Think Progress: Poor People in Luxury Condo Building Forced to Use Different Door from Rich Folks
What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you read this?
A luxury condo building on New York City’s Upper West Side has gotten clearance from the city to have a separate entrance, or a “poor door,” for low-income tenants, according to the New York Post.
To me, the first thing that comes to mind is: hey, low-income tenants get to live in a luxury condo building on the Upper West Side? Sounds pretty sweet!
But what initially seems like a sweet deal, upon closer inspection, turns out to be a scene of utter horror:
And besides being made to use a separate entrance, some low-income residents in luxury buildings are prohibited from using the amenities offered to the wealthy tenants, which in the case of this particular building include swimming pools and regulation-sized basketball courts. Several buildings in the city ban affordable housing or rent-regulated tenants from using perks like gyms, rooftops, and pools, and the practice is on the rise.
That is DISCRIMINATION! How dare they prevent people from using luxury amenities just because they aren’t paying as much as people who are!
Luckily, lawmakers are on the case:
New York City lawmakers have taken notice of all of this, and two council members are working on legislation that would expand the city’s anti-discrimination protections to include rent-regulated tenants. A state assemblywoman has introduced legislation that would require buildings to let low-income renters use all the amenities.
Thank goodness. I, for one, applaud lawmakers’ efforts to ensure that poor people get the same stuff even if they don’t pay for it. But why stop here? Poor people also have to fly coach, whereas rich people can fly first class — and where is the equity in that? Hopefully, lawmakers will address this inequity, so that those of us who pay coach fares can have access to the first class amenities we deserve.
Also, I drive a car with over 150,000 miles on it. It is scratched in several places and dirty. I would certainly prefer to drive a brand-new Lexus or Mercedes . . . but our society’s discriminatory policies ensure that such comfort is reserved for people who pay for it. I don’t have a car payment, but why should I have to pay for a Audi? Equitable legislation would mandate that I have access to luxury automobiles without having to suffer the indignity of paying for them.
Three cheers for New York lawmakers, who truly have their eye on the ball. It’s high time we ended this system where some get to have better things than others, and revert to something akin to the glorious Soviet system, where everybody has equal access to the same lousy living conditions.
Agree, comrade!
UPDATE: You pay for my water!
No, YOU pay!
Patterico (9c670f) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:31 pmSome of that gubbamint cheese, I want also!
Yoda (cffabe) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:32 pmMore Income Inequality from our Progressive Betters.
askeptic (efcf22) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:40 pmit is just not fair
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:50 pmyou got yours whadda ’bout me!
where’s the incentive?
I have a family member who lives in a co-op apartment on the Upper West Side of NYC. Her homeowner dues (or whatever it is called back there, i.e. the fee she pays beyond her mortgage just for building services and maintenance) is something like $1200/month. Seriously. So if you are telling me that low income people with housing vouchers who almost certainly aren’t paying the homeowner’s fee don’t get to avail themselves of the swimming pool or the roofdeck or the stairmaster and exercise bike crammed in a 12′ x 12′ room with some freeweights, then I’m not going to lose a whole lot of sleep over it.
JVW (feb406) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:51 pmand F*ck a bunch of New Yorkers anyway.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:52 pmAlso, I drive a car with over 150,000 miles on it. It is scratched in several places and dirty. I would certainly prefer to drive a brand-new Lexus or Mercedes . . . but our society’s discriminatory policies ensure that such comfort is reserved for people who pay for it. I don’t have a car payment, but why should I have to pay for a Audi? Equitable legislation would mandate that I have access to luxury automobiles without having to suffer the indignity of paying for them.
Not to be critical, Patterico, but that’s not even the best analogy. The better analogy would be that the taxpayer gives you a voucher to buy a Lexus or Mercedes, but you throw a hissy fit because you weren’t able to get a sunroof or a bluetooth system or satellite radio in your brand-new car on the taxpayer’s dime.
