I’ve got a bone to pick with the NY Times Real Estate section. The paper of record seems to think real estate in the big apple is limited to penthouses and millionaire buyers find the just-so-perfect-I-could-shit spot on Park Avenue. Or the unlikely palace in (gasp!) Harlem.
But what about the rest of us? The other 98% of the electorate who are paying insane amounts of money to live with two or three people we find on Craig’s List until we get married and barely eck out enough cash for an even more overpriced one-bedroom somewhere in Brooklyn? Has the Times noticed that rents are rising and salaries are dropping? Here’s a story pitch for them:
Write about yourselves, dummies!
If The Times is anything like the rest of Manhattan its staffed by people who have roommates, are struggling to pay their ridiculous iPhone bills, basic cable (if you’re over 30) and still maintain a social life.
Is it just me, or do landlords just need to be stopped? A had a brief conversation with a friend the other day, who was thinking of moving from her $1600-a-month 400-square foot studio in Murray Hill. She thought it was a good deal, because she got a doorman and an elevator. (I can’t count the number of times I’ve visited her and found the lobby empty.) But the thing is she’s looking to upgrade to a one bedroom. The price of what she was looking at? $1900.
I don’t care where the damned apartment is. The value of the space is not $1600, let alone $1900 just to have a bedroom. We’re getting screwed like streetwalkers and because we were flooded with ditzy fly-over-staters in the early part of the century, schister landlords have been making money hand over fist on properties that offer little or no privacy.
We shouldn’t have to dodge bullets just to find an apartment we can afford with some personal space to boot.
And its time The Times, or anyone, started talking about real estate that the vast majority of New Yorkers interact with.