Raising the (rent regs) roof. (rnguyen01/Flickr)

Even with a Supreme Court battle looming in the background, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg didn't hesitate to sign a City Council bill extending New York's Rent Stabilization Law through April 2015.

"In order to extend the Rent Stabilization Law, the City must determine that a housing emergency exists to merit the need for rent stabilization," Bloomberg said in a release about the bill's passage, citing the city's vacancy rate of 3.12 percent to declare the requisite emergency.

The continuation of rent regulations, which come up for renewal every three years, has been championed by a slew of City Council members, including Speaker Christine Quinn, who made affordable housing a focus of her 2012 State of the City address.

The law, on the books since 1969, mandates that owners of properties with six or more rental units abide by annual rent increases—usually around 3 percent—set by the Rent Guidelines Board.

And last year, the state legislature bolstered the protections, renewing rent regulation laws and raising the ceiling on rent stabilization-eligible apartments in the process.

But given that the policy is more than 40 years old, and some of the tenants who were its early beneficiaries have significantly bolstered their bank accounts since then, it's garnered its share of critics.

Most notably, James Harmon, a former federal prosecutor, and his wife Jeanne, who inherited an Upper West Side brownstone and would like to oust tenants who pay rents that are approximately 59 percent of market value (including one who has a house in the Hamptons). The Harmons have taken their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that regulation violates their property rights.

Others argue that while the laws are responsible for some outrages, like actress Faye Dunaway's rent-controlled $1,048.-2 a-month apartment on the Upper East Side, it primarily benefits people who couldn't afford to live in New York otherwise.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the Harmons' case next month. Meanwhile, the city's many unlanded residents can breath a sigh of relief.

kvelsey@observer.com

Fifty-five bucks to live here? Hot damn! (PropertyShark)

Rent control might be running out by the decade's end, but some rent-controlled tenants gladly pay their double digit rent and plan to pass it on to future generations, much to their landlords (and lawyers') dismay.

Consider the case of two elders in Soho–Thomas Lombardi and Robert Cohen—who have been paying $55.01 and $71.23, respectively, for their apartments, according to the Post.

Mr. Lombardi, son of Italian immigrants, moved to his apartment on 5 Spring Street in the 1940s. The rent, which qualifies for the pre-1971 rent control rates, has been $55.01 for the past two decades. He currently lives there with his "much younger wife," the Post noted.

On the other hand, Robert Cohen, a retired military meteorologist, pays $71.23 for his 500 square foot one bedroom apartment. He earned $1,100 a month from his military pension, but also does nude modeling on the side at $18.50 an hour. Despite being 87, he does not plan on letting the apartment succumb to the Manhattan market-rate market, and instead might be marrying a 41 year old lover from his past:

Because New York has legalized gay marriage, Combs said he is considering tying the knot with a 41-year-old former lover from Nepal who is seeking political asylum in the United States.

Under the city’s rent-control laws, the apartment would pass to Combs’ spouse after his death if the spouse had lived there from the beginning of the marriage.

The living hasn't been entirely easy, however. Mr. Cohen's landlord tried to boot him for being a hoarder and living in hazardous conditions. Wouldn't it make sense to host a yard sale and rack up enough cash to pay for the new few years? New Yorkers love vintage.

mewing@observer.com

Affordable housing? (Turduckern/Flickr)

The National Low Income Housing Coalition published their "Out of Reach 2012: America's Forgotten Housing Crisis" report this week. The report, in short, calculates the required hourly wages (at 40 hours a week and 52 weeks a year) to sustain a two bedroom apartment. The report surveyed hundreds of counties, metropolitian areas, and cities across the United States, and then our buen vecino Puerto Rico.

Keep in mind that the report also stipulated that an affordable two bedroom apartment is 30 percent of your monthly income. Here are some interesting breakdowns (in hourly wages at 2080 hours a year).