JVW (feb406) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:54 pm==It is scratched in several places and dirty.==
Dirty????
elissa (50b92e) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:55 pmWhen you see something from ThinkRegress, MediaMutterz, Vox, etc it is easier to just point and laugh.
JD (7273a8) — 7/21/2014 @ 6:57 pmHey, you know what? I want to retract my comment made at 6:51 pm Pacific Time above. The more I think about it, I’ve come to realize that we are talking about rent-controlled apartments here. If NYC is going to insist upon having rent-controlled apartments, then by all means let’s make it a completely egalitarian system where everybody gets equal access to everything.
The family member I referred to above has lived in NYC for over 20 years, and she can tell you stories of people she knows who moved into spacious rent-controlled corner units in high-rise buildings back in the 1970s or early 80s, and today are still living there and paying maybe one-third of the rent that the apartment would fetch on the open marketplace. If a family like that has to share the hot tub and sauna with some family who receives a Section 8 voucher, then I think that is just hunky-dory with me.
JVW (feb406) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:03 pmFrom the article:
And all of these challenges disproportionately impact people of color. While about 73 percent of people who rent at market rates in Manhattan and nearly 77 percent who own are white, just 47 percent of rent-regulated tenants are white. Rent-regulated tenants, perhaps unsurprisingly, also earn less, making $51,010 a year at the median compared to $103,680 for those renting at market rates. That means restrictions on entrances and amenities impact poor people of color the most.
If the poor people were white, would there be an outcry?
Further, $51K is not chump change in other places of NY, and certainly in the nation. Why do these people live in a city they cannot afford?
With that, I want to live in Beverly Hills, who do I talk to about that?
p.s. My skin is very brown. Let me in.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:04 pmOne thing I can’t abide is driving a dirty car. It would ruin my day.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:11 pmIt’s the “developers” who are getting benefits of the credits for creating a two tier system in their building, and the apartment dwellers on both ends are getting the shaft. If I were one of the people paying the full freight I think I’d be unhappy with this situation, too– not because they’re living among the “riff raff” (as think regress posits) and not because idiot laws are being contemplated–but because the developer has put everyone in this uncomfortable and newsworthy situation.
elissa (50b92e) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:19 pmHaving other people pay for you is a basic human right. It is enshrined in the Constitution right next to “Pursuit of Happiness”. All conservatives should read the founding documents because they are really advocating for people to lose their basic rights. Our founding documents were formed to protect the worker from those evil corporations that seek to oppress us.
DejectedHead (06f486) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:22 pmThey made a movie about this in 1937. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_End_%281937_film%29
nk (dbc370) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:23 pmI would think they’d be happy to live in Manhattan, rather than commuting an hour each way from some crack-infested tenement. They can’t use the racquet club or get the doorman to screen their guests? Que horror!
Next you’ll be telling me you can’t sit in first class when you pay for a discounted coach seat.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:28 pmBeing made to use a *different door* is completely inappropriate, and not being able to use the building amenities strikes me as being wrong, too. They’re renting a unit in the building, the things available to people renting units in the building should be available to them.
Furthermore, I think any tenant who treats their fellow tenants differently because they’re poor is a jerk at best, and it’s hard for me to refrain from more profane descriptions of them.
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:31 pmI wonder how many of these progressive folks are advocating this in THEIR co-ops.
And let’s take it further … why can’t those street people living out of the great building’s dumpster use the pool too? God knows they could use the bath.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:31 pmaphrael,
What if there is a separate amenities charge?
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:32 pmDoesn’t our Semi-Retired President constantly lecture how income inequality is one of the greatest problems this nation faces at $10,000 a plate dinners?
The irony burns.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:34 pmThat’s what you get for reading ThinkProgress. I agree with everything elissa said about condo developers. They make all sorts of deals to get their monstrosities through the Planning Commission. But I’ll bet that the “affordable housing” here is a separate condominium association with lower CAM and different occupancy rules as well as being a separate block of units.
nk (dbc370) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:34 pmAwardable housing!
