NYC and the “Poor Door”

I live in a subsidized apartment in a different Related building in midtown. Nothing like that is going on here, other than the lower-priced units in the Affordable Rental Program are all in the lower half of the building. Who cares? No "Poor Door", or anything like that. After eighteen years here my rent-stabilized rent finally cracked $800 a month!

Are you actually poor, R1?

I don’t see anything wrong with treating people in subsidized housing differently from people spending millions. The goal is affordable housing, not discounted luxury housing .

Do you live in Manhattan Plaza, R1? That is the last affordable Mitchell Lama development in Manhattan. All the others - Independence Plaza, Ruppert Towers, Waterside Plaza - were turned into luxury condos or luxury rentals.

Did Jan Maxwell have to use the poor door?

R3, agreed. I'm far from rich (working-class gay) and I don't have a problem with the separate entrances, or the lower income tenants not having access to the luxury amenities. They get a nice, new apartment at a discounted rent.

The point is the builders broke the law but still got a tax break.

R3 and R6, it really does not matter if you or even the tenants are fine with the poor door arrangement. The developers got a tax break for affordable housing with shared entrances and amenities.

If they did not like it, they did not have to agree to it. They did not have to take the tax break.

But they did agree to it and then violated their contract.

I’m criticizing the law. It’s stupid.

IIRC, the building's amenities are off limits to The Poors too, even if they can pay for them.

Because cooties, obviously.

They made me use a different door to get into this beautiful, new safe apartment which I’m paying peanuts for! And I can’t use the pool that’s reserved for people paying ten times as much rent!

R3 and R9---its a contract.

The developers got a lot of money and not they are pulling out of the deal---without paying.

We the taxpayers are making up for what the developer did not pay in.

I think if they did not live up to their end, the developers should pay to make up for the tax abatement.

What if other businesses tried this? After paying for the car, they just don't deliver it? After getting payment for surgery, your doctor decides not to do it? This could be an exciting new business model.

^^ Isn't that false equivalency in a big way?

[quote]Are you actually poor, [R1]?

Well, sometimes. In the eighteen years I've lived here my income has jumped all over between $21,000 and maybe $75,000, mostly under $50,000/yr. I basically work for myself.

r8, I think that "shared amenities" is something you inferred. There's nothing in the law about that.

It's under the "Affordable Rental Program", not the 'Live Like a King for Pennies on the Dollar Program", and I'm the guy who lives in one of these buildings!

I don’t know why I continue to be surprised with DL’s conservative opinions. It’s a matter of decency.

R16, the law from 2016 states “affordable units shall share the same common entrances and common areas as market rate units.”

Swimming pools, gyms, gardens, rooftops, etc count as common areas. So yes, they are required to have the same amenities.

It’s common in NYC for large buildings to be divided up into sections with entirely separate entrances and elevator access—for example for a single structure that contains a hotel, condos, and retail spaces. If you say this cannot be done for subsidized housing in a luxury building, you are discouraging the arrangement. It’s not “conservative” to recognize this. The public policy objective is more affordable housing, not free luxury amenities for the lucky tenants.

I don't see the problem. There already getting a greatly discounted apartment. Do they expect to have all of these doormen and amenities too for nothing?

The city is relying on developers to create affordable housing instead of doing it themselves. If the city wants to provide all of these luxury amenities for poor people, then let the city create and pay for it.

R19, I have only seen one building have separate entrances for entirely different types of businesses. As you say, hotels, condos, and retail spaces.

I have NEVER seen one building under one management have separate entrances for some condo and not other, some hotel rooms and not others, some offices and not others.

And again, you may not like the arrangement, but it is what the developers agreed to. I am surprised that everyone is so fine with businesses violating contracts and rules they willingly entered into.

The could have made ALL the units luxury if they wanted to. But instead they wanted the tax break---and are unwilling to hold up their part of the bargain.

If you think the bargain is wrong, then vote the current city government out of office.

R20, the city DID create and pay for luxury amenities for poor people.

That is the tax abatement. That is how the city paid for it.

Had the developers been up front about not wanting to provide full services, then maybe another agreement could have been found and/or legislated..