Most Expensive States

1. $31.68: Hawaii
2. $26.02: California
3. $25.04: New Jersey
4. $24.83: Maryland
5. $24.68: New York

Least Expensive  States

1. $9.88: Puerto Rico
2. $11.41: Arkansas
3. $11.50: West Virginia
4. $11.52: South Dakota
5. $11.85: Kentucky

Upon closer look, New York County (Manhattan) is not even the most expensive county in the state! The figures below outline the most expensive counties in New York - note that all are within the metropolitan region—in terms of monthly rent:

1. $1,682: Suffolk and Nassau Counties
2. $1,580: Westchester County
3. $1,424: Kings, New York, Queens, Bronx, Richmond, Putnam, and Rockland Counties
4. $1,189: Orange and Dutchess Counties

No, these figures are not per roommate, but for the whole apartment. It's a bit jarring to see in statistics, but just remember that the apartments in East New York or the mystical Far Rockaway are treated the same as apartments on Fifth Avenue or Greene Street in the data compilation.

Lesson learned: ask your South Dakota-raised hipster roommate for his old landlord's number.

mewing@observer.com

The Studio apartment, an extinct species?

“This is an incredible thing. It’s new. No human society in all of history has organized life in this way,” enthused NYU sociology professor Eric Klinenberg. He had met The Observer at Jacques Torres in Hudson Square to discuss his new book, Going Solo, which investigates what Mr. Klinenberg sees as a desire of a large number of people to live alone. In the book he coins the term “singleton” for this supposed emerging group—take that, BoBos!—and he calls Manhattan “the capital of singletons.”

“The typical New Yorker gets married after 30 these days,” said Mr. Klinenberg, “and they have children even later. We had a huge number of years where we used to live with other people. Now we’re free to do what we want to do.” In his book, Mr. Klinenberg cites numerous statistics over the past 50 years that do show a gradual shift in this direction, from the standard (expected) nuclear family to the rise of what he calls “the cult of the individual.”

“Most people we interviewed said that after a few years of living with roommates they are ready for a place of their own.” Mr. Klinenberg said. He has a whole host of reasons why: “Roommates who don’t pay rent on time, roommates who don’t like the person you are dating …” etc., etc.

The idea of the New York loner is as old as the city itself. Look no further than the solemn, solitary Statue of Liberty. But recent trends actually point away from a city of “singletons,” not toward one.

In recent years, as housing prices have skyrocketed, it has made it harder and harder for singletons to afford their own space. Meanwhile, gentrification and reverse white flight have made more and more middle class couples decide to start families in the city. This has led to a concerted trend on the part of developers to build bigger apartments and more of them, often with two to four bedrooms, rather than the one-bedrooms and studios that used to dominate. The trend is the same for poorer New Yorkers, be they multigenerational minorities in the South Bronx or struggling creative types in Greenpoint who must double- and triple-up just to find space in the city’s outer-lying districts.

Consider the example of 607 Hudson Street, a former senior center in Greenwich Village. Once home to 200 rooms for the elderly, it is undergoing conversion into 10 massive multiroom condos, all costing millions of dollars—perfect for a banker or actor and his burgeoning brood.

“I know that development,” Mr. Klinenberg said of 607 Hudson. “You’re saying they are family housing, but I think some singles will move into them.” Really? “This is a city of incredible concentrated wealth, so people who can afford to live alone here are people who are doing well in the marketplace.” But this is just his hunch.

“There are a lot of people trying to find that trophy apartment, but I personally don’t get the sense that people have a desire to live alone,” said Gary Malin, president of brokerage Citi Habitat. He did say it was possible particular kinds of clients might be buying these apartments for themselves, thought it was not whom Mr. Klinenberg might have in mind. “A lot of overseas people buy a property as a stop-off place,” he said.

That’s Mr. or Ms. Russian oil-rich czar, but what about Mr. or Ms. 30-something professional? “There has been a trend that people no longer want to move to the suburbs like they used to,” Mr. Malin said, “people who were living in Manhattan and single now aren’t as willing to move to the suburbs like before, and developers are trying to cater to these, and trying to find them bigger places.”

