Why Manhattan’s Skyscrapers Are Empty

The confluence of cosmopolitan capital and terrible timing has done the impossible: It’s created a vacancy problem in a city where thousands of people are desperate to find places to live.

From any rational perspective, what New York needs isn’t glistening three-bedroom units, but more simple one- and two-bedroom apartments for New York’s many singles, roommates, and small families. Mayor Bill De Blasio made affordable housing a centerpiece of his administration. But progress here has been stalled by onerous zoning regulations, limited federal subsidies, construction delays, and blocked pro-tenant bills.

In the past decade, New York City real-estate prices have gone from merely obscene to downright macabre. From 2010 to 2019, the average sale price of homes doubled in many Brooklyn neighborhoods, including Prospect Heights and Williamsburg, according to the Times. Buyers there could consider themselves lucky: In Cobble Hill, the typical sales price tripled to $2.5 million in nine years.

This is not normal. And for middle-class families, particularly for the immigrants who give New York City so much of its dynamism, it has made living in Manhattan or gentrified Brooklyn practically impossible. No wonder, then, that the New York City area is losing about 300 residents every day. It adds up to what Michael Greenberg, writing for The New York Review of Books, called a new shameful form of housing discrimination—“bluelining.”

We speak nowadays with contrition of redlining, the mid-twentieth-century practice by banks of starving black neighborhoods of mortgages, home improvement loans, and investment of almost any sort. We may soon look with equal shame on what might come to be known as bluelining: the transfiguration of those same neighborhoods with a deluge of investment aimed at a wealthier class.

New York’s example is extreme—the squeezed middle class, shrink-wrapped into tiny bedrooms, beneath a canopy of empty sky palaces. But Manhattan reflects America’s national housing market, in at least three ways.

First, the typical new American single-family home has become surprisingly luxurious, if not quite so swank as Manhattan’s glassy spires. Newly built houses in the U.S. are among the largest in the world, and their size-per-resident has nearly doubled in the past 50 years. And the bathrooms have multiplied. In the early ’70s, 40 percent of new single-family houses had 1.5 bathrooms or fewer; today, just 4 percent do. The mansions of the ’70s would be the typical new homes of the 2020s.

Second, as the new houses have become more luxurious, homeownership itself has become a luxury. Young adults today are one-third less likely to own a home at this point in their lives than previous generations. Among young black Americans, homeownership has fallen to its lowest rate in more than 60 years.

Third, and most important, the most expensive housing markets, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, haven’t built nearly enough homes for the middle class. As urban living has become too expensive for workers, many of them have either stayed away rom the richest, densest cities or moved to the south and west, where land is cheaper. This is a huge loss, not only for individual workers, but also for these metros, because denser cities offer better matches between companies and workers, and thus are richer and more productive overall. Instead of growing as they grow richer, New York City, Los Angeles, and the Bay Area are all shrinking.

Across the country, the supply of housing hasn’t kept up with population growth. Single-family-home sales are stuck at 1996 levels, even though the United States has added 60 million people—or two Texases—since the mid-’90s. The undersupply of housing has become one of the most important stories in economics in the past decade. It explains why Americans are less likely to move, why social mobility has declined, why regional inequality has increased, why entrepreneurship continues to fall, why wealth inequality has skyrocketed, and why certain neighborhoods have higher poverty and worse health.

In 2010, one might have thought that the defining housing story of the century would be the real-estate bubble that plunged the U.S. economy into a recession. But the past decade has been defined by the juxtaposition of rampant luxury-home building with the cratering of middle-class-home construction. The future might restore a measure of sanity, both to New York’s housing crisis and America’s. But for now, the nation is bluelining itself to death.

Those towers are great big washing machines for money laundering, nothing more.

Bernie should propose nationalizing these new skyscrapers if they don't meet a minimum occupancy rate, and converting them into affordable housing.

This is a fact. One of DLs racists brought up how it’s white people who have the money to live in these new buildings, minorities don’t.

First, that says so much about the racism in this Country, where even average white people can afford more than minorities, but also it’s bullshit. Many of them aren’t moving into these buildings.

In Brooklyn they are throwing up building after building, and almost all of them are mostly empty. The one by Barclays is more than 50% empty. The one by the new Apple store also.

DeBlasio is doing nothing to keep the middle class and working class in the city. He is actually making so rough that the city is losing vital residents. He is thrilled that people who cannot make it anywhere else come to NYC to get all the social services available. He is unaware that each year there are fewer taxpayers to support his socialism. Sad end to a great city.

