Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#141

Post by notyourday »

bostonvaulter2 wrote: post #140
notyourday wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a commercial space is owned by the landlord free and clear, then the landlords have zero incentive to rent it to collect smaller than desired revenue unless property taxes are so high that the landlord must lease the space to at least cover the property taxes. If course that means that the rents skyrocket for all properties as the property taxes now eat majority of the rent. If the landlord has a fairly regular co…

That makes me feel sick. As a society we really shouldn't be operating based on expecting property to constantly appreciate, it's going to do us in.

We were about to re-learn that lesson during the previous crash but decided that it was better to kick the can down the road.

The thing that I cannot wrap my head around is how we can at the same time believe that real estate goes up over the long term and allow it to be depreciated on financial statements.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#142

Post by trisomy21 »

ardit33 wrote: post #18

I live in manhattan and I feel this story is a bit exaggerated, or at least I don't see the author's reality. (Him quoting a Real Estate firm, which is interested in activity, doesn't give credence to the data). The turnaround of restaurants and bars here is amazingly fast. When one fails, another one springs up. The same street will have very different storefronts each year. I once asked a restaurant owner, on how i…

As an FYI, Toby’s Estate started in Australia.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#143

Post by malandrew »

bpicolo wrote: post #123
addicted wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not generally. The good stuff will stick around. The stuff that isn’t as good wont. Most cities are about change, and while nostalgia is great, cities that look the same as they did 20 years previously usually are not successful cities. The reason is simple. Cities tend to attract younger folks. As the generation of people they attract changes, the tastes they need to cater to also changes.

> The stuff that isn’t as good wont Tons of good stuff closes in Manhattan.

San Francisco too. Three of my favorite restaurants closed in the last year.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#144

Post by whack »

malvosenior wrote: post #132
whack wrote: post #125

Let's recap the author's main points: - Retail revenues are not rising as fast as rent - Hence, shopping/merchandise stores are being replaced by bars/restaurants/coffee-shops etc Ie, businesses that sell stuff are being replaced by businesses that sell experiences. Great! Consumerism and materialism is a black hole for your soul. What I really care about are vibrant experiences. Interesting bars/restaurants where my…

Paying for experiences like this is still consumerism.

On a technical level: depends on how you're defining consumerism. See:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumerism

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer-goods.asp

At a deeper level: research has shown that spending money on experiences enriches your life far more than spending money on "things". That's what I'm referring to.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-28/why-you-s...

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#145

Post by naravara »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #111
naravara wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>cities with reasonable public transport Does NYC qualify? I think you can still hit theoretical under-half hour times if you manage to get the subway right as your train comes in and don't have to walk too far from the stations to the doors. But if you live in New York the psychological barrier of dealing with that crap is big enough that people tend not to do it outside of commuting. It's a chore to get someone in…

NYC has some of the best, if not the best, public transport in the US. > It's a chore to get someone in Brooklyn to come into the city to hang out unless it's right after work. And vice versa. The issue, I think, is that young professionals have largely been priced out of Manhattan, and the East River acts as a psychological boundary. Even if it's just a short trip, you're still leaving/entering "the city". As a side…

>NYC has some of the best, if not the best, public transport in the US.

This seems like damning with faint praise to anyone whose been to a developed city in East Asia or Western Europe.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#146

Post by pontifier »

effingwewt wrote: post #126
pontifier wrote: post #105

Paying rent is for suckers.

Or, you know, for people who can't afford to buy.

If you can't afford to buy, then you doubly can't afford to rent. Money spent on rent is essentially burned. Do everything you can to avoid it.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#147

Post by swarnie_ »

ddoran wrote: post #93
swarnie_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been in Brooklyn for getting on 10 years. Can you elaborate on what popular tourist friendly areas are now about? (I'm in NYC in March '19)

Sign up for the New York Road Runners NYC Half (March 17th - St Patricks Day!) As of 2018 the new course starts in Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn, down Flatbush Avenue and run across the (closed to traffic) Manhattan Bridge, along the FDR, through Times Square and finish in Central Park (lottery and charity only though). Spend a half day around Brooklyn Bridge Park, Dumbo and the Brooklyn Heights Promenade - especially th…

Thank you very very much for the detailed reply, i'll do my best to see a few of these spots during my visit =))

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#148

Post by neuromantik8086 »

charlesdm wrote: post #131
neuromantik8086 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, this feels like an issue that will naturally fix itself over time, as landlords realize what they're asking for isn't reasonable. Except it won't, exactly because landlords are rational actors. Let's say the upkeep for a space is $400/mo, and the rental for that same space is 3000/mo. A storefront could be vacant for 2 years and a landlord would still turn a hefty profit if they were able to get someone to sig…

"Hefty profit"? I don't see how that is good investing -- properties sell based on yield. If someone buys a prime property and it generates 3 or 4% per year.. then they're not going to let it sit empty for two years. Renters do have leverage here. You're not going to get it for $1000, but you might for $2500 or $2200.

I don't have a super great understanding of real estate, so my example might be over simplistic and flat-out wrong. This article has better explanations for why vacant spaces remain vacant in NYC (although it applies more to commercial than residential):

https://www.brickunderground.com/rent/why-landlords-leave-ap...

Trust me, as a resident, this phenomenon is real. There are a number of stores in my neighborhood that have been vacant for literally the entire time I've lived in the area (~ 2 years).

As a general rule of thumb, renters (both commercial and residential) really don't have much leverage in NYC, except under extremely rare circumstances. It's hard to understand unless you actually live here, but the rule governing real estate elsewhere in the USA don't really apply here.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#149

Post by subpixel »

bko wrote: post #137
subpixel wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing a critical element of this scenario: key money. When business A fails, the owner does not sublet to business B - they sell their lease, and they charge a hefty fee. So business B has to pay for the privilege of paying already exorbitant rent. Also, with respect if you moved to NYC in 2013 you've never actually experienced what came before hyper-gentrification.

> When business A fails, the owner does not sublet to business B - they sell their lease, and they charge a hefty fee. So business B has to pay for the privilege of paying already exorbitant rent. If business A can sell the lease for a premium then the market rate for that lease is higher than originally signed. Even if they broke the lease, the owner would likely charge the higher rate to business B. The owner won't…

Commercial retail leases in NYC make specific provisions for key money. It's completely above-board and does not break the lease.

Re: How Manhattan Became a Rich Ghost Town

#150

Post by kbob »

whack wrote: post #144
malvosenior wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying for experiences like this is still consumerism.

On a technical level: depends on how you're defining consumerism. See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumerism https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer-goods.asp At a deeper level: research has shown that spending money on experiences enriches your life far more than spending money on "things". That's what I'm referring to. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-02-28/why-you-s...

"Consume" literally means "eat". So eating out is definitely consumerism.
Post reply on HN