But rumors don’t always reflect the reality of rent-controlled versus rent-stabilized apartments in NYC. Yes, they exist, though the odds of snagging one make it likelier to win the Powerball. That they go for peanuts is another common misconception.

The reality is that the rent for a rent-stabilized unit can range from around $1,000 to upwards of $3,000, depending on the building’s age, whether it has any tax abatements, and other statutory rules.

So, how does one go about finding a rent-regulated apartment in New York City? We’ll get to that in a moment.

First, let’s clear up the confusion between the terms “rent-regulated,” “rent-controlled,” and “rent-stabilized,” as well as explain how they came to be.

What Are Rent-Regulated Apartments, and Where Did They Come From?

“Rent-regulated” is an umbrella term that refers to both rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments, similar to how “tubers” may refer to both Idaho potatoes and sweet potatoes.

What Is A Rent-Controlled Apartment?

Rent-controlled units are perhaps the most enigmatic of the two. For starters, they’re among the oldest type of rental dwellings in NYC, having been established in 1943. In November of that year, the city’s Office of Price Administration (OPA) froze rental rates in New York at the same level they were on March 1st, 1943. The OPA emerged from then-U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Emergency Price Control Act, which sought to prevent inflation during World War II. The price administration office has since dissolved.

Rent-controlled apartments must be continuously occupied since July 1, 1971, but if the tenant moves out or dies, another family member or person is eligible to continue the rent-controlled status if they lived there for 1-2 years prior.

In 1950, when rent-control laws were formally codified in New York State, there were approximately 2.1 million apartments in NYC that were subject to rent regulation. 

In 2021, however, the city’s Housing and Vacancy Survey reported fewer than 17,000 rent-controlled units in the city.

What Is A Rent-Stabilized Apartment?

Rent-stabilized apartments, on the other hand, made up roughly one-third of the city’s rental stock, with about 1.1 million units. The Rent Stabilization Act of 1969 defined them as apartments in buildings with six or more units built before January 1st, 1974. Tenants who took occupancy after June 30th, 1971, are considered rent-stabilized. Those who maintained occupancy before July 1st, 1971, are generally considered rent-controlled.

While rent-stabilized apartments are typically found in buildings built after 1947 and before 1974,  there are some exceptions for newer buildings that have J-51, 421-a, and 421-g tax benefits. Developers who renovate existing buildings and/or designate 20% of new-construction units as rent-stabilized may qualify for these benefits. The period for these incentives lasts roughly 10 to 35 years, depending on the building’s qualifying status.

What Are the Benefits of Rent-Regulated Apartments?

Besides paying below-market rent, one of the key benefits of living in a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartment is that the landlord can’t increase the rent beyond a marginal percentage, as set by the New York City Rent Guidelines Board.

Each year, the board votes on a percentage increase cap for one- and two-year leases that fall under rent stabilization laws. On June 21st, 2022, the board voted to cap rent increases at 3.25% for one-year leases and 5% for two-year leases signed between October 1st, 2022, and September 30th, 2023.

Another benefit is that landlords can’t evict tenants from rent-regulated apartments without a compelling reason, such as nonpayment of rent or violating the lease terms. Stabilized units are also guaranteed a renewal offer with one- and two-year terms, depending on the renter’s preference.

By contrast, tenants in rent-controlled apartments are considered “statutory,” meaning they’re still protected by the Emergency Housing Rent Control Law of 1946. This law doesn’t require landlords to offer renewal leases and makes it even harder for them to file eviction proceedings.

How Much Do Rent-Regulated Apartments Cost in NYC?

Rent-controlled apartments typically have the lowest rental rates in NYC. A 2022 article by The Guardian found that long-term renters in sought-after areas of Manhattan (think: East, West, and Greenwich villages) were paying as little as $820 a month for their rent-controlled units. Most of these were unrenovated and came with little-to-no amenities. But that didn’t stop their leaseholders from staying put since the ’60s and early ‘70s, if not before.

Rent-stabilized apartments, on the other hand, can range from around $1,000 to a max of $2,700 per month, unless the building was built after 1974 and has the 421-a tax abatement. In that case, tenants may sign a rent-stabilized lease with a rent amount that reflects the current market rate.

In other words, rent-stabilized apartments in NYC can cost more than $2,700 a month, so tenants need to do their research and understand what they’re signing before they move in.

The good news is that market-rate units that offer stabilized leases enjoy regulations enforced by the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). These include a renewal offer if the resident is in good standing and an annual rent increase percentage cap.

Do I Have a Shot at Finding a Rent-Controlled Apartment?

Given the scarcity of rent-controlled units in NYC, it’s highly unlikely that a new renter without ties to the unit’s original occupant will find one.

The same can be said for rent-stabilized units, except that these are not as rare. After all, rent-stabilized apartments make up roughly 30% of rental units in NYC.

But winning the “Powerball” of affordable housing in the Big Apple isn’t impossible. Those with family members who already live in stabilized units can benefit from the DHCR’s Succession Rights. The law states that family members have the right to a renewal lease or protection from eviction if they resided with the tenant as a primary residence for two years immediately before the permanent departure from the apartment by the original tenant.

A family member can be a spouse, stepson, father-in-law, or anyone else who can prove an “emotional and financial commitment and interdependence between such person(s) and the tenant.” This means a roommate may be eligible if they can prove a close relationship with the leaseholder.

How Can I Tell If an Apartment Is Rent-Stabilized?

We know that rent-stabilized apartments are more commonly found in buildings built before 1974 and that they’re probably not as renovated as newer, fair-market units.

But how can a prospective renter be sure? According to the NYC Rent Guidelines Board, the only way to know for sure is to contact the Office of Rent Administration.

This can be useful when dealing with a landlord who either refuses to confirm whether the apartment is rent-stabilized or claims it isn’t when in fact it is.

It can also clear up any confusion about the units in older buildings that may appear to be stabilized because they haven’t undergone a complete renovation over the years but are, in fact, fair-market or market-rate units.

How To Find a Rent-Stabilized Apartment in NYC

There are several ways prospective renters can hunt for rent-regulated apartments in NYC. The first is to run a rent-regulated building search on the DHCR’s website. Before that, however, renters should take note of the county names and zip codes they’re interested in and narrow their search to those areas. This can save them a lot of time, especially if they’re looking for rent-stabilized units in the highly competitive Brooklyn and Manhattan markets.

Another way to find rent-stabilized apartments in NYC is by checking NYC Housing Connect. This website allows prospective renters to apply for lottery-based affordable housing based on their household count and income levels. The lottery usually precludes applicants who earn more than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for their area, but this varies from building to building. It’s also important to note that these rent-regulated units are in high demand, with long waiting lists and thousands of applicants vying for a single spot.

Lastly, renters can try their luck with online rental platforms. Typing in “rent-stabilized” or “rent-regulated” into the search engine might yield some promising results. When reaching out to the landlord or listing agent, it’s important to ask what type of lease they’re offering and any potential limitations or benefits that come with it.

Is it possible to find a rent-stabilized or rent-controlled apartment in NYC?

Although it may be difficult, it is not impossible to find rent-stabilized and rent-controlled apartments in NYC.

Thankfully, the city has passed numerous laws to protect rent-regulated tenants from eviction and provide some rights for family members of current leaseholders. Additionally, landmark decisions like the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 prevent landlords from deregulating newly vacated units or charging more than 20% upon vacancy.

By utilizing the DHCR website for building searches, Housing Connect for affordable housing lotteries, and online rental platforms for rent-stabilized units, there’s yet hope for prospective renters who want to live affordably in NYC. Word-of-mouth can also be a powerful tool in the search, so New Yorkers who are in it for the long haul should keep their eyes and ears open.

Good luck!

The post Everything You Need to Know About Rent Control vs. Rent Stabilized in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.

So, what can real estate professionals do when the time comes to switch brokers? How do they evaluate which firm is the right fit? And how can they transition smoothly without disrupting their customer base?

At CitySignal, we found that while there’s no one-size-fits-all criterion when it comes to choosing a new broker, there are some key questions and factors to consider.

When Do I Know It’s Time to Switch Brokerages?

“The first step is to determine why you’re looking for a change,” says Yael Dawson, who has worked as a licensed real estate professional in NYC for the last decade. “Brokerages vary greatly in how they treat their agents, how much support they provide, how their commission split works, and how much they trust you to handle your business. You want to be sure that the new firm aligns with your long-term goals and values you as an agent.”

Dawson started her real estate career at Anchor Associates, which some agents may label as a “starter” brokerage. These smaller firms tend to charge a higher commission split, such as 70/30 or 60/40, because they’re taking on new agents who are likely to make more mistakes. These errors can be costly for the brokerage, not only in terms of money but also when it comes to their credibility with landlords across the city.

Dawson recalls a time when a colleague accidentally CC’d their client on an email that was intended for the landlord’s agent only. The client had been upset about how long it was taking to secure an apartment, especially since the landlord rejected their initial offer, and decided to email the landlord’s agent directly.

