apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

amazing. unfortunate they converted this building.

i just want to say i just finished reading the whole article. what a cool family. sadly the bohemian dream is now dying.

hejiranyc -- on the one hand I agree with you. On the other hand, wow.

hejira -- time for a chill pill. Rent regulation is only that -- it is not public housing. The system is not fair, but it is what it is and it will die out over time. I remember a time when a lot more people in NYC lived like this, and it is sad that all the Wall St. money has changed the landscape -- but it seems it will change again soon. New York is always changing. Find your own niche and enjoy.

mostly wow.

a really beautiful home, and a seemingly nice family.

I don't see anything "bohemian" about this family. They live in a beautiful apartment, make a lot of money by American standards and have beautiful art and furniture.

Wait. Didn't Bohemia and New York part ways a couple decades ago?

@hejiranyc. Absolutely. They embody everything wrong with rent regulation and the perverse upper middle class welfare mentality it engenders. The 'bohemian' really just means that the apartment is too cluttered and really only interesting because of its bones, not all of the crap they've shoved in it.

What is amazing to think about, for me, is how having that kind of housing deal has shaped their lives. With that many people and that kind of space and that kind of rent, the possibilities of what to do with yourself just really open up. Though I do agree with hejira that there is probably some creative accounting going on. You just get the impression that the lifestyle of this family costs more than $175K to support, not even counting their housing cost.

It's shocking to me that they pay only a few hundred more in rent for that amazing NYC apartment than I pay on the mortgage for my 1300 sq. ft. house in the burbs.

I can see why the owners wanted to go condo. How could they afford to pay for and maintain a building like that with such low rents?

They're operating under the rules as they are. If there's blame to place on their living in such a large space for so little money despite their obvious ability to pay more, the fault lies with the law and not with them.

If rent regulation is "intended to benefit people of modest means" then it should be structured by the lawmakers to do so.

Mid-C-Frank, the problem is that rent regulation is actually making a comeback. City politicos have not only managed to wrestle the issue of city rent regulation away from Albany, they are trying to lift the income limits to $240K and the rent threshold to $2700- retroactively! This means previously de-controlled apartments would be back into the rent regulation system. I think rent regulation has really benefited way too many wealthy people. Although $175K is hardly considered "wealthy" by NYC standards, it is certainly above average, and it is certainly more than enough to live in market-rate housing. I think it's disgraceful that people would intentionally limit their "reported income" (via creative accounting, surely) in order to continue to game the system. Now that the cat is out of the bag, I hope the O'Neals undergo a thorough IRS audit and have their bohemian behinds kicked out onto the curb. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves for accepting housing subsidies when there are so many people losing their jobs and homes. The city would collect TONS of money in the form of income tax and/or real estate tax from a grand residence like this. Instead, it is being held hostage by these entitled pseudo-hippies while the property owners lose their shirts subsidizing the living standards of these parasites.

It's their way of life. If I'd been living in a place for 30 years, hells yeah I'd be careful to meet rent regulation rules. Don't knock it if you aren't in their shoes. I know a lot o' people would do the exact same thing. Ya'll sound like a bunch of whiny punk kids living in mama's basement - fight the man! *snicker*

Here is the tale of another (celebrity) leech who rented an 8-room palace at the Apthorp for $1500/month, Nora Ephron:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/03/opinion/03tierney.html?scp=1&sq=delusions%20rich%20rent%20controlled&st=cse

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels disgusted by these kinds of people...

My boyfriend's parents lived a very similar life in the same neighborhood. The building is not as luxe as the Apthorp, and the apartment is a bit smaller, but they continually had a group of roving artists and friends living there. They were true bohemians, and represent a way of life that is very much dead.

What is amazing to think about, for me, is how having that kind of housing deal has shaped their lives.

This statement is so true... my bf and his siblings all work in creative fields. They weren't subject to the same housing angst that rules NYC in general.

