apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

"graphic" link is broken

In the cases of broken links, it may be more helpful (and efficient) to email the site, rather than post a comment.

Why are retailers allowed to sell new appliances that are not certified to be efficient in their use of electricity?

The best way to improve the maintenance of old buildings would be to eliminate rent regulation.

Good idea MrGreen. Then we can put all of the people who do not earn or have enough money to pay the inflated market value of apartments in a shanty town....Central Park perhaps?

Mason, MrGreen gathers that you believe that people have the right to live wherever they wish regardless of their ability to pay?

What does MrGreen propose happen to people who do not have an ability to pay to stay in these non-rent-regulated neighborhoods? Perhaps they all be relegated to the furthest suburbs and forced to commute into their jobs in the city (thus increasing their environmental impact. Or perhaps a better solution is for them to all become homeless denizens of Gotham, since the environmental impact of someone living in a 2ft cardboard box must be minimal, and therefore, GREEN.

Also, doesn't higher income generally translate into larger living space, and therefore, greater per-person environmental impact?

JDog, in most places in the world, people live where they can afford to live.

I have to agree with Mr Green, eliminating rent controls would certainly improve maintenance of older buildings. As to all you defenders of the poor, rent control prices out ordinary middle class people who have not been so lucky or had the contacts to land a rent controlled apartment, not the mega millionaires who probably go to larger luxury apartments... But I think this discussion has already been held....

Actually, Mr Green would prefer to save the park for him and his friends with the multimillion-dollar apartments and of course the tourists to enjoy.

I believe he is in favor of all those (shudder) *other* people moving to the Bronx, New Jersey, or Pittsburgh.

Or China or Cuba!

Back to the article - I knew that florecent lighting was efficient, but put in that context - 3 week pay off, savings of 24,000 plus per year, wow. Of course, I have no idea what the annual electric bill for a vuilding that size is, but still, that is impressive.

MrGreen, that is true. I just don't think it's desirable.

I am still curious how you'd answer my question. In your world, what happens to the poor and middle-class when everyone lives where they can afford to live? How does this affect the character of the neighborhoods they move out of?

Sofia, I agree the middle class is getting pinched by real estate prices. But, I'm not sure eliminating rent control solves that problem, particularly given the unusually high concentration of the rich and the well-to-do in NYC.

To the point of the post and the NYT article, I think eliminating rent controls is only one option for making older buildings more green. The city should do more to encourage older buildings to adopt greener measures. For example, adjusting propety taxes based on energy consumption levels might offer financial incentives for all buildings (new and old) to become more green.

JDog, you're suggesting that property taxes go UP on buildings where the landlord already can't afford to make improvements because of rent control. That is perverse.

To answer your question, people should live where they can afford to live. If someone cannot afford to live in Manhattan, they can move to Queens. If they cannot afford to live in Queens, they can move to The Bronx. If they cannot afford to live in The Bronx, they can move to Jersey, or Pennsylvania, or Alabama. Or they can try to get an education and a better job and move into more expensive housing. Or to they can move to Cuba, as Cassis suggested.

News flash for MrGreen: Queens and The Bronx are a PART of New York City. If MrGeen had read the report in NYT he would know that one of the buildings cited in the story as making advances on becoming green was The Towers, a coop in Queens. Geeze MrGreen you are a pain in the a**. Don't you have anything more constructive to offer?

Mason, as MrGreen has said to you before, MrGreen will accept constructive criticism graciously but you must read what he has written. No where has MrGreen implied that the outer boroughs are not part of New York City. There is no need for you to be vulgar.

Wow, such ferver over rent subsidies, control or what have you.

NYC isn't the only city with rent to income issues, Seattle, Boston, Chicago and many other larger cities have the same thing, rents often outstripping what people make.

While I don't feel that rent control or it's ilk is the end all, be all in this issue but holding landlords accountable for what/how they can charge, within reason, is at the heart of the issue, not just so people can live in Manhattan, Central Park or heck, even in downtown Seattle on a paltry income but to allow such people the choice of being able to even afford to live in the city at all. A lot of people work in the service/retail/hospitality sectors and don't make much more than $30K a year, if that and without some reasonable rental rates, many have to move to the outlying burbs or smaller towns where rents are cheaper and then commute in. That to me is not efficient use of space, nor energy, especially if mass transit isn't always available and a car is a necessity. In the end, while one pays less in rent, they pay more in the commute fees, insurance and maintance if the car is their most reliable option.

