Gothamist: Map of the Day: Manhattan's Vacant Properties

zach

Thu, 24 May 2007 11:42:14 -0500

lots of the 'empty lots' in the LES and E. Village are community gardens, just to point out (and sometimes they house homeless too)

kojo

Thu, 24 May 2007 00:45:17 -0500

yes we should house the homeless in manhattan for free while I work like a dog to afford my 1200 dollar studio.

Leo

Wed, 23 May 2007 20:10:20 -0500

Some of the wording on this map is unclear, which might be leading to confusion. It looks like instead of "vacant commercial building" they mean "building with vacant commercial space," which was the issue with most of the buildings in my neighborhood that I checked. That's definitely the case with the vacancies flagged in Stuy Town. Obviously there's no residential vacancies there!

Ed

Wed, 23 May 2007 19:37:34 -0500

An accurate map (granted, it looks like this one isn't accurate) of vacant residential properties would be interesting, because it would show how many properties are being held purely for speculation. And while the homeless couldn't afford to live in those properties, there are middle class and upper middle class who could if they weren't being held in hopes of being flipped later. A large number of vacant properties would also signal a decline in real estate prices.

anon

Wed, 23 May 2007 18:25:58 -0500

Someone should remind whomever wastes their time making a (possibly inaccurate) map to try and make some incredibly naive point, that we actually operate on a system of PRIVATE property in this country. Those buildings and lots don't belong to Mother Russia you fools.

petemac

Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26:08 -0500

instead of making maps and doing studies maybe this group should actually find housing for the homeless... or maybe they realize its an incredibly difficult thing to do...

MurrayHillster

Wed, 23 May 2007 17:01:57 -0500

Gotta pile on here about the inaccuracies. None of the buildings in my neighborhood that it says are vacant, are in fact vacant. Conversely, there's a building by the 36th and Second Avenue that has been vacant for years that they don't indicate as vacant. So it cuts both ways, at least as far as I know the buildings on the map.

anon

Wed, 23 May 2007 16:54:32 -0500

Oh, thank goodness, the homeless problem has been solved! (SARCASM)

Peter

Wed, 23 May 2007 16:49:28 -0500

It looks as if there's a big cluster of vacant commercial buildings between Fifth and Sixth avenues, from 34th down to 14th streets. It certainly doesn't seem that way in "real life." I agree with prior comments as to the possible unreliability of the map.

yeahright

Wed, 23 May 2007 16:42:31 -0500

Gotta agree with gimme. It's not like the homeless are only in that condition because there aren't enough apts to go around.

nicemarmot

Wed, 23 May 2007 16:29:54 -0500

Gotta agree with Drew here - the map is sketchy. It shows the abandoned church near my apartment as vacant - correct. It shows parts of Stuy Town as vacant - uh, incorrect. There are NO vacant buildings in Stuy Town. It also shows some stuff on 2nd Ave as empty that I am 100% have residents - I have seen them. Yes, abandoned properties are a problem in Manhattan, but that's no reason to make shit up.

Drew

Wed, 23 May 2007 16:00:00 -0500

I hate to be the first skeptic....but the map does show the 100-year-old building in which I live as a vacant lot. Maybe they're referring to the building across the street that is in the process of being taken down? (Still, it's not been vacant in decades....and it won't be vacant for long when the existing building is taken down.)

gimme

Wed, 23 May 2007 15:58:04 -0500

er yeah but these homeless people would have to pay rent, they don't even have enough money to buy deo on a regular basis so -