The subsidized apartments are not condos. They are rental units. Luxury condos and subsidized rentals are not the same thing.

Are you going to insist that the subsidized rentals have the same luxury finishes and appliances as the condos?

What is your objective? Some kind of “We’re All the Same” Kumbayah, or getting affordable rentals built?

R23. I do not understand the word "insist."

The apartment do not have the same luxury finishes as the condos. They are substandard actually, with limited electrical outlets and discount appliances. But that is legal.

No one has to "insist" that they allow the subsidized people to use the public areas. That was part of the exchange for a tax break.

I do not "insist" my landlord arrange for tax pick-up. I do not "insist" that he provide me a parking space. But I expect both of these services because it is written into my lease.

The city has the same right to expect a legal agreement be honored....or maybe the abatement can be declared invalid.

Yes, we know it was part of the deal because politicians got involved and decided it was more important to sing Kumbaya than to encourage builders to create affordable housing. Allowing residents in subsidized rental apartments (and their guests) into a luxury condo’s amenities will decrease the market value of the condos enough to offset any tax benefits.

People behave badly when they don’t pay for luxury amenities. They don’t take care of things. They stock their refrigerators with the “free” beverages and snacks. They take the “free” towels home. They let their kids and their kids’ friends play unsupervised. I’ve lived through this.

Companies act badly when they get benefits and don’t live up to their part of the bargain, r25. Regardless of your personal vision of the world.

And plenty of people who pay for fine things treat them like shit, just like plenty of poor people care for their meager possessions.

Did you drop in from the Gilded Age?

I can see the point about the door and reception. However, I don't see point for "luxury" amenities and services, which the wealthy have paid for and the subsided renters have not.

And is the law ONLY about the one door?

Because some people above seems to think he LAW says the subsidized renters have to have access to all the luxury amenities.

I HIGHLY doubt the law says that. Its probably only about the door.

R27, the law and the agreement both say that the renters are to have access to all common areas. The gym, pool, garden, rooftops, etc. are common areas.

If the condos get turn down service, cable television, and caviar every sunday, those amenities are not included because they are done within the individual condo---not the areas open to all condo owners.

[quote]Swimming pools, gyms, gardens, rooftops, etc count as common areas. So yes, they are required to have the same amenities.

Says...you? They sound more like "amenities" to me, hallways and maybe laundry rooms are common areas.

As I said, I live in a subsidized unit and when I moved in this partnership was a fairly new thing. Originally in the first bunch of buildings using this agreement the subsidized units were built identically to market rate units, but news stories of "City Paying for Luxury Units for the Poor With Your Taxes!" helped stop the developers from using marble and granite in the lower-priced units. I have a tiled bathroom floor and a traditional builder's style countertop. All of my appliances match the rest of the fair-market unit's appliances. I noticed in recently refinished kitchens there are now stainless stoves/refrigerators, but originally everyone had GE white appliances. I do NOT have fewer electrical outlets!

Our lovely roof deck is free and welcoming to all (no big groups), but the gym, basketball court, and function room have always required a user fee by all tenants. It is the nicest place I've ever lived, and conveniently located in midtown Manhattan!

This was a bit controversy about a decade ago, and then people realized the poors didn’t care and were happy to get to live in good neighborhood.

The issue was that it’s really two buildings, each with its own rules and amenities—so it’s easier to have two doors

R29, not says me.

Says the courts and the laws governing this. It is not a matter of opinion.

Look. If there is a fitness center or a pool, those cost extra to maintain and there is liability involved. So the cost of using them should be higher. I see no problem with folding those costs in to the high rise lux apartments and those in rent subsidized not having access because they get lower rent instead. If they want to pay extra fees or whatever , then fine. The other thing to look at, if you're the landlord your purpose is to make money, so you charge what the markets dictate and if someone can afford to pay they should. Getting amenities for what you pay is expected.

The people in favor of separate entrances and off-limits amenities are disgusting. Once someone is living in the building it makes zero sense to treat them differently, other than to satisfy the spiteful whims of the people who had to pay a lot to live there.

As for the people going on about the cost to maintain the amenities: a gym used by 30 people costs roughly the same to maintain as a gym used by 50 people. You can't justify making people feel like shit just to avoid wear and tear on some treadmills.