I know from reading various blogs from those who live in NYC, to get a place means acting fast and getting it upon first sight or someone else will, and the rents are easily $1200 or more for a tiny place at that for a market rate place, less if stabilized or controled and if you bring home $1800-2000 a month, that's way too much rent to safely afford. But a similar place for say, $675-775 may be affordable. That's the economic reality for many and thus, the far flung burrows, towns etc are some people's only option when they have a job in the big city but it doesn't pay enough for what it costs to live in the city, short commutes be damned.

Seattle went through something similar with rent hikes back in 1998-2000 and I was part of a grass roots organization that tried to put some kind of regulations in place. it ultimately fell through so I know something of the fears many renters felt when they can't safely budget out far in advance on their rent due to greedy landlords jacking up rents and thus got priced out and had to move someplace cheaper. And no, many buildings didn't see improvements, just higher rents.

However, the article itself is a very good one in that be it NYC or elsewhere, there are older buildings that are still not updated all that much, still have their original single pane windows and such and it will take educating landlords that some investment now will eventually save them money, even if it takes a few years, but in the end, even just some simple fixes now can slow the increases in utilities enough to allow for rents to remain reasonable and yet still do OK. However, that may well prove difficult to do as many long standing inefficient practices/knowledge will be hard to break.

Builders and landlords won't ever voluntarily build or retrofit "greenly" unless they are offered tax breaks or financial incentives to do so.

But, yes, new construction should be required to use low-water consuming plumbing fixtures and Energy Star appliances.

MrGreen--I'm with ciddyguy: if you price out people with lower incomes, who will provide your services? Who will patrol your streets? Who will fight your fires? Who will teach your children? Who will bring you your water when you sit down at a restaurant? There has to be a way for people of all incomes to live within reasonable working distance of their jobs in a city, or it isn't a very well run city at all.
And p(too) is also correct--you must give people financial incentives to spend their money. The guilt trip of doing the right thing to save the environment isn't going to make it any easier for a building owner to afford to make improvments--especially if the cost of materials and services rises faster, relatively, than the income he gets from the property.

People must be given financial incentives to spend their money? MrGreen thinks not. shelter life alex, your porcine friend is WRONG, simply ignorant of the facts.

Private developers are building GREEN buildings because they can sell the apartments for more then they could if the buildings were NOT GREEN. It certainly is NOT necessary to pay people to build GREEN.

Nor is it necessary to pay people to GREEN existing buildings, because they save money in the long run. Slumlords have been putting cheap-o flourescent fixtures in buildings to save energy for years. Even in rent-regulated buildings. Saves them money.

People with lower incomes can commute. If no employees are willing to work at the prevailing wage, wages will rise until the employees are willing to take the job with the commute, or can afford to live nearby. MrGreen had much rather pay someone to clean his apartment than to pay higher taxes so they can have subsidized housing and then not clean his apartment.

And as MrGreen said before, the best way to improve the maintenance of old buildings would be to eliminate rent regulation. Then landlords would have an incentive to improve their buildings to obtain higher rents so they could pay higher property taxes and MrGreen's property taxes would be lower.

Commuting is expensive--a train or bus pass from anywhere outside the city is several hundred dollars a month--and certainly not the greenest option. And there is a big difference between the cost of a fluorescent (yes, that's how it's spelled) light fixture and a green roof. A landlord isn't going to front the cash for a green roof, no matter how much it will save in the long run, if he just doesn't have it to begin with.

shelter life alex, if the landlord could take in enough rent to cover his expenses, he might have enough money left over to make capital improvements. Deregulate the rent.

Another option would be to have the maid live in the maid's room. As snot said in another thread, "duh".

Um, higher rents and higher price tags = financial incentives, no?

MrGreen, you are so hellbent on disagreeing with me, you don't even pay attention to my points, which you actually supported, albeit long-winded and as imperious as ever.

But dear god man, you are a MISERABLE, MISERABLE cuss, and I hate that you have brought your bleak outlook and life-sadness to what used to be a lovely place to check in a few times a day.

Actually, MrGreen, what I was suggesting by "adjusting" property taxes was that people receive tax _breaks_ and _lower_ tax bills when they decrease their building's energy consumption -- not sure why you chose to read my comment in the reverse (or, perverse).

The rationale for providing such incentives, at least in the short term, is because people aren't greening existing buildings very quickly. Slum lords might use cheap-o flourescent lights to save money, but many other buildings have not adopted these measures yet because the financial savings just aren't worth it to them to make the effort. The article describes how many buildings that do move towards being more green can easily justify small steps, but have a hard time justifying more extensive initiatives with longer payback times.

