PDA

View Full Version : Mahattan just for the very rich?



wonder
November 11th, 2006, 07:37 PM
I was wonder if any of you think that one day Manhattan will become so expensive that only the very very rich will be able to afford to live on the island. That one day houseing will become so expensive that ALL artist, musician, journalist, designers, basically anyone who is not a billionaire in the creative fields, will be unable to find a place to live in any part of Mahattan. That all privite sector business will completly stop moving to Manhattan because their employees, who would in another large city be perfectly capable of finding a place to live, will be priced out of the market. I have been dwelling on this alot latley and I this sounds like such a depressing city, a city that may not be worth living in. I love manhattan just as much as the next person, but its the creativity and diversity that flows through the city that gives it so much energy. And I know alot of you may mention other places in New yorkthat are more affordable but I am strictly talking about Manhattan. Just my two cents, you can agree or disagree or say I am complelty insane and don't know what I am talking about. I just felt like putting it out there.:( :)

lofter1
November 11th, 2006, 09:13 PM
If you're a financial "optimist" then something like your scenario could play out (with many variations).

If, however, you are a student of history then you will know that things swing up and things crash down -- NYC has had many boom & bust cycles in the past and will undoubtedly go through more in the future.

Those cycles tend to clear the boards ... and leave the city open to new arrivals looking to make their mark in any number of fields.

There are countless formerly-gorgeous yet newly-restored residential buildings that only 20-30 years ago were forlorn shadows of what they had been when they first went up 50 to 100 years before. In those cases homes of the rich often became new housing for the less well-to-do.

Don't know that the construction we now see going up will withstand the ravages of deferred maintenance (which is inevitably part of a down cycle). Will a building like the Urban Glass House survive the hardships such as those suffered by the Ansonia? History shows that no matter how wretched a building might become someone will get out their tools and make a go of it.

But, hey ... 50 years from now who knows what will be?

Time to put "Blade Runner" in the dvd player ;)

wonder
November 12th, 2006, 06:34 AM
Thanks for the reply lofter. I am optimistic in the sence that I want the city to prosper but I don't want it to become the city for billionaires and only billionaires. I guess I want to have my cake and be able to eat it.:)

Proshopper
November 13th, 2006, 08:00 AM
When I read or hear Manhattan, in my mind is coming Jacky Kennedy and her apartment 1040 near Central Park. I guess it sounds ignorant, but from my prospective looks like Manhatan is for the Billioners only. :(

ablarc
November 13th, 2006, 08:04 AM
^ You'd be surprised how many poor people you can find in Manhattan.

Proshopper
November 13th, 2006, 08:07 AM
How much could be the monthly rent for middle class 1 bedroom apartment? (first floor):confused:

gradvmedusa
November 16th, 2006, 10:42 AM
Apartment rents vary A LOT depending on neighborhood/building/luck etc...also NYC is more then just Manhattan. I am moving across the east river to Astoria Queens which is less then 10 minutes away from the east side by subway. For an idea of rents look here http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/aap/mnh keep in mind there are also a lot of rent controlled/stabalized apartments that get passed to friends/relatives these tend to be cheaper.

NYC244
November 16th, 2006, 10:57 PM
Apartment rents vary A LOT depending on neighborhood/building/luck etc...also NYC is more then just Manhattan. I am moving across the east river to Astoria Queens which is less then 10 minutes away from the east side by subway. For an idea of rents look here http://newyork.craigslist.org/search/aap/mnh keep in mind there are also a lot of rent controlled/stabalized apartments that get passed to friends/relatives these tend to be cheaper.

oh yessssssssssssss!:) :cool:

Anarchy77
November 19th, 2006, 05:22 PM
I was wonder if any of you think that one day Manhattan will become so expensive that only the very very rich will be able to afford to live on the island. That one day houseing will become so expensive that ALL artist, musician, journalist, designers, basically anyone who is not a billionaire in the creative fields, will be unable to find a place to live in any part of Mahattan.

That appears to be very much the case right now. Washington Heights may be the exception, but by and large all people of modest means that haven't lucked into a rent controlled or regulated apartment can forget about manhattan.

I don't see a financial downturn causing massive vacancies and price drops, but only, and I hope it doesn't happen, a nuclear attack against the city that renders much of it unhabitable.

