Opinion of this article from the NYT property section

[bedstuy]

NYT property articles are universally cringe inducing.

What exactly about the West Village is appealing to these people?

It's a great neighborhood, especially if you're rich.  It's near everything and not as hectic and overbuilt as most of Manhattan.

[bedstuy]

What exactly about the West Village is appealing to these people?

I don't know. Being painfully hip, I suppose. Although there are some absolutely beautiful townhouses in the neighborhood.

Is the West Village really a "hip" neighborhood?  Maybe 20 years ago.  It's so expensive that the only hip people who can afford to live there are gay trustafarians. 

Plus, the townhomes pale in comparison to the UWS, Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope. 

[bedstuy]

I especially like 60-year-old guy with 38-year-old trophy wife.

Hey, if you want to live a non-proletarian life in NYC before you're too old to actually enjoy it, you gotta marry rich. (Making millions as an 80 hour a week bankster doesn't leave much time for enjoyment.) And that generally means marrying old unless you want some inbred, horsefaced-looking heir(ess) to a fraction of a Gilded Age fortune.

This is why NYC doesn't appeal to me. What kind of lifestyle does $100k get you in NYC? A shared studio in Queens? No thanks.

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

[bedstuy]

NYT property articles are universally cringe inducing.

What exactly about the West Village is appealing to these people?

It's a great neighborhood, especially if you're rich.  It's near everything and not as hectic and overbuilt as most of Manhattan.

Granted, I haven't been to New York in a decade, but my understanding was that it was a bohemian area (or at least that's what its appeal was), which does not exactly translate to that kind of house.

That's what the West Village was like in the 1960s and 1970s.  Now, it's probably the most expensive neighborhood per sq. ft in the United States.

[bedstuy]

NYT property articles are universally cringe inducing.

What exactly about the West Village is appealing to these people?

It's a great neighborhood, especially if you're rich.  It's near everything and not as hectic and overbuilt as most of Manhattan.

Granted, I haven't been to New York in a decade, but my understanding was that it was a bohemian area (or at least that's what its appeal was), which does not exactly translate to that kind of house.

That's what the West Village was like in the 1960s and 1970s.  Now, it's probably the most expensive neighborhood per sq. ft in the United States.

I thought that was Tribeca?  Not that there's a whole lot of space between the two, and yes the West Village has thoroughly priced out not just the bohemians but even the yuppies and the merely well-off.

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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

Not really though.  A lot of rentals are not commercially listed with a broker in a way that StreetEasy is going to be able to access.  Those rentals that are commercially listed with a broker include everything high priced. 

Just as an example, I pay $1000 for a one bedroom in Bed-Stuy and my apartment has never been listed with a broker so it will never be counted by most surveys of average rents.

[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.

While you make some good points, I'm just going to play devil's advocate here and say that most families with children (ie the non-rich families with children) aren't going to choose to live in Manhattan or San Francisco. Kids are expensive, and affordability of housing plus safety become very important to families as a result.

I guess that's true to an extent now.  I know people who raised 5 kids on a lower middle class salary in Manhattan back in the day and I have a relative who is raising young kids in Manhattan right now on a teacher's salary.  It's gotten harder with the price of real estate going nuts, but it's still not impossible.  It's also not like Manhattan is super dangerous.  It's way safer in terms of crime than where I grew up and many, many large cities in America.

Also, we have to clarify that we're talking about white people.  I do a lot of volunteer work with single mothers in Brooklyn and I meet 20 year olds who are raising 3 kids.