The U.S. Census Bureau shows an almost insignificant increase of 0.1 percent, from 2000 to 2010, of those living on their own in New York City. This is not to say that Mr. Klinenberg is wrong, just that he is not right right now: from 1980 to 1990, the rate of singletons grew 6.5 percent. Things are disproportionately female, as any Sex in the City fan could tell you, where women (18.5 percent) out number men (13.5 percent) living alone in New York.

“If personal income was flat over the decade, and housing prices, adjusted for inflation, were not flat, that means affordability went down, so you likely have fewer people living alone,” said Jonathan Miller, the real estate state guru behind appraisal firm Miller Samuel. “It’s not uncommon, but as it gets more expensive, you have more doubling up.”

According to Mr. Miller’s statistics, the number of one-bedroom apartments has held steady for the past decade, falling from 36 to 35 percent of Manhattan’s housing stock. Studios, however, a product of the 1980s and ’90s booms, have fallen from 18 percent to 15 percent of the housing stock. Two-bedrooms have dipped, from 41 percent to about 36 percent in the past few years, perhaps underscoring Mr. Klinenberg’s point. But the really hot properties are the biggest. Three bedrooms have gone from 4 percent a decade ago to 10 percent and four bedrooms from 1.5 percent to 3 percent.

Just look at all the townhouses that had been cut up after World War II, with eight studios, two to a floor. They have since been converted by the wealthy back into expansive single-family homes, full of boarding school-bound youths.

“There is a huge mismatch between how people are living and what types of housing are available,” said Sarah Watson, an analyst at the Citizens Housing and Planning Commission. She cites developers, building to match what government regulations urge, as the reason for a big housing discrepancy. “It’s not necessarily the market’s fault. Look at the government—it clearly prioritizes the 1950’s idea of the family.”

So, are the days of the bachelor pad over? Mr. Klinenberg remained adamant that they are not. “Developers are continuing to build for singles,” said Mr. Klinenberg, ignoring the fact that they are doing so less frequently. “The new Related building, MiMA at 42^nd and 10^th, is disproportionately single—around the 55 percent mark for single occupants.” Mr. Klinenberg also cited the Frank Gehry tower on Spruce Street as an enclave of singles. But might there have been even more single units in the past? He could not say.

“I don’t think it’s about people having a right to live alone,” Mr. Klinenberg continued, “but developers are not turning away singles, singles who are willing to pay the rent. These people exist and the city is not discriminating against them.”

If only you can afford it, that 10-by-10 urban oasis is still within reach.

sduffy@observer.com

Not cheap.

Although the winter months have historically lowered things like mood, libido, energy and rents, at least one of these has proved impervious to the winter gloom this year. Manhattan rents have actually increased this season, bucking a time old seasonal trend.

The increase can be attributed at least in part to landlord incentives, Crain's reports, like a month of free rent or discounts on brokers fees. These "deals" allow landlords to hike the rent, while still convincing plebeian buyers they're getting a steal on their dream apartment. Over the past month, 13% of landlords involved in deals brokered by CitiHabitats, one of the city's premiere rental agencies, used these enticing carrots to draw buyers.

Despite these sweeteners, which typically are used during hard time, rents are in fact increasing.

Last month, the average rent in Manhattan hit $3,352 a month, up 5% from the same time a year ago, according to residential brokerage Citi Habitats. That monthly average figure was also up $41 from December, as apartments of all sizes recorded an uptick.

So don't be fooled! No-fee rentals may sound great, but it's really just a cover for the skyrocketing monthly fees you'll be paying anyway.

eknutsen@observer.com

It's better than nothing... or warmed over Mexican. (Getty)

This time next Friday—actually, starting sometime around Monday probably—the fan boys will begin lining up in Grand Central Terminal to be the first into the new Apple Store when it opens Dec. 9.

Will they care whether Apple is paying $60 per square foot, or $80, or $180? Probably not. But State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli cares, and yesterday, his office announced they would do an audit of the M.T.A.'s real estate practices, following up on one from last year, to make sure the transit agency is not cutting anybody—Apple, Danny Meyer, their mother—a sweetheart deal.

