Yesterday's Crain's reported on the 4,000 vacant luxury condos in New York and their potential cost to the city. So how do the neighborhoods break down? The areas with the most empty condos are the Lower East Side at 1,187 units, and Harlem comes in second place with 1,009. The nabes in the lead with the most vacant condo tax arrears are the Lower East Side (almost $2 million) and Brooklyn ($1 million). All the data in the article was gathered by advocates who want the government to take over the tax-negligent buildings and turn them into housing for the homeless. Read more in the Crain's article: LINK. The above image shows one of the new developments in South Harlem that is bucking the trend. Photo by Ulysess
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
☞ READ: Over 4,000 Vacant City Luxury Condos
Yesterday's Crain's reported on the 4,000 vacant luxury condos in New York and their potential cost to the city. So how do the neighborhoods break down? The areas with the most empty condos are the Lower East Side at 1,187 units, and Harlem comes in second place with 1,009. The nabes in the lead with the most vacant condo tax arrears are the Lower East Side (almost $2 million) and Brooklyn ($1 million). All the data in the article was gathered by advocates who want the government to take over the tax-negligent buildings and turn them into housing for the homeless. Read more in the Crain's article: LINK. The above image shows one of the new developments in South Harlem that is bucking the trend. Photo by Ulysess
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If Harlem was split into its various neighborhoods, places like midtown would probably have a higher percentage of unsold condos. The lower east side is only a fraction of the size of Harlem. Harlem has less condo density in any given area in comparison to other parts of town.
ReplyDeleteHorrible idea to give homeless luxury living. What message are you sending crack dealers, etc. when you basically put homeless people in such surroundings. Don't ruin Harlem anymore than it already is. Get rid of of the shelters and halfway houses and you get a decent neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:19
ReplyDeleteExactly. Because real estate values and your quality of life are so much more important than helping others.
All for helping others, but this is pretty outrageous. What about existing owners? They have just as much right to protect their property values. Sorry. I would be furious if I were an existing owner. Fact is, nobody wants to have a homeless person living next door. It is one thing if the person actually looked after the place and wanted to work to improve the building, but judging by the state of many of the projects this is fantasy land. Toss garbage onto the stair well? Sure...somebody else will pick it up for me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how the hell are you supposed to sell a condo unit if a 'homeless' person is occupying it? Ask them politely to leave? Pretty sure once they are in they are there for good.
This sounds pretty far-fetched. If these condos don't eventually sell then the realistic options seem to be:
ReplyDelete1. lower the prices
2. convert to rentals
3. convert to NYU or CUNY or Columbia dorms
4. sell to the city for affordable housing rental/co-op lotteries
(Many of these condos already have agreements for 10 to 20 percent affordable housing. Why are those units not moving?)
Agree with Anon@12:18 P.M.
ReplyDeleteMaking the unts shelters is the idea of the homeless advocates and is probably not being seriously considered by anybody in charge.
If anything, that could only happen to the buildings that are in SERIOUS tax arrears. And considering that the City and State are broke as well, they are going to want income from those units too once they take them over.
So the units being converted into afforadable housing I could see happening. Being converted into Homeless shelters? I doubt it.
Converting these units to affordable housing would lower their tax producing capabilities forever, hurting the city forever. Keeping them in the free market until conditions improve and they become tax producing would be a better long term plan, then there would be more moneys for homeless programs. Thankfully we have a mayor who can think long term and bottom line who will be around for a few more years to keep this city afloat.
ReplyDeleteThey’ve already done this in Brooklyn because the owners of the newly constructed buildings could not afford to carry them vacant.
ReplyDeleteAnd the world continues to spin on its axis.
There are no guarantees in real estate. You buy or build or renovate in an “emerging market” you take your chances.
As for Mayor Bloomberg, he is taking huge hits on his homeless policies and just appointed a new commissioner for homeless services. The numbers have skyrocketed, many of them families with children. Even after a policy of “if you have family or friends who can possibly take you in you’re not getting housing”.
I’d rather a well run shelter than an abandoned building with squatters. That’s a fire waiting to happen.
I guess it all depends what kind of "homeless" you are talking about. There are folks out there who are temporarily homeless. (Think about all those bankers who lost their jobs and condos ;-)
ReplyDeleteSeriously: www.broadwayhousing.org for example runs homeless housing for abused women and their children or families who's apartments burned out, flooded etc..on Riverside Drive and 135th Street and it is the most wonderful building, friendly people that want to get out as soon as they can. The ones that stay longer also pay a small rent.
There is also www.fortunesociety.org who run a halfway house on Riverside and 139ish, all decent guys, clean, quiet, no complaints.
Run by the right organization with the right supervision I have nothing against using empty condos temporarily to help people in need, even right next door from me.
But I realize how complicated this would be and that many people are scared of folks in need.
Just wanted to add that long term homeless people often need way more then a shelter, even if it is a luxury condo with a washer and a dryer and a balcony ;).....they need long term social workers, health and soul care and I don't think a condo building could handle those needs.
ReplyDelete@Abelive—obviously you have to have support services in place. Can’t just hand people the keys. . .
ReplyDelete@ Sanou's Mum, door keys?!
ReplyDeleteDon't those luxury condos come with private butler, maid and valet service?...and least that is what I think when I hear luxury ;)
@Abelive.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think of George Clooney bringing me a good single malt and the evening paper whilst I lounge in my comfy chair. I guess we all have our own definition of “luxury”.
Actually I’d settle for someone else packing up the building’s recycling but that’s my every-Wednesday-night fantasy.
Why is anyone entitled to dwell in Manhattan? Lots of hardworking people get priced out of Manhattan every single day. Why should anyone be immune from this reality - and immune from coming to terms with fiscal responsibility? I can't afford to buy, rent, or live in the Hamptons, can you? As such is the case, am I entitled to live there and have the tax payer pay for my dwelling? If so I'll be on the first Jitney.
ReplyDeleteThe elephant in the room is the notion that people are entitled to lifetime secured housing in one of the most expensive cities in America. Apparently the working class that's been priced out of Manhattan and had to be fiscally responsible and move to Queens or Yonkers or Jersey City did not gotten that memo.
The system is crazy, and regular working people are getting fleeced in this city and nation.
6:14 anon...very well put. Couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteOK, Anon 6:14 and Chris. So we should exile people who don’t make the financial cut to the burbs and Jersey. Where they have to travel a very long time to come in to work for the upper classes. Then we will have a nice, monolithic society. That would make for exciting living. Oh wait. . . such a place already exists! I think they call it Iowa!
ReplyDeleteBreaking news—poorer people ARE already exiled. They live in a place called Harlem. And the Hamptons? There are people of all incomes out in the Hamptons. They live there year-round. And they have a pretty low opinion of those who arrive on the Jitney. For a large part rightfully so.
@6.14 and @Chris.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great idea. . . we’ll exile all the people who don’t make the financial cut to the burbs and Jersey. Of course they will have to travel hours to come work in Manhattan to perform lower paying jobs but hey—their fault for not being able to afford “one of the most expensive cities in America”.
Or we could just ghettoise them. Oh wait. . . we already have. It’s called Harlem!
But no matter. Then we’ll have a nice, bland, safe, monolithic place to live. Like Iowa but less corn and more big buildings.
btw—people of all incomes live in the Hamptons. They live there year-round.
Ooops. That should not have posted twice.
ReplyDeleteAh well.