R32, if there are additional costs, do you really think they are greater than the abatement?

And if they are greater, do you really think developers should be exempt for the law and let out of the terms of a contract because they did not do the math?

Separate entrances for rich and poor is as offensive as racial segregation.

Maybe I can afford a luxury apartment, but I don't ever use the pool. Or maybe I never use the fitness center. So why do I have to pay for them? So if I were the owner/landlord, I lower everyone's rent, and then people could pay for amenities a la carte. Pay for what you use. Everyone has access but everyone has to pay.

[quote]Moody was eyeing a $1,348-a-month two bedroom apartment in the stately skyscraper.

[quote]“I felt like I’m not going to put my daughter through that,” she added.

LOL - You couldn't get a studio in most of NYC for that price, let alone a two-bdrm, let alone a two-bdrm in a nice building with any amenities.

Just a wee bit entitled.

Fascists hating on poor people.

R17 it’s actually a matter of being able to do business. In order to be able to have the subsidized housing, the landlord has to be able to rent out the market value apartments as well. That’s going to be harder if the prospective rich tenants see poor people in the lobby, elevator, etc., while viewing the building. It sounds terrible to some, I’m sure, but as a renter who has lived in some sketchy areas in NY, I can certainly see that if you’re someone paying a lot for rent you want at least the illusion of safety, cleanliness and exclusivity.

R44 has evidently never lived in a building with poor people. It’s true about the way things are treated. My shitty building just got painted (interiors) and two days later the paint was all keyed up. In the laundry room, there is graffiti on the dryers and garbage left on the floor.

When people have to pay a premium for something they are more likely to take care of it.

The above is for R33, obviously

R40, so the solution is simple. Do not include subsidized housing in your development.

If they really think the costs are more than the gains, they should simply not have subsidized housing in their building.

R43 I agree that they should’nt have included it. I’m not in favor of laws being broke and this WAS sneaky.

R41, yet, that does not seem to be happening in the buildings that played by the rules.

I wonder why that is......

We don’t know if it’s happening or not, to be honest.

Many new New York buildings are required to have low to moderate income housing in them.

Some developers have solved this issue but basically creating two buildings inside one. One group pays to maintain the pool, fitness center, etc, the one group doesn’t. The second group doesn’t get access to that stuff either.

Here’s a question for the “Midtown Manhattan” gay living in the $800 apartment in a luxury building. How did you find it, get it, etc.?

The buildings in question are not required to have low to moderate income housing, R47.

They chose to do so in exchange for a tax abatement.

[quote] don’t see anything wrong with treating people in subsidized housing differently from people spending millions. The goal is affordable housing, not discounted luxury housing .

This attitude is precisely why the wealthy are able to shit on the majority of the country. You believe that you deserve to be treated like shit. You will not only gladly tolerate it. You embrace it and demand it. This is why we have a nation that is controlled by a small percentage of very wealthy people who control our politics, our government and so many other aspects of our lives. This is why quality of life for poor and middle class people continues to deteriorate. While rich people get richer and continue pushing all the wealth to the top. Poor and middle class people don’t have a better quality of life and everything that they need, not because it’s not possible. Instead because they don’t demand. They don’t fight for it. Instead they worship the wealthy and believe that they too will one day be on if them (and of course they won’t). In preparation for their future wealth (that will never come); they will always support the wealthy, over their own comfort, needs and quality of life. This is why we have a country with very few labor unions left, sub par wages, benefits packages continually shrinking, pensions are rare and politicians and a government that works for only the rich.

Does Moody think she’d get a pool, gym, rooftop deck, and concierge if her number were ever called for an apartment in the Queensbridge or Red Hook Houses? No, she’d get a stainless steel elevator that smells like piss (and takes ten minutes to arrive) and a courtyard with broken glass and mounds of pit bull shit.

I have a friend who is one of the "poor" in a building that actually followed the rules. She was an academic who was injured. It left her disabled and ended her career, so she was living on disability and the proceeds from a settlement .

She did PT in the buildings gym and eventually became friends with the other residents. One of the condo owners introduced her to another of the "poor" who was able to help her get a new job, which in the last 4 years became a new career.