MrSpice
November 19th, 2006, 11:27 PM
I was wonder if any of you think that one day Manhattan will become so expensive that only the very very rich will be able to afford to live on the island. That one day houseing will become so expensive that ALL artist, musician, journalist, designers, basically anyone who is not a billionaire in the creative fields, will be unable to find a place to live in any part of Mahattan.

Those kinds of questions and predictions keep popping up and they make very little sense to me. First of all, all prestigios/central areas in most cities are expensive. It's not cheap to live in the center of Silicon Valley (Palo Alto or Santa Clara). Central Chicago is expensive, so it Collins Avenue in Miami.

Manhattan had many inexpensive parts because of high crime, dirt and economic stagnation. Now that more and more people want to live in Manhattan, prices are shooting up everywhere. And because of huge concetration of business and wealthy people on the island, limited space, restrictive zoning laws, high cost of construction, prices will always be high here.

The reality is that middle-class and poorer people usually commute to work. New York City has over 8 mil residents. Only 1.5 live in Manhattan. There are plenty of other nice areas in the city that are being redeveloped and are much more affordable. 2.5 mil people live in Brooklyn, including many writers and artists. Everyone I know at work, commutes from New Jersey where they have private houses for the price of a small Manhattan studio apartment.

lofter1
November 20th, 2006, 09:14 AM
This ^^^ was not true as recently as 10-15 years ago. When I first moved to NYC, Manhattan was affordable in many areas for all sorts of folks (those just out of college and even high school, others who were looking to change their lives and start anew), all coming here to make their mark -- something that is no longer true to any great extent. The high prices to buy -- and even rent -- have put Manhattan out of reach for the vast majority of those who would like to make NYC home.

MrSpice
November 20th, 2006, 09:44 AM
This ^^^ was not true as recently as 10-15 years ago. When I first moved to NYC, Manhattan was affordable in many areas for all sorts of folks (those just out of college and even high school, others who were looking to change their lives and start anew), all coming here to make their mark -- something that is no longer true to any great extent. The high prices to buy -- and even rent -- have put Manhattan out of reach for the vast majority of those who would like to make NYC home.

I remember Manhattan of 10-12 years ago qwith bums, crime and dirt. Places like Bowery and Harlem were donnright scary. Now it's safe and cool and booming with business and activity. That combined with huge economic expansion, real estate craze and lowest unemployment rates in 30 years lead to high prices. That's free market at work.

Front_Porch
November 20th, 2006, 09:52 AM
I remember Manhattan of 10-12 years ago qwith bums, crime and dirt. Places like Bowery and Harlem were donnright scary. Now it's safe and cool and booming with business and activity. That combined with huge economic expansion, real estate craze and lowest unemployment rates in 30 years lead to high prices. That's free market at work.

Not entirely "free market." While the "Giuliani effect" of lower crime and economic expansion has definitely driven up prices in Manhattan, so have 421(a) tax subsidies for luxury condos.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

pianoman11686
November 20th, 2006, 03:37 PM
^Kind of like Monte Carlo, but not as obvious...

kliq6
November 20th, 2006, 03:45 PM
The MC are leaving fast, more and moer reaon to protect the outer boros from "manhattan style" buildings. Stopping Atlantic Yards will be a big first step!!!!!

MrSpice
November 20th, 2006, 03:56 PM
The MC are leaving fast, more and moer reaon to protect the outer boros from "manhattan style" buildings. Stopping Atlantic Yards will be a big first step!!!!!

I would agree if you protested the stadium as it will add to the traffic congestion and is not really suitable for the densely populated areas, I believe. But the office buildings, hotels and condos will be a great thing for Brooklyn and for New York. They will bring more money and tax revenue and more young residents into the city.

antinimby
November 20th, 2006, 07:06 PM
The MC are leaving fast, more and moer reaon to protect the outer boros from "manhattan style" buildings. Stopping Atlantic Yards will be a big first step!!!!!Don't be silly.

The MC is not leaving because of Mahattan style buildings in the outer boroughs.

Ask any MC person that have left if that's the reason why they leave and see what they say.

OperatingEngineer
November 20th, 2006, 08:00 PM
I would make a distiction about the difference in Middle Class. Middle Class is such a huge demographic. Where are you drawing the line. I know I am not middle class, I fit into that evil 1% of the population on the tax charts. Some of the middle class people I have working for me are just below that evil 1%.

