David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here • Hacker News Board

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#51

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:51 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #41

so_says wrote: post #6

Towards the end of the article, Mr. Bryne touches on a topic that is at the heart of a city devoid of culture --- people who buy large swaths of property and then do not live here. We don't need rent control, but we do need to build affordable housing instead of luxury condo after luxury condo for people to use a few weeks out of the year. The least expensive average rental price for a studio is $1481/month. Landlord…

I really think that New York City needs to institute _massive_ tax penalties for people who don't reside in their apartments as a primary residence. I know that our property taxes are already high, but just about everywhere else has big incentives for residing in your property. There's a lot of apartments in manhattan that are only lived in ~4 weeks a year and aren't rented out otherwise. I wouldn't be opposed to a h…

Would such tax penalties stop the rich from renting/owning in NYC? I doubt it, they are rich after all. Would those tax penalties convince them to declare those homes their primary residence? Maybe, if they were American. But would declaring those homes to be their primary residence actually get them to spend more time in them? No.

Is it really a problem that rich people aren't living in all of their homes simultaneously? No. That is their own business, don't worry about what they do, worry about what you do.

What is next, complaining that middle class families often leave one car sitting idly in their driveway?

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#52

Post by ChuckMcM » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:53 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #14

ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in articles on ideas for dense and affordable urban housing which side steps the blight/crime aspects. Does anyone know if there is work going on in that space like the MIT small house[1] competitions? [1] http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/1k-house-prototype-0915.h...

I think mixing density and low-income people is by itself a recipe for disaster. It makes more sense to have good commuter rail into the surrounding suburbs.

That is the interesting test is it not? Why is it that 'high income' people can live in a high rise apartment building but 'low income' people cannot? I am aware of the various 'projects' where we've seen violence, drug use, and property destruction. I am wondering is if it is even possible to create such a facility?

Could you, for example, create an elevator system that took you from ground floor to your apartment, and only if you keyed in the right code? And would that be sufficient to allow people to live without being negatively harmed by their neighbours?

Curious and I don't know if anyone has looked into this in a controlled way, hence the question.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#53

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #29

jlgreco wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barring handicaps, I think a 15-30 minute walk is reasonable for most people, particularly the sort of people who might be looking to live in a car-lite city. 30 minutes at a leisurely pace is only 2 miles, I do that twice a day and I live and work in the same city (I also have a car, but clogging the streets and the air with it every day just to go 2 miles seems practically criminal to me) . For somebody living outs…

What if you're over 40? Lower income often means poor health. Let's try not to approach this problem from our typically young working healthy professional perspective. Most of us are making more money than the people we're really talking about here. Also, can you really live in these areas and shop without a car? I find the answer to that question to rarely be yes.

People over 40 are perfectly capable of using their legs. If they used them more often, instead of hopping in the car every time they needed to go a mile or two, maybe they would remain healthy longer. Cities typically have transportation programs meant for the elderly and disabled, if other public transit is unable to service them.

I shop with my car maybe once a month, tops, and that is mostly just because I like to buy dozens of liters of seltzer water.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#54

Post by misiti3780 » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:57 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #22

misiti3780 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are a shitload of rent stabilized apartments though ... http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html#d... "Rents Stabilization FAQ See also Rent Control FAQ's Is there a difference between RENT CONTROL and RENT STABILIZATION? What exactly is rent stabilization? Can my landlord evict me and use my stabilized apartment for his family, and how many apartments in the building can he take? What happens…

Rent Stabilization isn't all it's cracked up to be. Everyone I know in Rent Stabilized apartments has dealt with large rent increases with some regularity. Even so, rent regulation is _not_ the problem. It's primarily the parking requirement and secondarily the zoning issues. All the co-op and condo owners who dominate most fo the neighborhoods affected WANT it to be this way because it keeps the price of their homes…

They can only legally increase your rent 2% every year or 4% every two years, and they HAVE to renew your lease by law unless you really fuck up (giving you the option of both a 1 and 2 year lease). The apartment only becomes unstabilized if your income is exceeds $250K or your rent exceeds $2500/month. The only possible way you would ever see a large rent increase (that I know of) if you lived in a rent stabilized apartment in NYC is if the owner of the building dumped a shitload of money into the building (there is an actual formula that depends on the number of apts, I believe), and then since the building is a lot nicer they actually increase your rent to market rates.

I agree with your second statement

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#55

Post by busterarm » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:58 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #51

busterarm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think that New York City needs to institute _massive_ tax penalties for people who don't reside in their apartments as a primary residence. I know that our property taxes are already high, but just about everywhere else has big incentives for residing in your property. There's a lot of apartments in manhattan that are only lived in ~4 weeks a year and aren't rented out otherwise. I wouldn't be opposed to a h…

Would such tax penalties stop the rich from renting/owning in NYC? I doubt it, they are rich after all. Would those tax penalties convince them to declare those homes their primary residence? Maybe, if they were American. But would declaring those homes to be their primary residence actually get them to spend more time in them? No. Is it really a problem that rich people aren't living in all of their homes simultaneo…

It could put some tax money into subsidized housing to offset their market effect of increasing other peoples' rents and commute times.