What the client didn’t know was that the landlord’s agent had a reputation for killing deals whenever there was a breach of protocol. The client should have never been included in the email chain, and when they were, the landlord canceled the deal and threatened to blacklist Anchor Associates.

“Fortunately, that didn’t happen,” Dawson remembers. “Anchor was able to make things right and continue working with the landlord. Our office manager was very understanding and treated the agent involved with kindness. But not all brokerages are as forgiving, so it’s important to find out how a firm handles these types of situations.”

This is just one example in a long list of reasons why real estate agents in NYC may decide to switch brokerages or stay where they are. For Shawn Jenkins, who transitioned from a rental-driven firm to join Corcoran’s luxury sales team, the decision was all about finding a place to grow.

“I was working as a rental agent and wanted to take my career to the next level,” says Jenkins. “Sales [was the obvious choice]. I’m a natural self-starter, so all I needed was a toolkit to help accelerate my career into sales.”

Jenkins knew that Corcoran was the place to be if he wanted to make a name for himself in the luxury sales market, which is off to a great start having already closed a deal over $1 million in Sunset Park. But not all agents have the same sense of clarity or ambition. In some cases, the decision to switch brokerages is more about flexibility or necessity. If an agent’s clients have outgrown their current firm, or if the brokerage is unable to provide them with the tools and support they need, then it might be time to make a change.

But with so many different business models, how can real estate professionals ensure they’re making the right choice?

What Are the Different Brokerage Options and Which One Is Right for Me?

When exploring the different brokerage options in NYC, Dawson recommends making a list of both personal and business objectives. Once the agent has an idea of what those are, it will be much simpler to determine which potential firm is likelier to help them achieve their goals.

“It’s like any other job search,” she explains. “You need to know what you’re looking for and how the chosen firm can help you get there. But unlike a traditional job where you earn an hourly wage or get paid a salary, how much you make as a real estate agent depends on how much you put in. So it’s important to understand how the commission split works and how much support, training, and resources you’ll get for your investment.”

Compensation Models for Brokerages

To illustrate Dawson’s point, here are some examples of the different compensation models adopted by brokerages across NYC:

• Experimental Firm A lets you keep 100% of the commission as long as you pay a monthly desk fee. This fee covers office space and administrative support but does not include training or continuing education. It ranges from $500 to $1,500 per month, depending on the broker’s needs.
• Established Firm B offers an 80/20 split with no monthly desk fees, but the agent would be responsible for all marketing costs associated with their listings, plus other out-of-pocket expenses. At $6 per day just to advertise on Streeteasy, these fees can add up quickly.
• Starter Firm C proposes a 50/50 split. It covers half the cost of marketing and provides continuing education for the agent in the form of webinars and negotiation workshops. But the firm lacks exclusive listings and hasn’t fostered any long-term relationships with landlords. This means the agent will have to compete with thousands of real estate professionals for the same open listings, hustling to secure deals.
• Salary Firm D offers a base minimum of $50,000 per year with monthly bonuses based on KPIs (e.g., lead-response rate, closed deals, customer service ratings, etc.) Put another way, the firm holds onto most of the commission in exchange for providing the agent with a steady paycheck and additional incentives.

Agents who have built a strong referral network and generate a steady stream of leads might be better off going with Firms A or B. On the other hand, agents who are just starting or take a more passive approach to their business might benefit more from Firms C or D. It depends on the agent’s level of expertise, customer base, whether they need hands-on support, and how much time and money they’re willing to invest in their business.

But these aren’t the only factors that differentiate NYC brokerages. Some firms specialize in specific neighborhoods or boroughs while others have a more global reach. Others embrace new technologies like DocuSign, chatbots, and marketing automation, making it easier for buyers and sellers to engage with the firm. Hidebound agencies, on the other hand, are being left in the dust as more and more firms adopt these cutting-edge tools.

All that said, some real estate agents will prioritize company culture over everything else, including the potential for higher commissions.

How Important Is Company Culture When Switching Brokers?

Fern Kamins, a former agent at Anchor Associates, didn’t choose to join Elegran two years ago. She just happened to be sponsored by Anchor when Elegran acquired the smaller company in 2020. The warm welcome she received from her new broker was one of the main reasons she decided to stay.

“The company culture at Elegan is wonderful,” Kamins says. “The management team is forward-thinking, empathetic, and always available to answer questions. It’s a great place to build relationships and grow your real estate career.”

Kamins has been selling real estate in Brooklyn and Manhattan for over 40 years, recently closing several deals at 225 Adams Street in Brooklyn. She’s witnessed how the industry has changed over time and believes that company culture plays a vital role in the agent’s success.

“Everybody thinks that [real estate agents] are stabbing each other in the back,” she remarks. “If you go to the right firm, that isn’t true.”

She continues: “Sadly, many agents prioritize the deal over each other. A toxic company culture perpetuates the stereotype of the agent as a selfish individual whose only goal is to close deals. But Elegran breaks that stereotype. It creates a supportive and respectful environment where agents are valued regardless of their experience level. That’s why I’m still here.”

We asked Kamins if she’s ever worked at a cut-throat real estate firm like the one depicted in David Mamet’s 1992 film “Glengarry Glen Ross.” In one scene, Alec Baldwin’s character famously delivers an eight-minute speech about how “it takes brass balls to sell real estate” and how “coffee’s for closers only.”

Kamins laughed. “I’ve certainly heard of scare tactics used at some brokerages to keep agents ‘motivated,’ if you could call it that,” she said. “I haven’t worked in a place like that myself. I think that if the brokerage environment is clearly toxic, agents shouldn’t hesitate to switch. You don’t need someone yelling at you to do your job.”

Has Kamins’ transition been smooth? “For the most part, yes,” she assured us. “Most of my business is referral-based or working with repeat clients, so I never had to worry about how the switch would affect my business. When I make a switch, I bring my clients with me. It’s that simple.”

When we asked her what advice she had for agents who are considering switching to a different brokerage, Kamins was adamant:

“Figure out your goals, research different firms, and don’t get too hung up on the commission split,” she said. “The most important thing is to find a place that feels like home so you can build meaningful relationships with colleagues and clients alike.”

What Steps Should Agents Take When Switching Brokers?

If you’re a real estate agent who’s just decided to switch brokerages, here are some tips to make your transition as smooth as possible:

1. Notify your current broker before officially resigning (this can be two weeks or 30 days in advance depending on your employment terms).
2. Discuss your current listings with your broker to coordinate how they will be handled after you leave. In some cases, you’ll need to wait until the listing expires before it can be transferred to your new broker.
3. Email your current broker a list of any pending commissions and CC your personal email. This is a great way to keep track of how much money you’re owed since brokers can take time to process commission payments.
4. Bring any documents and information related to your current listings with you when you go to your new broker.
5. Get a confirmation from your old brokerage that your real estate license is no longer sponsored by the firm before you submit the necessary paperwork to your new sponsor.
6. Notify your clients about your move and make sure they know how to get in touch with you at the new brokerage.

The Takeaway

There’s a lot to think about when switching real estate brokerages. One of the most important considerations is finding a firm that provides the support and culture the agent will need to succeed in this ultra-competitive industry. Setting realistic goals and choosing the most effective compensation structure to meet those goals is also essential.

Finally, agents should carefully navigate the process of switching brokers by asking as many questions as they need to feel comfortable with their decision. Taking these steps will help make the transition to a new brokerage as seamless and successful as possible.

The post When and How to Transition to a New Real Estate Brokerage appeared first on CitySignal.

But what exactly is eminent domain? How does it work? And should New Yorkers be worried?

In this article, we’ll explore the roots of property and land seizure by condemnation, its application in the Big Apple, and what it implies for the rights of homeowners.

What Is Eminent Domain?

Eminent domain is a power of government that allows it to take private property for public use, usually through condemnation laws that vary from state to state. Government agencies may exercise this power to condemn any property or land parcel in order to build roads, schools, and other public projects. In some cases, it can be used to acquire land for commercial purposes such as urban redevelopment or to fight economic stagnation in certain areas.

When framed as a public-interest endeavor, eminent domain rings altruistic, especially when blighted areas are suddenly transformed with fresh housing and retail, providing jobs and other economic opportunities for the area’s citizens. But eminent domain is one of the most controversial powers of government, with some opponents viewing it as a medieval undertaking in modern times. Picture it: Government officials (or “lords”) show up at the property, declare that it’s needed for the public good (or maybe the “king” just wants it for a topiary garden), and take the land away from its owners. Never mind the livelihoods that are lost in the process, the countless memories of a place where one once built a life.

Of course, this is a rather dramatic way of looking at eminent domain. But rightly so. It illustrates the profound power and authority the U.S. government can exercise when it comes to real property and land acquisition. One day you may own a charming pink-and-white Victorian in New London, Connecticut, and the next day it could be bulldozed to make room for a Pfizer pharmaceutical plant.

This happened, by the way, in 2005, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London that eminent domain was constitutional, even for private commercial use. Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, alongside New London officials, envisioned a large-scale urban development project that included a hotel, a conference center, and new condominiums. To fulfill their vision, 15 property owners in the area were forced to sell and move out, including Suzette Kelo, who owned the pink-and-white house. However, the defendant’s argument that eminent domain was being abused was rejected by the Supreme Court. The little pink house was eventually relocated, but the case lived on in notoriety.

