Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
On the other hand, there would only be 11 condo units in this building, many of which would likely be investment properties or pied-a-terres for the wealthy. And what is it replacing? A rental building with 128 units, occupied by working class people who now need to search for new apartments in a city with short housing supply.
|
An 11-unit superluxury development will generate many multiples in city taxes than a 128 unit single room occupancy dwelling. And there should be no SROs on superprime land on the UWS.
And it's unlikely any of the units will be pied-a-terres or investment properties, not that it matters much for tax purposes. The Upper West Side condo market is overwhelmingly oriented towards locals. And people don't typically buy gigantic, four-five bedroom family-oriented pied-a-terres or investment properties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan
So really, is the health of the city improved by the design/construction jobs, doorman/maintenance/building super jobs, and property tax revenue created by the new 11 story condo? Or would it be better with 128 apartment units being maintained within a city that has a housing shortage? You decide.
|
That's not the choice. The choice is between an empty building with one holdout generating virtually no revenue and a full building of families generating tens of millions in revenue. The city can build SROs on cheaper land, but of course the same people advocating for these absurd tenant laws simultaneously oppose new housing.