This city has been on the decline since Guiliani

Are the unsold units vacant or just unsold? They could be rented. I’ve read that many of the SOLD high-end condos are vacant all or most of the time. Similar to luxury lodges in Aspen and Vail, but probably even more so.

WSJ had an article not too long ago about how tax assessments in NYC are not really proportionate to value. I don’t remember the details. However, I’ve been looking at coop and condo listings recently (in the well under $2 million range) and it surprises me how high the cc + tax for condos is relative to the maintenance for coops. Considering coops have underlying mortgages, I would expect the monthly maintenance to always be less that the condo cc + taxes, for similar buildings. Granted, I’m not looking at anything built post 1980, so not a big data set for condos.

The 50% figure seems high too. Can anyone in the industry confirm? It appears to originally have come from a firm called Nancy Packes, but I can’t really read the report on my phone. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the percentage of unsold units by year of completion.

The days of NYC being the greatest city in the world are over. I moved from NY over 15 years ago and have not even bothered to visit in the last 6 years. There is no longer anything there that I can't find elsewhere.

Not all of those new skyscrapers are empty,

The Robert Stern designed buildings are mostly all sold out. He's giving wealthy people the kind of building they want.

R11 that is why is roll my eyes when people on here speak about NYC like it’s one of a kind still. It used to be, but now? Everything in NYC can be found in any other city now, even the smaller ones, because NYC was sold out and has been made into a White Suburban Family city. Even bars allow kids in them now. In the past, nope.

De Blasio is a huge part of the problem. He allowed zoning laws to be changed so that more of these monstrosities can be built. SuttonPlace Tower should never have been allowed. And now with the millionaire mansion tax, it's all but guaranteed these units will remain unoccupied.

And the tax situation in NY needs to be addressed. It's a statewide issue.

[quote]The days of NYC being the greatest city in the world are over. I moved from NY over 15 years ago

On the contrary, since you left, things are looking up

[quote]That is why is roll my eyes when people on here speak about NYC like it’s one of a kind still. It used to be, but now? Everything in NYC can be found in any other city now, even the smaller ones, because NYC was sold out and has been made into a White Suburban Family city.

Yes, it was so much nicer when 2,000 people were being murdered a year.

[quote] Everything in NYC can be found in any other city now, even the smaller...

As someone who splits their time between NYC and Pittsburgh (with visits to neighboring Midwest cities), I can say this isn't remotely true.

R8 must enjoy the bogus "Sad Last Days" articles in The National Enquirer. I've lived in NYC for decades, it's far from at an end. If NYC were on its way out, we wouldn't have so many goddamn tourists.

As for R11, what the fuck would you know? You haven't lived in NYC for 15 years and haven't visited in six? I'm genuinely pleased to have fewer people like you live here.

A lot of the empty space is simply overseas buyers parking money. Also NYC has always had a lot of part time occupied real estate. Townhouses (meaning they live in the suburbs but have a home in town), housing by foreigners (think UN)) and houses for CEO which have offices but not other presence in Manhattan have always been there.

Vancouver, Canada has address this in part by putting an occupancy tax on their homes. Chinese buyers were buying the new developments and not living in them. Now if they do that, they pay tax.

The real issue in NYC and other cities is simple. The cost of new buildings is so high, it isn't economically feasible to build new housing except for the luxury market

You can find anything in Pittsburgh. Please.

NYC is dead. And murders still happen. They just aren’t broadcast as much anymore.

What R17 said. It's like saying who needs London when one has Manchester?

Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated!

Well that’s just willful ignorance / denial R20.

A big part of the issue is global hypercapitalism. There is a lot more foreign money and it can cross borders now - so people who own real estate in NYC/LA/Miami/London are less likely to actually live and work there. I think the core issue is not housing - but capitalism and the concentration of wealth in part due to globalization. The rich get richer - and the working class get laid off or paid less. Housing just reflects that. We need a hard left turn to socialism to correct (some of) the damage.

[quote]You can find anything in Pittsburgh. Please.

Yeah, no. And if they do, happen to have something, you need to take a substandard public transportation system to get their or sit in unreasonable traffic.

It's always the losers who couldn't hack it in Manhattan who scream "New York City is ovah!" from their parents' basement in some shitty suburban wasteland.