The little pink house at its new location in New London, CT.

Where Did Eminent Domain Come From?

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

By using such language, the framers of the Bill of Rights recognized eminent domain as a necessary government power. It’s okay to seize property, they said, just don’t rip off homeowners. Instead, justly compensate them, which today means paying the fair market value of a home to seize it, whether the homeowner likes it or not.

Although the power of eminent domain was established in the Bill of Rights, the term itself has been around for centuries. It derives from the Latin Eminenes Dominium, meaning “supreme lordship,” which, again, conjures up images of serfs and lords.

But are there moments when eminent domain is essential to create the kind of much-needed change that comes from urban renewal and redevelopment? It’s hard to argue “no” exclusively. An abandoned factory in Detroit, for instance, may be better served by a medical center or a community garden. The same goes for a long-neglected lot in Brooklyn that could be transformed into an affordable housing complex.

These public projects may enhance the lives of community members who, for some reason or another, have been underserved over time. They’re good things, whether or not they rise from the rubble of eminent domain.

It’s the abuse of this practice for private financial gain, however, that’s often too hard to swallow.

Does Eminent Domain Abuse Exist in New York City?

New York City is no stranger to eminent domain abuse.

One example is the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, which was later renamed “Pacific Park,” though YIMBYs might argue that the verdict is still out on this particular development because it hasn’t been fully completed.

The project, which came about in the early aughts and is slated for completion by 2035, involved the eminent domain acquisition of 22 acres in Brooklyn’s Prospect Park neighborhood, specifically the area around Atlantic Avenue and Flatbush Avenue. Developer Forest City Ratner proposed plans for 17 high-rises, with some commercial and residential buildings among them, plus a 19,000-seat, multi-purpose venue that would become the home of the Brooklyn Nets and play host to major music acts the world over.

Part of the overall result is Barclays Center, a mega-arena with undulating steel panels in copper. It rose through eminent domain. This was despite formidable opposition from Brooklynites who had no plans to sell their homes but were forced to anyway to make room for the project.

In 2016, Reason Magazine published an op-ed piece calling Barclays Center an “eminent domain-created failure.” This article was based on a report by journalist Norman Oder, who argued that the venue had lost an estimated $9 million by its third year of operation. If the point of eminent domain is to benefit the public by stimulating the local economy, then this report was damning evidence that it hadn’t.

On the other hand, YIMBYs (or “Yes In My Back Yard”-ers) who advocate for new construction projects might argue that the jury is still out on this issue. Pacific Park is slated for completion in 2035, so it needs to be given time to grow and develop before determining its success.

Other Ways Eminent Domain Has Impacted New York City

The precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Kelo vs. City of New London case carried ripples into the Pacific Park project. But to understand how Forest City Ratner was able to use eminent domain to its advantage, we need to look at an important precedent established closer to home: Yonkers Community Development Agency vs. Morris.

The city of Yonkers sits just a few miles north of New York City’s Bronx borough. It was there, in 1975, that the Appellate Court of the State of New York handed down its decision to allow the Otis Elevator Company — the largest of its kind in the U.S. — to expand its industrial facilities by taking “substandard” land from the City of Yonkers. The defendants argued that eminent domain had been abused because the new land was not for a “public use” or “public benefit,” but rather to expand a private business. The court, however, ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

When the Pacific Park issue arose roughly 30 years after the Yonkers decision, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) pointed to the Yonkers case as a precedent in a 2009 column, inferring that eminent domain could be abused to serve private interests as well as the public good. In its decision, the Appellate Court argued that the government’s right to property and/or land seizure was not limited to “slum clearance,” which was a term often used in the past to describe blighted areas that were ripe for eminent domain:

“As the complexities of urban conditions became better understood, it has become clear the areas eligible for such renewal are not limited to ‘slums’ as the term was formerly applied, and that, among other things, economic underdevelopment and stagnation are also threats to the public sufficient to make their removal cognizable as a public purpose.”

The above quote from the Yonkers decision is an eerie foreboding that charming pink-and-white Victorians like Suzanne Kelo’s home in New London, CT, and other properties that are in good condition in non-blighted areas are subject to demolition as much as neglected and dilapidated structures in disreputable parts of town.

This was partly the reason why Ratner’s project prevailed in Goldstein vs. Urban Dev. Corp, a case that challenged eminent domain in New York State. In this 2009 decision, the court applied similar logic to that of the Yonkers case, the result of which has changed Brooklyn’s landscape forever.

Eminent Domain in NYC: Will It Ever Change?

In the Kelo vs. City of New London case, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion that the Fifth Amendment did not require “‘literal’ public use,” but the “broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.'” This was an important distinction that was also part of the Yonkers decision and has expanded eminent domain to include private development projects.

But shortly after voicing the majority opinion, Justice Stephens emphasized that states and local governments had the power to create more restrictive eminent domain laws. This prompted 44 states to pass reforms since the Kelo ruling. New York State, however, has yet to do so, leaving eminent domain and its abuse in the hands of legislators. This has caused concern among critics who fear that NYC’s real estate industry will continue to use eminent domain as a means of acquiring land to develop luxury housing and marginalize low-income families who can’t afford to live in the area.

It remains to be seen, then, if New York City’s legal system will take action to better protect citizens from eminent domain abuse. As we move forward, New Yorkers should remain informed and stay attuned to any eminent domain issues that may potentially affect their respective properties, pink-and-white Victorians included.

The post What Is Eminent Domain and How Has It Impacted NYC’s Landscape? appeared first on CitySignal.

What is the difference between YIMBY and NIMBY?

YIMBYism, which stands for “yes in my backyard,” and its antithesis, NIMBYism, meaning “not in my backyard,” are two principles that, unlike their calmer and cooler cousins, “Ying” and “Yang,” tend to engender conflict, with either side hurling hyperbolic accusations in defense of its constituents while the other side tries (and often fails) to stay level-headed.

Each side propels an opinion they believe will benefit the greater good. Yet, the two camps have different objectives. YIMBYs are focused on creating density and growth in their communities, often with an emphasis on affordable housing or commercial development, while NIMBYs are focused on maintaining stability and preserving what they’ve built in the community.

Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have made their presence felt in NYC, where the two camps are at the center of debates about development and zoning. One instance saw the contentious proposal to build an Amazon headquarters in Long Island City. When tensions between the two sides reached a fever pitch, NIMBYs ultimately prevailed, leading to the project’s demise.

But YIMBYs haven’t lost steam. In 2022, the city’s Department of Buildings (DOB) approved the construction of 45,019 housing units borough-wide, according to NewYorkYimby.com. Queens leads the pack with 743 new development projects, many of which will break ground in Long Island City, the very place Amazon considered for its headquarters.

Why Do NIMBYs and YIMBYs Clash?

In New York City, YIMBYs and NIMBYs have engaged in a series of high-profile battles over the years, ranging from the development of Hudson Yards on Manhattan’s West Side to the proposed construction of an affordable housing complex in Soho.

The Soho project aka “Haven Green,” which would provide housing for low-income seniors, has pitted left-progressive NYS assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou against Habitat for Humanity, the non-profit organization behind the proposal.

Niou, who is 100% NIMBY on the issue, has joined a lawsuit to stop the project. While some Soho community members are upset about the construction taking place atop Elizabeth Street Garden, which has been around for nearly 200 years, Niou’s beef with Habitat lies elsewhere. She argues that Haven Green is an impermanent solution to a much deeper problem: the city’s lack of truly affordable housing. Once completed, Haven Green will go from low-income housing to market rate in 60 years, per the agreement between Habitat and the DOB.

Niou makes a powerful case against the project: In a city with a dearth of low-income housing, why compromise and settle for a short-term solution? Moving forward with the project would be short-sighted, like building a network of upright dominoes for the fleeting satisfaction of watching them all topple.

But YIMBYs make a powerful case, too: What’s more important? They ask. Making sure that seniors, who are among the most vulnerable communities in NYC, have access to safe and affordable housing now (and over the next 60 years) or watching yet another affordable housing project die in committee? Never mind that Elizabeth Street Garden is often closed to the public and that new projects often end up improving their neighborhoods in ways that even some of their most ardent opponents come to appreciate, adding more jobs, more housing, and more amenities than ever before.

Rarely does the debate end in a chorus of Kumbaya, however; there’s just too much passion and too many divergent interests on both sides. Take, for example, the overwhelming NIMBY argument against gentrification.

NIMBYs often see gentrification as a form of displacement, plain and simple, as the gradual transformation of a neighborhood from a primarily low-income area to one that caters to the well-to-do may drive out longtime residents who can no longer afford to live in the ever-more-expensive zip codes. This fear is especially acute in U.S. cities where the job market has been drastically outpacing the capacity for new housing, with San Francisco serving as a prime example.

