BREAKING: Tishman & Co. Buy Stuyvesant Town/Cooper Village for $5.4b

1.

Looks City Council member Garodnick will have to come up with an additonal $900 million to appease his rent-controlled constituency and keep up with Tishman.

2.

*tumbleweed blows by*

3.

Hoorray! Hurrah! Let us celebrate the grand victory of capitalism. This is a prime example how Laissez Faire works.

Let us build something productive and bury any notions of a welfare state. No more handouts. Let everyone enjoy the fruits of their own sweat.

Victory!

4.

Group of ugly buildings.

5.

Suck my ass after a smelly crap Viking

6.

In a perfect world they would bulldoze these housing projects, return the street grid and build a real neighborhood. I don't think they can build new buidlings there. Wonder if they can transfer air rights.

It will go from a middle class gated community to a luxury gated community. I expect it may become corporate housing for long term business visitors.

7.

So, I just closed on a Co-Op on 15th btwn 2nd & 3rd.

Any guesses as what this deal might do to the property value?

8.

Wouldn't everyone like it to be turned into Disneyland in NYC?

It was my first thought.

9.

We already have a Disneyland in NYC - it's called Times Square.

10.

Where is Shvo when we need him? Probably hovering around.

11.

Those buildings are the ugliest bunch of buildings I have ever seen. Blight comes to mind and hopefully, out of mind with something better.

12.

ahem....

http://www.calatrava.com/

Please replace with a significant modernist creation, not unattractive brick rectangles in the sky (cough, Sky House, J Condo, etc... hurl).

T'was a disastrous blight of ugly architecture and under-utilized space replacing a historic NY that once was there.

"Before the construction of Stuyvesant Town, the neighborhood contained eighteen typical city blocks, with public schools, churches, factories, private homes, apartments, small businesses, and even relatively new modern-style apartment buildings. In all, 600 buildings, containing 3,100 families, 500 stores and small factories, three churches, three schools, and two theaters, were destroyed."

Once before 11,000 people were kicked out... this time plan accordingly.

Amazing this town has so many skyscrapers, but so little risk taking in design.

13.

You mean screw the middle class m--f--r don't you? When did being a cop or a teacher become equivalent to a handout? A city full of greedy 30 something transplants from Nebraska gloating at the potential extinction of the very people who made this city a great place to live - fuck you all.

14.

Yeah hopefully the new buyer can change the look of those buildings! They are so old and ugly, just like the people who live there.

15.

Yeah hopefully you'll be runover by the M-1 bus real soon # 13. That would be one less.

16.

Let's not forget that at the time these were built they were as cutting edge as the "glass trailer parks" by Meier, Nouvel, et al.

And of all the Corb/Moses Style housing projects Stuyvesant is one of the most successful, both financially and socially.

17.

Ironic that one of the investors is the California State Teachers Association. None of its members will be able to afford to live there once the deal is closed.

18.

I keep hearing that Stuy Town "served as an affordable redoubt for generations of police officers, teachers, nurses and the like" (from the NYT story), but is that really true today? Can anyone prove that? Stuyvesant Town is in one of the richest zip codes in America. So maybe this was home to the middle class in 1952, and the middle class of our imagination now, but how many current NYPD officers really live there today?

19.

That's the whole idea isnt it? No one should be allowed to live in NYC. It's now become a great privilege and distinct honor- something along the lines of receiving an O.B.E.

20.

Cities are not, nor can they be islands of luxury. Who are these yahoos who think that there is an ever expanding supply of an elite to fill up NYC? When capitalism functions well it does so in no small part because of income variation and the prospects and dynacism (real or imagined) such pluralism brings. That reality has alot to do with social stability and progress, safety, the promotion of equality of opportunity, adequate public accomodations and a whole lot of other important shit. When any interest, public or private, has a huge impact on the fabric of a community there is a public interest in seeing how those, in this case, private rights are discharged. IMHO Speyer's best bet is to produce a mixed income development that can sustain his operating margin and lead to steady equity growth over time. Adding blythly to the current glut of luxury rentals will be a bad market play, a bad social play and just plain dumb. (Also while the buildings are just plum ugly --they have really really good floor plans for families)

21.

Stands up and gives herzen an ovation*

22.