How much you want to bet the people who got berths in this building as ‘low-income’ tenants ore on a Democratic County committee or are 1st, 2d, 3d, or 4th degree relations of some pol?
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:42 pmKevin – If there’s a seperate amenities charge, then being excluded from the amenities doesn’t bother me as much. But the seperate door is still downright offensive – and to whatever extent the individuals treat each other differently when they encounter each other in the halls, etc, it’s a real problem.
(I’m a NY resident, and this seriously offends me on a deep level: it is *not ok*, to me, to treat your neighbors differently depending on how much money they make).
NK – I doubt it; I suspect it’s different units within the same common building. That’s not an unusual pattern in NY at all.
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:52 pmNot even a “separate condominium association”. The builder holding back a number of apartment for rental, with him as the landlord. An apartment building within a condo building.
nk (dbc370) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:53 pmNew York City is full of limousine liberals or champagne socialists and quite a few of them probably are tenants in those luxury highrise buildings. I say not only should they bend over backwards to accommodate their lower-income neighbors, they should show their do-gooderism by allowing the hallways and lobbies of their buildings to be used as temporary residences for all the people streaming in from the southern border.
A bleeding heart is a terrible thing to waste, so let it spill out profusely and beautifully.
Mark (d0e767) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:53 pmWe cross-posted, aphrael.
nk (dbc370) — 7/21/2014 @ 7:55 pmAs a thirty-something renter (nice suburban town, old house, ancient stove, mice until my cat moved in), my sympathy is limited. Back door or not, they are living better than I am, precisely because they make less money than I do but choose to live in the most expensive few square miles in America.
I loathe the idea of making people feel undignified, but I also loathe the idea that we are morally obligated to give poor people a quality of life that self-supporting middle class people can never dream of affording.
bridget (37b281) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:02 pm(I’m a NY resident, and this seriously offends me on a deep level: it is *not ok*, to me, to treat your neighbors differently depending on how much money they make).
Yet NY (and LA and other large cities) are all about treating people differently based upon various criteria. Try being 40-somthing with rumpled clothes and a bad haircut and getting into a trendy nightclub in Chelsea or Hollywood. Try getting a reservation at a hip restaurant without being a movie star or politician or high-flying banker. Sometimes it seems to me that half of urban living is all about making sure others don’t have access to the things that you desire the most.
JVW (feb406) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:13 pmI wonder how many of those units Charley Rangel has?
Gazzer (c6d2cb) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:14 pmResponsible people live where they can afford to live. The Upper West side is prohibitive to most people.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:15 pm@ Patterico,
Also, I drive a car with over 150,000 miles on it. It is scratched in several places and dirty. I would certainly prefer to drive a brand-new Lexus or Mercedes . . . but our society’s discriminatory policies ensure that such comfort is reserved for people who pay for it. I don’t have a car payment, but why should I have to pay for a Audi? Equitable legislation would mandate that I have access to luxury automobiles without having to suffer the indignity of paying for them.
Yes, but even if you can’t have that Audi, you still have your white privilege!
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:16 pmDirty.
Pay for my car wash!
Patterico (9c670f) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:20 pmNo, that’s praiseworthy in drought-stricken California. Be proud!
nk (dbc370) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:22 pmi love this
let the manhattan trash get their diversity on
not just cause they voted for that commie p.o.s. mayor
and not just cause they voted for president food stamp redistribution whore
but also cause ever since i started watching housewives of ny, the hardships of manhattan trash have no claim on my sympathies
not even a little
if this is a failing on my part, I might could work on it later
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:23 pmCommunists are funny. It’s too bad the proles have to pay for the comedy.
Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:36 pmjournal about it feets. or not.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:36 pmNo surprise the CEO of the Extell Development Company who owns the “poor door” building in the post, is a major contributor to the Democratic party and candidates.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/21/2014 @ 8:39 pm> Try being 40-somthing with rumpled clothes and a bad haircut and getting into a trendy nightclub in Chelsea or Hollywood. Try getting a reservation at a hip restaurant without being a movie star or politician or high-flying banker.