I am unique because most of the people working with me and for me are Union members. So a very high five figure/ low six figure income is not uncommon across the board. I don't see the effect of a lower middle class income on them. I don't think this kind of class warefare is very healthy as the folks I have working for me want their kids to be 'better than them' and pay for all the things they feel will make their children succeed in the world. My parents were middle class and wanted me to do better than them and the fact I work not in Computer Science which I have a degree in, but rather in construction is difficult for them.

Debating the Manhattanification of the outer boroughs is sort of a waste. Why no concentrate on making yourself happy rather than blaming developers and architects for not being able to afford it. Is living in marketing going to make your life any better? Can Jade Jagger really change how I live so dramatically with a prefab pod? Will moving to Queens be so bad? Will Miss Brooklyn destroy an entire Borough because it is taller than the Williamsburg Bank building. I thought the 21st Century communication tools we have could bring us together, but instead we become homesteaders based on geography and a natural moaning about how life sucks because of big business.

If I had lived in Atlantic Yards, trust me, I would have been the first to belly up to the bar and make a deal. My assistant did live in Atlantic Yards and sold out quick. She bought a lovely home in Ridgewood/Glendale with the proceeds and has never been happier.

Areas that sucked will get better, prices will rise, smart will cash out and move to an area that is less desireable. When I first got here 15 years ago parts of Billyburg were right out of Mad Max, now it is hip to live there. 15 years from now, decay might have set back in. Areas ebb and flow and yet the debate rages on where are the middle class going to go?

The answer is simple: in search of better.

A dear friend once told me: Lofts are barely habitable buildings that are cheap and all about the 'space.' When I asked about the crack den neighborhood, he simply replied "you don't get it" Perhaps I don't get it.


IMHO

antinimby
November 20th, 2006, 08:04 PM
I know I am not middle class, I fit into that evil 1% of the population on the tax charts. Some of the middle class people I have working for me are just below that evil 1%.In that case, I would like to be evil, too.

Any room for one more person in there? :D

lofter1
November 20th, 2006, 09:13 PM
A New Class War:
The Haves vs. the Have Mores

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/18/weekinreview/19konigsberg.650.jpg
Tim Bower

nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/weekinreview/19konigsberg.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin)

By ERIC KONIGSBERG
November 19, 2006


WEEK IN REVIEW


At this time every year, there’s chatter about the magnitude of year-end bonuses in the financial sector, and the attendant fallout (or trickle-down): large tables at Peter Luger will be hard to come by in December; co-op sales will be healthy in January; and the gals who work the poles at Scores will receive more marriage proposals (and when the men who are proposing turn out to be already married, more jewelry) than ever before.


This year’s special contribution to the canon may be the argument that the moment has arrived for a battle that looks to most of the population like a battle among peers, which in a sense it is: the rich versus the rich, the meritocrats versus the meritocrats, the ambitious versus the ambitious. But it also pits two highly distinct groups, the merely rich and the superrich.


Let’s define the terms first, or at least make some attempt to. The merely rich are those whose income puts them in the top 1 percent of the population. According to a recent study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, the average real income for the top 1 percent of American taxpaying households was $940,000 in 2004 — a difficult group to feel pity for. But to stand for a moment on its shores (let’s pretend) and look toward the rapidly growing ranks of the superrich is to stare across a vast chasm indeed.


The superrich might be the top tenth of 1 percent (average real household income for 2004: $4.5 million) or the top hundredth (the $20-million-a-year households). Income inequality is growing fastest the higher we go up the chart. While the percentage change in average real household income between 1990 and 2004 was an increase of 2 percent for the bottom 90 percent of American households, it was 57 percent for the top 1 percent; and shot up to 85 percent for the top 0.1 percent; and up to 112 percent for the top .01 percent.


That is, the richest are getting richer almost twice as fast as the rich.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/18/weekinreview/19konig.graphic.550.jpg


Class warfare has been hypothesized by various publications, including the online magazine Slate, New York magazine and Matt Miller in Fortune last month. Mr. Miller calls the bigger and poorer group, which consists largely of professionals — doctors, lawyers, management consultants, the vast majority of Wall Street soldiers — the “lower-uppers.” The targets of their resentment, he says, are by and large hedge fund managers and certain astronomically paid C.E.O.’s.


“The problem is that there’s all this wealth at this new strata that feels unrelated to merit or achievement,” Mr. Miller says. “When a C.E.O. whose leadership has caused a company’s stock price to fall gets a $100 million golden parachute, or when a guy’s running so much money that his commission — even if his picks are only getting an 8 or 10 percent return on his client’s money — is $100 million, that’s crazy.” He says that such compensation “goes against the notion of a meritocracy.”


