The Worst Room - Photos of Cheap Rooms for Rent in NYC
theworstroom.tumblr.com
theworstroom.tumblr.com
I fully realize that I may not have all of the opportunities available here as I would in NYC or San Francisco, but I've never struggled to find interesting, well paying jobs and there is more than enough going on in the St Louis area to keep a person entertained.
Far be it from me to judge other peoples' choices. You should do whatever makes you happy in life but, when you find yourself saying that a room the size of my closet "isn't so bad" of a living space, you might want to take a step back and reassess some things.
Raising kids, living with a significant other, sure. You need space in those. But for a post-grad getting started who isn't a homebody and mostly just needs a place to sleep and store food, I don't see why they'd need to reaccess their life.
These days my life has changed and my apartment is more of a place that I wind down after work. I would not consider living in these places now, but in my past? Absolutely.
7-year New Yorker here.
By NYC standards, they aren't that bad. They're unattractive and small, but I've seen a lot worse.
Some of the places that I've had realtors show me make these places look like palaces. When I first got here and was living on close to nothing, I found (on Craigslist) a Williamsburg loft where there'd literally be a shower curtain separating my "room" (which was filthy) from a dark, tenement-like space with ~12 people in it. Kitchen stuff was at least 50 years old and probably didn't work. I visited at 10:00pm on a Thursday and it was loud as hell. $1200 per month. Um, no thanks. (By the way, Williamsburg has the most intense negative energy on earth. Hipsters sound okay in theory but I can't fucking stand them in practice. To give one a job is like pouring salt on a slug, except a good thing in the former case because the whining is entertaining.)
However, I agree with you. If you can get a stream of good jobs out in the Midwest, that is the way to go.
It's honestly not worth the cost of living here for most people. The high rents here are driven by (a) asshole foreign speculators that the government irresponsibly lets into the market, when a 6-months-and-1-day rule is really in order, (b) various legacy rent-control systems that wouldn't be a big deal except in the context of extreme price inelasticity-- I have no problem with the idea of rent control, or even with its continuation for the legitimate beneficiaries; but when upper-middle-class well-connected asswipes buy their way into an arrangement that's superior to ownership, and lock up housing stock, that's wrong, (c) NIMBY like you wouldn't believe, (d) parentally-funded hipster zeros whose guilt-ridden spawners decided they have some entitlement to the "New York Experience" (at $2-6k/month) even though they do absolutely nothing for anyone, (e) the fact that in investment banking and large-firm law, there really are major career benefits to living here (you pretty much need to live in Manhattan to get promoted in soft-side banking; trading is more of a meritocracy where you can live whereever you want as long as you show up on time). If none of these apply, New York is not worth the cost of living here. It is nice, if you take out the cost problem; I just think having savings and, eventually, the freedom with having a nest egg, improves the average person's quality of life by more. (You might guess that I don't intend to be here in 10 years, although I'm very glad I spent the 7 that I have.)
3-year New Yorker here.
By NYC standards, most of these are bad. There certainly are worst places that cost more than what's being shown here, but that doesn't make these "not bad". My first apartment here had two separate rooms, a large kitchen, a bathroom and a "foyer", for $1k/month.
The only reason for living in any of the rooms they've shown here is an absolute need to live in that particular neighborhood, whether you're doing it because you need to be next to your job, or because you need to be neck-deep in the "culture" of that particular neighborhood.
I do however agree with you that New York isn't a good fit for most people, but for some people it's the only conceivable place to live.
i don't know, they sound pretty terrible in theory also
Are you talking about McKibbin by any chance? People live there as a sort of "experience" if that makes any sense - look how New York it is.
Besides, McKibbin is so 00s, as explained by Gawker: http://gawker.com/5431831/bushwick-artist-communitytrailer-p...
>>>The high rents here are driven by (a) asshole foreign speculators that the government irresponsibly lets into the market, when a 6-months-and-1-day rule is really in order, (b) various legacy rent-control systems that wouldn't be a big deal except in the context of extreme price inelasticity
Um, no. Second-generation life-long New York native here.
