Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
It's not a deal of Stuy Town proportions, but the sale of the Apthorp building on Broadway between West 78th and 79ths Streets on the Upper West Side is still a big deal. According to the NY Times, Maurice Mann agreed to pay more than $425 million for the building that takes up the entire block (Broadway to West End, 78th to 79th). Mann called it "the greatest trophy building on the Upper West Side." What about the Ansonia? Or all the buildings on Central Park West? Anyway, Mann intends to keep it as a "very high-end rental and to keep it exactly the way it is." The building currently has monthly rental prices of $8,000-$20,000. With prices like that, it's no wonder celebrities and media executives are popular tenants.
Earlier this year, Nora Ephron wrote a New Yorker essay about her love for the five-bedroom apartment at the Apthorp that she paid $1,500 a month for - and the agony of paying more rent. (Boo hoo!) Curbed pointed out NY Times Op-Ed columnist John Tierney's response, "No matter how much you love your rent-stabilized apartment, no matter how smug you feel bragging to your friends about your deal, in your heart you know it's not fair you're paying so little."
Back in 1997, the NY Times's Frank Bruni (best known as the current restaurant critic) wrote about "rumors of shady deals" at the Apthorp. Last year, Cyndi Lauper sued an Apthorp resident she was renting an apartment from for charging her too much. While most apartments rent for many thousands, Lauper was paying $3,250 but was outraged that the previous owner had paid $508.
More about the Apthorp from The Upper West Side Book.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
People like Nora Ephron need a public beat down. This is a prime reason people are not more supportive of rent control and rent stabilization.
The Times article doesn't say what proportion of the 163 apartments are rent-stabilized, but given the sales price it would seem that most must be market rate.
They are all market-rate now as far as I know. I know a broker who rented one of the better apartments for 25K.
Of course, I believe all apts are corner apartments essentially since they are all so huge. Another good friend of mine had a relative who lived there for almost 45 years, from the 30s until the 80s. When they passed away, the building actually offered to let the family keep the apartment at the same rate (which was probably nothing), but it was too painful for the parents to move in. They probably would have been forced out eventually anyway.
Anyway, while I generally don't believe in rent regulation, I do have plenty of friends whose parents are retired with a fixed income, and I believe it is important that they be able to live their lives not worrying about getting booted from their rent-regulated apartments.
At the same time, I know many people in rent-regulated apartments who could afford market-rate in another neighborhood or borough bu truly believe they deserve their rent-regulated apartment. Everyone would agree that the rent regulation laws aren't perfect, but they're really impossible to fix at this point - plus, no politician wants to be th eone to repeal the laws or extend them. Likeley, they will slowly die.
I have friends that live in both the Anthorp and the Ansonia. While the Ansonia is pretty, something about it makes it look dirty and dated. The Anthorp, however, seems to have retained its natural beauty. I definitely agree with Mann's statement that it is the best trophy building on the UWS.
Apthorp
Timeless words from the economist du jour and Democratic flagbearer Paul Krugman, who couldn't have written it better if Adam Smith was alive and did it himself..
"That great sacred cow-- Rent Control-- is a textbook case of Economic stupidity "
"Landlords don't want groveling -- they would rather have money. In uncontrolled markets the question of who gets an apartment is settled quickly by the question of who is able and willing to pay the most"
" The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing." Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as "free-market horror stories" -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable."
$425 Million? That's a bargin!! Considering those apts. could go for over a couple of million a piece not to mention the income from the retail spaces. Mann got a great deal!
It brings a tear to my eye whenever I hear a rich celebrity complain about their rent.
It was in the Metro Section.
Since the Metro section only prints in the NY region, as a full section, and the Times website is accessible internationally, this is how the code Metro section articles.
It's just a legal issue, the person who subletted the apartment bought it very cheap
on the grounds that they couldn't legally rent it out to anyone for more than $500.
that person broke the law, he could have bought the apartment a fair market value but didn't want too.
The only reason he was able to buy the apartment so cheap was b/c of the rent control.
Sorry but everyone in that building is suing that buildings owner, not just the very rich people.
Yeah I know some people cry when some scam artist
buys an apart dirt cheap b.c it's rent controlled
and then isn't allowed turn around and rent it for $3000 a profit by simply breaking the law.
BTW the court ruled in Cyndi's favor.
I can understand all this concern had the owners of the building actually paid fair market value for it,
but they got it for millions less than it was actually worth simply b.c it was rent stabilized.
If it wasn't rent stabilized it would have cost them millions more in the first place,
so I don't feel sorry for them one bit either.
I mean how many starving manhattan real estate moguls do you see these days, so why all the crying for them?
I didn't realize the Cyndi Lauper thing was a sublet - she is absolutely right. Under NY law you can't gouge somebody on a sublet.
Yes it was a sublet, the guy who rented the apartment admitted it was illegal
so the court ruled she would only have to pay $1,000 per month, which is a really great deal,
but I just think it was really smart business on her part.
RENT CONTROL BRINGS OUT THE LIARS.
You people that complain about others enjoying a rent controlled apartment are so full of it. If you could get a good location apartment for that price YOU WOULD TOO. Don't front. I have lived in NYC and Santa Monica and EVERYONE I've ever known with a rent controlled apartment isn't dumb enough to give it up. No matter WHAT their income. I know plenty of people who keep their Santa Monica ocean view rent controlled apartments to use on weekends and have a house in the city.
Quit fronting like you'd move out and give it up to some elderly poor person. Besides, the Apthorp is filled with elderly and poorer people that the building has intimated for years, and refused to fix major damage like leaking roofs, broken plumbing that shoots out brown water, etc., while market-value units get the full treatment. Lauper just had the money to stand up to them. And she won. Don't be jealous because you have to pay full rent. Most people do.
Besides, I don't know if it is different now in NY than it is in Santa Monica or Los Angeles, but if you move out of a rent controlled apartment in those cities, the owners can (in most cases) immediately raise the rent to market value by doing little more than putting on a fresh coat of paint.
I had a rent controlled apartment in Santa Monica and the new owner got everyone out buy buying them out. I make okay money but I'm no dummy. I don't need to be paying $3200 a month for some crappy apartment near the beach just to get a view.
So guess what I did with the money I got paid to move with? I invested some and moved into a rent stabilized apartment in the city in a somewhat questionable neighborhood that I knew would go bourgeous as the housing market rose. Because even though I make almost 100k I STILL can't afford a house in LA. And I watched rents on my block for 1 and 2 bedrooms go from $1200 (1 bedroom) to $1950 (1 bedroom). You think I'm dumb enough to give up my rent stabilized apartment for some slumlord to double the rent?
So you can be bitter of me too because I'm now way below market value and I ain't movin' until the housing market finishes crapping its pants, and I can scoop up a house UNDER market value.
Hate away.