one bed rental
This one-bedroom in a doorman building called AMSTRDM on 75th street is asking $2,907 on Craigslist.

Upper West Side apartments rented for about 3% more in October than they did a year before, according to a new report from brokerage firm MNS. That’s a slightly less drastic rise than in previous years — in 2011, the market was accelerating at a 10% rate, for instance. Check out the averages below (apartments for over $10,000 are omitted).

Trulia also crunched some numbers for us to determine what percentage of listed apartments now rent for more than $3,000 a month: For one-bedrooms, they found 60.5% are over $3,000, with a median of $3,300. For 2 bedrooms, 86.2% go for over $3000, with a median of $4,550.

By the way, there are now more apartments in Manhattan priced over $15,000 than priced below $2,000.

October 2015

Anyone in the market for a rental these days? What are you seeing out there?

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 22 comments | permalink
    1. Gavan Vogler says:

      Manhattan Valley has some great deals on one bedrooms.

    2. guy_on_the_corner says:

      Data means very little without background. In 2011 did a lot of new rental construction come to market? That would really skew the data. Since rent stabilized apartments were granted a zero percent increase for one year renewals for 2015, I’d say there are a lot of people sitting pretty with the current increases since the 3% is probably just new or recent construction and non-stablized units rented by people with yearly incomes greater than the $200k cutoff.

      • West Sider says:

        This includes all the apartments tracked by MNS that are on the market, not just new or recent construction. It would most likely not include many rent-stabilized units, as those turn over infrequently. WSR

    3. klayman says:

      My rent went up 7% this year. They actually tried to raise it 9%, but I negotiated it down a bit. Based on what other studios in the building are currently renting for, I’m guessing that next year will be a 4% to 6% increase.

      I would like for rent stabilization to be ended, so I would have an opportunity to bid higher for some of those apartments that are off the market.

      • Amy says:

        I see we’re buying into the “if people with stable rents gave up their apartment I’d be less angry about mine” myth. You would not have a fighting chance if rent stability was ended, your studio price and all “market” rate housing would become even more expensive/unattainable. Don’t give me any economics 101 snark either, you can’t teach NYC real estate in any class, there is no logic. Only greed, envy, and jealousy.

        • anon says:

          are you amenable to learning just economics 101 then? Without snark? What you learn might surprise you.

        • Nathan says:

          New York is a market just like any other and the same principles apply. There is actually a lot of logic to the market. Ignoring reality doesn’t help anybody. Are you also a climate-change denier?

        • Fred says:

          You have no clue what you’re talking about.

          There are about 1.5 million apartments in NYC that are under some form of rent control or stabilization. Since tenants rarely leave these apartments they are effectively off the market, thus decreasing supply.

          If rent stabilization laws were to end these apartments would suddenly flood the market, thus causing everybody else’s rent to fall.

          Tenants who live in these artificially cheap units will either have to pay a new and fairer rent. If they choose not to pay these prices they can move to The Bronx.

          Granted, new ├╝ber-luxury rentals probably won’t budge much but most rental buildings will see rents decrease.

          • James says:


            If rent-stabilization ended, it is true the supply of apartments would go up. It is also true that the demand for apartments would go up (At a minimum, those living in rent-stabilized apartments would need to move. At a maximum, demand from out of the neighborhood would pour in to the UWS). The principles of basic economics logically follow that the increase in supply would reduce pricing but the increase in demand would increase it. Thus it is possible that there would be no noticable overall decrease in pricing in the long-term, or that costs would rise overall. If you accept that demand to live in the UWS (which comes from all over the world!) is greater than the current number of rent-stabilized units present in the neighborhood, you could make a logical argument that increased demand would be greater than increased supply and thus prices would increase.