Or maybe not. “A meritocracy increases inequality — by its very nature, it has to,” says Nicholas Lemann, whose book “The Big Test” explored the history of the SAT and the American meritocracy. “The goal was equality of opportunity, not equality of result.”


Part of the problem may lie with the fact that the members of both classes went into their respective lines of work with the goal of making a lot of money, and one just happens to make several times more of it.


Take the lawyers. “Lawyers are an odd group,” says the novelist Louis Begley, whose day job for several decades has been practicing law with the white-shoe firm Debevoise & Plimpton. “Lawyers at the great law firms earn a lot of money. But for a good many of them, it’s impossible to do so without accepting anything but cases involving huge corporate deals that generate a great many hours they can charge for. But these deals are repetitive. And the lawyers in these transactions often play second fiddle to the bankers.”


The money paid to investment bankers, who were once the stronghold of the financial elite, typically pales next to hedge-fund money. “I recently hosted a panel with Carl Icahn at the Core Club where the whole point was that if you’re an investment banker nowadays, you’re kind of a schlepper,” says Michael Wolff, a Vanity Fair writer who has often written about the moneyed classes. “Investment banking is for the C+ students now. Where you want to be is not somebody who’s advising people with money — whose currency is intellectual capital — but somebody whose currency is money itself.”


This, too, may be what irks the professional classes. Managing a hedge fund is the purest abstraction of making money out of money — there is no other product to show for it.


The resentment may be intensified in New York, a city whose physical layout has always engendered a lot of class-mixing. The middle class might have been largely squeezed out of Manhattan over the past decade, but the merely rich and the superrich still live in the same neighborhoods (if not necessarily the same buildings), buy houses in the same Hamptons (just houses of very different scales), and send their children to the same schools.
Mr. Lemann said that the rich versus richer envy factor “assumes that the relatively poor group is bumping into the most upper income.”


He added, “You might only see it at, say, functions that parents go to at certain rarefied private schools — Fieldston, say, or Harvard-Westlake in Los Angeles.”


Even Mr. Begley, who has earned enough to raise a large family in a grand apartment on Park Avenue, said he was astonished by the sheer number of billionaires he has met in recent years.


“I must say, I’ve begun to feel in New York as if I were driving a Volkswagen on the highway when a Greyhound bus happens to go by,” he said. “At which point, I feel a whoosh of air blasting me off the road. These people belong to another species.”


Except, he said, that it’s “these young Wall Street types” buying up the apartments in his building. “There are maybe four or five of us who bought our apartments at some understandable price 30 years ago,” he said. “And then these new people — I must say, with the money seems to come a rather large physical size. Some of them are polite, but the men do fill the elevator cage. And the women always seem to have a bottle of water attached to their mouths.”


He added that he did not feel any need to engage in class warfare against his neighbors. “If I did, they might crush me against the elevator wall,” he said. “The only thing to do is get adopted by them.”


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

OperatingEngineer
November 20th, 2006, 09:33 PM
The top 1% has grown since I last read what it was. Now I guess I AM middle class again.

Thanks Lofter! :D

lofter1
November 20th, 2006, 09:35 PM
I guess that means I should forget about hitting you up for a loan, eh ;) ?

infoshare
November 20th, 2006, 10:33 PM
Guess that (also) means that you have just gone from EVIL to MID- EVIL!

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9894/viking73zd6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

pianoman11686
November 21st, 2006, 01:50 PM
“The problem is that there’s all this wealth at this new strata that feels unrelated to merit or achievement,” Mr. Miller says. “When a C.E.O. whose leadership has caused a company’s stock price to fall gets a $100 million golden parachute, or when a guy’s running so much money that his commission — even if his picks are only getting an 8 or 10 percent return on his client’s money — is $100 million, that’s crazy.” He says that such compensation “goes against the notion of a meritocracy.”

This has got to stop. There are way too many people that are overpaid for what they do.



Or maybe not. “A meritocracy increases inequality — by its very nature, it has to,” says Nicholas Lemann, whose book “The Big Test” explored the history of the SAT and the American meritocracy. “The goal was equality of opportunity, not equality of result.”

This gets to the core of the debate, IMO. Too many people are of the notion that we should have an equality of results - an egalitarian society, if you will. But that implies doing what the first quote was talking about, except in another way: you pay the incompetent more, and the competent less, so that everyone is more or less on par. That's not capitalism, though.

