Gothamist: MetLife Wants $5 Billion for Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village

Furniture

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:38:06 -0500

What about Furniture 131fea9f743ed98

Rolex

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:21:22 -0500

What about Rolex 111a63d17ddf15f

furniture

Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:00:25 -0500

Nice site furniture e6949575dd21acd

Wrinkles cream

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:45:53 -0500

Want eat Wrinkles cream b3b36e57169d3d1

Distance learning

Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:32:00 -0500

Distance learning Distance learning a6ff0d7df56d3f1

Jonh

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:27:41 -0500

Hello! Good Design! fioricet online

Jonh

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:27:25 -0500

Hello! Good Design! fioricet online

DNA test

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:48:04 -0500

I like your site. DNA test 632a04f6109bf2e

MD2678

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:28:45 -0500

that lady started living there when no one else wanted to and her husband probably died in the war...the good war. You people have no hearts. she old...look at her...she's old.

Debt consolidation

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:33:17 -0500

Debt consolidation Loans - Consolidate Debts 503c19481a6b288

Rolex

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:24:18 -0500

Buy Rolex Watches Online d788a988e00f405

Accutane

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:39:42 -0500

You want to buy Accutane c31130dbe81a18d

MBA entrance exam

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:47:36 -0500

Such that can MBA entrance exam get u an MBA. 5cb377072c293f2

Debt consolidation in seconds

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:44:39 -0500

Debt you may qualify for an unsecured loan. Credit Debt consolidation in seconds unions (see link to debt consolidation the debt consolidation left) typically offer lower rates than you're paying now. c5194954f2a3d60

MBA enrtance exam

Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:54:00 -0500

Such that can MBA enrtance exam get u an MBA. 5cb377072c293f2

Colon Cleansing

Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:20:46 -0500

Do you want to make Colon Cleansing 8d3eb5c4ac8353f

Real estate for sale

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 14:21:47 -0500

Real estate for sale property. Real estate for sale estate brokers offer the finest selection. 0d8681316e07bce

TunaTacoGrande

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:18:03 -0500

"takes a sell-out job" So taking a job that pays the rent and bills in Manhattan is 'selling out'? Okay, whatever. Have fun on Staten Island you 'free spirit'. The amount of people who can afford luxury apartments in Manhattan is incredible and there is no shortage of people looking to fill the new $3000 per month studio apartments going up in Chelsea right now. The money in this city is insane.

jack

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:35:34 -0500

>$5,000,000,000 with 11,000 apts: >$454,500 per apartment >30 year mortgage with 5.7% interest (current >rate): >$2,700.00 per month or $32,000 per year >In order to live like this (plus misc bills and >fun on-the-side) you will need to make or retire >with, annually: 65K–150K per year. >WTF? Well, are you kidding me? $2,700 a month for a mortgage payment? that is one full 2 week paycheck, at $130,000 a year... Too expensive... You're are only supposed to spend 25% on housing. 25% should be savings!, the other 50% food, expenses... So ideally you should make about $260,000 to buy anything with a $2,700 payment... those that ignore the old personal accounting advice of 25% for housing, will always live broke, with no savings... lose your job for any reason and you risk bankruptcy and foreclosure on your home. Get sick, lose your job, and become homeless... You must learn to aggressively put money into savings each paycheck- FIRST! before you think about rent, mortgageit, flat panel tv's, etc. Enjoy!

Stuy Town resident

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:15:55 -0500

as per posting #41 (anonymous), as a matter of fact, Stuy Town and PCV do have their own shops (not to make glass, but to handle plumbing/electrical/metal work (yes, metal work)/flooring/general contracting, etc.) and yes, they do have an electricity set up that is geared solely to them. Remember, this area was set up in the 40's to help out those returning from the war. It is a sel-contained campus, of sorts. No one in NYC is subsizing these "poor" folks. I know families who have been in Stuy Town since it's inception and good for them for living in boxes that long and for having rents as low as they do. I live in Stuy Town now - I have a for a year, in a rent controlled apartment. Lucky me, considering the amount of time I have lived in NYC (26 years), and after having paid more than I should have, I feel tenured to pay my 'almost $2,000' rent. I have elderly neighbors who are wonderful people, who fear that something like this might happen. They live off of social security and a very small single pension. I don't know how they do it. Don't knock this special enclave, as it's one of the last of a dying breed in this "eclectic" city of our's, which seems to be falling to the wayside. So many people move to NYC each year because it's hip and cool....no it's not. Hip and cool is a state of mind which seems to be able to be purchased these days. Indivuality is key, but maybe those who made/make NYC so special can't afford to be here anymore. What a drag. I grew up in nYC, moved away for a while then came back. What a difference between way back when & now. PCV/ST folks - hold on tight. It's sure to be a memorable ride. In the meanwhile, for those who make fun of us, they don't know about our Oval concerts in front of the fountain, which is fine by me. :-)