Some YIMBYs, on the other hand, prefer to see a cityscape bristled with cranes rather than an ever-growing myriad of homeless encampments. To them, infusing the city with jobs and new businesses is a way to make it more vibrant and livable for all. They see value in the revitalization of a neighborhood that could use a little more TLC. They argue that gentrification, when done responsibly and with consideration for local residents’ needs and interests, can yield a net positive.

But the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate is incredibly nuanced, with divergent interests boiling down to two core questions: 1) How do certain forms of new development impact the needs of the individual and the greater community? 2) And what is each side willing to sacrifice to get what they want?

In a Backyard Far, Far Away

A June 2022 poll by international data analytics firm YouGovAmerica suggested an answer to question number one.

The poll, which surveyed 1,000 U.S. adult citizens, asked what forms of development did they wish to see in their backyards and which ones they’d rather see at the national level instead, many miles away from their homes.

Most homeowners in the survey supported the construction of local amenities that could potentially increase their property values and add to the neighborhood’s allure. They voted “YIMBY” in favor of police stations, charter schools, and nightlife venues, but signed off on “NIMBY” when it came to large-scale projects that may bring about social change, such as homeless shelters and low-income housing.

By contrast, most renters voted “YIMBY” in favor of low-income housing and homeless shelters, according to the poll. They had no skin in the game, as it were, so why band with their home-owning counterparts and keep the status quo? For renters, subsidized housing presented a host of viable solutions that could help alleviate some of the city’s most pressing issues, such as crime and poverty.

Does this mean, then, that renters and other left-leaning voters are pro-social change and homeowners are anti?

Not necessarily.

The same poll showed that, in a country whose prison system is one of the most overcrowded in the world, both renters and homeowners voted “NIMBY” on the issue of building a new jail at the local level and “YIMBY” as long as the prison wasn’t built in their backyards. A similar consensus was reached when asked about waste management facilities, with both camps saying, “Not in my backyard, but thank you,” when presented with the prospect of having one built in their neighborhoods.

By and large, the poll results demonstrate that while the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate is often viewed as a bi-partisan issue, it’s much more nuanced than that. People’s opinions on development projects are shaped by their unique circumstances, as well as what they think the community needs. What’s best for one may not necessarily be best for another.

 Can YIMBYs and NIMBYs Reach a Compromise?

When city council members, assembly persons, and other lawmakers spar with each other at town halls and community meetings, often using rhetoric and hyperbole as weapons, it can be increasingly hard to find a middle ground.

With so many opposing voices drowning each other out, one has to wonder, is there even a middle ground?

In its Spring 2013 issue, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published an essay anthology titled “American Democracy & the Common Good.” In it, authors Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson contributed a piece on valuing compromise for the greater good. They argued that “pursuing the common good in a pluralist democracy [i.e., a political system where there is more than one center of power] is not possible without making compromises. Yet the spirit of compromise is in short supply in contemporary American politics,” to quote the essay’s abstract directly.

It goes on to say that “a common mistake is to assume that compromise requires finding the common ground on which all can agree. That undermines more realistic efforts to seek classic compromises, in which each party gains by sacrificing something valuable to the other, and together they serve the common good by improving upon the status quo.”

In other words, a successful compromise requires all parties involved to recognize each other’s needs and interests, even if they don’t necessarily agree with them. In the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate, this means that developers and neighborhood advocates must come to the table and consider each other’s perspectives. Not only that, but they must also be willing to give something up to reach a solution that benefits all involved.

Easier said than done, of course, but in New York City, where urban development has been shaped by the NIMBY attitude for years, some YIMBY-friendly compromises have been reached in recent years.

The city’s 421a program, which provides tax incentives to developers who set aside 20% of their units for low-income housing, has added thousands of affordable homes to the city’s housing stock.

Moreover, NYC mayor Eric Adams, who was elected to office in 2021, is looking to #GetStuffBuilt across the five boroughs and has called on both YIMBYs and NIMBYs to work together to create vibrant, livable neighborhoods for everyone.

But the second question at the core of the YIMBY vs. NIMBY debate is the toughest to answer: What is each side willing to sacrifice to get what they want?

Only time will tell, but in a city where both sides of the debate are deeply entrenched in their positions, mutual understanding and compromise may be the only way for YIMBYs and NIMBYs to get stuff built for the greater good.

The post YIMBYs vs. NIMBYs: Who’s Right in the Heated Debate Over Urban Development? appeared first on CitySignal.

It’s no surprise, then, that some people cringe at the mere mention of the number 13, so much so that some buildings around the world have gone as far as to skip the thirteenth floor altogether.

But why is there a superstition against the unlucky number? Where did it come from? And why is it still around today?

To better understand triskaidekaphobia or fear of the number 13, we first need to look into its religious and mythological associations, which date back to ancient times.

Where Did the 13th-Floor Superstition Start?

There are different beliefs as to why the number 13 became so reviled in modern culture. One pervasive theory is that much of life is structured around the number 12, with 12 months in a year, 12 zodiac signs, 12 apostles in the bible, and 12 Gods of Olympus.

Consequently, 13 was seen as an unlucky number that could disrupt nature’s “perfect” cycle, which may also be the reason behind some of the lore surrounding Friday the 13th.

The New Testament records one of the earliest written references to the superstition when Judas Iscariot became the thirteenth guest to arrive at the Last Supper. He would betray Jesus the very next day (on a Friday) by handing him over to the Romans, with an “Et tu, Brute?” moment that culminated in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there that Judas identified Jesus with a kiss, leading to his crucifixion (hence why the expression “Judas kiss” is sometimes used to denote an act of betrayal).

Dinner parties are ostensibly incubators for the superstition of 13, as evidenced by the tale of Loki in Norse mythology.

According to the legend, 12 gods were invited to a lavish dinner at Valhalla, the exclusive great hall of the god Odin, where honorable warriors went after death. The uninvited and mischievous god Loki crashed the party, bringing the guest count to 13. Any hardcore Marvel fan knows that an impromptu appearance by Loki spells disaster, and that’s exactly what happened: Loki tricked Hoder, the blind God of Darkness, into killing Baldur, the god of light and peace, by using an arrow tipped with mistletoe, which was the only substance that could harm Baldur.

The moral of the story was less about “not giving a blind man a bow and arrow,” but more so to remember that “bad things come in thirteen.”

Both accounts — the Last Supper and the dinner at Valhalla — appear in Donald E. Dossey’s “Holiday Folklore, Phobias & Fun,” where the author explains why the number 13 is considered unlucky, a superstition that has also seeped into the world of real estate.

Why Don’t Buildings Have A 13th Floor?

In a 2018 tweet, the Otis Elevator Company, which is the world’s largest manufacturer of vertical transportation systems (think: elevators, escalators, and moving walkways), revealed the reasoning behind why some buildings don’t have a 13th floor.

The tweet read: “#DYK that many U.S. hotel and office buildings skip floor 13 for commercial and residential use? Due to the superstition associated with the number 13, the unlucky number is often omitted from elevator panels and stairwells.”

Indeed, by avoiding potentially jinxed floors, superstitious developers and property owners hope to ward off any bad luck that may befall the building during its construction and avoid any negative consumer sentiment toward the ill-fated number once the project is complete.

This is why many buildings in NYC and other cities worldwide commonly omit the thirteenth floor, labeling it as 14, 12A, 12B, or some other designation instead.

Why Don’t Hotels Have a 13th Floor?

In the same vein as office and commercial buildings, hotels often skip the thirteenth floor to dodge any bad luck that may be associated with the number.

The Essex House in New York City, for example, refers to its 13th floor as the “14th” on elevator buttons. Another landmark hotel in NYC, the Sherry-Netherland, also skips the 13th floor on its elevators and room numbers.

In 2007, USA Today and Princeton-based news outlet Gallop conducted a poll that further confirmed why some hotels are wary of the number 13. “Triskaidekaphobia has significant economic implications,” the report read, citing that 13% of Americans were “bothered” after being assigned a hotel room on the 13th floor. (Let’s pause here briefly to note the irony in the poll numbers themselves; perhaps it’s these 13 percenters who have kept the fear of 13 alive!)

The report goes on to explain that “developers of hotels and office buildings have to make the decision whether to include a 13th floor to avoid [occupants’] superstitious desire[s] to avoid working or staying on such a floor. Many hotels in Las Vegas, where luck and superstition are important psychological factors, do not have 13th floors, and other large hotel chains routinely skip from the 12th to the 14th floor, although, technically, the 14th floor is really the 13th floor of that building.”

So, why don’t hotels have a 13th floor? The answer appears to be a combination of superstition, psychology, and market capitalism, a system known for its creative solutions to profit-hindering problems.

Other Places Where the Number 13 is Unwelcome

Interestingly, the superstition of 13 is not just limited to hotels and office buildings. It also crops up in areas such as air travel, where some airports have taken it upon themselves to skip gate 13, and healthcare, with some hospitals cutting room 13 and going straight to 14. Furthermore, many airlines, such as Iberia, Air France, and Ryanair, don’t have a row 13 for the same reason.

