Opinion of this article from the NYT property section

[bedstuy]

That's really overblown.  I have my own apartment in NYC and I could easily afford my rent if I made half of that.  

I don't think it's overblown.  Well, $100 thousand only getting you a shared apartment in Queens is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.  

When we lived in Manhattan our apartment was a tiny one-bedroom unit.  No separate dining room, a kitchen so small that it was hard for two people to work in it at the same time, and a bathroom so small that if I wanted to close the door while I shat I had to turn sideways (i.e., the major axis of the oval of the toilet seat parallel to a line segment drawn from my left shoulder to my right shoulder.)  That apartment was 3000 per month.  

We had friends who were married and who were both successful lawyers, and their space was small as well.  Of course, it was bigger than ours, but it was very small compared to what two married lawyers might live in outside Manhattan.  

I think there may be other advantages of living in the city, but getting a big space on a middle-class salary isn't one of them.  I think those who live in New York City understand that they will not have three thousand square feet of finished house to roam around in, like the rest of us do out here in the far unlit unknown, unless they're fabulously wealthy.  They still choose to live there, which is fine, but DC does make a fair (albeit exaggerated) point.

A studio apartment in Queens runs $700-1500.  So, shared rent would run $350-750.  If you're making 6 figures you can afford that quite comfortably.  And, yes, if you're living in the fancy parts of Manhattan or require a big kitchen, prices are insane.  But, there's no requirement that you live in Manhattan or get a large apartment.  I have a small one bedroom apartment and I pay a third of what you paid.

I have no illusions that NYC is cheap though.  You absolutely need to make sacrifices to live here.  But, tons of middle class people make it work and live here quite comfortably.

That may be true.  But, if it is, it's only because Tribeca has a larger supply of ultra-high end doorman buildings.   I think if you look really apples to apples, the West Village is slightly more expensive.  In other words, if you put the exact same apartment on the market in both neighborhoods, the West Village one would be more expensive. 

I thought it was SoHo. I recall reading an article in the Observer (which is really the best paper in the city) over the summer detailing how expensive high-end restaurants and such were being priced out of SoHo due to rent rises for luxury boutiques.

It's mildly self-fueling. Or entirely so. But Tribeca vs. the West Village is not a contest... it's Tribeca. And it certainly isn't a Bohemian area unless you want to maybe talk about the north-eastern bits of the West Village and Eastern parts of Chelsea which seem to have a gay presence (as far I can discern walking on 7th uptown). I think the new development at the old St. Vincent's hospital is going to be a game-changer for that area.

I mean, Williamsburg, even, I think, is changing. The word brings different things to mind than it did 3-5 years ago. Maybe Bed-Stuy, but I've never been there and my conception of the place is primarily derived from watching Everybody Hates Chris. In fact, I've only been to Brooklyn once. Went to Williamsburg and walked across McCarren Park. The area which I ended up seemed very... ethnic. Polish, to be exact.

Either way, there're very few cheap places in the city anymore. Of course, thanks to dear Bloomie and his friends (by whom I mean Giuliani and Koch), they're very few places left in the city where you'd have more than outside chance of getting shot. So I suppose that has something to do with it. But if there is a neighborhood that deserves to be gentrified (and that is a good thing), it's Hamilton Heights. Has anyone ever been there? The area is beautiful. Seriously, if you want viable family life in the city, planning should focus on townhouses (see: Park Slope), and its full of them.

Tribeca has a greater supply of large apartments in doorman buildings.  On an apples to apples basis, the same apartment (IE same sq. ft., floor, view, doorman, elevator, finishes, etc) would have a higher rent in the West Village.  And, it makes sense.  The village is lower rise than any other part of downtown.  The supply of apartments is lower. 

And, you're about 10 years late on that Williamsburg point, and by the way, you were in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.  That's the Polish area.

[Simfan34]

Tribeca has a greater supply of large apartments in doorman buildings.  On an apples to apples basis, the same apartment (IE same sq. ft., floor, view, doorman, elevator, finishes, etc) would have a higher rent in the West Village.  And, it makes sense.  The village is lower rise than any other part of downtown.  The supply of apartments is lower. 

And, you're about 10 years late on that Williamsburg point, and by the way, you were in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.  That's the Polish area.

No, that's a good point. The West Village is mainly townhouses (such as these people) and walk-ups. And, about Williamsburg, I suppose so, but I found a 32 oz glass of Miller for $5 so I'm assuming things aren't too terrible over there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's really overblown.  I have my own apartment in NYC and I could easily afford my rent if I made half of that. 

