pigeonsmasher t1_ixb0517 wrote
So even without covid restrictions, this business is only pulling in $56,000 a month in lower Manhattan? That’s less than $2000 a day. God bless ‘em but I’d say that’s probably not a good business.
Is this normal? I managed a restaurant in midtown in 2009-2012 that made about 3x this and we didn’t even have a liquor license.
koreamax t1_ixbd8jv wrote
I agree. I'm all for local businesses but so many of them just don't make money. I'm sorry, but being unproductive in one of the most expensive places in the world just won't work
Delaywaves t1_ixcmt9h wrote
Why is everyone being so unforgiving to this guy?
Should you not be allowed to run a bar in NYC if you're not maximally "productive"? Isn't the point of this article that regular, neighborhood bars should be given the support they need to survive even if they're not some perfectly efficient business operation?
[deleted] t1_ixcnnyn wrote
People just disagree with the sentiment that a bar that can't sell drinks should get government assistance.
Delaywaves t1_ixcokhj wrote
It's plainly untrue that they "can't sell drinks" — they're popular, they bring in tens of thousands of dollars a month, and the bar is very well-reviewed online.
They just can't sell enough drinks to meet the arbitrary threshold we've set in the city, once you take into account the many ways that our government fails small businesses.
[deleted] t1_ixcpsll wrote
Isn't the threshold "on par with the other bars in the area"?
Delaywaves t1_ixcs3o9 wrote
Surely the other bars are struggling in the exact same way. That seemed to basically be the point of the article.
[deleted] t1_ixcwwh5 wrote
And the point of the comment thread is that the others aren't.
If one bar goes out of business the others pick up it's patrons.
GND52 t1_ixcxxbz wrote
The problem is the extreme cost of operating in NYC.
That is a problem we can fix. Chiefly by reducing rents. Not by mandating lower rents, but by losening zoning and building regulations. We need dramatically more mixed-use space to allow more people to open small businesses in their neighborhoods.
This particular policy has the added benefit of growing the population of the city, expanding the customer base for these small businesses. We need, like, millions of additional people living in this city and we need even more new apartments to not just house them, but give us all more housing choice to drive rents down.
Darrackodrama t1_ixcyqu6 wrote
But why not, have the government just asses properties and set rents? Like will the market really collapse if rents come down 10-20% sure some commercial landlords will sue likely win. But it seems to me you all are way too wedded to the private market like it’s some kind of infallible god
GND52 t1_ixczyv7 wrote
Rent control is one of the few ideas with near universal agreement among economists: it doesn’t work. It stifles new development, reduces quality of existing homes, reduces city tax revenue, makes it harder for people to move, causes shortages, and doesn't even keep prices down.
https://www.nmhc.org/news/articles/the-high-cost-of-rent-control/
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-does-more-harm-than-good
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/09/19/rent-control-will-make-housing-shortages-worse
Darrackodrama t1_ixdizzg wrote
Correction rent control doesn’t work if you believe in a world where landlords and developers are the only providers of houses. Other countries have shown time and time again that the public sector can do good housing you just need to invest in it as a priority.
ghiaab_al_qamaar t1_ixefbas wrote
Which other countries have shown this “time and time again”?
Off the top of my head, I can think of ambitious public housing programs in Austria (which in the modern day is increasingly utilizing public-private partnerships) and Singapore (whose 99-year lease concept alters the game quite a bit).
Darrackodrama t1_ixfhdjk wrote
Austria and Singapore and in part Hong Kong, these are the only places it’s been tried in part at least.
It works 100% you just have to do it
Also I want to add to that list some of the Soviet republics, they at least showed you do not need private landlords to house people. Sure the housing wasn’t the best quality but modern Russian housing is just as poor but far more expensive even for krushchev blocks.
For their time Soviet housing blocks were revolutionary walkable communities
Inevitable_Return_63 t1_ixueyw5 wrote
Yes, if you ask anyone who lived in Soviet Russian housing, it is nothing but a constant stream of praise!…
Darrackodrama t1_ixe6g66 wrote
To be fair though we have had rent control multiple times throughout history in the past 100 years and landlords survived.
It has always been profitable to be a landlord in New York City, it’s a question of how profitable we want to make that proposition.
Also so many fundamental assumptions Econ professors are political zealots for free markets selling their vision of a profitized housing system. So to say universal agreement is rich.
GND52 t1_ixe9yot wrote
A great way to make it less profitable would be to let people build more apartments.
Darrackodrama t1_ixh4mwu wrote
But people aren’t building more apartments precisely because it would make the system less profitable?
You see the problem with your logic? It rests on the assumption that the private market needs to build except reality has actually shown the private market doesn’t ever want to build.
Then you circle back around and introduce some hypothetical actions that a private market hasn’t ever provided assuming by magic that they will.
ctindel t1_ixihs2r wrote
Plenty of people want to build, they just can't because of stupid zoning FAR limits and corruption making the cost of construction here absurdly high.
Darrackodrama t1_ixiplki wrote
Build what then, more “luxury buildings”? And why does it matter that they take a loss when you’re providing an essential human need?
This is why the government needs to get back into the business of social housing
ctindel t1_ixjb8m5 wrote
> Build what then, more “luxury buildings”?
No, I think the government should remove FAR restrictions but only for owners who will build coops that are affordable to purchase by the middle class and must be owner-occupied as a primary residence.
> And why does it matter that they take a loss when you’re providing an essential human need?