I don't care that you're a "teacher" or a "cop". Why do you feel you're entitled to anything? If it's too expensive for you don't buy it, don't rent it, don't eat it. I'm sure you also feel that you're entitled to a BMW and a private jet. If you want those things, you should have planned your life better. Hell, I only make $49K before taxes and I have no delusion and no sense of entitlement. And, you know what I'm doing? I'm trying to make more money for myself, not asking for "f**king" charity!

23.

We all know what you're entitled to #21, we just can't provide it. Wrack your brain.

24.

first, never been to stuycoop, don't plan on going...it is a corner of manhattan that has absolutely no relevance to anybody who doesn't live there...don't understand why it is a bastion for anything in particular, other than a resounding vote of confidence in NYC and NYC real estate values, because...

second, if anyone thinks that NYC real estate values are going down, this should serve as the best counterfactual...professional long-term investors give a big vote of confidence...methinks this is a bit more relevant than miller's silly graph

25.

It's really quite sad to still hear people use workers-of-world-unite dogma to complain about their rising rents and how the "middle class" is entitled to a cheap apartment.

No one is entitled to anything. We live in a free market. And at the end of the day rent laws protect the few at the expense of many.

And for all of you who remind me of pre-1990 Muscovites, let me fill you in on one small but undeniable fact. Whenever a city has gotten rid of rent laws, the average rent has gone DOWN. Fact.

26.

And one other thing...

boo hoo Garodnick, socialist punk.

27.

Why do people think poor people are more entitled to places to live than rich people. The vacancy rate in luxury product is much smaller than the vacancy rate of affordable product. The city needs more luxury housing - vacancy rates prove it.

28.

1974baby you may want to get your facts from somewhere other than wikipedia.

It contained at least 4 huge gas tanks, which I'm sure you would not want to live near.
The Gashouse district was one of the least appealing neighborhoods in New York owing to the gas fumes that permeated the area.

Anyone today having something bad to say about the buildings and neighborhood has obviously never stepped foot into Stuy town and should have no real input into the dialogue and clearly should be disregarded. Other than the normal tenant complaints most families love living there as evident by the not moving out, low rent and all.

Let's hope Tishman-Speyer does the right thing, let's hope Doctoroff when talking to them these last couple of days worked a deal. Let's hope they don't break the current law. Let's hope corporate fascism doesn't evict people from their homes.

29.

Why is this all about the concept of entitlement? Poor people, rich people, middle class or anything in between - they/we all have the basic right to housing. It may not be to exact liking, might not be in Manhattan, but somewhere. Why don't we all just go to hell and live in the street?

30.

rescueblues(#27), If they pay 5.4 Billion they will want to make more money in the end. How can they make money and have rent control apartments in place. I don't think they are that stupid. So I suggest to start packing and move to Kansas already.

31.

Uh, 27... The Peter Cooper village EVICTED an entire neighborhood worth of people back in the 1940s.

Yeah, it had gas tanks and gangs.
DUH.
It also had history and fantastic beauty.

Greenpoint has tons of gas tanks-- so does Williamsburg, Red Hook, The West Side, etc..

DUMBO residents live next to a ConEd POWER PLANT.

And Peter Cooper Village people live next to the 14th Street power plant, duh.

I don't see developers running away from any of these areas, do you?

I say what goes around, comes around.
You evict people back in the 1940s... you get evicted 60 years later.
It's called karma.

See the Scollay Square disaster eviction of Boston in the 1950's.
It made the ugliest section of Boston from the most historical.
Hence, similarities to this situation.

32.

zumzoo-

You have not added anything to this forum except for childish, idiotic, defensive aggression. You are a loser aren't you? The sad thing is you know this.

Get professional help, else go to your local bartender for comfort and if we're lucky, we'll hear about your demise on the local 5 o'clock news.

33.

I've already made an appointment with your Pyschiatrist. Thanks for the referral.

34.

It seems almost biblical in justice...the people who live there now live on the lands that were seized by eminent domain by their (figurative) fathers. Now they too will be cast out, to wander in the cold, by the forces of power/wealth (billionaire funds like CALSTERS).

This is the seeds they have sown, this is the crop they reap by living in rent controlled occupied lands.

35.

Those who live in glass houses #31... put away the stones- you just told the guy we'd be lucky if he dropped dead. Doesn't exactly put you in the position to hand out any diagnosis.

36.

Effective 5pm Friday October 20, 2006 I will be resigning from my position as New York City Councilman for the 43rd district. I protest MetLife's sale and stand with my fellow tenants.

37.