With the passing of his parents, we are now beginning the legal battle to keep the apartment (my bf has a legitimate claim, he's live there full time for the last 4 years taking care of his parents). It, like the Apthorp, has converted to a luxury condo, and the owners won't go down without a fight. I am not from NYC and realize the absurdity of the whole situation. But I don't know many people who would pass by the opportunity to keep an apartment like this if it was made available to them.

Oh crap, I forgot close the italics . Sorry.

All I get from this is nobody said life was fair, and I thought that kid was a girl.

Actually I did read the article earlier and watched the slide show, and I thought something readers could take away from it was that the O'Neals took a long time to accumulate possessions rather than trying to fill their home complete at the beginning, and that if you want mahogany, don't settle for oak in the interim.

I have a magazine advertisement for the Apthorp on my inspiration board. Sigh. Too bad I'm struggling to make my $600 monthly rent. :]

In 1971, when they moved in, the entire Upper West Side was a bohemian neighborhood, because banker types were scared to live there.

I remember well when that neighborhood was dotted with SROs for released criminals and mental patients. Anything above 81st Street was dicey. West End Avenue was wall-to-wall prostitutes. When I grew up in the city in the 70s, my mom wouldn't let me go to a friend's apartment on Central Park West in the 80s because it was "too dangerous." Columbia was a safety school -- it accepted nearly half its applicants -- because parents were terrified to let their children live on the Upper West Side.

Yes, rent regulations are absurd and unfair, but the people with 70s-era leases are also what kept the neighborhood from becoming a no-go zone.

Hejiranyc,

I understand your anger. Most of my adult life I lived in tiny market-rate NYC apartments while much richer old people I knew paid peanuts for palaces. But that said, I think you misunderstand what rent control is.

Rent control isn't subsidized housing -- it was created after WW2 to keep landlords from gouging returning servicemen. It was never "welfare" for people needing a leg up -- it applied to every single apartment in the city, even on Park Avenue.

By the late 70s, the city decided the law was no longer necessary, and rent control ceased to exist, EXCEPT for the leases already in effect at that time. That has the unfortunate effect of making "newcomers" -- i.e. anyone post-70s -- pay extra to subsidize the long-term tenants.

What's rotten about New York's system is the unfairness of rich old people having a classic six while working families try to squeeze two kids into a 1BR. But it's not about "keeping people stuck in underachieving needy roles in society."

Geez, chill out. You don't even know these people or their true situation, and this has been their family home for 30 years. Plus, I have no doubt that the landlord has tried to get these people out, and failed. Life isn't fair; get over it.

hejiranyc, crawl back into whatever dank, hate-filled hole from whence you came. Or better yet, take your anti-rc ranting over to curbed and join the chorus over there.

trygve, I actually have a nice apartment in the city and a nice house in the country- all market rate and earned/paid for 100% by yours truly. No dank, hate-filled hole here. Sorry to disappoint you...

Wow, heijiranyc, I though no big deal of you having a very adamant opinion, but now you are going to narc on these folks? Totally lame (and useless, as it was, after all, published in an internationally known paper). What about the people that will move into this apartment that can afford it when it sells for $7mil, are you going to make sure their books are checked as well?

There's all sorts of corruption going on all over the city, and putting this into context of the corruption that has been unveiled in the last few years and has lead to a international collapse of our financial markets, this strikes me as some of the least consequential.

They have a deal on an apartment. The person that is impacted most from this is the developer. Let's not act like destabilizing this rent will get the homeless off the street.

wait, there's a leaky faucet. LOST TAX REVENUE. I think myself and the other posters have made clear who is sounding like a crazy person here. I'll leave you to defend yourself against the masses, dummy.

I take it you're not a Libertarian.

I'd be more upset about all the tax breaks for the wealthy, if city revenue were my concern.

Lisa Montreal...a breath of sanity! Wow, AT is getting dicey! I'm glad it's a blog, I feel a rumble about to occur. It's turning into W End Ave in the 70's again!

One the one hand, I agree with hejira. This stinks. I have to pay market and I make less than half of what they make. On the other hand, there are much worse inequities all over this city and I'm not sure it's worth getting worked up over this.