homer

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:49:44 -0500

yes, i do understand the rc/rs laws. they are ridiculous and should be abolished

rescueblues

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:25:22 -0500

Even if the City comes in with a sweetheart corporate welfare tax break to MetLife and the new buyer to allow some of the units to be co-oped by the current tenants with HPD loans, what prevents the new owner to demolish or build on the current property. You wouldn't want to spend $450,000-$500,000 on 21 Stuyvesant Oval Unit 5H and find out playground 9 is now a 35 story condo. City has to be aggressively involved in this deal other than a few loans and tax breaks.

anon

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:29:55 -0500

Under the current law, people who currently live in rent stabilized/rent controlled apartments do, in fact, have the right to live in their apartments (unless they break the rules). The only entitlement people feel is the entitlement afforded to them by the law. It's not about trying to live somewhere "geographically desirable" - many lived in ST/PCV long before it was a desirable neighborhood. It's not about whether they should or should not buy their apartments - they've never been given the opportunity, but at $450,000 or $550,000, I think anyone who could afford to would buy their apartment. Too bad MetLife isn't giving anyone that option. And I doubt that whoever buys the complex will be willing to let the current residents buy their apartments at anything but a high profit to the new owner.

homer

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:20:53 -0500

NO ONE has a "right" to live ANYWHERE..what an absurd sense of entitlement

jim

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:10:48 -0500

#63.. banks typically like 3x mortgage in salary.. Don't forget about "condo fees" too.. so if they flip the whole thing for 6 bil.. 1 bil profit.. that's 545k average per apt.. or lets say 400 for a 1 br, 525 for a 2br, and 650 for a 3br.. (totally rough numbers.. ) in short, that's 1/2 the average selling price of an apt in nyc so far this year (1.3 mil) so the developers make money (yeah for them), the people who buy do ok (market flooded with cheap apts doesn't hurt the buyers) and chances are the existing rent control people could be bought out. it depends on what you think is fair.. but I don't seem to remember a contract I signed at birth with society saying i could live wherever i wanted forever just because i was there first. I'm all for personal rights, if you want to stay somewhere forever, buy it.. if you're renting, it's your obligation to understand the rules.. anyway.. the avg apt.. (with 0% down) after developer profit... 545k = 3,180.47 a month.. + condo fee with the size of this place (and lack of doorman type amenities), I can't imagine the condo fee being more than 500 on average.. so ~3600.. somewhere in the middle of the RS and MR folks.. and if you put down 20% (not easy, but pretty standard when purchasing a residence), it ends up being about 3000 a month total. at anything close to those prices, I'd buy one in a second.. even if the developer gets a 20% profit..

ny is funny

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:23:34 -0500

why do people 'have the right' to live in manhattan? I grew up in Brooklyn, live in Manhattan now. Granted, I make a shitton of money now, but didn't always, and I've worked my ass of to get where I am, working 100 hour weeks, etc. Every city I've lived in (London, San Francisco, Boston) had working class neighbourhoods and more well-to-do areas, etc. That's urban life. It's turning out that Manhattan is becoming (has already become) a place for the very wealthy. How is this wrong, or mystifying? Inner Boston, SF and London are exactly the same. There's no shame in living in the Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens and with the great transportation options here, it's not a tough commute at all (unless you're somewhere way off the map, but, you know, just don't move there). I grew up way out in Marine Park and my family commuted to manhattan from there and both had good jobs and never complained about "not getting to live in manhattan". They chose to live where they could afford a house and raise a family. That's life. And to another poster, I'd say the artistic contributions from NYC are as high now as they've ever been. What was the West Village in the 60s turned into the East Village in the 80s, which turned into the Lower East Side in the 90s, which has now crossed over to Brooklyn. Shit changes, let it happen. You know, the Left Bank isn't the left bank anymore either...

edEx

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:05:08 -0500

$5,000,000,000 with 11,000 apts: $454,500 per apartment 30 year mortgage with 5.7% interest (current rate): $2,700.00 per month or $32,000 per year In order to live like this (plus misc bills and fun on-the-side) you will need to make or retire with, annually: 65K–150K per year. WTF?