These insane prices are driven up by people like you who come here, don't know the proper prices, don't know why the hell we have rent control or what it is and never check to see if you're being ripped off, and so drive everything the hell up. Period.
New Jersey is a free rent market. Hoboken and Jersey City rents went sky-high from the 1980s on -- even as ginormous skyscraper apartments were being built on the waterfront as "affordable" (to who!) apartments. Everyone who had lived there for decades got screwed out of living there.
This is completely irrelevant. The problem persists no matter what you think people 'should' do. The only thing that will change the status quo are laws that prohibit people from taking advantage of others.
Ultimately, this is just an instance of a classic conservative vs. liberal debate, so you may simply be incapable of seeing my point of view.
That said, I'm curious for myself how I might stick landlords on illegally high fees. In New York, what would be the best way to go about this? Is there a database I could refer to, or an agency I could get in touch with?
Not that either one effects the outer boroughs much (minus the parts of Brooklyn that might as well be Manhatten). As it happens that other city is also where you'll find most real New Yorkers living.
As of 2011, more than 60% of all apartments in New York are price regulated in some way. Rent stabilization destroys the incentive for developers to maintain and improve properties, and combined with the ridiculous historical preservation laws binds their hands in replacing properties with higher-capacity housing.
That's why most of the housing in Brooklyn and Queens is former tenement housing built god knows how long ago and maintained like crap. Landowners can't easily decide to just tear that shit down and put up mid/high-rises that could house 10x more people and bring down prices.
Also, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx have plenty of nice, and dense, housing. You should try leaving Downtown Manhattan by Disney World (tm) every once and a while.
[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/realestate/rent-stabilized...
Except rent prices never go down. This is what you outsiders don't freakin understand. Even if you got rid of the rent control and stabilization laws, made it all "free" market, you'd never, ever see a decrease in rents. When people fled post-9/11 and no one was renting, rents did not go down. They side-stepped that by offering one or two or three months of "free" rent, while the registered rent remained in the city's books. Rents never decrease. And never will unless there is some catastrophe that makes the city inhospitable.
Prices in NYC do go down. Rents in NYC fell 10-12% during the down turn (and of course 2-3 months of "free" rent is economically indistinguishable from a drop in rents).
Moreover, rents are sticky like most prices. What increased supply does is keep the rent from going up so quickly.
I hate the "free months" with a passion, because they carry an implicit rent-raise next year: even if rent stays the same, your effective rent rises because you're paying for 12 months instead of 11.
I usually try to negotiate the "free months" into a lowered rent (e.g. $2250/month instead of $2400 with a one-month concession). It means that I pay a little more in the first year, but next year's rent will be anchored to this year's.
Hence the games you see being played.
You should then do me a favor and tell me how I get a deal at the proper prices. I agree; the cost of living here is ridiculous. Show me how not to pay four-digit rents for a 1BR within 30 minutes of work and I will be very grateful.
don't know why the hell we have rent control or what it is and never check to see if you're being ripped off
Rent control was originally set in place in the 1940s to prevent a housing spike when people came back from the war. A good thing? It would be, if everyone could participate. Right now, though, that's not the case.
I have no problem with those who were alive during that time keeping rent-control. However, I do have a problem with it when people making $250,000 per year get in on RC because they have connections and pay key money to the children of the deceased. That I have a problem with. And then these hypocritical limousine liberals brag about how they're "sticking it to The Man" by using their connections to get a deal literally superior to ownership.
Oh, I agree completely. I once worked for a boss making six figures who was paying the kind of rent I could afford and he was lucky because he'd been in that place for over twenty years. But what's the solution? If you charged him rent based on his income, the registered rent increases, and will never go down because the landlord will make sure the next tenant has a six-figure income.
New York City rents are an insane system that really does no one any good, especially for those who work and don't make six figures -- which is most of the people who live in NYC.