She is off disability. But this strikes me as a very Jane Jacobs benefit of this kind of arrangement . The creation of community and connection between disparate people.

"Luxury" apartments are a New York real estate industry euphemism for market rate rentals. Your basic six-story red brick rental in Brooklyn or Queens is marketed as a "luxury" rental. No one thinks they are getting true luxury accommodations, although many of the newer buildings have nice amenities. And the affordable housing tax abatement has nothing to do with condominiums, which are a different type of legal entity altogether. Condos and co-ops don't have subsidized units.

Everyone who lives in a rental building should be entitled to use the same amenities, the same lobby, the same elevators, same laundry room and gym/public terrace. The subsidized apartment units, which are never more than 20% of total units, are in fact paying their full share via the value of the abatement that goes to the landlords. That is the deal. What the builders are able to charge their market rate tenants is, in fact, just a function of the market. If the landlord does not keep the building up, people will move out and market rents will reflect the vacancy rate. Don't blame it on the subsidized tenants.

The builders frequently get to build a larger structure to offset the subsidized rental units. The tenants for these units are selected by lottery, often giving preference to people already living in the neighborhood. They may be disabled, elderly, single or families. The apartments are distributed randomly, so you don't have a concentration of subsidized units in any one part of the building.

And if the market rate tenants don't like the 'tone' of the building, they can haul their bougie asses to another one when their lease is up.

What a bunch of RW scumbags we have here.

It’s a condo building with some subsidized rentals. What you refer to as “market rate tenants” are owners who spent millions of dollars for their apartments. If your sensitivities require that the subsidized tenants are sprinkled all over the building with total access to amenities, the result is obviously going to be no subsidized housing will be built.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that the builders *chose* to have low income housing? The laws do not apply to buildings that didn’t ask for tax money AND agree to the strings that come along with that.

R53, they understand it. That is why they have to make up stuff like "subsidized tenants are sprinkled all over the building" or that they have to have luxury fixtures and all the other stuff. Because the requirements are clear and not unreasonable, they have to make up unreasonable stuff to bolster their argument.

So we get treated to hearing how the poor developers never considered that poor people are vandals, or would create extra costs that would eat up the whole tax abatement. Or rather they imply it because they know if they actually said it, they would sound like fools.

I think a lot of is because even the relatively well off in the US are in a financially precarious position and they are frightened to admit that they might end up as one of the people in need. So they need to distance themselves from the poor and also paint wealthy developers as equally precarious as they are.

The law was meant for a rental building. It’s not entirely clear how it would apply in a structure that has a luxury condominium on top of a rental building.

Cruelty turns people on.

That said, I would swallow the insult to be able to afford to live in a luxury development.

Hudson Yards received billions of dollars in undeserved tax abatement, real estate is a grift.

My dear, our premier institutions of higher learning provide FULL RIDES to the deserving poor. Let these families concentrate on sending their kids to Ivy League schools and then the children can move up in the luxury high-rise and use the facilities for the rich. I mean, really. Another way to solve this is just make the developers build nice but modest buildings for the poor at another location from the luxury high rise.

The developer received a full ride in undeserved tax breaks by :

1. reassigning their zip code

2. promising "jobs"

3. offering "the poors" apartments through a shit lottery system.

Grift, grift and more grift.

R58, you really would not. Without the gym and rooftop, my friend would have moved out. The lack of electrical outlets (necessitating powerstrips thoughout the appartment), the cheap appliances that break down with management slow to replace them (two weeks without a fridge?), etc. --you might be living in a luxury building, but the appartment itself is strictly slumlord.

As I said in an earlier post, she stayed because she used the gym for PT and loved the garden. But I have been to the apartment and all you can really say is that at least the bathtub is not in the kitchen.

Another way to solve this is to gut renovate the housing projects, buy the air rights and build additional stories on top of them to extend the amount of people they can hold.

Powerstrips? Wtf. That sounds really ghetto.

They should build giant Stuyvesant Towns again. For the working class. Not necessarily for the poor.

^Where?