Dude

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:30:54 -0500

rescueblues - Doctoroff and Bloomie on the side of the tenants?! Mr. Westside Stadium and his boss are so pro developers for the tax revenue that it's a pipe dream. 11kap, make sure you reserve a street corner by ST for your picket signs when the over privileged jerks are putting up their new luxury condos.

toliveandshaveinbrooklyn

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:24:15 -0500

Okay, so I read the Cato report (see #51). Cato economists generally support a free market position, and--no surprise--this one does too. The article is interesting, essentially suggesting that rent stabilization creates artificially low prices in a significant market swath that in turn drives up prices in an unregulated shadow market (which allows businesses to continue functioning) but it leaves many problems unanswered. (I’ll be using rent-control to encompass both rent-control and rent stabilization except where noted) 1) The article has a few unexplained irregularities: In regards to the supposedly normal bell curve that free markets set up and regulated markets defy: LA and DC, both controlled markets, show a regular bell curve. There is no accounting for this in the article. Moreover, we have to consider the effect of income distributions in those markets. I find it difficult to believe that Philly, lovely as it may be, is going to be able to generate anywhere near the same kind of high end demand as we find in international centers like New York or Miami (to use an unregulated example with a bell curve that provides interesting peaks) 2) This article was written at a time when rent control ostensibly discouraged builders from creating new housing. Clearly this is not now the situation in New York. Given parallels with New York’s 1920s relatively unregulated market in which very few low end units were being built, I would question whether we are talking about a strict marketwide supply-demand issue or whether we need to consider the housing market (as most individuals and developers think about it) as relatively segmented. In that case the issue is not so much how many units are being built overall, but what kind of units and why. Moreover, as many people have suggested. we have to look into other hidden subsidies for development to understand the incentives for building in different segments of the market. 3) The article provides zero discussion of the current distribution of rent controlled apartments vs. decontrolled or market-rate apartments in New York, or the price variation between rent-controlled and market-rate apartments. It would be necessary to break these up by borough and to separate out rent control from rent stabilization if we are to have an accurate understanding of the current situation. It would also help to have a metro-wide analysis. If anyone else spots other well-reasoned supports or critiques of the free market position, I’d love to see them.

Local Yolkel

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:16:06 -0500

Ummm..... Peter Cooper and Stuy Town are in the process of becoming designated a "Historic Neighborhood".... just to let you know...

Steven

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:16:03 -0500

This is one of the reasons why I live in the Hudson Valley and commute into Manhattan via Metro North. I'm not going to pay for a small tiny little house/apartment while I can get double the size here in the Hudson Valley.

Move_NYU

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:11:32 -0500

This presents a golden opportunity for NYU to finally have the campus that it is constantly seeking by overrunning the village. I am sure that NYU could easily fetch $5 billion for all of its village landholdings. In exchange, it can have more dorms and classroom space than it will ever need and, heck, the buildings already look just as ugly as every high-rise eyesore NYU erects in the middle of historic neighborhoods.

11kap

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:02:43 -0500

I am so tired of these over-priveleged jerks getting their way and justifying it all the time. Save your brainwash. You'll need it to eat it. We need a new George Washington to come and start kicking some tails around here again.