I don't think it's overblown.  Well, $100 thousand only getting you a shared apartment in Queens is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. 

When we lived in Manhattan our apartment was a tiny one-bedroom unit.  No separate dining room, a kitchen so small that it was hard for two people to work in it at the same time, and a bathroom so small that if I wanted to close the door while I shat I had to turn sideways (i.e., the major axis of the oval of the toilet seat parallel to a line segment drawn from my left shoulder to my right shoulder.)  That apartment was 3000 per month. 

Sheesh!  The apartment I live in now is larger than that and the rent is a quarter of that.  If I'd wanted to live in someplace that cramped, I could easily find someplace where the rent is a fifth of that (or even a tenth of that if I was willing to live in a dump of a place.)

[traininthedistance]

The bohemians are all in Bushwick now.

FWIW my GF and I pay about $1300 a month combined for a modest 1BR on the southern edge of Flatbush-Ditmas Park- though it's actually a co-op and the maintenance is, oddly, far higher than the mortgage (which really is kinda super cheap).  I'm sure that seems insanely expensive to folks in many other places, but it's a pretty good deal round these parts. Obviously if you are living in NYC you are giving up space for other amenities; I happen to think that "lots of space" is more of a burden than a boon, so the choice is easy for me.

[traininthedistance]

That's really overblown.  I have my own apartment in NYC and I could easily afford my rent if I made half of that.  

I don't think it's overblown.  Well, $100 thousand only getting you a shared apartment in Queens is a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.  

When we lived in Manhattan our apartment was a tiny one-bedroom unit.  No separate dining room, a kitchen so small that it was hard for two people to work in it at the same time, and a bathroom so small that if I wanted to close the door while I shat I had to turn sideways (i.e., the major axis of the oval of the toilet seat parallel to a line segment drawn from my left shoulder to my right shoulder.)  That apartment was 3000 per month.  

Sheesh!  The apartment I live in now is larger than that and the rent is a quarter of that.  If I'd wanted to live in someplace that cramped, I could easily find someplace where the rent is a fifth of that (or even a tenth of that if I was willing to live in a dump of a place.)

What angus is talking about is expensive for NYC even now, with prices presumably higher than they were back in his day.  I'm guessing he was in a "nice" (i.e. pricey) area of Manhattan, but there's lots more to the city and most of it is not as hellacious.

Also worth noting is that, if you really want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you should factor in transportation costs, which are lower in most of NYC since you don't need a car to get around.  I'm sure that cost of living here is still way, way higher than it is in South Carolina but if you step back and take a more comprehensive look it's rather more reasonable than it seems at first blush.

At least we're not San Francisco, where basically the entire city is as restricted as the West Village.

[Simfan34]

Like I said, I think the new Greenwich Lane development will change things vis-a-vis the apartment supply in the area. Either way, there're very few cheap places in the city anymore. Of course, thanks to dear Bloomie and his friends (by whom I mean Giuliani and Koch), they're very few places left in the city where you'd have more than outside chance of getting shot. So I suppose that has something to do with it. But if there is a neighborhood that deserves to be gentrified (and that is a good thing), it's Hamilton Heights. Has anyone ever been there? The area is beautiful. Seriously, if you want viable family life in the city, planning should focus on townhouses (see: Park Slope), and its full of them.

Of course if you want to talk rents you can't talk about without the ultra-distortionary rent control and stabilisations regimes that's so terrible that it's the example of the deleterious effects of price ceilings given out in almost every introductory economics class.

 

This of course just ends up freezing the market because whenever someone happens upon a luck low-rent apartment they just never leave....



I'd go on and on but I'd just be parroting what was said here. The City Journal is an absolutely fantastic publication, by the way.

[bedstuy]

The bohemians are all in Bushwick now.

FWIW my GF and I pay about $1300 a month combined for a modest 1BR on the southern edge of Flatbush-Ditmas Park- though it's actually a co-op and the maintenance is, oddly, far higher than the mortgage (which really is kinda super cheap).  I'm sure that seems insanely expensive to folks in many other places, but it's a pretty good deal round these parts. Obviously if you are living in NYC you are giving up space for other amenities; I happen to think that "lots of space" is more of a burden than a boon, so the choice is easy for me.