New York is still arguably the greatest city in this country and one of the greatest in the world.

Yes, it's changed but how could it not?

I remember sketchy Time Square and dicey Chelsea. Hells' Kitchen? Awful.

They were bound to come up just as the upper East Side isn't the "place" it once was.

When I lived in Chelsea it was a dump. The sad remains of the fur district.

The upper West Side was iffy too.

Like the South End here in Boston, things change.

New York is pretty much now for the rich and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

There are many lovely neighborhoods in Queens that are still affordable. Sunnyside. Jackson Heights. Kew Gardens.

^ I don’t think those are Carrie Bradshaw approved.

Did you know Vancouver real estates are the most expensive real properties in Canada? Over $1mil for a shithole that’s slightly bigger than your master bedroom’s washroom. And yet most of the properties are owned by the chinks

So much for libertarianism!

“Don’t worry, supply & demand works! Deregulation works! The market will fix itself. Competition will inevitably bring falling prices & a better deal for the consumer! Regulations don’t work! Let the rich be rich - it’s not like the rich are going to write laws that will hurt the market. Heavens no!”

Tax breaks allow developers to make profits from empty buildings. Let’s stop calling them “landlords” as if some guy in a house in Queens owns a 6 story tenement in Yorkville. These are developers like the Kushners & Trumps and LLCs made up of Russian, Chinese, Saudi, UAE & billionaire American investors making billions

ON WHICH THEY ARE NOT PAYING TAXES, WHICH PUTS MORE BILLIONS IN THEIR POCKETS.

Why sell 200 condos at $1.5M when you can sell 100 condos at $3.2M? We make more money selling only half the condos and then

WE GET TAX BREAKS ON THE EMPTY CONDOS WHICH MEANS WE CAN KEEP ALL OF OUR PROFIT & NOT PAY TAXES, WHICH MAKES US RICHER & MORE POWERFUL.

It’s as simple as that. Why? Because money laundering is the biggest global gambit. Not paying taxes due to the scores of tax breaks the rich have passed into law for themselves has created a landscape where the rich take more, pay less and say fuck you to government (“We OWN you!”) and where you keep an eye on the masses via technology & the poor willingly allow it to happen based on the one- in- 3 billion chance they might win the lotto.

Yiu know what lotto used to be called? “The numbers racket.” It was illegal because rich guys with the money to hire people to smash faces made huge profits from talking the poors into handing money over on the off chance they might win enough to pay the rent. The wise guys make more money & the poors have less for paying the rent.

All of that gambling & vice run by guys named Vito Corleone & Barzini is now run by the rich who own the politicians. The politicians smash your face in by upping YOUR taxes, taking away YOUR leisure time by making you commute 3 hours round trip each day instead of living a couple of blocks away from your job in affordable housing. The more you’re tied to your job (without sick time, vacation days, health insurance anymore) the more frightened you are. When you try to protest in the streets, police will cage you into “free speech zones.” Rich guys hire muscle to cause trouble — the muscle planned the violence in advance with the police, so they have an escape route — the cops start beating the protestors, the wealthy-owned media show violence caused by “the far left” and tells the public the far left wants to overthrow the govt and make everyone poor.

Unregulated capitalism has been tried again & again & again.

It always ends up with a tiny group of rich and a huge group of oppressed poor. The more you empower the rich, the more money they take for themselves. Either reform movements come about & they successfully enact regulations on the Corleones & their politicians, or else revolution happens and revolution is a MESS.

Someone must put a stop to this. Fuck all the rich. They are getting richer and richer

R1, the zoning isn’t onerous if you have big bucks. In fact, “zoning” restrictions are rhetorical, at this point. You should see what’s being done on the UES. Northwell is just one example.

I don’t mind progress, so much, but it’s only benefitting the .01%. We really really need housing for the middle class.

[quote] One of DLs racists brought up how it’s white people who have the money to live in these new buildings, minorities don’t.

Asians and Middle Easterners are white? That's news.

[quote]Even bars allow kids in them now. In the past, nope.

I don't smoke, but I would fully support allowing smoking in bars again just to get Karen Yogapants and her fucking kids out of the fucking bars.

We had housing fir the middle class. I lived in it fir 20 years. It was called Mitchell Lama housing. There was along waving list (3 years) but eventually I got in, and so did others.

