$175 dollars rent for a Manhattan Apartment in 1975????

[TVFactFan]

Brenda was only paying $175 to live in Manhattan in 75? That seems cheap even for 1975.


I bet today the rent is $1975

[OH Nuts!]

I bet you're right! $1975 could get you a halfway decent studio. No doorman bldg thatsfor sure. And very likely a walk up.

$175 isn't off the wall for '75 - it just depends where in Manhattan. Definitely not in a super trendy neighborhood. And very likely a studio.

[Brian Damage]

Yeah that does sound a bit cheap.

Did you get to see her apartment?

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

Yeah that does sound a bit cheap.

Did you get to see her apartment?

It was the rent for the apartment she was already living in.

[Brian Damage]

very cheap for New York standards

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

very cheap for New York standards

even for a studio in Manhattan right in 1975?

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

even for a studio in Manhattan right in 1975?

A studio now a days in Manhattan is about 1,000 a month easy. So you figure back then, maybe 500 a month at least.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

A studio now a days in Manhattan is about 1,000 a month easy. So you figure back then, maybe 500 a month at least.

Wow, Brian I posted a question for you about the closing credits on this board

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Wow, Brian I posted a question for you about the closing credits on this board

Okay....

[OH Nuts!]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

A studio now a days in Manhattan is about 1,000 a month easy. So you figure back then, maybe 500 a month at least.

Sorry for all the math below but I wanted to have a crude backup. Bottom Line: Rents in Manhattan are $$$$ I only wish Manhattan studios were just $1K


I googled the Consumer Price Index website & the index for Jan 75 was roughly 55. For Jan 2012 it was approx 227. So $175 in 75 would convert to roughly $700+. But that doesn't take into account that some components rise at a higher rate. Like real estate in Manhattan where the vacancy rate is 1 -3%. So that $175 converts to well over $1000 for real estate. For other items it's probably very close to a 3-4x increase.

I remember looking for studios back in 78 and in E& W Greenwich Village they were running 175-275. Now you 'd be lucky to get an E Village studio for 1400. In W Vill you probably couldn't touch a tiny studio for less than 17-1800. For a 1000 studio you'd have to do the other boroughs or very high up in Manhattan - like Washington Heights.

OUTRAGEOUS isn't it. In most any smaller city you could live like a king for a grand. If I ever lost my rent-stabilized apt I'd move to the boroughs or out of NYC altogether.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by OH Nuts!

Sorry for all the math below but I wanted to have a crude backup. Bottom Line: Rents in Manhattan are $$$$ I only wish Manhattan studios were just $1K


I googled the Consumer Price Index website & the index for Jan 75 was roughly 55. For Jan 2012 it was approx 227. So $175 in 75 would convert to roughly $700+. But that doesn't take into account that some components rise at a higher rate. Like real estate in Manhattan where the vacancy rate is 1 -3%. So that $175 converts to well over $1000 for real estate. For other items it's probably very close to a 3-4x increase.

I remember looking for studios back in 78 and in E& W Greenwich Village they were running 175-275. Now you 'd be lucky to get an E Village studio for 1400. In W Vill you probably couldn't touch a tiny studio for less than 17-1800. For a 1000 studio you'd have to do the other boroughs or very high up in Manhattan - like Washington Heights.

OUTRAGEOUS isn't it. In most any smaller city you could live like a king for a grand. If I ever lost my rent-stabilized apt I'd move to the boroughs or out of NYC altogether.

The negative thing is you can live like a king in a small city but there is not much to do. So that's the negative side

[OH Nuts!]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

The negative thing is you can live like a king in a small city but there is not much to do. So that's the negative side

It depends on the city and what your needs are. Also some cities are better for some professions than others. There is no one answer.

For example, if you're involved in politics or lobbying, being in a state capital might be good - while
for others it could be Boredom Central.

[Mr. Television]

I've never liked the city. It's nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

I've never liked the city. It's nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Sleeping can be a little difficult sometimes living in a section like manhattan

[OH Nuts!]

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

I've never liked the city. It's nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

I understand your sentiments. Part of the allure of NYC when I was young was the vitality and myriad of activities. The DOWN side is the congestion, high rents, threat of terrorism and ever worsening subway system. As I get older I find the city more overwhelming and monolithic. If I didn't have a great job that I love and low (by Manhattan standards) rent, I'd seriously consider relocating. And I very well may when I retire - but that won't be for another 5-10 yrs. I'll see how things play out.