Amazon intended to build a large campus in LIC, the public outrage of the undeserved billion dollar tax break offered to a trillion dollar company got the plans canceled.

Just after the Amazon fracas, the half trillion dollar tax abatement Hudson Yards received was revisited.

GRIFT.

They seem to find giant locations for these high rise developments nobody wants, so I am sure they can find some blocks here and there to build giant, solid, working class apartment complexes. Maybe even hire some good architects! The working classes, with income limits, can move in and we can start the cycle again. It was fucking CRIMINAL to let the last big developments go into the hands of capitalists.

The so called capitalists are the true welfare queens sucking on the public teats, their capital is never at risk. They are too big to fail and are subsidized by the feds,to build, to maintain and to sidestep financial losses.

Grift.

Even us rich folks can be entitled victims of a shady AF, building management company!

Don’t hate us because we’re beautiful AND rich!

NYC Real Estate Development is dirty?

No!

HBO's "High Maintenance" Season 2, Episode 3, covers the unequal living status of a working class couple living in a high - end building relative to its wealthy tenants. I love this series, and this episode covers the anxiety many New Yorkers feel about living in the city. If you have HBO, check it out.

It always makes me laugh how people are frantic their "luxury" building is going to become transformed into the projects because some units are set aside for low income earners.

[quote]It’s a condo building with some subsidized rentals. What you refer to as “market rate tenants” are owners who spent millions of dollars for their apartments. If your sensitivities require that the subsidized tenants are sprinkled all over the building with total access to amenities, the result is obviously going to be no subsidized housing will be built.

As far as I am aware, a condominium building cannot be a standard rental apartment building. They are two entirely different kinds of legal entities. Yes, condo owners are free to rent out their individual units, but the idea that a percentage of apartments that would otherwise be condos have been set aside for subsidized rentals just does not make sense. How would the condo association manage these subsidized units? Where exactly is this building you speak of?

If the developer has pulled a fast one and piggy-backed a condo building on top subsidized rental units to qualify for a tax abatement, that is something the condo buyers or their lawyers should have discovered when performing due diligence. Let the buyer beware. If people are stupid enough to spend "millions of dollars" to share their common spaces with subsidized low- or moderate-income tenants, they have no one to blame but themselves. But I do not believe that this story is accurate.

There is a glut of condo development in NYC right now, and no one is being forced to buy units in buildings that don't meet their standards (and budgets).

[quote] As far as I am aware, a condominium building cannot be a standard rental apartment building.

True, but there are ways around it. It might not be legal or ethical in NYC, but in other cities, it IS possible for the developers to purchase several units from themselves and then rent them out. Depending on how the condo's charter is laid out, Each unit carries with it, one vote. If someone owns six units, they have 6 votes when it comes to decision making for the building. Or, voting rights can be based upon square footage. If someone owns one unit with 2,500 sq. ft a set number of votes might be assigned per increment of 500 sq. ft giving them 5 votes yet someone else in the same building who has owns three units totaling 1,500 sq. ft. only has 3 votes.

I live in a building with 56 units. Our condo charter states that an owner (owner/family) may own up to three units in the building, one of which MUST be owner occupied. Each unit carries one vote. Renters are not allowed to vote as their unit vote belongs to the owner, but may attend condo meetings, nor are they permitted to sit on the condo board.

The way they got around it was to build a separate building underneath the condo building with its own apartment layouts, it’s own elevators and it’s own entrance.

Not much sympathy on my end. Don’t pay full price? Then you don’t get the full experience. Simple as that.

A friend got one of those in a luxury rental building in midtown off Fifth Ave. He is disabled and was the first tenant in this beautiful one-bedroom with a southern exposure and a view. He was paying about $800 and would have to vacate or pay market in 20 years. Then Section 8 came through so he now pays about $375 a month and has been there ten years. Lucky bastard.

[quote]Here’s a question for the “Midtown Manhattan” gay living in the $800 apartment in a luxury building. How did you find it, get it, etc.?

I had a couple shitty earning years and I heard about the Affordable Rental Program and realized I might be eligible. Back in 2001 any developer seeking tenants would put a small ad in the Real Estate classifieds of The Daily News...once. First thing I did was I bought The Daily News 365 days a year WITHOUT FAIL. The developers would get 10,000 application requests from that one ad, they didn't need to run it more than once or maybe twice.

