I’m puzzled by the steady increase in rent for homes and apartments built in the 1940s that have not been modernized.
The landlord’s family has managed the property since the 1960s, so what really defines fair market rent in this situation? Shouldn’t these properties be updated to meet modern standards, especially if a one-bedroom unit is charging 1300?
Local market dynamics often shape rent increases independently of property modernization. In my experience, landlords rely on the property’s location, demand, and the potential for future improvements to justify higher rent. Even if fixtures remain unchanged, property managers argue that other factors like consistent maintenance and neighborhood growth lend value. Additionally, the historical nature and architectural character of 1940-era homes can be marketed as unique, thereby positioning the property as preferable over newer, more generic constructions. This dynamic leads to rents that reflect broader economic conditions rather than direct updates.
im thinkin, even without updates, these old homes can still offer a unique vibe. supply and demand, plus the expectation of future upgrades, might be why rents go up. sometimes its all about the niche appeal rather than current fixtures.
It might also be market speculation, doesn’t it? I wonder if the vintage charm is enough to counterbalance outdated fixtures. Do you think adding modern amenities would shift this balance? Curious to hear your take on it, anyone?