I’m 40 with rumpled clothes and an ok haircut, and I’ve gotten into the trendy nightclub and gotten reservations at hip restaurants. This isn’t as hard as it’s made out to be. 🙂
> Sometimes it seems to me that half of urban living is all about making sure others don’t have access to the things that you desire the most.
I get that it’s that way for many people. But, again speaking only for myself, those people are [$redacted].
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/21/2014 @ 9:04 pm> the hardships of manhattan trash
*raise eyebrows*
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/21/2014 @ 9:05 pmWhether or not they are arseholes is really beside the point.
JD (7c41e0) — 7/21/2014 @ 9:06 pmI noted the broadcaster being almost purposely dumb as he talked about the “coincidence” of having a netroots conference there and all these outsider teachers, unionists, etc., at the march. I may be speculating here, but I bet these outsiders organized the march! Ya think?
But the marchers are leftists, and their hearts are assumed to be pure, so we must treat them with kid gloves.
Patricia (5fc097) — 7/21/2014 @ 9:23 pmTFG is fast becoming Public Enema Number 1…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/21/2014 @ 10:03 pmi mean it in a nice way
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/21/2014 @ 10:10 pmUm, no. Your original comment was correct, and you should not retract it. The people who get to use the fancy amenities and the main entrance will not not be rent-controlled tenants, or indeed tenants at all. This is to be a condo building, so by definition they’re owners. The poor tenants who will be denied the luxuries will be in “affordable housing” units in the same building. The city requires the developer to include these as the price of approval to put up the building. So they will be paying rent, at a rate well below market, while the rich people in the building will be paying for their apartments, and then paying huge maintenance fees on top of that to keep the pools and tennis courts and private bowling alley or whatever running.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:14 amWhat have the developers done wrong, and how are the “poor” tenants getting any sort of shaft? They’re getting a nice place to live, far nicer than they can afford; why should they get more than that? And what are the developers getting? Permission to build a project for which there is demand? How is that a benefit? They should get that permission as of right. There’s no reason for them not to get it; the only reason the city imposed these restrictions in the first place is so it can extort such concessions as the price of relaxing them. In other contexts that’s called blackmail. Meanwhile the rich buyers know what situation they’re getting into when they buy; if it makes them uncomfortable they can always buy somewhere else, or vote to allow their poor neighbors to enjoy the amenities at their expense.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:20 amWhat’s monstrous about them? And why should they need to pay ransom to get them through anything? The Supreme Court made a big mistake when it allowed zoning laws in the first place. They naïvely imagined that zoning laws would be administered with as light a hand as possible, in a completely impartial and objective manner, for the benefit of all. They had no idea that it would almost immediately turn into a scheme for extortion, though they should have realised it.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:31 amIt is not based on how much they make, but on how much they’re paying, and that is very much OK, to me and I would think to every decent person. I don’t see how anyone but an outright communist could be “not ok” with it.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:35 amNo surprise at all; nobody who wasn’t one could be as successful as he is in a business that depends so much on the goodwill of politicians and bureaucrats. He probably also contributes to a few key unions. And in the mafia’s heyday he’d be contributing to some Sicilian or Calabrian social clubs as well. Wouldn’t you do the same?
This is why I believe that paying bribes should not be a crime; only receiving them should be.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:42 amThis is the punishment for living in New York City, and forcing your absolute insanity on the rest of the state.
Hmmm, being subject to… absolute insanity….?
HEY, sounds about right to me!
.
Now… what likewise punishment for living in Cali? Oh, right. You get the Cali state legislature.
Smock Puppet, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:54 am*Never Mind*.
This is very common in Texas, in both neighborhoods in Houston, their were separately priced facilities, based on section
EPWJ (598909) — 7/22/2014 @ 1:53 amWhat’s monstrous about them?