In Florence, Italy, house numbers between 12 and 14 are usually addressed as “12 1/2.” In France, there was once a tradition where socialites known as quatorziens (“fourteeners”) would make themselves available to be the 14th guest at a dinner party. This was believed to keep the party from being unlucky and definitely to prevent a disaster of Loki proportions.

The practice of skipping 13 is far from universal, however, with some countries not adhering too much to superstition. For example, in China, the number four is considered unlucky, as the Mandarin word for “death” — pronounced sǐ — is a homonym for “four.” That’s not to say that all buildings in China have a 13th floor. In some cases, both the fourth and thirteenth floors are omitted entirely.

In Conclusion

The superstition of 13 is still alive and well in today’s culture, with a long history dating back centuries. Although some people may overlook its significance, others are prepared to go to great lengths to avoid the number altogether. Indeed, the practice of not having a 13th floor in hotels and other establishments is a powerful example of the phenomenon’s ability to shape the decisions we make in our lives.

So, whether it’s a real estate development or an airport gate, the number 13 is often met with a shrug, and a “no thank you.” But it may also elicit a chuckle from realists who can’t be bothered to be bothered by what’s often a silly superstition.

Still, perhaps it’s best to avoid being guest number 13 at a dinner party. You know. Just in case.

The post Why Do Some Buildings Skip the 13th Floor? appeared first on CitySignal.

It’s buildings like these that make NYC so exhilarating. Each year, new construction projects go up in the city, creating landmarks and changes to the skyline. They command our attention, often through not-so-subtle means, and have the strange power to make us feel anew about the city we thought we knew so well.

6 Buildings Changing the NYC Skyline

In 2022, several buildings debuted in NYC, adding to the already awe-inspiring skyline. Some were lucky enough to bypass NYC’s rigorous development process, while others had to battle it out to stake their claim in the city.

Below are six of New York City’s most impactful structures completed in 2022, each with its unique effect on the city’s skyline and community as a whole.

1) “TRIO,” 27-19 Thomson Avenue (Long Island City)

In 2001, the Department of City Planning rezoned 37 blocks at Long Island City’s core. This undertaking provided Queens with an incredible opportunity for revitalization and growth. It saw the repurposing of LIC’s old warehouses, many of which have been converted into luxury residences. But it also called for new construction to take place, an initiative that would transform the Queens skyline from an industrial no man’s land to an urban oasis of gleaming skyscrapers.

TRIO, which stands at 10 stories and sits on Thomson Avenue, is a 2022 addition that’s no less impressive when compared to its much taller neighbors, including the 67-story Skyline Tower. Trio’s trapezoidal glass façade, with a two-tone scheme of charcoal and off-white, befits the ever-evolving LIC skyline. Designed by Andres Escobar, who’s known for blending modern elements with classic forms, the building offers 30 residences, each one boasting condo-level finishes like quartz countertops and porcelain tiles, plus radiant heated floors and Toto Neorest Automatic toilets to top it off.

Of the 30 residences, 11 joined the affordable housing lottery program spearheaded by NYC Housing Connect. To be eligible, applicants must earn around 130% of the area median income, a range varying from $88,835 to an upper limit of $187,330. These income thresholds have reignited yet another round of affordable housing debates, with some online users taking to NewYorkYimby.com to express their discontent over the city’s use of the term “affordable.”

2) “96+Broadway,” 250 West 96th Street (Upper West Side)

Manhattan’s Upper West Side is more than its timeless brownstones, tree-lined streets, and stroller culture. Thanks to buildings like 96+Broadway, the neighborhood is now a destination for those seeking a contemporary urban experience. Designed by Danish architect Thomas Juul-Hansen, this 23-story condominium topped out in 2022, rising from the remains of a Gristedes supermarket (pronounced gri-STEE-deez for the uninitiated) that had been a fixture in the area for decades.

Standing at the intersection of 96th Street and Broadway, where the Upper West Side meets Morningside Heights, 96+Broadway’s façade is a modern take on the classic pre-war buildings that have long characterized the area. The structure is clad in limestone and steel, with country-style windows that give the building an almost industrial edge while still paying tribute to its historic surroundings. Bronze-finished balusters, white oak flooring, and several Juliet balconies add to the building’s classic aesthetic.

Although 96+Broadway is under the city’s voluntary inclusionary housing program, which means it would receive an extra 3.5 square feet of allotted space for every 1 square foot of affordable housing included in the final product, only one of its 131 units has been officially designated as “affordable.” The other 130 are on the market for upwards of $1 million.

3) 45 Park Place (Tribeca)

One of two buildings on this list that faced foreclosure before being completed in 2022 (the other being 291 Livingston Street), 45 Park Place, is the work of SOMA architects and ultra-lux interior designer Piero Lissoni. Located steps away from the Chambers Street subway station, this 42-story condominium stands out with its sculptural glass façade, which evokes a sense of movement and flow.

The building offers 50 condominiums, ranging from one-, two-, and three-bedroom lofts to three- and four-bedroom homes that take up an entire floor. Residents enjoy a suite of amenities, including a state-of-the-art fitness center with a yoga studio, a children’s playroom, and a 50-foot indoor pool spread across deep green marble floors.

The property was recently featured in the Tribeca Citizen’s “Unfinished Business” piece, where it joined the likes of 65 Franklin, 65 West Broadway, and 317 Broadway as buildings with a troubled history and/or stalled construction. The article took shape after the author had received several inquiries from Tribeca locals as to what was happening with the partially finished 45 Park Place and the other “holes in the ground” throughout the neighborhood. 45 Park Place has yet to be completed as of late 2022, but its notable presence stand stall offering yet another luxury address to Tribeca’s high-end real estate landscape. Some of the lots have also yet to show signs of progress.

4) 291 Livingston Street (Downtown Brooklyn)

Nestled minutes away from the hustle and bustle of Barclays Center is 291 Livingston Street, a 22-story hotel tower that has been completed — for the most part — in 2022. The project fell into financial difficulties shortly after plans were filed in 2018: Ownership defaulted on a $29.7 million mortgage, according to New Jersey-based news outlet Local Today, with real estate lender Acres Capital seeking to terminate its equity interests while the property stood at 80% completion.

Despite the hotel’s uncertain future, one thing’s for sure: 291 Livingston Street has become one of the most eye-catching buildings in the Downtown Brooklyn skyline. Designed by Gene Kaufman Architect, the 100-key hotel boasts a zebra-striped façade on one side and sleek concrete slabs on the other. The structure offers a unique sense of verticality, with its slender frame towering 189 feet in the sky.

From its inception, the hotel was set to feature a ground-level beer garden and a metal-framed glass canopy welcoming guests into the lobby. These features would have solidified the project’s stark transformation from a Wendy’s fast food joint to a boutique hotel in the heart of Brooklyn. Whether or not they’ll be included in its grand opening remains to be seen.

5) “Front & York,” 85 Jay Street (DUMBO)

You know those “Fast Pass” transponders you get at the amusement park to skip the long lines and go straight to the attraction? 85 Jay Street is Brooklyn real estate’s version of that. Because no rezoning or special permissions were required for its construction, the project has circumvented public negotiations that often slow down large-scale developments in the city. These include affordable housing availability, pledges for union labor, limited parking arrangements, and other community-driven initiatives.

With no hiccups to deter its progress, this mixed-used complex known as Front & York is poised to leave an indelible mark on DUMBO’s landscape. Spanning a full block from Front Street to York Street and Jay Street to Bridge Street, the site consists of 320 rental apartments and 408 condo units, making up the largest residential building in the neighborhood.

Furthermore, residents are treated to the largest indoor pool in DUMBO, a full-size indoor basketball court, a separate floor dedicated to fitness and wellness activities, and a private park. But those who end up living here may need to get over the fact that it was built on 72,000 cubic yards of formerly contaminated soil. The city’s Department of Environment Conservation remediated the soil through its Brownfield Cleanup Program, however, making it suitable for occupancy in 2022.

6) “The Brooklyn Tower,” 9 Dekalb Avenue (Downtown Brooklyn)

In an early 2022 post, we reported on the nearly completed 9 Dekalb Avenue, which made its way to our list of five extraordinary skyscrapers reshaping NYC’s skyline. The building made history on October 28, 2021, when it topped out at 1,073 feet, becoming the tallest building in Brooklyn and the tenth tallest in the city.

The Brooklyn Tower, as it’s also known, is like something out of a sci-fi movie. Its deconstructed octagon look shines with Neo Art Deco elements of stone, bronze, and steel. Along the roofline, protruding beams give the effect of a gold crown atop the structure, which can be seen from many miles away. It’s no wonder why the building’s design firm, SHoP Architects, won the American Prize for Architecture in 2022: the project was (and still is) an absolute marvel.

9 Dekalb houses 150 condo residences above the 53rd floor and 425 apartment rentals below. It also contains the Dime Savings Bank of New York, a landmark structure founded in 1859 and celebrated for its exquisite Beaux-Arts architecture. Amenities include a “Sky Lounge” on the 66th floor, an outdoor pool deck, a library, a movie theater, and several fitness studios.

Upcoming in 2023 and Beyond

It’s time to cast our gaze on the future, as 2023 and beyond will bring with it an array of significant construction projects that are set to take off in New York City.

