bedroom sets under 700 image
PER92
People say affordable apartments in Manhattan are small. I'm just curious how they compare to the Seinfeld apartment seen on the show.
Answer
There are two things you have to consider:
1) Seinfeld was fantasy, nobody wants to watch a TV show set in 600 sqft studio apartment over a Chinese restaurant. His "apartment" was a decent size for Manhattan.
2) Seinfeld was filmed in the early 90s, back then, rent was far less than what it is today. His apartment in the 90s might have gone for $1,800 or so.
Today, that same apartment, a one bedroom, elevator building, intercom system, would probably start at $2,700—and that's if you're lucky.
My apartment is in the Upper West Side, 2,200 sqft, two bedroom elevator, doorman, intercom, private terrace and private video surveillance, on-site gym, and it's $4,200 a month to give you an idea of running Manhattan rates.
Depending on what you're willing to sacrifice, which part of Manhattan you're willing to live, and how hard you look (I'll be honest, I didn't spend near as much time as I should have viewing and looking at apartments), you could find an apartment for much less. However, finding anything under $2,000 that isn't in the projects is a Godsend.
There are two things you have to consider:
1) Seinfeld was fantasy, nobody wants to watch a TV show set in 600 sqft studio apartment over a Chinese restaurant. His "apartment" was a decent size for Manhattan.
2) Seinfeld was filmed in the early 90s, back then, rent was far less than what it is today. His apartment in the 90s might have gone for $1,800 or so.
Today, that same apartment, a one bedroom, elevator building, intercom system, would probably start at $2,700—and that's if you're lucky.
My apartment is in the Upper West Side, 2,200 sqft, two bedroom elevator, doorman, intercom, private terrace and private video surveillance, on-site gym, and it's $4,200 a month to give you an idea of running Manhattan rates.
Depending on what you're willing to sacrifice, which part of Manhattan you're willing to live, and how hard you look (I'll be honest, I didn't spend near as much time as I should have viewing and looking at apartments), you could find an apartment for much less. However, finding anything under $2,000 that isn't in the projects is a Godsend.
How does SF rent control really work?
thamsenman
I am perplexed by this. How does this work?
I know the landlord can set whatever market price they want initially, but how do they pass cost increases to consumers when we have let's say periods of hyperinflation?
How can these tenants sue them for Ellis-Acting them? What if they go bankrupt? Who in their right mind would decide to stay in business with the Board of Supes breathing down your neck?
Answer
All rabid anti rent control rhetoric aside it is very possible for an owner to make a good living renting even with rent control.
Here is a real life example of somebody who has been in the same apartment for 20 years. Rent at move in: $700 for a 1 bedroom apartment.
Rent for same apartment 20 years later is now $1327. Yes, it is below average but well within the range of $12-1600 per month that is the current market rate for a 1 BR place in SF.
Hardly the scenario of paying only $700 a month that one other poster postulated.
Landlords in SF can raise rent in line with inflation thus if hyperinflation happens landlord can raise rent at that rate.
In addition, if a Landlord makes capital improvements to the units he can raise rents 10% of base rate. He is also able to pass through certain common area improvements and fees.
There are landlords who refuse to invest any money in rental properties and they in general are the ones bitching about how they can't possibly make money renting. They thus can raise rents only when people move out and without bothering to actually reinvest in their property.
My landlord would probably like to see me move out because he could do some more work [as he has done to other units] and then jack up the rent, but he is also happy to have a long term stable tenant who does most of the work on her own unit and pays her rent on time.
He makes a good living, he made more than 50K on our 5 unit building alone and is able to purchase more property in the neighborhood for investment purposes.
Ellis act evictions are for buildings where the owner wants to move into a unit as their primary residence. There are landlords who evict long term tenants with no intention of actually living in the unit they evicted from. ONLY then can a tenant sue under the Ellis Act and they have to have proof that the landlord is not living in the unit in question or moved out before the term stipulated by the Ellis Act.
All rabid anti rent control rhetoric aside it is very possible for an owner to make a good living renting even with rent control.
Here is a real life example of somebody who has been in the same apartment for 20 years. Rent at move in: $700 for a 1 bedroom apartment.
Rent for same apartment 20 years later is now $1327. Yes, it is below average but well within the range of $12-1600 per month that is the current market rate for a 1 BR place in SF.
Hardly the scenario of paying only $700 a month that one other poster postulated.
Landlords in SF can raise rent in line with inflation thus if hyperinflation happens landlord can raise rent at that rate.
In addition, if a Landlord makes capital improvements to the units he can raise rents 10% of base rate. He is also able to pass through certain common area improvements and fees.
There are landlords who refuse to invest any money in rental properties and they in general are the ones bitching about how they can't possibly make money renting. They thus can raise rents only when people move out and without bothering to actually reinvest in their property.
My landlord would probably like to see me move out because he could do some more work [as he has done to other units] and then jack up the rent, but he is also happy to have a long term stable tenant who does most of the work on her own unit and pays her rent on time.
He makes a good living, he made more than 50K on our 5 unit building alone and is able to purchase more property in the neighborhood for investment purposes.
Ellis act evictions are for buildings where the owner wants to move into a unit as their primary residence. There are landlords who evict long term tenants with no intention of actually living in the unit they evicted from. ONLY then can a tenant sue under the Ellis Act and they have to have proof that the landlord is not living in the unit in question or moved out before the term stipulated by the Ellis Act.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