It’s an old psychological study. You can only crowd so many rats in one cage before they start eating each other. James Clavell based a book on it; there was also a movie with Steve McQueen. Manhattan reached that point a long, long time ago. King rats on top of the food heap, little rats scurrying about in quiet desperation. (They have to be quiet or they’ll be eaten.)
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 6:19 amAll that stuff you wrote about building laws being used by crooked politicians to extort bribes — that’s just part of being King Rat.
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 6:21 amKing rats on top of the food heap, little rats scurrying about in quiet desperation.
Mr. J.G. Ballard wrote a novel many many moons ago similar to this Mr. nk. In 1975.
They’re just now getting around to making the movie.
At first blush it seems very similar to Snowpiercer I think.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/22/2014 @ 6:53 amhmmm
I guess I should have said that Mr. Ballard’s novel took the basis of this post to its most hyperbolic conclusions.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/22/2014 @ 6:55 amNo Rooftop, No Peace!
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:00 amStalin had it right, happyfeet. The industrialists create all the conditions for socialism. All the socialists need to do is exploit them. From concentration of population and the unzufriedenheit (that’s the word you wanted, Patterico) it creates, to concentration of wealth making it easier to seize.
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:09 amYou been hanging around Wrigley, Carlitos?
elissa (50b92e) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:22 amThese ungrateful squatters should never have been allowed to reside in luxury condos they couldn’t pay for in the first place. If it wasn’t for crooked leftist politicians strong-arming developers this problem wouldn’t exist. Exclusion from amenities, using a separate door, and living on a separate floor, are inconsequential requirements compared to the benefits of being allowed to trespass in a luxury building at the expense of others.
ropelight (18a76d) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:22 amNo surprise the CEO of the Extell Development Company who owns the “poor door” building in the post, is a major contributor to the Democratic party and candidates.
Sheesh. I actually wondered for a few seconds last night if I perhaps was mis-applying or over using the label of “limousine liberal” in regards to this story (and the people managing things thereof)—and New York City in general.
It’s gotten to the point where a parody of the left no longer is parody, and the worst stereotypes of them are always bubbling on the surface.
Mark (d0e767) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:25 amThese ungrateful squatters
i haven’t yet read any complaints from anyone actually living in these kind of affordable housing arrangements
the complaints I’ve seen so far are just your typical class warfare obamawhore types trying to exploit the situation for political gain
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:28 amThe industrialists create all the conditions for socialism.
Or the observation behind the quote, attributed to Lenin, of “the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Mark (d0e767) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:29 amWhat I love most about this story are the optics which conflate to make pretty much everybody look bad. The corrupt overinvolved and invasive city government-check. The greedy developers who lie down with dogs to get a few more condos built and sold-check. The on a mission media taking the opportunity to stir up more controversy over “income inequality”-check. The low income tenants who just can’t see why they should not have all the exact same amenities that the full freight owners are entitled to, but without paying for them-check. The full freight owners who “look” like they are being elitist and NIMBY for wanting to receive what they paid for and not subsidize others who did not pay-check.
elissa (50b92e) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:41 ami haven’t yet read any complaints from anyone actually living in these kind of affordable housing arrangements
It would also seem to me that the Amanda Bynseses would appreciate having their connection down the hall instead of having to travel to the ghetto for it.
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:41 am*Byneses*
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:43 ami wonder what the penalty is if Amanda gives the one percenter door code to one of the paupers?
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/22/2014 @ 7:46 amWhile I’m not a Cubs or Wrigley fan, we saw Billy Joel there on Friday. It’s a pretty cool concert venue.
carlitos (c24ed5) — 7/22/2014 @ 8:04 amIn light of the insanity of liberalism run amok — in NYC and the US overall — this seems somehow quite appropriate
Mark (d0e767) — 7/22/2014 @ 8:11 amIf you’re thinking of the movie “King Rat”, that starred George Segal, but I don’t think McQueen was in it.
Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 7/22/2014 @ 8:18 amI’m mixing up my POW movies, I guess.