Local Yolkel

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:48:54 -0500

I think both the stabilized (of which I am one) and free marketers are correct. For those that are in it stabilization will most likely protect them for the rest of their lives (unless they make over 100k a year). Stabilization for everyone else is on a path towards death... and I dont necessarily believe that to be a bad thing. Without stabilization development and improvement will increase. This will have a profound cultural affect on certain neighborhoods but these can neither be viewed as good or bad... it is the nature of the city. Queens and the Bronx were once farm land until transit was built into those areas... the character changed for good for bad who cares it just changed. In NYC as a whole we have to stop fighting development tooth and nail. This NIMBY attitude and feeling that neighborhoods should stop changing after you move into them has gotta go. For free-marketers I agree with 55 no development occurs in NYC without direct or indirect subsidies... take zoning which is controlled by the department of city planning but approved by the ULURP process which is democratically elected. If your a land holder and zoning changes from R5 to R12 zoning your property probably more then tripled in potential value... under market rate thinking you should not even have to wait for rezoning...circumventing a democratically established process. The issues are complex... but in this city rapid change translates to 10-20 years so I think there will be ample time to dicuss

katoe sidekick

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:14:39 -0500

Again, with the Cato institute? Name one large developement that didn't benefit from any City or State funding directly or indirectly. Your transit check is considered a subsidy. The 43 year resident of ST was probably under rent stablization, not RC. Back when PCV and ST were full of working people. Oh, was that wrong to use "working" people? OK, then those who make slightly above the minimum wage and many still do. My mother was one till she retired and her wage was still $5.15/hr. Regarding the free market folks, don't like ST/PCV? don't live there. I for one would love to live there and be away from you "free market" "capitalists".

Think twice

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:11:08 -0500

#24 is so on the mark. Everyone, replace every instance of the words "NYC" & "New York" with "Manhattan" and "city" with "borough" in the article and these posts. Think once, think twice.

rescueblues

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:54:27 -0500

The City needs to get involved to protect the current tenants (rent stablized and market rate). This is the City's chance to really show they are for real middle-class affordable housing in the City of New York; Doctoroff, Bloomberg, Garaodnick and HPD/HDC should all be on board here making sure the tenants get a fair outcome here. I'm sure deals are being cut for MetLife not to pay their full share of taxes after the sale (this is the main reason they haven't sold it in the past the tax didn't make the sale worth it) and for the new developers' group to get what they need, the tenants of Stuy Town need to mobolize now to get their message out to these parties. That's the real important issue here.

zincink

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:51:34 -0500

stay outta the bronx.. "thriving art scene in nj" where? am I missing something? health insurance..whats that? there is no such thing middle class anymore.

Jim

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:49:16 -0500

People should read a little about how rent control in general hurts the general structure of our society. Yes, it helps lower the costs for the lowest income folks, but the net cost to everyone increases. If rent control wasn't in place, the three br places might go for 3300, instead of 1400 controlled and 4800 not. yes, the lady probably couldn't afford it any longer, but that transition would have happened many many years ago. On top of that, the regulation involved costs everyone, from the sheer fact the RCB has to exist to the lowered tax revenue on the RC units. This report: here explains the many factors involved better than I could in this text box..

11kap

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:43:23 -0500

Free Market blah blah blah! It is based on screwing people. The greedy 1 percent is only setting themselves up for disaster, even though they think the know everything.

decibeldeluge

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:21:33 -0500

I think most people don't realize that most people in NYC don't care what the exterior of the building looks like. Yes Stuy Town resembles public housing, thats because it was public housing, it was affordable housing. When you create a town a magnitude of Stuy Town, it is inevitable you will create housing that looks like projects. How else are you going to that density with a limited amount of space. The real question about the sales of Stuy Town is not if everyone is going to get kicked out, becasue that will eventually happen, with the natural turn over rate of all afforable housing, but who is going to take the risk of buying the property and redeveloping it. With recession looming close and the bull market transforming itself into a bear, MetLife is looking to maximize its profits before real estate takes a bigger hit. These speculators are likely to be NYC developers in collaboration with outside developers to limit liability for both parties. And like the NYTimes said, no developer will be able to finance this themselves, and no bank will allow that to happen. At this point we can't worry about how to stop the transformation, but be more concerned with damage control. How can we limit the damage and Environmental Impact that the new development is going to create. How will it change the context of the neighborhood, how will it strain the infrastrucutre, sewer, sanitation, transportation, education, etc. This is the battle that the neighbors should prepare for, becasue this battle can be won. I have a feeling most developers aren't ready yet, they are going to ride this one out. It will be at least 3-6 months before they have a potential buyer, they will probably want to wait to read the market better and let it stabilize whether it is up or down.

