VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Re: Buddy's New York rent


Author:
Mulligan
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Sun January 09, 2022 08:22:07
In reply to: Dale 's message, "Re: Buddy's New York rent" on Sat January 08, 2022 15:40:10

So the bloghost at your link had this to say finally:

------------------
So guess what? I stopped by the library this morning. Rents in GV in Aug 1958, according to Village Voice, ranged from ~$100 for studios to--the most expensive listing--$350 for a "beautiful 2BR penthouse apartment" with a terrace on lower Fifth Avenue (the Brevoort?) for $350. If Buddy & Maria paid $1K for a 1BR on a low floor they got royally ripped off. I'm declaring this myth DEBUNKED.
------------------


I understand Buddy and MEH weren't going to live in a third floor cold water walkup. Many of the cheaper Village apartments listed in the old Voice newspaper were more "bohemian" for the starving artist types. Surely Buddy's new bride would have expected luxury housing for her celebrity husband: a doorman, a balcony with a view, etc. But as the blogger above noted, even the luxury apartments were way less than what biographers have claimed.

My guess is something got lost in translation. Maybe "in today's money" got confused with "rent in 1959"

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:


Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.