Folks, it's gonna be a student rental joint.
LOL!Last edited by interchange42; Today at 16:13. Reason: Boom!
And Bravo on taking care of that 'issue'.
Right, that's a good point. But I was more thinking of rental properties that are targeted to renting demographics, i.e., people who typically can't afford $1500/m in rent and up, as otherwise they'd, with exceptions, be in a buyer's market.
Dont hear to many people concerned about them ripping apart the Sutton Place... which is a lot more interesting and older structure than that heap.
Sorry to go off topic,,,but i just dont see anything special of this 35 year old 163 meter slab.
Last edited by Automation Gallery; 2011-Dec-02 at 23:19.
Is the distinction bewteen condos and rental buildings artificial? A huge number of condos are rented out - so what is the difference really? I suppose condo buildings tend to be newer and thus more expensive to rent, but that is a seperate issue.
I spose one difference is that condos can be bought, while typically apartments proper can only be rented.
I'd also say that apartments are more likely to be available for less per month, but that's more of a hunch.
Another difference is that many renters can afford their rent, whereas condo owners generally had the downpayment covered by their parents' financial backing or they live there because they went into massive debt (or a big mortgage) in order to live there...
What i am trying to say is there are many places available for rent in the city aside from rental buildings. You dont need to buy a condo, you can rent a condo.
... or a house. Or a floor in a house, with someone else renting another floor, and someone else renting the basement ...
Data on average rents is deceiving. Newer or renovated rental buildings (the one next to Opera Place, or Jazz, for instance) are closer to condo rents.