anon

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:19:40 -0500

Trust me, Metlife more than makes up for the cost to them for repairs and maintenance. Their BS MCI increases is a prime example. Replacing 50 year old elevators (with equally poorly performing & smaller, uglier elevators) or upgrading the roof of a building are hardly major capital mprovements - they are necessary fixes to an older building. The cost of these "improvements" certainly add up and are tacked on to the rent from here to eternity. As for cops making bank - maybe, maybe not. That's the trade-off for putting yourself in harm's way. And I'm pretty sure it falls under "busting your ass" - plenty of people bust their ass for a lot less than $70,000.

timbnyc

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:59:59 -0500

So the parcels were first assembled through eminent domain, eh? Aren't you free-marketers feeling at least conflicted, if not just defeated? Scratch any real estate project in this city, and you'll find government support.

strandedinnj

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:58:29 -0500

I agree with finley. I have no choice but live in New Jersey because my employer moved me there. I feel imprisoned because I have to drive EVERYWHERE! And #27, I'm paying $2400 (EXcluding heat and all utilities) for a 3 bedroom non-luxury apt in a not so hot town in NJ...and that's considered quite a bargin.

broke

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:31:12 -0500

the implication, in some of these comments, that people living in rent stabilized or rent controlled markets that are ridiculously below market rate somehow deserve to have them taken away because it's not fair to the rest of us - this is baffling. i'm just as jealous as the next person that i don't have the same luck. but you know what, these people played by the rules and have lived in these units forever, or their families have. good for them for holding onto them. even if some people could afford something closer to market rate and could be described as 'hoarding' affordable housing - so what? rent control is objective. let's keep it that way. and as for the appeal of stuy town and peter cooper village - they do resemble projects, but a discerning eye can tell the difference. there is nothing wrong with wanting to live here - everyone has their preferences. i personally would enjoy a working- or middle-class enclave to luxury condos filled with people who treat nyc like a status symbol or a playgound instead of a community. and don't tell me i should settle for a long commute or a dangerous neighborhood because it's my fault somehow my career is meaningful but not high-paying. most people aren't asking for a huge apartment or a prime neighborhood, just a reasonable quality of life. what's the tipping point? at what point will the real estate market force the working class out of the city? who's going to bus the tables of those wealthy enough to keep gobbling up all the space?

Dave

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:28:44 -0500

The sad part of this story is that Stuy Town was built as an altruistic effort, housing for middle-income families, by a giant corporation whose primary goal was something more than maximum profitability. It's hard to imagine a similar project being completed today.

Dave

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:25:01 -0500

The sad part of this story is that Stuy Town was an altruistic project, housing for middle-income people, built by a giant corporation whose primary goal was something more than maximum profitability. It's hard to imagine a similar project being completed today.

Local Yolkel

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:24:32 -0500

Ummm as far as I can remeber they were taking care of pipes and windows under rent controls.... didn't seem to be an issue then? Other costs are figured into the RCB's (Rent Control Board) rent increases allowed every year... plus the property has already recouped investment several times over... plenty of cash coming in... OH and they infact do have a metal shop!!!

whatever

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:17:38 -0500

Are the residents of Stuy Town also operating a machine shop? Are they making their own glass for new windows? Do they have their own electrical generating capacity? If that lawnmower breaks I guess they just make a new one. And if the pipes leak they just make new ones in their metal shop.

Local Yokel

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:11:58 -0500

High renters "Dont" subsidize in the case of Peter Cooper and Stuy Town... they have been cutting grass and maintaining buildings there since they were built. In terms of Higher pay I am sure they have plenty with there 4-5 percent rent increases under RS laws they have been doing for years

Kevin Walsh

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:09:26 -0500

>>>It's ridiculous that in NYC people think $1400 is a ridiculously low amount to pay for an apartment. On a $40,000 a year salary, the average in NYC, that is a ridiculously high amount. www.forgotten-ny.com

Samantha T

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:05:52 -0500

See, I don't consider teachers working class, but I do consider police officers working class. I don't consider "working class" a derogative term in the least. For me, it's got nothing to do with earnings and everything to do with the required education level for the job. Truck drivers earn more than museum workers, but the job doesn't require as much formal education. Class is a funny thing in this country.

