Renting 1 BBP: 'We Would Like Things to be Different'
This weekend’s cover story in the real estate section of the Times is about Brooklyn developers who have started renting units in their condos, with a focus on the hybrid-ization of One Brooklyn Bridge Park, where developer RAL recently began renting some of the unsold inventory. First, the stats: There have been 77 closings at…
This weekend’s cover story in the real estate section of the Times is about Brooklyn developers who have started renting units in their condos, with a focus on the hybrid-ization of One Brooklyn Bridge Park, where developer RAL recently began renting some of the unsold inventory. First, the stats: There have been 77 closings at the building and 26 other units are in contract, leaving 300-some-odd vacancies; for now, RAL is only renting 20 units, and five one-year leases have been inked. Then, there’s the commentary from RAL president Robert Levine, who says stuff like, “This building is not a rental building, it is a condominium,” and “We would like things to be different,” and “We had a vision and it turned out to be exactly what we wanted. And then the world fell apart.” (On this last quote, it’s worth noting that 1BBP went on sale almost a year and a half before “the world fell apart” last September.) Anyhow, the bigger questions the article addresses are, how much of a stigma is it for a condo to rent some units out, and to what extent—if at all—does it push down values? On the first question, an Elliman broker says, “if you start to rent 25 percent of the building or more, it takes on the flavor of a rental,” and on the second question, appraiser-guru Jonathan Miller says that “In the long run, there’s no impairment to value.”
Renters to the Rescue [NY Times]
Rentals, Price Cuts and Loan Extension at 1BBP [Brownstoner]
You are all completely missing the plot here. Renters affect value. It doesn’t matter how fair that it.
was it Tiki Barber? Thought it was Curtis Martin. Was it both of ’em and Just Tiki pulled out?
anyhow, I have to say I was a pretty good renter as far as keeping the place clean & nice. do acknowledge there’s a difference due to owning vs. renting but do suspect the bad renters (which give renters the bad name) are just bad – ie they’ll still be bad with their place when they own. If you like your place to nice & clean, you keep it nice & clean. if you don’t give a f, you don’t give a f. Owning vs. renting impacts it a little but for the person with the dont give a f mentality, I doubt they’ll keep their place that nice
“Of course, there are are exceptions on both sides, so its difficult to generalize.”
If you read the entire post, he/she says it doesn’t apply to every situation.
I would agree, owners have a greater stake and would obstensibly be viewed as more responsible. That said, I live near an owner who is known on our block for neglecting their property, and when I rented at Bergen/5th, I lived in a brownstone whose ground-floor tenant spent his own money to install a above-ground pool and deck in the back yard. It’s a case-by-case thing.
I can see being concerned with people who are so filthy they attract vermin and bugs into the entire building. But there is no guarantee that that person will be a renter or an owner, being a crappy housekeeper is not confined to whether or not someone’s name is on a deed or a lease. Pigs will be pigs either way. Wouldn’t it still be better to have an occupied building, with both owners and renters, who are all paying into the pot needed for upkeep, systems, etc, than having an exclusive owners only building that is on the verge of financial collapse? I don’t understand the antipathy towards the people who enable owners to keep on owning, whether in a brownstone, or a high rise.
May I point out that it is property owners who have literally destroyed some incredible properties to make rental units so poorly designed they would make a dead architect weep? Enough with the homeowner snobbery. i thought we got past this long ago. Treat people with contempt and they will respond the same way.
“Tiki Barber”
TRAITOR
crimsonson- sure renters don’t have the same stake in the building. But that doesn’t mean they don’t want to live as well as buyers, or that they care less about how they live. That’s a concept owners came up with- as i say, I’ve seen plenty of homeowners who treat their property like a rats nest. Stereotyping one group or another is foolish.
If these buildings do something about the amount of people that rent an apartment – then maybe owners will have nothing to worry about.
But if they allow 2 people to share a one bedroom and put up a pressurized wall to make the living room into a quasi bedroom, then you will have problems. (dorm room for post college youngins)
I also feel just b/c you can spend a lot on rent doesn’t mean you will take care of the place much more than someone who can’t afford high rental prices
I have rented to 3 different renters at a high rent in my bldg and I have to say they haven’t all kept he place as nice as I would have liked – it always depends on the person and how clean they beleive clean is…..