Paying the Rent in New York

[skylife]

Originally Posted by Jularc

I totally agree. There are other parts of the city where people can find something cheaper. Alot of the newcomers are afraid or unwilling to venture out into other areas of the other boroughs of the city.

Eh, I dunno. People who move to NY usually have a dream and a vision that attracted them there. Living in a quiet section of Queens probably isn't it. I don't see the reason to move to a city like NY and not live the dream.

Of course there are cool and liveable neighborhoods throughout other boroughs, but I think I'd rather live in the heart of Chicago than in the other boroughs of NY. But I do like Brooklyn a lot.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skylife

Obviously Chicago is overall a much more affordable city to rent and live in than NY. Check out the apts for rent on Craigslist for under $1000. It's an entirely different world.

Agreed, there's a huge difference. When one is talking about the sales market, the difference is even bigger.

My point is not NYC vs. Chicago rents; I'm just trying to illustrate that these outrageous rents and ridiculous living situations are not the norm. These stories are largely a function of newcomers with a very short list of preferred neighborhoods.

The situation is compounded because many of these newcomers work on Wall Street, which has been doing very well lately. Manhattan real estate is much stronger now than in 2005 or 2006, which isn't the case in most of the rest of the country.

Take a look at neighborhoods with little Wall Street presence, and you will see affordability. Rents may still be higher than Chicago, but these are different cities with apples to oranges living situations.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skylife

Eh, I dunno. People who move to NY usually have a dream and a vision that attracted them there. Living in a quiet section of Queens probably isn't it. I don't see the reason to move to a city like NY and not live the dream.

But this "live the dream" ideal no longer exists in their "dream neighborhoods". The fact is that bohemian, artsy neighborhods are no longer located downtown. They are now primarily in Brooklyn, Queens, NJ and even the South Bronx.

If you want to live your artist/musician dream, move to Bushwick or Far East Williamsburg, which is where the highest concentration of such types live. You won't find them living downtown. Downtown is for the financial services crowd.

[skylife]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But this "live the dream" ideal no longer exists in their "dream neighborhoods". The fact is that bohemian, artsy neighborhods are no longer located downtown. They are now primarily in Brooklyn, Queens, NJ and even the South Bronx.

If you want to live your artist/musician dream, move to Bushwick or Far East Williamsburg, which is where the highest concentration of such types live. You won't find them living downtown. Downtown is for the financial services crowd.

Yeah, I know, but that's a pretty specific dream...I'm not an artist (per se) or a musician. I'm more talking about my personal ideal urban lifestyle which is not affordable in NY anymore. But it is in some other cities.

I'm not slaggin' on NY. It's probably my favorite city in the world. But I can't afford to live the lifestyle I want there. Plus I would LOVE to buy a little condo sometime in the not-too-distant future. NY is out as a possibility for now. So is DC.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by skylife

I can't afford to live the lifestyle I want there.

I suppose the critical issue is what that lifestyle is. I find that in a bustling city, once you are living there the rest of the "lifestyle (you) want" can be cheap or free. I enjoy simply walking around among the crowds, eating ethnic food that can be less than McDonald's (I posted an example elsewhere: The Dumpling House in Manhattan--12 delicious dumplings and a soda for $3), "feeling" the city pulse around me. I actually don't have much desire to eat in the $200/plate restaurants or do the other stuff that's there for the rich and famous. Most people I know in SF (and I'm sure it applies to NYC) pay such a large part of their income for housing that they all have become experts at an otherwise low-cost lifestyle that they nevertheless love and wouldn't trade for any other place.

[skylife]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I suppose the critical issue is what that lifestyle is. I find that in a bustling city, once you are living there the rest of the "lifestyle (you) want" can be cheap or free. I enjoy simply walking around among the crowds, eating ethnic food that can be less than McDonald's (I posted an example elsewhere: The Dumpling House in Manhattan--12 delicious dumplings and a soda for $3), "feeling" the city pulse around me. I actually don't have much desire to eat in the $200/plate restaurants or do the other stuff that's there for the rich and famous. Most people I know in SF (and I'm sure it applies to NYC) pay such a large part of their income for housing that they all have become experts at an otherwise low-cost lifestyle that they nevertheless love and wouldn't trade for any other place.

I understand what you're saying. I do live in an expensive city myself and have been since I was making half as much money. But I do like to go out and not have to budget too much or not be able to afford that couple more drinks or whatever. I think I can do all that stuff you mentioned in Chicago AND save up for a down payment on a condo AND go out without being overly restricted by a budget. I'm not really willing anymore to make those sacrifices because I can have it all if I choose wisely.

[arbeiter]

Originally Posted by austin356

having to live in an office because you cannot find available housing..... let alone affordable housing.


All I am saying is that without any rent controls, zoning, public housing or historical preservation the city would have a vacancy rate of around 10%, and rents 25% < x > 50% less.

Granted though, the city has chosen such things and most everyone wants to give up some pricing in order to increase what they see as a increase in quality of life.

They don't HAVE to. they're just part of that legion of people who must have the manhattan address. i've never coveted manhattan.

[crisp444]

People definitely pay more for a bustling, urban atmosphere, but I really doubt that it is easy for most people to live a low-budget lifestyle in the city eating stuff like $3 dumplings everyday. I personally spend several times more money on drinks, restaurants, and going out (on TOP of housing) that I ever have or ever would in the suburbs. I honestly think that people make up for paying more for rent by giving up their cars and the expenses that come with them -- not by giving up spending money on food and entertainment.

[JManc]

someone mentioned the outer boroughs....they are pretty expensive too as are nearby NJ cities like hoboken and jersey city.

[shovel_ready]

So true...the outer boroughs is where it's at if you make under 100K...

I lived in NYC a few years ago and lasted all of 6 months. My living situation consisted of what I call "sublet hopping". It could also be called "The Ultimate Craigslist Adventure".

Each month I ended up (with minimal possessions) shifting from one neighborhood to the next. It was extremely hectic and draining but I certainly got the grand tour of the city in the process and had loads of fun.

6 months and 3 boroughs later I ran out of money. My crappy-paying internship and freelance gigs just couldn't cut it. I could have taken a shitty full-time job and crashed on friends couches until I found something more permanent, but I was just far too drained at that point from constant sublet hunting and moving.

Month 1 -Greenpoint, Blkyn
Month 2- South Slope, Bklyn
Month 3- Astoria Queens
Month 4 - SoHo, Manhattan (Stayed with friend of family in huge loft)
Months 5+6 - Williamsburg, Bklyn (like 30 feet from the Bedford L entrance!)

The great thing is that I never ended up paying more than $600/mo for my share of the apartment during any of those months!

[MayDay]

"You find that sort of rootless existence appealing, mmm?"

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by crisp444

People definitely pay more for a bustling, urban atmosphere, but I really doubt that it is easy for most people to live a low-budget lifestyle in the city eating stuff like $3 dumplings everyday. I personally spend several times more money on drinks, restaurants, and going out (on TOP of housing) that I ever have or ever would in the suburbs. I honestly think that people make up for paying more for rent by giving up their cars and the expenses that come with them -- not by giving up spending money on food and entertainment.

It depends on how much disposable income you have left after rent. I dont have a car, couldnt afford one and live where I do and most importantly I dont want one. However I still have to restrict how much I eat out, most of the time I eat at home. I get alot of pleasure just walking around the city doing thing for free or for cheap or going to a museum, I have memberships at four different Chicago museums so I can go whenever I want and I take advantage of free days and discount days. Sure, I would love to spend more money on dining out, even then eating at super expensive joints wouldnt be my cup of tea but I have to wait for a promotion or a better job for something like that.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by crisp444

I honestly think that people make up for paying more for rent by giving up their cars and the expenses that come with them.

Will the media ever get this? Huge rents and mortgages make so much more sense when you factor in free/cheap transportation.

Public agencies like the 30% figure when determining "affordability". I'd rather see a combined figure for housing+transportation, maybe 50%. Also, a single person or couple can afford a higher percentage than a family with kids.

When I move next year, my new mortgage, dues, and taxes will total about 2/3 of my takehome pay, or about 1/2 my gross income. But it won't be difficult. Scary but not difficult. Hopefully.

[VivaLFuego]

Skylife raises a worthwhile point. I mean the entire cost of living equation comes into play. In Chicago, for many professional jobs you typically make between 75%-100% of a comparable position in NYC (at least from my unscientific survey of my profession and of friends who had the option of transferring to NYC), but of course NYC's cost of living is far, far more expensive.

Even living out in the boroughs of NYC where you give up some quality-of-life by being so far from Manhattan, prices are still high that it would take forever to save for a down payment on real estate. And if you really wanted to live cheap in New York to save said money, you'll be feeling a little awkward being a 9-5 professional in a neighborhood mostly composed of poor immigrants and trust-fund artist types living off a combination of their parents money and waitress tips (that is, if you aren't simply in the ghetto).

NYC is a truly unique, incredible experience, but these prices are insanity. I'll just plan on visiting every few years.

[austin356]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Skylife raises a worthwhile point. I mean the entire cost of living equation comes into play. In Chicago, for many professional jobs you typically make between 75%-100% of a comparable position in NYC (at least from my unscientific survey of my profession and of friends who had the option of transferring to NYC), but of course NYC's cost of living is far, far more expensive.