FWIW, I pay $1000 a month for a 1BR in Bedford-Stuyvesant.  And, my building is a 19th century brownstone with Tiffany stained-glass windows and beautiful ornate finishes.  It's not fair to compare that to an ugly 1970s apartment with a popcorn ceiling that you would find in real America for $500 a month.  But, I digress. 

It's all about what's valuable to you.  My philosophy is that you only live once so you should spend your time in the place you like living in the most.  For some people, that's a log cabin and for some people it's Manhattan.  But, you can't just look at the rental price and decide based on that.  There's so many ways that NYC is totally unique in America.

[angus]

What angus is talking about is expensive for NYC even now, with prices presumably higher than they were back in his day.  I'm guessing he was in a "nice" (i.e. pricey) area of Manhattan, but there's lots more to the city and most of it is not as hellacious.

Also worth noting is that, if you really want to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you should factor in transportation costs, which are lower in most of NYC since you don't need a car to get around.  I'm sure that cost of living here is still way, way higher than it is in South Carolina but if you step back and take a more comprehensive look it's rather more reasonable than it seems at first blush.

At least we're not San Francisco, where basically the entire city is as restricted as the West Village.

I lived very near a subway line, a few blocks from the 116th street station of line 1, and it wasn't too terribly far the other way from the A/C line, and that may have affected the rent, but it certainly wasn't in one of the more posh neighborhoods.  Also, you mention factoring in transit costs.  I hadn't even mentioned what it cost to park my car.  I had to go way out to Brooklyn and let a guy bury my car, agreeing to give him a day's notice if I needed it, just to get my parking costs under $150 per month.

NYC is a very expensive place to live.  Also, it is an objective fact that space is desirable.  Even in New York more space costs more money.  You may be willing to sacrifice it in favor of other amenities, but don't pretend that it isn't a valuable commodity.  

Also, bedstuy, we call that "California splatter" not "popcorn."  And it is not ugly.  If it were ugly folks wouldn't be doing it.  They wouldn't be selling the stuff at Wal-mart and at Home Depot so we can do it ourselves, even.  Also, stained glass is for churches.  But we digress.  

[Randy Bobandy]

What in the hell do you need with six fireplaces?

[Simfan34]

Fireplaces are amazing and you can never have too many of them.

[angus]

Fireplaces are amazing and you can never have too many of them.

It took a while for me to adjust to the concept of the fireplace.  As far as I was concerned they just took up valuable wallspace and floorspace, and provided a dangerous place for someone to bump his head or scrape a knee.  A small child or drunk father could get hurt on all those bricks and mantlework.  That's actually what I liked least about the last house we bought.  It had a fireplace.  We tried so hard to find a house we liked without one, but couldn't.  Well, we could find houses without one, but none we liked.  In the end we accepted the fact that they're always there.

Ours is cheesy, too.  It has this little sculpture that is made to look like burning wood, but it isn't actually burning wood, and you don't actually light anything.  Basically, there's a switch on the wall beside the fireplace.  It looks like a lightswitch.  Flip it and suddenly there's a raging fire.  

It's actually useful, though, when we have heavy snow days and my son and I go out and build snowmen and have snowball fights and go on the toboggan and come in soaking wet.  

[traininthedistance]

I lived very near a subway line, a few blocks from the 116th street station of line 1, and it wasn't too terribly far the other way from the A/C line, and that may have affected the rent, but it certainly wasn't in one of the more posh neighborhoods.  Also, you mention factoring in transit costs.  I hadn't even mentioned what it cost to park my car.  I had to go way out to Brooklyn and let a guy bury my car, agreeing to give him a day's notice if I needed it, just to get my parking costs under $150 per month.

Two things:

A) I don't know when you lived in NYC, but that certainly sounds like you were getting screwed over.  1-bedroom apartments in Morningside Heights look like they go for a little over 2K now, not 3K, and I'm pretty sure that's higher than it was back whenever you were there.

http://www.trulia.com/for_rent/5176_nh/

B)  What the hell were you doing trying to keep a car in Manahattan?    The whole point of that island is that you (or, at least, the vast majority of residents) don't need one of those things to get around.  The majority of NYC households don't own a car, and that number is even higher in Manhattan.  Obviously if we're discussing transportation costs we are addressing that reality instead.

I can only conclude your experience was incredibly atypical, and shouldn't be generalized to the cost of living in NYC as a whole.

[Simfan34]

Jesus, angus, that's literally where I live! What brought you here?

Considering you have to cross Morningside Park (where you can still get mugged in broad daylight), I doubt it had much affect any way.