"...you seriously need to get some perspective."
you are definitely judging other peoples' choices. that's not a bad thing, but own up to it.
i have a good reason for not living in 'flyover country'. when i was growing up there, i had direct encounters with racist individuals on a regular basis. i have not had those encounters in nyc (i also lived in san francisco and had racist interactions there).
i like walking around people that don't look at me funny. rent in nyc is the best $2000/month i spend.
people who are from these areas will say "i encountered more racist people in the north/west/whatever" but they're usually just referring to people who shared their racist opinion with them, not actually being on the RECEIVING END of a racist interaction.
which MAKES SENSE if you think about it - white people in manhattan or SF or LA are basically going to feel like a minority, and may seek a little bit of empathetic camraderie by complaining about race X Y or Z. if a white person does this in vastly majority white area they're just going to seem like an asshole with a chip on their shoulder.
the coastal areas make it easy to blend in no matter who you are. nobody is going to hassle you or ask you stupid ass questions.
definitely not 'flyover country' as the original post described.
The way it's been presented to me has been that Southerners "hate the race and love the people" while in the rest of the country it's "hate the people and love the race".
My (admittedly limited) sampling has been that the Texans I know are less seriously racist than the folks I've worked with from New York or other big coastal cities.
i'm not sure.
i can say that you will likely experience racism directly when hailing a cab. i am guessing that cab drivers assume black and latino folks live far away from the bar scene, in neighborhoods where not many people are looking to take cabs. these cab drivers reason that picking up a black or latino person will result in a long drive to drop off the passenger, and a long drive back to a neighborhood that will have enough bar traffic to find another passenger. if you try to hail them, they will simply drive by and look for another passenger. i am basing this off several encounters i've had with friends who are black and latino, but no hard evidence otherwise.
there is likely some racism you will experience in predominantly rich, white neighborhoods as well, but mostly things on the level of being mistaken for a waiter or something.
i can't really say for sure though, don't have a lot of data for latinos.
More to the point, in a city where there's tons of diversity on every street corner, there might still be some racists out there but you can guarantee their racism is just making them miserable every day -- most of us enjoy the diversity.
i lived in new york city -> i did not directly experience racism -> i live here now
im not making any more general claims about the existence of racism in nyc. i dont have enough data for that.
for whatever reason, i do not have to worry about my skin color here. that is a valid reason for spending extra money to live in a smaller space, in my opinion. i believe that i have 'perspective'; the op was claiming that someone like me would not.
your reasoning seems to be: i experienced racism in nyc -> racism is part of human nature from tribal times -> there are definitely racist people in nyc. you should fill in the arrows with more evidence. i do not see how one conclusion follows from the other.
i will also make the point that racism against a majority race is different than racism against minority races. minority races in america have less available resources to prevail against racism, when averaged across the population. i sympathize with your incident, but my priority is ensuring that, as a minority, i minimize the time i spend dealing with racist acts towards minorities.
the above paragraph can be summarized as 'for an individual of a particular race, all racist acts are not equal'
Is this a parking spot of the optional, nice-to-have variety, or of the mandatory, can't-live-without-a-car variety? There are lots of different lifestyle tradeoffs in cities, and different things that might cause you to step back and consider moving. For me personally, I was sick of driving. Whether I have to drive everywhere is much more important than the size of my living space. I don't particularly mind small living spaces, especially if it means I can often be out of my small living space just by walking out the door into the city. Though I do prefer them to have some good natural light.
Of course, I didn't move to NYC either, so I don't know whether its particular set of tradeoffs is worth it overall.
I've actually always wondered who takes apartments like these. Either people with no taste, no plans to ever be home, or no time to hunt (it usually takes a week or two to find a good place).
When I travel, I often stay in dorms, not because I can't afford a room, but because it's more fun and I feel better about being part of a community. Many dorms might be undesirable holes in your mind, but they also might be a lot more fun.
