When one visits the city in the daytime, it seems like it has activity because of the tourists, but it has no real indigenous activity.
Perhaps that's the steady state, because there are enough tourists to keep the city going economically.
When one visits the city in the daytime, it seems like it has activity because of the tourists, but it has no real indigenous activity.
Perhaps that's the steady state, because there are enough tourists to keep the city going economically.
Ground-level stores don't seem to be suffering from staffing issues, largely because in New York it's not uncommon to work in Manhattan but live in Staten Island or Jersey.
Instead, ground-level stores seem to be disappearing because commercial lease agreements are just insanely expensive and onerous. Landlords refuse to reduce rents (for several purported reasons) in an increasingly buyer-friendly real estate market.
Except it won't, exactly because landlords are rational actors. Let's say the upkeep for a space is $400/mo, and the rental for that same space is 3000/mo. A storefront could be vacant for 2 years and a landlord would still turn a hefty profit if they were able to get someone to sign a one-year lease after the 2 years of vacancy.
NYC is a big place- for every 30000 people that think that the rent is unreasonable, there's 1 person who thinks that it is, and landlords only need that 1 person. Renters have no leverage here.
Renters do have leverage here. You're not going to get it for $1000, but you might for $2500 or $2200.
https://www.brickunderground.com/rent/why-landlords-leave-ap...
Trust me, as a resident, this phenomenon is real. There are a number of stores in my neighborhood that have been vacant for literally the entire time I've lived in the area (~ 2 years).
As a general rule of thumb, renters (both commercial and residential) really don't have much leverage in NYC, except under extremely rare circumstances. It's hard to understand unless you actually live here, but the rule governing real estate elsewhere in the USA don't really apply here.
There is so much cash floating around the high end of the economy, thanks to QE and tax dodging and everything you've heard about, that RE is purchased simply as a way to diversify holdings beyond stocks & bonds. It never has to be used.
Does NYC qualify? I think you can still hit theoretical under-half hour times if you manage to get the subway right as your train comes in and don't have to walk too far from the stations to the doors. But if you live in New York the psychological barrier of dealing with that crap is big enough that people tend not to do it outside of commuting. It's a chore to get someone in Brooklyn to come into the city to hang out unless it's right after work. And vice versa.
> It's a chore to get someone in Brooklyn to come into the city to hang out unless it's right after work. And vice versa.
The issue, I think, is that young professionals have largely been priced out of Manhattan, and the East River acts as a psychological boundary. Even if it's just a short trip, you're still leaving/entering "the city".
As a side anecdote, the club Maxwell's in Hoboken closed a few years ago; the reason given was that most of the bands that played there were willing to cross one river to play a gig, but only a small fraction were willing to cross both, even though the trip wasn't substantially longer.
This seems like damning with faint praise to anyone whose been to a developed city in East Asia or Western Europe.