Wow, lots of conflict.

What I was trying to remember while reading this story this morning is whether this is the building Nora Ephron had to move out of because of the condo-ization and she writes about it in her book about feeling bad about her neck.

yes, charlotte nora ephron did live in the apthorp. they used the building in the film of her book heartburn. the o'neal apartment is such a new york story and it is part of what makes nyc so interesting, like the woman who would not move out of her brownstone apt near blomingdales so they built an office building around it.

I think there is a point most are missing. If rent protections were done away with, there would only be 2 classes in the city: the very wealthy and poverty level. Having apartments regulated afford middle income families to reside in urban areas. Do I condone the abuse- absolutely not. Yet to consider the knee jerk reaction to do away with regulation of rents, is a slippery slope. Who wants to let landlords do what ever they want, how ever they want? We let the banks and financial institutions regulate themselves. Now look at how badly this has turned out for our economic demise.

"Jelousy is such a hideous emotion". Supporting an extended family and a variety of strays including people over the years in New York on $175,000 does not make you a bad person. Bernie Madoff expects to keep his 7 million dollar apartment on Park Avenue, even though he ripped off 50 billion in an international ponzie sceme. Hejiranyc sounds like someone from pre-nazi Germany."Money makes the world go around".

"money makes the world go around" is from Cabaret, not Hejiranyc.

In NYC everything is fair, love, war and housing. Rent control is not public housing as some one mentioned here. And please stop raging against the wrong target. If you've lived there during the Koch era, when he (Koch) slept with the real estate barons and pissed the City down the drain for the rich interests in development and housing, you would consider these people folk heroes.

Passing judgment on these old bohemians is fatuous. Live and let live that is the mantra in NYC. For the clueless amongst you, there will always be a class system. Even in Soviet Russia there was systematic preferences for some. Get over your righteousness. Instead of blaming these tenants for the unfortunates that are struggling to pay rents or mortgages go after the powerful in government and the private sector that allow rents to sky rocket for greed and city officials who encourage expensive development for the upper middle classes and above, over the needs of the rest of us. Blaming the tenants is envy and outrageously simple minded. They can afford that rent and we can't fine, let's find a solution by keeping ourselves informed about how a city as powerful as NYC can allow this housing problem to spiral into an endless black hole!!

BTW rent control was initiated during the great depression to keep landlords from throwing people out. Rent control was part of an initiative to build housing and control rents for the working class.

However, it is still needed today, with reasonable market rents for landlords and tenants to coexist. Because of greed and an uncontrolled developers lobbying, NYC has turned into a money machine for opportunists and real estate behemoths. Balance is what we need in every area of our economy and government.

I've been trying to come up with a striping teatment for my walls. he moldings are done so gorgeously, I'm inspired to adapt them to my designs. I wanted copper and now I see the possibilities of combining other colors.

Umm... re: lost tax revenue. Did you miss the part in the article which mentions all of the EMPTY units that are not selling? Where is the lost tax revenue if the developers manage to get this family kicked out yet fail to sell the apartment?

$2000 a month for 3000 square feet? I don't necessarily oppose rent control, but this seems extreme. I live in an extremely low cost part of the country housing wise and no one gets 3000 square feet for $2000/mo.

Something is very fishy with their income. How do you try to make less than $175 per year? Do you hit your quota and give away free meals to the homeless? Close your doors mid-November? Hire a very clever accountant?

I need to keep my income under $175k so I still qualify for my $2500/mo 3000SF Manhattan apartment. Don't we all wish we had those kind of financial problems.

There is another, worse, aspect to this families' ability to "keep" their income under $170,000. Because they pay so little rent, everyone else in the building who pays market rent, or who owns a condo and pays maintenance, supports this family. The money to maintain this building has to come from someone. Worse, by agreeing to this interview, it appears that they think this parasitical way of living is just fine.

