Recent comments in /f/nyc

The_Question757 t1_je8ir2z wrote

In the last ten years they built a ton of apartments In white plains and it's still expensive as hell to live there. If people think they are going to build low income housing in a village with a household median income of 150k good luck with that. Not even the democrats in Scarsdale want this let alone the republicans

1

Frequent-Shape6950 t1_je8i4mh wrote

Sorry to hear. I unfortunately might be headed back in the system.

I'd made it out during lockdown, but then a debilitating injury and spine surgery 3 months ago left me with a life-threatening infection.

Tapping this from NYU Langone Orthopedic hospital on 17th while receiving IV antibiotic infusion treatment.

Nice view from 11th flr north up 2nd Ave tho. I can see the Vanderbilt tower, Chrysler Bldg, and Stuy Town to the East.

1

spicytoastaficionado t1_je8hrkn wrote

>One big difference is that the developers will only be able to lease the Boathouse from the National Park Service and someone would have to outright buy the Flatiron:

Which is a significant difference.

Even taking out Garlick's bids, the selling price for the Flatiron itself would likely be ballpark, or more, than the entire bathhouse project.

Don't get me wrong, I hope the Flatiron lands some owners who end up being responsible stewards of the property and do something productive with it.

But I think we have to be realistic about the very long, expensive, and effortful process involved to completely reimagine a landmark building like Flatiron.

3

FreeDarkChocolate t1_je8fja3 wrote

>outside of SI

Why should SI remain SFZ either? Setting it aside from the rest of the city means that the rest of the city would be legislatively destined to further subsidize SI's infrastructure to the benefit of existing landowners.

Designate a park as a park, industrial areas, farmland, reserved undeveloped areas, or preservation sites but otherwise let the market build up.

This is why measures that CA is taking (similar to "increase housing or your zoning is nullified") apply to the entire state; picking and choosing which areas should be zoned as what creates an artificial cap that exacerbates the problems we see today.

6

spicytoastaficionado t1_je8evbt wrote

What you're describing is accurate, but it also contradicts your previous "poker math" theory since Garlick will not be allowed to bid in a future auction and is unlikely to be involved w/ future ownership.

So unless you're alleging some sort of shill bidding conspiracy between Garlick and the runner-up (Gural's group), the next winner paying less than $190m doesn't benefit Garlick in any way.

1

spicytoastaficionado t1_je8e43o wrote

That isn't how auctions, especially high-value real estate auctions, operate. There is no post-sale price haggling.

You don't win a $190m auction, stiff the deposit, and then try and negotiate 10% off the sale price.

Jeff Gural's group (which was part of 3/4 of the previous ownership) already declined to exercise his runner-up option because he knows if/when the building goes back up for auction, he could nab it at a much lower price when you take out Garlick's bids.

The "poker math" theory only works if Garlick emerges as the owner and pays significantly less than he bought it for.

In reality, Garlick will be blacklisted from future auctions and the new owner will be the ones paying less than $190m.

1