Back then one had to request a paper application by mailing a postcard (I bought ten pre-paid postcards). I requested an application to every Manhattan building whose income requirements I fit. Then I went into the barrel lottery-style and was notified if my number was low-ish, maybe like in the first 2,000 applications.

Then I made sure I worked the same amount at the two jobs I had so my income was reasonably steady. I made sure my credit report was accurate, and made copies of my last three years of tax returns, knowing I'd have to show them.

I learned in the process that two thirds of applicants had poor credit and were immediately disqualified- that part is just like renting any other apartment. No full-time students allowed and nobody who wasn't actually working. The program is for working people only! This is good.

MANY poorer people are not filing their taxes every year, or have bank accounts showing random non-taxed or non-reported income, ok, they're all disqualified. If you are truly qualified, have no bankruptcies or felony convictions on your record, the competition to get a lease is lousy and a little perseverance and excellent document keeping will pay off. Mine took five go rounds, I was rejected for various reasons the first four buildings, but I learned how to fix my issues and the fifth building offered me a lease, a $542/mo one-bedroom in 2003.

Everything is centralized online now, so no more paper applications. I'd say it is far more equitable and easier to apply, but they get MANY more applications digitally than they did twenty years ago on paper, so there is more competition.

R77, I agree. These developers think they can pay half of what they are supposed to with the subsidized housing, but get the full tax abatement experience. If the developers don't pay, they should not get to play.

And we the tax payers get stuck paying what they weaseled out of.

(I love how your sympathy is for the wealthy company seeking a way to avoid paying taxes rather the working family who jumped through all the hoops to get an affordable apartment. And just contemplating what that says about you.)

[Quote] The buildings in question are not required to have low to moderate income housing, [R47]. They chose to do so in exchange for a tax abatement.

Actually many developers have to include moderate income housing within their structures just to build in a coveted neighborhood. Previously, the rule was, in order to build in a good neighborhood, they also had to build in a poorer neighborhood like in Harlem (at least it was at the time). Then the city realized it segregated the low to moderate incomes people to certain sections of the city, and the developers built much cheaper quality buildings. With the new rule of keeping these people in the same buildings, they are no longer stuck in poorer areas of the city, and the quality of their apartments are better. They just don’t access to the same amenities as the wealthier people

R81, okay, so change it to they have to do it to follow zoning laws. If they do not like the rule they do not have to build there.

The logic is faulty. You say that they should be exempt from the law requiring all tenants access to common areas because they only agreed to it so they could build in that neighborhood. By this standard, they could opt out of paying workman's comp or social security because they only agreed to it to run a business in the united states. After all, people can just save for themselves without accessing financial amenities provided by the employer. They ought to be happy they have a job.

Please explain this impulse to give businesses something for nothing. So many people here seem to feel that giveaways to building developers are good, but giving less wealthy tenants what is their right is not.

I truly do not understand this thinking and would like to hear it explained.

R80 Go lick someone else’s boots. “But but but the law!”. You sound like such a simp and a weasel. Access to a pool is NOT a right, it is a privilege.

The linked article from 2018 when the first lottery was begun for affordable rental apartments in 15 Hudson Yards states there are separate amenities for the renters of the affordable apartments.

[quote]Moody was eyeing a $1,348-a-month two bedroom apartment in the stately skyscraper.

That's a steal!

The poors actually don’t care. So why is everyone else offended?

[Quote] Please explain this impulse to give businesses something for nothing

They’re not getting something for nothing. They get to build in coveted areas where they can charge high prices for their apartments only if they have 10-20% of the building low/moderate income housing. The poors will pay much less monthly maintenance fees if their apartments are treated like a separate coop building. They won’t get access to the gym, pool, 3 doormen, but they also don’t pay an arm and a leg every month.

R87, maybe not something for nothing, but something without fully paying.

Can I buy your car? I would agree to pay you $25K. But I am only going to give you $10K. Do I get to keep the car? Because honestly, it really is only worth $10K, so why would you have a problem? It seems very fair to me and we all come out ahead.