Mitchell and Lama were 2 politicians - a Republican & a Democrat - who wrote legislation after WW2 to keep the middle class in NYC because they realized a city of only rich & poor was dysfunctional. They didn’t want a dysfunctional city. My apartment building was built in the 1970s, at the height of Scary NYC to bring back middle classes to areas that were skidding into poverty. Yorkville (East Harlem). Kips Bay. The scary ass area in After Hours. Buildings complexes went up. Middle class people took apartments & what happened to those areas? They thrived because the middle class was able to thrive. Yorkville joined Carnegie Hill. After Hours became Tribeca.

But the rich also got a little richer & were able to by off the politicians.

TWICE NYers WENT TO THE POLLS & VOTED FOR MAYORAL TERM LIMITS.

But Michael Bloomberg was able to bribe the greedy City Council, which was increasingly replaced by politicians owned by rich fucks, to allow him to run for a third term. Bloomberg allowed all the owners of Mitchell Lama buildings to turn their buildings into luxury residences, effectively throwing Mitchell Lama & the middle class out the window.

From the 1950s til the mid 2000s NYC had a stable, regulated middle class. Yes, real estate was more expensive than outside the city. Yes, there was a waiting list to get in. But it was there. Eventually, if you waited long enough, you got in. All things good come to those who wait.

BLOOMBERG & GUILIANI BOUGHT THE MIDDLE CLASS & THREW IT OUT THE 34TH. STORY WINDOW

So it doesn’t exist anymore.

HAPPY, DEREGULATORS?

HAPPY, MIDDLE CLASS/WORKING POOR COMMUTERS IN YOUR 4TH HOUR OF TRYING TO GET TO WORK/GET HOME?

"We really really need housing for the middle class."

And the middle class needs to start lowering it's expectations, especially for starter homes.

After World War II, thousands and thousands of 2 bedroom/1 bathroom bungalows, usually of 900 square feet or less space, were built and occupied by generations of families who managed to live quite contented and full lives in these little homes. Now, these same homes, even if remodeled and kept up, are considered slum housing because each occupant doesn't have its own bathroom, there isn't a 400 square foot master bedroom suite with 200 square feet of adjacent walk in closets, and no self respecting woman could be expected to cook a meal in a kitchen that isn't as long as a football field, doesn't have granite counter tops, stainless steel appliances, acres of subway tile and a useless "island" stuck in the middle of it.

All this because two gigantic assholes in fucking Waco, Texas have told a generation of Americans they're entitled to a 3000 square foot on an acre of ground.

I just KNEW that Chip and Joanna Gaines were responsible for more than introducing the word "shiplap" to our vocabulary.

They have essentially destroyed the world as we know it.

Thanks for the info R36!

Nobody's going to have three kids sharing one bedroom in this day and age. That's some Third World shit.

As the Manhattan real estate. it's not rocket science.

There seemed to be a growing market for high end real estate with overseas buyers, many Chinese, coming in to park their money in the US in places like Miami, NYC and LA

Real estate speculators thought they could throw up anything, call it "luxury" add a game room with a fireplace and a rooftop pool and then sit back and collect their money.

This turned out to be a false premise as there was too much luxury housing being built for the size of the market.

These same developers would not likely have built middle class housing--the profit margin on the high end stuff is such that it was easy to get investors.

Also tax loopholes were closed regarding foreign buyers. China closed some on their end and I think Russia did the same. Combine that with several new taxes imposed on home sales, one specifically aimed at the luxury market, and the less than ideal tax situation in NYS and the market for these buildings came to a grinding halt. Limiting tge SALT deduction hurt NYC and the exodus of the wealthy to more favorable tax states is going to create a big issue for the remaining middle class.

Glad crime is on the rise again.

Let the white transplants get what they fucking deserve.

r29 it's the land under the house, most houses in the nicer neighbourhoods in Vancouver are nearing end of life and will be torn down within the decade.

[quote] After World War II, thousands and thousands of 2 bedroom/1 bathroom bungalows, usually of 900 square feet or less space, were built and occupied by generations of families who managed to live quite contented and full lives in these little homes.

Guess what my Mitchell Lama middle-income regulated housing was?

One person - a studio. 450- 550 sq ft TOPS..

TWO PEOPLE - one bedroom, 650-700 sq ft

THREE PEOPLE - 2 adults, 1 child 1100 sq ft .

TWO ADULTS, TWO CHILDREN OF SAME GENDER - 2 bedrooms, two bathrooms. 1200 sq ft.