I am salivating at the prospect of finally seeing a huge bolus of market rate housing hitting the Manhattan market. Simply put, increased supply means lower prices for everybody. It should finally take the squeeze off of the REST of us MIDDLE CLASS folk who are forced to pay through the nose to live in shit market rate apartments because of these elitist stabilized (white, affluent) rentocrats.

StuyCoop Rentocrats: start packing now. The condemnation notices are going out January 1, 2007.

38.

YEAH! force those families out because 60 years ago other people were forced out! Make the son pay for the sins of the father! Keep the cycle going! MONEY MONEY MONEY GREED GREED GREEED MWAHAHAHAHHA

39.

Hopefully these people have enough money saved up all these years from their rent control status to buy themselves a nice big home with a beautiful yard in the suburbs. It's probably better for their health. Who wants to stay in a place full of young, greedy, mean people.

40.

The best part of all is that every one of us would kill to bag a R.S. spacious 1brm in Stuy town. Don't anyone even try to deny it!

41.

too much drama. just a new owner. who will probably continue what metlife has already begun.
vacated apts. renovated and somehow brought past the magic $2000 monthly rent figure to be dereg.
Otherwise same old tenants continue with their stabilized or controlled apts.
Some of you make seem that new owner would mean mass eviction. wrong.
Never gonna be as desirable/luxury as new modern bldgs no matter how many stainless appliances or boring granite countertops they install.

42.

35, Mr. Garodnick: I guess now you will have to actually find an honest profession that pays you enough money to afford a market rate apartment in Manhattan. Heaven forbid!

43.

I'm at a loss as to what the deep beef is with Garodnick....he help put together a bid for christ's sake. Can't anyone compete? Thought that was the idea. Also the rent control bogeyman is losing steam folks. Apartments are being slowly (perhaps too slowly for some of you) but surely deregulated with rent and income caps and that good ol' standby death. There are less than 50,000 units in NYC that have rent control--that from a high of several million in the 50's. Rent control sure as hell isn't the dispositve factor is vacancy and production markets in this city.

Why don't some of you focus your outrage on zoning, labor and material costs, the dynamics of speculation and manias, and the peculiar and idiosyncratic failures of NYC in afforable housing production? They are all more germane to the bigger issue, but sadly for some it seems they don't offer the same easy thrill that a dead horse ideological straw man argument like rent control does.

44.

It'll be great! When all the rich people live in Manhattan, and the bombs start to fall, the poor win!
Remember, the luxury condos today are tomorrows projects.

45.

I don't know why you people think anyone other than the rich deserve to live in Manhattan. The island is prime real estate and the whole thing should be turned into a giant gated community.

All shitholes, tenaments and undesireables should immediately be evicted and moved out to Staten Island or the Bronx, or anywhere else for that matter.

The people with the money get Manhattan. The rest of you should just piss of and take your childhood photos of growing up here with you. You're dirty scum. Animals. Out. Now!

46.

#42: The issue here is not rent control. It's about rent regulation, in particular, rent stabilization. There are OVER a MILLION rent stabilized apartments in NYC. That's a huge percentage of the housing stock! And hmmm... and what percentage of the available vacant apartments out there are rent stabilized? Hmmm... I would venture to guess it's a fraction of a fraction of a percent. Rent regulation encourages people to sit on their apartments until they die, and even beyond, thereby creating a scarcity of available housing, thereby driving up the rents to ridiculous rates. There are probably countless WEALTHY blue hairs out there who would love to pack it in and head south to Florida. But why should they do that if they have lucked into this fabulous stranglehold over SOMEONE ELSE'S APARTMENT that they can keep and rent for peanuts and bequeath to their children like a precious family heirloom? It sure would suck to be an active participant in capitalism, wouldn't it?

And why do you think somehow rent regulation is not partially responsible for the run-up in housing costs for the masses?

47.

Posting number 35 is a fraud. Garodnick rules!

48.

Andrew Sullivan, my chief of staff, will be assuming my seat for the 4th district of the New York City Council, effective 5:01pm Friday, October 20, 2006.

49.

Manhattan will soon be a place where only the very rich can live. It is it's destiny. I am not saying that this is a good thing. I am just saying, it is going to happen. Of course Stuy Town will soon be luxury buildings. Of course middle-income people will not be considered. What I don't understand is why everyone who comments on Curbed is so shocked. America has always been about making money and although it's wonderful that people can work hard and reap the benefits from their hard labor, to some degree, there are bad points that come along with this idea.