Also, I don't fully buy your logic of how wages will rise -- your argument assumes that low-income workers have the luxury of choosing whether or not to work at prevailing wages. Alas, the world is not a perfectly efficient market; such changes as you describe come at a real human cost, which any true solution needs to address.

Finally, I think it's easy for those of us with educations to assume that everyone else can "try to get an education and a better job". Sure, it's a noble goal, and I'm all for it, but there are frequently-overlooked structural barriers that get in the way -- like long commute times, for example, that diminish someone's chance to attend night school and get that education, or distance from the affordable day care (more available in urban centers) which may limit someone's options for taking better jobs.

to clarify: it's the distance from affordable day care, not the affordable day care itself, that could limit someone's job options.

JDog, if taxes are lowered on low-energy consuming buildings, taxes will have to be increased on high-energy consuming buildings. It's two sides of the same coin.

Porkboy, here's your post:

"Builders and landlords won't ever voluntarily build or retrofit 'greenly' unless they are offered tax breaks or financial incentives to do so."

MrGreen stands by his earlier interpretation of it.

MISinterpretation.

And cut the pork/porcine crap. If you are so confident in your fountains of knowledge, there is no need to rely on playground name calling.

What mrgreen is missing from his argument (though I understand he is making only one and not the one I am making) is the following:

1. Ppl are assuming that RS(Rent Stabilized)/RC(Rent Controlled) - collectively RR(Rent Regulated) - helps ppl on low income when it actually helps ppl who were lucky enough to score a RR apt many years ago or who have succession rights regardless of income until it hits $175K and rent hits $2K

2. There are 3 million housing units in the whole of NYC, 1 million are owner occupied, 1 million are RS, 50K are RC, 300K are some form of public housing leaving 700k at free market rates. It is not inconcievable that releasing 1 million apts into free market when there are 700k at the moment would reduce the rent of the free market averages quite considerably. Admitedly at the cost of raised RR rates. However, there should not be the phenomenol jacking up of market rents that we have seen in the last few years. There will be too many free market apts to sustain this. (Rents went into freefall between last half of 2001 until about 2003 due to lower demand due to recession in nyc).

I think that there should be means tested (on a mandatory annual basis) tax incentive based (for the developers) low to middle income housing created by developers.

The current system is broken, open to abuse and there are better ways of producing low to middle income housing.
The newcomers to nyc who are the cities future are not the ones that benefit from RR.

Just as I think tax incentive based low to middle income housing should be implemented, I think tax incentive based green solutions should be implemented (to bring this back to context).

Slight correction:
However, in the future, there should not be the phenomenol jacking up of market rents that we have seen in the last few years

jamie pup, it's "MrGreen", not "mrgreen".

MrGreen has never associated rent control with poor people. It was the other posters who did that. Thanks for pointing out that issue, however.

MrGreen reiterates that if you give financial consideration for the "GREEN" it will be the "NOT-GREEN" who pay it. If you wish to influence an otherwise free market, this could be a good thing. But it is not fair to penalize landlords who make little or no profit as it is because they cannot afford capital improvements because of long-un-needed government interference in the rental market. It is no more fair than giving property tax abeyances for luxury housing in Manhattan.

Any possibility of getting a do-over on this thread? It was sort of hijacked by the whole rent control/stabilization rant. I was fascinated by yesterday's article, and I would love to know what other people thought of it. I own a small co-op in a 1960 white brick building and I would love to see a productive discussion about retrofitting such a building with new technologies.

overheated buildings in the winter are a BIG waste of energy and money. often people open their windows as a means to regulate the temperature... the boiler computers and thermostatic valves mentioned in the article are relatively inexpensive fixes for this. but many apartment dwellers, even co-op and condo owners, don't understand the real impact on their wallets of indoor temperatures above 72 degrees, in the way that private homeowners do (or should); and many landlords and co-op/condo boards don't understand the potential savings. there are even NY state loan paydown programs to fund these improvements, which are equivalent to low- or no-interest loans. the city should promote all of this much more aggressively.

there is also a tax break available for heating buildings with biodiesel; i'd be interested to know how many owners take advantage of it.

Hey, jamie pup... long time no read!

Hey Patrick.
I don't have much time to post - let alone read - these days.
Next time there's an AT social I may make it though.

You're always a welcome presence, online and off! Hope all is well.