Three bedrooms were for 3 related adults (mother living with married couple , eg). Or 2 adults, 2 children of different gender. Tops 1350 sq ft. 2 baths.

SEE HOW WELL REGULATED HOUSING WORKS?

No 5,000 SQ FT HOMES FOR 3 GREEDY MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE.

I lay this on DeBlasio. He was elected SPECIFICALLY to deal with this - and he’s done squat while it’s gotten worse. Yes, Bloomberg favored the rich. But that was expected. DeBlasio is the one who ran an election on and promised a progressive agenda - to beat Christine Quinn who was more deserving. The the two-faced asshole did nothing - and is a worse, more incompetent mayor than Christine Quinn could ever be.

Can we get Elizabeth Warren to run for mayor if she loses the Presidency? I want her to become the new dictator of the US.

[quote] Yes, Bloomberg favored the rich. But that was expected

You’ve heard of DRUNK HISTORY.

[bold] WELCOME TO TARD HISTORY. [/bold]

No city votes for a candidate expecting then to favor the rich.

“I‘M A WORKING CLASS STIFF IN ASTORIA

WE’RE A MIDDLE CLAS FAMILY IN BENSONHURST

I’M A NEW IMMIGRANT CITIZEN

WE’RE ALL HOPING TO VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL FAVOR THE RICH!!!

Bloomberg grew up in a working class triple decker in Malden, MA. His mother lived there until she died.

Malden is pretty rough. No silver spoons in sight.

Mike made every nickel on his own. That's a working class stiff success story.

No one can afford that shit, so nobody’s buying it. Lower the fucking price to an appropriate level and they won’t be sitting empty.

What ever happened to Mayor DeBlasio’s focus on affordable housing?

What a huge failure.

A thousand W&Ws for R30. The shit people tolerate because, "Just look at my money market growing!"

Who could even read R30??

I could. Why couldn't you?

They don't live there, silly- they hide their money there.

This new building in downtown Brooklyn seems emblematic of what’s happening in this neighborhood: luxury condos with high-end amenities in the heart of a commercial district on Fulton Street that seems little changed since the ‘80s. It will be interesting to see what happens to this neighborhood in the next five years.

R10

It's my understanding that HOA fees/maintenance on co-ops tend to be higher than condos. It has something to do with the way co-ops are structured vs. condos.

With a condo, you're the owner of the unit, and, while you have to follow the rules of the building and chip in for maintenance, the HOA isn't all that interested in who you are or what you do with your property. With a co-op, you're buying shares in the co-op and don't exactly own the unit. Co-op boards tend to be much more uptight about who's allowed to live there; they also don't let you sell your shares in the co-op for the market rate, which is why the purchase price for a co-op is often cheaper than for an equivalent condo, but you're then paying higher monthly fees.

You're going to summon the "Our" Troll R54 who will tell you all about "Our Finest Buildings" and the Fine People who live in them.

(But yes, you are essentially correct in your take. That is why the wealthy foreigners are attracted to condos--co-ops are looking for people who will actually live there full time or close to full time.)

Cops have mortgages on the buildings.

[quote]You're going to summon the "Our" Troll [R54] who will tell you all about "Our Finest Buildings" and the Fine People who live in them.

Part of the contingent of DLers who fancy themselves as Babe Paley, completely oblivious to the modern world.

[quote] also don't let you sell your shares in the co-op for the market rate, which is why the purchase price for a co-op is often cheaper than for an equivalent condo, but you're then paying higher monthly fees

What????? First it's your apartment that goes up for sale and not your shares. Co -op boards may reject purchases that are considered below the market.

The reason co-ops tend to sell lower than condos ia twofold...1)co-op boards are a pain in the ass and more importantly 2) co-ops tend to have higher maintenance. Co-ops are able to take a mortgage to finance capital projects and the interest from the loans inflate the monthly maintenance. Condos do assessments for capital projects because they are not eligible for loans.

r53

Why would you NOT want your neighborhood to get better? Who in the fuck says "I want to live in a slum. I hope I get shot at today."?

Wasn’t saying that at all R59. Just an observation about a large part of this neighborhood that seems resistant to change.

Having lived in NYC for over 20 years, I’m so over it all.

The extraordinary wealth has ruined the city. Every block in Manhattan looks the same. There aren’t distinct neighborhoods anymore.

If you don’t make millions, you’re forced to live in a tiny closet or with lots of roommates or in the outskirts.