If you have ever been to London, you will know that the city is made into Zones, with central London being in Zone 1. This is where Buckingham Palace is, Parliament, Westminster and Chelsea. You have to be very wealthy to own in central London. Prices come down as you get further and further from central London and into Zones 2, 3, etc (although it is still expensive). This is exactly what is going to happen in New York. So stop whining about how Manhattan is going to be an island of luxury, accept it and put your energy into either working harder and making money if this is truly where you would like to live, or put your energy into something else, something that you personlly believe has value, and live where you feel comfortable and can make ends meet. I mean, this is not even a debate. Soon only millionaires will only be able to own in Manhattan. Accept it and move on.

50.

Ed #44--thanks for at the very least moving the conversation on to a real issue. "Rent contol" has been the boogeyman for many posters adn I wanted to point out that rent control is a non issue. Now as for rent stabilzation--how many of those 1 million units were produced with 421-A or J-51 tax abatements? Also what is the rate of de-regulation of stabilized apartments today (I would venture not an insignifcant dynamic since the $2000/month tripping point is the operational trigger)?

Also all new constrution since 1974 has been largely exempt from rent stabilization (other than for thpose who benefited by the aforemetnioned tax breaks).

Rent stabiliztion clearly has had the effect of moderateing profits, but hardly extinguishing them for RE investors (myself included). They do function as a tradeoff for promoting a particular notion of the social contact. A trade off I'm willing ot sanction. Sure stabilization has to some extent impacted market dynamics but no more or no less than incentivising certain kinds of ownership and developemtn through the tax code. I still maintain that the factors most inhibitive to the production of affordade housing are the different ones I enumerated above. Can you acede that apart from regulation issues there remains a systemic failure to produce enough afforable housing in NYC? Also are you willing to make an argument against rent stabilization that includes the aboliton of market intervetnions and incentives by government that work to the benefit of builders/owners?

51.

When I wish to see some grass roots culture, it never seems to be in Manhattan. I'm finding less and less reasons to go there. And I lived in Manhattan the first 27 years of my life. Back in the 70's and 80's , it was the only place to go. Not anymore.

52.

Economics is a science. Why do people insist on trying to refute this simple fact. It simply boggles my mind why and how people try to argue against economic free-market principles. It is exactly like how the far right tries to argue against stem cell research. Both sides, including those arguing for rent control, lack the ability to think rationally.

53.

Thats ok steve, we dont want crappy visitors like you anymore. Have a good day!

54.

Someone provide some facts that for every apartment that went off rent control or off rent stabalization in the last 10-15 years in NYC resulted in an overall market rate drop across all units in the city. Are these your arguments against rent stabalized apartments, that they drive the market rate up.
Let's take Stuyvesant Town as the example, the place we filled to capacity when it was all rent stabalized in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, then units began turning into market rate units and I have not seen those market rates drop, on the contrary they continually increased even when more became available (while MetLife also continued to sit on vacant apartments waiting for them to turnover just to increase the rent, which equals less housing in general).

55.

The new owner will need to live with the terms of the existing rent stabelized leases, which permit the current tenants to stay in their apts so long as they don't exceed the income and rent caps. I don't see how Tishman Speyer is going to turn ST PSV into all market rate apartments overnight. Tishman will be subject to the same restrictions that Met Life is currently subject to (and let's not forget that Met Life is a for profit corporation just like Tishman Speyer is). In my mind, the reason why the tenants arguments are not gaining the traction with Bloomberg, etc is because they already have protection through their leases. It seems that the tenants are afraid of some unknown, but according to the terms of their leases and the rent regulation laws, I don't see things changing much for them.

56.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Stuy Town residents (and others) when the current rent stabilization laws come up for renewal in a few years. Wonder how the soon to be new governor will handle it. Herzen, thanks for being a sane voice in this often very immature dialogue re: condos and the rich vs the wicked entitled middle class.

57.

Will someone please explain how this new ownership is somehow different than Met Life owning it? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know how a different owner is more "dangerous" to the renters than Met Life.

58.

[as I posted on Gothamist]

Welcome to New York City, people. It's the world's largest economic hub and home to some of its hottest real estate. You're not entitled to live here. If you can't afford it, move somewhere else. All rent stabilization does is decrease supply and drive up costs for the rest of us.