            Ending rent-stabilization would also reduce the ability of folks at lower economic means to survive in the neighborhood, and would likely result in more affluent individuals living in the neighborhood and less affluent individuals living out of the neighborhood. This could result in increased costs for local services and good since those occupations are low-paying. There may be a material increase in stress on public transportation and parking in the neighborhood. If your local dry-cleaner, housekeeper, or doorman has a 90 minute commute to the edge of Queens late at night, you are going to wind-up paying for that in the end.

            It’s easy to complain that rent-stabilization makes it more expensive for market-rate renters. I live in a market/stabilized mixed-building and pay 4-5 times the rent as some who have lived in the building for forty years (That said, my apartment is renovated and theirs is forty years old). I don’t think it’s an entirely cut and dry argument, however, since the overall “market” has many many inputs, rent being just one of them.

            One of the great things about rent-stabilization is that it reduces the transcience of the neighborhood; this supports local institutions, safety, and aesthetic improvements. As somebody who rents but still seeks community and wants to set down some roots in NYC, I am envious of that and wish I had that privilege. I certainly don’t victimize rent-stabilization since it is one of the only things that prevents outside interests from having an immense amount of control over your most precious expense – your housing.


            • Fred says:

              I’m glad you have no problem paying 4 or 5 times the rent of people who live in similar sized apartments in your building.

              Wouldn’t it be a much better, fairer and more efficient system if instead of you paying, let’s say, $5,000 a month rent and your rent-stabilized neighbor paying $1,000 a month you each pay $3,000 a month?

              No matter how you try to justify it rent laws lead to inequality, inefficiency and unfairness.

          • James says:


            I would obviously love to pay less in rent. But your example only holds truth if “all else is equal” in the equation.

            If rent-stabilization and rent-control ended and apartments stayed exactly the same, then the same demand (“people”) who were considering or forced into paying for larger apartments would consider other apartments, supply would be increased, and costs would go down.

            What is a more likely scenario is that landlords renovate deregulated apartments and increase supply of luxury apartments with high-rents. Remember that demand for apartments in UWS is relatively inelastic, we have people looking to rent apartments from London or Hong Kong, not just from Queens or Paramus.

            I do not believe that the net result will be cheaper apartments for me, but and more expensive and exclusive neighborhood overall with increased costs of living elsewhere. This is why I would rather pay more for my apartment than my rent-stabilized neighbors and not lose any sleep over it.

            • Fred says:

              Your logic doesn’t make sense. Rent in Manhattan is not “inelastic”. Even if folks from Hong Kong or London move here they likely won’t be willing to pay $10,000 a month for a studio in an old walk-up.

              Everything has its limits. Even NYC rents.

              Again, if you enjoy paying an artificially bloated rent to subsidize somebody else’s artificially low rent then more power to you.

          • Red Raleigh says:

            Shorter version: let’s throw a lot of old people out onto the street so my rent can (possibly, but probably not) be cheaper.

        • jake says:

          Amy, you’re right on the money!

    4. Chuck D says:

      Here’s what I don’t get about my friends who living in rent stabilized or controlled apartments: are you sabotaging your life? Would you turn down a raise if it meant you’d be making more than the cap? I know a guy who lives in a 3-bedroom for about $1,000 a month, but he only has one working outlet. Like, if the landlord won’t spring for the electrical upgrade, why not do it yourself? Why live less than a full life so you get a break on rent?

      • dannyboy says:

        I also don’t get your friends’ approach. I live in a nice old apartment, currently doing renovtion and repainting the place (again). Better to live nicely, especially if your rent allows for it.

    5. UWSer says:

      Just renewed 2 bed, 2 bath in doorman bldg for $6000. Not happy about paying so much, but I feel slightly better after seeing the average!

    6. AK says:

      I’d love the see this report based on the square footage, since there’s a huge range in “studio” sizes, for instance.

    7. TE says:

      I moved to Manhattan for in April (from Long Island) and am currently living in a 1 bedroom no doorman building for $2k a month. I knew I was getting a good deal when I saw it and I’m glad I jumped on it. I love the upper west side and hope I can make more money in the future to have a doorman and more sunlight!