To which the M.T.A.'s response is: "Bring it on."

That is the opening volley in a statement sent out today in response to the news of the audit. The statement concludes: "This is the best possible deal for the MTA, quadrupling the rent we receive and bringing foot traffic to Grand Central Terminal that will increase revenue from all of our retailers. We look forward to explaining the details of this competitively bid transaction to anyone who is interested."

According to M.T.A. spokesman Aaron Donovan, the kind of crowds that will soon be flooding Grand Central are precisely why the M.T.A. fought so hard to bring Apple into the station. Not only is it paying a much larger rent than the previous tenant, restaurant Métrazur, but it will occupy previously closed spaces and contribute $2.5 million in permanent capital improvements to the station.

But the real plus—unless you're a commuter trying to wend your way through them to catch a departing trains—are those crowds. For while the M.T.A. will not be taking a cut of Apple's sales, it still gets a bump from almost every other business in the station. Assuming there is a trickle down effect, which the M.T.A strongly predicts, it still means more money for the agency, a 1 percent bump in revenues for every extra $500,000 spent in the station, in fact. (That's a lot of Junior's cheesecakes.)

"It's like an anchor tenant," Mr. Donovan said. And then some. Apple is projecting it will do $100 million in sales at the store.

"Of course they gave them the store," retail broker Faith Hope Consolo said. "They stood on their head to give it to them. It's a win-win for everybody."

Ms. Consolo said to not factor in the infrastructure investments or the $5 million Apple had to pay to buy out the restaurant's lease, as the Post did when it originally reported the "sweetheart deal" would be to ignore the basic economics of commercial leasing. "If they didn't have to do that, of course the M.T.A. could have charged them more, but they wouldn't have taken the space."

As for whether or not Apple should have to pay a percentage of its sales like everybody else, Mr. Donovan said it was the company's corporate policy not to do so. This is despite the fact Apple does pay part of its sales at both its Fifth Avenue and Soho stores to the landlords there. An Apple spokesman declined to comment. "That's not information that we share," he said.

"We had an uphill battle going that because they were the only bidder," Mr. Donovan said of Apple's interest in the space. Take it or leave it, in other words.

Regardless, it underscores the station's growing popularity as a shopping destination, from the food hall to the luxury shops lining the concourses—it's not all newsstands and shoeshines anymore. Between Apple and the new Shake Shack, Grand Central has arrived. And Comptroller DiNapoli does not necessarily dispute this, either. "Just because we are looking at this does not mean it is a bad deal," a spokesman said. "We do audits all the time."

Nonetheless, there will be an audit, no matter what the M.T.A. or Apple says, which will take about two months to complete.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Ticked off. (Dan Kaufman)

With all the fan boy excitement surrounding the new Apple Store at Grand Central, it is no surprise the shiny glass bauble was able to land a sweetheart deal for the space. Now, State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli is probing Apple's lease with the M.T.A., according to the Post, looking for signs of whether or not there was anything untoward about the deal.

As the Post reported yesterday, Apple is forgoing profit-sharing requirements that are common among most Grand Central retailers at the same time the glass goldmine is enjoying particularly below-market rents for its space. Receipts are expected to top $100 million a year.

"The article in the New York Post about the M.T.A.’s contract with Apple in Grand Central Terminal is a cause for concern,” Mr. DiNapoli told the tab. “This is a prime property, and I intend to make sure that the M.T.A. hasn’t given away the store.”

The M.T.A. argues that because Apple had to buyout the previous tenant, it is actually paying about three-times its listed rent of $60 a square foot, and there is the fact that the M.T.A. is still making more off Apple than the restaurant it is replacing, almost 10 times as much. Still, why is it everyone always makes exceptions for Steve?

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

SoHo (Photo from TravelAdventures.org)

When you fall asleep at night do you dream sweet dreams of life in a rent stabilized apartment? Tenants throughout the city have been living the dream in rent regulated digs while, month in and month out, you shed tears as you sign the check to your landlord. Curbed has a particularly interesting tale of a rent regulated fairytale (well, almost) in Soho.

