Three-bedroom madness

[tomh009]

I thought things were bad here but ... NYC is far crazier yet. Even if you consider their higher salaries, this is completely insane. The division into the "haves" (rent-controlled apartments) and "have-nots" (market-rate ones) makes the market-rate situation even worse, I think.

Three-bedrooms have long been hard to find, says Julie Rhinehart, of Corcoran, but in the past Brooklyn buyers would go from a two-bedroom to a townhouse. Now townhouses trade for $2.5 million and up (and that’s a gut renovation in most neighborhoods), and a nicely renovated place in Park Slope goes for $7 million or more. One of Rhinehart’s clients got fed up with losing out in six- and seven-person bidding wars for three-bedrooms and thought they’d solved their problem by finding a $1.7 million townhouse in Prospect Heights that needed a total gut reno. “They were so excited. They were like, ‘We can get this house,’” she says. The house got 26 offers in one week.

(...)

The lack of three-beds is also at least partially an affordable-housing issue — as high rents continue to make living alone prohibitively expensive for many, single people opt for shares, and together, with three incomes, are able to pay more than a lot of families can manage. Affordable-housing advocates, meanwhile, frequently complain that housing lotteries mostly offer studios and one-beds, which are cheaper for developers to build, rather than larger apartments (and the larger apartments that do get built are almost always two-beds, never threes). A Gothamist analysis found that 70 percent of the affordable apartments built under Mayor Eric Adams were studios and one-beds.

So the market-rate three-bed is out of reach and the affordable one essentially nonexistent. In Manhattan, the average three-bedroom rental price was $8,737 in March, according to Douglas Elliman. In Brooklyn, it was $4,818, although a StreetEasy search in that price point pulled up a lot of divvied-up older apartments in neighborhoods like East Flatbush and East New York and basement-level duplexes in Gravesend and Bensonhurst. The more alluring stuff, in prime brownstone neighborhoods close to transit and in-demand school districts, tends to go for significantly more: a Cobble Hill brownstone duplex three-bedroom posted on a local listserve, for example, is asking $11,500 a month for a summer sublet. “The $5,000-to-$7,000-a-month price point? Oh there’s nothing,” says one Manhattan broker.

The full story on Curbed:
https://www.curbed.com/article/three-bed...rtage.html

[ijmorlan]

Looks like we need to build more of those old-school neighbourhoods. That’s what the market is demanding.

[tomh009]

What kind of old-school? Old-school SFH or old-school walk-ups or old-school rowhouses?

[ac3r]

Everyone I know in NYC hates it so much. It seems the cost of living, migrants, homelessness, an explosion of crime, aging infrastructure and much more has ruined an otherwise wonderful city. You need to be armed, wealthy as hell and have a really strong safety net.

[ijmorlan]

Everyone I know in NYC hates it so much. It seems the cost of living, migrants, homelessness, an explosion of crime, aging infrastructure and much more has ruined an otherwise wonderful city. You need to be armed, wealthy as hell and have a really strong safety net.

Not enough to leave it, by definition, even though they could probably save a lot on rent by doing so.

[ijmorlan]

What kind of old-school? Old-school SFH or old-school walk-ups or old-school rowhouses?

I’m not an expert in what specifically people want — ask developers.

But when I see something that is illegal to build and very expensive, it is obvious that there is a shortage of supply.

Also at the planning level there should be no difference between the options you mention, so the answer can be left up to individual property owners — zoning has no business controlling whether people build detached homes, townhouses, or small apartment buildings. That is why the 4-story policy change that was recently cancelled by Ford would have been such a good start on reforming zoning.

[bravado]

Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded

[tomh009]

Also at the planning level there should be no difference between the options you mention, so the answer can be left up to individual property owners — zoning has no business controlling whether people build detached homes, townhouses, or small apartment buildings. That is why the 4-story policy change that was recently cancelled by Ford would have been such a good start on reforming zoning.

I do very much agree with this. However, it doesn't look like Ford will do it, and, at the moment, it doesn't look like the Ontario voters are clamoring for a change yet.

[plam]

This tracks with my experience in Waterloo somewhat too:

as high rents continue to make living alone prohibitively expensive for many, single people opt for shares, and together, with three incomes, are able to pay more than a lot of families can manage

Our condo (3br townhouses) doesn't allow unrelated people to live in a unit and at the previous price point that we had advertised we were only getting interest from shares. We lowered the price to below what I thought market value should be for 3br and then we got non-shares...

[danbrotherston]

This tracks with my experience in Waterloo somewhat too:

as high rents continue to make living alone prohibitively expensive for many, single people opt for shares, and together, with three incomes, are able to pay more than a lot of families can manage

Our condo (3br townhouses) doesn't allow unrelated people to live in a unit and at the previous price point that we had advertised we were only getting interest from shares. We lowered the price to below what I thought market value should be for 3br and then we got non-shares...

Were you looking for rent or were you looking to sell?

I'm always amazed that condo boards can make rules that would be violations of the RTA. I mean, on the one hand, condo boards don't have the same power imbalance as landlords do, but I think it would be interesting to require condo boards to either forbid rentals entirely, or excuse rented units from the rules which violate the RTA...as is, I think it's unlikely for a condo to be rented "legally" (in that most condo boards probably have some rules violating the RTA, not in that every example of a condo for rent has violated the RTA).

[panamaniac]

This tracks with my experience in Waterloo somewhat too:

as high rents continue to make living alone prohibitively expensive for many, single people opt for shares, and together, with three incomes, are able to pay more than a lot of families can manage

Our condo (3br townhouses) doesn't allow unrelated people to live in a unit and at the previous price point that we had advertised we were only getting interest from shares. We lowered the price to below what I thought market value should be for 3br and then we got non-shares...

I didn't realize that condos could enforce such a rule.

[ac3r]

Yeah...that sounds strange. If a couple wanted to move in together - a boyfriend and girlfriend - they wouldn't be allowed? Or roommates? Surely that isn't a legally enforceable policy, is it?

[danbrotherston]

This tracks with my experience in Waterloo somewhat too:


Our condo (3br townhouses) doesn't allow unrelated people to live in a unit and at the previous price point that we had advertised we were only getting interest from shares. We lowered the price to below what I thought market value should be for 3br and then we got non-shares...

I didn't realize that condos could enforce such a rule.

There are virtually no limits on the rules a condo corporation can enforce...

Or at least, no additional rules beyond those that you already must follow when buying/selling a freehold property.

The main restrictions/requirements on a condo corporation have to do with properly funding maintenance and properly auditing finances.

[plam]

This tracks with my experience in Waterloo somewhat too:


Our condo (3br townhouses) doesn't allow unrelated people to live in a unit and at the previous price point that we had advertised we were only getting interest from shares. We lowered the price to below what I thought market value should be for 3br and then we got non-shares...

I didn't realize that condos could enforce such a rule.

Renting until I get back from sabbatical. The previous condo I was at had a "no students" rule. Student status isn't a protected grounds under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and neither is family status, I believe. Couples are OK but not unrelated parties.

[ijmorlan]

I don’t see how they can enforce “no students”, regardless of whether there is a human rights violation problem. What if I rent to somebody and then they start taking a course? Who is violating the rule? Can I really ask prospective tenants whether they are students? What if I rely on their false assertion that they are not?

There needs to be a blanket rule that a landlord cannot be held liable for actions done by a tenant which they cannot themselves control. Specifically, if I am unable to evict a tenant based on their actions because of the RTA, then I should not be able to held liable for their activity.