Oh, and one more thing: of course the rich increase their wealth at a higher rate than the poor or middle class. They have more to start with, so they have more outlets to throw around their wealth in. Your average middle class family can afford maybe 10 shares of Google, as a starting investment. A wealthy family can afford perhaps 100, or 1,000. Once you start compounding rates of return across different investments, it's no surprise people get so rich. It's simple arithmetic.

wonder
November 24th, 2006, 08:24 PM
Some great points have been made, but I think some of you misunderstood what I was saying. I know that it is important that wealth comes to the city. The more gentrification that occurs the less crime there will be and the city will just be a generally better place to live in. I don't have any problem with this at all, in fact I don't have any problem with anything. I don't think that it is a bad thing that the very wealthy want to live here infact it's great, a sighn that the city is thriving. My only concern is that Manhattan will become so far out of the reach of everyone except billionaires that no one in the creative field will be able to live, work or have anything to do with the city. This concerns me because, in my oppinion those in the creative field tend to bring more energy and variety to any city. Without them I don't think things would be the same at all. But then again what do I know.

sagive
June 6th, 2010, 10:46 AM
Gr8 info.. 10x for that link gradvmedua

fiona1990
August 18th, 2010, 07:06 PM
NYC will always have an impressive rich list but it needs "normal" people to do day to day jobs which actively keep the city alive. Or so I think?

KenNYC
August 19th, 2010, 08:49 AM
The majority of Manhattan is not affordable for the average American. The exceptions would be Harlem, Washington Heights, etc.

I know couples who have bought places in Manhattan. But, there is a catch..... zero kids and dual incomes.

Uhm, that's not really true. The only issue is that you're making a lot of sacrificed to live on Manhattan, like size, outdoor space etc. It's quite possible to live on a budget on Manhattan, it's just that you're better off staying a 20 minute subway ride outside Manhattan instead of making all those sacrifices.

KenNYC
August 26th, 2010, 10:36 PM
Actually, what I said was quite true. The average family can't afford to live in Manhattan, period.

So, all of these perfectly normal families, with fairly normal jobs I see around me, am I hallucinating them?

KenNYC
August 27th, 2010, 02:21 PM
Where are these perfectly normal families who work "normal" jobs at in Manhattan? I have never seen them. The very few who do exist are either in a sketchy area or inherited a load of money. These people are not working your "fairly normal job". These people are RICH!

Well, the people living in the apartment next to me have a kid, a dog, the husband is an accountant and the wife is a high school teacher.

To me, that's a pretty "normal family", and not a "RICH!" family. By all means, if you consider teachers and accountants to be "RICH!" people, then yes, New York is only for rich people.

lofter1
August 27th, 2010, 08:02 PM
My building is full of "normal" people who aren't rich: A nurse, a social worker, a musician, an entrepreneur / importer, an editor, a photographer.

That all started to change in recent years as some of the long time tenants were bought out / forced out. The new folks (paying ~ $6K / month) are either rich or up to their necks in debt (another kind of rich).

KenNYC
August 28th, 2010, 03:56 AM
up to their necks in debt (another kind of rich).

I'm pretty sure that's the polar opposite of being rich. And a Very Bad Idea™ as well. That being said, you don't need to pay $6k a month to live on Manhattan, so please don't give TheCity that ammunition for his argument.

Here's a $3000/month 2 bedroom on the Upper East Side, found easy and fast: http://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&listingid=2036720

And you can find them cheaper than that if you want. $3000 may not be cheap per se, but it's certainly manageable on salaries from "normal jobs", if you want. Again, you'll be sacrificing space or luxuries compared to living elsewhere; but that's a sacrifice everyone in NYC are making.

NeverDie
September 6th, 2010, 05:12 AM
Yeah, I don't think it'll ever be the scenario as the OP described within at least the next 100 years, which by then, we'll all probably be gone anyways.

KenNYC
September 7th, 2010, 02:18 AM
Not me, I still have my European passport, so I have socialized health care. I'll live forever (or at least a few years longer than the average American). :D

Merry
September 12th, 2010, 03:21 AM
Yeah? Who'd have thought :rolleyes:.


The fact of the matter is that a household making $250,000 in New York City is making more than pretty much anyone else in the city.
Even in New York City, $250,000 is rich

By Ezra Klein

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/income_distribution_in_new_york_city.png

Arguments over income taxes tend to get bogged down in arguments about who is really "rich." And what you hear then is that rich in Ohio and rich in New York City are different. But how different?

