Poor Door Apartments

meh.

I wouldn't care about using a different door for the reduced rent.

I wouldn't care about the gym either, as the market rate neighbors are paying through the nose for it. Ditto for playrooms and roof decks.

I wouldn't feel like a 2nd class renter, and if a neighbor snubbed me because of it, well, I wouldn't want anything to do with them anyway.

I'm getting a nice apartment and safety at at good price, period.

I've got a feeling I could argue this one either, but I pretty much agree. Why, I bet rich people have nicer clothes and drive better cars.

I'd just use the main door and gym anyway, it's not as if security are going to go round asking to check everybody's ID's..

For someone who is so law and order why violate the rules?

I don't think you can use the main door to get to a poor apartment. I don't think the two parts of the building are connected. I also bet it takes a key to get into the main door.

Of course they would. That's what doormen, concierges and security is paid to do. I'm sure you have to have a card to access the gym, roof, playroom etc.

The staff knows everyone that lives in a building, and will know who is on what plan.

Do you think people can just come in off the street and access an apartments facilities?

What a dumb post.

Or they're not that rich, and just have a lot more debt.

I just read the last paragraph of that article...The man who pays $700 a month, which is a 1/3 of what others pay.

Let's see....$700 a month, or $2100 a month?
I'm going to have to think about this.

That what some of these individuals actually said - heck I'm getting a good deal - don't want the extras and see no reason to pay thousands of dollars more to have a gym or nice entry way.

The extras don't bother me -- but it does seem a bit degrading to have a side door entrance vs. a front door. Aside from that what the heck.

The other thing is some say they don't have the option for the extras even if willing to pay a fee -- my question is though - if you need to subsidied housing to live, then how can afford the fee for these expensive extras?

I'm thinking that in part could be to keep the people that didn't pay for the extras to ask the doorman/concierge for services.

In any event, whenever I went in the side door, and saw someone else walk through the front, I'd think "Sucker"

I would do it, if the occasion arose.

I live in a rent-stabilized apartment. I use the same door as those whose apartments are not rent-stabilized. I wouldn't care if I had to use another door.

Well it wouldn't stop me knowing that I'd save thousands of dollars a month.

and the $1000/month condo maintenance fees on top of that

If the units are actually the same, I'd go with rent-stabilized and get my extras elsewhere.

Doesn't this depend on your income?

If you were making $850,000 a year (I am making the assumption that you are making less than that now) wouldn't you be more likely to pay $2100 a month for the extras?

I took a tour of a new luxury apartment building near my work because I was curious and they offered a lunch coupon if we would take their tour. The cheapest studio apartment there was $2400 a month (well outside my budget). But if I had a high enough salaries, the amenities would be nice.

As you may know, we have a similar situation in the Boston area. Condo owners can rent out their units, if they so desire to anyone with the cash. Some potential renters do not have the cash and instead can get a good % of the rent paid through section 8 housing.

As a result, within one condo-building, we have renters who pay their own 100% of the rent, we have renters who pay 50% of their rent ( 50 % paid through section 8 housing), and finally owners, who live in their own units and pay only the regular condo fee.

As the total number of renters increases, the number of owners ( living in the building) decreases, either because they sell their units, or they rent their condos out.

The number of renters in a condo building has a significant effect on the selling price of any unit in the building that should go up for sale. Moreover, the fact that a given percentage of the renters are low income individuals dependent on the government for rent payment, ,greatly influences the market value of any unit up for sale, where potential buyers will want to live in their own units ( and not rent them).

With time, the condo building converts to a 90-100% rental property.

I personally am against rent-stabilized apartments mixed in with property, where other occupants have to pay their full load of rent. Many of the so-called "rent-stabilized" apartments in NY, have values in the $750,000- several million $$ range. These are elevator, doorman properties. Many owners of these rent -stabilized apartments have very low incomes, who appear to be worthy of the rent-stabilized units. However, they could easily sell their properties, reap the profits and move elsewhere. But they don't.

They are one version of the "welfare-tit" population. They're not poor and they 're not deserving. They're welfare-tit suckers.

I'm against section-8 housing, when it depresses the value of any property, that I own.

As far as the situation in NYcity, if the low income folks gain entrance to front door or use the equipment in the fitness rooms, I suggest that many of the high end folks will move out ( sell or rent their units). If it were me, I'd do the same thing.

The only people who think the above mentioned arrangement regarding diversity among social and economic classes is just, are the crazy democratic liberals... the so-called proponents of the welfare-tit society.

I know I owned a condo at one time -- not in Boston, but in Quincy. It was on the higher end - not Marina Bay expensive, but the next tier down. Our association was set up so that you needed to get approval to rent your condo and meet certain critea to rent (ie it had to be a long term rent and only so many condos could be rented at a time). That, in part, was to keep the market value of the condos up and also to meet certain mortgage requirements.

I wonder why these others you mention would not have such a requirement. I understand what you are saying about the values going down and difficulty of selling -- just common sense too that renters for the most part are not going to care for the property as much as an actual owner.

I am not against section 8 housing, but there is so much abuse of the system I think is why so many are against it. If someone really needs help (as Boston rent is so high), I can see helping them. There should be more requirements and some accountability on those receiving aid -- as in getting a job, keeping a job, maintaining the property, etc. It seems in Mass we have such a free for all (those just sitting on their butts when they are able to work) and abuse (those with enough money but hiding it) that those paying taxes are getting very upset and getting jaded on helping those really need the help.

Rent stabilization in NYC has nothing to do with the renter's income. There are different kinds of housing for that. Rent stabilization is based on when you moved in. In my building, when someone in a stabilized apartment moves out (doesn't happen often), the landlord renovates the apartment, which removes it from the stabilization laws. Rents in destablizied apartments are what the market will bear.

I can afford to join the gym in our building at work, but I think it's a stupid price that they charge because of celebrities who go to the gym. Some of my colleagues have joined and have developed a serious attitude about being a member of a gym that XYZ attends and they'll probably see them during the film festival blah blah blah.

I'll go someplace with fewer members with attitude. I'd rather go to a community pool/gym facility cuz that's how I am.

Posh shampoo and towels won't attract me even if the gym is more convenient.