Landing in New York in 1980, a college-grad began embarking upon the epic journey of first-home-hunting in the City. After finding an ad in The Village Voice, the newly minted New Yorker headed to Soho to check out a loft. The three bedroom space was perfect... But there was a catch, the resident explains:

he guy offering the lease made it clear that the place would go to whoever put the full $15K fixture fee in his hands first. My cash was locked in transit, but one of my roommates worked at an uptown restaurant owned by a big sports star and, luckily, the manager was crazy about her. Within an hour we were clutching a paper bag stuffed full with cash. We jumped on the downtown 6 train, praying we'd be first to hand over the fixture fee and sign a 20-year lease.

With a new apartment, the college grad had it all figured out... Until the building got a new landlord.

Over the next two decades there were multiple rent strikes, no heat for years on end, elevators locked out and lawsuits galore. Needed repairs went undone.

The story ultimately has a happy ending, however. The resident has lived in the same building for the past 30 years, paying basically $1,425 per month for a loft that would basically cost 10- or 20-times that these days.

What's the moral of this story? If you're willing to heat your home with trash-can fires for a couple winters, go find yourself a rent stabilized apartment. Hey-no pain no gain!

eknutsen@observer.com

Starting at $3,340—below average!

One of the confounding things about the past three years is that while the economy has slumped and housing has been an absolute mess nationwide, in New York, we are almost back to the same levels as during the boom, especially as far as rentals are concerned. Crain's sees some softening ahead, however.

With the approach of winter and increasing jitters on Wall Street, rents are expected to be stable at best, according to Gary Malin, president of Citi Habitats, the city's largest residential rental firm.

“There are a lot of question marks in the market with Wall Street layoffs,” said Mr. Malin. “Rents won't fall off a cliff, but they will be more flexible and vacancy will creep up if negative news intensifies.” [snip]

“Little by little I am seeing concessions creep back, especially in the fringe neighborhoods,” said Gus Waite of brokerage A.C. Lawrence & Co., referring to areas like the Far West Side and the Financial District.

Landlords with empty units entering Thanksgiving and Christmas will likely reintroduce concessions to rent out apartments, according to Mr. Malin.

Layoffs would certainly have an impact, but the irony is that as long as the economy is down and mortgages are still impossible to come by, no one will be buying, and so demand for rentals will stay up, and so rents might not fall, at least not that much.

Meanwhile, nothing has been built—why do you think everyone is scrambling to get projects in the ground on the Brooklyn waterfront? So this only constrains the supply further. Will that rent tab be a Christmas present? Maybe, but there are still plenty of Scrooges out there.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

A boarded apartment building in Harlem (photo from Harlem Bespoke)

While some say Harlem is the city's new housing hotspot, hundreds of empty residential buildings bespeak serious issues still affecting the community, The New York Times reports. While storefronts in the neighborhood are generally bustling, an unsettling number of residences above are boarded up, and have been for decades. Business may be good on the ground floor, but landlords, often times wealthy real estate firms, have forsaken the residential apartments, leaving blighted buildings dotting the neighborhood.

While rents have been rising in the area recently, most landlords simply don't want to manage residential tenants, according to The Times.

Although the vacancy rate in Manhattan hovers at 1 percent, at least some of the landlords of these sealed-up buildings are deliberately keeping their buildings mostly vacant, content to earn income from first-floor commercial tenants rather than deal with the trouble of residents.

There is always the hope, of course, that a wealthy developer will come by and offer a substantial sum for the buildings. Many landlords would rather wait for their desired Daddy Warbucks than go to the trouble of restoring the properties themselves.

In other cases, landlords are “warehousing” apartments for the moment that a deep-pocketed developer comes along, as has happened in the blocks just north of 96th Street, East Harlem’s southern boundary.

If only Robert Durst's new townhouse had been warehoused! Oh, long-suffering Harlem!

eknutsen@observer.com