Because this is the real world and nobody is going to take a loss on purpose. Yes the government could get in the game but if they're just providing rentals it won't solve the problem. We need more middle class homeownership here not more lifetime renters.
biggreencat t1_ixd770d wrote
you should know that those arguments aren't convincing. Rent control is supposed to protect renters
Marlsfarp t1_ixdc6e4 wrote
They are convincing to someone who is even slightly open to being persuaded by evidence.
biggreencat t1_ixdfh38 wrote
like you, right?
Marlsfarp t1_ixdg1h1 wrote
Yes, like me. I have opposed most forms of rent control since reading about the subject.
biggreencat t1_ixdg7ms wrote
and before reading about the subject?
Marlsfarp t1_ixdgao8 wrote
Seemed like a good idea.
biggreencat t1_ixdhjnx wrote
......because it helped people who were renting? and now you disagree with that? I have my issues with rent control, too, but I wonder what yours are
Marlsfarp t1_ixdilgb wrote
So when you said "those arguments aren't convincing," what you meant was "I'm not going to read any of that?"
biggreencat t1_ixdjh1n wrote
sure i will. which article should i start with?
also, i'm interested in your thought process, as one who has tread before.
Marlsfarp t1_ixdlmj1 wrote
First one he listed lays it pretty straightforwardly. Rent control reduces both the quality and quantity of housing available, in more or less the same way price controls for other things typically do. The theory is straightforward, but it's not just theory, it is extremely well documented in practice. It benefits entrenched interests at the expense of all future residents, and destroys the livability of cities.
biggreencat t1_ixdn1yw wrote
the problem i'm trying to bring up is that it's a benefit to the people who are receiving rent control. there aren't a lot of policies that are quite as socially protective as that is. of course those of us who aren't benefitting from it aren't going to consider it beneficial.
I'm also sceptical (to put it mildly) that the general population of renters would benefit from more development and the changing of zoning laws.
Marlsfarp t1_ixdo78w wrote
The people who manage to land a rent controlled home will be able to live cheaply as their home and their city decays around them, together with their grown children who can't afford to leave. Sometimes it's worth it for that select group, but overall it's a disaster. Supply and demand is not some trick made up by evil economists.
biggreencat t1_ixdp67k wrote
i agree with the first sentiment. that's my problem with rent control--how's it help someone like me? that second sentiment tho. it's a very dated simplification.
Exotic_Philosopher42 t1_ixdbhpi wrote
“Universal agreement” lol. Then you go on to only post blatant propaganda while ignoring the fact that their is global precedent showing rent control and public property assessment/seizure consistently helps the working class.
ghiaab_al_qamaar t1_ixefnev wrote
Then I’m sure it’ll be easy to provide some credible sources showing how consistently instances of rent control have helped?
FutureGT t1_ixequd8 wrote
I'm completely all-in for YIMBY/upzoning everything, however I dont think this will make these specific business rents cheaper in this case, since the vast majority of retail/bars want to be on the first (or first few) stories, which is already very saturated real estate. If anything, i'd imagine greatly increasing density will lower housing costs (obvi) but dramatically increase the now more coveted street level space. If a business cannot operate now with all the foot traffic, chances are it won't be able to operate in the future either.
Pool_Shark t1_ixevjs6 wrote
I know this is a popular arguement for housing but it makes less sense for small business. Walk around NYC and see how many empty storefronts there are throughout the 5 boros. This isn’t a building problem it’s a landlords have incentives to keep stores empty until they get the insane rents they want
take_five t1_ixiqh2t wrote
Random question for anyone, but why don’t we convert some of the empty office space to commercial? In other countries and cities I saw many more commercial places on second floors, or even third or fourth floors.
Muted-Extent-9086 t1_ixx6vex wrote
I love this take. Preserve what little culture is left. Not everyone should aim to maximize profits as a way of life. Fuckin gross
sirzoop t1_ixbiuec wrote
If they sell $10 drinks that's less than 200 drinks sold/day. Don't some places do that in an hour?
GoHuskies1984 t1_ixclszn wrote
Cocktail bar probably averages higher than $10 per drink not to mention patrons are probably averaging more than one drink per visit.
Article example sounds too low volume to survive.
brotie t1_ixckfbe wrote
Yeah, this article seems less like lamenting COVID’s impact on the hospitality industry and more a case study in why bar and restaurant experience does not inherently mean you’re ready to own your own business. In the article the guy details how they opened in a space next to a church so they couldn’t sell liquor and had to get a second space to make cocktails (probably should have figured that out before leasing the first space…), appears to admit to using illegal labor (employee moved back to Mexico because they couldn’t get them hours, they would have been on PUA if legal and probably made more than they did at the bar) and regularly not paying bills. They make it sound like the government left them high and dry until admitting they got forgiven PPP loans to pay their staff the whole time. It was a hectic time and caused a ton of suffering for everyone but at least the city tried ideas (such as the outdoor dining, togo drinks that the author is complaining about) to keep you in business while offering unprecedented unemployment supplements and forgivable loans.
This just doesn’t seem like a viable business even if it is somebody’s favorite bar.
grandzu t1_ixepwyg wrote
56K on paper
pixel_of_moral_decay t1_ixfsnk5 wrote
Bars are in general a horrible investment. Most bar owners best way to make money is to sell it to someone who thinks "it would be soooo cool to own a bar".
People come in, buy an "expensive" drink, and hog a chair for a long period of time. Revenue per square foot is pretty low while they sip that drink slowly and talk.
If bars were big money makers, there's be way more corporations running bars around the globe. But reality is, that's the one industry they never got a foothold in. The closest you've got is "Bar and Grill" places, which mostly exist because of a giant menu of Sysco Foods based crap they can microwave or drop in a fryer and sell at a huge margin.
Bars exist because people have midlife crisis's all the time.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments