Tribeca Tower

Please share where you found this amazing deal.

You had a $4000 rent controlled apartment? Not possible.

boxer is made because he can't afford to live there sounds like. related has a pretty stellar reputation.

You got kicked out or they wouldn't let you renew your lease at the end of the term for the same apartment?

Huntersbug - its was not rent controlled. Tribeca Tower IS NOT a rent controlled building, therefore, they can increase you (reasonable by all standards - $4K for one bedroom in that area) rate by 20% in a year, and there is NOTHING you can do. That is the problem. The good news is that there are many buildings that are rent-controlled in this area (thanks to the mayor Bloomberg and generous subsidies he gave to developers to build in the area after 9/11 - in exchange for a certain number of years of "affordable" housing.) While it is still not a low priced apartments, they are in much nicer and newer buildings, and your rent there will never go above the agreed upon increase decided by once-a-year vote by the city representatives. And never above 7%. (The average is 3-5%, which is fine with me.)
So while I will still be paying in the $4K range, I wont be worried about my rent going up by 20% in one year, just because the building management decided I was not paying enough. In Tribeca Tower, you run this risk.
Genghism - after my less than two years in the building, they called me to say they would not be renewing my lease because they wanted to renovate the apartment and put it back on the market at a much higher price. When I asked for alternatives, they sent me a new lease with an offer of a 20% higher monthly rent. In my book, it counts like kicking me out. Again, I always paid on time, was very easy to deal with, kept the apartment in great condition and rarely made any maintenance requests. The building management does not give a hoot about these things. All they care about is if you are thought of paying a below-market rate, you will be kicked out. Or offered a huge increase in rent you don't feel justifies itself in any way. I don't feel it is justified, and I found a much better building in the area with a similar rent to what I am paying now (and way below adjusting for the increase), but a guarantee that when it is time for renewal, it will not go up by 20%.
Hope this helps.

I love how you brought up the bed bug issue...Now i know you were mad at them....

I really do hate greedy landlords. That building is already overpriced, but now they want to raise 20% and renovated to make even more money....

boxer, welcome to capitalism girl. if you pay below market, owner can increase your rent to market rent, simple as that. if that is 20% higher that means you've been underpaying for some time, so you should be happy.

I guess I'm not sure why the outrage, its one of the risks when you rent. The landlord can ask for any increase they want and you have the right to reject it if you don't think its justified.

On a side note, I hear lots of people are fleeing Related buildings cause of their astronomical rent in multiple buildings. Perhaps their calculations are off...

rents are going up E24, and with vacancy of less than 1% where are people moving to?

angelo - bedbugs were the issue in the building, regardless of my being mad at the management. Anyone looking to rent there has the right to ask for the history, and they will have to show it.

JButton - (not sure why you are referring to me as girl?) I have lived in NYC for other 15 years, and I have paid slightly below market on several occasions. But my past landlords have always worked with me on reasonable increases, and I have never had the experience of my apartment being taken away from me. This is the first time I am moving because of a crazy rent increase. And as I said, in this case, I was not in a rent-subsidized apartment paying way below the market rate. A year and a half ago when I signed the lease, it was market. They weren't offering any specials, it was in line with everything else. The rents in that area are not up over 25% in 15 months, and no other building there is increasing rents at that rate.

E24 - The reason I am so upset is that 1. The rent increase given all circumstances is completely unjustified IMO and 2. Moving is a very stressful and disruptive experience, and it is very expensive as well; moving in less than 2 years, after you had assumed the rent was fair and got settled, is incredibly upsetting.

And yes, I do have the right to reject the lease, which I did, but I also have the right to share my experience with others, so they know what to expect from the Related management, and that particular building.
Lastly, if people are looking for a building in that area, there are dozens of rent-controlled buildings south of TT. The rents may not be an amazing deal compared to what I was paying (although way better than what I was offered), but for those staying for longer than a year or two, they will provide some certainty about future rent increases. To me, 3-4-5 even 7% is reasonable (and I would have been ok/understood if Related did that.) But jacking it up by 20% is out of any reasonable boundaries. Getting into a rent-controlled building vs. Related will give you that protection.

PS - funny how all the responses show up at almost the same time, I could bet there are some Related employees commenting on my post...

I do not work for Related. If you rent an apartment, you have no right to stay beyond the lease term, absent some sort of governmental regulation giving you that right. If you don't like moving and want the security of knowing what your expenses should be, then buy an apartment. Your rant is pretty absurd as ANY landlord has the right to request a rent increase to whatever he/she/it believes the market rate to be and ANY tenant has the right to take a hike or agree to the new lease. Really don't get the outrage. Related gave you a chance to not move (pay the increase), but they (apparently) want to renovate apartments as leases expire. It's their asset, not yours, and they are well within their right to make improvements and charge higher rents.

i am not related to related.

i do understand your frustration but you are renting from a company, which means they are not so concerned with vacancy, and do not value 'good' tenant as much as private landlords would. They are also pretty good at figuring out what 'market' rent is, so chances are they could find someone willing to pay $5k for your apartment. You seem to be asking to pay lower than market rent and as a justification you use an argument of reasonable increases. Why would they give you reasonable increase in rent? they are in biz to make money not be nice landlords.

Related is one of very few respectable and honest firms in this business. OP is not right on this one.

I wonder who it is on your floor who had bedbugs.

But here, pick one of your statements that you stand by, and help us understand the other one:

1 - "...your apartment because they need to "renovate" it (you thought everything was fine), and the only alternatives that the management would offer you are a far worse apartment"

2 - "much nicer than a 20 year old building, with way outdated design, smelly floors, and bedbugs detected on several floors."

>The good news is that there are many buildings that are rent-controlled in this area (thanks to the mayor Bloomberg and generous subsidies he gave to developers to build in the area after 9/11 - in exchange for a certain number of years of "affordable" housing.) While it is still not a low priced apartments, they are in much nicer and newer buildings, and your rent there will never go above the agreed upon increase decided by once-a-year vote by the city representatives. And never above 7%. (The average is 3-5%, which is fine with me.)
So while I will still be paying in the $4K range, I wont be worried about my rent going up by 20% in one year, just because the building management decided I was not paying enough. In Tribeca Tower, you run this risk.

What you say is only true if you are paying the current maximum allowable rent for your apartment. If you are paying anything below the maximum allowable rent, i.e. a "preferrential rent", then the landlord at the next renewal can increase the rent to the maximum allowable rent, and then the 3-5% raise ON TOP OF that.

This was not a rant, this was a clearheaded analysis of the building and its' attractiveness relative to other buildings in the area.
My simple points are (and I will not repeat them again) -
The building is aged; you can see the wear and tear everywhere. Services are mediocre (tenant lounge is worn out, there is no roof top deck and the sun deck is pretty bad, gym is very small and you have to pay for it (in most other luxury buildings in the area it is free), and yes, the bed bug issues, etc) I was willing to deal with all of this when the rent was reasonable, but I am moving to a better building now that it is not.
I also never said the landlord does not have a right to increase the rent by a huge amount, I just pointed that there are many other buildings in the area that are rent-controlled, so you wont run a risk of a huge rent increase, and they offer much better services and much newer apartments. So to repeat, if you are not comfortable dealing with a potential 20% unexpected increase in rent a year after you sign a lease in Tribeca Tower, there is a way to avoid this risk - move to a rent controlled building. Pretty much all of the ones built downtown in the last 5-6 years have a rent control clause, so you won't have to deal with the risk of huge rent increases.
So I don't understand why the responses above seem so emotional/upset about my posting - I explained my frustration, but do not really understand theirs. Unless, of course, they came from the employees of Related who would like to defend themselves. Otherwise, it is really

To future posters - if you can prove why it is better to take a risk of future big rent increases at the aged Tribeca Tower vs. having much more rent certainty at new, beautiful buildings in the area, I'd love to read your response. Otherwise, the "landlord has the right to increase rent" line is getting pretty old...

Yes, we all work for Related. Plus, we will be putting a bedbug in your moving van. Just one. But that's enough.

Agin op, what/where did you rent that is rent stabilized in Tribeca that is better that what you're leaving?

Open tells us not to rent from related. To warn us. But won't share where he found this rent stabilized gem that is cheaper and better. There aredozens he says. He got his. But be won't say where.

huntersburg - sounds like you will know better than I would the exact apartment where they bedbugs were found. And if I were you, I wouldn't be making jokes about bedbugs being put in anyone's moving vans - nowadays, it is very easy to figure out someone's identity, and you may be jeopardizing your employment by making comments like this.
And for those interested - here you go.Just for the concerned citizens above:)
http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb1/downloads/pdf/About_District/Stabilization_Guide_FINAL%202012.pdf

What did you rent?

Being forced to move in rentals every 2-3 years due to ever increasing rents is one of the reasons why many of us buy. Related has every right to increase the rent 20% as they are not charity.

jim_hones10 - and why are you so interested in my particular circumstances? So you could team up with hunersburg and put a beg bug in my van? I think I'll pass on sharing it with you. I believe I have given enough info for those interested to be able to make a choice for themselves.
300_mercer - as I said, the comments about landlord having a right to increase rent are getting very, very old. Come up with a different line please. And, just out of curiosity, if you have bought, why are you trolling rental building cites on streeteasy?

I am temped to say to enjoy renter's misery but all conversations show up under "talk" and I know the building 105 Duane very well. I looked at some apts there many years back.

"Being forced to move in rentals every 2-3 years due to ever increasing rents is one of the reasons why many of us buy. Related has every right to increase the rent 20% as they are not charity."

Of course, boxer1 isn't a charity either, so he's free to move somewhere else for a better deal. But I agree, if you really hate moving then it's good to lock into longer term leases or think about buying since the flexibility of moving where you want comes with the risk that you may be forced to move when you don't want to as well.

300_Mercer - Funny. I mean it ) Well, buying is not yet a smart alternative to renting in NYC IMO when you take into account CAM, taxes and interest. I have looked at buying as well, and passed. The alternative for now is to stick to a rent-controlled building (and maybe I should thank Related for teaching me the lesson.)
As much fun as it was chatting with everyone, I sadly have to go. I did say everything I wanted, fought the trolls, and got the building threaten me with infestation as I leave. Those who are looking at renting at 105 Duane have been made aware of the risks, and presented with some alternatives, so my missions is complete.

enjoy your new apt boxer.

Haha, boxer is a bedbug.

Boxer, the real reason you won't say is because you are full of shit. "plenty of nicer and cheaper rent controlled apartments" you said. Okay, so don't share which building you moved into. Just let us know about some of the ones you passed on.

Landlords who seek to take advantage of the difficulties tenants have in moving every two years are a key reason why residential rental markets usually fail.

In most cities without effective rent regulations, the only people who rent are people in transition or without any choice. This, of course, is a net loss for society. Making it impractical to rent means that people have to buy -- even though most people would be better off not putting the bulk of their net worth in an undiversified, highly risky, depreciating asset; housing markets can be subject to devastating bubbles and crashes that, on the way up, make housing unnecessarily expensive for one generation and on the way down destroy retirement planning for another; retail level financing can be competitive with massive government subsidies (and occasional financial meltdowns); and condo/coop business forms are complicated and inefficient ways of duplicating services landlords often can provide more efficiently with better incentives to build and maintain.

Well-designed rent regulations, by limiting the landlord's ability to exploit individual tenants, make the rental market more profitable and more successful for tenants and investors alike. NY's Rent Stabilization laws, while not perfect, are far better than the NY "unregulated" alternative -- which is one reason why large landlords are often quite willing to voluntarily enter the program for fairly minimal bribes.

Nonsense. You've said nothing as to why a landlord should prefer to be under rent regulation. But nice sweeping over the issue.

By the way, "are a key reason why residential rental markets usually fail." Can you point to a failed residential rental market? What does this even mean?

huntersburg can't get fired. He works in publishing but he's not an author.
He may be an heir to the Hearst fortune.

Interesting

Shall I alert the press, huntersburg?

More interested in hearing "finance"guy actually provide some support - evidence would be nice, but at least logic would be helpful - on his prior post.

O.K. Cindy Adams will be calling in at 1pm. She wants me to comment on a rumor regarding Levon.

if finance guy provides any hot copy we can get it into her column for tomorrow or Sunday.

@boxer1...Thanks for the helpful info. Wish more posters were like you.