Zac

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:04:56 -0500

Can anyone find a reputable source for the empty Trump towers on the West Side? I have heard this rumor before, but it sounds like something of an urban legend (literally).

that's called subsidize

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:01:10 -0500

How can you say the high rents don't subsidize those with low rents? Do you think the cost of maintaining these buildings is frozen at low levels? If the owners have to pay the security guys or repair men more this year it comes out of the market renters. The owners do deserve to cover their costs and make some return on their investment.

cops make bank

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:55:46 -0500

Spare me the "Bush is hollowing out the middle class" crap. Incomes of the top earners has been growing much faster than the bottom for the past 40 years. Even during your precious Clinton years the bulk of the income gains went to the top. If you need to blame something, blame globaization. But take globalization away and the 1990s would never have happened. The only thing that kept that boom going was cheap imports that kept a lid on inflation. If you jacked the income tax rates on the top earners they would simply demand more compensation. They have that leverage. And to the person that thinks cops are working class. Unless you're a lawyer or banker the cops probably make more than you. And they have a sweet pension that will pay them in their 50s even if they go on to another job like private security. And the only cops that are underpaid are the rookies which is interesting because the current cops signed off on this in their union contract. Screw the guys that aren't yet in the union, sounds good.

RG

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:50:43 -0500

Free market is good-it allocates resources efficiently. econ 101. Now it is very true that the supply of people making 200+ a year is very limited, so if the developers think they will continue to get 3,000/mo for a 1 bedroom they are delusional. So guys relax, soon there will be plenty of somewhat affordable housing once all the condos go up and the husing market fizzels. Moreover, those buildings are ugly! Not that steel-and-glass monsters are much better... And about the poor people that won't be able to live in nyc anymore, well why should have an easier time paying their rent than a person busting his/her ass for 70K a year?!?!?!?

DogFriedRice

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:50:03 -0500

Amen, #30, people who serve their community as teachers, nurses, police, etc... should be able to afford to live in the community that they serve...

s

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:47:55 -0500

There is a glut of luxury apartment sin the city. Trump has a whole bunch of towers on the west side highway that he built almost 15 years ago and they are still mostly empty. I just dont get it, the whole if you build it they will come philosophy regarding luxury apartments here. If completely stupid, I hope they do build more and more of them, and that they sit empty for another 15 years. Fucking asshole developers will learn the hard way, thats my prediction, the sad thing is in the meantime, the middle class and under suffers.

Local Yolkel

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:42:50 -0500

I grew up in Stuy Town... and it was great. Alot of people forget that for almost three decades this was an island on the east side there was nothing... and I mean nothing around it. Its quiet and the construction is unbeatable. The two biggest issues are access to transportation and retail space. As for the free market mechanism... I also have no problem with it except that this site was not constructed under the free market. Imminent domain and a frozen tax rate virtually financed the project...which had the objective of providing apartments for working class people (i.e. cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers etc)... it would seem that the public should see some benefit from the sale and not in the form of BS "increased tax revenue." New York needs more development luxury or otherwise the problems we are facing with high rental and purchasing costs are do to low supply and high demand... I for one would love to see an oversupply at the time all these whiners leave for New Jersey or to move back to where ever they came from.... ah to dream

anon

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:41:00 -0500

Hey Wha - You don't subsidize this woman's apartment at all. And for $1400, she's probably lived there for 30 years; long before the surrounding areas were so cool all the lawyers, bankers, etc just HAD to live there. ST/PCV was a peaceful, clean community where people could raise their families and not spend all their money on housing. They could afford to be the people who taught the kids in public schools (and private schools); they could survive as nurses and police officers, living in the city they served - and they could do it comfortably, which is all most people want in life. Rent-stabilized tenants have the "right" to live in New York - just because you can afford to pay (or are naive enough to pay) 4 times their rent doesn't mean you have any greater "right" to live here.

rescueblues

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:39:07 -0500

The City aka Doctoroff has to get involved and put stipulations on this deal. MetLife received the land from the city to make affordable housing for the working-class, the new developer cannot (does not have the right to) have freewill over the land to bulldoze 1/3 of it over for it to be cost effective. It's a sad NYTimes article, let's hope the City does the right thing here.

