smaller egg cartons for very lengthy commutes.
Or businesses could just spread out a bit.
Lots of businesses need to be close to suppliers or customers though.
My office pretty much has to be located directly beside the courthouse, for example.
Studio flats in my block about that size currently retail for $250,000. I at least have a couple of proper bedrooms :bowler:
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 09:20:01 AM
Lots of businesses need to be close to suppliers or customers though.
My office pretty much has to be located directly beside the courthouse, for example.
I'm not sure that the US or Canada has many (if any) of the areas that you are talking about.
http://gothamist.com/2013/01/22/first_look_inside_the_citys_new_mic.php#photo-3
QuoteFirst Look Inside NYC's Tiny New "Micro-Unit" Apartments
...
The units boast 9'-10" floor-to-ceiling heights and Juliette balconies, and 40 percent of the units will be "affordable beyond the competitive market rents," ranging between $914 a month to $1,873 a month.
...
That's affordable? :P
Well for Kips Bay - probably. :D
Those do not look bad at all. That would have been plenty of space for me when I was single.
Good to see that it's not just London and SE England that is in the grip of property price lunacy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2013, 01:26:28 PM
Those do not look bad at all. That would have been plenty of space for me when I was single.
I hate studios and that's basically what they look like.
Quote from: Warspite on January 23, 2013, 01:36:30 PM
Good to see that it's not just London and SE England that is in the grip of property price lunacy.
That's a bit like the mentally ill seeking solace in each others company.
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 01:38:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2013, 01:26:28 PM
Those do not look bad at all. That would have been plenty of space for me when I was single.
I hate studios and that's basically what they look like.
I lived in a studio, and I definitely like one bedroom apartment much better. The difference between having a private room and not having it is huge when you have people over.
Quote from: DGuller on January 23, 2013, 01:48:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 01:38:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2013, 01:26:28 PM
Those do not look bad at all. That would have been plenty of space for me when I was single.
I hate studios and that's basically what they look like.
I lived in a studio, and I definitely like one bedroom apartment much better. The difference between having a private room and not having it is huge when you have people over.
Exactly. Everyone is all up in your personal space in a studio. Only good if you want people joining you in your bed.
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 02:08:07 PM
Exactly. Everyone is all up in your personal space in a studio. Only good if you want people joining you in your bed.
DG's an actuary. So clearly, that's not an issue. :P
Damn. You know you're in a joke job when Jewish lawyers take shots at you.
Quote from: Malthus on January 23, 2013, 02:20:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 02:08:07 PM
Exactly. Everyone is all up in your personal space in a studio. Only good if you want people joining you in your bed.
DG's an actuary. So clearly, that's not an issue. :P
I've heard he gets around.
garbon doesn't count!
raciss!
Your race is in flux. At any given moment there is a non-zero chance you and I are the same race or that your are a Martian-American.
Does that bother you? An ill-defined construct loosely applied?
Quote from: garbon on January 23, 2013, 05:39:00 PM
Does that bother you? An ill-defined construct loosely applied?
I always found quantum mechanics kinda weird. The idea that you exist in cloud of infinite uncertainty and only decohere into one human being because someone is observing you is disconcerting.
Not entirely on-topic but an example of what these micro-apts compete with in the city. :D
http://theworstroom.tumblr.com/
Also, I realize that I'm fucking up. I could probably make some good rent off my living room!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 23, 2013, 04:37:43 PM
Damn. You know you're in a joke job when Jewish lawyers take shots at you.
Malthus is just jealous.
Quote from: Brazen on July 17, 2012, 09:36:19 AM
Studio flats in my block about that size currently retail for $250,000. I at least have a couple of proper bedrooms :bowler:
According to this story micro units of 226 to 291 square feet rent for about $850 per month in downtown Vancouver.
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/micro-living-canadas-smallest-apartment-the-size-of-a-walk-in-closet/
I can understand downsizing that far, but not for that price. A buck a square foot maybe. Not four.