Take a look at some of the buildings expected for development, completion, or occupancy in 2023 and beyond:

• Flushing Commons Phase II, 136-35 39th Avenue, Flushing, Queens
• Mandarin Oriental Residences Fifth Avenue, 685 Fifth Avenue, Midtown, Manhattan
• The Cortland, 555 West 22nd Street, Chelsea, Manhattan
• ONE11 Residences at Thompson Central Park, 111 West 56th Street, Midtown, Manhattan
• 45-03 23rd Street, Long Island City, Queens
• Sutton Tower, 430 East 58th Street, Sutton Place, Manhattan
• 460 Tenth Avenue, Hudson Yards, Manhattan
• 300 West 30th Street, Penn District, Manhattan
• 45 Broad Street, Financial District, Manhattan
• The Matteo, 323 East 79th Street, Yorkville, Manhattan
• 450 Washington Street, Tribeca, Manhattan

Final Thoughts

NYC’s ever-changing skyline is a testament to its capabilities, an expression of its boldness and drive. From commercial properties to residential structures, these buildings represent a snapshot of hope, resilience, and progress. The ones on this list are but a few of NYC’s most notable buildings completed in 2022, setting the stage for what potentially awaits us in 2023 and beyond.

So look up and listen. NYC’s buildings are telling stories. And we can’t wait to see what they will say next.

The post The 6 Most Impactful NYC Structures of 2022 appeared first on CitySignal.

Another rivalry to add to the list is that between New Jersey and Manhattan. Which one is better?

Both are vying for the attention of eager young professionals who are looking to live their best lives in the city’s bustling metro area, yet each offers an environment that’s palpably different from the other.

This makes it hard to decide: Should I live in Manhattan or New Jersey?

While some are in a quandary over this debate, others have made up their minds: Manhattan is the cooler option — the place to be for those who want to live out their Sex-and-the-City fantasies. “It’s worth the higher price tag,” says Team Manhattan. “Who cares if half our salaries go to rent? At least we get to be in the center of everything!”

But then there’s Jersey, which often gets a bum rap as a boring land of strip malls, theme parks, and turnpikes. Why is it that certain Manhattanites wouldn’t be “caught dead” in the Garden State? Is it because Jersey doesn’t have the same cachet as the Big Apple? Or maybe it’s because New Yorkers imagine it as a place full of mobsters and fist-pumping partiers, as popularly depicted in TV’s “The Sopranos” and “Jersey Shore.”

Meanwhile, New Jerseyans might say the same about the Big Apple: “Yuck, no way I’m paying Manhattan prices!” they’ll declare, then explain that Jersey is the butt of many jokes only because the media won’t let it die. They might also dispel the notion of Manhattan being “cooler” than Jersey, writing it off as fodder for the masses.

The truth is, both locations have their benefits and drawbacks, which makes the debate of Manhattan vs. New Jersey a tough one to settle.

In this article, we’ll take a closer look at three factors that influence the Manhattan vs. Jersey debate — cost of living, ease of access to Manhattan, and cultural appropriation — and see if we can resolve this long-standing battle once and for all.

Cost of Living of New York Compared to New Jersey

When it comes to affordability, New Jersey has the upper hand. Take, for example, the average rent in Manhattan, which rose to a record $5,000 per month in 2022. By contrast, the average rent along the Hudson Waterfront, which includes the townships of Weehawken, Hoboken, and Jersey City, hovered around $3,500 per month this year, based on data from RentCafe.com.

Homeownership is also more affordable in New Jersey. According to RedFin, the average sale price in Hoboken, which tends to be the most expensive of the three townships, was $810,000, compared to Manhattan’s median sale price of $1.2 million.

And then there are taxes. NYC levies a city tax on its residents. Rates vary depending on income and filing status. Those living in Manhattan while earning $65,000 annually, for example, will pay roughly $2,400 in city income tax. Those living in New Jersey could pocket this money, as local governments in the Garden State do not levy a city tax. Sales taxes are also lower in New Jersey at 6.625%, compared to Manhattan’s 8.875%. Other expenses, such as utilities and groceries, are also often less in Jersey than they are in Manhattan.

Despite all of these factors, however, Manhattanites may still prefer to pay more for the lifestyle, convenience, and amenities the city offers, but will find it difficult to do so if they don’t have the salaries to match.

Ease of Access to Manhattan

Jersey may have the cost of living advantage, but Manhattan has an edge in terms of accessibility. The island offers a multitude of transportation options, including the New York City subway system and hundreds of bus routes. Easy access to this vast network of trains and buses is important to the city’s nearly five million workers, most of whom rely on public transportation to get to their jobs. The network is by no means perfect, with frequent delays and service disruptions plaguing commuters, but it’s nonetheless an efficient way to get around.

Meanwhile, those living in New Jersey must rely on the PATH train — a somewhat cleaner rapid-transit service that connects Manhattan and New Jersey — or the New Jersey Transit (NJT) bus system. The PATH train may be convenient for those living in Jersey City, Hoboken, or Weehawken, but it can be a bit of a hassle for those from further away.

Both mass transit systems — the New York City subway and New Jersey’s PATH trains — operate 24/7, ensuring that commuters have plenty of options when it comes to getting around. But living in Jersey often means having a longer commute for those who work on the east side of Manhattan and/or above 33rd Street on the west side. Thirty-third Street marks the northernmost stop for the PATH train on the Journal Square and Hoboken lines, so commuters may need to transfer to the subway if they want to go anywhere north or east of this location.

Cultural Presence

Finally, there’s the issue of cultural presence. Manhattanites have long held the perception that life in New Jersey is boring, conservative, and void of culture. After all, Manhattan’s suite of iconic attractions, which includes Central Park, Times Square, and the MET, paints a picture of the city as a cultural oasis on a mega scale. It also enjoys a rich history and an eclectic mix of people that all help to create an atmosphere of diversity, creativity, and innovation.

But there are plenty of cultural offerings in New Jersey, too. Hudson County’s Office of Culture and Heritage Affairs, for one, keeps a pulse on the local arts and entertainment scene, offering a comprehensive list of events and activities for residents to enjoy. In addition to museums and performing arts venues, Hoboken is home to an array of bars, lounges, cafes, and clubs. Jersey City also boasts its share of art galleries and live-music venues, plus bar crawls that rival those of Manhattan’s Lower East Side and Greenwich Village neighborhoods.

With these options in mind, it’s difficult to argue that Manhattan is the only place in the region with something to offer culturally. Some may say that living in New Jersey offers the best of both worlds. Homeowners can enjoy more affordable housing, lower taxes, and quick access to Lower Manhattan via public transportation, all while taking advantage of New Jersey’s unique and vibrant nightlife. In this sense, it’s possible to “live it up” without breaking the bank, something that can’t be said for Manhattan (unless income isn’t an issue and location is all that matters, then Manhattan might be the right choice).

The Verdict: Manhattan or New Jersey?

The time has come to decide whether to live in New Jersey or Manhattan. For those looking to save some money while still having access to NYC’s arts and culture scene, New Jersey presents a viable alternative. With lower taxes, more affordable housing, and just as much nightlife, it may even be the smarter choice.

On the other hand, Manhattan offers unbeatable convenience for commuters and easy access to the city’s outer boroughs, some of which are just as cool and vibrant as Manhattan itself. Plus, it’s hard to beat the appeal of living in one of NYC’s most iconic neighborhoods, from TriBeCa to the West Village, if only for the bragging rights.

Ultimately, the decision to live in Manhattan or New Jersey comes down to personal preference and budget. But with both locales offering plenty to do, those looking for a true NYC experience should have no trouble finding it no matter which side of the Hudson they choose.

The post Should You Live in Manhattan or New Jersey? The Benefits and Drawbacks of Each appeared first on CitySignal.

When I was a real estate agent in the 2010s, my office manager would urge me to target NYC’s burgeoning roommate population. Roommates were, after all, a big business in Manhattan real estate. They continue to be today, with 30 percent of adults aged 23 to 65 sharing apartments in NYC, as reported by Zillow in 2017.

Unlike my discerning clientele of wealthy COOs and socialites, these roommates were usually young professionals fresh out of college, looking to make their mark on the world. Their flexible apartment criteria meant you could rent them almost anything, from a shoe box in the West Village to a closet in Tribeca.

They hit the pavement with a pep in their step, armed with offer letters signed by their newest employers, searching for the perfect place to share with friends and strangers alike.

As someone who has lived with friends and strangers myself, not only did I engage in common roommate disagreements, but I also had a front-row seat to the bickering and antics of others. From splitting the rent unevenly to squabbling over long-term guests, I’ve heard it all.

Here are some common disagreements among roommates that I’ve come across in my years working in Manhattan real estate:

Rent & Utilities: Who Pays For What?

Rent is expensive in NYC. And utilities can add up quickly, too. Landlords will likely include heat and water, but electricity, gas, and internet are typically not included in the rent. This can be a source of common roommate disagreements in NYC because — let’s face it — some people are better at conserving energy than others. Just ask Roommate A, who isn’t bothered by NYC’s hot summer nights and has to split the electric bill evenly with Roommate B, who leaves the AC blasting 24/7. Or Roommate C who runs the washer and dryer every other day, while Roommate D only does laundry once every two weeks.