59.

my neighbor is a retired police officer. you have to realize that most of the people that live in stuy town are elderly. many truly are retired teachers, and policemen.

and garodnick lives in a market rate apartment- me too.

rent stabilized tenants can't be thrown out, just us market raters.

60.

you morons just don't get it: Manhattan is a shithole to live in and a city where you don't get value for your money- unlike cities as London, where it's expensive but where you enjoy living expensively. Manhattan lost all its appeal with every additional starbucks. just shell out your 1.3 mill. to live in a shitty 1970s high-rise 2bdr above 14th and below 110th Streets with six-lane autobahns cutting through every block, shitty entertainment around, shitty restaurants ( excpet the top-end), shitty food stores etc. Below 14th Street everything is either totally mallified are just not appealing. I can't believe people pay that money to live there - I only do b/c it's paid by the corporation. Otherwise, I'd be gone to friggin' Park Slope, Harlem or something right now ... even better ... Berlin.

61.

my daughter's first grade teacher lives in stuytown, for what it's worth.

62.

Rent stabilization is unAmerican - it should be abolished for this simple fact.

63.

Welcome to NYC, 58? Born and bred, idiot.

64.

It is very simple. If the wealthy want something, they'll take it! Just ask the Native Americans.... The elite wanted Iraq, they took Iraq. The elite want NY, they'll take NY. You (anyone who isn't wealthy) will only be considered on the basis of how you can serve the rich. You are entitled to live where the wealthy do not, you are entitled to serve the elite in any way they fashion for you, you are entitled to work long hours for little money, you are entitled to a 1 hour commute, you are entitled to facilitate the needs of the wealthy, you are entitled to what the wealthy entitle for you. Those ARE YOUR entitlements. Slavery never ended folks, it was just reinvented.

65.

#64. Wow! You are very dumb. Perhaps you can receive tutoring to help you improve how the world works. I've heard and read some really idiotic comments but yours is over the top. The sad thing is you don't understand nor will you ever understand the fallacy and the utter non-sense you're spewing. Your low IQ does not entitle you to a rent stabilized apartment at the expense of the rest of us.

66.

Working and therefore having a boss is the same as slavery? #64 what have you been snorting up your nose? You're an irrelevant moron. Hopefully, the Entitlement Generation will have a quick death. Good Riddance.

67.

Big thumbs-up to #60 - I'd be out of here real fast, and living in Europe if I had my way. But there was a time when NYC had a soul and it really meant something to live here.. before it was raped and pillaged by corporate america and stabbed in the heart by hipsters and the entitlement generation nitwits.

68.

We dont' want you either u stupid cunt

Thats ok steve, we dont want crappy visitors like you anymore. Have a good day!

69.

#64 I think you're entitled to whatever free market provides. The rich will always have better living conditions. We are really not talking about the wealhty. I don't think Donald Trump is looking to live in this complex, with all due respect. Those paying market rates are those who go to work every day and work very hard to make ends meet. There's no reason who one group of middle class should pay lower rents simply because they were fortunate to rent their apartments many years ago.

70.

I live in a market rate apartment on 14th St. with my roommate who happens to be a teacher, for what it's worth.

71.

freddup

You are either an idiot or have selective memory. Do a Google on the "Entitlement Generation." You will find that it's not the hipsters, but the old ass losers of NYC. You’re probably one as well if your flame warrior comments are of any indication.

72.

#71
And you're either suffering from a cognitive disorder, ok you're just plain stupid. Just for the record, I am 37, hardly a "old ass loser" nor part of the Entitlement Genre. However,I was born and raised in this city, and in that sense I feel completely entitled to my view on what's happened to NYC, and equivalently entitled to call you a moron.

73.

Hey! No one ever answered my question as to what they thought this deal will do to property values in neighbooring areas. Or in Manhattan in general. Do you think that once the condoization of Stuy Town is complete, that the huge bump in inventory will push down prices all over the city, and especially in nearby areas?
Any comments at all?

74.

Okay. I'm not going to resign. I spoke with Jerry Speyer this morning and he's going to waive my rent if I provide him with a list of all the illegal subletters in Stuy Town/Peter Cooper.

Sorry to my constituency but $50,000 in free rent pays for a lot of hookers and blow.

75.

Eric, it's still a drop in a bucket in New York. I'd imagine that if anything property values will go up because wealthier people will move in and the area will improve.

76.

Yep, I knew Shvo is just around the corner. Hovering for a good marketing deal.

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/What_does_the_sale_of_Stuy_Town_mean_for_city_real_estate/5191.html

77.