I look forward to getting out of here and living a simpler life

[Quote] Why would you NOT want your neighborhood to get better? Who in the fuck says "I want to live in a slum. I hope I get shot at today."?

Because in a few years it becomes too expensive to still be your neighborhood

[quote] Nobody's going to have three kids sharing one bedroom in this day and age. That's some Third World shit.

The horror.

R59, getting "better" often means getting worse. By getting rid of the cultural and commercial features that drew you to the neighborhood in the first place.

When I moved to downtown NYC in the 80s, a big attraction was the small-scale cultural activity and the lack of chain businesses. As time went on fast-food and chain retail replaced local businesses and the small galleries, music venues, and theaters were priced out.

The constant contact with a wide range of people, rich, poor, different ethnicities, etc. Now with rent stabilization weakened, the economic and ethnic diversity within neighborhoods has declined.

There did not seem to be any reason to stay.

Better was worse.

Agree R61 - after 25 years, would be happy to move. My problem is I can’t find another place that works - they all have Different flaws.

R64 - rent stabilization laws actually just got MUCH stronger in 2019. Back to where they were pre-Bloomberg. Maybe even better. Perhaps the Only good thing to happen to NYC housing in 25 years. Kudos Cuomo.

I want to live somewhere warmer. I never thought I’d ever consider Florida but it looks good right now

Final Jeopardy Question

Giuliani & Bloomberg’s actions during 18 years of ignoring middle class protections until there was no longer a middle class caused real estate prices in NYC to reach near-unattainable levels. This greatly enhanced the wealth of LLCs owned by foreign investors. These foreign investors primarily came from 3 foreign countries. All 3 countries border each other. There is a technically illegal but prevalent means of turning stolen money & money made through illegal activity into tax-free, untraceable “clean” money. International crime syndicates are widely known to use money laundering, with one country standing out as being a top money laundering country with very numerous ties to NYC real estate developers.

This country has — in the past 4-5 years— been discovered to the have ties to the American presidency via something now called “vote laundering.” Now that this country has been discovered to have laundered votes in many US states during the 2016 election, American states & cities are wondering if this particular country has been actively manipulating the votes in their elections, electing stooge candidates whose hubris, egomania, and/or greed/luster for power will ultimately weaken & harm the US

What country is........?

Bonus question: Has this country recently added another NY real estate candidate to the US presidential election?

[quote]Giuliani & Bloomberg’s actions during 18 years of ignoring middle class protections until there was no longer a middle class caused real estate prices in NYC to reach near-unattainable levels.

But it's DeBlasio's fault!

I'm sensing a lot of jealousy in this thread...

Jealous poor/middle income people who are pissed because they can't afford to live as others do...

If you don't like NYC, or the idea of residing there, then don't worry about it...

Some people played all the right cards in life and grew wealthy...you didn't...let it go...

NYC has always been a hard lesson about money.

No matter how well someone thinks he is doing, there's always the lesson of "What, I'm spending this much money and I don't get a view above the trees? I don't get trees? My bedroom opens to an airshaft? My front door is a dick's length away from my neighbor's front door? You call that a three-bedroom? I don't get a doorman? You can't show us anything that isn't in white brick above a dental clinic?"

And the harder for some lesson of seeing everyone else's money on full display: the reception room that would swallow your expensive apartment; the guy who combined three apartments each three times the size and value of yours; the apartment with the dream view and an art collection that's worth more than the apartment and the three other places they own.; and the old money who have all of that but paid for none of it and don't.

In 1982 Forbes' listed 13 billionaires in the U.S.. There are now 2600 or so in the world. With a 5% return on $1B being $50M, it's easy to see how some people can afford to spend astronomical sums to own housing they keep shuttered, with no real or immediate attention of putting it to any use; it's simply because a $50M or $100M apartment is just cash that's sitting around. London had the same problem with Greeks and Russians and Middle Easterners and East Asians looking to park money - for security as a place to jump to should the need arise, as an option for their children to establish themselves in a new country once they reach college age, as a simple investment against the unknown. All of the simultaneously erected skinny towers of apartments and some of the other large scale projects that were highly expensive per square foot, huge buildings with a relative handful of units, these were very risky from the start, though surely in at least some cases that was built into the plan.

[quote]Some people played all the right cards in life and grew wealthy...you didn't...let it go...

Or they were born wealthy and never had to work for any of it.