You make a good point. Many American corporate jobs pay exactly the same or nearly exactly the same no matter where you are.

I will use a position I am familiar with for example, which is Medical device sales. If you work for Boston Scientific, J&J, or Medtronic, your sales pay is the same rate in Mississippi as it is in LA, yet cost of living is several times higher. Albeit you live in a more densely packed area and have a larger number of clients available within close proximity, but still that does not even account for a fraction of the difference in cost of living.

That just goes to show, especially if you want to work for a large corporation, that there are sacrifices you have to make to live in the play you want to live. And I know my example is not universal, but it is similar to a the situation for a large % of corporate workers.

[fflint]

I still don't see this as a "problem." Nobody is being forced to live in Manhattan--they choose to do so, knowing full well this is the market in which they must rent. Moving to Manhattan is a choice, and a rather expensive one at that.

[Steely Dan]

^ exactly fflint. if there wasn't such an obscene demand to live on manhattan, then there wouldn't be such an obscene cost to live there. there are other factors that play into it a bit, such as rent control, but ultimately, manhattan is a more expensive place to live than just about anywhere else in the country because the demand to live there is greater than just about anywhere else in the country. manhattan is offering people or is at least perceived to offer people something that they can't get in another city. whether the demand to live there at the cost neccessary is warranted is an entirely different issue; the fact remains that manhattan is THE most in demand geography on the continent.

it's silly to say "why live in manhattan when i could just live in chicago for so much cheaper?". i could just as easily turn around and say "why live in chicago when i could just live in milwaukee for so much cheaper?". manhattan clearly has more to it than chicago, in the same way chicago has more to it than milwaukee. that's not to say that one couldn't live a wonderful, happy fulfilled life in any of the three cities with an open mind, just that there are some different scales going on, and there are reasons for the relative cost of living discrepancies between the 3 cities.

i'm also not trying to say that the equation is straight line, as in, if city "x" is "y" expensive, then it equals a "z" on the city goodness scale. that's absurd. things such as manhattan's hyper-restricted geography vs. chicgao's "endless plain to denver" play a big part in the supply/demand equation. i'm only trying to point out that if chicago offered everything would-be manhattanites were seeking, then the costs between the two cities would be much closer in line with each other. clearly chicago is seen as a less desriable place to live by most people in the country than manhattan. that's ok. there's no reason for chicagoans to be offended by that, it's just the simple truth.

with all that said, i love chicago's low cost of living, it's probably the best "big city" bang for the buck in the country, but in the end, i'm most satisfied here because chicago is a city that works for me and offers me what i desire in a big city. for many other people, that is not the case, and for them manhattan is totally worth paying 3 times more than chicago.

[Mr Roboto]

^pretty much everything you said I agree with. Its all a choice, and tons of people seem to be making the same one; to the degree that the less-affluent are priced out.

The thing is, people have it made up in their minds that NYC is the center of the universe, and manhattan the center of NYC, and a neighborhood like Upper East side is the center of manhattan. And naturally, everyone gravitates towards the percieved 'center'. Of course, as a result, coupled with the tremendous geographical limitations the prices will be astronomical.

But yes, it is all a personal choice, and if people believe there are things they can find on manhattan that they cant find in other boroughs, or cities, or countries, (which im sure there are) then best of luck to them. It is a romanticized place in pop-culture, and historically very rich and unique. But I am content where I am, and will likely never have a desire to join those folks, cause I know the city Im at is the bomb and there are things I can find here that I cant anywhere else either, like many unique cities. To each their own (but whatever you want, you gotta pay).

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's silly to say "why live in manhattan when i could just live in chicago for so much cheaper?". i could just as easily turn around and say "why live in chicago when i could just live in milwaukee for so much cheaper?". manhattan clearly has more to it than chicago, in the same way chicago has more to it than milwaukee. that's not to say that one couldn't live a wonderful, happy fulfilled life in any of the three cities with an open mind, just that there are some different scales going on, and there are reasons for the relative cost of living discrepancies between the 3 cities.

most people who live in manhattan never take full advantage everything it has to offer so i'm willing to bet that anyone fulfilled by new york's amenities would be so with chicago as well. the premium manhattan commands in comparison to chicago is just not worth what little extra it may have to offer. milwaukee is too small and can't compete with major cities. chicago, on the other hand, can compete with new york.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

the premium manhattan commands in comparison to chicago is just not worth what little extra it may have to offer.

that's only in your opinion. for you it's not worth it, but the millions of people clamoring to live on manhattan would probably disagree with you to a person. there is a reason chicago is so much cheaper than manhattan: it's seen as less desirable and it isn't constrained by the geographical "hard edges" of being located on a relatively small island.