Why bother with upkeep on a building you know will be a money sink, when other ventures are more profitable? It may not be morally just, but it makes sense. And because rent is so expensive in NYC, it’s the disinvestment that’s keeping the prices down. But as the New Urban Frontier reading mentioned, disinvestment is a reversible phenomenon that may not necessarily correlate to gentrification. This also makes sense. Just as one stops upkeep, one can restart it. The problem here is pricing. Landlords need to make money, just as everyone else needs to make money in their occupation. It might seem harsh, but it’s business. If a landlord decides to invest in a previously disinvested building, he’s going to have to do it at a loss or he’s going to have to get the money from somewhere else. Two immediate options come to mind, each in their own way unappealing: raise the rent, or subsidise the building. The issue is immediately apparent in the former; in the latter, we don’t have money to do such a thing, and the cycle continues (raise taxation, or draw funding from other ventures). It’s a messy business, and there’s no immediate solution.

Question: How would you propose to reverse disinvestment without incurring gentrification?