Some people place little value on the room they sleep in and a lot of value on having access to an amazing city like New York. In fact, I'd say that's often a better life choice than isolating yourself in the suburbs.
(That's not to say one is better than the other -- each to their own.)
For example that 300/mo "Breakfast Nook" one looks like it would be perfectly fine with the other person's shit removed.
(I am not a resident of NYC)
Just make sure to read about the history of the place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Heights,_Manhattan#1...
Even so, it could be fine with the right roommates (is that mess made by the previous tenant, or the person/people that would still be living there?). If the kitchen is a shared space that price could actually be fantastic if there is further shared space that isn't pictured (though I doubt there is).
Lets have a little perspective [0].
0: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/22/_60_perce...
http://petapixel.com/2013/02/19/cramped-apartments-in-hong-k...
On the other hand, the ad I responded to mentioned a "roof terrace" which would have elicited a few chuckles if they'd put up a picture of the wobbly ladder leading to the standard flat roof. Funnily enough, its a dubious feature I actually like for the views and the way it catches the sun rather better than the bona fide garden I had in my last place. I quite like walking everywhere too...
I've also lived in Berlin. And yet somehow that city didn't seem to have the rent problems other capitals seem to. I have no idea why.
The only (relatively) good deals in Manhattan are in FiDi, where I'd imagine the historical preservation nazis are less nazi-ish about tearing shit down and renovating. At least last time I checked, there was some reasonable new construction/renos down there that didn't cost $5,000/month for a 1BR.
I had understood that bedrooms in the USA had to have a closet and a window/external door. Is that not the case?
In New York, either that isn't the law, or it just gets violated a lot more often. Since moving here I've seen a surprising number of places where the bedroom has no windows.
However, there is definitely no requirement (in any state I've lived in) for a bedroom to have a closet. Some do, many don't.
That. The city is infested with illegal apartments that would never pass fire inspections.
Also, the short book The Rent Is Too Damn High: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO
These are all very solvable problems, it's just very difficult to change the status quo.
As corrupt as Chicago is, I do love one thing about it: the corruption sometimes works in peoples' favor. Recently, Northwestern University wanted to tear down its hideous old womens' hospital to put up a new medical facility: http://d22r54gnmuhwmk.cloudfront.net/photos/1/zg/re/MTzGREji.... The usual suspects bitched about architecture blah blah. Rahm was like "STFU" and Northwestern got a permit to tear that shit down. The funny thing was that they basically abandoned it during the scuffle with the preservationists (like 3-4 years). I'm convinced the plan was to basically be like "oops, looks like it's not safe to occupy anymore!" (buildings break down surprisingly quickly during periods of no occupancy).
[1] I secretly dream of doing a non-profit specializing in litigation against preservationist groups.
In Australia, this tactic is known as "demolition by neglect". Sometimes an "accidental" grease fire starts to speed up the process.
Yes, because that is how New York City used to be. This crap of these illegal one rooms are driven by people who don't give a shit for native New Yorkers or the laws at all.
I live in Weehawken and spent all my energy looking (for months) in NYC. After living in Astoria (amazing neighborhood) for two and a half years, I decided I wanted more space.
Benefits of living in NJ are: 1) More space 2) Cheaper rent 3) Nicer apartment for the money 4) No NYC residents tax (anywhere from 2-7% depending on income level)
:/
People rent overpriced tiny places because they can't afford full priced full sized rooms. If overpriced tiny places were not available, full sized rooms would be more expensive and many people would not have the choice to live in a small cheaper room.
Anyway, if you want the real culprit of NYC and SF rental pricing problems, it's very simple: RENT CONTROL IS EVIL. Rent control causes hoarding, and the higher market prices go the more hoarding and the higher prices go. It's a vicious cycle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
"Looxereh!"
... might include roasting to death due to a fire blocking your only egress.
I don't know you, but I can tell you with confidence that you have better things to worry about.
That is probably what you should be doing, not complaining to me.
In many areas of the developed world it's actually illegal to rent out a room without a window.