[angus]

traininthedistance,

Morningside was the neighborhood.  No was getting screwed over.  That's what everyone was paying and it was all in the agreement that everyone, presumably voluntarily, signed before moving in.  Admittedly, that was years before the credit crunch of 2008 and in most places house prices decreased, so for all I know the rent there may have decreased as well.  And our place was definitely not the most expensive place I knew of.  As I mentioned we had friends who lived in a much more expensive neighborhood and their rent for a small two-bedroom place was what you'd pay for a brand new 5000 square foot house on an acre lot with a swimming pool here.

No one ever needs a car.  I have colleagues even here who take buses to work.  My son and I have taken buses to the amusement park, and to various venues downtown here.  That really isn't the point.  I have a car because I find it convenient to have a car.  And you can rest assured that my insurance was extremely high when I lived in New York as well.  When I called my insurance company as soon as I gave them my new zip code they immediately quoted me a rate that was about twice as much as it had been prior.  Of course my fuel costs were very low.  In fact, in the entire time I lived there I think I only took the car out once.

Don't be obstinate.  We can be silly about this and compare anecdotal evidence all day, but the fact is that New York is the most expensive place to live in the United States.  There was even a candidate from a party called The Rent Is Too Damn High who made quite a splash on this forum.  You can go to any "moving calculator" or "cost of living calculator" website in the digital universe and convince yourself that if I wanted to maintain the standard of living I enjoy now while moving to Manhattan I would have to make about 2.2 to 2.6 times as much as I earn now.  You can also easily verify that the fraction of the average resident's income spent on rent in New York City is much higher than in, for example, say Lancaster PA.  

There's nothing wrong with living in New York City, and I'm not knocking you for living in New York City, only for engaging in the asinine denial of verifiable facts.  Also, none of this is germane to the topic.  

Simfan,
I lived on 119th between Morningside Drive and Amsterdam Avenue.  I think the address might have been 400 W. 119th Street.  I was on the 15th floor, the top residential floor.  The floor above that was a half floor and housed a restaurant called The Terrace.  I used to go up there often and just enjoy the night breezes.  I met Al Sharpton there.  I'm sure I have posted about that multiple times.  Anyway, I was working at Columbia for a time, and that's where we lived.  It was probably about ten years ago.  I actually liked the park very much.  I rode my bicycle in that park often.  In fact, I rather enjoyed cycling all over the city.  As an added benefit to my employment, I had free admission to a whole bunch of museums, like the met and MOMA.  My son was too young to appreciate any of it, so I often went alone.  I thoroughly enjoyed living there, but I'm certain that I would not want to live in Manhattan for the long term.  To each his own.

[Lief 🗽]

Morningside Park (where you can still get mugged in broad daylight)

lolno

Some guys offer me a hit from the joint they were smoking while walking through the park once though.

I actually live a few blocks from where Angus used to live, and my roommate and I split $2300 for a 2 bedroom.

[traininthedistance]

Don't be obstinate.  We can be silly about this and compare anecdotal evidence all day, but the fact is that New York is the most expensive place to live in the United States.  There was even a candidate from a party called The Rent Is Too Damn High who made quite a splash on this forum.  You can go to any "moving calculator" or "cost of living calculator" website in the digital universe and convince yourself that if I wanted to maintain the standard of living I enjoy now while moving to Manhattan I would have to make about 2.2 to 2.6 times as much as I earn now.  You can also easily verify that the fraction of the average resident's income spent on rent in New York City is much higher than in, for example, say Lancaster PA.

I'm well aware of who Jimmy McMillan is.  I once randomly passed him by on the street.

And pretty sure San Francisco and DC are both more expensive.  Not that that's saying much. I will concur that cost of living in Manhattan being 2.5 times what it is in Lancaster passes the smell test, sure.  There's a reason I don't live in Manhattan- but there are four more boroughs.

Also, I'd appreciate it if bringing actual documentary evidence into the discussion didn't get twisted as "the asinine denial of verifiable facts".  Just saying.

[angus]

Ah, what the hell, we have already hijacked the thread.  Why not?

SF Bay area is certainly expensive.  I lived in Alameda County from 2001 till 2004.  I remember when I was living in Boston and landed a job in California I was bragging to my peeps about how much money I'd make in California and they all said, "you're gonna need it.  California is expensive."  It was, but I always thought New York was even more expensive.  Granted, I did not live in the city of San Francisco, or even in Oakland, but inland from Oakland, but if I go to the same cost of living calculator to compare Lancaster to San Francisco, it says that I'd need to make about 1.7 times as much as I do now, which suggests that San Francisco, by their reckoning, is not as expensive as New York.  