Samantha T

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:21:30 -0500

"And I don't want to deal with dumb people who get most of their entertainment from reality shows." Please. Some of the most vapid, self-centered, ridiculous people I've ever met live in NYC. Enough with the suburb-bashing. I love living in NYC, but you'd better believe I love (equally) heading to my parents' house where they have a yard, two cars, no vermin, regular trash pickup, a dishwasher/washer/dryer, and a relative absence of entitled, precious assholes. They're not even close to rick, either - you can live in a peaceful, clean community without a lot of money outside of cities like NYC, San Francisco, etc. To me, that's a hell of a lot more democratic than living in a city where only the well-to-do have such amenities (unless they want to commute in from way out in the outer-boroughs).

bklynbee

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:14:42 -0500

"So we should do what - subsidize these people that live there? That women is paying $1400 FOR A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT. That's just ridiculous." It's ridiculous that in NYC people think $1400 is a ridiculously low amount to pay for an apartment. Who do you think exactly is subsidizing that rent? I don't follow your argument. If someone moves into an apartment, the rent should just be rasied to "market rate" (which is ridicously overpriced in NYC anyway) at the whim of the landlord whenever he/she/they feel(s) like it, instead of having rent increases regulated?

Dude

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:13:53 -0500

#18 - No, it's the size of the bank account that can afford the 144" TV that's important. Capitalism and free market forever!

Phoenix Woman

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:57:58 -0500

Um, all the "free market" worshipers need to be aware that just moving to the 'burbs is no solution, not when we're already losing most of our farmland to sprawl. Then again, the "free marketeers" have no problem with Bush's hollow-out-the-middle-class policies.

Zac

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:56:20 -0500

Or maybe we are all just hypocrites, as we lament the disappearance of working class NYC, but almost never propose moving to the Bronx.

finley

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:55:23 -0500

I'll stick with NYC no matter how tough it gets. I don't want to have to drive everywhere and go to strip malls for everything and big box stores to get anything. And I don't want to deal with dumb people who get most of their entertainment from reality shows. because that's who lives outside of ny/sf/la

pay up or leave

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:54:49 -0500

Also annoying are the middle class retirees sitting on million dollar apartments that don't think they should have to pay taxes. I don't know when the right to die in your apartment and pass it to your heirs got included in the Bill of Rights. If you don't want to sell you should be forced to take out a reverse mortgage.

Zac

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:52:27 -0500

I don't really have a problem with the free market driving me out of the city, but something doesn't smell right. I work in a law firm, so I appreciate how high professional salaries are in this city, but there's a finite supply of corporate lawyers, executives and bankers. At some point, isn't there going to be a surplus of housing for these people? Why is EVERYTHING West of Elmhurst, South of 125th and East of the Hudson (throw in Hoboken, Weehawken & J.C.) now considered a viable LUXURY neighborhood? Are there really THAT many people out there making 200k a year? Middle income people can't survive in a city that demands they pay over 50% of their take home in rent.

hr

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:52:26 -0500

waaaaaa!!!!! go to new jersey. good riddance. *spit*

Casey

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:49:19 -0500

I used to live around that area and the place is depressing. Its such a vast area and I think that revitalizing the area would be a good thing for NYC. BUT they have to at least offer a good chunk of $$ to residents who will have to relocate as well as offer some low cost housing right in the new luxury residences until I suppose those people die off. NYC city is a hard place to live if you cant afford it then hey your out. Who ever said life is fair?

Milo

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:43:18 -0500

Yes, because the size of your TV is important.

time to go

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:42:22 -0500

Working class people? Not sure what that means anymore but there will always be a stream of immigrants that are willing to squeeze into cramped apartments and travel an hour on the subway for a job. The problem is the middle class. Unless one half of a couple takes a sell-out job the other could never afford to do something noble like teach or work for the government. Why be a lawyer or IT manager for the government if you can make three times as much in the private sector. Perhaps some of you have noticed that New York loses a Congressman or two every census. In addition to immigration plenty of Northeasterners are packing up and heading South and West.

Jen

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:32:52 -0500

Anyone else want to punch anonymous in the teeth?