It really kind of is a problem because of the effects that it has on the housing market. It's completely different from somebody having an idle car in their driveway because nobody else could park on their property. This is a situation where this is an apartment somebody else could rent and live in and decrease sprawl.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#56

Post by a8da6b0c91d » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:59 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #39

rayiner wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he fails to raelize is that the drop in crime is the result of the "Disney-ization" of New York City. All that "1%" money has been funneled into policing, redevelopment, etc. Contrast: Philadelphia. In the 1970's, New York and Philadelphia were pretty similar. But New York was fortunate to be host to the financial boom of the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's, while Philadelphia saw its core industries continue t…

Philly is way better than it use to be, it just hasn't improved nearly as rapidly or dramatically as NYC has. The blight of urban decay is being pushed back, but that push isn't driven so much by the ultra-rich as it is by college kids and yuppies getting a tad more 'adventurous' in where they live. (I think the effect of universities and their students is most noticeably around Temple in north Philly, though I would…

I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts.

It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is not.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#57

Post by rayiner » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 6:59 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #44

rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The apartments right by the train stations are artificially expensive. They're designed to take advantage of the fact that white commuters don't want to risk living in a building with low income minorities. The surrounding housing is half the price, and the area is quite safe. Nearly all of the Westchester suburbs are extremely walkable. All of the essential stuff is on the train line. The wife and I would load up th…

I haven't been back there recently enough to know if MN is 24 hours but I recall travel being limited to certain times and this is especially true on the LIRR. Especially late at night, the train is filled with annoying rowdy drunks. That's more than enough reason for me not to want to live out there. It's like being deprived of all of the social benefits of living in/around NYC. I mean, I totally get what you're say…

Metro North is not 24 hours, but it's only closed for 3 hours between 2:30 am and 5:30 am. And trains from NR run every 15 minutes at rush hour. The Metro North has way fewer sketchy people on average than the Subway. Lots of bankers heading back to Greenwich.

In any case, you're arguing a different point now. Housing prices in many Westchester towns are very reasonable and commutes are too. No reason for rent control to allow low-income people to live in the city proper.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#58

Post by zwieback » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:00 PM UTC

This is a good time for a plug of William Dean Howells' "A Hazard of New Fortunes", a 100+ year old book about the difficulties of starting a new creative endeavor in NY. It features a countryish financier who made his fortune in natural gas and lots of anecdotes about apartment hunting in NY of the 1890s.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#59

Post by enraged_camel » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:01 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #36

I think New York should welcome the uber-rich with open arms. NY's history is all about 1%ers, like Vanderbilt and Rockefeller and Bloomberg. But what is deleterious to the feel of the city, in my view, is the Dubai-ization of the real-estate market. Entire buildings are empty. Apparently the global elite buy and sell New York real-estate like they do oil futures: not to use but as an investment. These folks aren't c…

>>“I was living on the 16th floor, and I was pretty much the only one there,” said Charlie Attias, a senior vice president at the Corcoran Group who rented an apartment at the Plaza for three years and has handled many transactions in the building. “We had the occasional visitor — I mean, the occasional owner — once in a while. Actually, when we saw somebody, it was a big thing,” he added. “Oh wow, somebody’s in my hallway!”

I'm pretty sure this is just me, but that sounds awesome. I love the idea of having an entire high-rise to myself and whoever I'm living with.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#60

Post by notahacker » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:03 PM UTC

moogleii wrote: post #19

rayiner wrote: post #7

I have a book of jokes from the 1970's. One of the jokes is "if it weren't for the muggings, there would be no human contact in New York." I remember reading it recently and finding it so anachronistic. The idea of getting mugged in Manhattan or Queens or Brooklyn seems so alien to me today (though I remember as a visitor in the early 1990's the same areas seemed quite post-apocalyptic). My point is... take off the r…

Quote from the article: "I don't romanticize the bad old days. I find the drop in crime over the last couple of decades refreshing. Manhattan and Brooklyn, those vibrant playgrounds, are way less scary than they were when I moved here. I have no illusions that there was a connection between that city on its knees and a flourishing of creativity; I don't believe that crime, danger and poverty make for good art. That's…

But why wouldn't Manhattan and Brooklyn landlords prefer rental incomes from financiers moving in from Long Island to the much smaller rental incomes from the struggling artists they replace? Who's paying for the artists to stay? And what about the vast majority of urban emigres that aren't artists and work far too many hours earning far too little disposable income to be active participants in art scenes. Do they deserve the same chance to stay? For that matter what about those people being displaced who actually are responsible for much of the crime; let's not forget that urban migration patterns affect crime rates as well as vice versa?

It's not exactly like members of the 1% don't cough up large chunks of change to support their preferred forms of art anyway (whether you consider that art to be less interesting, authentic or edgy than what it displaces or not). In that vein, I can literally watch the gentrification on my London street, and it'll look even more vibrant and arty once the boutiques and street cafes have fully replaced the betting shops, by which time I won't be able to afford the rent.