According to the Census Bureau, only 6.3 percent of New York City's households pulled in more than $200,000. So if you're a household making $250,000 or more, you're easily in the top 5 percent -- even in New York City.

Now, it's true that those people might not "feel" rich. There's lots of stuff to buy in New York City. It's pretty easy to construct a lifestyle where you spend $250,000 a year. In Columbus, Ohio, only 1.3 percent of households make more than $200,000, so there's less stuff for them to buy and fewer rich people for them to try to keep up with. But what you buy and whether you try to keep up with the people in the penthouse is a personal decision, not an objective economic necessity. The fact of the matter is that a household making $250,000 in New York City is making more than pretty much anyone else in the city. Being rich is more than just a feeling.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/even_in_new_york_city_250000_i.html

stache
September 12th, 2010, 04:20 PM
Yes but that is their choice to have children.

KenNYC
September 18th, 2010, 06:37 PM
Here is the flaw in this logic..... The link provided is to rent, not to buy.

I can only speak for myself, but I am not interested in renting. The average family with 2 children can't afford to buy in Manhattan.

Uhm, the fact that you voluntarily decide you do not want to rent, only buy, doesn't have any relevance to this conversation. That is of course your free choice, but the vast majority of people living in NYC rents their home. Yet your statements have been that it's impossible for regular people to live here; which is blatantly false.

Guess what, If I am not interested in living in a house that doesn't have a pool, two tennis courts, and private golf course and at least an 8 car garage; pretty much any part of the US is going to be pretty expensive. That has no relevance to whether I could find an affordable place to live or not.

Why not just admit that your statements were rather silly, and blatantly false, instead of trying to alter the premise of the discussion to fit your argument once it's original purpose failed?

And yes, it's perfectly possible for an average family with 2 children to buy in Manhattan as well. You don't need to have a full service, white glove doorman building to live in Manhattan.

stache
September 18th, 2010, 07:24 PM
But it helps.

KenNYC
September 21st, 2010, 05:50 PM
Pretty sure being rich helps everywhere :p

eddhead
September 30th, 2010, 10:04 AM
^^

Not necessarily. You can make an arguement that in an uncertain housing market where housing values are at best holding their own, and may in fact be in decline, renting is the logical alternative to buying. Even if housing is breaking even, the opportunity benefits of renting and investing what would be your down payment in even a low return investment alternative could be perceived as a prudent option. Low risk, certain return vs. high risk, uncertain return. Could be one reason that even with historically low mortgage interest rates the housing market continues to suffer.

stache
September 30th, 2010, 06:39 PM
During the last boom the smart money was renting and investing what would have been principal, for a higher return than inflated real estate values.

KenNYC
October 3rd, 2010, 02:33 AM
No, the fact I want to buy instead of rent proves that I have common sense. The vast majority of people in NYC rent because they have no other choice, THEY CAN"T AFFORD TO BUY.

The comment above is straight from YOUR MOUTH!!! Thanks for proving my point. Proving you wrong is easy, you prove yourself wrong.

It's still a choice you make. That seems undeniable to me. As debated above, there may be reasons to rent and reasons to buy, but whichever one you chooses, is your choice.

lofter1
October 9th, 2010, 09:25 PM
Buying in NYC is not necessarily the best way to invest money.

mariab
October 9th, 2010, 09:58 PM
Why? Isn't it a good idea if you'll be living there for any extended period of time? How about a co-op? Or, if having a choice between the two (buying direct with no strings or buying into a co-op), is just an outright purchase with no strings better?

econ_tim
October 20th, 2010, 05:47 PM
i don't know what you mean by "no strings," but however you buy in manhattan there will still be taxes, maintenance expenses, carrying costs for the down payment, mortgage payments, and transaction costs. whether it makes sense to rent or buy depends on how these costs compare to rent for a comparable property, the expected appreciation of real estate, and the return that can be earned on other investments.

mariab
October 20th, 2010, 08:56 PM
In other words, I think it would be more beneficial to me to buy outright, say a condo, as opposed to buying into a lease with a co-op, or especially, renting, no? Expenses are there either way, & I understand that. It's just that if you're planning to live there for the long run, it seems to make more sense, if you can swing it financially, even if you have to get a loan, to buy outright so you're not bound by a board of directors who may or may not accept your application to live there.