The Return of the Rooming Houses?

A neighborhood in Harlem expressed concern to The New York Times over developer Gerald Migdol's attempt to convert an 18-foot-wide brick row house back into a rooming house. The neighbors are worried that the conversion of 228 West 132nd Street will decrease the quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Migdol told the Times that the conversion, which will have nine single rooms with bathrooms, two two-bedroom apartments, and a communal kitchen, is legal: even though the city forbids new rooming houses, it allows an owner to restore previous rooming-house units, as is the case at 228. Has anyone heard of this happening in Brooklyn? We've seen luxury condo developments here in Brooklyn go rental instead of keeping units on the market and there's lots of talk about turning other failed luxury condo projects into affordable housing, but has anyone heard of conversions back to rooming houses?
Rooming House Returns [NY Times]
229 North 8th Goes Rental [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11507

Comments

there is nothing inherently wrong with rooming houses and SRO's. they DO serve a need and are a huge part of NYC history. granted rooming houses do generally attract the kinds of people society in general things are bad, i.e. junkies, h00kers, etc.. but we live on a place called Earth where there are all kinds of people. you can't just shoo people away that you don't like.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 9:34 AM

also with the advent of the whole new urbanism thing (barf) many suburbs (some that even used to be affluent) have turned huge houses into rooming houses! again, people were shooed off to the suburbs. the sad part is that some cant even afford cars and have no way to get around, so you have some crazy stuff going on in the woods and lots and lots of spread out crime with local police departments not able to handle it. that's okay tho, you know, just shoo off the poor into places we cant see them, like they do in Europe. as long as we have our local wine bars, overpriced baby boutiques, and pilates center all within walking distance, who cares about the poor. right?

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 9:37 AM

I wish the word "luxury" would stop being used... With few exceptions, all luxury means in this city is that it's not a total crap hole. New construction is *supposed* to have shiny new things.... and if the unit was renovated less than 10 yrs ago, it still should look halfway decent. It's NOT luxury. It's actually considered STANDARD in most places in this country.

Forget all of the $$ comparisons... NYC seems to *pride* itself on it's crap hole rental inventory. Not slumlords, but very close to that end of the continuum.

I've become very tired of it. I need to pay $2,000 and hear the word "luxury" in order to get a 1-bedroom apartment that has vinyl flooring less than 20 years old and pain that covers all surfaces that are supposed to be painted (and not covering those that shouldn't be), and windows that function decently.

Oh -- yeah -- I know I know. This is a random rant, but it was spurred by the phrase, "luxury condo developments here in Brooklyn go rental." Also, I know that "in manhattan 3 people are happy to share a 10x10 room for far more money" (I think that's the typical counter argument I hear to justify crap hole living)

Posted by: tybur6 at September 21, 2009 9:39 AM

And in "toney" and "white shoe" neighborhoods.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 9:42 AM

tyburg. totally agree with you. i mean hells stuy town is luxury!!!11!! and flatbush gardens (aka one of the worst housing projects in brooklyn history the vandeveer gardens) has "luxury amenities" now!11!!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 9:44 AM

A new rooming house, like the proposed one in Harlem, gets the "wrong" type of tenants if you rent to the wrong type of tenants. Screening them as you would anyone else should produce decent renters. Some people's lifestyle gives them little need of a kitchen, and if they don't mind sharing a bathroom with people, why not? I can see it working for students,(we shared bathrooms in dorms, after all), or flight attendants, or people who just aren't in their living spaces much. As long as rules are clear and followed, and cleanliness is scrupulously adhered to, there could certainly be far worse places to live.

As NY becomes more and more expensive, I wouldn't be surprised to see more of this, especially in Manhattan, especially in Harlem, which has a lot of buildings already classified as SRO's.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 21, 2009 10:06 AM

Rob's 9:34 sums it up pretty well. Things like SROs are needed to prevent NYC from becoming a dormitory for investment bankers, hedge fund managers and lawyers (sorry, I realize I probably just offended 99% of brownstoner readers)

Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 21, 2009 10:08 AM

DH, its not offenisive. As a lawyer I'd be horrified if everyone I knew and lived around me were lawyers. Thats the last thing I'd want!

Posted by: dittoburg at September 21, 2009 10:37 AM

DIBS, I'm so glad you spell it toney and not tony.

Posted by: dittoburg at September 21, 2009 10:53 AM

Kudos on your "luxury" rant Tyb. With decent 1br/studios under a $1000 in rent stabilized NYC harder to get. I think that SRO'S are a good option to explore, as long as they're regulated correctly.
It would relieve pressure on rentals, especially 2+ bedrooms. Apts. priced for shares have made family renting in NYC very unaffordable. A $1600 2br in Crown Heights/Flatbush or a $3000 2br. in North Slope maybe a good deal for shares not for a family but it’s for shares LL's price them for.
Yes, in the past SRO'S conjured up images of the City's "less fortunate" but actually – the occupants were mostly single WORKING men. The city was different then: before the days of background/credit checks and affordable rents, now the typical SRO tenant most likely may be young professionals, students, artists, and people new to the city. It’s worth exploring.

Posted by: Crownlfc at September 21, 2009 12:49 PM

ditto, I'd catch hell from "you know who" if I did. :)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 2:32 PM

There's a ton of 'SRO's aka bed and breakfasts in Harlem directed at tourists, especially the French. Someone asked me the other day if one was 'safe', it was on a French apt exchange website for $35/night. You want safe for $35?

Posted by: denton at September 21, 2009 3:01 PM

If NYC was once "affordable" why would there be so many SRO's?

because NYC has always been expensive for at least someone.

also getting made at the word "luxury" is silly. Its adverting and has been done forever.

Posted by: Santa at September 21, 2009 9:40 PM

I stand by my "luxury" rant... and I'm not gonna live in an SRO. Even if it's a luxury SRO.

Posted by: tybur6 at September 21, 2009 10:22 PM

Does anyone know which source to use to track buildings with existing as of rights for SRO's? I initially thought of DHCR, but they suggested the building department. Any thoughts?

Posted by: haledav at October 20, 2009 12:03 PM

« Open Thread City Council Signs Off on Prospect Heights Landmarking »

September 21, 2009

The Return of the Rooming Houses?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions