You know what’s interesting about that? I’ve never seen one of the people living in one of the affordable apartments complain about not having access to the amenities or having to use the “poor door”. It’s always other people getting offended on their behalf- the actual residents tend to take the attitude that they don’t care about which door they use or that market rate tenants have access to more amenities because this is the best place they’ve ever lived.
Agreed. And it’s a shame, because that mixed use housing is one of the best, if not a perfect, solution to the displacement problem. Buts it’s going to be so fraught with bad publicity for the “evil” real estate developers that they hesitate to do it.
The whole Eixample of Barcelona was developed as what you’re calling “mixed housing”, although not even the most luxurious apartment buildings in Spain are expected to have a private gym. Nowadays you can have mixed housing by having buildings including flats of different sizes and/or with large terraces (which carry a premium); the top flats may even be duplexes. Also, we don’t even have the condo situation (I find myself explaining it any time the news say something about some actor not being allowed to “buy” an apartment in NYC): sometimes a building’s HOA owns an apartment and rents it out (usually, it used to be the concierge’s), but in general either you own or you rent. No condos, and the HOA can’t veto anybody.
The Eixample was revolutionary in many ways: it was developed with large streets way before cars became commonplace, the cut-off corners provide good visibility, it included many green areas (the original design had ever block being a double block with a park in between), all flats are airy and easy to ventilate… but the fact that the same building could have the owners living in the first floor (high ceilings, a flat which occupied the whole floor) and renters of different socioeconomic status in each floor (the ceilings got lower and so did the rents) was in many ways even more of a revolution. What I’ve described is the situation when my grandparents got the flat where I always knew them, in 1938; they bought it from the original owner’s heirs using a rent-to-pay scheme that’s very favorable to both parts in 1963.
What you’re talking about is a co-op, not a condo. In a co-op, the board can veto potential buyers. Co-ops are much more common in the NYC area, not so much in other places. In a condo, the board normally does not have the right to refuse buyers. Condos are more common in most of the country. Where I live, for example, there are practically no co-ops and it’s almost impossible to get mortgages for them (and even when you can find a mortgage, down payments are normally much higher). The legal structure of a co-op is that when you purchase a unit, you are purchasing shares in the company that owns the building. In most of the U.S., when there is discussion of buying a condo, it’s what you’re thinking of as the default for buying an apartment.
Except that in Spain it is not possible to have some of the common areas be available to some owners and not others. It’s common area, it’s co-owned. No “these people get the nice door, these don’t”; no “these have access to the pool, these don’t”. If there is a pool it’s for everybody; in fact, it is owned by everybody. So it may be similar but it’s not the same.
I believe Ann Hedonia is using mixed housing to describe something differnt that you are. She’s using it to describe not a mix of different types of apartments ( with or without a balcony or terrace, or apartments of different sizes) but a building where in exchange for tax breaks or zoning variances a developer has set aside a certain percentage of apartments to be “affordable” while the others are market rate. For example in this building the rent for affordable studio apartments will range from $519 to $1967 - and the market rate apartments will be even higher. Those studios will be the same size and the $1967 a month affordable units will be no different from the $519 a month affordable units - the difference in rent is based on the tenant’s income.
These are usually rental buildings, not condos or coops, so it’s not a matter of some owners not having access to certain amenities, it’s a matter of certain tenants not having access included in their rent ( they can sometimes pay an additional fee)
Right, that’s what I’m saying. That what Ann Hedonia is describing wouldn’t even be possible in Spain. Or, from what I know, in many other Western European countries (if it’s possible in any).
Here is an example of what I’m describing.
Affordable rentals in a luxury condo building. If you rent an apartment in the affordable section, you get amenities in line with a mid-priced rental building, including a laundry room and a community room. And the affordable housing has a separate entrance on the cross street. And the rent is considerably lower than other mid-priced rentals in the very expensive neighborhood.
The condos start at 3.6 million and the owners of those condos have access to a host of amenities. And I’m sure, in addition to buying the apartments , they pay for those amenities with common charges that are more than the rent charged for the affordable units.
Yet, somehow the renters in the affordable section are supposed to feel insulted that they can’t use the pool, gym and rock climbing wall. Like Doreen said, most of the actual renters are actually elated to get such a good deal on the apartment. Yet, the first line of this article is “Whats more important, your dignity or cheap rent?”
FYI, while NYC apartments for purchase have traditionally been co-ops, most of the new buildings are condos. They are more desirable because they are less restrictive and generally cost about 30% more. So developers prefer the condo model. The co-ops are traditionally converted rental buildings.
Thanks for sharing that Ann Hedonia, that is a very fresh perspective on this subject.