Or some people played the right cards and did not grow wealthy.

New York is the home of inherited money masquerading as the fruits of hard work.

So true, r73. It seems as if every other person in Manhattan has family money. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't try to pretend you did it all on your own through "hard work."

"New York is the home of inherited money masquerading as the fruits of hard work."

The entire Republican Party is based on this principle. You think Donald (senior and junior) and Eric Trump would be where they are today without the old man's crooked money?

Why not turn these empty skyscrapers into luxury bathhouses? Instead of the usual sparse cubicle and rubber mattress, you're assigned a beautifully appointed apartment for 8 hours. I would be willing to spend double the entrance fee for something like that.

Fran Lebowitz proposed housing the homeless in the empty luxury buildings. She said that since they're right outside these buildings and nobody's living there anyway, the homeless should just move in.

The poster upthread who remarked that 3 kids in one bedroom is 3rd world shit obviously doesnt know very many poor people . More and more families are having to move in with relatives as the housing gets ridiculously expensive. I know personally at least 4 families that are living with parents/grandparents even though both parents work low end jobs because they cant afford rent anymore . Not everyone is pulling down 80k a year . Here in my city in N. Fl houses that used to rent for $800-1000 a month have in the last decade doubled in price. Greedy landlords are the problem ,as well as the lack of available housing. Even though we have over 30,000 empty and foreclosed homes just sitting empty .

[quote] So true, [R73]. It seems as if every other person in Manhattan has family money

This is where you get an aristocracy.

“Umm, my grandparents were smart enough to invest in tech in the 1990s. Why weren't yours?”

“Because they were busy raising their children, paying a mortgage & they took in Uncle Jamie who's a Gulf War 1 veteran with Gulf War syndrome so he wouldn’t be homeless. My aunt had a brain tumor at 4 years old just as managed care came along in the mid-90s & her father’s job switched HMOs 3x and she was misdiagnosed, then she was finally diagnosed but her “lifetime cap” on medical care costs had been met so they had to have fundraisers & a jar on the counter of 711 to pay health costs but they still had to declare bankruptcy.”

“OMG! That’s so BORING!”

R25

Yeah! Those dang poors!

Why can't we make Soylent Green out of them anyways?!?

::eyeroll::

You sound like a supervillian who should be cackling and tenting your fingers in between counting out your stash of gold coins.

Let me guess. Log cabin republican?

I love NYC and wish I could afford to live there. I am a little jealous of the rich. But on the other hand, I've managed to make a good life in a smaller city, and as I get older I appreciate the simpler life and if anything, enjoy solitude more and more. My pleasures are fewer but choice.

Good. Serves the greedy developers right.

Thinking about homeless families on the street and these sitting empty or being owned by some tycoon overseas makes me feel sick.

Whether its unregulated capitalism or socialism, there will always be the haves and have-notes. People fucking suck. People are the worst animal on the planet, which would be better off if people were to become extinct.

Some haves know they are fortunate and appreciate what they have.

Others just think they are rich because they are special. Those are the ones every one resents.

Most wealth is built generationally. But as wealth has grown more broadly, that class has been good at preserving and growing its wealth and restricting opportunity for others. We used to have a benignant government to keep things fair for everyone, mostly, and was proactive in supporting the middle class. Not now. So much was lost with the passing of the Silent Generation, not least their memory of hard times and the wisdom from which so many real democratic principles grew. We're in trouble when our Federal government drifts from its moral center.

All you need for happiness is a quiet room in a nice neighborhood with sunlight and an outside space -- either a balcony or courtyard. What's the minimum cost for something like that now in New York?

One bedroom apartments in New York City rent for $2860/month on average and two bedroom apartment rents average $3675/month. And... we're not talking about these luxury apartments either...

FYI (but this is a dated article)

You Can Now Live Inside America's First Shopping Mall for $550 a Month--But there's already a waiting list for these new micro apartments.

R87: A studio apartment (because you said "a quiet room"), but a fairly pleasant looking one, in Manhattan, with a balcony: $475K Others with balconies can be found from $418K.

The same thing is going on in Miami.

Hang in there - we are headed for another housing crash. Based on historical cycles, it should start to happen in the next 2 years. Especially LA - which has seen insane price escalation out of sync with income and the economic expansion.

Those prices seem easily comparable to London and Sydney. And the latter has a very high cost of living as well. Much more expensive then say Germany.