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 8:26 am45. Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:20 am
What have the developers done wrong,
Apparently, this came to some people as a surprise, and it strikes some people as pure spite. The reason probably has to do with an idea that the poorer tenants lower the value of the building for the richer occupants.
and how are the “poor” tenants getting any sort of shaft? They’re getting a nice place to live, far nicer than they can afford; why should they get more than that?
It’s only the element of surprise and the element of spite. Maybe some politicians do know someone they wanted to get into the building. It’s reported the “poor” entrance will be on the side and the regular one on the street, but the regular apartments will face the river and the “poor” ones the street.
And what are the developers getting? Permission to build a project for which there is demand? How is that a benefit? They should get that permission as of right. There’s no reason for them not to get it; the only reason the city imposed these restrictions in the first place is so it can extort such concessions as the price of relaxing them. In other contexts that’s called blackmail. Meanwhile the rich buyers know what situation they’re getting into when they buy; if it makes them uncomfortable they can always buy somewhere else, or vote to allow their poor neighbors to enjoy the amenities at their expense.
It’s trure enough the affordable apartments were extorted. Since this is before anybody moved in, everyone will understand it.
Sammy Finkelman (51afd4) — 7/22/2014 @ 9:13 amAh, yes, noted psychologists all. It’s nonsense. People are not rats. And NY is hardly the densest place where people live. It doesn’t even show up on this list, and parts of it show up rather low on this one.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 9:24 amReading about NYC’s caste system and its flaws from its liberal overlords is usually amusing.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/22/2014 @ 9:35 amI said Manhattan.
New York County [that’s Manhattan, ain’t it?] is the most densely populated county in the United States, more dense than any individual American city. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, with a Census-estimated 2013 population of 1,626,159[1] living in a land area of 22.96 square miles (59.5 km2), or about 70,826 residents per square mile (27,346/km²). On business days, the influx of commuters increases that number to over 3.9 million,[11] or around 170,000 people per square mile.
How pregnant is “pregnant”?
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 9:37 amSee the second list I linked. Parts of Manhattan do make this list, but only rather low on it.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 9:40 amManhattan has a density of 27,345.9/km2, which would place it between 8 and 9 on Milhouse’s first list, if it were taken in isolation.
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/22/2014 @ 10:51 amfor what it’s worth, i live in manhattan 9, and spend a lot of time in brooklyn 8 and in queens 1.
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/22/2014 @ 10:54 amBut if so you’d have to also take the more crowded bits of the other cities on the list in isolation. Which is what the second list is for. It’s dishonest to compare the most crowded borough of NYC to the whole of, say, Paris. Either compare city to city, or crowded bit to crowded bit.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 11:03 amaphrael – I thought you were in Brooklyn. When did you move to Manhattan?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/22/2014 @ 11:14 amI’ve never lived in Brooklyn. My husband is a phD candidate at Columbia, which would make living in Brooklyn problematic commute-wise. OTH, my best friend in the city lives in Prospect Heights, and so I’m usually there at least once a week.
Odds are once my husband graduates, if we stay in NY, we’ll move to Astoria.
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/22/2014 @ 11:17 amOk, I’ll even go so far as to concede that Manhattan is not as bad as 1943 Calcutta. Since we’re doing comparisons. How pregnant is “pregnant” again?
nk (dbc370) — 7/22/2014 @ 11:25 amNK, how about modern Paris? Note that two of its suburbs are included in the “most crowded cities” list, while neither NYC nor any of its suburbs are listed.
Milhouse (469487) — 7/22/2014 @ 11:40 am1,726,827,916,899 angels can dance the Macarena on the head of a pin.
JD (f2d028) — 7/22/2014 @ 11:47 amWaiting for Sammy’s correction of JD’s calculation in 10… 9… 8…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:04 pmaphrael – My mistake.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:14 pmDaleyrocks – no worries; it’s a higher level of detail than I’d expect from anyone here. 🙂
aphrael (98d2d0) — 7/22/2014 @ 12:21 pm