Anyone who describes living in Manhattan, or America for that matter, as living in a "free market" is a fucking idiot. While Bloomberg and previous Republican administrations have saw fit to let rent-control and stab units go the way of the dinosaur, they continue to fully support the J-51 tax abatement program for new development condominiums. Subsidizing for 20 years rich people's real estate taxes. There is no such thing as a "free-market" anywhere in the world. Bring it.

78.

#77

Another wrong does not make it right. The tax abatement were designed to spur development in the city and provide more affordable housing for New Yorkers. Yes, after the run up in real estate prices, most of the tax abatement programs seem outdated. And Bloomber just a few days ago proposed changes. It takes time to change any program. In any case, that does not make the rent control and rent stabilization laws reasonable.

79.

Regarding why tenants are nervous considering Tishman (a for profit company) will be required to follow the same rules as Met Life (a for profit company).
The issue is that thousands (yes definitely thousands) of the current tenants at STPCV are illegal sub-letters or make too much money for their $2K+ stabilized rental. It's clear that Tishman is buying this place to aggressively enforce the rules of rent stabilization which Met Life failed to do. These rules are SOOOOO tenant friendly that legit renters have NOTHING to worry about.
If your rent is north of $2K and your income for the last 2 years is above $175K you will now be out of your apartment - before you could stay - if you live in the Hamptons and pay $500 for a stabilized 2 bedroom, but rent it out to your nieces friend for a $2K - you'll lose the apartment and the income.
Legit tenants have nothing to worry about -actually for them they should be excited - the place will definitely get better - I wouldn't be surprised if each building gets a doorman, if the safety improves, and if more amenities are added.
Again, it's the tenants who have been cheating the system who are trying to protect their interests - they have failed and will rightly be finding new apartments - which will free up more, much needed, free market apartment rentals.

80.

Man, this deal is soooo counter to the soul of new york. This city has always been about egalitarianism, people helping each other out, neighbors borrowing cups of sugar from each other. Respect for the past. Why did these fat cat corporate types have to move in here and ruin everything. It was better when it was all just artists, firefighters, cops and writers living here. I'm moving to London where my dollars will go much farther.

81.

It's still egalitarian. You must work for it though, like always. It's not communism or socialism or democracy but a republic. Republic vs. Democracy, and I'm not talking about the political parties.

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Though, we're leaning more and more towards a Democracy year after year then Mobocracy and after that is Dictatorship. It's cyclical.

82.

#78. I concur Leo that "another wrong does not make a right". Bloomberg mentioned revisiting the tax abatement law a few months ago and we haven't heard from it since. A small part of his "swing to the left". You still can't tell me we live in "free market" society. Everything is somehow subsidized.

83.

The US is not the most "free" in the market. The country with the most free market is #1.Hong Kong and the US is at 10th place ranked #9. I'm sure a lot of spoon fed media sheepacracy would be shocked, just shocked to learn otherwise. Though, last year the US was ranked #13. It's getting better and of course some states are more free than others as are some cities.

Source http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

1. Hong Kong ............9. New Zealand
2. Singapore ...........12. Finland
3. Ireland.................12. Canada
4. Luxembourg.........14. Chile
5. United Kingdom...15. Switzerland
6. Iceland ................16. Cyprus
7. Estonia ................16. Netherlands
8. Denmark ..............18. Austria
9. Australia...............19. Germany
9. United States.......19. Sweden

84.

Free market for renters, govt. subsidies for real estate developers. Surely, this is nirvana!

85.

Even though this thread is dead, I still wanted to let #83 know that the link was most insightful. Thx.

86.

I think they should tear a few of these heaping pieces of shit down, move people from the water towards 1st Ave, and build a few stunning new buildings on the waterfront. Why they ever allowed such ugly buildings to be built in the first place is beyond me. NYC needs to better consider development along the waterfront, and actually use the shores more effectively.

87.

Yo! I grew up in Stuy Town and it was great, back in the day. It's not the same anymore! We grew up in a place that was safe, we looked out for each other we KNEW everybody by name. Some of our parents and grandparents still live there and I have no doubt that they will be allowed to live out their days in peace by the new owners. Once they have passed on and their apartments are empty, the new owners can do what they want. Nothing stays the same forever. I hope that there are still people like me out there who remember it as a nice place to have grown up. We now live in the suburbs and my kids have a backyard and other kids who know their names.