Another common roommate disagreement in NYC is who pays for household items like toilet paper, paper towels, and cleaning supplies. If Roommate B stocks up at Duane Reade this week, should Roommate C be expected to cover the same amount next week?

Disagreements may also arise if one roommate expects the other(s) to divide the rent equally even though the bedrooms are not equal in size. This issue comes up commonly in converted two- or three-bedroom apartments where one bedroom is significantly smaller than the other or has a pressurized wall that doesn’t go up to the ceiling, eliminating privacy.

In my humble experience, it seems unreasonable to divvy up the rent equally for bedrooms that are not equal in size or have different amenities, such as en-suite bathrooms and walk-in closets. It also feels petty to fight over who pays for what household items. After all, common sense dictates that if you use more of something, you should replace it.

One way to solve the issue of rent is to have each roommate pay proportionally based on the size of each room and/or any additional amenities it comes with. (Common areas like living rooms and bathrooms needn’t be factored into this equation since their equal usage is implied.)

Those who are math-averse (like me) may use a rent-splitting app like Splitwise, which allows roommates to input their monthly rents and then add or subtract common expenses to see who owes what.

House Chores: Who Cleans What and When?

Another common source of roommate disagreements in NYC is house chores. Who cleans the bathroom? Who takes out the trash? Who does the dishes? And when?

These are valid questions that should be answered before signing a lease. Some people are neat freaks and can’t stand living in a messy apartment without so much as a coaster to prevent those pesky rings from forming on the coffee table. Others couldn’t care less.

One possible solution to this common roommate problem in NYC is to create a rotating cleaning schedule (which may or may not cling to a refrigerator magnet in the kitchen). For example, this week Roommate A cleans the bathroom, Roommate B takes out the trash, and Roommate C does the dishes. Then next week, the roles are reversed.

Another solution is to budget for a professional cleaning service to come in once a week or once every two weeks. This can be pricey, but it’s worth it to avoid common roommate disagreements in NYC.

Roommate Guests: Who Can Have Them, and For How Long?

Guests are another common source of tension among roommates. Some people are social butterflies and will manifest a constant stream of visitors, while others prefer to keep their socializing to a minimum.

One of the most challenging aspects is hosting out-of-town relatives for long periods. The roommates imposing said relatives may brush off the inconvenience (because it is not inconvenient to them), claiming that this is how things are done in their respective cultures or within their unique family dynamic, leaving the other roommates seething with resentment.

Still, others will straight-up add another roommate to the mix by moving their significant other in without so much as a discussion with the other people they live with. Sometimes they move them in facetiously or by attrition as if to say, “Whoopsie! I hope you don’t mind that I added my boyfriend to the lease!” Or perhaps it’s the boyfriend who just won’t go home because his roommates are constantly disagreeing.

The common thread here is a lack of communication among roommates about expectations, boundaries, and common courtesy. One solution is to discuss guests and significant others before signing the lease. That way, everyone is on the same page from the start.

Solution 2.0 is to sign a legally-binding Roommate Agreement (yes, that’s a thing), which stipulates the rules about guests, house chores, common areas, etc.

Templates for this agreement can be found online, or you can create your own. Either way, make sure that everyone signs the agreement before moving in, so there’s no confusion about expectations later on.

1 of 6

Decor: Who Gets to Decide?

Let’s say you move in with Roommate A whose giant neon red-and-white Budweiser sign can only fit on the living room wall. It clashes horribly with Roommate B’s faux fur reading chair and Roommate C’s DIY industrial-pipe coffee table. Don’t even get me started on the cow-hide rug in the middle of the room (a gift from Roommate A’s mom).

A possible solution to common roommate disagreements about decor is to create an inventory of who owns what before moving in and whether or not they’re open to selling, trading, or giving away their belongings. That way, everyone knows what they’re getting into and there are no surprises (or arguments) down the road.

Another solution is to allow each person to decorate their bedroom however they want but to come to a consensus about common areas like the living room, kitchen, and bathroom. It’s important to be respectful of everyone’s taste when discussing potential arrangements and to be flexible with decor items, including the neon Budweiser sign from Roommate A’s college days.

Communication: The Key to Avoiding Roommate Disagreements

Our last common roommate disagreement in NYC is about communication (or the lack thereof).

It’s common for roommates to avoid conflict at all costs. Some will go so far as to move out when the other roommates are away for the holidays or on vacation. Others will text each other when they’re in the same apartment (in different rooms) to avoid an in-person conversation that may quickly escalate into a full-blown argument or fight.

This, of course, is not a sustainable solution to common disagreements among roommates in NYC.

The key to avoiding these scenarios is to communicate with each other openly and honestly about your expectations, needs, and wants. Perhaps it’s even more important to make it safe for your roommates to express their needs and wants without fear of judgment or retaliation, as one serial roommate learned in the aftermath of her experience, which included over 30 co-living situations.

Sometimes communicating before you sign the lease can help you find the perfect roommate to share your space. Other times, it’s helpful to have a monthly or quarterly check-in to see how everyone is doing and to identify any potential problems before they fester and become bigger issues.

With these solutions in mind, common roommate disagreements in NYC don’t have to be a cause for stress or anxiety. On the contrary, they can be a bonding experience that brings you closer to the people you live with, especially in a post-pandemic world where many are spending more time at home than ever before.

The post Ask An Agent: Common Roommate Disagreements and How To Deal With Them appeared first on CitySignal.

But the most profound rejection typically occurred as follows: I’d overcome the hurdle of establishing what we agents call “first substantive contact” in real estate, which is when you meet with a client for the first time face-to-face. In some cases, it also implies paying for the client’s coffee, tea, or full-fledged lunch in a snazzy restaurant.

Then I’d take us around Manhattan in cabs, showing the client the best apartments that fit their budget and wishlist. Like any good first date, I’d make sure to end on a high note by making plans to see more listings the next day or soon after.

But then I’d never hear from them again. Worse, I was now $100 poorer than I had been earlier that week.

I’m sharing this not to shame the clients I had zeroed in on, nor to embarrass myself for being such a naive agent. Rather, I’d like to use my experience in real estate to help the non-ghosters — renters, buyers, and sellers alike — who are currently working with an agent and feel like it’s time to break up with them.

How to Break Up With Your Real Estate Agent: Tips for Renters

In the above example, I dramatized myself as a victim, as most agents do when they’ve been burned. However, I was far from being perfect. Did I see the full picture each hundredth time I was out with a client? No way.

But at the very least, I expected to be “broken up with” gently, the way most humans prefer. And if you’re a renter who’s currently working with an agent who isn’t meeting your needs, that’s exactly what I’d like to help you do: part ways respectfully and professionally, without ghosting them.

First, you should understand that your agent is working for you, not the other way around. You are their client, and they should be doing their best to help you find a home that’s right for you. If you don’t feel like they’re doing that, let them know right away, either face-to-face or by phone. Heck, even a text message will do. (In the above example, I would have graciously accepted a post-it note!) Any sign of life is better than ghosting.

As a renter (and human being), you don’t need to get into the nitty-gritty of your decision, nor do you need to apologize for it. Just let your agent know what happened that caused you to rethink your working relationship or say something cliché like, “It’s not you, it’s me” or “I’m sorry, but I think it would be better if we parted ways.” You don’t have to stay and listen if the agent becomes pushy or reacts indignantly. You can end the conversation there and be done with it.

As for what to do next, you can ask a friend or family member for a referral to another agent, or you can start your search anew by yourself. Whatever you do, don’t feel guilty about it. You’re not obligated to work with someone you’re not comfortable with, no matter what they say.

As someone who was on the other side of this equation, I give you my full blessing.

How to Get Out of an Exclusive Representation Agreement

Attention, buyers: In New York City and other markets nationwide, you may be asked to sign a contract with an agent known as an Exclusive Representation Agreement or Exclusive Buyer’s Broker Agreement.

This contract binds the agent to work only with you and vice versa. It outlines the duties of both parties — what the agent must do for the buyer, what the buyer agrees to pay the agent, etc. — and is legally enforceable.

A standard buyer’s broker agreement can last between three to six months. In some cases, it can run for as long as one year. During that time, the buyer’s agent is obligated to help the client buy a home.

Before you sign on the dotted line, make sure you understand the terms of the contract. Pay attention to the length of the agreement, as well as any clauses that allow either party to opt out early. In some cases, buyers can terminate the contract with advance notice to their agent, but there may be a fee associated with doing so.

You should also be comfortable with the agent you’re signing with, as you’ll be working together closely during what is likely one of the biggest financial transactions of your life.

If you’re still unsure about your agent after signing the contract, talk to them about it. Request an in-person meeting or schedule a call. Describe the reasons for terminating your contract in detail. Follow up with a letter or email confirming the details of your discussion.