11Kap

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:30:49 -0500

What will you do after all the working class people leave NYC? Who will do the work?

hhhhhhhhhh

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:23:56 -0500

New York City is dead - it's not creative, it's not edgy, it's not artistic. I know it was branded that for a while, but Bloomberg said it himself: New York is a luxury product. Cultural productivity is not NYC's business. So, I'm not sure why creative people insist on starving and struggling to pay $1,400/month for a roach-filled apartment in an outer-borough that looks exactly like some town in New Jersey. It's not like there are all that many other truly creative people left in NYC, unless you count coked-up douches from Connecticut in Brooklyn.

K

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:10:20 -0500

MT. That neighborhood is what new york is about. people from all walks of life milling about, neighborhood bars, and food, kennedy fried chicken... i rather live there than in a luxury apartment surrounded by greedy bankers who have nothing better to blow their money on but overpriced apartments. too bad, stuy town/pcv is/has been turning into that the past few years

anonymous

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:02:13 -0500

Ha.. that 1400 3br she's paying now would go to 4800 minimum if it were flipped to market rate.. I thought the people below me were paying half.. this lady isn't even paying 1/3.. ooh, and we have 4 people in ours.. And yes, they're not the most exciting place to live, but they're also quiet, close enough to everything, reliable, and huge. Does anyone else have a 12x18 foot living room for this price? Can you say 144 inch diagnal projection tv.. ?

Wha

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:00:48 -0500

Last time I checked, this country has a free market economy. So we should do what - subsidize these people that live there? That women is paying $1400 FOR A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT. That's just ridiculous.

follow the money

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:46:22 -0500

Zac, the college grads get the money from Mom and Dad and/or they double and triple up. And have you seen the size of Wall Street paychecks and bonuses?

MT

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:46:17 -0500

While I've never been in the apartments themselves, those buildings just look depressing. It's as ugly as any low-income project in New York. And the surrounding neighborhood is completely unattractive as well. It's dirty and squalid everywhere you lookWill someone please explain to me the appeal of living there?

The Dude

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:41:18 -0500

Jersey City has a long way to go before I move there. Unlike Brooklyn, Jersey City is selling out to huge developers (like Donald Trump) similarly to Manhattan. It is trying to bring in jobs and residents at the same time, and although there is a huge construction boom, few people are moving in. Brooklyn still has some character, which is why I moved there. But don't worry, I'll move out once the Atlantic Yards are developed.

Zac

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:38:06 -0500

Where do all the customers for these "luxury" units come from? Is there a limitless supply of people willing to pay $2k a month (and up) per bedroom?

oh well

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:37:28 -0500

Unless Wall Street and law firms lay off lots of workers AND mortgage rates go higher, don't expect a plunge in condo prices. Throw in a weaker dollar thats likely to go lower and you'll have even more foreign buyers step in. In the bust of the late 80s people were still leaving the city. That isn't the case now.

Glenn

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:29:26 -0500

The key to unlocking the value of that area is not with kicking tenents out, it's by using some of the underutilitized spaces that border streets and putting up some needed retail space. The Tower in a Park model is just not a very good use of space. And it forces people to walk long distances to get their groceries.

JC mafia

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:10:28 -0500

I think people will move to places like Newark, Jersey City. Orange, Irvington, Union City, because you can get a two bedroom apartment there for 750 a month, while you pay twice as much in Queens and Brooklyn. You have a thriving art scene. Plus NJ has better health plans and the PATH train is more reliable than the subway.

Frank

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:06:23 -0500

So where's the story here? MetLife is already phasing out middle income and renting vacant units as luxury -- anyone who buys ST/PCV will have to honor rent-stablization rules on existing tenants until they die off. And when we all stop smoking real-estate-crack, maybe someone will wake up and realize that these buildings are MIDDLE INCOME PROJECTS and there is nothing luxurious about them in terms of finishes, location, etc.

AngryAtManhattanApts

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:05:41 -0500

NYC better hurry up and build the hudson tunnels so we can all move to NJ to commute in to the city. Little by little, whatever remains of "quality of life" in NYC drips away. If I have to leave Manhattan to move to Connecticut, NJ, or Westchester (or Staten Island [ugh]) -- I quit. Once you make that move there is absolutely no appeal to the NYC area. You just live in "some suburb" of a metro area. Not to mention - how many stupid condos do we need in this city? When the next recession hits, whose gonna buy these overpriced units?

C

Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:05:16 -0500

Here's something else regarding: http://rentaldementia.blogspot.com/