Yes. But…
Part of the point of affordable housing quotas is social engineering. The idea is that rubbing shoulders with the people who buy $4M condos might just provide opportunities that the renters would not otherwise have. And vice versa, provide rich condo owners with perspectives they might not otherwise see. If they’re kept separate, you loose that whole benefit. At that point, why not let the developers put the affordable apartments in another neighborhood altogether? Also, I don’t think it’s fair to handwave away the psychological impact of creating an Upstairs/Downstairs dynamic.
Thinking back to your earlier post about rent control, I believe that NYC’s strict rent control was a significant factor in how the City came through the ‘70s and ‘80s without completely hollowing out like Detroit. Yes, many people who didn’t strictly speaking require low rents received them. But they were the exact middle class people who were fleeing other metro centers. Rent control kept them where they were through the worst years and many of them fought to bring their neighborhoods back. Overall, I think as a policy rent control tends to moderate the pace of change in the real estate market and leans against both gentrification and de-gentrification (white flight).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It’s almost as if there’s some other underlying problem in American society of which much of the challenge of gentrification is really just a symptom.
Nope, can’t think of any potential costs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well to provide a blanket argument, I will say that gentrification is used as a weapon against the working class. Once the neighborhood is gentrified the neighborhood is no longer affordable for the long time residents.
I think you can’t discount how much people interact with others in their community even if they don’t actually live next door to each other. In my town we have a bunch of dingy housing estates accidentally right in the middle of some of the richest most yuppified real estate in the country - ‘accidentally’ because when these buildings were built 50 years ago, the area was working-class. I don’t think they would have done it if they’d realised real estate would be about a hundred times more expensive within a generation, but as it turns out it seems to work fine. You don’t have social mixing from actual neighbors, but nevertheless the Estates folk have access to the same (excellent) public transport, use the same libraries, take their kids to the same parks, and get their teens part-time jobs in the same supermarkets. (Not so much ‘send their kids to the same school’ but you can easily fill up an entire primary school from just one high-rise, so you can’t have everything…)
My neighborhood is gentrifying, slowly, house by house, shop by shop. Who is wielding this weapon and how did they gain access to it? When I bought my house, was I wielding the weapon, an innocent bystander, or a willing accomplice?
Even if the affordable housing is around the corner, the residents are still going to the same schools, shopping at the same stores and walking down the same streets. And, despite the rhetoric, it’s not like the affordable housing residents are entering through the service entrance and walking past the garbage cans. It’s a perfectly nice entrance on the cross street, it’s really like there are two separate apartment buildings under the same roof. Just like you might find a luxury building next door to a mostly rent-controlled middle-income building all throughout the neighborhood.
This building and other buildings in the same One Riverside Park complex have a really extensive set of sports related amenities -this is why these building are always featured in the poor door controversy. But these amenities are not paid for by some mystery developer or landlord - the owners of the condos pay for the operation of the sports complex. I found two listings in the 50 Riverside Park building which is a twin of 40 Riverside Park, poor door and all. The monthly common charges were about $3200 and $7750, respectively.
That is way higher than the common charges for other high end buildings without those amenities.and the lower number is about 3x the rent on the largest affordable unit.
They are private citizens and I don’t see why they should be compelled to donate an expensive luxury gym membership to their neighbors.
And their were $88,000+ applicants for the 55 units at 50 Riverside. Probably because the rent is about %30 of market value.
FYI - I own an apartment in NYC and I’m a member of the co-op board. I used to be board president but politics. But Im reasonably well versed in NYC real estate.
Over half of working class people/families own homes, albeit at a decreasing rate, according to this cite. Gentrification is only an all bad scenerio if your a renter who is forced out. If your a home owner, you might see an increase in property taxes but you will also get an increased home value. I would love it if my area “gentrified” and I could sell my home for significantly more than I purchased it for.
There’s a psychological impact to offering people benefits and taking them away or putting potential benefits just out of reach. You’re not any worse off than if the benefits were never mentioned in the first place but you feel the loss just the same.
If the common maintenance charges were raised to subsidize the renters, I can’t imagine it would put any dent in the demand for the condos. This is NYC real estate - it’s not that elastic.
Same here - on the board at my last building.
(Note, snipped quote for length)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So we should take others’ money and give it to people because they “feel the loss” of not having a climbing gym? I’d like a climbing gym too. There’s a solution to that; I can earn more and pay for one myself.
Oh for fucks sake I just looked this building up. It’s in Manhattan. Nobody needs to live in Manhattan, and most people who work there do not. It is an optional luxury that does not need to be subsidized.
You are somehow right. Manhattan has like always been so expensive, and if you live there you either have to live in a super expensive place or government housing. Brooklyn used to be the cheaper borough to live in until the gentrification took over. Now so many people are moving out of Brooklyn as a result. The Bronx could be much cheaper by now.