If the agent doesn’t want to let you out of the contract, you can file a complaint with your state’s real estate commission or local board. Alternatively, you can seek out legal advice. But if you’d rather not, you might consider posting a detailed and honest review of your experience online, so that other house hunters can be warned.

As a former real estate professional, I can assure you that most agents care more about their reputation than they do about any commission they might lose. Some agencies would rather terminate the contract amicably than risk a bad review online.

How to Cancel an Exclusive Sale Agreement

As a seller, you may find yourself in an agreement with an agent who’s not putting in the effort to sell your home. On the other hand, you may have listed your home with an agent but then receive a better vibe or work ethic from another real estate professional.

It’s not uncommon for sellers to try and back out of an Exclusive Right to Sell Agreement, only to find themselves in hot water. After all, this contract is just as binding for the agent and seller as a buyer’s broker agreement.

That said, if you’re unhappy with your agent’s service, offer clear reasons and examples of their lack of performance in your conversation. At the same time, be reasonable with your expectations. It’s unrealistic to expect an agent to sell your home in one week, for example.

On the other hand, if the agent isn’t returning your calls, isn’t providing feedback from showings, or seems generally uninterested in helping you sell your home, those are all valid reasons to seek an early termination of the contract.

You can try negotiating with your agent directly to see if they’re willing to let you out of the agreement early. If not, then you might consider filing a complaint with your state’s real estate commission.

Another option is to let the relationship run its course, especially if the exclusive listing period is between 60 and 90 days. At that point, you can list your home with another agency, and when you do, some online platforms like Zillow and Streeteasy will reset the number of days your home has been listed on the market.

The Takeaway

In real estate, as in life, breaking up can be difficult. No one likes to be rejected. And as I see it, very few prefer to be the rejecter. But professional relationships need to be mutually beneficial. If you’re not getting what you need out of your agent, you should address the problem early on by communicating your thoughts.

Who knows? You might be able to work out a solution that benefits both parties. But if not, don’t be afraid to end things, even if it means going through the hassle of breaking a contract.

The post How to Break Up With Your Real Estate Agent: A Former Agent’s Advice for Renters, Buyers, and Sellers appeared first on CitySignal.

While the purchase price is often the first thing homebuyers in NYC look at, it’s worth noting that closing costs are some of the biggest line items in any real estate transaction in New York.

In this article, we’ll look at three major closing costs that buyers and sellers in New York should be aware of: transfer taxes, mansion taxes, and flip taxes.

With a little understanding of how these taxes work, buyers and sellers in NYC can be better prepared to tackle them when it comes time to close on their dream homes.

What Are Transfer Taxes in New York and Who Is Responsible for Them?

Transfer taxes are levied by both New York State (NYS) and New York City. The latter applies only to the sale of property within the five boroughs, known as a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). This means that a house in Westchester County would not be subject to an NYC transfer tax.

When a home is sold in New York, the seller is generally responsible for paying transfer taxes. The taxes are calculated as a percentage of the home’s final sale price and apply to any real property worth more than $25,000.

How Much Are NYC and NYS Transfer Taxes?

The NYC transfer tax is currently 1% of the sale price for properties worth $499,999 or less. For properties valued above $500,000, the tax rate increases to 1.425% of the sale price.

In addition to paying a transfer tax to the city, sellers are also responsible for a transfer tax imposed by New York State. Properties valued at $3 million or less are subject to a 0.4% transfer tax, while those valued above $3 million are subject to a 0.65% transfer tax.

Put another way:

• Sellers pay a total transfer tax of 1.4% for homes priced below $499,999 (1% for NYC + 0.4% for NYS).
• Sellers pay a total transfer tax of 1.825% for homes priced between $500,000 and $3 million (1.425% for NYC + 0.4% for NYS).
• Sellers are subject to a total transfer tax of 2.075% for properties valued at $3 million or more (1.425% for NYC + 0.65% for NYS).

NYC Transfer Tax Examples

Selling for $450,000

Suppose a Murray Hill studio sells for $450,000. The NYC transfer tax would be $4,500 (1% of $450,000) and the NYS transfer tax would be $1,800 (0.4% of $450,000). The total transfer taxes on this particular sale would be $6,300, or 1.4% of the sale price.

Selling for $1.5 million

Let’s say a one-bedroom co-op in Tribeca is selling for $1.5 million. In this case, the NYC transfer tax would be $21,375 (1.425% of $1.5 million). Because the home is worth less than $3 million, the NYS transfer tax would remain at 0.4%, or $6,000. The total transfer taxes on this sale would be $27,375, or 1.825% of the sale price.

Selling for $3.5 Million

Last but not least, the seller of a $3.5 million condo in the Upper East Side would be responsible for paying $49,875 in NYC transfer taxes ($3.5 million x 0.01425%) and $22,750 in NYS transfer taxes ($3.5 million x 0.0065%), for a total of $72,625, or 2.075% of the sale price.

What Is the Mansion Tax in NYS and Who Pays It?

The mansion tax in New York State is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn’t mean that only mansions in the traditional sense are subject to it (i.e., enormous homes on acreage with many bedrooms and bathrooms).

In New York City, the mansion tax is a property transfer fee that applies to all real property worth $1 million or more, whether it’s a single-family home, co-op, condo, or townhouse located anywhere in the state.

The New York mansion tax is calculated as a percentage of the sale price, with rates ranging from 1% to 3.9% depending on the property’s value. Buyers are ultimately responsible for paying the mansion tax, though it’s sometimes negotiated as part of the sale as a commission rebate (more on this later).

What Are the Mansion Tax Rates in New York?

The mansion tax in NYS does not affect properties that were previously assessed at less than $1 million. For example, if a condo in Brooklyn was assessed at $950,000 but the sale price ends up being $1.1 million, the mansion tax would not apply.

In 2019, mansion tax rates in NYC were increased for properties assessed above $2 million. As of 2022, the rates are as follows:

• $1 – 2 million = 1.00%
• $2 – 3 million = 1.25%
• $3 – 5 million = 1.50%
• $5 – 10 million = 2.25%
• $10 – 15 million = 3.25%
• $15 – 20 million = 3.50%
• $20 – 25 million = 3.75%
• $25+ million = 3.90%

As an example, if a buyer closes on a property worth $1 million, the mansion tax due at closing is $10,000 ($1 million x 0.01%). For a home valued at $7.5 million, the mansion tax would be $168,750 ($7.5 million x 0.0225%). And a property sold for $22,000,000 is subject to a New York mansion tax $825,000 ($22 million x 0.0375%).

What Are Flip Taxes in NYC and Who Pays Them?

A flip tax in NYC is essentially a transfer fee that ranges anywhere from 1% to 3% of the sale price. When the property is sold, either the buyer or seller is responsible for the tax, depending on the building or transaction type.

To be clear, the phrase “flip tax” is a loose term in that it refers to no actual government tax, but rather a fee assessed by the building’s managing members or board.

In New York City, co-ops are the most common type of residential buildings to impose flip taxes on buyers and sellers, though they’re not unheard of in condos and townhouses.

The purpose of a flip tax is to generate revenue for the building, which can be used for maintenance, repairs, or capital improvements. Another reason buildings like co-ops choose to assess a flip tax is to discourage “flipping,” or quickly reselling units for a profit, as this can impact the property’s financial stability in the long run.

How Much Is the Average Flip Tax in NYC?

A common flip tax rate for New York City co-ops is 2% of the sale price, which is typically split between the buyer and seller evenly. For example, on a $1 million sale, the buyer and seller would each pay a $10,000 flip tax ($1 million x 0.002 = $20,000, then divided in half).

Flip taxes were first introduced in New York City in the 1970s. Some owners who have lived in their units before the flip tax was enacted may be grandfathered in and exempt from paying it, though this varies from building to building.

Can Transfer Taxes, Mansion Taxes, and Flip Taxes Be Avoided?

Transfer taxes, mansion taxes, and flip taxes in New York are generally non-negotiable and virtually impossible to avoid, though there may be a workaround in the form of a commission rebate.

This is a special type of refund in which the buyer’s agent, seller’s agent, or both give up a portion of their commission to sweeten the deal.

For example, if a condo closes at $1,000,000 and there’s a 3% commission due to the buyer’s agent ($30,000), the agent may agree to reduce their fee to 2%. In this case, the agent is paid a broker’s commission of $20,000 and the buyer gets a rebate of $10,000. This offsets the 1% mansion tax that the buyer would’ve had to pay without the commission rebate.

The Bottom Line

Paying New York City’s transfer, mansion, and flip taxes is simply the cost of doing business when you buy a home in one of the finest cities in the world. By being aware of these fees ahead of time, buyers and sellers can budget accordingly and avoid any nasty surprises at closing.

Disclaimer: Tax calculations are based on current New York City tax laws and rates, which are subject to change at any time. This material was provided for educational purposes only and is not intended to be a source of, or substitute for, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Readers are strongly encouraged to consult their tax, legal, or accounting professionals for advice, direction, and answers to their specific questions.

The post The Homeowner’s Guide to Transfer Taxes, Mansion Taxes, and Flip Taxes in NYC appeared first on CitySignal.