In the spirit of full disclosure I will say that it was a granting agency of the federal government of the United States that paid my rent in New York.  I do not think that affected the price of the rent, and I do know that folks in my building in New York with my same floor plan were paying the same rent.  Most were people on sabbatical from other universities all over the world who were working at Columbia.  Some were pretty old, and many were footing their own bills.  All agreed that "the rent is too damn high" but all agreed also that it was sort of fun living in New York for a while.  

It was a nice enough building.  Security, fast elevators, newly renovated interior, and the like, but nothing special.  There was no central AC and most folks didn't even have air conditioners.  I played the infant child card upon arrival and the super promptly put one in our unit.  The fact that it was a three-block walk to the lab was a major selling point, I'd imagine. 

[Linus Van Pelt]

According to the 2011 American Community Survey estimates, which seem to be the latest Census Bureau data available on this topic, median gross rents are:

San Francisco - $1,407
New York County (i.e. Manhattan) - $1,403
Washington, DC - $1,216
New York City as a whole - $1,168

[traininthedistance]

According to the 2011 American Community Survey estimates, which seem to be the latest Census Bureau data available on this topic, median gross rents are:

San Francisco - $1,407
New York County (i.e. Manhattan) - $1,403
Washington, DC - $1,216
New York City as a whole - $1,168

Thanks for giving us some real numbers to work with.  DC is a bit cheaper than I expected but otherwise seems about right.  Keep in mind that most of SF's units have a really stringent and byzantine system of rent control such that if you've lived there for many years you're okay but new arrivals are gonna get reamed and will never ever ever EVER see anything like that median even in the worst parts of town.  So even if SF and Manhattan have numbers that are almost equal, the practical takeaway for anyone looking to move there (or even within there) is going to be that SF is much much worse than the headline numbers, whereas Manhattan will be a little worse but only a little.

In the spirit of full disclosure I will say that it was a granting agency of the federal government of the United States that paid my rent in New York.  I do not think that affected the price of the rent, and I do know that folks in my building in New York with my same floor plan were paying the same rent.  Most were people on sabbatical from other universities all over the world who were working at Columbia.  Some were pretty old, and many were footing their own bills.  All agreed that "the rent is too damn high" but all agreed also that it was sort of fun living in New York for a while. 

I'll bet it did have some effect on your rent actually, not that you'd be necessarily paying more than your neighbors but that the agency might not have done the sort of due diligence and bargain-hunting to find a better deal elsewhere in a different building that someone looking/paying on their own might.  Also and relatedly they might have gone for a nicer building than the median in the area.  So I think that probably does explain, if not all, a lot of the discrepancy between your experience and what those of us who live here now have seen.

I've never doubted that the rent is too damn high.  I'm merely saying that it's only about 70 percent or so as too damn high as the popular perception seems to be. 

[bedstuy]

I lived very near a subway line, a few blocks from the 116th street station of line 1, and it wasn't too terribly far the other way from the A/C line, and that may have affected the rent, but it certainly wasn't in one of the more posh neighborhoods.  Also, you mention factoring in transit costs.  I hadn't even mentioned what it cost to park my car.  I had to go way out to Brooklyn and let a guy bury my car, agreeing to give him a day's notice if I needed it, just to get my parking costs under $150 per month.

Two things:

A) I don't know when you lived in NYC, but that certainly sounds like you were getting screwed over.  1-bedroom apartments in Morningside Heights look like they go for a little over 2K now, not 3K, and I'm pretty sure that's higher than it was back whenever you were there.

http://www.trulia.com/for_rent/5176_nh/

B)  What the hell were you doing trying to keep a car in Manahattan?    The whole point of that island is that you (or, at least, the vast majority of residents) don't need one of those things to get around.  The majority of NYC households don't own a car, and that number is even higher in Manhattan.  Obviously if we're discussing transportation costs we are addressing that reality instead.

I can only conclude your experience was incredibly atypical, and shouldn't be generalized to the cost of living in NYC as a whole.

To be fair, those one-bedrooms renting at $2k a month in Morningside Heights are actually in Harlem.