Wow, this whole debate makes me glad I don't live in NYC anymore. People's nerves are so frayed from the constant, crushing financial pressure associated with just maintaining a home there, and on top of that there's such a rigid class structure. Space and location of real estate seem to be directly related to everything else that distinguishes the "haves" from the "have nots."

Anyway, although some people may be jealous of the family with the little boy, look at it this way: the dad has had to go through life with the name "Coke," and he still lives with his parents (not to mention his ex-girlfriend).

WOW, The Jealousy from the have-nots towards those of us that have a great big rent stabilized uws apartment.

Too bad for hejiranyc! You would not move out. And it's impossible to hide your money from motivated landlords and the detectives, and lawyers.

If you had one of these apartment would you move out if you did not need to? If you did move along your landlord would gussy it up and charge $10,000. a month for the next person to live there.

That's the way it works in my building.

These people are bohemian? On an income that is almost 10x the median income in this country? I guess bohemian describes anyone who gives their children strange names (Mercury, really?) and has a randomly-decorated (sorry, 'eclectic'), cluttered home.

Half the people commenting on this board don't have a clue the way it works in pre-war rent stabilized building.
The old landlords own the buildings and have no mortgage! More then enough money from the rents to cover the cost.

It is the speculative real estate developers who buy them and can't pay their mortgage.

They are the scum of NYC, ruined our city for all the people on this list who can not find a stabilized apartment.

They used to be plentiful before speculative real estate .

A wonderful apartment that looks to be occupied by a loving, growing family who have been making it a "home" for many years. It's inspiring to know that this very "new york" world still exists.

what a beautiful home. lived in, warm and welcoming. how lucky these people are to have this place. and how lucky it became their home, allowing so many others the chance to use and live in this space along the way as well.

"There's all sorts of corruption going on all over the city".

So as long as theres corruption going on elsewhere we should turn a blind eye? I don't think so - I'm all for zero tolerance - whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

If they have been applying "creative accounting" to ensure they still qualify for this rent/apartment then they should indeed be audited and and fined if necessary.

How any apartment could be worth 7.85 million dollars is the real problem.

slowdown,

Bohemian is not an economic class, it is a life style. There were rich and poor bohemians throughout modern history. They were social rebels which included, artists, writers, philosophers, political renegades and those who populated the social underground. Toulouse Lutrec and many others who came from the upper classes also were part of the romantic movement of the eighteen century. The label (Bohemian) was coined after the bourgeois revolution of 1789.

A more accurate explanation would be: A person with artistic or literary interests who disregards conventional standards of behavior.

This movement is not to be confused with the much later movement of the nouveau riche that was purely philistine in persuasion and lacking in acquired finesse. I hope this helps.

For the people who are dead set against someone having a good deal because it isn't fair, I give you baseball players that make much more than scientific researchers, actors making more than nobel prize winners, etc.
For those who think eveyone in the building will support this family, I surely hope YOU have no credit card debt or mortgage you cant't pay that we might have to bail you out.
We're talking about one rare, NY Times article worthy apartment, not the Mortgage,Bank bailout for a trillion.

One source of lost tax revenue in New York this year and for years to come are from the film companies that are going to Canada because the Govenor will not reinstate the tax incentive program until April. This amounts to millions in taxes lost as well as thousands of jobs. Canada welcomes these productions with incentives as well as trained crews. Write or email the Govenor to start up the program now.

Remember when the Dutch stole, uh I mean purchased the island of Manhattan for $24 worth of beads?
I guess that was fair because I don't see the Donald Trumps or the coop boards figuring out how to give it back!

$24 at 7% interest compounded monthly for 382 years = $9,109,729,588,492.29 or approximately 9 trillion dollars.

Remember, the purchase price was for basically unimproved land.

In 2004, the total assessed value for land in Manhattan was $169 billion.

If the amount paid to the indians had been $24 (it was really more) and if the tribe to which it was paid was actually the tribe who resided on the island (they weren't), the amount would have been quite fair.

The Native Americans didn't embrace a belief system that included the ownership of the land.

Therefore, the Dutch never purchased Manhattan!