But, again, this is about trade-offs.  New Yorkers give up some material comfort for an urban lifestyle.  Material comfort is overrated if you ask me.  That's sort of the folly of the American lifestyle.  People assume they need a car, central air conditioning, 1000 sq. ft of living space per person and tons of extra money to buy toys.  At some point, life becomes more about the constraints that your possessions require of you and not about people. 

Plus, there is some extra value to the concentration of people and wealth in NYC.  If you live in Arizona, you'll have more money to go to restaurants on the same salary.  But, there aren't any great restaurants in Arizona.  So, you're not necessarily getting real value for your money.  It's the same with housing.  NYC has better housing stock than the rest of America, in general and you get what you pay for to an extent.

[angus]

Material comfort is overrated if you ask me.  That's sort of the folly of the American lifestyle.  People assume they need a car, central air conditioning, 1000 sq. ft of living space per person and tons of extra money to buy toys.  At some point, life becomes more about the constraints that your possessions require of you and not about people.  

You're a regular goddamned Socrates today, aren't you?  Or maybe Confucius.


Okay, sardonism aside, you make a good point.  Moreover, it's sort of full circle, in the sense that it's back to the criticism of the original article.  Well played. 

[Sol]

These sorts of articles depress me. I've always wanted to live in a large, walkable-ish city, but it seems like gentrification is ruining everything as far affordability goes- and not just in NYC, but even in unexpected places like Asheville, NC or Austin. I guess I'll just have to live in Houston and hope transit improves....

[traininthedistance]

These sorts of articles depress me. I've always wanted to live in a large, walkable-ish city, but it seems like gentrification is ruining everything as far affordability goes- and not just in NYC, but even in unexpected places like Asheville, NC or Austin. I guess I'll just have to live in Houston and hope transit improves....

I think Philly is still relatively affordable; I loved my time there and would gladly move back if the winds were right.  I'd recommend you set your sights there, or possibly towards Pittsburgh or Baltimore.

[angus]

(same calculator)     Lancaster to Philadelphia:   1 to 1.24
                              Lancaster to Houston:        1 to 1


Houston is an interesting case.  Fourth most populous city in the US after NY, LA, and Chicago, but way cheaper, apparently.  Even without Linus' census data, I'm certain of that.  I think it may have to do with density.  Houston has an impressive stack of buildings, tall and ultra-modern, and it is huge, but it is so sprawling.  Somehow density figures more heavily into these things than is commonly written about.  I've been posting here for ten years that density is the most overlooked parameter in predicting voting proclivities, but no one ever listens.  (If you're in Wyoming, the nearest neighbor is fifteen miles away, so of course you want your guns (for protection) and you don't want to pay the government money for garbage collection since you can burn yours; if you're in Manhattan, you are terrified at the idea of every resident packing heat, and rightly so, and you'll gladly pay higher taxes if it means all that garbage will go away on garbage day.)  I also think density is a very important parameter in rent costs as well.  We should look up population density versus cost of living (or perhaps rent).  I bet there's a close correlation.

[Simfan34]

Morningside Park (where you can still get mugged in broad daylight)

lolno

Some guys offer me a hit from the joint they were smoking while walking through the park once though.

I actually live a few blocks from where Angus used to live, and my roommate and I split $2300 for a 2 bedroom.

^^

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article

Angus, I didn't know you were an academic! Interesting! I've heard of that restaurant, it's now closed, though. I've always taken advantage of the student admission, I've been to the Met perhaps... three dozen times? I remember as a child I went with my dad only three times- and everytime he went, he fell ill. He's sworn to never step in that museum again, and so I never got to go until I came here. So, in September my Freshman year, I was going perhaps every week, if not multiple times a week. I step in at least every other month now, if not more frequently- I was supposed to go on Tuesday but overslept.

I live in a 2-bed and pay about $1800, but this is University housing so it's obviously a bit... different. I mean it's easy to get reliable rent statistics from a site like Streeteasy, which shows you the average rates on what's on the market now. So the median rent for a listed 1-bedroom (excluding the one brand new building in Morningside otherwise the price jumps to $3,680) is...

$1,718 in Bed-Stuy
$2,500 in Morningside Heights
$2,800 in the UES (hey, there was an article in the Times the other day about how cheap the UES was)
$2,950 in Williamsburg
$3,175 in SoHo
$3,200 in the UWS
$3,450 in Lenox Hill
$3,600 in the West Village
$3,695 in the UES west of 3rd Ave (aka the Real UES)
$3,950 in Greenwich Village
$4,400 in Tribeca

So I think this settles things.